Today, as Egypt explodes, I can’t help thinking of George W. Bush. I think in particular of an appearance he made in Sharm El Sheikh, in May 2008. I wrote about that appearance here. Before a conference of Middle Eastern elites, and their Western associates, Bush gave a speech that stood on the side of the men and women in the prison cells. And the people throughout the region who were hoping for a more democratic, freer, worthier life.
I will quote from my piece (written in the present tense, journal-style):
In due course, Bush slaps down the notion that democracy is a Western value, which America seeks to impose on unwilling people. “This is a condescending form of moral relativism,” he says. “The truth is that freedom is a universal right — the Almighty’s gift to every man, woman, and child on the face of the earth.”
This was the sort of talk that drove many Middle Eastern elites crazy. (They worried for their positions, for one thing.) It drove many Westerners crazy, too. In America, the Left hated any talk from Bush about freedom and democracy. They thought it was bigoted, dangerous, ethnocentric, theocratic, insensitive, self-congratulatory, hypocritical, warmongering, McCarthyite, crude, etc. As for conservatives, many of them harrumphed, as only conservatives can: “‘Freedom’! ‘Democracy’! A desire ‘beating in every human heart’! What a crock!”
Here is another excerpt from my piece:
Bush plugs for human rights — in Iran, Syria, and elsewhere — and renews his call for an independent Palestinian state. (Bush is the first president to make such a state a goal of U.S. policy.) He outlines his vision of a free and prospering Middle East, with terror and tyranny tamed — and says he has “no doubt” that the region’s people will make this vision a reality.
Oh, did the Sharm El Sheikh audience hate that speech. Mubarak, they welcomed respectfully, even affectionately. Bush, not at all. They practically hissed him. Some of them might have, literally. As I remarked in my piece, his speech would have gone down much better in the prison cells. Even more hostile than the Middle Eastern elites’ reaction was the Westerners’ reaction — the reaction of those Westerners who are enablers of Middle Eastern autocracy and scleroticism:
An American woman in a lounge is speaking with some Middle Eastern delegates. One of them asks her, tentatively, what she thought of the president’s speech. “Oh, I hate Bush,” she says. That is a jarring sentence to hear: “I hate Bush.”
She goes on to say that “democracy is overrated.” She says it again, so much does she like the phrase. And then this: “His wife, Laura, seems nice. But the rumor is he hits her, you know. Sometimes I see her on television, and I’m thinking, ‘Poor woman.’”
President Karzai was at the conference, and he was one of the few who had anything good to say about Bush. In fact, with a group of us journalists, he praised him to the skies, and was not at all apologetic. He knew what Bush and the Americans meant in Afghanistan. He knew what Afghanistan was like before — and could be again. An excerpt:
One of our crew teases Karzai: “You’re the only one who supports him.” Karzai responds that he doesn’t care — he’s not going to criticize someone just because others do; he will not “jump on a bandwagon.” “Others can say what they have to say. I have my own opinion. And my judgment is one of praise and recognition.”
Bear with me for one more excerpt, then I’ll close with a couple of thoughts:
Later that day, some of us sit down with Barham Salih, the deputy prime minister of Iraq. He gives a hopeful report, although one mixed with caveats. Afterward, I speak to a Continental friend of mine — not a hawk, and not a conservative, but a sensible liberal. A “liberal with sanity,” to use Ed Koch’s self-description.
And he says, “You know, I think they just might pull this off — I think the Iraq War just might work. And wouldn’t my leftist friends go crazy about that? They rejoice in every setback; they jeer every advance. And what about those 12 million people who voted, dipping their fingers purple? Are we supposed to say that that means nothing?”
Yes, it just might work. And what’ll they say then? In any event, the final chapter about George W. Bush is far from written.
Oh, yes. The final chapter is far from written. But the Middle East is writing some important words today. In the summer of 2009, the democratic protesters in the streets of Tehran chanted, “Obama, Obama, either you’re with them [meaning the mullahs’ regime] or you’re with us.” The U.S. president was basically silent.
There is no question about where George W. Bush stands. That American woman — the type of American I know all too well — might have said, repeatedly, “Democracy is overrated.” But I don’t think so. Bush doesn’t think so. And the people in the streets of Cairo and other Egyptian cities don’t think so.
There are few things more galling than hearing an American say, "Democracy is overrated." That's why Tom Friedman's stated wish that America could be China for a day completely destroyed his credibility with anyone capable of actual thought -- I suppose the people who absorb others' thoughts and mistake that for thinking still listen to him.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBut democracy IS overrated. Rule of law, strong civil society, and culture are far more important. The countries of the Middle East are awful hell holes because they lack those things, not because they lack democracy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAt one point the East counted on American leadership to open up their region to freedom and democracy. Now they have Obama, friend of dictators, and realize they must take matters into their own hands.
