NO MORE talk of who won the debates. The election is only two weeks away, and soon enough we will all know who the winner is. So instead of analyzing Kerry's presidential stature or Bush's disinterested mannerisms, let's evaluate the content of these debates. Both candidates have trite and corny one-liners. But for some reason, Bush's repetition of "freedom is on the march" just does not sit well with me.
Granted, every individual is entitled to define his own conception of freedom. My definition is being able to walk outside the door and feel safe. Others value freedom of speech or rights to practice religion. The Bush administration's definition seems to be the ability to vote -- or, plainly, democracy. This is deduced from Bush's subsequent comments in the debate regarding elections in Afghanistan and the emerging democracy in Iraq.
Before delving into everything that's wrong about announcing a liberal crusade to impose a democratic ideology on the world, let's first examine the current effectiveness of democracy, in particular the right to vote, in burgeoning democracies.
President Bush uses Afghanistan as the "gem" of his foreign policy and continues to praise the success of the recent election. Yet BBC reports that the Afghanis continue to stall the ballot count, and there are numerous complaints of fraudulent behavior and irregularities.
Next, The Washington Post reported that terrorists in the Madrid train bombings may have intended to affect the Spanish election. After the deadly attacks, Spaniards voted the Socialist party to power. This party did not support the war on Iraq and was not predicted to win prior to the attacks. Not to say that Spain's Socialist party is anything close to the American conception of socialism -- but the election-targeted terrorism and the ideological shift to the left definitely shy away from Bush's proclamation of a worldwide freedom movement. The democratic infrastructure is relatively new in Spain, and these attacks directly affect the security freedoms of the Spaniards and their decisions to vote, as well as the stability of democracy.
With all the debate surrounding Iraq, it is not necessary to probe the problems resulting from America's democracy-inspired takeover. Just read the newspaper or look at the numbers of Iraqi citizens who die each day from violent attacks.
There are numerous examples in which Bush's "freedom on the march" prediction is just not holding true. Equating freedom to democracy or the right to vote is problematic to the current state of affairs. Terrorism opposes freedom and voting, and therefore, to "march" across the world just harvests more hate and terrorist angst.
We cannot impose democracy upon nations -- it rejects the basic principle of freedom, choice. Bush should instead add the disclaimer to his debate rhetoric, that freedom is marching across the world "due to American takeovers, military power and the loss of American lives." Democracy is not spreading -- we are simply using our military prowess to conquer non-democratic nations. If a socialist leader said, "Communism is on the march," Americans would fear the return of imperialism and world wars. Soon non-democratic regimes in North Korea and Iran may enter into America's zone of security-related fears -- are we to invade these nations in violent takeovers and install another faulty democracy?
In no way am I criticizing the benefits or success of democracy. But our president insists that these unilateral, hostile takeovers are intended to spread freedom. This is not a healthy image to send abroad.
A more effective approach is to show worldwide support of these ideologies. Nations are afraid of imperialism -- it caused two world wars. Bush's statement brings back images of the imperialist world powers racing to indoctrinate countries and utilizing the conquered colony's resources (in Iraq's case, oil). The Republican administration thinks that the United States can help these countries without allies or international cooperation -- yet this enrages opponents of democracy (usually in the form of terrorists), and free nations begin to suspect America of imperialist ambitions.
Many gung-ho conservatives will reply that our security is the main interest in these crusades -- that totalitarian regimes threaten our freedoms. If this is so, why doesn't every democratic nation feel this way? Very few major powers wanted to invade Iraq without the support of the United Nations. The United States embodies this "crusader of democracy" image -- and therefore, makes us the target for many attacks on democracy. Yet with multilateral support and force, these terrorists would be ineffective in impacting the freedoms of democracy. But the United States continues this "march" while depicting the conquests as security-minded, but in turn, these unilateral takeovers only ignite more hate and take away more of my freedom.
Michael Behr's column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at mbehr@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 3 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
