That Wacky, Wacky Krauthammer Posted by Michael Cohen

It's been awhile since I've done a post examining the wackiness of Charles Krauthammer but the man's latest missive in the Washington Post has woken me from my slumber.

Krauthammer extols George Bush's Freedom Agenda as well as the virtues of democracy in the Arab World - and helpfully welcomes liberals abroad the neo-con democracy bandwagon:

Today, everyone and his cousin supports the "freedom agenda." Of course, yesterday it was just George W. Bush, Tony Blair and a band of neocons with unusual hypnotic powers who dared challenge the received wisdom of Arab exceptionalism - the notion that Arabs, as opposed to East Asians, Latin Americans, Europeans and Africans, were uniquely allergic to democracy. 

Now it seems everyone, even the left, is enthusiastic for Arab democracy. Fine. Fellow travelers are welcome. But simply being in favor of freedom is not enough. With Egypt in turmoil and in the midst of a perilous transition, we need foreign policy principles to ensure democracy for the long run.

This makes a lot of sense because traditionally liberals have been skeptical of democracy and supportive of authoritarian regimes - while conservatives have never wavered in their commitment to democratic principles. But as I was reading this article I thought to myself "I wonder if Krauthammer will reconcile his call for democracy with the fear of many neo-conservatives that Islamists will come into power if democracy is actually allowed to flower."

Luckily I didn't have to wait long:

As the states of the Arab Middle East throw off decades of dictatorship, their democratic future faces a major threat from the new totalitarianism: Islamism. As in Soviet days, the threat is both internal and external. Iran, a mini-version of the old Soviet Union.

Bingo! And there's more

Just as during the Cold War the United States helped keep European communist parties out of power (to see them ultimately wither away), it will be U.S. policy to oppose the inclusion of totalitarian parties - the Muslim Brotherhood or, for that matter, communists - in any government, whether provisional or elected, in newly liberated Arab states.

Beyond the obvious question as to whether one can have democracy in the Arab world if one tells Islamists they need not apply - it's worth remembering that this tension between democratic aspirations and 'keeping Islamists out' is precisely why Bush's Freedom Agenda failed. The Bush Administration supported free and fair elections in Gaza, was shocked when the Palestinian people embraced an Islamist party (Hamas) and refused to recognize it - which effectively made clear the hypocrisy of our policy: we only wanted democracy in the Arab world if our guys won.

That is, of course, an untenable standard - and back in his Cairo speech of June 2009 I think Barack Obama laid out a more effective one:

America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments – provided they govern with respect for all their people.

This doesn't preclude the role of Islamists in Arab governments - and doesn't draw the conclusion, as Krauthammer seems to be doing, that any Islamist party is a totalitarian one. After all, you have an Islamist party in charge in Turkey and Islamist parties in Iraq. Indeed, one could argue that Turkey is as 'democratic' under its current leadership than any previous government in the nation's history.

Now in fairness to Krauthammer he makes clear that we probably lack the leverage to keep the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt out of power and that we should be supporting secular, democratic movements. That seems fair; but only up to a point. If we embrace democracy for the Arab world then we must embrace all parties that are willing to play by democratic rules - and that includes the Islamists.  

Our fear of Islamic political movements has led the United States, for years, to support authoritarian and dictatorial regimes - like Hosni Mubarak's - with predictably disastrous results. And contrary to Krauthammer's crowing for the Freedom Agenda, George Bush was guilty of the same crime, particularly in regard to Egypt where he backed away from calls for democracy when the US government decided we needed an un-democratic Mubarak more than an actual democratic process. 

We can't have it both ways - we can't support democracy and then reject political Islam. So long as Islamist groups are willing to abide by the tenets of democracy and participate in free and fair elections we should welcome their inclusion. To do otherwise . . . well it wouldn't be democratic.

Comments

[Bill Darling]

Granted, the title of you opinion piece got me to look, but it did nothing but undermine what sense you made. I found it interesting that you would use a phrase like "in fairness to Krauthammer" (both fair and respectful of those with whom you disagree) in a piece whose title labeled him "wacky" (neither fair nor respectful), not once but twice.

Yes, actually we can have it both ways, albeit with mixed results. For years in Central America we supported right-wing dictators (while some chose to ignore the threat of their left-wing counterparts) precisely because they were not, at the very least, Communist. There were, obviously, repercussions for this, but the ends seem to justify the means.

To be sure, it was proven that being Communist did not always lead to left-wing dictatorships (as Nicaragua turned out), but it must also be acknowledged that neither did Central American become a collection of Castro clones either, which was the great fear of the latter part of the Cold War.

In the same vein, Krauthammer, quite logically fears that Islamist populist governments will become much more like Iran than they would be like Turkey, which, incidentally, at least has experience with a proWestern-style democracy which de-emphasized Islam(thanks in part to its military).

And if you are going to cite President Obama, it would be appropriate to at least mention the contrast of how he addressed the mass protests in Iran (an adversary) with how he addressed the protests in Egypt (an ally), even in an article that is centered on a critique of Krauthammer.

[Taylor]

You lack reading comprehension and clearly you are a moron. Have a good life.

I mean, it's embarrassing. And I'm a liberal, but Jesus Christ, you are making us all look bad with your lack of intelligence. The problem with the internet - every f*cking idiot can voice his opinion.

[SteveAR]

The author is a moron.

"The Bush Administration supported free and fair elections in Gaza, was shocked when the Palestinian people embraced an Islamist party (Hamas) and refused to recognize it - which effectively made clear the hypocrisy of our policy: we only wanted democracy in the Arab world if our guys won."

