Hey PL's, Pass This Along to Your Messiah

Conservative Foreign Policy & Reagan's Legacy

By Colin Dueck


America's current armed conflict with Muammar Gaddafi raises a cluster of familiar questions about U.S. intervention, democracy promotion, and nation building, not only in relation to Libya</SPAN> but also in relation to ongoing cases such as Egypt</SPAN> and Afghanistan</SPAN>. Conservatives and Republicans are wrestling with these questions, like everyone else, but with their own distinct values and priorities in mind. Let us take a step back to consider what a conservative foreign policy might look like on issues of democracy promotion and intervention.
When American conservatives reflect on concrete examples of undeniably successful, modern, conservative foreign policy presidents, they think first of Ronald Reagan. Indeed the vast majority of conservatives hold up Reagan as a model of how to conduct U.S. foreign and defense policy, but they do not always agree on the day to day implications of that Reaganite model.
For example, when Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, a longstanding American ally, was confronted with a popular protest movement earlier this year, some leading conservatives like William Kristol invoked the Reaganite legacy of democracy promotion in urging the U.S. to help topple the Egyptian autocrat. Other conservatives like Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, John Bolton, and Charles Krauthammer pointed out the danger that Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood might ultimately fill the gap left by Mubarak's departure.
Since Republicans seem to agree that Reagan set the standard, it is worth asking: what exactly was his approach toward democracy promotion abroad?
There is no doubt that Reagan believed democracies to be more peaceful, more trustworthy, and more just in their foreign policy behavior than authoritarian forms of government. Indeed he created the National Endowment for Democracy in 1983 to help provide training, technical aid, and financial support toward the promotion of democratic practices including free and fair elections overseas. In relation to U.S. adversaries at the time, including the Soviet Union and its client states, Reagan viewed the theme of democracy promotion as not only morally imperative but strategically useful as a pressure point against hostile dictatorships. He therefore issued sharp rhetorical and ideological challenges indicating his belief that the entire Communist system of government was immoral, illegitimate, dysfunctional, and doomed. Obviously Reagan was not shy about stating his sincere conviction in the inherent superiority of democracy. Yet in relation to U.S. allies, he was usually quite circumscribed and subtle in his efforts at democracy promotion.
Reagan clearly believed, within the context of the Cold War, that there could hardly be anything worse for either democratic values or U.S. interests than the international spread of Communism. In this he was very much in agreement with his administration's first ambassador to the United Nations, leading neoconservative Jeane Kirkpatrick. Kirkpatrick argued, quite rightly, that former President Jimmy Carter had unintentionally aided the rise of radical and violently anti-American forces in Nicaragua and Iran</SPAN> by pressuring allied governments in those countries on democracy and human rights issues.
Reagan's fundamental instinct therefore, especially on first coming into power in 1981, was to bolster America's anti-Communist allies worldwide rather than to hector them.In cases such as El Salvador and South Africa</SPAN>, allied governments were quietly nudged in a positive direction on democratic human rights, while reassured of ultimate American support. In practical terms Reagan was also willing to materially aid a wide range of anti-Communist insurgencies in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, and Africa whether or not they lived up to strict standards of liberal propriety.
A significant turning point for the Reagan administration came in 1986, when Filipino dictator and longtime U.S. ally Ferdinand Marcos faced possible overthrow by domestic opponents. Reagan's initial instinct in the Filipino case, as always, was to back up his anti-Communist ally. But the main opposition to Marcos inside the Philippines</SPAN> was neither Communist nor anti-American, and when virtually the entire U.S. foreign policy establishment emerged in favor of easing the aged Marcos out of power, Reagan was finally convinced to do so.
Other U.S. allies in places like Chile and South Korea</SPAN> were pressed more aggressively on democracy and human rights issues during Reagan's second term. The final outcome by the time he left office in January 1989 was that numerous allied governments in East Asia and Latin America had moved in a democratic direction. Yet this was not simply the result of U.S. criticism and pressure. It was also very much the result of complicated internal factors, combined with positive American assistance and reassurance regarding core security concerns.
