Egypt Holds Up the Mirror for US

Political theory 101

Bush and his speech writers turn to grand language, grand claims and grand lies in the latest US stage-setting barrage against the Middle East. Azmi Bishara is unimpressed

The only unique feature about President Bush's recent speech as it appeared on the White House Web site was the presence of the word "applause" between parentheses, after almost every paragraph. I was reminded of the speeches of Communist Party leaders published by the Progress Publishing House in Moscow in sleek hardback editions on glossy white paper. In these, too, one found the same parenthetical additions, albeit in more precise shadings: "applause", "loud applause", "loud, sustained applause", "standing ovation and cheering".

Getting beyond that, one cannot help but be drawn to take a closer look. I don't know who wrote the speech, but he or she was clearly erudite and versed in the fundamental issues of democracy, especially as pertains to the problems of democratic transition. For the first time, I found myself confronted with a speech by George Bush that was, in effect, a position paper containing the primary tenets of the natural right fundamentalists who hold this administration in their grip. This is a historic document.

The speech, delivered to the US Chamber of Commerce in Washington, marked the 20th anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy. Bush reminded his audience that this organisation was founded following Ronald Reagan's speech at Westminster Palace in June 1982. Reagan proclaimed that day that the Soviet Union was approaching an end and that the world had reached a turning point in its history; a turning towards democracy. Evidently, Bush's talented ghost writer intended to imply that this speech was just as historic as Reagan's; that it, too, heralded a momentous turning point towards democracy, in the Middle East this time. The implication becomes explicit in the second half of the speech.

We already knew that there was nothing "neo" to the "neo-conservatives" -- that their political temperament harks back to the ambiance of such administrations as that of Reagan and Truman. What they like about Reagan is that he refused to accept the status quo. Reagan believed that it was possible to change the communist order, unlike his predecessors whose acceptance of reality led them to a policy of détente and, in the minds of conservative thinkers, to the betrayal of democracy in many parts of the world. In fact, it was not so much détente that betrayed democracy as Washington's tendency, under détente or in conflict, to enter into alliances without scrutinising the ally; beyond, that is, his being "with us or with them". This was the policy that the Bush administration upped to a "with us or against us". It was the ideologues of the present administration who coined "status quo-ist" as a way to disparage a person -- especially an adversary in the administration itself -- as one who has allegedly abandoned "America's historic mission", even if to accomplish it the use of force is necessary.

Naturally, the speech writer was not about to pass up the opportunity to take a jab at those "sophisticated" Europeans who derided Reagan's Westminster speech as "simplistic and naïve". Naturally, we are meant to share the joke at the expense of those world-wise defeatists who were ultimately proved wrong by Reagan's "simple" words. By extension, of course, intellectuals from both sides of the Atlantic will come to praise Bush for simple, direct and unpolished style, and the efficacy of this style, unless, that is, he needs a sophisticated speech to justify his unsophisticated ways.

Bush, in his speech, dwells for a while on how historians of the future will explain the fact that the number of democratic nations in the world rose from 40 in the 1970s to 120 by the end of the century. He predicts that future historians will focus on two factors. The first is that "the rise of so many democracies took place in a time when the world's most influential nation was itself a democracy," and as such a source of inspiration to the oppressed and to pro-democracy advocates throughout the world. Of course, one could argue that most democrats and others languishing in the world's prisons did not wait for the US to deliver them and that, moreover, a good proportion of them happened to be languishing in the prisons of America's allies. Undoubtedly, this accounts for why the speech placed such emphasis on "our commitment to democracy" -- the writer was fully aware of the scepticism shared by people the world over on precisely this point. The second factor that Bush expects historians to note is the rise of a middle class, "confident enough to demand their own rights", along with the global spread of communications technology and free trade.

Historians of the future will also draw inevitable conclusions, it seems, from comparisons between the respective fates of those nations that in the middle of the 20th century chose either dictatorship or democracy. That the democracies always emerged stronger was proof of the intrinsic connection between strength and prosperity and liberty and creativity. The speech then proclaims, "The success of freedom is not determined by some dialectic of history." ("Dialectic?" Where did the White House get this language from?) Rather, "By definition, the success of freedom rests upon the choices and the courage of free peoples, and upon their willingness to sacrifice," as Americans had done in Korea and Vietnam, for example. So, not only does it appear that the ghost writer read some Marx at university, but he also has a score to settle with Fukuyama. Democracy is not inevitably destined to prevail, through some kind of millenarian dialectic. Its victory is a question of resolve, purpose and sufferance. But the discussion is purely academic, because the victory of an ideology also depends on the ability to mobilise converts and instil faith in its ultimate victory.

<< snip>>

Bush wants us to learn by heart, and to repeat, that the bearers of the mission of liberty are crew- cut marines from Iowa and Minnesota, remnants of the Reagan administration, and a revamped president who overcame his addiction to alcohol by embracing a staunch fundamentalism and who recently signed a law restricting women's right to abortion in the US itself. More ominously, this president derives his greatest support from the most conservative and reactionary forces, whose faith in what he says is so fervent that they are pushing for an aggressive application of his stance against the "status quo".

Don't get me wrong. I'm not mocking Bush's simplicity. His speech, as I have said, is far from simplistic. But it certainly doesn't defy comprehension.

Published in Al-Ahram November 20, 2003

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The entire in depth analysis by Bishara is typical of the in-depth and thoughtful writing that is typical of Al-Ahram.

Well work taking the risk of getting listed as a subsersive and taking out a subscription.

David Roknich,
Editor

DOGSPOT