« December 2005 | Main | February 2006 »
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Slumbering On
Conservativization of the Democrat Party
Source: The Economist MagazineCentrism is the sleeping giant of American politics. Alas, it is unlikely to wake up for some time.
Six months ago Jon Stewart, America's reigning philosopher-comedian, did everyone a favour by taking aim at "Crossfire". "Crossfire" pioneered the televised shoutfest in which complex political debates are reduced to slanging matches between left and right. Mr Stewart seized the opportunity of an appearance on the programme to accuse his hosts of being "partisan hacks" and ask them to "stop hurting America". The powers-that-be at CNN agreed with the comedian—and decided to cancel, or at least completely rejig, the show after years of decline.
Many Americans, listening in the past few weeks to Tom DeLay ranting against the judiciary, or to Teddy Kennedy accusing George Bush of planning to "turn the American dream into a nightmare" for old folk, must have wished for a Jon Stewart moment. The most striking fact about American politics is the disjunction between the opinions of ordinary Americans and the behaviour of the political elites. Most Americans have fairly centrist views on everything from multilateralism to abortion. They like to think of themselves as "moderate" and "non-judgmental". More people identify themselves as independents (39%, according to the Pew Research Centre for the People & the Press) than as Democrats (31%) or Republicans (30%).
Yet centrism is a waning force in the corridors of power. Though John McCain has turned himself into a Washington institution, and Lincoln Chafee, one of the declining band of north-eastern Republicans, has hinted that he may oppose John Bolton's nomination as ambassador to the United Nations, in general the Senate is moving slowly but inexorably in the same direction as the House: towards partisan hackery.
It is hard to imagine John Breaux, who made a distinguished career out of cutting deals, or Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who defied ideological stereotypes, prospering in today's Senate. Look at poor Joe Lieberman. Mr Lieberman has taken a centrist position on everything from Iraq to Social Security reform. His reward—apart from a kiss from George Bush after the state-of-the-union address—has been humiliation during his presidential run and a "Dump Joe" movement in his native Connecticut.
Many articulate centrists believe that their creed is the sleeping giant of American politics. They point out that frustration with the status quo is rising. They note that Bill Clinton revived a dying Democratic Party with an infusion of centrism. And they argue that America's most pressing problems usually require solutions that mix a dose of liberalism (such as tax increases) with a dose of conservatism (such as more individual choice).
Yet there is little reason to think that the giant will soon awaken. Too many powerful people want to keep it sedated. The Republicans have gone from one triumph to another by embracing sunbelt radicalism rather than preppie moderation. Today the party controls not only Washington, but the whole political agenda. Every battle is fought on Republican turf. Taxes? The debate is not over how much to raise them to close the looming deficit but how to cut them. Life? The issue isn't how to prevent school shootings such as the one that took nine lives in Minnesota, but about Terri Schiavo.
Why don't the congressional Democrats respond to this devastating assault by trying to occupy the middle ground? After all, there is no shortage of great centrist causes to rally round, notably Social Security reform and immigration reform. But the incentive to take up these issues is declining. A growing proportion of Democrats come from deep-blue congressional districts where it is more important to pander to the liberal base than to reach across the isles. And the Republicans are doing everything they can to render the middle ground uninhabitable. The Texas Republican Party deliberately used redistricting to terminate the political careers of some prominent "Blue Dog" Democrats. Congressional Republicans prefer to pass legislation without any Democratic support whatsoever, thereby making it easier to brand the Democrats as liberal obstructionists. The result is that the Democrats are becoming a pure opposition party.
So is there really no chance of a Jon Stewart moment? Centrists pin their hopes on three things. The first is a dramatic revolt against the system, led by either a third-party candidate or a charismatic maverick like Mr McCain. But third-party eruptions are usually short-lived, and Mr McCain served as a loyal lieutenant in Mr Bush's re-election campaign. The second hope is redistricting reform. Revolt is growing—particularly in the west—against the institutionalised gerrymandering that hands power to the political extremes. But this will take years, if not decades, to change the balance of power.
The most realistic hope lies in the presidential wing of the Democratic Party. The Democrats have more of an incentive to move to the centre in presidential races than the Republicans, for the simple reason that there are fewer liberals than conservatives. Hence Hillary Clinton's determined attempts to rebrand herself as a hawk on defence and a moderate on abortion. But she will have a harder time moving her party to the centre than her husband did. Most of the party's energy these days comes from angry liberals who believe that the 2004 election was a close-run thing, and would have turned out differently if the party had only stuck to its principles. And even if Mrs Clinton can reposition the party for the election, it may soon revert to type. Eight years of Clintonism did remarkably little to shift its centre of gravity.