The main lines of Reagan's record on democracy promotion can therefore be summarized fairly briefly: Reagan distinguished between allies and adversaries. In relation to U.S. adversaries, Reagan issued ringing and sincere denunciations of undemocratic practices in order to indicate moral concern as well as to weaken hostile regimes. In relation to American allies, on the other hand, Reagan was usually much more circumspect, because he understood that to destabilize an autocratic but U.S.-aligned government might very well lead to something worse. There was certainly some movement toward more pointed forms of pro-democracy pressure on U.S. allies during Reagan's second term, but even then, Reagan's first instinct was always to bolster, support, and reassure allies, rather than to critique them.
What are the implications of Reagan's example today? Over the past three months the Arab world has been caught up in a maelstrom of revolutionary political pressures, mostly against U.S.-allied but autocratic governments. The United States</SPAN> has once again been forced to confront classic questions of whether and how to support, channel, or resist these pressures. Of course the parallels to Reagan's day are not exact, but there are still certain lessons to be learned from past examples. Conservatives, of all people, understand that political revolutions frequently end up leading to violent, terrible outcomes unanticipated by the liberal, the idealistic and the well-meaning.
Certainly Reagan understood this. Revolutions create power vacuums that are often filled by relatively small groups of well-organized political radicals, militants and extremists. During the Cold War, the most important such groups internationally were Communists. Today the most important such groups are Islamist extremists. To be sure, today's radical Islamists do not control a global superpower, but they do command the sympathy and support of millions of Muslims, and constitute a kind of loose transnational insurgency with a demonstrated capacity for violence. In Egypt, the leading organization of radical Islamists is the Muslim Brotherhood. It is the best-organized force in that country outside of the nation's army, and well positioned to take advantage of hurried elections this fall. Especially as it works in coalition with leftist political movements, the Brotherhood has a chance to assume meaningful degrees of political power in the coming years. So what are its intentions?
Western journalists have tended to suggest during the last few weeks that the Muslim Brotherhood is nothing to worry about, and that it has now evolved to the point where it poses no pressing danger to prospects for a peaceful, liberal, democratic Egypt. Of course this is exactly what the most sophisticated and militant Muslim Brothers would like Western opinion to think, as it makes their task of achieving power a good deal easier. There are certainly interesting factional debates going on within the Brotherhood. Yet the stated position of leading Brothers in recent years includes: the ejection of Western influence from the region; an end to the alliance with the United States; termination of Egypt's peace treaty with Israel</SPAN>; noxious anti-Semitism; applause for terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians; the establishment of strict Islamist rule; and support for indigenous attacks on U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq</SPAN>. This is not an encouraging record, to say the least.
The point is not that we know exactly what the Brothers would do if they took power in Egypt. The point is that we don't know - and that's precisely the problem. Maybe they would live up to every liberal's dream of peaceful, democratic political Islam. More probably, they would not. Yet an amazing number of Western commentators and officials earlier this year were prepared to publicly and abruptly push Hosni Mubarak out the door, risking the possibility that in the end a deeply anti-American Muslim Brotherhood will assume increased power in a country of critical regional importance. Whatever this policy amounts to, it is not what Ronald Reagan would have favored in relation to a U.S. ally.
Of course, the political situation inside Egypt is still extremely fluid, which is exactly why the United States should act energetically to ensure that the Muslim Brotherhood does not assume power, even in coalition. American technical and financial support for democratic practices and free elections in Egypt are entirely appropriate under the circumstances, but need not be distributed in a universal manner to all competing parties. During the late 1940s, Washington dispensed Marshall Plan aid on the clear understanding that Communists would be excluded from power in Western European governments - and they were. This was a geopolitical and moral success for the United States, as it was for liberal democracy in Europe.
We are under no obligation to provide direct or indirect support to parties inside Egypt which are fundamentally hostile to both the United States and liberal democratic principles. The U.S. should use what time, influence and resources it has to support truly liberal forces within Egypt - but let's not delude ourselves that such forces are preponderant inside that country simply because Mubarak has gone.

