Democracy - Miracle Drug?

One of the shifting reasons for the Bush Administration's foray into Iraq was to spread democracy to the Middle East in order to liberate the people there and provide security for all, especially Americans. Clearly, the White House and other supporters of the war believe that democracy is some sort of cure-all for the world's ills and that spreading our enlightened form of government will facilitate the conversion of the planet into a Democratic utopia. If that sounds a bit simplistic it's because it is. The reality of this strategy is that it is flawed on various levels. First of all, is it valid to impose Western style democracy on non-Western cultures, and will it even work? Secondly, even if democracy were to take hold in a particular country, there is no evidence that it would guarantee security for anyone - see the reaction of various Western nations to the democratic election of Hamas in the Palestinian parliament. Stating that democracy in the Middle East would guarantee American security is a baseless claim.

Let's review the issues with regime change and imposing Western style democracy on non-Western cultures. There are a couple of facets to this:

1. Can Western style democracy be successful in a society/culture with no democratic tradition?
2. Should Western societies even attempt to transform other societies in their own image?

The first question has no definitive answer as it is more rhetorical in nature, however if one views societies as evolutionary entities, one can begin to fathom the possible difficulties in imposing the traditions of one society on another. It's no secret that Western society and culture are very different than their Middle Eastern counterparts. Each society has evolved and continues to evolve based on unique experiences and changes. And of course, many members of each society believe that their culture and traditions are superior to all others, when in actuality, societies are not better than each other - they are simply different. Societies are analogous to people. Let's say that Person A and Person B represent two different societies. Person A and Person B are unique individuals with unique experiences and perhaps some shared ones. Each of them has self confidence and belief. If Person A and Person B were your children, would you blindly treat them the same or would you recognize that they were unique and special individuals? What might be good for Person A may not be good for Person B, and vice versa. Should Person A try to make Person B in his own image? I'm sure that most people would agree that individual identity is an important part of being human and that we as people don't want to lose that uniqueness.

The same thought process should be applied to societies. There are many world cultures that have evolved over the centuries and they should be respected as much as we respect our own. While democracy in various forms extends back several centuries in Western society, other world societies have no experience with it at all. In this respect, Western society could be viewed as a mature adult in terms of democratic traditions while Middle Eastern society would be a child in the same respect. Is imposing a Western style democracy on a Middle Eastern society equivalent to teaching Quantum Physics to a 5 year-old and expecting him to understand it right away? Might it not be more prudent to treat Middle Eastern society as an equal to our own, just different? Honestly, I'm not sure what that means in practical terms, however I think the pervasive point of view in America is that our society is far superior and more enlightened than other world cultures. That's a dangerous viewpoint when determining any foreign policy.

If we view societies as unique, evolutionary entities, should societies adhere to some non-interference directive (ala the Prime Directive in Star Trek) when interacting? In some respects this kind of non-interference already takes place with nuclear non-proliferation being an example. Yet, the United States has launched a preemptive war in Iraq in order to re-make that country's government more like our own. Is that really a good idea? Not only is it highly questionable that the United States has the right to interfere in Iraq's affairs in such a way, especially given that it did not represent a threat, but it is arrogant to assume that said interference would be welcome by the Iraqi people. In today's global society, some may feel that the United States has the right to preemptively act in the interests of its security. Yet, that very attitude exudes arrogance as it places the security needs of the United States above those of all other nations. Is that the message we are sending to the world? We are more important than the rest of the planet? It certainly seems so. Perhaps we should consider how we would feel if another country invaded us and began to alter our way of life. I have a feeling that a vast majority of Americans wouldn't react very favorably to that.

At this point in Iraq, the ability for the new democratic regime to succeed is questionable. The US invasion was undertaken with seemingly very little understanding of the cultural differences between Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds, and now the country seems embroiled in an all-out civil war. However, even if democracy somehow takes hold in Iraq, it won't necessarily be a government favorable to the United States (unless it's a puppet government). Wouldn't it be ironic to invade a country, affect regime change, set up a democratic government and then watch the country turn against us? If that's what ends up happening in Iraq, then we deserve it. Perhaps it will force our foreign policy experts to examine whether democracy really is a miracle drug for the world and whether the United States has the right to dispense it.

