Spreading Democracy
Shorter Ann Althouse: if Bush's critics were truly pro-democracy, they wouldn't complain so much about the use of WMDs as a pretext for war; they'd be glad Saddam was overthrown, and the liberation of the Iraqis was at least an important motive for Bush.
If we go back before 9/11 for comparison, I think we can see that there was no significant political movement in the U.S. that wanted to intervene in any foreign country, except possibly the neo-cons. Not even the neo-cons wanted to do so primarily for humanitarian reasons; many of them were scornful of Clinton's efforts in ex-Yugoslavia because they seemed to have no motive except a humanitarian one.
UPDATE: Correction:
[blockquote]Unlike many Republicans, neoconservatives supported using force to protect the Kosovar population of Yugoslavia and criticized President Clinton for not acting fast enough and ruling out the use of ground troops. However, there was one issue that galvanized neoconservatives more than any other: Iraq. Throughout the nineties, neoconservatives consistently advocated the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the establishment of a democratic Iraq. Paul Wolfowitz played a key role in this: he coauthored a Weekly Standard article in 1997 entitled “Overthrow Him [Saddam Hussein]” and in 1998 he signed a letter to President Clinton from PNAC that urged the President to turn his attention “to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam’s regime from power.”[/blockquote]
Conservatives, including Bush, wanted to take care of things at home--and a lot of people around the world could remain unliberated in the process.
Liberals have pretended to be open to all cultures, and it sometimes seems they are indifferent in a way between their own country and way of life and a bitter enemy. I think they actually want the world to become exactly like them as quickly as possible--but they believe more or less peaceful progress is the best way to achieve this. Old-fashioned war isn't their cup of tea, they don't identify with the military, and in fact they fear that a war will bring the wrong kind of people to the forefront, at least temporarily.
Bushies are now all for war, and it seems true they genuinely want to liberate the whole world. Who can object? But they are careful to say their fundamental motive is self-interest: America can't be safe until the whole world is a democracy, or something like that. Everything truly foreign, in principle, is a threat to the American way of life, and therefore should be stopped if possible. This doesn't mean they are committed to any kind of total war; the fall of Communism among other events has convinced them this is not necessary.
In fact the two sides are not so different. They want the world to live and think like them: right now. The left is willing to wait, flattering themselves that they are subsuming and therefore sharing the wisdom of Confucius, the Buddha, and Mahatma Ghandi, while they actually want everything non-Western, especially when it comes to the treatment of women, to disappear. They actually think of foreign aid as a kind of campaign in this war.
Conservatives have been roused from their isolation and indifference. Some things that are definitely foreign are definitely a threat; other foreign things might be. So it is desirable to spread Western-style democracy and capitalism; force will not hurt, and might help.
Maybe blue-staters are hoping for a blue state version of unversal freedom, and red-staters are hoping for a red-state version. But it's hard to see that one side consists of heroes of freedom, who really care whether billions of people are free; whereas the other side is morally indifferent or worse. The red staters may be a bit more honest--or closer to being honest.
|
