The title of this piece caught my eye. Found some thought provoking statements in it. Don't know what to make of it....Is it too promote the idea of being involved in Iraq for a long time? To get America on board with taking on all of the ME? Defend Shrubs speech? Am I trying too hard to find an alterior motive?
http://www.msnbc.com/news/991191.aspTo change policy and achieve his lofty ambitions, President Bush announced a “forward strategy for freedom” that must be adopted for decades to come. Here is the hole in the doughnut. The “forward strategy” is never fleshed out, not even in a few lines, has no substantive elements to it and no programs associated with it. In fact it is mentioned only at the tail end of the speech. What explains this strange mismatch between a powerful statement of goals and virtual silence about the means?
I think that the president—and many of his advisers—find it easy to embrace democracy but not the means to get there. Actually, they like one method. Let’s call it the “silver bullet” theory of democratization.....
The second theory of democratization could be called the “long, hard slog” (thanks, Mr. Rumsfeld). It holds that genuine democracy requires the building of strong political institutions, a market economy and a civil society....
For many of the administration’s ideologues, the long, hard slog toward liberal democracy is boring and unsexy. It means constant engagement, aid, multilateral efforts and a world not of black and white but of grays....
In fact, we know what makes a liberal society—independent courts and political institutions, markets, a free press, a middle class—but building it takes time and effort. If you cannot embrace that process, then you are not really embracing democracy....
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
