IF DEWEY HAD BEATEN FDR THEY'D HAVE ROOTED FOR THE AXIS:

Taking Back Freedom (Suzanne Nossel, February 8, 2005, Center for American Progress)

In her speech before an audience of French scholars and policymakers at Sciences Po in Paris, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice did it again: she offered bold, even inspiring vision of the United States spearheading the spread of democracy worldwide. Starting with his Inaugural, and continuing through his State of the Union speech, President George Bush is styling America as a champion of global freedom. And this rhetoric sounds especially lofty compared to that of progressive critics, who once talked of spreading liberty around the world. From their misplaced doom-saying about Iraq's elections to their focus on the persistent problems in the emerging Afghan and Iraqi democracies to their talk of planning for withdrawal, progressives are starting to sound like conservatives of a bygone era – pessimistic about sowing democracy and chary of expending American power for an elusive goal.

The progressives' confusion can be explained in part by a startling role-reversal. The Bush administration has adopted traditional progressive principles and policies, such as fostering liberal democracy and nation-building abroad, and put its own imprint on them – to the point where progressives have virtually abandoned concepts that they developed and used to own. The concept of spreading liberty did not feature in the progressive punditry's criticism of the State of the Union.

Throughout most of the last century, liberals could claim to be the great proponents of freedom. The guiding ethos of progressive foreign policy in the twentieth century was liberal internationalism. That doctrine centered on assertive promotion of political freedom, human rights and economic development and on the need for institutions to advance these goals. This vision helped Franklin Roosevelt vanquish the Nazis and, after World War II, fueled the creation of a global free trade system, the convening of the U.N. and NATO, and the reconstruction of Germany and Japan. President John F. Kennedy later assumed the mantle, standing up for a free Berlin and creating the Peace Corps and the Agency for International Development.

But with Vietnam, liberal internationalism faltered. After that failed war, liberals became wary of internationalism and adventures abroad. Even Bill Clinton could not restore the old liberal internationalist consensus, and the left remained divided over the wisdom of "humanitarian" intervention and over which far-flung conflicts warranted U.S. casualties.

George W. Bush at first seemed an unlikely candidate to revive the doctrine. He rebuffed liberal internationalist precepts, sneering at nation-building and pledging to narrow the U.S.'s international commitments. After September 11, however, the Bush administration did an about-face, wrapping its projection of American power in what sounded like liberal internationalist rhetoric. The White House's 2002 National Security Strategy pledged to fight terrorism but also to "actively work to bring the hope of democracy, development, free markets and free trade to every corner of the world." Bush's State of the Union included a classic liberal internationalist formulation: the idea that spreading democracy will help avert war and ensure peace.

Shouldn't the left cheer the administration's embrace of liberal principles? Alas, no.

It's not progress when Republicans effect it?

Posted by Orrin Judd at February 10, 2005 4:40 PM