One of the hidden assumptions of the Bush Administration is that democracies develop in a linear and uninterrupted progression. The problem is that the actual course of history contravenes this model. For example, some relatively democratic regimes have in the recent past capitulated to authoritarian outcomes precisely because the force of arms either would not or could not be used to defend democracy. The shift in Venezuela from Romulo Betancourt to Ch vez is a dramatic illustration of how this process can take place within a single generation. Iran is another example: While the Persia of the shah was hardly an exemplar of democracy, Iran's social practices--its liberation of women for example--served as a useful model to the rest of the Middle East. Unfortunately, there are just as many examples of democracies devolving into totalitarian states as there are of democratic progress of the kind cited in Freedom House Reports. The classical 18th-century theories of progress therefore require some scrutiny, although rejecting the assumption of progress goes against the American grain. It must come as a shock to those with a sense of real history to see the women of Iran--decked out once more in traditional Muslim garb and holding hands in solidarity--demonstrating in support of Iran's nuclear weapons program, directly adjacent to a uranium-conversion plant in Isfahan.

Likewise, those who presume that speaking English is a sure guide to cultural pluralism might have another look at places like Zimbabwe, in which culture was overwhelmed by doctrines of distributive justice or, more accurately, retribution. Certainly those in Zimbabwe who grew up in English grammar schools and are now leading the charge toward racialism and separatism are not enamored of the British traditions of fairness or equity. The question is not as Timothy Garton Ash, who should know better, would have it: "How can such a regime be transformed?" Rather it is how such regnant totalitarian or theocratic regimes have been able to seize, secure and retain power, and turn the democratic clock into hard reverse.

Critics of the Bush vision, meanwhile, fail to point the way forward and seem frustrated in their efforts to devise a useful alternative to current administrative foreign policy initiatives. Bush's democracy agenda has flustered the Right and Left alike, prompting extremists at both ends of the political spectrum to meet. A common strain of hatred of Bush's agenda is apparent in conventional conservative and radical calls against American arrogance, imperialism and monopoly--the pejorative names of the hour. One can scarcely distinguish between critics of the administration on the Right or Left without knowing an individual's historical political position.

Self-declared libertarians, revolutionaries, anti-globalizers, faith healers, assorted academic placard carriers and journalistic malcontents have never been more united in their opposition to the presidency--even though this opposition lacks cohesion in terms of what it actually supports. They try to counter the presidential emphasis on democracy but are stymied by an inability to articulate their own democratic goals. Once again, though, the critics may be correct, in that the nations we try to assist into the modern world have little capacity or interest to articulate a democratic vision.

In short, the conduct of foreign policy is not subject to an ideological blueprint. It requires a highly leveraged series of maneuvers, requiring a balance of pragmatic and normative components, in which even winners acting out of noble intent get their feet muddy and their hands bloodied. These normative elements must be decided upon before acting and should subscribe to guiding principles that give policy greater consistency and coherence. Ordinary people, especially foot soldiers, know this well. It is the elites, especially academic pundits, who have yet to appreciate that ideological crusades lead to combat fatalities.

Irving Louis Horowitz is Hannah Arendt Distinguished University Professor Emeritus at Rutgers University, where he also serves as chairman of the board of Transaction Publishers. His recent works include Behemoth: Main Currents in the History and Theory of Political Sociology (1999) and Taking Lives: Genocide and State Power (1976), now in its fifth edition.

Essay Types: Essay