The antithesis of Imperial Hubris is found in The Case for Democracy (buy it here), a book George W. Bush says is "part of my presidential DNA." The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror splits the world into "free societies" and "fear societies, with nothing in between."

Sharansky's case rests on a number of ahistorical claims. He writes, "sixty years ago, most people would have considered the claim that Germany could become a thriving liberal democracy absolutely preposterous," amid similar statements about Japan. But both Japan and Germany--unlike the Arab world and much of Africa--had previous experience in self-government, with the latter country electing a tyrant who butchered minority groups and terrorized an entire continent. Sharansky appears similarly oblivious to problems in contemporary Russia. Acknowledging a less than ideal situation in the land of his birth, Sharansky nevertheless labels Russia a free country in the service of his argument that democracy is for export. Certainly Russia is freer now than twenty years ago, but is a country without a free press (and ruled by a KGB strongman) truly free?

"There are twenty-two Arab states and not one of them is democractic, even by the weakest of definitions. Moreover, there has never been an Arab democracy," Sharansky admits. Still, Sharansky believes democracy is not beyond the "reach" of any Middle Eastern nation. Why? "The source of my confidence that freedom truly is for everyone is not only that democracy has spread around the world...my confidence also comes from living in a world of fear, studying it, and fighting it." In other words, we are to discard present reality and past experience and put our faith in progress.

The Case for Democracy is strongest when it meanders from its argument to its author's autobiography. Sharansky courageously stood up to totalitarianism in the Soviet Union, spending years as a political prisoner before Reagan-administration pressure compelled the evil empire to allow his emigration. From the bulwark of tyranny Sharasky travelled to an outpost of self-government. Within Israel Sharansky saw evidence of the lack of moral clarity in the world, pointing out: "the only democracy in the Middle East is perceived as the greatest violator of human rights."

Amid Hallmark-card slogans like "the democracy that hates you is less dangerous than the dictator who loves you" and "Nondemocratic societies have always been powder kegs ready to explode," Sharansky offers bits of wisdom. Expressing skepticism for the prospects for democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, the author opines that quick "elections are just as likely to weaken the efforts to build democracy as they are to strengthen them." Unlike observers who've jumped the gun on Iraq, Sharansky recognizes that elections don't equal democracy (a word that seems to go beyond simple majority rule in Sharansky's lexicon). Alas, recklessness outweighs prudence, with no quip as reckless as Sharansky's marching orders that "The free world should not wait for dictatorial regimes to consent to reform." The people called for the Shah's removal. We got Ayatollah Khomeni. The people called for the beheading of Louis XVI. We got Robespierre and Danton. Who knows what unintended tyrants Sharansky's revolutions could bring?

"I am convinced that all peoples desire to be free. I am convinced that freedom anywhere will make the world safer everywhere. And I am convinced that democratic nations, led by the United States, have a critical role to play in expanding freedom around the world." After reading The Case for Democracy, I am convinced that Natan Sharansky believes this. Less clear are the reasons why he believes what he does.

Thanks for bravely reading Sharansky so I don't have to (not that I ever would have anyway).

Sharansky's distinction between societies of freedom and those of fear reminds me perfectly of a great scene in the film Donnie Darko. For those who haven't seen it rush out and do so, you will then know what I mean. As Donnie says, "You can't just lump everything into these two categories and then just deny everything else!"

You note that Sharansky does not identify democracy with elections but he makes the far more destructive mistake of equating democracy with freedom, which you implicitly critique when you mention the historical example of Weimar.

Btw, Buchanan destroyed Sharansky on Meet the Press a couple weeks ago.

"(not that I ever would have anyway)"

Yea, that's the way to go through life: with a completely closed mind. Fool.

"You can't just lump everything into these two categories and then just deny everything else!"

This reminds me of elitist leftists who complain about Reagan and Bush's rhetoric ("evil empire", "axis of evil"). "Hah! Good and evil! Stop portraying things in such a black-and-white, Manachean way!"

No, there is good and evil, and there is a right way to run a country and a wrong one. Sharansky's point is that all of the differences between a country like the United States and one like France are infinitesimal in comparison to the difference between modern democracies (with all of their republican protections) and authoritarian/totalitarian regimes.

The fact is that democracies generally do not war with one another. This is an inescapable reality, Buchananites. As Sharansky and Dermer correctly recognize, the way a country treats its own people is highly representative of how it treats other countries.

Still, I appreciate your reviewing the book, Dan.

Ben, pardon me, do you know Brian well enough to call him a fool? And do you bother reading every trendy book that leftists love? Oh, you closed minded fool!

Stop with the misappropriation of Reagan already! In fact, according to Dan's review, Sharansky breaks all countries into two groups, free and fear. There is something Manichean about this. Reagan didn't break the world into two simplistic groups -- he called a single political power at the time the evil empire. Thus -- not Manichean. Neither Brian nor Dan denied the distinction between good and evil (as you accuse them of doing); they just rejected Sharansky's simplistic dichotomy.

Jesus said "you are either with me or against me" (Matt 12:30). I don't think that presidents and neo-imperialist apologists evangelizing (by the sword) for democracy have a right to make this demand of the world. But that is what they are doing, and all in the name of a faith that every human has an innate desire want to be like us Americans. Now that's foolish.

"do you know Brian well enough to call him a fool?"

Anyone who flatly refuses to even explore an alternative view is foolish.

"And do you bother reading every trendy book that leftists love?"

Two things:

This is not a "trendy book." Anyone who is remotely interested in understanding the mentality and reasoning behind the Bush doctrine should read it.

Secondly, YES you should familiarize yourself with opposing arguments. This is the most elementary part of being a thinking person. When Dan wrote "Intellectual Morons", it is clear that he read an assortment of writings by those loons in order to get a balanced perspective of what they believed.