How was our own revolutionary war reported in the press of the day? How would it have looked on twitter?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI completely agree with what George W had to say about the human heart yearning for liberty and freedom. My only caution is that sometimes the rush to get it just gives an opening to evil to seize all freedom away.
This was the case in Gaza, and seems to be what Al Jazeera is whipping up with its Arab version of WikiLeaks in the Palestinian Papers. They are destroying the credibility of the Palestinian Authority that will leave the West Bank vulnerable to also falling to terrorist control.
The same thing can easily happen in Egypt. It may be that at this time Egypt would be more stable remaining under Mubarak's control. If it falls to radical Islamic elements, the people who have been on the streets stand to become an oppressed, even less free people. Hope praying people are praying.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJay -- cut it out with the Bush nostalgia. It's embarrassing. Coming from Bush, this WAS bunk, because he devoted billions of borrowed dollars (mortgaged against our grandchildren) to propping up this despot.
One of the many nasty things about Bush -- for God's sake let's stop pretending that Barry's awfulness somehow redeems Bush -- was his airy lip service to certain conservative principles, like freedom and responsibility, while he swooned over Putin and Mubarak and ran the fisc into the ground.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseds: You are EXACTLY RIGHT
Egypt has golden pyramids instead of arches: thosands and thousands tortured rather than billions served. Hohum.
The most important thing we can do is decide how to ignore it all: do we watch "Sarah Palin's Alaska" or the Charlie Sheen Show?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@ CCBiggs
The rule of law in Egypt is so heavy it's tyrannical and their culture goes back thousands of years. I don't know what you mean by "strong civil society", but unless you have the social order of a democracy (and the moral order of its people to keep that democracy running properly), the items you mention contribute nothing to widespread freedom and liberty.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt doesn't matter what you say. It's your actions that count.
Invading Iraq, changed our interests in the Middle East. While we were always friendly with Egypt we kept pusing them for reform in their government. When Iraq exploded our interests really changed. We needed more help from our "allies" and in order to get that we stopped pushing for reforms.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow many tortured Egyptians does it take to protect the Holyland? Well, you wanna make an omelette, you gotta break some eggs.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm not so sure that it is democrats we are seeing in the streets of Cairo. Perhaps we are looking at people who will be pleased to accept another form of autocracy as long as it provides prosperity. How many revolutions have resulted in a freer society than the one it replaced ? Not in Russia with the fall of the Czar in 1917. The French revolution gave the French a different Emperor - Napoleon. I worry that Egypt will be Iran after the Shah...I worry for Israel...I worry for us...and we have a President with no interest in foreign policy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseds: freedom, liberty and responsibility are conservative principles? Since when? Maybe I misremember but I thought Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness/Property were "INALIENABLE" right derived not by man but given to every man. That universal principle. But somehow because George Bush, Bill Clinton and presidents before them gave money to Egypt is means the people today shoud not have freedom? And there outcry today is somehow invalid and we should not support them?
Go on and hate Bush, you are not alone but move beyond your needs to despise Bush to the needs of all people, including Egyptians.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDonnaDiorio: that you have no clue what you are talking about leaks out with your comment - "This was the case in Gaza,... They are destroying the credibility of the Palestinian Authority that will leave the West Bank vulnerable to also falling to terrorist control."
Excuse me, who do you think the so-called Palestinians are? They are rooted and grounded in Yasser Arafat, when he decided to create a "nationality" of displaced (by their own Arab governments) Arab refugees to use as political pawns to legitimize himself and become a "king." No people? No king.
Remember the PLO? Obviously terrorists back in the 1960s and 1970s. Hijacked airplanes, murdered Americans, Jews, Europeans... murdering American Jews was their best goal. Arafat's own political organization.
The Palestinian Authority never has had any credibility - read history of the last 75 years. The West Bank is already in the hands of terrorists, the Palestinian Authority. And are you implying that's who rushed to get freedom in Gaza too quickly...the so-called Palestinians? Does that mean you believe the lies that Israel occupies Palestinian national homeland? If so you probably believe Jerusalem never had a Jewish king, that it is the "ancient homeland" of the poor so-called Palestinians... Maybe you even believe Yasser Arafat's first Christmas declaration in Bethlehem in the 1990s that "Jesus was a Palestinian"!
You need history lessons that go back further than 5 or 6 years. And probably more from National Review and less from Al-Jezeera.
