NRO's Rich Lowry on Bush's democracy problem

I agree with National Review's Rich Lowry up to a point: there is little or no history of democracy to build on, and very little civil society to get democracy kick-started, in the Middle East.

But my agreement ends and my vociferous objection begins with U.S. influence and meddling in these countries, including U.S. support of dictators. For example, right now Pakistanis are trying to defend their feeble democracy; they're being arrested and beaten for protesting the suspension of their constitution and supreme court by an unelected dictator who came to power in a bloodless coup... and Bush is doing nothing, saying nothing. Why? Because Pakistan has nukes; and because it is somewhat controlling al Qaeda, hence it's a nominal "ally" in the War on Terra.

Bush's failure to assert his "grandiloquent" vision of Mideast democracy and condemn Gen. Musharfaf bespeaks either Bush's cowardice, or good old-fashioned American self-interest. Lowry neglects to mention that Bush's notion of America's interests -- not spreading democracy -- determines Bush's foreign policy, just like it has guided other presidents' foreign policy. Bush is no better or worse in that regard; he is just more of a hypocrite for preaching otherwise.

(Remember, Bush is supposed to be the President who doesn't agonize over decisions because the "right" choice is always readily apparent; he says he carries no regrets; and he sees no shades of gray, only moral black & white.)

On Nov 7, 2007 4:50 PM, Mom wrote:

I agree with this summary:

Pakistan is a microcosm of the difficulties of establishing liberal democracy in the greater Middle East. Its institutions — except for the army — are weak, its politics traditionally have been clan-based, and it is riven by ethnic divisions. This is the worst possible starting point for establishing a true constitutional democracy, but is basically the same cultural material we have to work with in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority.

This is the reason that the Bush administration's Middle East policy so often has sunk to abject hopefulness. There is always a chance that key local players — your Malikis or Musharrafs — will act responsibly and in the interest of greater political openness, but old habits usually triumph over hope. Bush isn't wrong to promote democracy, but he never should have done it in such a sweeping, grandiloquent way that set him up for failure on his own terms. His freedom campaign should have shown keener appreciation for the fact that he was dealing with countries that had missed the wave of democratization of the latter part of the 20th century for a reason. Our ability to dictate their political development was always going to be limited.

Something for Bush to contemplate as he watches an ally he has done so much to support string barbed wire up around his Supreme Court and jail political opponents.