Inappropriate Content: Click Here!©

Martin Peretz recently wrote the seminal piece in a new, but growing, argument: liberals were wrong about Bush administration's foreign policy, as the wave of revolutions in the mid-East demonstrates. It is, Peretz has decieded, “the politics of churlishness” to continue to argue against the President's activist policies.

As with everything else in Hollywood—I mean Washington—this is exaggerated. I recently linked to a piece explaining why the Kyrgyz uprising is not quite the work of democracy-philes (even if they do oppose the Soviets). But media dumbing-down is, of course, omnipresent. In the end, there is still the fact that totalitarianism is not doing so well in the middle east, and that is a very good thing, and Bush certainly deseves some credit for it.

Suzanne Nossel at the liberal blog Democracy Arsenal, which Andy recently plugged, writes:

We might as well give Bush credit because:

a) he deserves it (or at least part of it, sort of);
b) the country will credit him even if we don’t, so there’s not much to lose;
c) what’s happening in the Mideast is genuinely good news;
d) glueckschmerz (the opposite of schadenfreude, i.e. sorrow at someone else’s happiness) is unseemly.

All undeniably true; but Nossel continues:

We’re not blind to the positive and important results of Bush’s daring in the Middle East. But we believe that over time, the negative sides of his foreign policy will likely overwhelm the positive, isolating America, making threats more difficult to contain, and undermining our influence and our security...

Nossel quotes a Ha’aretz piece:

The sad part of all these examples . . . is that the American administration and Bush in particular are perceived as a scourge. Reform movements in Egypt, Iran, Lebanon or Syria, whose members are ready to be killed for democracy in their country, go berserk the moment they are accused of receiving American funds or contributions. To attain public legitimacy, it appears that each of these movements needs an anti-American slogan in addition to the pro-democracy slogan.

And then Nossel concludes:

The paradox of Bush’s foreign policy may be that what is good for democracy turns out not to be so good for the U.S. Democracies built on a foundation of resentment toward us may not turn out to be reliable allies we can count on. Rather, fueled by populations that are skeptical and resentful of America, these countries may be less likely to support American policies than their predecessor regimes. We may be creating a world of democracies, but at the same time losing our footing at the center of it.

That does not mean democracy is somehow a bad thing, or that it shouldn’t be a centerpiece of U.S. policy. It does suggest that as a matter of U.S. interests, democracy coupled with kinship and support for the U.S. is far preferable than the former without the latter.

That leaves us to applaud Bush’s boldness, his willingness to commit U.S. power and energy in furtherance of important causes, and his sense of possibility about even the most intractable region of the world. We badly need more of all of those things within our own ranks. But at the same time, we must continue hammering at what’s wrong with Bush’s approach, and scheming to define a foreign policy that will be every bit as bold and visionary, but will attract rather than repel the rest of the world.

I agree with Nossel's analysis, even if I don't come from the school of thought that spends much time complaining about what “undermin[es] our influence and our security.” Regardless, the doom-and-gloom of Nossel's analysis shouldn't get you down too much. After all, the twenty-first amendment sort of stamps an expiration date on the damage the Bush Administration can do. And if that expiration date sort of caps a limit on the ammount of damage the Administration can do, while maximizing the positive effects, that's cause for celebration. I'd say that's yet another example of the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, but it isn't, because the twenty-first amendment was passed after the second Roosevelt administration, and also because that would make me one of those people who simply say everything good that happens in this country is because of the wisdom of the Founding Fathers. (Other prominent critics disagree, and think everything good that happens in this country is because of the love of Jesus. Whichever.)

The main point of this post is simply to demonstrate why Democracy Arsenal is blog-roll-worthy. So there you have it.