-
Who’s Politicizing Benghazi?
May 9, 2013 | 6 comments
-
A Tale of Two Teams and Two Stars
January 10, 2013 | 8 comments
-
Mitt Romney Just Got Himself Elected President
October 3, 2012 | 17 comments
-
Obama to Gays and Hollywood: Show Me the Money!
May 9, 2012 | 13 comments
-
Ruinous Obama Austerity
May 9, 2012 | 2 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Are Republicans in danger of making the same mistake that George H. W. Bush made in 1991?
Bush, you will recall, was wary of “instability” in the former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and China. Thus, he delivered his infamous “Chicken Kiev” speech urging the Ukraine not to secede. Ukrainians, of course, rejected Bush’s counsel and did just that, by declaring their independence three weeks later.
Bush also refused to encourage the Chinese student demonstrators in Tiananmen Square — even though these student demonstrators had built a replica of the Statue of Liberty and were quoting Jefferson, our Declaration of Independence, and the American founding fathers.
Of course, after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Bush’s son, President George W. Bush, instituted a foreign policy very different from his father’s. America now committed itself to worldwide democratization, even if it resulted in periodic bouts of “instability.”
I think the younger Bush was absolutely right to do this. Autocratic regimes are inherently unstable and cannot survive in a world of instantaneous communication and international travel.
Oppressed peoples see what their counterparts in freer countries have; and they realize that their autocratic rulers are cheating them. They realize that they are being denied the liberty and opportunity that others have; and they won’t stand for it — and neither should we.
American foreign policy, after all, has always had a moral dimension by virtue of our founding creed — our belief that “all men are created equal; [and] that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights… among [which] are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
America’s clear interest lies in liberal democracy and in more representative governments worldwide — even at the risk of “instability.” And that’s because governments that are held accountable to their people are, in the long run, much more likely to be peaceful and non-threatening than autocracies and dictatorships.
Yet, on Thursday of last week, Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Michigan) said this:
The Egyptian demonstrations are not the equivalent of Iran’s 2009 Green Revolution. The Egyptian demonstrations are the reprise of Iran’s 1979 radical revolution.
Thus, America must stand with her ally Egypt to preserve an imperfect government capable of reform; and prevent a tyrannical government capable of harm…
This is not a nostalgic ‘anti-colonial uprising’ from within, of all places, the land of Nassar. Right now, freedom’s radicalized enemies are subverting Egypt and our other allies.
McCotter is a fine man whom I like and respect; but he’s dead wrong about Egypt. As I explained yesterday here at the American Spectator, while there is certainly a risk that the Egyptian revolution will be hijacked by Islamists, the revolution itself did not originate with Islamists.
And what’s more, the Muslim Brotherhood has not been driving this uprising; ordinary Egyptians with legitimate and democratic aspirations have. And we should be supporting the Egyptian people, not squelching their hopes and dreams because we fear the Islamists.
In fact, the surest way to radicalize Egypt is to side with the autocrats. The fact is that Egypt has turned a decisive corner. Mubarak is history. There is no going back.
So far from trying to preserve Mubarak’s 30-year-old dictatorship, as McCotter foolishly recommends, the United States instead should be facilitating a transition to a new and more democratic Egyptian government.
McCotter spoke unwisely and prematurely, I’m afraid. His is the voice of George H. W. Bush and Pat Buchanan, not George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. The Egyptian people need to hear the latter not the former, both for their sake and ours.
View all comments (13) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by John R. Guardiano
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/01/30/on-egypt-the-gop-must-channel
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Demise of Money and Credit
- Peace in Our Times
- We Have Her Example
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
JmsA| 1.30.11 @ 3:49PM
With all due respect, Mr. Guardiano, I believe you meant to write: secede, not succeed. As to Mr. McCotter's proclamations and urgings, further evidence that the moniker "Stupid Party" was aptly coined.
Floyd Looney | 1.30.11 @ 3:51PM
It doesn't look good any way around. Whoever gets in power will likely have a "unity" government that includes Muslim Brotherhood.
Martin| 1.30.11 @ 7:47PM
Total rubbish. GW Bush's incompetence is the reason we are in this mess. Democracy promotion in the Middle East (not in the FSU, an entirely different environment, you clot) simply greases the skids for the Islamists.
Ask yourself: would you rather be an ordinary middle class Egyptian or an ordinary middle class Iraqi. If you say "Iraqi" you're deluded. Yet Iraq is intrinsically a richer country with huge reserves of oil. That's why there are FAR more important human values and US interests than democracy.
