The Democratic Ideal: The president's "realist" critics need to get real.

The Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal ^ | January 25, 2005 | Joshua Muravchik

[quidnunc]

Wouldn't. Couldn't. Shouldn't. These were the refrains of the cognoscenti in response to President Bush's inaugural address. Many conceded that the speech had moments of eloquence. But as a framework for U.S. policy, they found it had no hope of success and could lead to a passel of troubles. They took comfort only in the thought that the president did not really mean what he said. Peggy Noonan, writing on this page, reminded the president that "this is not heaven, it's earth." In a similar vein, Mark Helprin called the president's advocacy of "evangelical democracy" a "manic idea." "Will we refuse to buy Saudi oil?" asked William Buckley, mockingly. Not to worry, soothed the New York Times's David Sanger, the whole thing was "hopelessly vague and without a time frame."

Those who are skeptical of injecting issues of freedom, democracy and human rights into the conduct of foreign policy call themselves "realists," and they accuse their opposite numbers — the so-called idealists — of an almost juvenile enthusiasm. But a sober reading of the historical evidence shows that President Bush and his fellow idealists 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.

-snip-

[TheDon]

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.

Now where have I heard that argument before? And to think some folks say that President Bush is unsophisticated.

[TheDon]

Thanks for the post. One of the best I've seen so far.

[ETERNAL WARMING]

To begin with, the idealists are right about the possibility for freedom and democracy to spread across borders and cultures.

The question is, is it our job and do we want to play God? Are we willing to sacrifice our young men and women for the cause? Are we willing to let our seniors do without SS while we foot the bill to carry this out?

Finally, consider the Constitution and what it had to say on the subject, ie. let your foreign treaties be few. They did not support foreign involvement. Had we heeded their wisdom, we'd be so wealthy, great, and far advanced that no nation on earth could touch us.

[John Lenin]

If we listened to naysayers we would still be living in caves.

[onedoug]

Beautiful speech. Wishful thinking.

[Terpfen]

Hard to ignore foreign affairs now that you can cross the Atlantic and Pacific in 2 hours, and nuclear weapons can fit in suitcases.

[Jimmy Valentine]

"If we listened to naysayers we would still be living in caves". If we listen to them now we will again too.

Regards,