Register to receive weekly article summaries.
Democratic Revolution?
Posted on November 11, 2006 - 3:40pm :: Editorial
Nicanor Perlas
10 November 2006
The US Democratic Party is celebrating not only its takeover of the US House of Representatives, the US Senate and the majority of the governorships in the country. It is also celebrating the strong message that the US electorate is fed up with the policies of President George Bush, Jr., especially his so-called war against terror in Iraq. In addition, the Democrats are delighted at the resignation of the highly controversial Donald Rumsfeld, former US Secretary of Defense and architect of the Iraq invasion.
And a significant majority of the world is celebrating the demise of Bush’s popularity and the defeat of his allies in the recent US elections. They too are fed up with Bush’s foreign policies which have only increased global tensions not only in the area of the battle against terrorism but on many other fronts, most prominently the battle against global warming.
There is indeed reason for celebration. However, to label the recent victory of the Democratic Party as a democratic revolt against Bush and the policies he represents may be taking perceptions and expectations too far.
Not too long ago, the New Yorker published an article reporting an interview one of their senior writers had at the US State Department. The article was written a few months before Bush officially introduced the National Security Strategy of the United States of America, popularly known as the Bush Doctrine in September 17, 2002. That article wrote about the kind of debate that was going on in the State Department and among their colleagues from the outside regarding the Bush Doctrine.
One side argued for an imperial America. The other side vigorously advocated an imperialist America. Proponents for an "imperial" America defended a "multilateral" approach to sustaining US hegemony in the world. Members of the Democratic Party prefer this approach. Advocates for an "imperialist" America stressed a "unilateral" approach to US domination in the world. Members of the Republican Party align themselves with this approach.
Of course, we know that, in the Bush Doctrine, the imperialist face of US foreign policy won out. But it would have neither have been comforting had an "imperial" face of US foreign policy won the day. Because, at the end of the day, the distinction between "imperial" and "imperialist" makes no sense for the vast number of people inside or outside the US.
The vast majority of the world does not prefer any kind of world domination, whether through a soft, "consultative" approach preferred by members of the Democratic Party, or the hard hitting style of the Republicans as exemplified by Bush and his administration. Instead they want a US that is willing to take its appropriate place in a world community and work collectively to address effectively the massive problems facing the planet.
This distinction between "imperial" and "imperialist" is not a mere artifact of the Bush regime. Already in 1941, as reported in the book, When Corporations Rule the World, by David Korten, the US power elite already knew that World War II would result in the transfer of global political and economic power to the US. Through the years, albeit with different emphases, they therefore developed a policy that would maintain that dominance whether thru a Republican or Democratic Party administration.
The ugly face of this policy expressed itself, for example, in the more than 40 attempts by US operatives, whether during a Republican or a Democratic administration, to destabilize sovereign nations perceived as a threat to US global ambitions. William Blum vividly documented this hard reality in his book, Rogue State; A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower.
Thus, the current victory of the Democratic Party is by no means an automatic assurance that there would be a shift in the ESSENCE of US foreign policy. For one thing, Bush is still around. He may change his style of US relationship with the world and win the approval of the Democratic Party in the process. But the empire agenda would remain intact. For another, even if ultimately the Democratic Party wins the US Presidency, it is not certain whether that victory will alter the fundamental paradigm embedded in US foreign policy since 1941.
To be sure, it is truly a cause for celebration that the victories of the Democratic Party will definitely slow down the momentum of Bush and his elite cabal. However, for the democratic forces in the US, within and outside the Democratic Party, this is the time to work even harder to ensure that the victory of the Democratic Party will not end up basically advancing the same hegemonic stance of the US in the world. We do not need another global US empire even if it will come in a more subtle and nuanced style as the elites in the Democratic Party would have it.
However, maybe the Democrats themselves will realize that the US and global outrage against Bush is not about Bush per se (even if that is also the case). But they will realize that the outcry is against the long standing tradition of US foreign policy to retain its "imperial" or imperialist" hegemony in the world. Maybe, once they realize this, the Democrats will truly get rid of an anachronistic 60-year old foreign policy of imperial domination that has no place in the modern world of the 21st century.
If they do, then the current victory of the Democratic Party may escalate into a truly democratic revolution that may yet inspire the world. But, for that to happen, US citizens and civil society around the world, cannot rest yet. They need to continue extracting democratic accountability from the Democratic Party as well as from other governments around the world. Who knows, maybe one day the word, "Democratic" will truly mean what it says, and not become another veil for a different kind of covert operation that undermines fledgling democracies around the world.
