Here’s something I posted last fall on the dangerous and nonsensical rhetoric of democracy touted by so many “conservatives” today:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/001821.html

NR comes to its senses. Alas, it may be too late.

I believe this has been the Bush administration’s real view all along. It has simply been necessary to float all the Wilsonian rhetoric to keep the public in line and appeal to moderate liberals. However, these people are too smart to think the Middle East would ever be fertile ground for Madisonian constitutional democracy. Heaven knows, we are having trouble sustaining any vestige of it here.

I would be more assured if National Review didn’t ry so hard to divide everyone into two camps, the pro-Saddam camp and the anti-Saddam camp. (This worldview is best shown by people who claim that everyone attacking us in Iraq is a foreign terrorist or a Baathist, and that every non-Baathist Iraqi actually loves us).

Over the past week, this syndrome was best presented in Michael Rubin’s criticism of the idea that we cede power in Iraq to the UN:

http://www.nationalreview.com/rubin/rubin200404141147.asp

Obviously, the Iraqis don’t trust the UN much more than they trust the US, and may very well trust it less. After all, the UN is composed mostly of foreigners as well, and has imposed destructive sanctions on them, and has been involved in the first war on Iraq, etc.
But Rubin’s entire article is premised on the claim that the Iraqis distrust the UN because it was too pro-Saddam, because it didn’t try to “liberate” them, and because of corruption in the UN oil-for-food program. Only the last of these charges has any merit, and it is questionable whether the Iraqis are more concerned about oil-for-food than about the sanctions that made the program necessary.

The implication of the article, of course, is that the Iraqis love the US and trust us so much more than they trust the UN. I say that they trust no one.

Thucydides writes:

“I believe this has been the Bush administration’s real view all along. It has simply been necessary to float all the Wilsonian rhetoric to keep the public in line and appeal to moderate liberals.”

I cannot accept this. Bush could not have used that democratist rhetoric with the fervor and consistency with which he’s used it over these past couple of years if he did not believe it. People are not generally capable of consciously, totally lying. In order to say something, they must, in at least a part of their minds, honestly believe it.

However, some people tend to explain all political actions as the result of pure cynicism and Macchiavellian calculation. That is a simplistic, reductive view of the world. When we’re dealing with a sentimental Protestant like Bush, it’s even more reductive. Unless you want to believe that his evangelical side is also a Macchiavellian act.

In reply to Mr. Auster, President Bush probably believes that an important element in fighting terrorism is bringing change to the middle east in the form of governments in Afghanistan and Iraq which are at least somewhat more democratic than the outright tyrannies that prevail everywhere in that region. He and his advisers probably know that full blown constitutional democracy is not likely to succeed there, but a little modernity may be all that it takes to crumple Islam. If the current wave of terrorism represents the death throes of a medieval religion that time has passed by, as Theodore Dalrymple convincingly writes in City Journal, then a little reform may have big consequences over time. Talking up the virtues of democracy in Wilsonian terms is not too hard to do in those circumstances, and useful, nay essential for managing domestic constituencies.

There’s a disconnect here. On one hand, Bush engages in the most sweeping, arrogant, messianic rhetoric. On the other hand, Thucycides suggests he does this merely to “manage” domestic constitutiences. This doesn’t scan. If he were simply seeking to stroke people who wanted to hear that all our fighting and risks were for the good cause of democracy, his democratist rhetoric would be more restrained and modest. No. Bush is, in at least a part of himself, a true believer. Like Wilson, he needed a “higher cause” to justify the expense and loss and death brought by war. He’s too culturally empty to find that justification in national defense, in the preservation of civilization, and so on. It has to be this obnoxious business about “changing the whole world.” He requires in his own mind some spiritual justification for all the tough things he’s gotten us into.

In other words, if Bush is “managing” anybody with his democratist rhetoric, he’s managing _himself_.

I agree with Mr. Auster. President Bush liberal ideology permeates his rhetoric and significantly influences his foreign policy. President Bush’s Tuesday evening press conference was revealing of his world-view.

“Some of the debate really centers around the fact that people don’t believe Iraq can be free; that if you’re Muslim, or perhaps brown-skinned, you can’t be self-governing or free. I’d strongly disagree with that.

I reject that. Because I believe that freedom is the deepest need of every human soul, and if given a chance, the Iraqi people will be not only self-governing, but a stable and free society”

And,
“That’s why I’m pressing the Greater Middle East Reform Initiative to work to spread freedom, and we will continue on that. So long as I’m the president, I will press for freedom. I believe so strongly in the power of freedom.

You know why I do? Because I’ve seen freedom work right here in our own country. I also have this belief, strong belief, that freedom is not this country’s gift to the world. Freedom is the Almighty’s gift to every man and woman in this world.

