Why Democracy Promotion Scares Me: Part 74 of a Series

by publius

There are many things to take away from Peter Baker’s article on the rise and fall of Bush’s democracy promotion “vision” following his re-election. Frankly, I’m skeptical that Bush was the strong causal force behind “democracy promotion” that the article portrays. However, assuming Bush really was driving this policy, the article is frankly terrifying. It’s the blackest of black comedies, played out on a Shakespearian scale.

The part of the article that caught my eye was the description of Bush’s Road to Damascus moment. After the election but before the second inauguration, Bush was “leafing through galleys” of “The Case for Democracy” by Natan Sharansky. Here’s how Baker describes it:

Bush did not wait long after reelection in November 2004 to begin mapping his second term. Relaxing from the burdens of the campaign, he leafed through galleys of a book given to him by Tom A. Bernstein, a friend and former partner in the Texas Rangers. The book, "The Case for Democracy," was a manifesto by Natan Sharansky, the Soviet refusenik, Israeli politician and favorite of neoconservatives.

Bush found it so riveting, he asked aides to invite Sharansky to visit. The next day, nine days after the election, the author was ushered into the Oval Office. . . . Within weeks, according to several aides, Bush called his chief speechwriter, Michael J. Gerson, to discuss using his second inaugural address to "plant a flag" for democracy around the world. Bush had made democracy in the Middle East a cornerstone of his response to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, but now he wanted to broaden the goal.

Under this view, our Wilsonian-in-Chief had a revelation and willed the democracy promotion agenda on to his administration and its policy. That’s the part I don’t really buy though. I’m sure Bush got excited by his book and all, but I doubt his reading it is doing all that much work. In my opinion, Bush’s “democracy promotion” was not so much a forward-looking policy goal than a self-serving label applied retroactively to actions already taken.

I’m sure when Bush and his team go to bed at night, they don’t like thinking of themselves as people who have created a failed state, institutionalized torture, started on war on the basis of (at best) the biggest intelligence failure in American history, and inspired unprecedented global hatred. Tough pills, all. You can rest better if you dress all this up as serving some higher purpose. Enter democracy promotion, stage right.

Democracy promotion provided a conceptually-coherent moral justification for the actions the administration had done – and was going to do anyway (indeed, everything is conceptually coherent at high enough levels of abstraction). That seems more plausible than the story of Bush catching fire like Paul on the road to Damascus and marching out to save the world.

But, if I’m wrong about that and Bush’s revelation really was the basis of our national foreign policy, it’s deeply troubling and even terrifying. The notion that our foreign policy actually changed because a guy who hates books read a book he liked reaches black comic levels of absurdity. It sounds like something out of high school – Local Sophomore Reads Book About Tibet and Makes T-Shirts and Love Beads. Foreign policy shouldn’t turn on an ignorant man’s revelation after reading one book. I mean, good God, it sounds like something out of Emma, with Bush playing the role of the hapless Harriet Smith - except of course, here, human lives (rather than Mr. Elton) hung in the balance.

The broader lesson is that it’s important to elect someone who actually knows something about foreign policy. The fate of the world should not depend on Bush’s holiday reading list.

Comments

[Jesurgislac]

Someone who can argue that democracy is "promoted" by denying a population free elections until you think they're prepped to vote for the government you want them to have (which I gather is Sharansky's theory, from the Washington Post's review of this book on Amazon.com) would be right up Bush's street.

Democracy promotion provided a conceptually-coherent moral justification for the actions the administration had done – and was going to do anyway

Well, no. Not unless you define "promotion of democracy" in a really, really specialized way that pretty much completely reverses the usual understanding of "democracy". In fact, it makes democracy move away from the given meaning (a country governed by the will of the people, usually exercised by elected representatives) to a specialized meaning that is not, as yet, in the dictionaries but appears to be the meaning Bush uses: "a country that is an ally of the US".

[John Thullen]

Can we keep "Atlas Shrugged", "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" and "Sammy - - An Autobiography" away from him for another 17 months or so?

I'd hate to see him show up at next year's State of the Union, drink in one hand, a mic in the other, some splendid bling on all fingers, and his hat at a jaunty angle as he introduces his next song:

"This is for all you cats out there, you overmen .... you know who you are .... who think tax policy is run by small dudes who want to bring you down to their level .... baby ..... I'm hear to tell you we all need a girl who worships our creative juices while walking on our backs in stiletto heels... hit it maestro!"

[Joe Thomas]

Points for the Emma reference.

Oh, and for the post, but whatever.

[michael todd]

It's posts like this that makes me miss Legal Fiction.

Well done, sir.

Imagine Bush reading 1984 after leaving office.
Imagine him slapping his forehead.

:)

[CharleyCarp]

If you haven't read the Atlantic articles on Gerson and Rove, you should by all means do so. The Gerson story certainly raises credibility issues of stories like this.

Stories like this are dogwhistles for a certain species of evangelical -- after all, isn't it logical for the Almighty to get his wishes across by (a) getting the book into his hands and (b) providing exactly the right epiphany?

What I find interesting about this is that it is said to have taken place after the election. What then are we to make of statements made about democracy in the campaign?

[CharleyCarp]

And not to sound like a broken record, but sitting in the airport in Lauderdale waiting for a flight to Gitmo focuses the mind. There have been opportunities galore to execute part of a democracy promotion agenda through detainee policy. There still are. And yet . . . nothing.

(I'll try to post something at length about this tonight on my fake little blog, depending on connectivity . . .)

[rilkefan]

Re the post title, this isn't a problem with democracy promotion per se, is it? It's a problem with electing weak, uninformed presidents.

