Stability, or a Stable Democracy?

The lead editorial in today's Wall Street Journal calls John Kerry to task for seemingly exchanging the quest for democracy in Iraq for that mantra of realpolitik, stability. It rightly calls this a historic reversal of the two major parties' positions on foreign governments. Today's Republicans, led by George Bush, seek to bring liberty to other shores, while Democrats have adopted a skeptical tone towards the possibility of Arabs' learning to govern themselves through elected representatives.

It's difficult to know why leading liberals have adopted a position they once scorned. Have they truly lost their faith in the common man, no matter his ethnicity, or are they merely adopting a cynical stance in an effort to undermine the administration's efforts to rid the Middle East of illegitimate, tyrannical regimes? As the Journal says, "9/11 exposed the Faustian bargain at the heart of Mideast 'realism.'" Supporting dictatorships while turning a blind eye to their support for terrorism abroad and brutality at home didn't bring much stability to the region in the past. Just why John Kerry and the liberal establishment think it will work in the future is a mystery.