Democracy is not the cure-all for the Middle East's woes. Mort Zuckerman recognized this on The McLaughlin Group this weekend. The publishing magnate ventured that if Saudi Arabia were to hold elections, seventy-five percent of the people would vote for Osama bin Laden. In Egypt, Zuckerman suggested, the Muslim Brotherhood might find itself in power if the people had the choice. In both cases, democracy would bring a worse outcome than the status quo. Zuckerman's point is exactly why placing one's faith in democracy to make everything right is misguided. The mob can be as unwise and unjust as any sultan.

If anyone was wondering, this was a criticism of the Bush administration's policies.

Dan, why don't you even explore the opposing viewpoint instead of adopting this run-of-the-mill, leftist, anti-democratic stance?

An admission that democracy does not work in all settings does not an anti-democrat create. An anti-Republican, perhaps. Excuse my sentence structure, I've had a few beers.

Exactly right, Charles. Also, the realistic view of democracy is not "run of the mill." I think the "opposing viewpoint" Ben speaks of is actually run of the mill -- that every culture and people can be, deserve to be, and eventually will be democracies; that all other types of governments are oppressive; and that the world order will mature and wars will end when all peoples are "free" and democratic. Isn't this in fact the dominant liberal viewpoint tought to us all in US history classes? It is called Wilsonianism.

Yes this is the classical liberal viewpoint, and it is the correct one. The fact that we exist as the nation we are proves it to be correct. People from all over the world, of every religious background, every race, every ethnicity, have found the ideals of America extremely appealing. Millions risk their lives every year to live in such a great country.

For those who believe that the Middle East cannot handle democracy, what about Israel? Israel is similar to America, in that though it has a dominant religion, it is made up of an extremely diverse array of people from many countries. My grandparents are Yemenite Jews. As soon as they could, they went to Israel (in 1949, a year after it had been established). Is your position that their former neighbors in Yemen, because they were Muslims, would not want to live in a free, democratic society?

Polls have been taken for several years of the Palestinian people, asking them which government they admire the most. Guess who tops the list. Not Egypt. Not Jordan. Not Iran. Not even the Palestinian Authority. Israel does, followed by the United States, followed by France.

There are those who argue that we should just open the borders and let whoever wants to come in. I've heard Penn Jillette say that. He's a smart guy, and his show's hilarious. But he is ignoring something obvious. Many of these totalitarian governments bar emigration. Often, a woman cannot leave without the permission of her husband, for instance.

If you think the Muslim world can't handle democracy, why did millions come out to vote in Afghanistan? Why did they elect a pro-American moderate? I don't understand your view. It seems to ignorant at best, and racist at worst.

-ben

"Yes this is the classical liberal viewpoint, and it is the correct one."

You're simply mistaken. Invading the world to establish democratic regimes is not the classic liberal position. I suggest you read what eminent classic liberal Ludwig von Mises had to say on the subject.

Moreover, the Framers of our Constitution could be more or less described as "classical liberals" and they never advocated a Wilsonian foreign policy. Just read Washington and John Quincy Adams' farewell addresses if you doubt this.

"I don't understand your view. It seems to ignorant at best, and racist at worst."

Well, that settles it then. Have you even tried to understand it? Or are you merely interested in playing the race card and walking around with a rather sizable ethnic chip on your shoulder?

I apologize for being mistaken about labeling it a classical liberal viewpoint. On to the rest...

"Well, that settles it then. Have you even tried to understand it?"

I have yet to hear a good, non-condescending explanation of your side's view on this. You certainly didn't provide it in that post. There has to be more than "democracy doesn't work in all settings." I provided a reasoned defense to my argument, so don't resort to the annoying "Oh, I see, the ol' race card!" The fact of the matter is that implying, as many paleo-cons and modern liberals seem to do, that Muslims or Middle-Easterners are too primitive to handle democracy [i]is[/i] racist. There's no going around that.