Colin Dueck is associate professor of public and international affairs at George Mason University, and the author of the forthcoming book Hard Line: The Republican Party and U.S. Foreign Policy since World War II (Princeton, October 2010).
WTF's Avatar
  • WTF
  • 03-24-2011, 09:04 AM
Reagan clearly believed, within the context of the Cold War, that there could hardly be anything worse for either democratic values or U.S. interests than the international spread of Communism. ). Originally Posted by Marshall
Do you understand how stupid this sounds to any one with any objectvity?

If a country wants Communism, in fact elects folks that believe in that political way, Reagan would then work to undermine just wtf he claimed to support...that is self rule in the manner any country see's fit.

What a crop of horse shit article's like these are.
Do you understand how stupid this sounds to any one with any objectvity?

If a country wants Communism, in fact elects folks that believe in that political way, Reagan would then work to undermine just wtf he claimed to support...that is self rule in the manner any country see's fit.

What a crop of horse shit article's like these are. Originally Posted by WTF
No, but I understand how stupid this sounds to any one with any objectvity..........

BTW: Tell me about these free and open democratic elections the communists held...........
In my opinion, communism was the fundamental under theme of the twentieth century. Fast forward to now, I think globalization and oil dependency are the fundamentals that will dominate ours and other nations foreign and domestic policies for a long time.

I loved Ronald Regan; I still do. But the idea of communism is no longer a “threat”. We now face how to handle an ever changing economical world that threatens our world dominance and a guerrilla army that threatens peace. Just my opinion. I’ve not read this anywhere.
Randy4Candy's Avatar
First of all, "communism" wasn't really that at all. What the USSR, China and the rest had/have is a form of Marxist theory that quickly devolved through the hunger for power into totalitarian stateism with varying degrees of evangilism pimping their belief system. Mostly, their satellites were for buffers of protection. Totalitarianism eventually settles into some form of fascism which is what the USSR was, China is and present day Russia is becoming (fascism through organized crime...LOL). Of course, one would have to know some history to understand this.

Articles like this are very useful because they illustrate the importance of multiple sourcing in order to find a coherent fact based viewpoint. Unfortunately, most merely use them to shore up their established viewpoint as they march onward wrapped in a flag, with a religious tome held high and a hand in our pockets.
I B Hankering's Avatar
First of all, "communism" wasn't really that at all. What the USSR, China and the rest had/have is a form of Marxist theory that quickly devolved through the hunger for power into totalitarian stateism with varying degrees of evangilism pimping their belief system. Mostly, their satellites were for buffers of protection. Totalitarianism eventually settles into some form of fascism which is what the USSR was, China is and present day Russia is becoming (fascism through organized crime...LOL). Of course, one would have to know some history to understand this.. Originally Posted by Randy4Candy
As I understand history, the U.S. stood against the spread of totalitarian regimes left and right (and the soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen carried flags and Bibles). And you are still free to leave this country and bow down and kiss the boots of which ever totalitarian system you choose: Chavez, Castro, Kim, Ahmadinejad, etc.
First of all, "communism" wasn't really that at all. What the USSR, China and the rest had/have is a form of Marxist theory that quickly devolved through the hunger for power into totalitarian stateism with varying degrees of evangilism pimping their belief system. Mostly, their satellites were for buffers of protection. Totalitarianism eventually settles into some form of fascism which is what the USSR was, China is and present day Russia is becoming (fascism through organized crime...LOL). Of course, one would have to know some history to understand this.

Articles like this are very useful because they illustrate the importance of multiple sourcing in order to find a coherent fact based viewpoint. Unfortunately, most merely use them to shore up their established viewpoint as they march onward wrapped in a flag, with a religious tome held high and a hand in our pockets. Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

I meant communism not so much as an economic theory that had no hope in hell of working, but more as you have described it here. An idea that became a force in the world to control the citizens of said countries and also a tool to not colonize per say, but spread the Soviet’s (and China to some extent) control to strategic parts of the world. That’s why we were never ok with communist regimes in the New World.

I find the article good as a history lesson, but I do not believe chasing communism as a threat valid anymore.
First of all, "communism" wasn't really that at all. What the USSR, China and the rest had/have is a form of Marxist theory that quickly devolved through the hunger for power into totalitarian stateism with varying degrees of evangilism pimping their belief system. Mostly, their satellites were for buffers of protection. Totalitarianism eventually settles into some form of fascism which is what the USSR was, China is and present day Russia is becoming (fascism through organized crime...LOL). Of course, one would have to know some history to understand this. Originally Posted by Randy4Candy
I can't tell if this is another, "Communism is a great idea if only the RIGHT KIND OF PEOPLE implemented it" argument......Reagan knew that communist theory is incompatible with human nature and quickly devolves into facism/totalitarianism....nobody can implement communism......The point of this article that Pharoh Obama needs to understand is that US foreign policy is about the best interests of the US people, not helping other peoples [unless it's directly in our best interests].....Reagan knew that democracy evolves from within a society, not the dictates of outsiders, thus Reagan supported democratic elements from within rather than do nation building......
but I do not believe chasing communism as a threat valid anymore. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward
liberalism and socialism are intellectual siblings to communism, thus still a problem as they have been in the US for the past 100 years....having said that, I agree with you that communism is not our greatest threat anymore....the remnants of liberalism will be crushed as people get fed up with getting crushed by liberal policies....the internet will free us from the stranglehold liberals have over education and media....