[rilkefan]

In case I haven't mentioned it lately, CC, as a US citizen I greatly appreciate your work there.

[liberal japonicus]

CC,
if you'd like to post something at TiO rather than at your own blog. (as I thought that you were keeping the blog relatively out of sight), please let me know.

[Elvis Elvisberg]

Good post. Yes, you'd hope that our foreign policy depended on a little more than the reading of one book.

But the entire article is rather bizarre. It sets out to tell the tale of a president stabbed in the back by the bureaucracy... then mentions that the Bush budget, and Dick Cheney, give short shrift to democracy promotion.

And the article doesn't even mention Saudi Arabia, and gives one mention of Pakistan, in the context of an interagency meeting. But any serious discussion about the limits of democracy promotion begins with those two countries, and Egypt.

The administration's actions-- including the president's actions and rhetoric regarding Pakistan and S.A.-- indicate that the democracy promotion rhetoric is just that, rhetoric, a fig leaf for actions undertaken for other reasons in one country, with no applicability anywhere else ever. So I agree that your take on it is correct.

Sure, we cheered when things went the way they did in Ukraine, but would the US have been pissed had it happened before Bush opened our eyes and reoriented our policy? Of course not.

[hilzoy]

CC: for that matter, if you'd like to post here, just email.

[Winston Smith]

1. What Rilkefan said.

2. I think Publius is exactly right...but this is the M.O. of conservatives. They rarely promote human rights or democracy for the sake of those things...rather they use them as stalking horses to pursue policies they want to pursue on other grounds, e.g. those of national interest.

It's not that most of those folks are evil...its just that they're insufficiently honest with themselves (and others) about their motives. They genuinely do probably get all misty about democracy, just like liberals. They just don't get misty about it until they see that democracy-promotion lines up with oil production or some such thing.

As I've said before, that's the difference between hawkish liberals and neo-cons:

Hawkish liberals really do think that we should promote democracy and human rights, militarily if (a) need be and (b) practical, and even if it isn't in our national interest narrowly-construed.

Neo-cons value U.S. national interest in itself, and value democracy only instrumentally, as a means to the end of security.

[Katherine]

The problem isn't democracy promotion; it's a use-of-force policy that says "We are the U.S. We are the Good Guys. Therefore, we can invade whoever we want, whenever we want." That they trot out idealistic post-hoc justifications for it doesn't make democracy and human rights unworthy goals, any more than the WMD/"pre-emption doctrine" discredits the ideas that we should try to prevent the terrorists from getting WMDs, & that nuclear non proliferation is important.

I mean, if you're using "democracy promotion" as a synonym for "a U.S. policy of starting aggressive wars against our least favorite dicatorial governments," yes, it scares me too. But it's not synonymous. There are means of supporting democracy that don't involve aggressive wars, and there are justifications that this administration has used for aggressive wars that don't involve democracy promotion. So I kind of see what you're saying, but I don't understand on why you insist on mis-identifying the problem.

[rilkefan]

WS: "Hawkish liberals really do think that we should promote democracy and human rights, militarily if (a) need be and (b) practical, and even if it isn't in our national interest narrowly-construed."

I think "hawkish" above is too broad. I at least don't consider myself hawkish, but I was in favor of our intervention in the Balkans, and I would have cheered an intervention in Rwanda; I would applaud an action in Darfur that I thought was likely to help and highly unlikely to make things worse. I opposed the Iraq war on many grounds. The above are I think mainstream liberal positions though.

[rilkefan]

"I don't understand on why you insist on mis-identifying the problem."

I guess I agree about "mis-identifying", but "insist"?

[Katherine]

Not-particularly-hawkish liberals tend to restrict it to "stopping a genocided" as opposed to "promoting democracy +/or human rights," though.

Also, the Second Inaugural is supposed to be the apotheosis of this democracy promotion stuff, right? This speech:

"America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time."

That is not a coherent account of this administration's policies, anymore than "Compassionate Conservatism" is a coherent explanation for the Texas death penalty system.

[Katherine]

rilkefan is correct. I should have said "persistently misidentify," or for that matter deleted the sentence entirely.

Weirdly, I'm more depressed and hopeless about U.S. politics than I've been since November 2002. It's interesting the extent to which it isn't just bad things happening that does this to me; it's a sense of isolation and powerlessness.

[rilkefan]

Katherine: 'Not-particularly-hawkish liberals tend to restrict it to "stopping a genocide" as opposed to "promoting democracy +/or human rights," though.'

Fair enough, you're right, I think that's nearly inherently impossible in real-world cases. I could quibble with invented scenarios, but I'll just withdraw my objection to WS's statement.

[publius]

Katherine -- fair point. I remember our debate from a while back but it consciously enter my head when I did the title (i probably should have used a different title anyway).

But for me, I think the term "dem promotion" has taken on a brand problem. And the question then is whether to use new language or fight to reclaim the term from within the textual arena so to speak.

[Nell]

I’m sure when Bush and his team go to bed at night, they don’t like thinking of themselves as people who have created a failed state, institutionalized torture, started on war on the basis of (at best) the biggest intelligence failure in American history, and inspired unprecedented global hatred. Tough pills, all. You can rest better if you dress all this up as serving some higher purpose. Enter democracy promotion, stage right.

Or projection. Chris Floyd tackles the same topic from a different angle.

[publius]

Katherine -- fair point. I remember our debate from a while back but it consciously enter my head when I did the title (i probably should have used a different title anyway).

But for me, I think the term "dem promotion" has taken on a brand problem. And the question then is whether to use new language or fight to reclaim the term from within the textual arena so to speak.

[publius]

That should say "DID NOT consciously enter ..."

[rilkefan]

"That is not a coherent account of this administration's policies"

And I think this is really important in understanding the Bush years (maybe most presidencies). At the heart of my objection to what Chomsky says as I understand it is the belief that even such an authoritarian admin as this one is in essence incoherent because it is subject to too many different and even competing interests and ideas.

[kid bitzer]

typo here?

"started on war on the basis of...."

would have expected "started a war...."

good post.

also, cc, thanks for standing up for the constitution. it's still feeling lonely and picked-on.

[Hartmut]

I think Nietzsches Zarathustra would pose no danger in Dubya's hands. He'd probably drop it before reaching the end of the first chapter*. I took the effort to read it completely and it is anything but an easy read. Against common prejudice it is not a manifest of the "will to power" and the Übermensch as described there is imo completely devoid of fascist tendencies. I would even interpret some parts as "power abuse is something for weaklings".

*that's not hyperbole. I simply can't imagine someone like Bush investing the time voluntarily.

[liberal japonicus]

oooh, just what we need, a Chomsky thread 8^0

But I think there is a linkage between Katherine's despair as stated in her 1:37 and RF's comment on Chomsky, if I understand it correctly, which is that Chomsky goes too far in asserting underlying processes, when incompetence is a better explanation. I tend to be more sympathetic to Chomsky's critiques not because I believe that there is some sort of master plan, but that the notion that it is simple incompetence that drives this presents a sort of 'sh*t happens', which further suggests that nothing can be done, which gives rise the kind of feeling that Katherine expresses, which I am tending to share. I wonder if we have to imagine some sort of ability to control in order to take some control. though I don't want to attribute any of my explanations to Katherine. But yes, the despair feels palpable sometimes.

[Winston Smith]

1. While I'm fawning over other people's comments, let me give props to Katherine for several of the above.

2. I actually think you needn't withdraw your criticism, Rilkefan. It forces me to clarify that claim. I suppose I should have drawn the following distinctions:

There are:

a. Really dovish (sometimes pacifistic) liberals who oppose using military force even to stop genocide. (Yes, they exist. I know some.)

b. Standard-issue liberals who are generally in favor of using force to stop e.g. genocide or similar things, but not so much in favor of using force to promote democracy.

c. Hawkish liberals who favor the use of force to promote democracy.

Though opposed to the Iraq war, I used to be a c. The Iraq debacle has given me a more nuanced view, and shown me how little I understand about the world. Now I'm more b-ish.

However: in some cases, flipping a non-democracy to a democracy will be a sure and easy thing, whereas some cases of stopping genocide will be arduous and uncertain. I favor easy democracy-promotion over possibly disastrous genocide-prevention, though it's rather surprising to see those words come out of my keyboard.

Politics makes consequentialists of us all...

[Nell]

@Katherine:

I'm also more depressed and hopeless than I've been since 2002.

It has mostly to do with the lack of effective Congressional or political opposition to an attack on Iran, an attack for which the groundwork is being laid daily. Some people have difficulty believing the regime that rules us would attack Iran because of the danger in which that would place U.S. troops in Iraq. IMO that is a feature, not a bug, for Cheney and Bush; it all but guarantees U.S. popular support for the wider war.

That's aggravated by the recent FISA cave-in, which I do not believe is temporary.

And the Padilla trial, with its reminders that this government continues to maintain its prerogative to detain U.S. citizens, and to imprison them indefinitely, hold them incommunicado and with no access to counsel and no process, and torture them (which last is the almost inevitable outcome of the other conditions).

At the same time, it's been clear for months now that the three most likely Democratic nominees for President endorse a "residual force" for Iraq rather than a genuine and complete withdrawal. HRC is the most likely nominee, and she has as much as said that U.S. forces will be in Iraq until the end of her term. Also: Mark Penn, Richard Holbrooke, etc. etc. And the unlikelihood of a Democratic Congress making any kind of priority during the first term of a Democratic administration of clawing back the powers surrendered to the executive during the previous eight years.

War on Iran is the final nail in this country's coffin, and we're sleepwalking into it.

[liberal japonicus]

Winston,
I'd suggest that your a) group, because it overlaps with isolationist style conservatives, may, if members of the group acknowledge the imperative for a nation to protect itself, be more of a factor than I think you give credit.

[rilkefan]

"Some people have difficulty believing the regime that rules us would attack Iran"

I can't imagine we'll attack Iran. Well, I signed Wes Clark's petition, but if there's yet another war I swear I'll never write another word on real-world politics again - just iambs and poem-interpretry for me.

[Nell]

I'll take my glum self off this thread in a moment, but wanted to respond to this part of Katherine's post:

it isn't just bad things happening that does this to me; it's a sense of isolation and powerlessness.

My take is somewhat different. It's a clarified sense of powerlessness, intensified by non-isolation. That is, I'm keenly aware of the hundreds of thousands of people in this country who see the situation in very much the same way as I do, but am far more convinced of our inability to affect the course of events than I was four years ago.

[bncthor]

For all those who have labored from the outset to form a "more perfect union" it must be recognized that the effort has stalled in a significant way in the last seven years are so. But, those under its umbrella are by no means ready to abandon the effort, and will contnue to use their intellect, labor and treasure to return the union to its birth path.

[Katherine]

I'm not sure which of us is glummer.

In my case the political angst is so intertwined with professional & personal burnout that I don't really know how to separate it. But a feeling of isolation is definitely contributing. There are plenty of people who *agree* with me about certain issues, and yet I don't think they want to hear me talk about them anymore. Not really. It's just depressing, and they know already, and what can they do about it? And that's so understandable that I find it contagious.