-ben

Ben, you think the (paleo)-conservative argument is that Arabs are too "primitive" to handle democracy... What you don't get is that a conservative wouldn't say that Arabs are too "primitive" to handle to democracy, primarily because we don't consider democracy more "progressive."

And this has absolutely nothing to do with race. It has to do with the culture, history, and habits of a people.

Finally, you are confusing democracy (which is a means of deciding who will rule) with liberty, which can exist in nondemocratic governments and can be squelched by democratic governments.

Democracy was introduced into Japan after World War II. If memory serves correctly, Japan had no history of democracy. I am a skeptic, like many people, that liberty can be introduced to the Arab world from outside. This may have to come from within. What I do believe to be certain, for liberty to flourish in the Arab world, the terrorists will need to actually be defeated. This has not happened yet. Whether or not the Bush strategy will prove to be a good one, I have no idea. For the sake of the world, lets hope and pray it is. What is certain is the previous strategies for dealing with this were not working. The Jihadist terrorists desire world domination. There can be no negotiating with them. They can only be defeated. The war on terrorism is much broader than simply Osama Bin Laden or Al Qaeda. There is a danger in simply focusing pn Al Qaeda one could loose site of the bigger picture. For example, has the government kept its eyes on much more powerful enemies, such as Russia and China.

Thanks for the explanation, short. To be honest, that's worse than anything I imagined.

"What you don't get is that a conservative wouldn't say that Arabs are too "primitive" to handle to democracy, primarily because we don't consider democracy more "progressive.""

You don't think our form of government is superior to all the others? That's truly surprising, and not something I'd expect to hear from a conservative.

Dear Ben,
"I apologize for being mistaken about labeling it a classical liberal viewpoint. On to the rest..."

I wish you would simply describe it as what it truly is - historical Wilsonian leftism dressed up in "conservative" clothes.

"I provided a reasoned defense to my argument, so don't resort to the annoying "Oh, I see, the ol' race card!" The fact of the matter is that implying, as many paleo-cons and modern liberals seem to do, that Muslims or Middle-Easterners are too primitive to handle democracy is racist. There's no going around that."

To put the matter bluntly, your argument is a non sequitur. Just because millions of people of differing races and religions have come to the United States due to its "ideals" an American duty to spread democracy by the force of arms - as we are presently doing in Iraq - does not follow. In my opinion, your argument supports Reagan's "shining city on a hill" concept.

Furthermore, your argument disregards history and culture. The fact of the matter, no matter how politically insensitive it may seem, is that the United States developed as a culturally European Christian nation. The "millions" from other parts of the world that you refer to benefited from a political tradition around 200 years old with roots that stretch back on into Magna Carta.

And one more thing, because I question a war that has killed thousands of Iraqi civilians and the wisdom of imposing a European political construct on non-European peoples I am the racist? How does that work?

"You don't think our form of government is superior to all the others? That's truly surprising, and not something I'd expect to hear from a conservative."

I must say Ben that your support for big government social engineering projects truly surprises me and is not something I would expect to hear from a conservative.

If you've taken American government 101 you should be well aware that the United States is not a democracy, but a Constitutional Republic with a central government that has limited and enumerated powers, a separation of said powers, checks and balances, states' rights, and a Bill of Rights that protects the individual rights of the citizenry - making sure these rights are not subject to majority whim.

If you respect the American form of government you should respect the Constitution. The Constitution delegates to the federal government a limited number of responsibilities - the power to go to war in order to "make the world safe for democracy" is not one of them.

"I wish you would simply describe it as what it truly is - historical Wilsonian leftism dressed up in "conservative" clothes."

I don't care what its roots are. The reality of today is that paleo-conservatives have effectively aligned themselves with the most loony of leftists -- the Chomskys, Vidals, etc. (Though, to be fair, Buchanan has been a loon for a long time).