Week in Review

Pelosi backing Murtha
Was it a mistake for Rep. Nancy Pelosi to back Rep. Jack Murtha in his bid to become Majority Leader in the US House of Representatives? Before answering that question, let's acknowledge that this is a Republican talking point that everyone is falling for. Obviously, the answer is "No", it was not a mistake. Not backing anyone would have been a much greater mistake because that would have been symbolic of the inaction that the Democrats have practiced for the last twelve years. We should be applauding Pelosi for actually taking a stand on a candidate. She chose to back Murtha because of his stance on the Iraq War and she wanted an ally to help bring it to an end. If that is her priority in the upcoming session, as she recently wrote on The Huffington Post, then Murtha was the right choice and supporting him was not a mistake. Suggesting that it was an error in judgment simply plays into the hands of the Republicans and their media machine which will look to expose fractures in the Democrats at every opportunity.

To impeach or not to imeach? That is the question.
In my most recent post, a commenter raised a valid point about keeping Impeachment off the table, which is where Nancy Pelosi wants it, because of the potential cost to the American taxpayer. Also, I suspect that many Americans may be soured on the Impeachment process because of the way Republicans used it (or misused it) against President Clinton in 1998. While these concerns are understandable, I still believe that President Bush (and Vice President Cheney) should be impeached because of the gravity of the crimes committed as well as the ursurpation of powers not granted to the Executive Branch.

On Real Time with Bill Maher this past Friday, actor Richard Dreyfus put forth an excellent argument for impeachment based on the fundamental principles of our system of government. Dreyfus has been at Oxford for the last couple of years studying civics so his manner of addressing the argument was notably measured. Essentially, his argument was that President Bush has assumed powers that were never granted to the Executive Branch, and that one of the roles of the Legislative Branch is to check the power of the Executive. In this case, the Legislative Branch needs to act decisively to restore the balance in our system of government. If the Congress does not act on this and does not restore the balance of power, future Presidents cannot be relied on to simply give these powers back. Future Presidents will accept these powers as their own and will use them as they seem fit. The prospect of that should frighten all American citizens, regardless of ideology.

My argument for impeachment is that its necessary to show future generations of Americans that we as a people did not stand for the crimes of the Bush Administration and that we did something about it. To sweep it under the rug and hope that it goes away will not work. We need Congress to take action just as they did against President Nixon in 1974, which in my mind was one of the finest examples of our system of government at work. A President rum amok was dealt with effectively and the process of restoring confidence in government was begun. The actions of the Bush Administration appear to be far worse than that of Nixon's White House, yet there is hesitation to impeach this President. Why is that? Cost? Mistrust of the process? The fear of being accused of impeaching for political purposes only? All of the above? You can rest assured that Fox News Channel will use all of these as talking points, and more, if impeachment proceedings are begun. However, that shouldn't deter the process and in fact should embolden it. For the next two years, the Democratically controlled Congress must expose the GOP for what it truly is: the party that cares about power and wealth, not people, regardless of how it is obtained. See Paul Waldman's excellent essay on the topic of keeping the Republicans on the run for more.

Fox Propaganda Channel
If you actually believed that Fox News Channel was "Fair and Balanced", then your world must have been shattered when an internal Fox News memo was published this week describing Republican talking points to be used on broadcasts rather than reporting actual news following the recent mid-term election. For all the hype that "liberal media bias" gets, here is a pure, unadulterated version of the exact opposite - slanting of "news" in a way that can only be described as "anti-liberal". And while Fox News has the right to do whatever they want on their programs, their product should be understood by all as propaganda and the talking points used there shouldn't be employed by other organizations touting themselves as news organizations.

Bi-partisan Bush?
As expected, President Bush's claims of bi-partisanship were only words. This week's example: the renomination of several conservative judges. Jam 'em through says Cheney! Oh, and by the way, I think we're back to "stay the course" in Iraq with the possibility of sending more troops. How is Iraq not this generation's Vietnam? Apparently, the lessons of that folly need to be learned all over again.

Democratic Victory - What's Next?

Last Tuesday's mid-term elections catapulted the Democratic Party into power in both the House and the Senate, and the prevailing issues for voters' rejection of the Republican Party appeared to be the war in Iraq and corruption. For the Democrats, the operative question when they take power in January will be "what do we do now?". President Bush has stated in recent days that he is willing to work in a bi-partisan fashion, but can Democrats trust him? Well, if actions speak louder than words then the answer is a resounding "No" as Bush attempted to jam through his nomination of John Bolton as Ambassador to the United Nations this week.

