Friday, March 30. 2007
Posted by Joerg Wolf in
US Foreign Policy on Friday, March 30. 2007
David S. Broder writes in his Washington Post column (via: Kosmoblog): When President Bush, in his second inaugural address, pledged to "support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world," he seemed to be speaking for the whole country. But two years later, a disillusioned American public, sobered by the war in Iraq and still fearful of more terrorist attacks here at home, is ready to settle for a less idealistic goal: protecting the United States and its vital interests. (...) Large majorities -- including most Republicans -- reject Vice President Cheney's contention that the absence of a second attack means we are safer. Instead, they say that the threat of terrorism has increased since 2001, and they believe that the war in Iraq has made us less safe, not more. One victim of that psychology is Americans' belief in the worldwide democratic mission that Bush invoked so powerfully on Jan. 20, 2005. Now, by 58 percent to 36 percent, the voters say that "it is a dangerous illusion to believe America is superior to other nations; we should not be attempting to reshape other nations in light of our values." By an even greater proportion -- almost 3 to 1 -- they say the main goal of American foreign policy should be to protect the security of the United States and its allies, rather than the promotion of freedom and democracy. He concludes:
Overall, independents have moved closer to Democratic positions on foreign policy, meaning that the Republicans' almost-automatic advantage on national security issues may be a thing of the past. Personal comment: I doubt whether President Bush was indeed "speaking for the whole country" when he talked about ending tyranny in our world, as Broder claims. I doubt whether democracy promotion is on top of the agenda of the average American or European. It seems to me that many pundits and politicians exaggerate the general public's appetite and support for democracy promotion. Two examples in related posts in the Atlantic Review: • The Need for a New Transatlantic Ostpolitik quotes Ronald D. Asmus (GMF) as saying: "Americans have traditionally been more committed to democratic transformation -- in part because we are more powerful, more distant and have a different foreign policy ethos." • American Moral Principles and European Giggles quotes Secretary Rice as saying: "There cannot be an absence of moral content in American foreign policy. Europeans giggle at this, but we are not European, we are American, and we have different principles."
|