zenpundit.com

THE GREAT ONLINE SPREADING DEMOCRACY DEBATE

The Daily Demarche issued a challenge recently to conservative bloggers to find a blogger on the Left and initiate a discussion across the ideological divide that bloggers all too often comfortably settle in to by accident or design. I agreed to participate, though I have yet to find a suitable debating partner ( any takers out there ? I’ll even let you pick the topic ).

Marc Schulman of The American Future and Eric Martin of Total Information Awareness are the first to take up the challenge on the question of ” Spreading Democracy”:

Marc Shulman’s initial post:

“Against this backdrop, the question of the circumstances in which the US should attempt to spread democracy answers itself. We should give priority to establishing democratic regimes in those countries from which terrorists who view America as their enemy are most heavily recruited. The authoritarian/totalitarian governments of North Korea, China, and Zimbabwe are repugnant, but these countries haven’t produced terrorists intent on killing us. It’s the authoritarian regimes of the Middle East that should be targeted for democratization. Above all, we should not heed the advice of those who argue that if we don’t try to spread democracy everywhere, we shouldn’t attempt to spread it anywhere. These are the same people who would have us believe that, because America is less than perfect, it’s no better than any other country, including those that would do us harm”

Eric Martin’s initial post:

“With these lingering misgivings in mind, allow me to state emphatically that I support the promotion of democracy, or perhaps more accurately, the empowerment of people to create a more dignified, responsive and just political life through a democratic system of government…

….The lessons to be drawn from both the successful nation building exercises (Japan, Germany) and those of less tangible success, is that accomplishing such a Herculean task as establishing a credible, functioning democracy through a post-invasion nation building effort requires decades of hard work, commitment and a ton of money. But as Nadezhda pointed out in the paragraph above, the luxury of time is not always with an occupying force, especially in a region of the world where there is an inherent hostility to our presence, nor is the luxury of time always afforded by the American electorate who might lose patience with so many revenue draining, troop exhausting, long term projects. As such, nation building in the aftermath of military expedition is not a cost effective or realistic policy to embrace from a military, economic or political point of view.”

The opening shots have been followed, in good form, by a series of rebuttals:

Marc: Rebuttal # 1, Rebuttal # 2

Eric: Rebuttal # 1, Rebuttal # 2

A related post, though one not directly participating in this debate, occurs at Duck of Minerva ( hat tip to Dave).

Excellent job, gentlemen !

COMMENTARY ON DAN’S NEOCON-THEOCON AXIS

First, I’d like to congratulate Dan on his thought-provoking essay, evidently he did not spend all his time in Aruba chugging margaritas. A good deal of brain-power went into that piece. Dr. Von made the following remark in the comments section:

“In some ways there are many similarities to those damn ‘liberals,’ the only difference being which issues the right chooses to set mandates/controls to.”

Very true.

And this is the fly in the ointment because in any forward strategy, like the one outlined very well by Dan, it isn’t simply your momentum that is the main variable but also your friction. You don’t get any higher in terms of friction than Richard ” The Prince of Darkmess” Perle…unless of course you are Pat Robertson. And this axis, to the extent that it is perceived to exist as a poweful juggernaut, combines both.

So what we have here is the equivalent of a castor oil and prune juice cocktail, unequalled perhaps, for cleaning out the system but the lack of sugar is making it hard to get anyone else enthused about drinking it. And for the sake of our fellow Americans not having any more national landmarks being blown apart by airplanes on live television there are a lot of nation-states and transnational institutions that will have to swallow this concoction even if we have to get out the funnel – and we can’t be too choosy about which end we look to for an insert.

The American Right is not like the American Left which fits seamlessly into its global counterpart in terms of philosophy. On the Left, a moderate American Liberal and a far Left German Green or Social-Democrat are separated only by degree and not by differences in kind. They agree on principles, values, ethos and even basic vocabulary – while clashes among Leftists can be fierce they are accurately described as ” sectarian” because these are simply disputes within one big political Church. Even the totalitarian Lefttists are merely heretics, not infidels, to the rest of the Left these days.

The American Right is different. There is not one but many kinds of conservatives in the Republican Party and out of it. They are more like separate religions, each with its own philosophical and often incompatible moral premises, that have remained united primarily by the presence of a common enemy, the Left. In addition to the Neocons and Theocons you have Libertarians ( curently out of power), Big Business moderates and Old Money/Country Club liberal Republicans who ran the Republican Party before Barry Goldwater. When the USSR collapsed in 1991, the conservative coalition fell with it.

Hating Bill Clinton just wasn’t as powerful a motivator for the American Right in the 1990’s as was hating Joe Stalin in the 1950’s because of the lack of philosophical commonalities between these different groups. Some conservatives simply didn’t hate Bill Clinton very much, even Newt Gingrich kind of liked the guy on a personal level. Meanwhile a New York liberal and a French socialist can agreeably hate Bush together from the depths of their souls because he is ” the Enemy” from both of their perspectives and for the same reasons. Bush is like Sauron on steroids to the Left.

So, Bush has added some ” sugar” to the Neocon-Theocon mix by borrowing from the Libertarian tradition and the heritage of Woodrow Wilson and the Founding Fathers by invoking ” Freedom” and ” Democracy”. That rhetoric has forced a lot of formerly staunch opponents of Mr. Bush to stop and re-think just what the hell they are trying to accomplish in opposing every single move in American foreign policy. Maybe that might be a little counterproductive ? Maybe there’s some ground for compromise ?

It was a smart move by Bush because it has reduced the friction.