The problem for even the most charismatic centrists is that they are pushing against profound political forces. American parties were once loose coalitions of interest groups and regional blocks, which left plenty of room for centrists to cut cross-party deals. Today these parties are ideological clubs, playing to voters' values as much as their interests. The great "Crossfire" show that is American politics is set to run and run.
FAIR USE NOTICE
This article is copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: US Code, Title 17, Chapter 1, § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Free Musings has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Free Musings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.
Posted by fm on January 25, 2006 at 12:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
In Support of Arab Democracy
How to Bring Stability, Freedom and Investment to the Arab World
By Karen Fragala Smith
Source: Newsweek MagazineFor decades, U.S. presidents have spoken poetically about the spread of democracy as a tenet and moral obligation of American foreign policy. But despite the seductiveness of this mantra, international relations are a complicated balancing act. Successive U.S. governments have cited "political stability" to justify their dealings with despots in Central America, military dictators in Africa and absolute monarchs in the Middle East.
With the insurgencies still raging in Iraq and political unrest fomenting in other Arab nations, the question remains whether democracy is the long-term solution to regional conflict and the spread of terror. To address this issue, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a nongovernmental think tank, put together a team of experts, co-chaired by former U.S. secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright. Their conclusions were outlined in the recently released report "In Support of Arab Democracy: Why and How." Newsweek's Karen Fragala Smith discussed the group's findings with Albright. Excerpts:
Karen Fragala Smith: Is there a conflict between key democratic rights -- particularly in the area of women's rights -- and the cultural dictates of Islam?
Madeleine Albright: Islam itself and the Qur'an are not actually antiwoman. [The Prophet] Mohammed was married to a businesswoman. It is more the culture of particular Arab countries and not Islam. And I think that what we all have to do is make clear that women's rights do not undermine anybody's system. It's a matter of empowering women, so that societies are actually more stable, not less stable.
Karen Fragala Smith: How does the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal, as well as recent allegations that top military leadership sanctioned the use of torture in interrogations, affect the United States' credibility on human rights issues in Arab countries?
Madeleine Albright: It's hurt U.S. credibility beyond measure. It has lost us the moral high ground, and I am very troubled by it. The only way to restore our credibility is for there to be accountability of those who had something to do with it -- not just lower-level military. I was at an event recently where somebody said, "Isn't it great that the Senate voted 99-0 against torture?" and I said, "Isn't it amazing that we actually have to have a vote like that?"
Karen Fragala Smith: The report states that "democracy cannot be imposed from the outside," and that "sudden, traumatic change is neither necessary nor desirable." How does this apply to Iraq?
Madeleine Albright: Imposing democracy is an oxymoron. You have to be there in order to assist the process, but not at the point of a gun. I think it has misrepresented to a lot of people about how democracy comes about. I'm chairman of the board of the National Democratic Institute, and we work very hard on what I call the nuts and bolts of helping people with democracy. That's very different from invading a country. And I think it has hurt the process immeasurably, because it's now equating democracy with occupation.
Karen Fragala Smith: What will it take for Iraq to make the next step from holding basic elections to a full-fledged independent democratic state?
Madeleine Albright: It's very hard for people to exercise their democratic rights anywhere when they are terrified and there are suicide bombings and a general sense of chaos. Also, when the economic situation is so dire. So everything goes together. There has to be an improvement in the security situation, the reconstruction efforts have to be such that they provide people with jobs and [a] sense of the future and then democracy can flourish. While people did turn out to vote, which I think is quite remarkable, it's very difficult when the situation in the security arena is so tenuous.
Karen Fragala Smith: One of the key components of a democracy is a free press, but some Arabic-language media outlets have spread corrosive propaganda against the United States. What can be done here without limiting the free press?
Madeleine Albright: It's hard for us to censor them if we're talking about the need for free press. There has to be the development of other avenues that would allow the people in those countries to get alternative views. Also, Al-Jazeera is opening up in the United States, and I think it doesn't hurt if Americans go on Al-Jazeera so that we can tell our story. We have to make clear that a great deal of it is distortion.
Karen Fragala Smith: Democracy seems impossible if the majority of a given population does not possess at least basic literacy. What did the task force recommend to improve education in Arab countries?
Madeleine Albright: We have said that the Arab educational systems have generally done an inadequate job of preparing students for life in a global economy. Washington can't all of a sudden start teaching Arabs. On the other hand, the U.S. government could have partnerships with Arab, American, European and Asian educational institutions and foundations and help in terms of expanding English-language instruction and promoting scholarships.
