Sen. Biden’s whoppers on Hezbollah and NATO in Lebanon (which I addressed in an earlier post) came within the broader context of his new position in opposition to free elections in the Middle East—which he now portrays as a “big mistake” by the Bush administration. Let’s just say he hasn’t always seen it that way.Biden at Last Night’s Debate:

BIDEN: Here’s what the president said when we said no. He insisted on elections on the West Bank, when I said, and others said, and Barack Obama said, “Big mistake. Hamas will win. You’ll legitimize them.” What happened? Hamas won.When we kicked — along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, “Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don’t know — if you don’t, Hezbollah will control it.” Now what’s happened? Hezbollah is a legitimate part of the government in the country immediately to the north of Israel. The fact of the matter is, the policy of this administration has been an abject failure. And speaking of freedom being on the march, the only thing on the march is Iran. It’s closer to a bomb. Its proxies now have a major stake in Lebanon, as well as in the Gaza Strip with Hamas.

As already noted, if we suspend disbelief and give the benefit of the doubt that Biden was talking about Syria, not Hezbollah, being kicked out of Lebanon, the fact remains that Hezbollah was already part of the Lebanese government before calls for Syria’s expulsion. In any event, however, Biden wrote an op-ed for the Washington Monthly in May 2005 — i.e., around the time of the events he seemed to be misdescribing last night. It is generally positive about the democracy project, laments the Democrats’ failure to support Bush on much of it, and says nothing about blocking elections or calling in NATO.

Biden’s May 2005 Washington Monthly Op-Ed, “Credit Bush’s rhetoric not his actions” (all italics mine): Biden begins by lauding Bush’s democracy promotion and wondering aloud why more Democrats recoil from a good policy just because it’s Bush’s policy:

In speaking about the Middle East, President Bush recently said “a critical mass of events is taking that region in a hopeful new direction.” For the Middle East, historically bereft of democracy and clotted with autocrats and despots, the promise of a better life is raising expectations across the region. Some Democrats, after nearly a century of efforts to inject the ennobling quality of universal freedom and human rights into the heart of our foreign policy agenda, seem uneasy about this president’s recent focus on the idea. President Bush spoke with great eloquence in his second inaugural address about expanding freedom, and I was a little frustrated by the reception it received from some of my Democratic colleagues and friends around the world…. [F]or many [Democrats], it seems that distaste for the messenger obscured the truth of the message. If ever there was a time that proved that “good policy makes good politics”–and that politics makes strange bedfellows–today’s global program to advance the cause of liberal democracy surely must be it.

Biden then proceeds to effuse about the hopeful possibilities that lie in free elections in, among other places, Lebanon and “Palestine”:

What events are creating this critical mass the president is talking about? There’s January’s free elections in Iraq and Palestine, March’s free municipal elections in Saudi Arabia, Egyptian President Mubarak’s commitment to allow competitive elections for president, and the Lebanese people’s demands for Syrian withdrawal and for free parliamentary elections. I believe an enlightened American foreign policy, along with a little luck and a lot of perseverance, can help ensure that these developments will be remembered as seminal moments in a historic chain of events leading to a new era in the region….

To be fair, Biden does point out that freedom and liberal democracy are different, and that without democratic institutions free elections tend to favor radicals. But he never comes close to saying therefore we shouldn’t permit elections. Instead, he appears to argue that we should promote the building of democratic institutions in addition to holding these elections (i.e., those aforementioned “seminal moments in a historic chain of events”):

The president’s focus on expanding freedom and his clear rhetoric do make a difference. They help embolden moderates and modernizers and lift the fear of reprisals. Providing that kind of space is critical to progress. Still, there is a significant gap between the president’s rhetoric and his policies…. Promoting democracy is tough sledding. We must go beyond rhetorical support and the passion of a single speech. It’s one thing to topple a tyrant; it’s another to put something better in his place. The most effective, sustainable way to advocate democracy is to help those moderates and modernizers on the inside build democratic institutions such as political parties, an independent judiciary, a free media, a modern education system, a civil society, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and a private sector. When elections are held without mature institutions of this kind, they tend to favor the most organized groups in those societies, which also tend to be the most radical. To put it another way, freedom and liberal democracy are not synonymous. The former without the latter is a recipe for chaos and the return to autocratic rule….History is on democracy’s side. In 1775, there was not a single democracy in the world. After our revolution there was one. Now, there are 119 electoral democracies; 62 percent of the world’s governments. And, as the number of democracies increases still further, pressure will mount on the tyrannical outliers. We may be witnessing this very phenomenon as we speak today. Whatever obstacles lie ahead–and they are considerable–surely this historic shift should be enough to lift the hopes of Americans across the political spectrum, regardless of which party holds the White House.