[Katherine]

(but I don't think that we can't change things. I just think we won't.)

[Gary Farber]

"I can't imagine we'll attack Iran."

I haven't the faintest problem imagining it.

Whether it will happen, or not, I have absolutely no idea.

If it did, whether it would be just air strikes (far and away most likely), or air strikes and some raids (conceivable, as some would argue it would be the only way to effectively strike certain targets), I have no idea.

But do I think it's possible or conceivable before January, 2009? Absolutely.

Just as it's possible it won't happen. I wouldn't offer any opinion on odds, although I'm tempted to say that I think it's less likely than likely. But that's pretty much just a guess.

The only real answer can come from mind-reading Bush and Cheney, or further leaks.

I will say that the current trends are worrisome. And I've not been prone to strong worry about it prior to recent weeks.

But I have no idea whether they'll cross that line, or not.

Part of the problem is that if they're not going to attack, it's highly likely that the administration thinks it's in their interest to, if not clearly threaten otherwise, to at least keep it highly ambiguous, for leverage against Iran.

Undercutting that is the evident lack of interest on the administration's part in engaging in much, and little direct, diplomacy with Iran. (Is there secret diplomacy? Who knows?)

And whether the administration has fairly fixed plans or strong intent, or whether it's just going to keep improvising, on the question, is also quite obscure.

So, in conclusion: beats me.

[novakant]

There is an inherent problem with democracy promotion, the same problem that is inherent in democracy itself: it can give tremendous power to those with no interest in democracy at all, who once in power will turn it on its head or abolish it altogether while keeping up only the facade. This is especially true for countries were liberal values are only held by a few, while the rest of the population is stuck in a value system that orients itself along tribal, ethnic or religious lines.

[Nell]

Katherine, you have my deepest admiration and gratitude for everything you've contributed here and in your work. You've made a very real difference already. Please take care of yourself.

If that seems too selfish, do it for your peeps, Presidential Scholars past and present. ;>

[Nell]

@novakant: democracy ... can give tremendous power to those with no interest in democracy at all, who once in power will turn it on its head or abolish it altogether while keeping up only the facade.

Democracy promotion, the real thing -- not invasions and occupations dressed up in sanctimonious rationalizations -- doesn't do that.

Neither does real democracy. That's why genuine democracy promotion starts at home.

Before focusing on other societies and their tribal and religious orientations, I'd ask for a long, hard look at the tribal orientation that caused five Supreme Court justices to make a "don't use this as precedent" ruling that prevented one of the more fundamental mechanisms of democracy, a full count of the votes.

And the many, many failures of democracy that have, before and since, brought us to the current near-facade moment.

[Gary Farber]

"@novakant: democracy ... can give tremendous power to those with no interest in democracy at all, who once in power will turn it on its head or abolish it altogether while keeping up only the facade.

[...]

Neither does real democracy. What, "real" democracy prevents that from possibly happening?

I don't see it. Democracy is always capable of failing, no matter how "real." This strikes me as a No True Scotsman.

Can you name three "real" democracies in which what novakant said can't ever happen?

[Gary Farber]

Damn formatting errors. Let's try again, with apologies.

Nell:

@novakant: democracy ... can give tremendous power to those with no interest in democracy at all, who once in power will turn it on its head or abolish it altogether while keeping up only the facade.

[...]

Neither does real democracy. What, "real" democracy prevents that from possibly happening?

I don't see it. Democracy is always capable of failing, no matter how "real." This strikes me as a No True Scotsman.

Can you name three "real" democracies in which what novakant said can't ever happen?

[Gary Farber]

ARGH!

Nell:

@novakant: democracy ... can give tremendous power to those with no interest in democracy at all, who once in power will turn it on its head or abolish it altogether while keeping up only the facade.

[...]

Neither does real democracy.

What, "real" democracy prevents that from possibly happening? I don't see it. Democracy is always capable of failing, no matter how "real." This strikes me as a No True Scotsman.

Can you name three "real" democracies in which what novakant said can't ever happen?

[novakant]

This isn't a binary argument, of course anything could happen anywhere. But the chances that democracy will fail in, say, EU member states are quite low, while the chances that it will fail in Pakistan, Iraq or some African states are fairly high. The point I'm trying to make here is, that a narrow, shallow and a-historical view of democracy, which pushes for quick democratization without into account the specific circumstances of the country in question can be counter-productive. Taking the longer and harder way around, by encouraging the creation of democratic institutions on a local and regional level through NGOs etc and thus showing the different groups that democratization need not be a threat to their interests but might be compatible with their previous forms of organization and make their lives better is the way to go in many cases. Once such a spirit is established they will be less susceptible to those trying to take advantage of them. It's not enough to proclaim democracy as an abstract good, you have to show the people who have more pressing things on their minds that it works for them.

[Nell]

Democracy is failing right here in the United States of America. Very seriously failing.

Given that, my interest in which societies are more or less likely to benefit from U.S. involvement/interference is next to nil, because we are not in any position to preach to anyone else right now.

The checks and balances are not working, because the executive recognizes no limits on its power. Only one of the other branches has shown an ability or willingness to restore the balance -- that only intermittently, and of necessity only in the slow and technical ways in which issues reach it.

[novakant]

That's true and bad enough, but there's worse. The problem in the US is, that a lot of people aren't truly (small d) democrats, they'd be happy to live in a Franco-style autocracy. But that's actually a case in point for my argument, that democracy without democrats and a strong institutional structure behind it is pretty meaningless.

