December 20, 2002
OUR CULTURAL REVOLUTION:
The Democracy Worshipers (Pat Buchanan, 12/16/02, American Conservative)Russell Kirk saw it coming. As the Cold War was winding down, the father of modern conservatism was invited to the Heritage Foundation to lecture on America's brightening prospects. As he celebrated with his friends the "death of Marxist ideology," Dr. Kirk pointedly warned us against a new "ideology of democracy.""Various American voices have been raised these past few months to proclaim enthusiastically that soon all the world ... will embrace an order called 'democratic capitalism,’'" said Kirk. "It seems to be the assumption of these enthusiasts—many of them members of the faction called Neoconservatism—that the political structure and the economic patterns of the United States will be emulated in every continent, for evermore."
"Democratic capitalism" is "neoconservative cant," said Kirk. It is an ideological folly to attempt to recreate in foreign lands with utterly different cultures what 200 years of American history produced here. [...]
The mark of a "soundly conservative foreign policy," said Dr. Kirk, is prudence. "Its object should not be the triumph everywhere of America's name and manners under the slogan of 'democratic capitalism' but ... the preservation of the true national interest and acceptance of the diversity of economic and political institutions throughout the world. Soviet hegemony ought not be succeeded by American hegemony."
It doesn't seem, at least to me, that Kirk is quite saying what Mr. Buchanan wants him to be saying. His point seems to be more that we have to respect that other countries will develop different, culturally distinct, forms of democracies. That seems a worthwhile point and one that does bear keeping in mind. For instance, as we've been discussing about Israel or as we look at Turkey, or as we look back to the old South Africa, we can recognize that democracy broadly-speaking will take a variety of forms--some of which may make us feel uncomfortable--but, as a general proposition, they will all make better allies than those states which fail to move toward consensual government and will serve their people far better than current governments do. The point of our policy shouldn't be to get them to duplicate our system--a system which is after all in pretty rough shape--but to try out their own variation on the theme. As Mao said: let a hundred flowers bloom. Posted by Orrin Judd at December 20, 2002 11:18 AM
What is this? Orrin agrees (tenatively) with Buchanan? Perhaps it is just that he agrees with Russell Kirk, an unquestionably more impressive mind.
Anyway, it seems to me that Kirk's view of the current war would be more along the lines of Angelo Codevilla
: smash the regimes, track down the bandits and lunatics, humiliate
the fantasy ideology which sustains them . . . and then, having reasserted in a most spectacular way the stupidity of attacking America, more or less leave it at. As long as what replaces these regimes does not make war on us, then it is not much of our business how they govern themselves.
As immature democracies fail in various regions,democracy will itself be seen as a failure.This includes various psuedo-democracies.The idea that having elections equals democracy is silly.The Soviets held elections,Iran has elections.They mean nothing to the ppl as nothing changes.Decliining voter participation here is the result ppl seeing nothing change regradless of who wins at ballot box,so why vote?Bush signs Kennedy's education bill?And you consider that a win for conservatives??Huh.
Posted by: Ms. Rssete L Padfarfr at December 21, 2002 8:09 AM