Posted on 04/28/2004 11:43:37 PM PDT by Robert Teesdale
Running with the President
Part III: Neoconservatives and Democracy
by Rod D. Adams
Saddam Hussein defied the United Nations. Saddam plotted with Al Qaeda. Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction.
After the failure of these early rationales for invading Iraq, the Bush administration settled on an official reason: liberation of Iraq and establishment of democracy there. Neoconservatives have advocated democracy in the Middle East for years, arguing that democratizing the region would decrease terrorist activity, increase Israel’s security, and enhance oil flow to the West. They also argue there are humanitarian benefits. Just after the American invasion of Iraq, neoconservative William Kristol said in a “Fresh Air” interview on National Public Radio that democratizing Iraq serves U.S. values, for we are “a country that believes democracy is good for people and believes that people have a right…to govern themselves.”
Jerry Gerber, a Fort Collins resident and political activist, agrees that democracy is good for people, but he doubts the Bush administration thinks so.
“I absolutely believe that President Bush undermines the very ideal that he claims to uphold, that being the right of the Iraqi people to govern themselves,” he says.
Gerber says the President and “the neoconservative ideologues that surround him” have subverted democracy by “ignoring input from international leaders, UN weapons inspectors, religious leaders, former and current military officers, and millions of people worldwide, whom he regards as just another ‘focus group.’”
Robert Teesdale, a Longmont resident and chairman of the American Party, which advocates the quasi-neoconservative doctrine of Global American Revolution, sees things differently.
“Because of the horrific, tyrannical butchery continually perpetrated on the Iraqi people by the Hussein regime, and because that regime had repeatedly and continually represented a severe and ongoing threat to the peace of the region and the stability of the world, the regime in Iraq warranted immediate, forcible removal,” he says.
“It is testimony to the generous spirit and compassionate character of the United States that our efforts are subsequently focused upon rebuilding, reeducating and rebirthing a new, free and democratic nation in Iraq,” he adds.
Fred Enssle, Colorado State University professor of history, sees neither generosity nor love of democracy in this administration. He claims his European friends perceive our president as a “bully and cowboy,” not as one who respects debate and differences of opinion. The administration’s treatment of the U.N. and the Middle East exhibits an international political style that is historically new to the U.S., according to Enssle. Their message is “we want to win, and you lose,” whereas the old style was generous, he says.
“I’m not unpatriotic. I’m sorry that we’re going in this direction,” he says. “This has nothing to do with generosity. Show me that they are helping people become democratic. Show me in Afghanistan.”
Enssle claims the administration wants there to be terror because “it serves the neocon agenda.”
For years, neoconservatives have argued that an effective way to end Arab-based terrorism is to forcefully replace Saddam’s regime with democracy. Enssle suggests there are more clever and kind ways to end terrorism and advance democracy, such as building schools, hospitals and sports stadiums. He asks rhetorically of the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, “Is there a systematic effort to help children?”
Teesdale, of course, defends the occupation.
“The citizenry of Iraq is being provided opportunities and freedoms that have virtually never been available to them,” he says. “Economic, religious, cultural and political arenas have all opened up in a manner they have never before experienced.
“Schools are being built,” he adds. “The infrastructure of the nation is being reconstructed.”
Joachim Viens, director of the Theologian-in-Residence Program for John XXIII University Parish in Fort Collins and former CSU philosophy professor, sees the administration less favorably. Viens lectures on intercultural communication and believes we learn to communicate well across cultures only by “sustained intelligent listening.”
“They’re a disaster,” he says of the neocons and the President.
Dividing the world into good and evil is “the opposite of communication,” Viens says, because “it blinds us to our own shadow side and to the good in others.” He believes removing dictators and waging war “never solves anything,” and he is appalled that official U.S. policy is to not count Iraqi deaths. Such disregard for human lives—especially when the stated aim of the operation is to benefit Iraqis—makes no sense to Viens, who says it demonstrates a lack of reverence for other cultures.
Neoconservative Max Boot warns against such calls for becoming a kinder, gentler nation.
In “The Case for American Empire” in The Weekly Standard (Oct. 15, 2001) he writes, “The September 11 attack was a result of insufficient American involvement and ambition; the solution is to be more expansive in our goals and more assertive in their implementation.”
Where Viens and Enssle see a hostile disrespect for other nations and cultures, Boot sees the solution to a problem.
“The problem, in short,” writes Boot, “has not been excessive American assertiveness but rather insufficient assertiveness. The question is whether, having now been attacked, we will act as a great power should.”
Rod Adams teaches philosophy at Front Range Community College and logic and composition at Colorado State University.
This is Part III (final installment) of the series from the Fort Collins area independent newspaper, the Rocky Mountain Bullhorn.
Part I and Part II are also posted here on Free Republic, as can the original discussion thread here.
Thanks again to Bullhorn, the publisher (who posts on FR) for his gracious permission to use full reprints here.
Many pundits like to dismiss the Hard Right by comparing their views to the Hysteric Left in an ironically hysterical smear attempt. The only thing they agree on is that Bush is going about this the wrong way.
As I see it, the Neoconservative obsession with "democra-ceeeeeeeey!!!!!!!!!" runs somewhat counter to what a Conservative should stand for. I also think that Bush's political correctness ("a religion of peace"), coupled with the U.S.'s unwillingness to stand up to the devil that is the House of Saud and the gateway to hell that is Mecca, have caused us to underestimate what we're dealing with. The Wahabi strain of Islam--seeing the political Arab kingdoms as equal to the religious dominion of Allah--is nothing new; it goes right back to the Prophet. In their view, Islam cannot fail, and thus pieces of the Islamic Empire that were taken away--namely, Spain and Israel, are destined to fall.
The Hysteric Left is even MORE out there than Bush. At least Bush is flexing, even if he's flexing the wrong muscle. The Hysteric Left would have us open up our borders, pander to the Islamists, and "just try to get along" with people who hold 500-year-old grudges against our civilization.
On the contrary, I am insinuating that "democracy" is on many levels contradictive to freedom, natural rights, and Conservatism. A democracy may well look like a free society for quite some time, but ultimately, it collapses. Why? First, people discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. Second, large democracies are just plain chaotic. Best go with a constitutional republic or constitutional parliamentary monarchy. The key is to clearly define the power of the centralized power and make the system gradually more democratic as you get more local.
Not to mention, of course, their unfortunate stranglehold on a large portion of an essential strategic resource.
If people would only get over their hangups about nuclear energy, it might not be essential for too much longer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.