Michael Brendan Dougherty has
a piece at Newsweek.com, hooked to the WikiLeaks dump, arguing
that “America’s democracy agenda is over.” And while it’s true that
the Obama administration has turned away from Bush-era
democracy-promoting policies on many fronts — as I and others
sympathetic to the “forward strategy of freedom” have repeatedly
argued — what’s peculiar about Michael’s piece is that the words
“Obama administration” never appear. He simply asserts, citing
documents that are all 2009-vintage, that “the Wikileaks dump has
shown that history is unkind to the demanding visions of
ideologues” — he means democracy advocates — as if the policies
of the current administration (or, in the case of one document, of
a group of Senators visiting Syria that included longtime
Assad regime-apologist Arlen Specter) are a force of nature
unrelated to policymakers’ preferences. Which is odd, because he
has no trouble naming Bush-era policymakers.
This is really all window-dressing, though, for an attack he’s
trying to make on commentators pointing to revelations of Arab
enthusiasm for attacks on Iran — especially David Frum, whose take
on Wikileaks I noted the other
day. Michael thinks he’s caught Frum et al. abandoning their
(our) pro-democracy principles and aligning with Arab autocrats:
“The democratists once hoped to get out from under the venal
Saudis, but a shared zeal against Iran has yoked them together.”
This misses the point, though. Quite a few writers have
repeatedly argued that it was some sort of fantasy that Arab
leaders were fearful enough of the Islamic Republic to favor
airstrikes on nuclear facilities, and that Israel is the mover
behind all hawkish opinion on this topic. They have been proven
wrong. It doesn’t necessarily follow that bombing Iran is a good
idea (I tend to suspect that covert sabotage is having the effect
of delaying Iran’s progress on the nuclear front while averting the
risks that airstrikes entail), but it does strengthen the
straightforward case that a more powerful Iran is a serious
threat.
There’s a caricature underlying all this, that democratists must
be against allying with non-democracies at all times. But of course
it is possible to ally with an authoritarian government while
nudging it in the direction of liberalization. The Obama
administration has been
noticeably worse at this than the Bush adminstration. I would
suggest that the blame for this lies with the Obama
administration.
C Bowen| 12.1.10 @ 6:30PM
The Saudis and other Arab regimes recognize that the chickenhawk democratists advocated a war of election in Iraq that made Iran stronger. That is a realistic appraisal.
Worse then a crime, it was a mistake. Dougherty does seem to be deflecting here with lack of emphasis, almost offering a cover for the chickenhawk, err- democratists of their complete failure to offer anything but debt, the maimed and the wounded.
Red Phillips | 12.1.10 @ 6:42PM
"he means democracy advocates"
Mr. Tabin, it is one thing to "advocate" for democracy and another thing altogether to believe that the American military should attempt to impose democracy at the point of a gun. And that is precisely what the ideologues, the neocons, did. Let's not be coy about what this "forward strategy of freedom" entailed.
It is elightening how the language of the neocon ideologues gives away their true nature. So we have "forward" looking conservatives? I thought it was progressives who looked forward and conservatives who looked backwards? And this conservative project is about the "liberalization" of authoritarian regimes? (Why? So they can more freely oogle Miley Cyrus, marry their same sex lover, and abort their inconvenient babies like those of us in the enlightened West?) Neoconservatism has never been about conserving anything. It is a revolutionary universalistic ideology with America playing the role formerly played by France as you make quite clear.
You can have your "forward strategy of freedom." I'll take a "backwards (like back to Washington's Farewell Address) strategy of minding our own business," because I am a conservative, and conserving, not spreading revolution, is what conservatives do.