February 28, 2005

Have we missed a new fad?

This is the silliest thing I've read this week. Matthew Yglesias writes, concerning the recent developments in Egypt:

...Yes, it's but a tentative step and things could still all work out poorly, but still, this is a pretty unambiguous success for Bush's second term freedom kick. It's also a stunning refutation of those of us who argued that he'd never follow through on his lofty rhetoric. Give the man some props.

And not just to poke fun, but it's actually important that props be given. Bush has, historically, gotten a lot of praise for his lofty rhetoric. He's also been rather diffident about actually doing something about it. But he decided to go do something. Test the waters, so to speak. If doing the right thing winds up just being met with stony silence, then there's little reason to think it'll be the start of a trend. But it should start a trend....

First, this is not a "second term freedom kick." We've been working on it since about, oh, September of 2001. And by "work," I mean "work." Not talk. It's probably impossible for a Democrat to grasp this, but Bush's lofty rhetoric is just a tool to help get a job done. Bush and his administration and our military stood firm during two years of bloodshed in Iraq and Afghanistan, while scoundrel dogs clawed and bit their ankles to the bone. They stood firm because of a dream that transformation in Iraq would start a process that could spread through the Arab Middle East. A dream that was greeted with derision by lefty-bloggers and Democrats.

Everything we've been doing in recent years has been patient spadework leading up to this moment.

And Bush is not "testing the waters." A successful election in Iraq was a necessary prerequisite to ramping up the pressure on the world's despotisms. It's no accident that he more-or-less ordered Egypt to democratize in the SOTU just days after Iraq's election. You think that wasn't planned long in advance? You think Bush just decided to take a flyer on Egyptian democracy as a whim of the moment?

And he doesn't need any props. He's not Bill Clinton. It's not about him. He sticks with his policies no matter how much scorn lefties heap on him. So how can anyone imagine he will stop for lack of their praise? Ludicrous. He's a man. Getting the job done is what matters. (Or maybe Matt means that people on the right should be praising Bush. No need, we're all on the same wavelength. And anyway we have been.)

And last of all, it's not the "start of a trend." The trend started...well, you can point to various dates. I would say a moment early in the Reagan administration, when President Marcos was in trouble, and some people (neocons, many of them) decided that the policy of supporting authoritarian dictators might not be the best way to prevent communist dictators. The new policy of encouraging democracy was pushed especially in Latin America. Not with "lofty rhetoric" a la Jimmy Carter, but with a lot of hard messy work, by people like Elliot Abrams and John Negroponte. They never got any "props," but by the end of Bush I, there was only one dictator left in this hemisphere.

The same people are manning this administration. Same veterans. Same toolkit. Same "new trend." Nobody's "testing the waters" or doing this stuff on a whim. It's been a neocon plot all along. Thank God. (And Yglesias is making the "reality-based" joke seem more utterly hilarious than ever. ''...We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities..." And here's Mr Reality-Based-Blogger himself, peering like Eustace Tilly at this new butterfly and imagining he's discovered something! "Reality!" I love it. I love it. I love it!)

Posted by John Weidner at February 28, 2005 05:54 PM
Comments

I think Matt's right about the "Start of a Trend" thing. At least, this hasn't been a trend.

Case study: Uzbekistan. The dictator, Islam Karimov, is using secret police to drag political activists into prison. Their tortured corpses are occasionally found with the fingernails ripped out. In one case they boiled a guy to death and then put his mother in jail for protesting about it. And we're happily giving these people hundreds of millions in foreign aid! Britain's ambassador to the country has said that they are neither a democracy nor moving toward democracy. If this is part of a pro-democracy plan, it's one I don't understand.

Posted by: Ethical Werewolf at February 28, 2005 07:26 PM

(Tiptoes up.) Boo! Nixon! (Runs away, cackling evilly.)

Posted by: Andrea Harris at February 28, 2005 08:27 PM

The plan isn't to wave a magic wand and make everything perfect at once. It's to keep pushing in the right direction over the long run.

The things we are doing in other places are going to affect Uzbekistan. There are lots of Uzbeks in Afghanistan for instance. Afghan elections and success will be making a big difference in how that whole region thinks about government. But that's just getting started.

I have no doubt that sooner or later things are going to change in Uzbekestan, and that we are putting some pressure on privately. But timing is important. If we make a demand and then are ignored or laughed at, the whole movement might stall.

The recent revolutions may seem to just happen suddenly, but that's probably not really the case. I now that we'd been helping reformers in Ukraine for some years before the Orange Revolution

Posted by: John Weidner at February 28, 2005 08:36 PM

There's a very simple reason for it being a "second term freedom kick": had this process been pursued in the first term all the dictators would have just hunkered down and hoped that a Kerry administration would kick the props out from under from the whole thing.

Posted by: am at February 28, 2005 11:20 PM

Say it loud, John.

The Left never had any criticism for Stalin's Five Year Plans. But let a Republican Administration actually set out and implement a long-term, albeit flexible, plan to liberate millions of people while neutralizing the maniacs poised to set the world ablaze, and suddenly it has to be an accident -- or greed at work.

George W. Bush is shaping up to be one of the great political heroes of our time. He's already given us more than enough reason to forgive his father for his trespasses against us.

Posted by: Francis W. Porretto at March 1, 2005 03:40 AM

I take it Uzbekistan is the 21st Century version of East Timor?

No matter what the crimes of Communism, Cambodia, the gulags, the Great Leap Forward, all was forgiven, because the West had allowed Indonesia to seize East Timor. Read just about any column by Noam Chomsky from the 1980s, and you'll see it prominently cited.

Now, whenever we claim to be for democracy, the sneeering response from the same Left? "Yah? Well, what about Uzbekistan?"

I trust that, when it comes time for Uzbekistan's turn, that the Left will have found some other posterchild for why America doesn't really stand for democracy, and why we should do something about them first.

(Along these lines, I also trust that, if it comes time for war w/ Iran or North Korea, that they'll actually support it, since those were supposed to be higher priorities than Iraq.)

Posted by: Lurking Observer at March 2, 2005 09:11 AM
Weblog by John Weidner