Karen Fragala Smith: The report indicated that democracy can "diminish the appeal of extremism and terrorism." But isn't it possible that many Arab voters would choose a theocracy with strict limits on what we would classify as "personal freedoms."
Madeleine Albright: We don't know, that's part of the issue. If you believe that people want to choose the government that will represent them the best, you have to give them that opportunity. But that's the red herring that's put out there. We do not think the status quo in the Arab world is working. So do we think that democracy is worth supporting? Clearly there are issues, and potentially short-term dislocations, but the way that the situation has evolved now, it's not stable at all. Therefore, we came out with the idea that being in support of democracy was something that was in our interest, and obviously in theirs.
Karen Fragala Smith: The report says that "the U.S. has done a poor job of explaining its policies in the region and spreading its message about democracy and reform." In September, President Bush sent Karen Hughes, the recently appointed under secretary of State for public diplomacy, on a listening tour of several Muslim countries. What was she able to accomplish, and what do you think should be the next step?
Madeleine Albright: It was clearly a very first voyage of hers into this arena, but it didn't strike me as a particularly great success. I think it's very important that this post has been filled with somebody of such high rank and visibility, but it's a hard job, and you have to go into societies and have some sensitivity for the various issues.
Karen Fragala Smith: What steps can Washington take toward establishing a peace in the region that both the Israelis and Palestinians can live with?
Madeleine Albright: First of all, the Israeli-Palestinian issue cannot be blamed for everything. What can be done is exactly what Secretary [of State Condoleezza] Rice has finally done, which is to be in the region and spend time with both sides in order to hammer out agreements. The U.S. has to be actively involved in this. But I think it is wrong for anybody to blame everything on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. It's not at the base of every problem throughout the whole region.
Karen Fragala Smith: What is the task force recommendation for U.S. policy regarding Arab states -- such as Dubai in the United Arab Emirates or Morocco -- that are not democracies but are nonetheless, politically stable and relatively free.
Madeleine Albright: Even in those countries, we spoke about the importance of a rule of law, the importance of having political, economic and social change and to keep moving the process forward. Education in those countries is very important, as well as the ability to recognize different views and to have a freer press.
Karen Fragala Smith: Certain Islamist groups such as Hamas in Palestine and Hizbullah in Lebanon are in fact political parties and do provide important services to the people such as food assistance and education. Can these groups be integrated into the legitimate political arena even though they have been involved in terrorist acts in the past and are currently classified by the United States as terrorist organizations?
Madeleine Albright: We can't have terrorist organizations participating, but if there are some Islamist organizations that can give up the use of force and follow the rules, then I think that it's useful to include them in the political process. We should not allow Middle Eastern leaders to use national security as an excuse to suppress nonviolent organizations. And we should support the political participation of any group or party that is committed to abide by the rules and norms of the democratic process.
Karen Fragala Smith: What can the international community do to stimulate economic development in Arab nations given that corruption and isolation have been deterrents to foreign investment in the past?
Madeleine Albright: This is where the whole issue of rule of law is so important. If countries can meet certain criteria then they can be a part of the World Trade Organization, which then provides a set of rules around which everybody has to operate. Nobody is saying any of this is easy, but I think it is important that many of these Arab nations become part of this global economy. We depend on some of them for oil, and these are potential markets, as well, if there is proper investment that then creates jobs, which takes care of the problem of people being disaffected or unemployed.
Karen Fragala Smith: Is democracy in conflict with the United States' best interests in Arab countries? What stance should the U.S. take toward supporting opposition leaders such as Ayman Nour in Egypt?
Madeleine Albright: If we think that stability is in America's best interest and so we are afraid to think about changes in government, then in the long run, there is no stability. There is nothing less stable then a long[-serving] authoritarian government. That doesn't mean that the U.S. should go out and support particular political figures. Some of the political figures might not even want it given our reputation at the moment, but I think that it is important to support a political process. I don't think Americans -- either as NGOs or even in the government -- should be afraid to meet with opposition figures. It doesn't mean that they are supporting them -- they are supporting a process. I've been in discussions about what is it that really is the essence of democracy, and frankly it isn't elections. It is the existence of an opposition party, which means that there is accountability by the ruling party, and always the possibility of the opposition party getting in.
FAIR USE NOTICE
This article is copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: US Code, Title 17, Chapter 1, § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Free Musings has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Free Musings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.
Posted by fm on January 10, 2006 at 12:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)