Our world has changed. Five years ago, foreign policy was decidedly different than it is now. Today's international arena is dominated by words like "freedom," "liberalism," and the granddaddy of them all, "democracy." We see an Earth in which oppressed peoples everywhere, particularly in the much maligned, so-called "Arab world," are rising up and taking advantage of their inalienable right to govern themselves. In spite of this, many people, including a substantial proportion of this country, are opposed to actions taken by the current administration to further the spread of democracy.
The nay-sayers can be divided into two camps. One, the anti-West camp, actually supports a valid, though incorrect, hypothesis; the other, the anti-Bush camp, is just plain juvenile. Those in the anti-West camp say that democracy is a Western idea that suits Westerners only; that it is some sick feature of our nature to take what works for us and force it upon humanity in general. It is true that for much of recent history the world has been dominated by the West with institutions like the United Nations and the term "world community" basically being euphemisms for "rich, powerful Western/Westernized nations" but this view that the West forces its ideals upon others is a hollow claim. By this logic, members of an Islamic or Confucian society do not want a government that respects human dignity. They may be of a different religion or background, but it is ridiculous to claim that these peoples want a Machiavellian autocrat. The anti-Bush camp, on the other hand, simply hates the man who is currently spouting the "democracy rhetoric." They are the likes of Senator Ted Kennedy, who wish for a failure of the man's policies because they have disliked the man since the day he lost the popular vote but constitutionally won. They cannot be respected when they care more about a man falling on his face than the livelihood of millions of people around the world.
An important distinction to make is that we, the West, are simply talking of spreading democracy. Democracy means rule of the people; we are not forcing a bicameral legislature or an electoral college on them, we are offering them the opportunity to exercise their God-given right to choose their own form of government, whatever it may be.
It is also necessary to point out that the supporters of the administration's efforts to export democracy have the best intentions at heart: we care about the average Iraqi and the average Ukrainian. Despite what Michael Moore might say, Iraq was not a happy place where children flew kites before Hussein's disposal, but where every man, woman and child in their society was denied basic human rights. The "neo-cons" in fact care about the decency of these non-Americans' lives. Many of those who dissent with the policies of spreading democracy are those who happen to be aligned with the Democratic party or other leftist organizations, which are founded upon a supposed concern for the common man. Surely they must understand that the rights we all take for granted are deserved by all, regardless of geography, and that it will help the common man overseas immensely if he has a say in his own governance.
It is also in our best interest to have democracies as friends and also as opponents in the international system. All available evidence points to the fact that governments by the people, of the people, for the people, tend not to wage wars against one another. It is a pleasant byproduct of democratization that peace will follow in its wake.
One has to do nothing more than pick up a newspaper to see that this force of democratization is sweeping the globe. Ukrainians refused to have a former KGB operative tell them who would rule and reasserted their democratic system; Palestinians gave the cold shoulder to radicals and embraced the moderate Mahmoud Abbas in their first real election in years; Saudi Arabians enjoyed the right to elect local councils for the first time in their history; Iraqis stopped gunfire with one purple finger; and most recently, the Lebanese have finally stood up and said "no" to a Syrian puppet government. The right to self-rule is not just an idea for white Westerners. The governments they choose may disagree with us and not be precisely what we would choose, but in time they will liberalize, just as we have and continue to do. It took a George Washington in the 1790s to envision an America where blacks and native Americans could vote; in time the new governments erected will become more free and fair. It is our duty as liberty-enjoying Americans to ensure that other peoples, regardless of race or creed, may enjoy those same liberties.