Islam is our biggest problem....it is anti-freedom....Islam is a religion, but also a social, economic, polital, and legal system.....Islam is intolerant of others and their opposing beliefs.....it's a submit to Islam or die philosophy with scores willing to kill infidels [Islam rewards matyrs with heaven and 72 virgins]
I B Hankering's Avatar
Islam is our biggest problem....it is anti-freedom....Islam is a religion, but also a social, economic, polital, and legal system.....Islam is intolerant of others and their opposing beliefs.....it's a submit to Islam or die philosophy with scores willing to kill infidels [Islam rewards matyrs with heaven and 72 virgins] Originally Posted by Marshall
Throughout the Cold War, the U.S.S.R spent billions of dollars in Third World countries in order to alienate what people it could against the West. In the Muslim world, those dollars preserved and inflamed the indigenous Wahhabism. Many of the problems encumbering U.S. policy making in the Muslim world today are a legacy of the anti-Western, communist indoctrination that occurred during the Cold War.
Throughout the Cold War, the U.S.S.R spent billions of dollars in Third World countries in order to alienate what people it could against the West. In the Muslim world, those dollars preserved and inflamed the indigenous Wahhabism. Many of the problems encumbering U.S. policy making in the Muslim world today are a legacy of the anti-Western, communist indoctrination that occurred during the Cold War. Originally Posted by I B Hankering
I like conservatism better than islam....it rewards you with heaven and 72 escorts....some of us are just happy with the 72 escorts.....
Charles,

Did you ever get confirmation from the mods that Marshall was HerFaceChair? I believe your suspicion was erroneous.
liberalism and socialism are intellectual siblings to communism, thus still a problem as they have been in the US for the past 100 years....having said that, I agree with you that communism is not our greatest threat anymore....the remnants of liberalism will be crushed as people get fed up with getting crushed by liberal policies....the internet will free us from the stranglehold liberals have over education and media....

Islam is our biggest problem....it is anti-freedom....Islam is a religion, but also a social, economic, polital, and legal system.....Islam is intolerant of others and their opposing beliefs.....it's a submit to Islam or die philosophy with scores willing to kill infidels [Islam rewards matyrs with heaven and 72 virgins] Originally Posted by Marshall
Communism and hyper-capitalism are more akin to one-an-other than socialism and liberalism in my opinion. The former steam roll the people and the latter, where I am not overly liberal, are more serving of the people. We can’t as a civilized nation and let our people go hungry or without shelter, but we cannot burden the tax base with expensive taxes either. It’s a balance.

I agree I B Hankering that the Soviet Union spent billions ensuring that we were just as hated as they were elsewhere in the world. I would also say that the idiotic way the Middle East was divided up after WWII is a big driver in the unrest there. And if you have unrest, you have to have someone who caused it. And that brings them right back to us. Being egged on by the Soviets and the zealots, their poverty or misery take your pick because it depends on which dictator or monarch they were subject to and their religion has fueled their hatred.

I do not agree with you that Islam or Conservativeism is the greatest enemy. I stand by what I said that globalization and oil / energy dependency are now our greatest threats. Were it not for the oil in the Middle East, we wouldn’t have a care less what goes on there beyond ordinary human caring. It is our best interest to tame this part of the world, but we keep approaching it with a Western-world mind. That just won’t work.

gulflover's Avatar
About that oil dependency:

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2011...3011300832974/
http://tinyurl.com/4l682e5

So, the technological breakthroughs we need to reduce oil dependency seem close. Now about that cold fusion.....
Rudyard K's Avatar
About that oil dependency:

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2011...3011300832974/
http://tinyurl.com/4l682e5

So, the technological breakthroughs we need to reduce oil dependency seem close. Now about that cold fusion..... Originally Posted by gulflover
Interesting. But just to note...fuel cells are really just batteries. When you plug the battery into the wall to recharge it...something has to have put the electricty to that wall plug.

So, moving to fuel cells powering cars is just going to mean that plant power generation needs to expand. If we did elect to change power generation to something viable like nulcear power generation?...then we surely might diminish our need of fossil fuels.