I am watching the BBC Ten o’clock News, and the lead story is Condoleezza Rice, spelling out the Bush doctrine:
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has delivered a forceful call for democratic reform in the Arab World in a major policy speech in Cairo.
The US pursuit of stability in the Middle East at the expense of democracy had “achieved neither”, she admitted.
“Now, we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of all people,” she said.
The BBC’s Frank Gardiner said her comments marked a complete departure for the US, and were “immensely risky”.
Indeed. In order to have seen this one coming, you would have had to have read some of President George W. Bush’s speeches, in particular his Second Inaugural Address, and to have then made the even greater mental leap of realising that President George W. Bush had actually thought about what he was saying, and had meant it.
So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world. (Applause.)
As the BBC immediately explained, the worry is that democracy in the Middle East may result in Islamomaniacal governments which “hate America”. As opposed to regimes like the ones in Egypt and Saudi Arabia now, which permit no anti-American sentiments whatsoever.
Now the BBC is explaining that Egypt, like the USSR before it, is immovably non-democratic. Mubarak will be followed in the fullness of time only by further Mubaraks. We shall see.
President George W. Bush is a physically quite little guy, or so he seems in the photos that I have seen. He has an eccentric way with the English language, his pauses extending to the point where they flirt dangerously with embarrassment. He believes – really believes – in God. So, he is an easy man to underestimate, and all of Europe now does this. Yet if US Presidential greatness is defined as determining a new course for the USA and then making that new course the actual course that is then steered by (which it is, although there is also the matter of whether the new course is good and wise to consider), then President George W. Bush is getting greater by the month.
Looks like the BBCs dead duck is quacking.
Lord Haw Haw would be proud of the BBC.
A very interesting post, Brian. I didn’t see the broadcast, but I loved Frank Gardiner popping up to say the US Secretary of State’s comments were “immensely risky”. I was wondering, does anyone know where he took his doctorate in international politics? Did he make his dhimmi comment to her face, or was this in the studio clucking about with other dhimmis?
And yes, as hard as it has been for the BBC and the usual suspects to grasp over the past five years, President Bush has this habit of thinking things through, discussing them with his advisors – to whom he genuinely listens – and then announcing what the United States is going to do. No need for pundits and broadcast readers of runes. He says what they are going to do, then he causes it to be done.
To some of us in the US it has been clear for some time that there is in fact little difference between the two parties. Both attempt to have different goals but in reality the political machine here reduces them to simply having different methods to the same end product: entropy.
This reduces the office of the president to mere figurehead status. Taking this into consideration, I voted Bush simply because i would rather america present a strong, even threataning image than, well, Kerry. ick.
In the future I’m considering voting libertarian even though they seem to have little chance of beating the system in place keeping the two big parties on top and everyone else out.
Well yes, there is little difference bwtween the two parties these days as they both persue the statist agenda – with some minor advantage to the Republicans. The Repubs have the numerical advantage in the Congress but either don’t know what to do with it or perhaps, the cajones to do it.
This leaves W as the arbiter of direction – as was intended all along – and for the first time since Reagan he is actually, well, directing. The foreign policy of this president is inspiring if for no other reason than the triumph of hope over experience. His domestic policy ,i.e., economic programs are mostly disasterous, the Medicare drug “benefit” comes to mind.
Still, he presides over the congressional kindergarten. And that’s not nothing. Figurehead? I don’t think so.
Voting libertarian is always appealing to me. Harry Browne was an outstanding candidate in 1996 and 2000 accumulating something less than 2% of the vote – hope springs eternal – but the Libertarian Party in this country is not really a political party but an exercise in fevered sentiment laced with visionary zeal. Quite justified in libertarianism but misplaced in the successful practice of politics.
Nice post, Madison from Federalist No.37(Link)
The genius of republican liberty seems to demand on one side, not only that all power should be derived from the people, but that those intrusted with it should be kept in independence on the people, by a short duration of their appointments; and that even during this short period the trust should be placed not in a few, but a number of hands. Stability, on the contrary, requires that the hands in which power is lodged should continue for a length of time the same.
He looks quite short. His now famous National Guard records listed him as 5’11. Maybe the suits are too wide or something.
I hope that there is substantial follow-through on the soft reform of these nations. It is a lot to call a spade a spade, and builds momentum, but demands more. Considering the way we are staying to finish the job in Iraq, despite the quacking class’ greatest grumbles, I have hope this will continue.
As far as the likelihood for reform, one can only hope for some precipitate to accelerate reform. I’m not sure what it would be, as demand is so strong for oil that the coffers of these kleptocracies will runneth over for years.
btw, I think he looks short because Bush 41, Clinton, and Kerry are all pretty tall.
Sounds like objective reporting to me. Frank Gardiner is merely pointing out that this is a bold departure for the US and immensely risky because it may indeed hand power to elected Islamist governments. In fact, he’s pretty much saying the same thing as Brian. Not sure I understand the point of Rob’s “dead ducks and treachery” comment.
Are we allowed to prefer neither? There’s a lot to be said for both chaos and liberal despotism.
guy herbert wonders:
Certainly not. Didn’t you read the post? The Bush Doctrine is the spearhead, the very harbinger, of international liberty and justice, its author a patron saint of libertarianism.
Please reread the post, repent your sins, and rearrange your thoughts. Only then may you consider returning to decent society.
Bush’s public speaking rhythms has always reminded me of the Protestant lay readers I heard on Sundays as a child.
Why does the fact that “he believes – really believes – in God” automatically make it easy to underestimate him? I, too, believe in God (though I don’t follow the same spiritual path as Bush). The knowledge that you don’t doesn’t alter my respect of your intelligence and intentions.
Here in the US, army recuitment is down 40% for the year. American’s, right or wrong, are growing increasingly wary of our military presence in Iraq and Afganastan. Suddenly young kids, shockingly, aren’t so anxious to sign up to go fight in the ME. Rice’s comments are all well and good… but I for one don’t think that we (the U.S.) are going to have the stomach to continue spreading Democracy in this fashion.