Damn!

Lost a post. It was a political one, too, so I don't feel particularly motivated to re-create it, lest I outrage and/or disgust myself even more over what it was I was fulminating about. The topic was an article in today's Los Angeles Times online - I got the link via The War in Context, my favorite news clearinghouse - written by a Standford professor of political science that was in essence a lot of hand-wringing concerning our inability to export democracy to the world, especially in light of our Commander-in-Chimp's recent statements that America's new "mission" is to facilitate the spread of freedom and the rule of law (and that's the reason why we invaded Iraq, at least until that story doesn't wash anymore).

I was moved by the poli sci prof's earnestness but dismayed that he fell so hook, link, and sinker for the oldest foreign policy ruse in the book, which dates back to fifth century Athens and her much-vaunted empire: act nakedly in your own best interests and, when pressed, claim it's in the interest of fighting tyranny. Look, I'm as much for the spread of democracy as anyone, but if that's really why we knocked over Saddam Hussein's tinpot regime, I'll eat my nasty weathered Red Sox cap.

It's Logic 101, folks - just because a) Iraq was not a democracy and b) we invaded it doesn't necessarily mean that we invaded Iraq because it wasn't a democracy. We like dictatorships and oppressive oligarchical regimes fine, so long as they vote for our resolutions at the United Nations - witness Uzbekistan as an example of the former, the leader of which is a heartless bastard who thinks he's Alexander the Great reborn and boils his political opponents alive; and none other than our good friends the Russians, who have returned their nation to its Soviet totalitarianism in all but name with our blessing - after all, George "The Amazing Kreskin" Bush said that he'd looked into Vladimir Putin's soul and saw that he was a good man, so why not give him the benefit of the doubt as he consolidates his power and clamps down on the media with an iron fist? - are a prime exemplar of the latter. Conversely, when a democracy challenges one of our diktats, we tend to mock it (France), no longer answer its phone calls (Germany), or attempt to subvert it entirely (Turkey), usually by a tacitly-endorsed military coup. So why would we really want any more of those anyway?

No. This is about money and power, as it has always been, and probably always will be. At least our ancestors in spirit the Athenians would admit as much when hard pressed - witness the chilling Realpolitik of the Melian Dialogue in Thucydides, or Thrasymachus' insistence that justice is the interest of the stronger in Plato. Whereas we on the other hand tend to cling to the lie even more steadfastly when confronted with the obviousness of its falsehood. I'm glad Saddam is gone, and I do hope that democracy flourishes in the new postwar Iraq when the American servicemen and women finally leave for good. But until the Marines invade Rangoon or any other of the myriad other countries out there that could use some democracy but are too poor or of too little strategic importance to merit the aid of the world's superpower, I'll be hanging onto my hat, and not chowing down on it.

(See? In the process of trying to recover my post I got even more angry than I'd been before!)