Democracy And The Left

Unlike some on my side of the political landscape, I'm not going to denegrate the patriotism of the left. Though of course their judgement seems to be sorely lacking. I will say this however, when the left gets it wrong, they really get it wrong.

James Taranto writing in today's Best of the Web Today in the WSJ's Opinion Journal notes the "grudging" acknowledgement from Kevin Drum writing in the Washington Monthly that Bush & Co. may, repeat may have had something, how ever trivial it might have been, with the spread of Democracy in the Middle East. Taranto notes a quote from Drum:

"Elections in Iraq and Egypt. Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon. Voluntary disarmament in Libya. New progress between Israel and the Palestinians. A lot has happened in the Middle East since the invasion of Iraq two years ago."

Then Taranto comments

"Drum grudgingly acknowledges that the president may deserve some credit for all this, but other Monthly writers are at pains to deny it."

"At Pains" Mr. Taranto? How about twisted in agnoy in their effort to deny that Bush & Co. had anything at all to do with it? As Wesley Clarke was quoted

"Democracy can't be imposed�it has to be homegrown. In the Middle East, democracy has begun to capture the imagination of the people. For Washington to take credit is not only to disparage courageous leaders throughout the region, but also to undercut their influence at the time it most needs to be augmented. Let's give credit where credit is due�and leave the political spin at the water's edge."

Is this the same General Clarke who bragged about bringing a chance for a functioning democracy in the Balkans by bombing Milosevic and being the "only candidate" who had prosecuted a war? That General Clarke?

I recall the lead up to the war, as does Mr. Taranto:

"As far as we remember, the people now saying that Arab democratization was bound to happen anyway are the same ones who were arguing beforehand not only that Bush's policies would have disastrous consequences but that status quo "stability" was the best we could hope for. Likewise, who on the left predicted the collapse of the Soviet system? (Daniel Patrick Moynihan, yes, but he was by some definitions a "neocon.")

Even if we assume for the sake of argument that Bush just "got lucky"--and boy, that's some lucky streak we right-wing war mongers have racked up--his critics were still wrong, and they cannot be taken seriously now.

Mr. Taranto is too kind. Lets add to the left's litany of charges then. "For democracy, read fantasy," from Robert Fisk. Or perhaps this "When the U.S. unfurls the democracy banner to justify its designs on Iraq, it is no surprise that few in the region stand and salute," from Gregory Weiher. To this we can add the charges before the war that "the Arab Street" would rise up against the U.S.; that 10,000 bodybags would be needed for US troops in Baghdad alone just to take the city in street fighting. That the awful Afghanistan winter would slay millions because of mass starvation. You remember, don't you?

The left has consistently and persistently refused to acknowledge that Arab peoples love freedom as much as anyone, but they needed someone to give a push, or someone to lead the way or both. Bush & Co. supplied that push and that leadership.

Marc Lynch writing also in Washington Monthly states (as noted by Taranto):

One of the most misleading ideas out there has to do with the supposed novelty of Arab demands for democratic reforms. The conventional wisdom that the invasion of Iraq triggered the first public Arab conversations about democracy is just flat wrong. Arabs have been talking about the need for reform and protesting against the status quo since long before the Iraqi war. . . . Iraq, and Bush, may have helped to open up some political opportunities (and to foreclose others), but credit for the so-called Arab spring should go to the Arab intellectuals and activists who have long been pushing for change for their own reasons.

Oh please Mr. Lynch. How much progress had they made until some of the despots of the ME became "concerned" about the fall of Iraq and began backing away from terror? Not that there are welcome matts out for hte intellectuals and activists yet. But they were making no headway at all before.

Has it been a bed of roses? No, obviously not! But it has not been impossible either. Elections in Afghanistan and Iraq; Promised multi-party elections in Egypt; the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon; even miniscule elections (though without universal sufferage) in Saudi Arabia; demonstrations in Iran; demonstrations even in Syria for Pete's sake. Does anyone really think this would have come to pass anyway? Taranto is absolutely correct, those that said it couldn't be done, that it wasn't worth doing, that the Arab Street wouldn't accept any democracy, that Arabs never had democracy and couldn't even understand its basic tenets were wrong then, and don't deserve to be listened to, cannot be taken seriously now.

I don't predict what the future will hold, but the present is mighty promising for the middle east. Though much strife and heartbreak is still to come, in the end, freedom and democracy will be worth the price paid.

Posted by GM Roper at May 5, 2005 07:16 PM | TrackBack