The Bush Doctine and Unruly Democracies

There has been a lot of consternation about the freely and duly elected democracies popping up in the Middle East. Of recent note is Hamas, a recognized terrorist organizations who is responsible for several suicide bombings in Israel over the last several years. Also of concern is the Muslim Brotherhood which had significant gains in Egypt recently. While the United States would have liked to see a more secular democracy in Iraq, Iraqis freely elected a more religious Shia party into power. Finally, there is President Ahmadinejad of Iran. While not a true democracy, he was one of several approved candidates for President and elected by a majority in a rather transparent election.

While President Bush touts democracies as the cornerstone of the Bush Doctrine, critics denounce Middle East democracies as giving rise to extreme political parties. Again, Hamas is the most recent and extreme example of a completely transparent elected democracy. So, is the Bush Doctrine the best method of security for America in the future or are we just giving the power of a democracy to our enemies?

While it is true that democracies seldom attack each other since they share many of the same capitalistic ideals, history is not deplete of past democracies gone astray. Is this what is currently happening in the Middle East? A prime example many people point to is Hitler, who came to power through a democracy.

As a conservative, I am often surprised when the electorate in America elects a liberal to lead this nation. I do not agree with liberal platform, their social tendencies, or their lack of backbone when it comes to standing up to other nations that challenge the United States. I am similarly dismayed when liberals do not win, but manage to receive close to 50% of the vote. From my perspective, I just cannot fathom that so many people could completely disagree with my philosophy. I am likewise dismayed when liberals get all bothered about something so much they ban together to protest their case to such an extent that they violate the established laws in this country and demand others share their view. The recent NSA wiretapping disclosure is such an example, but so is the tobacco tax settlement. Not to be one-sided, I am also dismayed when a conservative anti-abortion zealot murders an abortion doctor to prevent further abortions. While not for abortion, I do not feel murdering an abortion doctor resolves the issue. It only aggravates the issue.

While a Soldier, I also feel the use of the Army to engage in combat is a failure of diplomacy. Understand, diplomacy is a two-sided affair. If one side fails to be diplomatic, then the other side may have no other choice to engage in combat. Hitler’s Germany is a historic example. Osama bin Laden’s attack on the United States and the subsequent war against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan is a more recent example of one-sided failed diplomacy. The pre-emptive attack on Saddam’s Iraq is another example. Ahmadinejad’s Iran may very well be another example in the near future. What do all these failed diplomatic efforts have in common? Once simple thing. They did not have democracies with which to execute diplomacy. In addition, they had rulers that violently suppressed their own people and supported suppression other peoples of other nations. Saddam is a perfect example of such a tyrannical ruler. Ahmadinejad is another example. He not only is suppressing his own people, but actively supports and encourages terrorist acts against other nations.

I do feel spirited, free, public, orderly debate is the cornerstone of a democracy. Democracies breed understanding with others who do not share similar views. Democracies allow the rise of a strong middle class which subsequently gives rise to abundant resources. Ultimately all wars are fought over resources and more directly, the lack of these resources. Hitler’s Germany is a historic example. The punishing WWI payments and rise of unemployment in Germany directly led to his rise to power. Not being able to solve his resource issues internally led him, among other reasons, to conquer externally. The fact that he highjacked the German democracy did not mean the German democracy was bad. It did mean that they unfortunately elected the wrong leader. Democracies sometimes make mistakes. Like Hitler’s Germany, The Palestinian election of Hamas may provide another example of a democracy electing a wrong leader. While not saying President Carter is anything like Hitler or Hamas, I also believe he was precisely the wrong leader for America during his time in office.

A free democracy is the path towards all good things. I believe President Bush shares this view. Hence, even in the face of a freely elected terrorist organization, like Hamas, he can say, “I think it's too early to tell … I'd like to see the will of the people in place.” While I am sure President Bush does not hold much hope that Hamas will drastically change their ways, he does have faith that a democracy will, over time, create a tolerant people. The question at hand right now is will Hamas focus internally to help its own people as it become tolerant over time or will it seek to focus externally against Israel with its new found power immediately regardless of the suffering of its people, like Ahmadinejad in Iran.

Tolerance is what is lacking in the Middle East. The riots of Muslims over newpaper publications of a cartoon Mohammad is an example of insufficient understanding and tolerance of others’ views. While I think an anti-abortion activist murdering an abortion doctor is not only criminal but absurd, I equally agree with the criminality and absurdness of rioting and murdering over a cartoon. This lack of tolerance in the Middle East and the hate it has been slow-brewing is what led Bush and his advisors to develop the Bush Doctrine. September 11th, 2001 was just the straw that broke the camel’s back which allowed the doctrine to be implemented. Democracies have tolerated the hatred fermenting in the Middle East for decades, but nobody was bold enough to seek regime change through democracy. While we did not agree with the totalitarian regimes, they provided stability for our oil hungry economy. Changing out these corrupt, but stable regimes could only lead instability. This was common knowledge. September 11th destroyed this perceived stability, so Bush proposed democratic regime change, the Bush Doctrine.

People expect democracies to be like the United States. I have been to several democratic countries. None of them are like the United States. None of them are like each other. But all practice tolerance—over time. The young United States was not a very tolerant country, especially when it came to religion. Arguably, it took a civil war for Americans to be tolerant with each other. Iraqis, for the most part, are much more tolerant than many Americans I have met. They want to practice spirited, free, public, and orderly debate as they find their democracy that will fit their country. Most are tolerant of an occupying military force in their country because they know this occupying force will allow them to strengthen their democracy, build their middle class, develop their resources, and to rise the level of tolerance among themselves. I would bet most Americans would not be as tolerant of an occupying military force in our country.

Needless to say, President Bush was bold enough to seek democracies in the Middle East. Some we may not like. Some may go bad. Some would not be what we would do. But all freely elected democracies will be beacons of light to the Middle East All, over time, will develop a middle class, which will seek and develop resources. As resources grow and people are no longer living on the edge of existence, they become more tolerant of those that disagree with their views. Democracy is truly the only possible way to seek peace in the Middle East. If anything, we should not be wondering if the Bush Doctrine will work, but why wasn’t somebody bold enough to implement it prior to 3000 people dying on September 11th.