[Nell]

Fair point, Gary. Democracy can always fail. It's not a magic solution.

It fails when judges convict those they know to be innocent, and when they make rulings they know are arbitrary, inconsistent, and indefensible. It fails when legislatures cede to the executive the power to violate fundamental constitutional rights with impunity, as well as the power to declare war. It has failed when the executive recognizes no limits on its power, and no one in a position to do so will use the constitutional remedy for that situation.

It fails also when the non-constitutionally specified social and material conditions in which it flourishes degrade -- when publishers sit on information rather than run the story, when citizens come to accept that matters of war and peace should be left to "experts", or that it's fine for the bill of rights to be set aside as long as only Muslims or brown people or drug users are the targets.

[Hartmut]

That includes all the "this is a republic not a democracy" shouters that see any move towards a more democratic system as the first fatal step towards mob rule (as if the current ochlo-oligarchy* was any better)

*an oligarchy that keeps in power by controlling the mob with non-violent means while pretending that the mob (not called that of course in public) is actually in charge.

[Jeff]

I'd suggest that your a) group, because it overlaps with isolationist style conservatives, may, if members of the group acknowledge the imperative for a nation to protect itself, be more of a factor than I think you give credit.

The a) group includes folks like Joan Baez who are anything but isolationist, but don't believe in a violent (much less military) response to ANYTHING. How much power this sub-group has is anyone's guess.

[rilkefan]

Digby with good news for liberals.

I for one feel optimistic about America after '09.

[Katherine]

I feel reasonably optimistic about the Democratic party's prospects and quite pessimistic about America.

Nell, thanks. I should note that I am whiny today, as (1) it's my first day back from vacation, and (2) starting the process of moving. Only about a mile, but bleah.

[Doctor Science]

OT:

publius, is there a single tag or other URL I can use to locate all your posts on the Spectrum Sale? I want to rec them to Jay Rosen, who's collecting examples of better-than-regular-journalism reporting on blogs. My awareness and what there is of my understanding of this issue is all due to you.

[Bruce Baugh]

Like Nell, I feel depressed partly because I'm not isolated. I mean, it's clear that a lot of other Americans would like to see an end to our occupation of Iraq, justice for the instigators, and like that. But...we don't seem to have any way of making that wish into policy, because the people in authority just say "no". There are, I guess, recall mechanisms and the like, but they take time at best. Voting for candidates on the basis of clear distinctions on key issues proved not to be enough because the leadership has no interest in making any of this stuff a priority; communicating with individual officals is haphazard at best....

The system turns out to rely on more of a modicum of shame and guilt on officials' part than we can count. In the absence of that, and not wishing to turn to mass violence, I simply don't see many useful options. I keep doing what I do out of the sense that it is what's in my power to do than out of any hope that it can help restore peace or justice.

I'm also losing a lot of confidence in the prospects for Democratic victory in 2009, along with confidence that it would matter. The public at large isn't intensely partisan. At the moment, it seems to me, a lot of people want whoever will make some things happen. With the major Democratic candidates all committed to making them not happen, I can see a lot of apathy. Yeah, sure, it'd be good to get the Republican machine out of office, but if the War Party's Democratic wing will keep doing the same things and protect the guilty parties of this administration from honest reckonings, why bother all that hard?

I'll still be there voting, in primary and general election. But right this moment I can't muster any passion for condemning someone who decides to sit it out. My hope is that something or someone will change in the right kind of way between now and then, and that's not much of a basis for planning.

[publius]

thx Dr. -- I'm pretty I sure I tagged them all "Current Affairs". I probably wouldn't have any prior to May 27, which is when I officially stopped working at my old job.

So if you click Current Affairs on the sidebar, all the recent ones should come up. Or, just hit the June/July/August archives and do a Ctrl-F for spectrum

[OCSteve]

Bruce: I'll still be there voting, in primary and general election. But right this moment I can't muster any passion for condemning someone who decides to sit it out.

It’s early yet, but that’s where I seem to be coming down myself. This may well be the first time I can’t cast a vote for president (since I’ve been of age). There are a few I’d like to take back after the fact, but its never occurred to me before not to vote at all.

Disillusioned would be the mildest way to put it I guess. I’m not as despondent as Nell or Katherine, but I’ve arrived at a place where (given what my last votes enabled) I think I just may sit this one out and let others decide.

It may well be a cowardly response – I don’t want anymore blame for what happens next.

[Doctor Science]

Thanks, publius. Please count me as having officially begged for the wrap-up article.

[publius]

rem -- "withdrawal in disgust's not the same as apathy"

that said, cynical as i may be, let me play the role of katherine and say that things are looking much better. its slow going, but good lord, it;s a world away from oct 2002

[Bruce Baugh]

OCSteve: My own guiding principle for voting is a simple one. Given that we never get to utopia or wherever, we're nonetheless going somewhere, and voting can change the direction, or at least slow down the pace even if the direction is bad. There's almost always something to do that makes a difference in the spirit of "More good! Less evil!"

This time around...I mean, I'll likely be voting for Kucinich in the primary if he's still in the race then, but I don't expect you to feel like that would be good service to your values. :) And I'm not expecting him to win. The gap between the major Democratic candidates and the Republican pack just isn't big enough for me to feel excited about on the issues that I think will end up actually driving American politics and economics next term. That is, I think that continued fighting in Iraq will end up displacing a lot of other agendas, demanding continued time, attention, and money, and skew a lot of social problems here at home worse.

