Does Wilson's Fate Await Bush?
by
Patrick
J. Buchanan
by
Patrick J. Buchanan
Will
the Bush presidency end as did Wilson's?
Will
George W. Bush be defending to his dying day, against the pitiless
evidence of events, his "global democratic revolution"?
Contingent
upon what happens in Afghanistan and Iraq, that may well be his
fate. For, as Bush's strength is Wilson's strength, his flaw is
Wilson's flaw. Both men promised an earthly utopia through liberty
and free elections. Both worshipped the golden calf called democracy.
Scholar
Marvin Olasky describes Clemenceau's reaction as Wilson rhapsodized
at Versailles about how his vision of self-determination and a League
of Nations would realize for mankind its ancient dream of world
peace.
"Wilson's 'most extraordinary outburst,' according to Lloyd George,
came when he explained the failure of Christianity to achieve its
higher ideals. 'Jesus Christ so far [has] not succeeded in inducing
the world to follow His teaching,' Wilson stated, 'because He taught
the ideal without devising any practical scheme to carry out his
aims.'
"In Lloyd George's account, Clemenceau slowly opened his dark eyes
to their widest dimension and swept them around the Assembly to
see how the Christians gathered around the table enjoyed this exposure
of the futility of their Master."
As
with Wilson, Bush's belief in the salvific power of free elections
has become near-religious. He has told staff he believes that, 50
years from now, he will be remembered for his "forward strategy
of freedom." His inaugural address is to be about liberty. In the
Oval Office last week, he elaborated on how democracy was going
to transform the Middle East:
"I believe democracy can take hold in parts of the world that have
been condemned to tyranny. And I believe when democracies take hold,
it leads to peace. That's been the proven example around the world.
Democracies equal peace."
But
is this true? The American republic was the most democratic on earth
in 1860 when the Confederate states voted to secede and the Union
invaded and crushed them at a cost of 600,000 dead.
Never
was democracy more advanced in Europe than in August 1914, when
the continent plunged into the bloodiest war in history. The Weimar
republic was the most democratic government Germany ever knew. It
ushered in Hitler. If Europe is peaceful, is it because she is democratic,
or because she bled herself almost to death between 1914 and 1945,
and collapsed in exhaustion?
Democracy
has taken root in offshore Asia, but not China, Vietnam or Burma.
In Africa and the Arab world, there is virtually no democracy. What
was there vanished. In Latin America, it has given us Hugo Chavez.
Israel is democratic, but she has fought five Arab wars and two
intifadas against the Palestinians in half a century. In Ukraine,
free elections have given us Yushchenko; in Russia, Putin.
George
Bush has wagered his presidency on two wars to introduce democracy
to nations that have never known it: Afghanistan and Iraq. But,
in such nations, men consign their fortunes to elections only when
things they hold far more dear are not imperiled.
The
Afghan warlords accept Hamid Karzai because U.S. guns back him up,
U.S. aid pours in, and they have been allowed to revive a heroin
poppy trade that enriches them. Eradicate the poppy fields and shut
down the drug trafficking, and we will discover how committed to
democracy the Afghan warlords and their warriors really are.
Ayatollah
Sistani favors elections in Iraq because he expects the majority
Shia to win and take power. The Sunni, like the South Africans,
resist elections because they mean their dispossession. Would the
Kurds consign their fate to elections if they knew the Arabs would
force them back under Baghdad?
As
James L. Payne writes in The American Conservative, it took
centuries before a politics of violence gave way to a politics of
peace in England. What evidence is there that we can telescope evolution
into a few short years in Iraq and Afghanistan?
How
did we succeed in Italy, Germany and Japan?
As
Payne relates, Mussolini, Hitler and the Japanese militarists of
the 1920s and 1930s interrupted long eras of a politics of peace.
The process of evolving democracy could be renewed, once the thuggish
regimes were removed. But a politics of peace has never existed
in Afghanistan or Iraq.
Yet,
Bush has gambled his presidency, the lives of our soldiers, the
prestige of the U.S. military and our superpower standing in the
world on the questionable proposition that democracy will, under
our tutelage, take root rapidly in desert soil where it has never
sprouted before.
Wilson
did not live to see the consequences of the disastrous peace he
brought home from Versailles. President Bush, however, will likely
reap the fruits, or witness the futility and failure of his great
gamble, before he leaves office.
January
19, 2005
Patrick
J. Buchanan [send
him mail], former presidential candidate and White House aide,
is editor of The American
Conservative and the author of eight books, including A
Republic Not An Empire and the upcoming Where
the Right Went Wrong.
Copyright
© 2005 Creators Syndicate
Patrick
J. Buchanan Archives
|