That worked out well, didn't it? Democracy hasn't returned to Gaza or the West Bank. Hamas started two wars with Israel, then whined like stuck pigs when they were losing.

Of course the U.S. wants democracies when our guys win. It helps the United States. That's the point of U.S. foreign policy. It will also help the newly democratic nation (e.g., West Germany, Italy, Greece, etc.)

"After all, you have an Islamist party in charge in Turkey and Islamist parties in Iraq. Indeed, one could argue that Turkey is as 'democratic' under its current leadership than any previous government in the nation's history."

There is an Islamist government running Iran; look how that's turned out. There is an Islamist government running Sudan; those Islamists slaughtered and starved hundreds of thousands of their fellow non-Muslim citizens in Darfur. There was an Islamist government running Afghanistan, the Taliban; they were accomplices in the 9/11 terrorist attacks and slaughtered their people as well. There is now an Islamist government in Lebanon, run by the terrorist group Hezbollah; democracy is dead there. And then there is Al Qaeda, an Islamist terrorist group who attacked us on 9/11, slaughtering 3000 Americans, and murdering tens of thousands more in the Middle East and other parts of the world.

Yeah, what a good idea it is to allow Islamists to subvert democracies.

By the way, the only reason why Turkey is still a democracy with Islamists in charge is because of their military. And Iraq? Our troops are still there.

More idiocy:

"Our fear of Islamic political movements has led the United States, for years, to support authoritarian and dictatorial regimes - like Hosni Mubarak's - with predictably disastrous results."

Oh really? Mubarak kept the peace between Egypt and and Israel. Any war between the two is always a bloodbath, usually with far more Egyptian blood spilled than Israeli. Would you call this peace a disaster for either Egyptians or Israelis? Are you that dim?

[landow]

Great post Michael Cohen. You lay out quite cogently the contradictions inherent in Krauthammer's neo-con drivel. I'm not sure the previous commenters understood what they read.
@Bill Darling, your post simply makes no sense. Cohen is arguing that you can not take a neo-con position of promoting democracy wholesale in the Middle East but then balk when people democratically elect a government that might be at odds with your own views. Cohen is not coming down one way or the other on the question of whether its actually good for us to support democracy no matter what in the Middle East, he's simply saying that if you (like Krauthammer) do hold this view then you must apply it consistently or you reveal yourself to be a hypocrite.
@SteveAR, the same critique applies. You seem to think that Michael Cohen is saying that we shouldn't care whether or not Egypt elects an Iranian-style repressive Islamist government. He makes no such argument. He is simply criticizing Krauthammer's hypocritical, paternalistic dictum that the U.S. will support democracy as a universal value but only inasmuch as the free peoples of the Middle East elect governments whose values correspond almost exactly to ours.

[SteveAR]

landow:

"He is simply criticizing Krauthammer's hypocritical, paternalistic dictum that the U.S. will support democracy as a universal value but only inasmuch as the free peoples of the Middle East elect governments whose values correspond almost exactly to ours."

Cohen's criticism has no merit. Here's why, which is what I said earlier:

"Of course the U.S. wants democracies when our guys win. It helps the United States. That's the point of U.S. foreign policy"

If there is a criticism of Krauthammer, it's that he too is promoting democracy in Egypt when it isn't ready for it. But to criticize Krauthammer of hypocrisy for not wanting to see an America-hating (and Israel-hating) Islamist "democracy" is ridiculous. Like I said, America's foreign policy is best when it serves America's interests.

By the way, Obama has been spouting off these last two weeks about democracy coming to Egypt. Did you know he cut half of President Bush's funding of Egypt's opposition groups? So Obama says he wants democracy in Egypt; he's already helped make that harder.

[BugMeNot]

SteveAR: Your criticism of Cohen's point only works if you start from the ridiculously false positions that, first, religious Moslems can not believe in democracy; and second, other governments only support our interests when our hand-picked leaders are in charge.

Unfortunately for you, those positions *are* ridiculously false, which means your criticism doesn't work. And considering that the past 100 years of our meddling in other nations' affairs proves that such meddling doesn't work, it is rather embarrassing that you (and Krauthammer) still cling to that outdated load of nonsense.

[SteveAR]

BugMeNot:

"Your criticism of Cohen's point only works if you start from the ridiculously false positions that, first, religious Moslems can not believe in democracy;..."

I'm not talking about religious Muslims. I'm talking about Muslims who want their religion to be the law of their land and the land of others, and will do anything to get there. There's plenty of evidence proving what I'm saying.

"...and second, other governments only support our interests when our hand-picked leaders are in charge."

I didn't mean that at all. When I said "Of course the U.S. wants democracies when our guys win," I mean people who don't want to be our enemies, not those hand-picked by the U.S. There is a difference.

"Unfortunately for you, those positions *are* ridiculously false, which means your criticism doesn't work. And considering that the past 100 years of our meddling in other nations' affairs proves that such meddling doesn't work, it is rather embarrassing that you (and Krauthammer) still cling to that outdated load of nonsense."

What do you think Obama's been doing the last two weeks? Or how about his meddling in Honduran affairs not too long ago? Or meddling in Israel's affairs? If that is outdated, why does Obama still pursue it, often recklessly?

[flashlight]

Good job! I think you have done ones research here.

[skylights]

"And if you are going to cite President Obama, it would be appropriate to at least mention the contrast of how he addressed the mass protests in Iran (an adversary) with how he addressed the protests in Egypt (an ally), even in an article that is centered on a critique of Krauthammer."

The U.S. response to the Iranian protests was similar to its response to the Egyptian protests, if my memory serves.

[wholesale electronics]

It's a nice place to share my thoughts.