Please give me a reason to pay any attention to what Josh Marshall has to say on anything, but especially on democratization. Don't waste your time!

what josh marshall cannot tell you is that kerry as president wuold do even less for the cause of democracy - iran, russia, cuba, uzbekistan, syria, saudi arabia - which one of these governments would kerry dare to stand up to??

I think I may have to agree with Marshall's point that there's "no difference with previous administrations" and Bush's in matters of foreign policy - to a point.

I have been reading Walter Russell Mead's thinking on foreign policy, which he sees as shaped largely by four major arguments. One of them is the Wilsonian drive to spread democracy throughout the world. Others include Hamiltonianism (serve America's economic interests), Jeffersonianism (safeguard America's democracy domestically), and Jacksonianism (don't mess with the other guy, but if he messes with you, beat him up).

No war is ever waged for just one of the four. Our leaders may get away with limited actions, but anything protracted requires the support of Americans who identify closely with at least three of the four schools.

Administrations will factor in all four schools. There may be tilts - Bush's is more Jacksonian and Hamiltonian; Kerry's will likely be more Wilsonian and Jeffersonian, given each person's most fervent constituency. But Kerry could not ignore, say, a terrorist attack on American soil, and Bush has to back off as the cases for self-defense and spread of democracy become harder to make.

Belgravia Dispatch ripped Josh Marshall a new one.

Lindenen,

Actually Robert D. Alt over at NRO did a much beter job here:

http://www.nationalreview.com/alt/alt200407080824.asp

The Iraqi Example
Democracy’s success matters worldwide.

I soon discovered the reason for this impromptu discussion. An independent journalist from China — to protect his identity we'll call him Mr. Wu — was also in the group, and he was seeking Iraqi and American thoughts about Iraq and the war. He began peppering me with questions about the war, such as why America removed Saddam. I explained that the administration came here for many reasons. The perceived threat from the WMD program was one reason, but continuing violations of U.N. resolutions, grotesque human-rights transgressions, and intelligence regarding ties to terrorism (made all the more real by Vladimir Putin's recent revelation about Iraqi plans to participate in terror attacks after 9/11) all contributed to the decision. Again, the Iraqis in the room were pleased — quite literally puffing up their chests in approval — while the other reporter took this opportunity to leave.

Mr. Wu was very intrigued by America's interest in democracy in the region. He inquired whether America has brought more freedom to Iraq. I told him to look at where he was: standing in an Internet café — a place that couldn't have existed before Saddam's fall — in the middle of Baghdad. We talked about the proliferation of satellite dishes and cellular phones — and, with them, ideas. He asked the Iraqis in the room if Internet was available like it is today when Saddam was in power. Their response was a hearty laugh.

It was at this point that I got to learn a bit about Mr. Wu. He lamented that many of the freedoms now enjoyed by the Iraqis are not available in his home country. He is part of the pro-democracy movement seeking to change that. He publishes for a pro-democracy website with 10 million readers in China, and he is in Iraq to provide an account of what this new Iraqi democracy is really like, in order to counteract the pro-Saddam propaganda the Chinese generally receive. While he does not criticize the Chinese government directly in his articles, by writing about the problems of Saddam's tyranny and the benefits of freedom in Iraq, his message for China is able to get through.

From our conversation, his experience in Iraq appears to be very similar to mine: meeting Iraqis who are pleased that America removed Saddam, who wish to build a democracy, and who are basking in their newfound freedoms. Mr. Wu clearly longed for this kind of experience in his own country. He is a man of great courage, who is taking a tremendous risk in reporting about democracy from Iraq. Within one hour of his articles being posted on websites, the Chinese government sent agents from their embassy to his residence in Iraq to question him, to request a copy of his passport, and to ask him to leave. He refused. He noted that it is a sign of the increasingly progressive nature of China that the government asked, and did not require. But he is not sure whether he will be welcome when he returns, for he knows many of his fellow countrymen who are in prison for similar political offenses.

Anyone who wonders why America's efforts in Iraq are important need only talk to Mr. Wu. You see, the world is watching. China is watching. Those in the Chinese government wishing to perpetuate tyranny are watching and advocating failure for the new government, but people who long for freedom are looking to Iraq to see whether democracy can flourish. Iraqi democracy must succeed, not just for Iraq, or for the region, but to provide hope for men like Mr. Wu — hope that, one day, they too may enjoy the freedom Iraqis now have.

Paul Brinkley - I'm flabbergasted that you would suggest Kerry was more "Wilsonian" than Bush - if you mean by Wilsonian an interest in spreading democracy around the world. Tell that to Oswaldo Paya of the Varela Project in Cuba, whose efforts Kerry called "counterproductive" because they "bring the hammer down." Here's David Brooks on that comment:

"John Kerry's view? As he told Oppenheimer, the Varela Project "has gotten a lot of people in trouble . . . and it brought down the hammer in a way that I think wound up being counterproductive."
Imagine if you are a Cuban political prisoner rotting in a jail, and you learn that the leader of the oldest democratic party in the world thinks you're being counterproductive. Kerry's comment is a harpoon directed at the morale of Cuba's dissidents.
Imagine sitting in Castro's secret police headquarters and reading that statement. The lesson you draw is that crackdowns work. Throw some dissidents in jail, and the man who might be president of the United States will blame the democrats for being provocative."

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/19/opinion/19BROO.html?ex=1402977600&en=25bb43d6573a1f8c&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

Here's Pejman Yousefzadeh:

"One can be even blunter in describing the consequences of Kerry's statement. He is essentially saying that those who decided -- of their own free will -- to participate in the Varela Project and further its goals of peaceful democratic change in Cuba (a goal endorsed by former President Jimmy Carter, among others) -- brought persecution on to themselves. But contrary to the implication in Kerry's statements, the "trouble" in Cuba stems from the existence of a totalitarian regime that has consistently moved to snuff out any semblance of democracy and reform on the island. It isn't the fault of the Project organizers that dissidents have been persecuted. The fault lies entirely with the Castro regime -- which remains resolutely opposed to giving dissidents a voice in Cuba with which to express their loathing and dissatisfaction with an utterly failed and monstrous regime."

Link: http://www.techcentralstation.com/062804C.html

Kerry's spreading something here, but it isn't democracy. Unlike George Bush, who actually has a track record of spreading democracy around the world, what has Kerry ever done to earn the adjective "Wilsonian"?

Patrick, Kerry has since embraced Varela.

praktike,

Is that a waffle, a flip-flop, or a course correction?

Is it based on policy or circumstances?

:-)

Based on D. Brooks' column, I believe.

Course correction, perhaps. A good one, in any event.