Furthermore, the thorough failure of Democratic leadership is, for me, powerful reason to expect trouble on every front that the continued movement conservative branch of the Republicans wants to make a fuss over. So there's no reason to expect much constructive legislative action on anything important, even apart from the war.

I'm not sure what it would take to give me fresh hope right now. Gore in the race? I'd vote for him and feel better about it. But what on earth can improve this bunch of lamoids in Congress? I just don't see it. And if I can't see any prospect for significant relief, I don't feel at liberty to tell anyone else - you, say - that you ought to act on grounds I only hope for. Nor does it seem silly or cowardly to me to feel like you just don't want to be part of making it happen. If I felt a lot more confident that there's something you could do to make it stop, I'd say so. But as it is?

Both of us obviously have time to change our minds between now and election day. I figure that it's fine to have a conclusion as long as we remain aware that it's contingent.

[publius]

yeah, thats on the agenda but was one of many posts that was sabatoged by baby

[OCSteve]

Bruce: If I felt a lot more confident that there's something you could do to make it stop, I'd say so.

As you say, there is lots of time. So you and all others here feel free to try to “sell” me when you are ready to buy yourself. At this point I will listen and keep an open mind (seriously). HRC would be the very toughest sell, but who knows…

Maybe it is just this very early election season. I’m just tired of it already. There is just no one new and no new ideas between all of them. R or D it’s going to be “same old same old”.

[hilzoy]

OCSteve: One word: Obama.

I mean, think about the bumper car picture ;)

[Katherine]

In some sense it's better than October 2002. In others...that was sort of before we knew just how bad it would be, wasn't it? And if
nothing changes in the wake of a certain amount of evidence, it starts to feel like it never will.

I interviewed some Iraqi torture victims last month(well, I actually mainly took notes)-that's what I was doing the week the Democrats in Congress were caving on FISA (unbeknownst to me). I'm not going to get into any of detail for obvious reasons but some of it was quite recent. And it turns out to be completely different hearing certain things in person. And now most of them are in Baghdad. I'm sure that has an awful lot to do with this despairing-of-America vibe I've got going on. There are people who care, but we failed, and we're failing still. Less, which is something, but there are certain wrongs that can never be righted, and others which could but I increasingly feel like never will be.

[publius]

I think it's easy to forget how enormously, enormously powerful the modern executive is. I think if you get a non-Republican in, you'd be surprised how much of this stuff would just stop.

And hopefully a few emails would get leaked to the press.

[Katherine]

I may be coming off as more pessimistic than I am. I do think a lot of the worst things would stop, for four years, or eight. But then what? I want to at least know what happened, and I don't think I'm even going to get that. Not on a timeline that prevents its repetition the next time we elect a lousy president (which we do very often!)

[DaveC]

In some sense it's better than October 2002. In others...that was sort of before we knew just how bad it would be, wasn't it?

All the suicide bombings in Israel in the spring of 2002. It was a nightmare, thinking my friends would be killed any day. And then all the condemnation of Israel trying to destroy the terrorists' bases, Saddam Hussein flagrantly paying off the families of the suicide bombers. That to me was the worst time, having the feeling that nothing was going to be done to stop all that madness. Then the Hebrew University bombing where my buddy's childhood friend was killed. So from my point of view, October 2002 was a turning point in that the US would at least do something to address the "root causes". It is weird how our perceptions are so different.

[Katherine]

It's weird all right. I'll leave it at that.

Some of my worst fears in fall 2002/early 2003 actually did not materialize: my most immediate & greatest fear was of Bush's bad policies contributing to terrorist attacks against the U.S. leading to people I knew in NY (somehow I had neatly compartmentalized it so I wasn't worried about Boston much at all) getting killed.

[Bruce Baugh]

Katherine, I can scarcely imagine what sorts of things you must be dealing with. Good wishes and prayers for you and all the others doing it.

The thing that leaves me feeling most hopeless the general American refusal to look at what we're doing - not just feeling a lack of enthusiasm for it but actively turning away. All the talk about continuing presence of American troops in Iraq to do good stuff seems to me predicated on the idea that we can forgive ourselves of whatever the problem was, turn the page, and that's it! Fresh start, bad stuff behind us, all ready to do the great American work of mending and civilizing. The idea that there are deep ongoing wounds and griefs which will never, ever be cured so long as we're there, or that there are people who will hate us for the rest of their lives with darned good reason for what we've done to them and theirs in the last few years, this just doesn't register much, in either party, so nearly as I can tell.

It seems to me very likely that with this set of conditions, no major domestic policy change will be viable in the next administration, whoever gets it. (This is just a true for a hypothetical old-fashioned small-government conservative, too.) Because our leadership is in denial, they are not preparing for the natural human consequences of what we've done so far, and are still doing. So as the entirely straightforward responses come into play, there will be repeated crises. These will demand attention, and will tend to get disproportionate, inappropriate responses, since nobody in authority's laying the groundwork for better focused and more constructive options. Things will escalate, one way or another, and this will eat up time and resources that would have gone to anyone's domestic concerns. The only beneficiaries will be the most thoroughly connected lobbying groups, who will be in great position to weasel through more of the sort of corporatist junk we've had so far...regardless of who's in the White House, simply because this is how America deals with foreign debacles. The Johnson administration could be a useful warning, but nobody who need to is heeding it.

I can't get worked up over anything much domestic unless it comes with a serious commitment to getting the hell out of Iraq. If it doesn't, it's vaporware on the altar of eternal conflict.

[a louis wain cat]

Bruce and Katherine have very eloquently summed up how I've been feeling about political matters these days.

