January 27, 2006
STRANGE LESSON TO TAKE (via Pepys):
Two Elections and a Lesson (E. J. Dionne Jr., 1/27/06, Real Clear Politics)
[S]ince the invasion of Iraq, administration spokesmen and supporters have offered a utopian and decidedly unconservative view of how American power could be used to change the world -- and quickly.It was said that the way to peace in Jerusalem passed through Baghdad. It was said that by ridding Iraq of Saddam Hussein's wretched regime, the United States would unleash a democratic revolution in the Arab world. Go back and look at the sweeping claims Bush's defenders made for his policy after the elections in Iraq just a year ago. Everything, it was said, was falling into place.
But the world is a complicated place. Of course, free elections in Iraq are hugely better than dictatorship. But when free elections become more a census to count members of warring ethnic and religious factions than a way of settling underlying disputes, they do not necessarily pave the way for enduring democracy. They do not provide voters with ways of test-driving the various alternatives.
In the Palestinian case, Hamas' victory was not widely predicted, but its strong showing was predictable. Every serious analyst understood the frustration of the Palestinian majority with those who have led them. Everyone knew that Hamas had created a new civil society -- a network of health and social service organizations -- within the old Palestinian structure that created a wide base of grass-roots support.
The polls suggest that Hamas did not win because a majority of Palestinians bought into its terrorist program. Hamas won, precisely as Bush said, because voters were so unhappy with the status quo. But shouldn't Washington ask itself why it didn't take more dramatic steps, over a much longer period, to change the Palestinian status quo? Taking action in Iraq was not going to do the job.
The elections, which offer the first significant change to the status quo domination of the Palestinians by the PLO, were undertaken in direct response to the demands of the President. It may be unconservative but in just the four and a half years since 9-11, we've caused regime change and established democracy in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine, forced the Sudanese to settle with the South, driven Syria out of Lebanon, etc. The notion that we aren't doing enough to alter the status quo seems insane. Posted by Orrin Judd at January 27, 2006 9:03 PM
Usually when the perfect is made the enemy of the good it's not done so deliberately.
I'm puzzled by Dionne's view of elections. I thought politicians settled underlying issues, not voting.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at January 27, 2006 10:18 PMI am, as usual, mildly astonished at EJ's failure to grasp any concept that is not in line with inside-the-Beltway liberal conventional wisdom..
these guys are BLIND!
Posted by: JonofAtlanta at January 27, 2006 10:22 PMIs he seriously suggesting that we provide barbituartes for everyone in Gaza and the West Bank? I don't know how else to take his point.
And if the US removes the opthalmologist, there will be lots more turmoil among the Palestinians again. BUT it's our kind of turmoil.
Posted by: ratbert at January 28, 2006 12:00 AMEJ is a dim bulb, as are all journalists. occam's razor.
Posted by: toe at January 28, 2006 12:03 AME.J. "Always Wrong" Dionne.
Posted by: Matt Murphy at January 28, 2006 1:39 AMWhen your entire raison d'être for being a political columnist is to oppose everything George W. Bush does, you're going to find yourself making some pretty loopy claims and suffering a lot of selective memory lapses. E.J.'s actually a little better than some of the folks behind the Times Select firewall at keeping his writings out of the fever swamps, but he seems to think talking to Fatah pre- and post-Arafat, would have magically changed a situation even Bill Clinton got wise to and fed up with by the fall of 2000.
Posted by: John at January 28, 2006 9:56 AM