Democracy in the Mid East a Neo-Con Perspective

Even though many Neo-cons have hung their hat at the American Enterprise Institute it would be wrong to dub it neo-con central, since it does have a stable of fellows that could not even be mistaken for Bill Kristol. Nonetheless they have taken up the neo-con cause in foreign policy and the latest issue of their house organ The American Enterprise is an indication of that. The latest issue is dedicated to Democracy in the Middle East and to set the tone editor Karl Zinsmeister notes a couple of positive op-eds from the mainstream media and declares "The bandwagon is starting to fill--and thank goodness for that." In another article the historian Victor Davis Hanson makes tries to make the case that democracy is the now the realistic policy. Here is the crux of his argument:

Despite these many reservations and pitfalls, George Bush's new idealism may eventually make America's foreign initiatives more consistent and predictable to friend and enemy alike. Personalities and crises of the day may nuance the stance of the United States, but illiberal regimes will ultimately realize there will be no real friendship with the U.S. unless they reform their governments and free their peoples. Statesmen can haggle over protocols, but the main point is that in the future it will be principles of conduct that determine our relationships abroad--not oil, personal chemistry, or blackmail.

The previous "realpolitik," when the United States cozied up to some unsavory authoritarians in order to thwart Soviet hegemony, is at an end. Franco, the Shah, Pinochet, Somoza, Papa Doc, and others were artifacts of the Cold War, when the aberrant condition of 7,000 nuclear missiles pointed at our cities reduced and warped our options. If it was once hypocritical for the land of Jefferson and Madison to support dictators, then it is surely right to walk away from those earlier wrongs now that the Sword of Damocles has been removed.

And while promoting democracy is idealistic, it does not necessarily follow that it is naive. What, after all, prevents wars? Hardly the U.N.; and not just aircraft carriers either. The last half-century of peace in Europe and Japan, and the end of our old enmity of Russia, attest that the widest spread of democratic rule is the best guarantee against international aggression. Ballots substitute for bullets in venting internal
frustrations.

Sure it sounds nice, but there isn't anything new there. The land of Jefferson and Madison did not make establishing democracies and foreign policy objective. The land of Monroe, specifically his secretary of state made it clear that seeking monsters do destroy was not our objective.