Bob K.| 1.31.11 @ 12:13AM
You can't blame it just on Bush. This "rubbish" goes back at least to the days of Woodrow Wilson, the first great liberal president, with his silly comment to "Make the world safe for democracy" and it has been the policy of nearly every government since then. Republican and Democrat both, substituting slogans for thought.
tatosian| 1.30.11 @ 9:12PM
Bush funds and/or arms the autocratic regimes in Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
He funds the arming and training of palestinian groups who admit they will use those arms and that training to attack our non autocratic ally, Israel.
He resumes funding and arming Pakistan, an autocratic regime the United States government had declared unworthy of American aid or arms years before 9/11. (Certainly that unworthiness has been verified since 9/11.)
After billions of dollars in aid sent to Afghanistan, Bush, or rather his general staff, granted special forces commanders the right to arm and/or fund the various tribal factions according to their own dictates. (http://rohrabacher.house.gov/UploadedFiles/one_tribe_at_a_time.pdf )
Declaring this chaos as "democratization" while extolling the virtues of it's presumed moral dimension doesn't change anything.
The reason for this chaos is quite simple: No one in the United states government will bother themselves with even a cursory examination of Islams history, it's religious tenets and their connection to violence and the oppression and intolerance that are evident wherever Islam is in control.
Will those Egyptians currently rebelling, the ones who were busily texting and pining for a Cairo version of the real new Jersey Housewives demand equality for Christians and other non Muslims in the new Egypt? Haven't heard anything from Egyptians calling for that.
And if they don't, will Guardiano and friends call attention to the continuing Islamic oppression of Christians and non Muslims in the new Egypt?
Does the morality implied in Bush's democratization even cover Christians and non Muslims in Islamic lands? Probably not.
Occam's Tool| 1.30.11 @ 9:33PM
I have very little faith in Islam and Democracy coinciding.
Bob K.| 1.30.11 @ 11:58PM
Exactly! It won't happen.
WJ| 1.30.11 @ 10:54PM
Here we go, now we will give credit to W. Bush , for the uprising in Egypt. Kind of like when the thug terrorist Gaddafi allegedly gave up support for terrorism in 2003. Sure.
Considering the massive foreign policy failures initiated by Bush I don't think I would "channel" him for any decision more important than say, mustard or mayo.
Dai Alanye | 1.31.11 @ 4:40AM
There is little doubt that the recent North African revolutions have been, one way or another, influenced by Iraq gaining its liberty. For good or ill, Dubya deserves the credit for this. What's the reason for all those Egyptian signs being written in English? The demonstrators want us to help them as we have the Iraqis.
If ever there were a crisis that shouldn't be allowed to go to waste, this is it, the critical question being what form our actions should take. With Obama I fear that dithering and platitudes will substitute for applying strategic influence.
On the other hand, I don't like to see us continually pushing "democracy." What we should be after is representative government, whether arrived at by democratic or other means. " One man one vote" is a specious slogan, especially when applied to politically primitive nations.
Bob K.| 1.31.11 @ 9:02AM
We will find out more about how this will all end when the millions more who cannot read these signs written in English have their ultimate say in this matter.
Will| 1.31.11 @ 6:42AM
"A risk that the Eygptian revolution will be hijacked by Islamicists?" That's as crazy as saying the U.S.A. and it's government will be infilitrated by Islamicists!
Brian M.| 1.31.11 @ 1:53PM
Excellent article!!!
Republicans (and the country at large) have gradually retreated from the democratic idealism of the Bush years. The temporary comfort of the autocratic regimes can't provide long-term stability. Was Iraq difficult and bumpy?-- Absolutely. But was it a failure? Absolutely not. We were able to directly challenge the Islamists' ideas of governence -- both in the battlefield, and in the hearts & minds of Iraqis. In the end, democracy won out. The people gave up their support of sectarianism and terrorism and were able to channel their political feelings/idealogies into a plurastic/democratic government.
Iraq's nascent success undoubtedly inspired others in the region, first with Lebanon, then Iran, and now Tunisia and Iran. Who knows what's next -- maybe the collapse of Iran, Syria, or Libya.
We would be hypocrites to pick and choose who gets democracy and who doesn't. But for the US to decide to take a policy of autocratic stability instead of democracy, we would be sowing the seeds of another 9/11.
Some day we will back at Bush and say, "I guess he was right the whole time."
JetConnect Flight Status | 7.30.11 @ 5:29AM
Really nice article!!!
JetConnect Flight Status