"Just because millions of people of differing races and religions have come to the United States due to its "ideals" an American duty to spread democracy by the force of arms - as we are presently doing in Iraq - does not follow. In my opinion, your argument supports Reagan's "shining city on a hill" concept."

Reagan was a great man. That aside...

You don't acknowledge that with great power comes responsibility? Let me ask you a side question that is marginally related, but very important overall in this argument about American interventionism: Let's go back to World War II. If the Japanese had not attacked us, bringing us fully into the war effort, should we have gone in to liberate the Jews, Gypsies, et al. from the Nazi concentration camps? Or should we have let Germany exterminate the entire European Jewish population?

By your standards, we have to say yes. This is definitely not the conservativism that I want to align myself with.

"And one more thing, because I question a war that has killed thousands of Iraqi civilians and the wisdom of imposing a European political construct on non-European peoples I am the racist? How does that work?"

It works like this: these rights we have are endowed by our Creator -- not by European dignitaries generations ago. They were the first to get it right, indeed. But the point of this system, as you said, is to limit the power of government. A limited government that respects the inalienable rights of its citizens is compatible with every race and religion.

"I must say Ben that your support for big government social engineering projects truly surprises me and is not something I would expect to hear from a conservative."

I'm not a Buchanan-style conservative, nor will I ever be. I'm a libertarian with neoconservative foreign policy leanings.

Ben, at least in your last comments you gave up implying that you are a conservative. Unfortunately in earlier comments you tried to present yourself as open-minded and reasonable but you seem to just be an ideologue prone to ad hominem abuse of your critics. Comments like Buchanan is a loony are indications of your political prejudice. Finally, asserting that you have made a reasoned argument does not mean that you actually have made one. James, for example made some great arguments against your political views but you have yet to do anything more than promote the neocon ideology w/ non sequiturs and overworked rhetoric. If you feel I am being unfair to you then feel free to take issue with me but try to stay on topic and maybe suggest one specific issue for debate rather than freewheeling through the neocon breviary, (i.e., "democracy is wonderful," "paleocons are racist," "Reagan was a great man," "America rocks!").

Rob,

Japan did indeed have a history of democracy, although it is not a terribly impressive one. They began to develop a parliamentary democracy, inspired by their allies the Brits, in the 1920's. It is known as the "Taisho Democracy," but, like the central European democracues of the period it was very fragile and the thirties destroyed it as the military gained supremacy in Japan. The salient facts though that refute your implied assertion that democracy can simply be imposed on people from without are that Japan had a highly modern economy and workforce (infrastructure, science, industry, technology, education, etc.) as well as racial homogeny and cultural traditions of deference to superiors and heirarchical social relations that made its postwar transition relatively smooth and successful. One should not forget as well the highly developed sense of honor which led the Japanese as a general rule to regret their country's late imperialism and to feel that they had brought upon themselves their defeat in the war. (Incidentally, the Japanese people as a whole were better at such self-examination than the Germans were). Finally, do not underestimate the profound differences between Japanese Confucianism and its concomitant virtue ethics and conservative social and political philosophy with that of the religion of Mohammed and its demands that state and church be tightly fused together.

Of the above points I really think that the ethnic homogeneity and unity of the Japanese people is the most salient fact for their transition to postwar democracy and the strongest reason that democracy won't work in Iraq (the Kurd/Sunni/Shia split)and it is heading to civil war or dismantling.

Brian

Thanks for the additional information on Japanese democracy. As I tried to state in the previous post, my knowledge of Japenese history is limited. At least I meant to!! I am skeptical, like many people that democracy can be introduced to the middle east. Democracy may have to come from within. Even if we can introduce democracy, it will probably never look like it does in the United States. Hopefully we can introduce something there that will be non threatening to the Western world.

"Ben, at least in your last comments you gave up implying that you are a conservative."

