Joshua Muravchik has written an insightful rebuttal to the President's "realist" critics, including WSJ writers Peggy Noonan and Mark Helprin. The op-ed, "The Democratic Ideal," appears in today's WSJ and on the editorial page's free web site.
Muravchik argues that the naysayers -- those who seemingly believe that democracy cannot spread to nations currently ruled by tyrannical or authoritarian regimes -- are blind to history and the lessons we should draw from it. "Bush and his fellow idealists," he says, "are more realistic than the 'realists.'"
To begin with, the idealists are right about the possibility for freedom and democracy to spread across borders and cultures. In 1775 there were no democracies. Then came the American Revolution and raised the number to one. Some 230 years later there are 117, accounting for 61% of the world's governments.
This historic transformation in the norms of governance has not occurred at a steady pace. Rather, it has accelerated. Just over 30 years ago, the proportion of democracies was about half of what it is today. These years of rapid transition have been dubbed democracy's "third wave" by the political scientist Samuel Huntington. The wave metaphor, however, gives the impression of an inevitable ebb. But each of Mr. Huntington's first two waves left the world considerably more free and democratic than it had been before. And there is no telling how long a democracy wave will last. The first continued for 140-odd years; the second, for just about 15. The world could all go democratic before this "third wave" is spent.
After recounting the increasing agitation for democratic reform emanating from even the Middle East, Muravchik tackles the critics' conflicting contentions that Bush either can't, or won't, place freedom at the forefront of American diplomacy, thereby rending us hypocritical. Or that he will pursue such a policy with such gusto that the world will be destabilized.
Others warn that to recklessly overthrow benign dictators will pave the way for less benign radicals. But there is no need to simply topple regimes: Our goal will surely be incremental change. And our key method should be to strengthen indigenous democrats through moral, political and material support, so they can be the agents of peaceful political transitions.
Still others make the reverse argument, saying that if we don't move single-mindedly for regime change then we are not sincere. But, democratization cannot be the only item on our diplomatic agenda. There will be other pressing issues like security and economics. The test of President Bush's sincerity is not whether he pursues freedom to the exclusion of everything else, but whether he insists on including it consistently among our priorities.
With critics contending such opposing possibilities, one wonders about their strong marriage to the status quo. What does it offer that is so compelling? Why is it preferable to any alternative? And why are they ignorant of the lessons of history.
As the President said in his Inaugural speech, there is nothing inevitable about liberty's spread. We humans are the actors of history, possessed of free will as we are. Historical determinism has been shown, at great cost in human life, to be an intellectual's dream, and society's nightmare. The real utopians aren't those who want to make America safer by doing what we can to make the rest of the world freer. Rather, they're those who've found utopia in today's demonstrably volatile and violent world.
| Jan. 25, 2005 | 8:06 AM