"We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."– President George W. Bush
From a speech crammed with lofty hopes, noble sentiment, and vague entreaties, this bold pronouncement became the central doctrine of the conservative neocon cabal. According to President Bush, in order to safeguard the United States, this nation would commit itself to making democracy safe in other parts of the world.
That notion has been debunked for two reasons:
1) Because of the rampant growth in state spending, much of it due to poorly-planned and terribly-managed nation-building, the United States Government is teetering on default. A nation which cannot pay its own bills has no business advocating or lecturing other states on democratic principles, especially when these efforts have less than respectable results.
2) Arab States throughout the Middle East and superficial democracies in Sub-Saharan Africa are stumbling over massive protests, all without the aid or instigation of the United States. Uprisings have toppled stable dictators, long upheld by the United States Government. Our policy of cautious, selective infiltration of democracy has been irrevocably exposed.
The United States needs to be committed to its own interests without imperilling or impinging on the rights of other nations. If we stick to maintaining our own freedom in the face of growing global unrest, we will be better off all around.
"The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world". This notion is fuzzy at best, if not permanently faulty. Even if one nation wanted to export democratic principles and foster liberty elsewhere, it has to be chosen. How one nation defines liberty may jar completely with that of the United States.
Let us not focus so much on exporting freedom and democracy far beyond our coasts, but build it up here. If we leave well enough alone abroad, other nations will contend with their internal unrest. Their fate, for better or for worse, lies ultimately in their hands. We must content ourselves with not contending, not micromanaging, not attempting to determine the course of political history for diverse countries and unique peoples around the world.
If nothing else, this nation will cease inadvertently setting off animosity with the rest of the world. At least that cold comfort is better than the expensive interventions which have escalated tensions and unrest across the Middle East.