I have no doubt that any Democrat would be better than any Republican (though I might have to think hard about Hillary Clinton vs. Ron Paul, just because I think Paul might actually be more likely to withdraw from Iraq), but I am much afraid that even if the Democratic candidate wins, that will come next will be, in essence, Bushism with a human face, an American version of New Labour- a corrupt, power-hungry, center-right-posing-as-center-left government not much less prone to military adventurism than what came before, displaying open contempt for public opinion, and staying interminably in power all the same simply because the alternative is worse.

And yet even in that worst possible outcome of a Democratic victory, the alternative is indeed so much worse that I will get to the voting booth in 2008 come hell or high water to pull the lever for the Democratic candidate, all the same. Even if Hillary Clinton gets the nomination and chooses Joe Lieberman as her running mate, even that would still be better than President Giuliani, which at this point is pretty much my worst nightmare.

Robinson Jeffers, who is possibly my favorite poet, wrote one called "Shine, Perishing Republic" that fits our current situation so perfectly it's uncanny. That he described it so well back then makes me wonder how deep the rot goes, and how long it's been there...

[Bruce Baugh]

Now in counterpoint...

One of the nastiest symptoms of depression is the conviction that you're seeing things unusually clearly and rationally, when in fact you're in an ever-deepening rut and missing most of the obvious. I was wrong about the outcome of the 2006 election and I'd be really, really glad to be wrong about as much of this as possible.

[Jesurgislac]

Davec: So from my point of view, October 2002 was a turning point in that the US would at least do something to address the "root causes". It is weird how our perceptions are so different.

If you thought that Saddam Hussein was "root causes" of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, you are so fundamentally ignorant I'm not sure there are comparators for how ignorant you are.

[cleek]

I was wrong about the outcome of the 2006 election

i too was wrong about that. but when you look at the results, it turns out it didn't matter much who won that election. nothing substantial has changed, and i don't see what would be any different if the Dems didn't have their majorities.

[hilzoy]

cleek: it's not true that nothing substantial has changed. Not nearly enough, God knows, but things have. There is oversight. A lot of bad people have left Justice. We got the minimum wage. Bush can no longer get whatever he wants, though he did get the awful FISA thing.

Not enough. But not nothing.

[Katherine]

The current composition of Congress makes war with Iran less likely, for one. But it turns out that 41 Senate Democrats willing to filibuster would be superior to 51 that won't even reliably vote no, I think.

The tendency is to interpret things like FISA and the MCA as cowardice, but I think there's actually a range of things going on: some of the caucus actively supports those policies; some really doesn't give a sh*t; some would oppose them but are scared of the electoral consequences; and some do actually strongly oppose them. The collective effect, though, is that the administration knows it can jerk Congress around, and acts accordingly, and they're proved right again and again. The Democrats look terrified of really confronting Bush with a 30% approval rating; the GOP was willing to impeach Clinton with a far higher approval rating than that.

I don't think the freshman are so much worse than the average Democratic Congressman, though.

[Nell]

Crumbs.

[Nell]

My 'crumbs' was a response to hilzoy's post at 9:32.

[cleek]

There is oversight.

yes, they are watching. and Leahy and Waxman have threatened to write many sternly-worded letters. and maybe they'll even make Gonzales come lie to them again! meanwhile Bush and his band of evil-doers continues on its merry way.

oversight without consequences is little better than no oversight at all.

Bush can no longer get whatever he wants,

he's received everything he's asked for that's of any consequence to the war in Iraq or his war on civil liberties. nothing has changed.

the minimum wage? as Nell says "crumbs".

there's a reason Congress has a 3% approval rating on the defining issue of the day.

[KCinDC]

The current composition of Congress makes war with Iran less likely, for one.

I agree with Hilzoy's 9:32 that we're better off with the Democrats, but I don't understand this, Katherine. I don't see how Congress at this point has any effect on whether we go to war with Iran, unless they're willing to impeach Bush and Cheney, or maybe repeal the AUMF.

[Katherine]

The fact that they're unlikely (I think) to actually authorize force makes starting a war more risky, and strengthens the people within the administration who oppose it. The midterm results also led to Rumsfeld's replacement with Gates, which is something in itself--more than the DOJ probes have to show (hilzoy, I believe that oversight matters when it doesn't lead to impeachment or resignations at the top, but when it leads to to administration openly violating subpoenas without any likely consequences, it's hard to get real excited.) But this is really less a function of anything Congress has done or will do than of voters' repudiation of Bush in the midterm election; it's not something that the caucus leadership deserves much credit for.

[KCinDC]

Katherine, Bush already has all the authorization he thinks he needs. What would keep him from claiming the existing AUMF is enough, and who's going to stand up to him after the attack has already happened?

[Katherine]

It could still happen and I've never said otherwise. It's just riskier, and therefore less likely.

[Hartmut]

Repealing the AUMF would not achieve much (apart from the impossibility to get aveto proof majority). If Chain-Eye/Bush actually decide to go to war and don't see congress agreeing, they will claim emergency and simply start shooting. Once the shooting starts they could drop dead and the would not be stopped before irreparable damage is done.
The only thing to stop a determined WH would be the brass mutinying (and Navy and Air Force are far less likely to do that than the Army).

[Hartmut]

insert "war" between "and the" and "would not"

[ThirdGorchBro]

Cheer up, y'all. American democracy is much more resilient than you seem to think. If it could survive the internment of thousands of American citizens in WWII, it can survive the (admittedly unconstitutional and unjustifiable) mistreatment of Jose Padilla & co. If it could survive the FBI's wiretapping in the 50s and 60s, it can survive whatever the NSA has done in the past 6 years. In Vietnam, another unneccesary war, we lost 58,000 Americans and killed at least a million Vietnamese. The butcher's bill in Iraq, while still appalling, has not been as high.

