MOMENTUM?:

Bush and the liberal tradition (PETER BERKOWITZ, Nov. 13, 2003, Jerusalem Post)

What kind of conservatism is embodied in the new doctrine proclaimed by President George W. Bush in his November 6 speech in Washington to honor the 20th anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy?

It insists that "freedom has a momentum," and it will "not be halted." It proclaims that we are in the midst of a "great democratic movement": since the early 1970s the number of democracies in the world has tripled, growing from about 40 to around 120.

It attributes this bracing progress to the "military and moral commitments" made to the countries of Europe and Asia over the last half century by the United States, itself a democracy and the world's most influential nation, as well as to the increasingly well-established proposition that "over time, free nations grow stronger, and dictatorships grow weaker." It recognizes that millions still live under oppression around the globe - in Cuba, in Burma, in North Korea, in Zimbabwe, in China - while taking special notice of the Arab Middle East, both because democracy there seems scarcely to have taken root and because of the region's "great strategic importance." It declares that the main obstacle to the happiness, peace, and prosperity of the region, as to all regions, is authoritarian government.

And it identifies the principles that should guide democratic reform: limited, representative government; the rule of law; multiple political parties and a free press; the protection of individual liberty; market-based economies that reward initiative; and government investment in the health and education of citizens. [...]

[W]hat the president has given voice to are convictions central to the liberal tradition. Freedom is not just good for Americans or for the British. It is good for all people everywhere, because it reflects a universal aspiration, a permanent inclination of the human heart. While forms of government for securing individual rights will vary, as will the choices individuals and peoples make about how to take advantage of the blessings of freedom, no individual wishes to be imprisoned, tortured, or enslaved. Individuals should not be forced to be free, but free nations may be compelled to use force to counter the threat posed by governments that subjugate their own people and threaten the liberties of other nations.

These convictions are nurtured by the tradition of John Locke, who maintained that all men and all women are by nature free and equal. And the tradition of the authors of The Federalist, who believed that the experiment under way in America was relevant to all mankind, because all mankind had interest in discovering whether government based on the consent of the governed and devoted to protecting the rights of individuals was possible. And the tradition of John Stuart Mill, who identified the "permanent interests of man as a progressive being" with the spread of liberty in a manner consistent with the principles of liberty.

The hard part, which may not be exportable, is that the principles have to precede the spread across the society or be accepted at pretty much the moment of spread. Since the first principle is a near universal moral order--to act as a self-imposed restraint on excessive personal freedom, so that one can predict and have trust in the likely behavior of one's fellow citizens--rather few societies start out ready for liberty, so order must be imposed first.

Posted by Orrin Judd at November 30, 2003 6:57 AM