There has been a break in the conservative movement in recent years. Many have written about it, so it's foolish to act as though it doesn't exist. Here's an interesting discussion about it:

http://www.uncommonknowledge.org/800/804.html

"Comments like Buchanan is a loony are indications of your political prejudice."

Buchanan is a loon. I saw him on Joe Scarborough's show, praising Yasser Arafat -- actually citing, as if he were Noam Chomsky, that Arafat won a Nobel Peace Prize. He loathes Israel, the only real democracy in the Middle East, and he has a place in his heart for Holocaust deniers. He advocates a moratorium on immigration, and his magazine has suggested that we ought to encourage more European immigration (meaning: enough with these Mexicans!). All of that spells loon. This isn't prejudice. This is post-judice. I am entitled to make judgments about individuals.

"you have yet to do anything more than promote the neocon ideology w/ non sequiturs and overworked rhetoric."

I asked a serious question. If we take your argument out logically, it means we shouldn't do what we can to stop another Hitler.

Fortunately, America is not the apathetic, isolationist nation many on the right and the left wish it to be.

For additional information you can check out the following links. www.commentarymagazine.com/special/A11902025_1.html. This discusses the various approaches to foreign policy. www.melaniephillips.com/articles/archives/limmud%20media.pdf This article discusses some of the reasons for the war and the deceptions wrought by the main stream media. Stockpiles of WMD were not the only reason for the war or even the most important. This is what the media has chosen to focus on.

All of this focus on the stockpiles has obscured the long range goals. I wonder if the main stream media had a malicious intent in doing this? I'm starting to think they do not want this to succeed. I don't know if this is true or not.

It reamins to be seen whether or not the Bush policy will actually work. What is certain is the status quo was not working. We should all hope and pray the Bush policy does work.

"Stockpiles of WMD were not the only reason for the war or even the most important. This is what the media has chosen to focus on." Yes. But the media focused on it probably because that is reason the the admin focused on.

The admin focused on the WMD reason because the US public wouldn't have supported a war against a peice of crap, contained country, half-way round the world, that talked a lot but hadn't and wouldn't have attacked us. Iraq had to be a threat to be a target. That's why WMD mattered. Don't blame the media for this one.

Short

I'm not sure if you read the links I presented or not. WMD were not the only reason for the war. Condi Rice tried to point this out to the arrogant and condescending Barbara Boxer yesterday. The first link I gave also goes into some of the other reasons for the actions. Regarding the WMD issue, 30+ countries made the decision that Saddam's WMD presented a threat. Congress agreed with the assessment when they voted to authorize the use of force. They all looked at the same intellegence the administration looked and made the same decision. As I recall, David Kay believed the situation to be even more dangerous than we originally thought. I do not have the actual quote in front of me now. Charles Duelfer also agreed with the decision to remove Saddam. You can check this out at www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15443 Mr. Duelfer believes, at least he did at the time this article was written, that the world is better off without Saddam. This article also contains a link to the Duelfer report. I have not been through the entire report yet. The notion that Iraq was a piece of crap contained country does not seem to be bourne out by the facts. The fact is the sanctions were going to collapse. They were already collapsing!! Had they have been allowed to collapse, Saddam would have immediately began reconstituting his WMD programs and we may have been faced with the prospect of having to rebuild Manhattan or some other metropolitan area. The Oil-for-Food scandal was making sure the sanctions collapsed. The administration acted the only way it reasonably could. They acted to remove a grave and gathering threat before it materialized. As of this writing, there have been no successful terrorist attacks on American soil. The battle in Iraq is a large reason why. Jihadist assets that would have been used elsewhere have been diverted to Iraq. I am a bit concerned that the inspectors aren't asking the right questions. They should be asking "where did the weapons go" and not "did he have them?" Iran and Syria are arming terrorists. Russia and China are arming Syria and Iraq. A legitimate question to ask, is has the focus on Iraq caused us to loose sight of much larger threats, such as Russia and China? Also, we should be concerned that the government could become to narrowly focused on Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda and loose sight of the broader war. Far from exagerating the threats this country faces, the administration has actually understated them.

