Kevin Sullivan

Agenda: Democracy

Posted by Kevin Sullivan under Uncategorized

From Michael Gerson in today’s WaPo:

In the backlash against President Bush’s democracy agenda, conservatives are increasingly taking the lead. It is inherently difficult for liberals to argue against the expansion of social and political liberalism in oppressive parts of the world — though, in a fever of Bush hatred, they try their best. It is easier for traditional conservatives to be skeptical of this grand project, given their history of opposing all grand projects of radical change.

—

The unavoidable problem is this: Without moral absolutes, there is no way to determine which traditions are worth preserving and which should be overturned. Conservatism assumes and depends on an objective measure of right and wrong that skepticism cannot provide. Without a firm moral conviction that independence is superior to servitude, that freedom is superior to slavery, that the weak deserve special care and protection, the habit of conservatism is radically incomplete. In the absence of elevating ideals, it can become pessimistic and unambitious — a morally indifferent preference for the status quo.

History does teach that reform is easier to start than finish well. But history also teaches that some organic social arrangements are rotten and wormy; that it is not utopian to rescue a human life from oppression, it is justice; that events without reference to universal ideals of freedom and human rights can become a hell of permanent, unchallenged slavery. It is not a coincidence that the great movements of conscience have generally come not from skeptical traditionalists but from men and women of faith and conviction who taught that loving your neighbor is inconsistent with enslaving him; who rescued children from the nightmare factories of the Industrial Revolution; who asserted that the long tradition of racial segregation created 10,000 petty tyrants; and who believed that the Declaration of Independence is actually true, for us and for all.

Aside from unclear or codified international values, the other problem with a Burkean approach to the democracy agenda, especially in the Middle East, is the lack of feudal land owners that transcend dynasties and empires. Conservatives that argue for the "organic" development of society must also acknowledge that this region has never really had the underpinnings of a Middle Class, at least not in the way we know it.

Iraq resided under many flags, as have the Iranians. Whether it be the Qajaris, the Mongols or the Pahlavis, the head of state often divvied out rights to followers of their respective dynasty. Once these regimes were toppled, the land often changed over.

Even in modern day Iran, while much of the country’s industry is state run, it’s done so often by families and names loyal to the Revolutionary regime (see Rafsanjani and the copper industry). It’s true that you can’t make people care about a constitution simply by writing one, nor can you call it a democracy by simply having elections.

Certainly, this must flow up from the people, and there must be the desire to have a democratic, civil society. But we mustn’t assume, for example, that this current regime ruling over the Iranian people stemmed from something organic. Their claim to power in Iran is really no better than that of the regimes and dynasties before them, and mustn’t be granted more legitimacy and respect than it deserves.

Sadly, you see this happening on both ends of the spectrum. As we’ve seen in the past, the progressives and the Ron Pauls of the world are working to push us further away from the world. Who knows if their voices will be heard in the next administration, but it’s something we should all be concerned about.

Others Blogging It:

Eunomia
Brian Beutler
Publius Pundit

(Cross posted at RCP)