I know I'm risking Kevin Knuth accusing me of harboring romantic fantasies again, but I hope some of you caught Condolezza Rice on "60 Minutes" last night. Her passion for democracy and supporting democratic movements is strong, remarkable and necessary in today's world. A lot of her passion comes from growing up black in the segregated South. What is the difference, she asks, between those today who say "some people aren't ready for democracy" and those then who said "blacks are childlike and need us to take care of them"? What is the difference between Islamic terrorists who leave roadside bombs and homegrown terrorists who bombed churches? A fanatic willing to deliberately target innocents is a fanatic willing to deliberately target innocents.
It's been raised as an issue that perhaps Rice isn't equipped to deal with today's war on stateless terrorism because her education, training and early government work dealt with the Soviet Union, a super state. But I think she learned a valuable lesson there, too, in watching the breakup of the USSR. No matter how subjugated they are, people yearn for freedom, and they are willing to sacrifice for it perhaps more than we remember.
As the world's leading democracy, and the nation that has most shown what freedom can achieve, we have not only a responsbility but a duty to self-interest to nurture the growth of democratic movements around the world (and almost 50 percent of the world's population is now rated as free, according to Freedom House, an all-time high). A major topic of our foreign policy conversations for at least the last 50 years is over how to do that. There is a difference between nurturing democracy and supporting those who seek it and trying to impose democratic values at the point of a gun. In Iraq, we might have blurred the difference, and Rice might be too close to it to acknowledge the arguments of the other side.
But Rice and her boss (yeah, him), however we might fault them for how they are pursuing their goals, are on the right side of history. At a minimum, we have to wish them well.
Comments
Yeah, I saw Condi on 60 Minutes. I'm not so moved. This administration has come up with all kinds of preposterous explanations for the U.S. occupation of Iraq, after the fact, and sympathy with the American Civil Rights movement is just the latest cynical attempt.
Ideological passion is irrelevant. The problem is that she's no damned good at her job. She apparently wouldn't give Richard Clarke the time of day when he wanted to talk about terrorism for the 8 months prior to 9/11. She horribly and tragically overestimated the threat posed by Iraq to the United States. Then, having overestimated the threat, underestimated what was necessary to secure Iraq.
We can debate what policies ought to be pursued by the United States. But I think it's beyond dispute that we require competence in pursuing those goals. Rice's track record since 2001 doesn't demonstrate a great deal of competence.
Leo said...
"What is the difference, she asks, between those today who say 'some people aren't ready for democracy" and those then who said "blacks are childlike and need us to take care of them'?"
If you or Sec. Rice can attribute these sentiments to an actual person, rather than "those people" I will consider your comparison. Until then I consider it invalid.
"As the world's leading democracy..."
that is rich.
Would that be based on your sterling record of voter partiticipation, millions of corporate dollars spent on buying elections, innumerable lobbying scandals, a corporate-owned media, the huge and increasing gap between the rich and poor, legalizing torture, secret trials and rendition, starting illegal wars, the incredible high percentage of imprisoned, escpecially amoung blacks (far higher than any other western nation), obscence military budgets, blacks disenfranchised during elections, vote fraud and the debacle with the Diebold machines, bribery in Congress, Orwellian government propaganda especially in regards to the Iraq war and the environment?
anything I'm forgetting?
You're the "world's leading democracy" like Saddam was a human rights advocate.
Ouch, you guys get up on the wrong side of the sicle and plow today?
Oh, and B: If we are not the "worlds leading democracy" who is? Yeah, it's the worst system of government on Earth, except of course for all the rest....
Tim:
So what now you're the only democracy in the world?
I could name twenty countries that have a more democratic system than yours.
"yours" ?, ... then I guess you don't live here. And, if you do, but hate it so much, what are you still doing here ?
B. Humor me...name a couple...