Is there a need for the United States to style itself as the active agent for the advancement of democracy in the world, and if so is the current administration to right team for the job; this is a loaded question, of course, for those of us dismayed at the inadequate, hopefully not too disastrous nation-building in Iraq. But the Iraq model of occupation cannot be the template because our military does not have flexibility anymore, it is tied down to the existing commitments. If it were possible to bomb a nation into democracy, we still have plenty of uncommitted naval and air force power to shine that torch, and before you laugh remember Afghanistan; success there involved leveraging alliances with groups that served as the boots on the ground.
However, the progress of the establishment of democratic institutions in this world has been steady and very encouraging for the last 20 years, since the remarkable and template-forging People Power revolution in The Phillipine overthrew the archetypical strong man Marcos regime. Without any American military deployments, there has been what you might call successful organic native democratic movements in a very significant number of countries, upending right wing power monopolies in South Korea, Argentina, Chile, Taiwan and South Africa; the transformation of the entire Soviet bloc with another famous people power revolution in Romania and the submission of the Communists to Yeltsin in Russia, and the formation of stable responsible governments in formerly no-hope places like Uganda and El Salvador. Spain and Portugal are completely Europeanized, Serbia and Croatia tired of their demogogues, Turkey is a model of Islamic democracy, and even Mexico elected an oppostion government. Three years ago Indonesia lost its dictatorship, two years ago Georgia had its Rose Revolution, and this year Ukraine decided it was a modern Europrean nation. Every nation that modernizes finds itself transforming into a democracy. The Communist Party of China has found a way to ride the wave, but really the clock is ticking on their extended control. That nation has loosened up quite a bit from the bad old days, the party that crushed the students in Tientamin Square 16 years ago will have their day of reckoning, I predict it will be no more than 16 years from now, and Vietnam too. Still there are many places where democracy is a dirty word, particularly in the areas of religious fundamentalism, and we all know what I'm talking about. Is this what George W. Bush is talking about? Well, President Tunnel Vision is envisioning Iran and Syria, but awkwardly for him that region also contains friends, yes even family friends, who rule with very few pretenses about humoring the democratic impulse. Actually in that region there are cases where the prospect of a free election raises the spector of elected fanatics who could carry a larger majority than Hitler's vote in 1933 (what was that, 34%?).

So with the world turning towards civil government, but with many stubborn cases in the Mideast and Africa, where is it profitable for interventions by the Bush administration, which the whole world knows as a group with simplistic hamfisted impulses backed up by fire power? The problem is provoking a backlash, and what is the insurgency in Iraq other than a backlash? Of course this coterie of American leadership has had opportunities in Haiti and Liberia to prove how much it loves democracy, without prompting much of a commitment from it. One must face the obvious conclusion that they just wanted to take out Iraq, and everything else has been postured around propping up this move, from The Roadmap to the recent bombastic second Inaugaral Address. The grand principles are just a show, a case of just say anything you have to in order to justify the invasion fo Iraq, either for Bush's father complex or Cheney's oil complex, probably both. Maybe the overall effect will be positive, with emerging democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq, but the problem is maybe it won't, because the flaw is the unrevolsed conflicts in both of these places. Iraq seems to be a kind of Pandora's Box, the continuing consequences of this troubled occupation throwing all plans into doubt. Across the border in Iran there was a very promising democratic movement, currently hobbled, and the confrontational situation between the Bush crowd and the mullahs have probably done nothing but harm to the future of the once-strong Iranian democratic movement, just playing into the hands of those who thrive on facing down America. Well, that may be an unfair statement to the Bush people, the theocrats were never going to just let Iran go the way the people wanted, they are truly religious, and their God doesn't want democracy, and the flippant materialistic TV culture that always accompanies it. Yes, the problem with democracy is that most people have no taste. The more democratic America gets the less prestige is attached to acting classy, because the people are ruled by their guts and groins. Leveling and the least common denominator is a necessary phase of equalization, but as time passes we can hope for improvements in the general consciousness of the masses, with education it happens. A fatuous consumer culture is an improvement on tyranny and human rights abuses, because at least the people get the taste for thinking for themselves. If the people just want to enjoy life as they see fit they should be allowed to, without know-it-alls telling them what to do, that kind of treatment just leads to frustration and resentment, which isn't good for anybody.

But at this point are there benefits attached to the threatening Bush "doctrine" (geez is it a doctrine? That's kind of an educated word for the simple policies of the administration). It really seems to be just words addressed to Iran and Syria, it's hard to believe they care what goes on in Zimbabwe or Myanmar, they've never shown the slightest interest in places like that, the non-headline making oil-free corners of the world. Bush is from Texas and I'm sorry but the Texan attitude is frankly offensively simple, I've worked with Texans and the bad taste lingers, with their corny awful jokes and callous selfishness. So what we have is just rhetoric bent to a purpose, maybe if they're lucky it has some positive effect, but one look at the wonders they've worked in Iraq cures any person of the belief that Bush means what he says in any practical way.

Well, I don't feel confident predicting the future, maybe the hamfisted Bush approach will have some lasting positive effect; Jimmy Carter's ineffectual administration left a lasting impression because of the principles he put forth, though in practice he backed the Shah.

If a vote were held in Saudi Arabia tomorrow I wouldn't expect any result other than an intolerant theocracy, does anybody other than a Saudi want that for the world's most crucial oil reserve? Does anybody expect the best from a free election in Egypt or Jordan? Maybe this is unfair commentary but there is reason to fear the worst. Look at Algeria.

The simpletons will run America for another four years, I hope their God has mercy on the rest of us.