Monday, July 18, 2005

“No ifs ands or buts,”

our mother used to say to indicate that her immediately previous utterance was an command, not a suggestion. John Cole’s recent comments on the response he anticipated Democrats would make to news that Saddam Hussein had been indicted are voiced in a similar tone.


Good. Now watch Democrats shoot themselves politically by running around saying things like "Sure Saddam Hussein was a bad person but was it worth _____________."

Because you just know they will. They can't resist. When you have your sightings of said behavior, document them here in the comments.

And, because someone will accuse me of being unfair to Democrats, and will inevitably say something snotty in the comments like "Well, what SHOULD they say," here is what they should say:

"I am glad that Saddam Hussein will finally be made to pay for his horrible crimes."

That is it. That is all they need to say, or some variation on that. There need be no killer 'but,' as there will be plenty of time to attack Bush and Republicans about the war later on. Instead, they will overstep (AGAIN), and look like a bunch of idiots.


We should note as a preliminary matter that we are regular readers of and occasional commentors at (even if we do find the comment feature’s refusal to indicate when you have successfully posted a comment quite annoying), John Cole’s blog, Balloon Juice. His threads summon fond memories of our family's dinner debates about politics in the Nixon era when we were quite the whipper-snapper. We find ourselves quite at home and quite engaged at his blog– even if we disagree with John Cole much of the time.

But we’d like to know is what is the “line” John thinks Democrats will cross with their ifs ands and buts? Let us begin with the words John wants Democrats to dutifully mouth. We’re happy that Saddam Hussein will be made to pay for his crimes. (Happy, John?)

But how will Saddam be made to pay: through a politically and legally just process, or through the mere assertion of power by his enemies? If through the former, we’ll need a democratically elected government with a legal system whose pronouncements the Iraqi people believe are legitimate and binding. We still get to feel good that a monster like Saddam is out of power and will suffer, even if it happens just because our army is a hell of a lot stronger then his. But will we get to ground this sense of good feeling in anything more ethically compelling than the old adage about the worm turning?

For a very long time indeed, societies that have practiced democracy at home have not felt obliged to insist upon them overseas. Ancient Athens, for example, was notorious for supporting some foreign oligarchies when it suited their interests, and supporting democratic revolutions in other foreign states when the existing oligarchs wouldn’t dance to Athen’s tune. It is a tough question. Is democracy truly an ideology, or merely a convenient slogan in geopolitics? If democracy is a set of beliefs, not a tool of empire, are its adherents required to foster it abroad in such a way that they are responsible and accountable to their fellow citizens at home? Athens didn’t have close to all the answers on this one and Alexander the Great’s superior armies rather ended the debate for the them.

As far as we can tell, the neo-cons don’t have much coherence on this one either. They’d like democracy in the Middle East, apparently, and will invade an oil producing country whose leader they don’t like to impose democracy in Iraq – but not in Saudi Arabia. And apparently not in Central Asia either. And, Rummy was one of the first to shake Saddam’s hand shortly after the very crimes for which Saddam has just been indicted. Oh, and that democracy in Iraq that we’ve made possible? Apparently the U.S. bought the best democracy in Iraq we could – not trusting the results a democratic process in Iraq might achieve. And the democratically purchased regime we bought appears to think that democracy involves jailing critics.

The line John predicts the Democrats will cross (and we surely hope we have) is the boundary that separates democratic societies in which citizens hold their leaders accountable for their actions, and fascist states, where citizens dare not. We are proud that John thinks the Democrats are the party of “ifs ands or buts.” We are sorry he’d prefer a more authoritarian approach to political debate. But we are glad Saddam will pay.