And as the greatest power on the face of the earth, we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom. We have an obligation to help feed the hungry. I think the American people find it interesting that we’re providing food for the North Korea people who starve.

We have an obligation to lead the fight on AIDS, on Africa. And we have an obligation to work toward a more free world. That’s our obligation. That is what we have been called to do, as far as I’m concerned.

And my job as the president is to lead this nation and to making the world a better place. And that’s exactly what we’re doing.”

As follows is the link for the transcript of the press conference:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/gate/archive/2004/04/13/bush13.DTL

The tone of the above quotes is not of someone exploiting “democracy-as-a-end-not-a-means” sentiment for the purpose of getting domestic support for one’s foreign policy; no, it is the tone of a man saying what he thinks and believes. One’s knowledge of Bush’s sincerity is not comforting — “[M]y job as the president is … to mak[e] the world a better place.” Yikes! He sounds like Jimmy Carter.

Thanks much to Joshua those quotes that perfectly demonstrate the nature of Bush’s beliefs and motivations—beliefs that may be disastrous for all of us.

Mr. Bush’s rhetoric about “America’s duty to spread Democracy all over the world” is consistent with his policy of opening our borders and bringing the world into this country. He also wants to give every preference imaginable to “immigrants,” all these policies are of a piece.

John Kerry is surprisingly reasonable on this issue. (Even a blind squirel can find an acorn now and again.) He said recently that stability, not democracy, ought to be our main goal in Iraq.

“I have always said from day one that the goal here … is a stable Iraq, not whether or not that’s a full democracy. I can’t tell you what it’s going to be, but a stable Iraq. And that stability can take several different forms.”

“[I]t would be unwise beyond belief for the United States of America to leave a failed Iraq in its wake. What we need to do is transition to stability that recognizes people’s rights.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/whitehouse/la-na-campaign15apr15,1,7958869.story

Our host wrote: “…some people tend to explain all political actions as the result of pure cynicism and Macchiavellian calculation.”

Consider that the most self-consciously Machiavellian pundits of the day, Michael Ledeen and Samuel Francis, are at absolute loggerheads on this issue.

A book recently appeared (in the business section) titled “What Would Machiavelli Do?” Good question. Throw up his hands?

I know Ledeen wrote a book on Machiavelli, but I haven’t noticed what I would consider Machiavellian style thought in the many articles of his that I’ve read. Sam Francis is, of course, a Machiavellian, and I think that he, like his mentor James Burnham, takes Machiavellianism too far. The purpose of political science is to understand the nature of man in society. A political science that reduces man in society to nothing but the pursuit of power may be Realist (with a capital R), but it is not in conformity with the full reality of what man is, and thus is incapable of producing a society worthy of man.

We don’t think Ledeen is Machiavellian, but Ledeen thinks Ledeen is Machiavellian. Of course, he’s really Wilsonian. Which is many times worse.

Machiavelli took a dark view of human nature, but at least admitted its existence.

For out of the heart proceedeth corruptible things…(Adamic Nature). Machiavelli aside, unless there is a change in the heart, all systems fail. We may, by and large co-exist under the restraints of human law, but the corruptibility of many throws everything into awry!That nation is blest which honors the Lord.Our country has lost its direction here. Is it any wonder that violence and evil triumphs in our society?

Since there is always violence and evil abroad in the world, I’m wondering what Miss Vail’s comment adds to our understanding of this particular situation.

A valid point, Mr. Auster. It adds nothing to the discussion at hand. But it does demonstrate that contention, in whatever form, is uncontrollable and that war, by virtue of this moral darkness in the world,is inevitable. One has only to look at the treatment of the Jews in human history. They, as a race, were blamed for all of the world’s problems.But the nation has survived against all odds. Why? Because of their reliance and faith in the God who made all and who has a particular interest in Israel and its future redemption. Not coincidental that the unrest in our times is centered in the Middle east. Yes, Louis, we cannot legislate a remedy against evil in itself ,but we can use moral resolve to lessen its influence in the world. Thank you, Mr. Auster, for the privilege to use this space in expressing my own views on the subject. May God give you the strength and wisdom in continuing this important forum of ideas.

Speaking of NR, does anyone else notice that Michael Rubin seems to basically be projecting his views onto Iraqis throughout the entire piece?
http://www.nationalreview.com/rubin/rubin200404190843.asp
He’s right that they don’t trust us not to [bleep] them over, but I seriously doubt that the vast majority are desperate for democracy - two of the three polls taken of Iraqis show about 40-50% support for the idea of making Iraq democratic.
(It’s complicated, but basically an American Enterprise Institute poll found that 41% of Iraqis thought a democracy could work, an ABCNews poll found 49% support, and an Oxford Research poll found between 70 and 90 per cent support, depending on which question you are looking at).