"[Reagan] called a single political power at the time the evil empire."

Yes. He called the single, and only other, world power "evil."

"Neither Brian nor Dan denied the distinction between good and evil (as you accuse them of doing)"

I don't accuse them of doing that. I said their complaints of explanations being "too simplisitic" are extremely reminiscent leftist blabbering. (Sowell talks a lot about this kind of stuff in "The Vision of the Anointed", another kickass book.)

"in the name of a faith that every human has an innate desire want to be like us Americans."

Well, it depends what you mean by being "like us." We are a nation of 300 million people from all over the world. When Sharansky and others imply that these other people want to "be like us," they are not referring to a desire to wear daisy dukes, listen to 2Pac, watch Sex and the City, and eat cheeseburgers. They're referring to a desire to *self-govern*. The Founders of this country believed in this "faith" that every human being (not simply every *American*) had a right to live in freedom as well.

-ben

Here in Tunisia, the Government (whose president's picture adorns every damn wall in the country) announced today some supposedly groundbreaking democratic reforms. I don't read much French, so I'm fuzzy on the details, but I find it strange that they feel the need to do this. It's as if the sentiment here is to stand up and be counted as a "progressive Muslim country", though Tunisia has always been seen as such (at least ever since they renounced piracy). They've even been reaching out to Israel, extending a visit to Sharon, but it may be blocked by an opposition party. Is democracy now seen as a prerequisite to doing business with the US? If it is, countries like this can ill afford any loss of revenue, and will do what they have to do.

There really is a tangible aprehension over what is seen as US muscle-flexing, and no country wants to suffer, especially monetarily, as a result of being on the wrong side. I still think scaring some of the regimes that can be reasonably "scared away" from supporting terror is a good thing, but I have to wonder what we're pushing some of these people towards? Are we encouraging them to push "democracy" in countries where such a movement, rather than leading to increased investment from the US, would actually lead to terrible instability? I think that might be the case in Tunisia. I'm no expert, Ive only been here two days, but I really don't feel like the country is ready for McDonald's and the Spice Channel. (Of course, is any country REALLY ready for those?)

"The fact is that democracies generally do not war with one another. "

Democracy is relatively new. Just give it a chance.

"Is democracy now seen as a prerequisite to doing business with the US? If it is, countries like this can ill afford any loss of revenue, and will do what they have to do.

There really is a tangible aprehension over what is seen as US muscle-flexing, and no country wants to suffer, especially monetarily, as a result of being on the wrong side."

Very nicely put, HJF.

Ben,

Homer wasn't exactly agreeing with you there buddy. He expresses some prudent reservations about American foreign policy. It's Lent so in the spirit of charity I am going to refrain from responding to your immaturity. I will let your distortion of Homer's comment along with your easy resort to ad hominem in this thread provide loyal FlynnFiles readers the means to decide for themselves if they should agree with your depiction of me.

Oh, and thanks for getting my back Short, I owe you a beer.

"I will let your distortion of Homer's comment"

There was absolutely no distortion. Put your condescending nonsense aside. I read the entirety of Homer's post, and I understand his reservations. However, unlike many on this forum, it seems that he does see the logic and the potential good that can come out of theories like the one espoused in The Case for Democracy.

-ben

To clarify my position, my only real point is that the dictators of the Muslim countries, and lets face it that's what they are, are shaking in their boots for a number of reasons. Part of it is the US and it's "war on terror". There are many other reasons as well. But my concern is that while we want SOME leaders of muslim countries to be concerned, we don't want all of them to suddenly decide "democracy" is for them and end up plunging a country unused to such a system into chaos. Clearly that's what WILL happen in some of these places if they go, overnight, from dictatorship to mob-rule. That's all.

"Democracy is relatively new. Just give it a chance."

-PC.

Democracy has been around for hundreds of years, still no evidence of the view you seem to be espousing, that being that democracies will war with each other on a regular or even uncommon basis. Why is that, I wonder?

"However, unlike many on this forum, it seems that he does see the logic and the potential good that can come out of theories like the one espoused in The Case for Democracy."

Are you willing to recognize the potential bad that can come about from neo-Wilsonian policies? After the distaster of World War I - which made the world safe, not for democracy, but Bolshelvism, Nazism, and fascism and eventually led to another global conflagaration - Americans have every reason to be intensely skeptical.

"They're referring to a desire to *self-govern*. The Founders of this country believed in this "faith" that every human being (not simply every *American*) had a right to live in freedom as well."

A right to self-govern, or self-determination, does not necessarily imply free political institutions. For example, the election of fascists in Italy was an expression of self-government, but it did not lead to freedom. You and Sharansky believe, falsely in my view, that given a choice between freedom and despotism, human beings acting in the interest of self-government will always choose freedom, but we know from history that this is not the case.

"Americans have every reason to be intensely skeptical."

James, I never said that there is no reason to be skeptical. I do recognize that it is possible for this to turn out badly. Of course it can -- no one can actually predict the future. I just think, with the aid of history and simple common sense, that this will be a successful venture.

"For example, the election of fascists in Italy was an expression of self-government, but it did not lead to freedom."

This is why you should read the Sharansky book. He does NOT claim that elections alone equal freedom. You know as well as I do that the Fascists in Italy were a brutal force who silenced their opposition. An election in Fascist Italy, Theocratic Iran, or Hussein's Iraq is just not a free election.

"You and Sharansky believe, falsely in my view, that given a choice between freedom and despotism, human beings acting in the interest of self-government will always choose freedom, but we know from history that this is not the case."

Yes, they will always choose TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO CHOOSE, as long as they are allowed to openly voice their opinions without harm being done to them. This is pure common sense. No mass of people yearns to be in chains.