The Washington Post is to be commended for another in a series of “Analysis” pieces, this one about Bush’s agenda for democracy.
Bush wants to portray the Iraqi war as one that’s designed to spread democracy, but in fact, he turns his back on democracy when it suits him.
While Bush administration officials, such as Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, quickly raised questions yesterday about whether Putin’s action will strangle democracy in Russia, outside experts said the administration’s gentle handling of Putin stands in stark contrast to the president’s repeated pledges to promote democracy and freedom around the world.
“Russia is one of the leading examples of how the war on terrorism has put the U.S. in a contradictory position in the world,” said Thomas Carothers, senior associate and head of the democracy and rule of law project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “On the one hand, the U.S. is pulling back from democracy with needed security allies who are less than democratic, while simultaneously calling for the U.S. to push for democratic transformations in other parts of the world.”
Rhetorically, Bush has made the promotion of democracy, especially in the Middle East, a central theme of his administration. “This young century will be liberty’s century,” Bush said last month at the Republican National Convention. “By promoting liberty abroad, we will build a safer world.”
Last year, in a speech before the National Endowment for Democracy, Bush criticized past administrations for turning a blind eye to autocratic governments in the Middle East. “Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe — because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty,” Bush said.
But, with only tentative and belated exceptions, mostly involving Powell, the Bush administration has remained largely silent as [Russian President Vladimir] Putin has slowly dismantled democratic institutions, including taking over or closing all independent national television channels, establishing dominance of both houses of parliament, reasserting control over the country’s huge energy industry and jailing or driving into exile business tycoons who have defied him.
Kerry hasn’t made spreading democracy a central theme of his campaign, and yesterday he criticized Bush’s looking away from Putin’s increasing consolidating of power.
The Post’s piece uses the GOP’s own words against the Bush blind eye.
Bush came into office deeply critical of President Bill Clinton’s reliance on his relationship with Putin’s predecessor, Boris Yeltsin. “With weak and wavering policies toward Russia, the administration has diverted its gaze from corruption at the top of the Russian government, the slaughter of thousands of innocent civilians in Chechnya, and the export of dangerous Russian technologies to Iran and elsewhere,” the GOP party platform declared in 2000.
There are, of course, more examples that Kerry could point to of the disconnect between Bush’s rhetoric about spreading democracy and his actions – or lack of them: Sudan , Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Egypt, etc. Let’s hope his ever increasing circle of handlers can figure out how to play this – and for more than 24 hours. That seems to be the greatest liability of the Kerry communications efforts. They harp on a different message every day, with no consistency and hence no sticking power. Even Kerry’s shorter statements seems to wander all over the place.
Update: Kevin Drum cites the Kagan op-ed piece this morning.