10 November 2006
The US Democratic Party is celebrating not only its takeover of the US House of Representatives, the US Senate and the majority of the governorships in the country. It is also celebrating the strong message that the US electorate is fed up with the policies of President George Bush, Jr., especially his so-called war against terror in Iraq. In addition, the Democrats are delighted at the resignation of the highly controversial Donald Rumsfeld, former US Secretary of Defense and architect of the Iraq invasion.
And a significant majority of the world is celebrating the demise of Bush’s popularity and the defeat of his allies in the recent US elections. They too are fed up with Bush’s foreign policies which have only increased global tensions not only in the area of the battle against terrorism but on many other fronts, most prominently the battle against global warming.
There is indeed reason for celebration. However, to label the recent victory of the Democratic Party as a democratic revolt against Bush and the policies he represents may be taking perceptions and expectations too far.
Not too long ago, the New Yorker published an article reporting an interview one of their senior writers had at the US State Department. The article was written a few months before Bush officially introduced the National Security Strategy of the United States of America, popularly known as the Bush Doctrine in September 17, 2002. That article wrote about the kind of debate that was going on in the State Department and among their colleagues from the outside regarding the Bush Doctrine.
One side argued for an imperial America. The other side vigorously advocated an imperialist America. Proponents for an "imperial" America defended a "multilateral" approach to sustaining US hegemony in the world. Members of the Democratic Party prefer this approach. Advocates for an "imperialist" America stressed a "unilateral" approach to US domination in the world. Members of the Republican Party align themselves with this approach.
Of course, we know that, in the Bush Doctrine, the imperialist face of US foreign policy won out. But it would have neither have been comforting had an "imperial" face of US foreign policy won the day. Because, at the end of the day, the distinction between "imperial" and "imperialist" makes no sense for the vast number of people inside or outside the US.
The vast majority of the world does not prefer any kind of world domination, whether through a soft, "consultative" approach preferred by members of the Democratic Party, or the hard hitting style of the Republicans as exemplified by Bush and his administration. Instead they want a US that is willing to take its appropriate place in a world community and work collectively to address effectively the massive problems facing the planet.
This distinction between "imperial" and "imperialist" is not a mere artifact of the Bush regime. Already in 1941, as reported in the book, When Corporations Rule the World, by David Korten, the US power elite already knew that World War II would result in the transfer of global political and economic power to the US. Through the years, albeit with different emphases, they therefore developed a policy that would maintain that dominance whether thru a Republican or Democratic Party administration.
The ugly face of this policy expressed itself, for example, in the more than 40 attempts by US operatives, whether during a Republican or a Democratic administration, to destabilize sovereign nations perceived as a threat to US global ambitions. William Blum vividly documented this hard reality in his book, Rogue State; A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower.
Thus, the current victory of the Democratic Party is by no means an automatic assurance that there would be a shift in the ESSENCE of US foreign policy. For one thing, Bush is still around. He may change his style of US relationship with the world and win the approval of the Democratic Party in the process. But the empire agenda would remain intact. For another, even if ultimately the Democratic Party wins the US Presidency, it is not certain whether that victory will alter the fundamental paradigm embedded in US foreign policy since 1941.
To be sure, it is truly a cause for celebration that the victories of the Democratic Party will definitely slow down the momentum of Bush and his elite cabal. However, for the democratic forces in the US, within and outside the Democratic Party, this is the time to work even harder to ensure that the victory of the Democratic Party will not end up basically advancing the same hegemonic stance of the US in the world. We do not need another global US empire even if it will come in a more subtle and nuanced style as the elites in the Democratic Party would have it.
However, maybe the Democrats themselves will realize that the US and global outrage against Bush is not about Bush per se (even if that is also the case). But they will realize that the outcry is against the long standing tradition of US foreign policy to retain its "imperial" or imperialist" hegemony in the world. Maybe, once they realize this, the Democrats will truly get rid of an anachronistic 60-year old foreign policy of imperial domination that has no place in the modern world of the 21st century.
If they do, then the current victory of the Democratic Party may escalate into a truly democratic revolution that may yet inspire the world. But, for that to happen, US citizens and civil society around the world, cannot rest yet. They need to continue extracting democratic accountability from the Democratic Party as well as from other governments around the world. Who knows, maybe one day the word, "Democratic" will truly mean what it says, and not become another veil for a different kind of covert operation that undermines fledgling democracies around the world.
