Debating Democracy

With his two recent speeches advocating a forward strategy to promote democracy in the Greater Middle East, President Bush has placed the concept of democracy at the very center of American political controversy. It was, of course, already on its fringes. Three debates over democracy at home and abroad have been roiling the intellectual world for several years now. One of those debates—the controversy over the place of democracy in U.S. foreign policy—is being fought out between neoconservatives and conservative “realists.” The other two debates . . . well, let me draw a temporary veil over them except to say that they are as much about democracy at home and in Western Europe as about Iraq and the Third World.

A presidential speech trumps any number of books and learned articles because it implies a change of government policy. When a president promises to promote democracy in the Greater Middle East, he is announcing that the U.S. will transform its relations with the local powers there. In this instance, Bush is plainly urging democracy not only on hostile powers such as Syria and Iran but also on traditional “friends” such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia. How is this to be accomplished? That is less clear. But we will presumably nudge them toward democracy with economic favors; coerce them with sanctions if they resist; and seek to undermine and replace them if they remain obdurate.

About the Author

John O’Sullivan

John O’Sullivan is a senior fellow at National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.

Featured Tags

With his two recent speeches advocating a forward strategy to promote democracy in the Greater Middle East, President Bush has placed the concept of democracy at the very center of American political controversy. It was, of course, already on its fringes. Three debates over democracy at home and abroad have been roiling the intellectual world for several years now. One of those debates—the controversy over the place of democracy in U.S. foreign policy—is being fought out between neoconservatives and conservative “realists.” The other two debates . . . well, let me draw a temporary veil over them except to say that they are as much about democracy at home and in Western Europe as about Iraq and the Third World.

A presidential speech trumps any number of books and learned articles because it implies a change of government policy. When a president promises to promote democracy in the Greater Middle East, he is announcing that the U.S. will transform its relations with the local powers there. In this instance, Bush is plainly urging democracy not only on hostile powers such as Syria and Iran but also on traditional “friends” such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia. How is this to be accomplished? That is less clear. But we will presumably nudge them toward democracy with economic favors; coerce them with sanctions if they resist; and seek to undermine and replace them if they remain obdurate.