In the face of a President who claims to be willing to work in a bi-partisan manner yet has no history of doing so, the Democratic leaders in Congress must stand firm and ensure that the concerns of the American electorate are addressed. Quite honestly, new House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi's stance on Impeachment is disappointing. She has stated that it is off the table for the coming session of Congress and that the American people have returned the Democrats to power in order to return civility and order to Washington. Is that true? I don't think so. It sounds like the kind of wishy -washy rhetoric that has mired the Democrats in the minority position for the last 12 years. We can only hope that it is not the prevailing sentiment among other Democratic leaders. The look forward approach will only work to a certain extent. The Republican administration must be exposed and investigated. Their crimes against this country must be in the minds of Americans when the 2008 presidential campaign is waged.

A strong indicator of action to come on the part of the Democrats will be the election of the House Majority Leader. Here's hoping that it will be Rep. Jack Murtha. Murtha has been one of the most outspoken critics against the war in Iraq and his previous military service gives him the credibility required to represent the thoughts of the military. With the Representative from Pennsylvania as the Majority Leader, the war in Iraq will surely be front and center during the 2007 Congressional Session, and that should mean that nothing is off the table, including Impeachment. The war must be addressed on two fronts - how to extricate ourselves and how did it come to pass. Representative Murtha is the best man for ensuring that the American people get the action they demand on these 2 facets.

Addressing how the war came to pass will require Congress to conduct thorough investigations of the Bush Administration's decision making process on invading Iraq and the lies behind it. One of the powers that the Democrats now inherit with control of the House is subpoena power. This power will allow them to investigate the Bush Administration on a number of issues including the events leading up to the war in Iraq. Will they use this power? I certainly hope so.

On Tuesday evening, I tuned in to MSNBC's election night coverage because I read that Keith Olbermann would be one of the hosts. In a discussion of subpoena power, both Chris Matthews and Tom Brokaw had some interesting views on how the Democrats should use that power. Both men discouraged the use of subpoenas to investigate the Iraq War, and Brokaw baselessly stated that the American people may not want that. A few minutes later, Brokaw said that investigating the war may send the wrong message to the troops.

Boy - so much for that liberal media! It's this kind of drivel from the mainstream media that keeps me from tuning in. Brokaw's comments are thoroughly ridiculous and do nothing except protect the President. The war should be investigated and if wrongdoing is found, those responsible should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. To spare the rod at this moment in time would be the wrong message to send to future generations. The transgressions of the Bush Administration against the US Constitution and the country cannot go unpunished, else it could be repeated in the near future. There must be consequences. As for Brokaw's assertion that an investigation of the war may send the wrong message to the troops, well that's a head-scratcher. Not investigating the war would mean that sending troops to die for a lie is acceptable and that the military should just do what its told. Is that the message we want to send to the troops? It's OK to die for nothing?

Also during MSNBC's coverage, it was interesting to hear the MSNBC commentators (Matthews and Scarborough) bring up the Downing Street Memos and other documents that point to fixed intelligence in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. None of these items was fully exposed by the mainstream media in this country, but clearly they are aware of them because they didn't hesitate to bring them up during the election coverage. Presumably since the Democrats have returned to power in Congress, these items are now newsworthy. Of course, they were newsworthy when they were first released, but the lap-dog media couldn't bother to investigate fully.

The War in Iraq is not the only hot button issue with progressives/liberals. There are many other concerns with the Bush Administration that also need to be addressed: Military Commissions Act, warrantless NSA spying, Patriot Act, Katrina, etc. In order to keep the wave of momentum going into the 2008 Presidential elections, the Democrats must continue to make progress on these issues, and keep the corruption and lies of the Bush White House in the forefront of American voters' minds.

Additional Note on MSNBC's election night coverage: As I stated earlier, I tuned in because of Keith Olbermann, and I was struck by the utter lack of chemistry between Olbermann and co-host Chris Matthews. The tension between the two was palpable. In the 45 minutes or so that I watched, Matthews must have stated at least 4 times that he had worked in Washington for years and he was giving us his resume. The sub-text of his declaration seemed to be a shot at Olbermann that he didn't have the same experience, and perhaps wasn't qualified to be there. However, Keith Olbermann has been a beacon for thoughtful Americans over the last year and his presence on Election Night was a welcome one.