With Respect,
Rob

"Saddam would have immediately began reconstituting his WMD programs and we may have been faced with the prospect of having to rebuild Manhattan or some other metropolitan area."

Rob: get a sense of responsibility. This is just silly. Libs are supposed to be the Chicken Littles of American politics.

Also, I don't give a hoot who had whatever other reasons for the war. WMD was the major reason presented to the US public, because the American people wouldn't have liked attacking a country that was not capable of doing us real ugly damage.

Finally, I don't need to hear neocon web-sites rewrite the history of the justification of the war. I remember it well.

Respectfully,

Actually I have a sense of responsibility. Saddam maintained his abilty and the know how for WMD and it was only a matter of time before he could have reconstituted these weapons progams and would have been capable of doing even more serious harm to us. We already know he was more than willing to harm us. The sanctions were going to collapse. UN oil-for-food was making sure of this. The only reasonable position was to take Saddam out, one way or another. It is the main stream news media who has chosen to re write history, in order to minimize the threat. They would play games with national security for political gain. I'm not sure if you read the web sites I listed. Fortunately President Bush had the courage to remove Saddam before he could harm us any more. There have been reports of a "third terrorist" and an "Iraqi connection" to the Oklaoma City bombing. I'm not aware that any of this can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt but post 911 I don't believe any reasonable leader could take this risk, after all Saddam's government did endlessly praise Al Qaeda. Congress and the leaders of 30+ nations all looked at the same intellegence and made the same decision. Saddam needed to go. In fact, he should have been removed back in 1991 but folks live and learn. It is known that Saddam sheltered terrorists involved in the 1993 WTC bombing. Bill Clinton should have begun the war against these Jihadists immediately after the WTC bombing in 1993, which would have included Saddam's Iraq, but again we live and learn. Saddam sheltered the terrorists involved in the Achille Lauro hijacking where they killed a wheelchair bound American Jewish man tossing his body overboard. Saddam attempted to have President George H.W. Bush assainated. Saddam funded Palestinian homicide bombers. There were numerous contacts between his people and Al Qaeda. Given all of this the risks of leaving him in power became too great. Regarding the chicken little comment, I am unable, at this time, to find the link I was looking for but the following link, while it may be overblown, does I think illustrate that this threat is not to be scoffed at, especially given the links between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Ricahrd Minter, in his book "Shadow War" details some of the links between Al Qaeda and Saddam. Stephen Hayes goes into greater detail on this subject but I have not finished his book yet. Suffice it to say, to oppose the war to remove Saddam based on the fact that he was some caged dictactor who represented no threat to America would not seem supported by the facts. I do have the concern that all of the focus on Iraq could cause the government to loose focus on much larger threats such as Russia and China. For a more detailed view on the threat posed by Russia and China see www.jrnyquist.com. While the threats discussed may be overblown, nevertheless, it is not something you want to take lightly. What I can say is, if we are going to win, we had better be able to mulit-task!! I take American national security very seriously!! I know you do, as well!!

By the way, under Bush and the republican congress, spending has been outrageous. They are spending money like drunken sailors!! This is a very legitimate criticism of his administration. Finally, it remains to be seen whether or not Bush's policies will work. What I do believe to be certain is keeping the status quo was not going to work and would have led to even greater tradgedy down the road.

Respectfully,
Rob

P.S. - The link did not work but, if interested, you can find it at www.jrnyquist.com. Click on JR's financial sense archive and go to the article on 7/14/04.

While I think the decision to remove Saddam was the correct one. The notion that we could have continued the status quo was not sustainable. Fortunately a major threat was taken out before it could fully materialize. Now that Saddam is in jail the United States should look to withdraw from Iraq ASAP. The concept of "nation building" is a bit troubling. The United States should be a friend of liberty but ultimately we can only guarantee our own.