The Problem With Democracy

Or, more specifically, the problem that the Democratic Party has with democracy. Ronald Asmus, a former Clinton official, takes a hard look at the party that once believed that the spreading of democracy and human rights was their core duty. His conclusion? Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman and John Kennedy must be reaching very high rpms. Because Democrats have abandoned those core principles.

In 1995, democracy promotion was one of the three central pillars of President Bill Clinton's first National Security Strategy. Rereading the document today, with its call for "a more secure world where democracy and free markets know no borders," I'm struck by how the idea of expanding democracy's reach permeated official Democratic thinking a decade ago.

No more. Today, it's hard to say where the Democratic Party stands on the issue of promoting democracy. The party's 2004 presidential nominee, Sen. John F. Kerry, never spoke directly to the issue. When Senate Democrats issued their March 2006 national security blueprint, entitled "Real Security," it did not even mention the word democracy. Democratic think tanks in Washington churn out reports criticizing Bush administration policies and laying out Democratic alternatives on various matters, but few if any of them explain how — or whether — we would advance democracy abroad if we again won the White House.

You can look in vain for major legislative initiatives on the issue from Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid or House Speaker Nancy Pelosi; you have to strain to hear clear statements from our leading presidential candidates — Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards — or even to find a mention of democracy in their campaign Web sites' foreign policy sections. The party's leaders have gone quiet in the larger discussion about values, liberty and human rights; they seem to see no broader purpose for U.S. foreign policy other than self-interest and an end to the Iraq war. When democracy activists from around the world (including those from center-left parties) visit Washington, they often find it easier to get the time and attention of Republican senators than of their Democratic counterparts. Democracy promotion, they are sometimes told, has become "their" — i.e., the Republicans' — issue.

Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Harry S. Truman and John F. Kennedy must be turning in their graves. Using U.S. power to promote freedom and democracy was central to their foreign policies and legacies. Even Jimmy Carter, a far less successful Democratic president, can be proud of making human rights a major U.S. foreign policy objective. And Bill Clinton's interventions in the Balkans and drive to expand NATO were all about consolidating democracy in Europe's eastern half. There was a time, not too long ago, when Democrats were proud of their track record on democracy promotion — and rightly so.

Asmus makes the case pretty strongly here that the Democrats have completely lost their way on this because of straight-up partisan politics. They have completely ceded the issue to the Republicans. They loathe Bush more than they love their own history and principles. But that principle - spreading freedom - is a core of the party. And the Democrats are losing that which makes them what they are supposed to be. And it is very dangerous for them.

What looms above this reversal of principle is Iraq. Democrats who are disgusted with the fruits of Bush's reckless, values-based foreign policy must avoid the temptation to embrace a heartless, interest-based foreign policy devoid of values. The past few years teach us several lessons — including that some things are true even if George W. Bush says them.

An interesting criticism. I've long pointed out - as have many others - that the term "liberal" does not apply to what the left has become. Asmus is warning the same thing here. And it could cost the Democrats more than they realize.

Other Links to this Post

1. Blue Crab Boulevard » Harry Reid’s Problem With Democracy — Monday, 18 June , 2007 @ 4:37 pm