Americans inspire others around the world for freedom, but the inspiration must be a firm foundation of truth. Otherwise that staff we hand them become a deadly snake in their hands.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDid someone say, "...destroying the credibility of the Palestinian Authority" - ?! What credibility? There was never any such thing to be destroyed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd also, in the same sentence, "...leave the West Bank vulnerable...to terrorist control." Vulnerable? I am afraid that ship has already sailed.
If I were living in some third class kleptocracy I would do everything possible to "rush to get" liberty and freedom.
At least I'd like to think I would.
"the Left hated any talk from Bush about freedom and democracy. They thought it was bigoted, dangerous, ethnocentric, theocratic, insensitive, self-congratulatory, hypocritical, warmongering, McCarthyite"
I can see how liberals might have viewed the speech as "dangerous," but "bigoted" and "McCarthyite"? Do you have any citations for these astonishing assertions?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@ Ostap
I laughed at your comment. It's astonishing these things are forgotten after, gee, I don't know, a few years. Google "Bush McCarthyism" and see what pops up.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCCBiggs: your comment reflects that too many people regard democracy as a tool rather than as a goal.
For a democracy to be stable and durable, the elements you cite -- rule of law, a strong civil society, a culture that values individual freedom -- need to be developed. Giving people a free and fair election without those factors underpinning their choices can lead to disaster.
But that doesn't mean democracy is overrated or unimportant. It means that the transformation of a society from autocracy to democracy shouldn't be forced overnight, and it should incorporate the development of the rule of law, civil society and culture that will make democracy a success.
Note that South Korea transitioned from autocracy to democracy successfully because its autocrats allowed their culture to develop in ways that gave democracy a foundation to build on. So did Taiwan.
The number of nations that went from autocracy or colonial rule to democracy and then to anarchy before returning to autocracy far outnumbers the successes, however: in those cases, the autocrats and colonial rulers never expected to give up rulership and so never allowed those societies to develop. Haiti has been struggling with this cycle of doom for more than 150 years because none of its autocrats have been enlightened and altruistic enough to lay the foundations of democracy, and few of its democrats have been strong and wise enough to forego populism and corruption.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFAR more annoying than westerners who think self-determination is "over-rated" are conservatives who entertain the exceedingly simpleton notion that Bush "ran the fisc into the ground".
I challenge ds or Landrum to succinctly explain, once and for all, how George W. Bush caused a worldwide financial crisis, which drained our treasury of revenue.
Or, explain how Bush is singly responsible for the deficit spending racked up in the last few years of his administration (during which the bulk of debt was accumulated), when it was all approved by a Congress that was controlled in both chambers by both parties over that period.
Good luck with that. While we wait, here's my best take on copying your logic:
Thomas Jefferson single-handedly caused the Civil War with his theory of "nullification" that Confederates used to justify their secession.
There, now. Isn't that just positively oozing with intelligence?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI was only trying to avoid pointing out the fact that the second Bush Administration gave billions to Egypt (just like every other modern American presidency under the sun.)
I never claimed to ooze intelligence or mentally discharge anything other than my own delusions in idealism. Sorry if the words that seeped out of my brain happen to stain your sensibility. I was born with a pre-existing condition unrecognized by all insurance schemes in that my perspective is irrespective to my self-respect.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@madisonian -- Medicare Part D. Giant increases in the Education Department bureaucracy. TSA.
And I especially love your weaselly, Clintonian attempt to throw some extra words in there to exonerate Bush. You say, "Explain how Bush is SINGLY responsible"... as if I'm some frickin' public school dropout who doesn't know we have a legislative branch.
Bush was a fiscal disaster, and he though Putin and Mubarak were the best thing since sliced bread. The fact that he muddled through on Iraq and cut a fetching profile on the Ground Zero rubble is no excuse for the kind of fawning worship that certain conservatives have been indulging recently.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"There is no question about where George W. Bush stands."
So embarrassingly naive. Did George W. Bush halt foreign and military aid to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Uzebekistan, or any of the other arab or muslim dictatorships supported by the United States? Of course not. But I'm sure his words were terrifying.
"That American woman — the type of American I know all too well — might have said, repeatedly, “Democracy is overrated.” But I don’t think so. Bush doesn’t think so. And the people in the streets of Cairo and other Egyptian cities don’t think so."
And how do you know that, Jay? How do you know that the protesters don't want to establish an Islamic theocracy or a kleptocracy more aligned with their own interests? To believe that the protesters intend to create a pluralistic democracy is the kind of idiocy that led George Bush to invade Iraq. Henry Kissinger would backhand you if he were in earshot of this drivel.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse