The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

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.

View all comments (2) | Leave a comment

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.

Leave a Comment

N.B. We encourage readers to share and discuss their thoughtful and relevant comments about this Spectator article. Comments are routinely monitored and will be deleted if profane, bigoted, or grossly impolite. Please be respectful. (And don't feed the trolls!) Thank you.

More Blog Posts by John Tabin

http://spectator.org/blog/2010/12/01/who-abandoned-democracy-promot

ADVERTISEMENT

SPONSORED LINKS

Special Feature

Better that we become a nation of choosers rather than beggars. Our symposium on choice from the May, 2012 issue:

A Time for Choosing

James Piereson

The Road from Serfdom

Stephen Moore and Peter Ferrara

FLASHBACK TO: 1984

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

Meet the Flukes!

F. H. Buckley | 5.25.12

The Wisconsin Turning Point

Peter Ferrara | 5.23.12

In Search of Muhammad

Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi | 5.25.12

Age and Kyl

Quin Hillyer | 5.25.12

Follow Me

Jay D. Homnick | 5.25.12

A Test of National Honor

Hal G.P. Colebatch | 5.25.12

How About the Record of DOE Capital?

William Tucker | 5.25.12

The Great Debate

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. | 5.24.12

ADVERTISEMENT