I think I've said this before, but it's worth repeating. The American system is stronger than the Rove political machine. Tammany Hall was eventually brought down, after all. 2000 wasn't the first suspicious presidential election, either. 1876 and 1960 come to mind. We'll never be perfect, and sometimes we backslide. But things always turn around.

[Ugh]

Repealing the AUMF would not achieve much (apart from the impossibility to get aveto proof majority).

Is there any history on Congress "undeclaring" war? That is, would such a declaration be subject to veto, or is wholly within Congress' power to revoke it?

[Katherine]

I'll absolutely grant you that there were worse abuses in previous wars, but those wars had clearly defined end dates.

More to the point, I am not depressed because I think the Republic is going to fall.

[Nell]

The butcher's bill in Iraq, while still appalling, has not been as high.

Just Foreign Policy begs to differ.

[Nell]

3rdGBro, I actually appreciate your point here. But, if I may say so, the trend does not strike me as upward.

The same "mistakes" are being repeated more quickly, and the ratcheting is downward: after each debacle we are left with fewer freedoms and a more degraded democracy.

I'm officially a geezer, but only just barely -- having lived through the Viet Nam war and the repression of the 1960s makes it more unsettling, not reassuring, that we are reliving many aspects of the era.

The existence of a semi-secret, wholly unaccountable, off-the-shelf foreign policy apparatus that became partly visible in the Iran-Contra "scandal" was shrugged off by Congress, the media, and the public.

Hell, Democrats in Congress don't even seem to have learned anything from something that happened a mere five years ago.

I've seen enough not to expect any serious level of accountability for today's war crimes for another twenty to thirty years, if then. But at the rate the cycle is going, it feels very much as if the window might be closed by then.

[novakant]

The problem is that there are always victims during those times when democracy is abused and they won't get money back or something. Similarly, while I'm sure Iraq will not stay in its current state forever and someday turn into a livable place, the suffering already caused and likely caused in the foreseeable future is real and cannot be erased.

[Katherine]

I guess I'm less isolated than I feel: registered Democrats disapprove of Congress's job performance by a 59 to 28% margin.

[DaveC]

If you thought that Saddam Hussein was "root causes" of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,

No, no, no, I didn't mean that. What I meant is that Hussein was one of the root causes of terrorism, because his state sponsorship of suicide bombings (he paid the families) encouraged more terrorist acts.

There will always be an Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but it can be a more or less peaceful conflict, or it can be a violent conflict. Hussein encouraged and abetted the latter.

[Donald Johnson]

There are anthropologists like Scott Atran who actually study suicide bombers--I don't know what he'd say about the effect of cash payments from Saddam on their frequency. My guess is that a combination of Israeli oppression, leading to a desire for revenge, and the glorification of "martyrdom" within the Palestinian community would be the main causes of suicide bombing. Just a guess.

Invading Iraq turns out not to be an effective means of lowering the frequency of suicide bombing overall.

[J Thomas]

_No, no, no, I didn't mean that. What I meant is that Hussein was one of the root causes of terrorism, because his state sponsorship of suicide bombings (he paid the families) encouraged more terrorist acts._

This is zionist spin, man.

Look what was happening. The israeli government was doing collective punishment. If you were a suicide bomber, they'd punish your sister, they'd punish your parents, they'd maybe punish your cousins. They'd destroy your sister's house, destroy her business if she had one, her garden and orchards if she had them, do their best to make her homeless and penniless. The theory was that this discouraged suicide bombing.

Various arab governments and charities tried to help victims of the israelis. The saudis, Saddam, etc. Kind of like we do charity for hurricane victims -- but they don't have hurricanes there, they have israelis instead. And families of suicide bombers were israeli victims, because israelis punished them for being related to suicide bombers.

And then the israelis basicly say "Hey, we're trying to discourage suicide bombing with collective punishment, we want these people to be homeless and destitute, we want them to starve and die of exposure and all that, so that suicide bombers will be afraid to make suicide attacks. And these arab governments are providing aid to the people we want to bring catastrophe to. We discourage suicide bombing this way, and so by providing aid to the people we hurt these arabs then are *encouraging* suicide bombing."

There's a simple obvious solution -- the israelis can take the aid money from the relatives of suicide bombers. Better yet, they could just line up the families and shoot them. That would discourage suicide bombing even more.

But in the meantime they did this propaganda thing talking like when the saudis give aid to the people the israelis punish, it's like they want palestinians to be suicide bombers and they're giving economic incentive for it. Like, the suicide bomber's lifetime earnings would be much less than the aid money, so he makes his parents rich by killing himself. And a lot of americans just buy into that story.

[Jesurgislac]

DaveC: . What I meant is that Hussein was one of the root causes of terrorism, because his state sponsorship of suicide bombings (he paid the families) encouraged more terrorist acts.

Nope. (For a more detailed answer, see J Thomas and Donald Johnson: I agree with what they've said.)

It has been repeatedly demonstrated, all over the world, that the best way to deal with the root causes of terrorism is to change the situation that makes some people want to be terrorists. In short, in Northern Ireland, the solution was not for the UK to invade the US and kill the Americans who donated to terrorists, but to change the political situation in Northern Ireland. Similiarly, the only solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict will be to change the political situation in that part of the Middle East. Demonstrably, that will not be done by the systematic oppression of Palestinians, not even by killing Palestinian children, or by making the families of suicide bombers live a more wretched life in collective punishment for their relative's crime.