Historians and "The Speech": part two

The dyspeptic and frankly delusional Eric Hobsbawm does not like what he thinks he heard President Bush say. He writes, in the Guardian, that Bush and his supporters are engaged in the “dangerous” and “quixotic” attempt to [get this!] “spread democracy.” Not that there’s anything wrong with that, of course. Many of Hobsbawm’s favorite “primitive rebels” were, after all, democratic levelers. What seems to irk this ancient apologist for Stalinism is that it is Americans, and in particular George Bush, who are engaged in doing so.

You see, Bush’s democracy is particular kind of democracy – a bourgeois concoction that seems to distress Hobsbawm. He had no objection to the "people's democracies" established by communist dictators in years past, but this is something else -- liberal democracy. He calls it “standardized (Western) democracy” and holds that spreading it is not only unfeasible but will increase global disorder.

Hobsbawm argues that Bush, in his naive simplisme, has been seduced by the vision of a universal liberal global order and doesn’t comprehend the objective “complexity” of the real world. Those democracies he intends to create will be unstable [hasn’t the fool read the history of Weimar?] and will most likely resist and undermine American hegemony by charting their own course and thus “sow disorder.” Furthermore, Bush is trying to impose democracy through force of arms, a dangerous and self-defeating practice. Military intervention by strong and stable states might be desirable from time to time, especially since so much of the world is dissolving into “bloodshed and anarchy,” but such actions must be supported, as in Bosnia, by the “freely expressed consent of the ‘world community.’” Otherwise they are likely to reflect not the common good, but the imperial ambitions of a hegemonic power. Tell that to the Tutsis!

Forget for a moment that stable and successful democratic regimes have spread widely through Asia and Latin America in recent decades, in some cases nurtured and supported by American force of arms. Forget that armed intervention implanted stable democracies in Germany and Japan six decades ago and that emergent democracies in both Europe and East Asia have flourished ever since under the aegis of American military power. Forget that Clinton's Kosovo intervention, applauded by the left, never had the sanction of the United Nations, which presumably would reflect the consent of the “world community,” [whatever that is]. Forget that President Bush specifically stated that:

America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom and make their own way.

And he made it quite clear that:

This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen and defended by citizens and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities.

Forget all this, and much more, and Professor Hobsbawm might have just the beginnings of a plausible argument here. But I cannot forget the past, though Professor Hobsbawm, renowned historian though he may be, apparently has.

Hobsbawm’s objection is not just to President Bush, but to America itself. It is, in his imagination, a dangerous land suffused with “megalomania and messianism,” eager to remake the world in its own image. America’s aims, he maintains, are not idealistic, but simply to advance its own interests, and those imperial designs will inevitably promote the “barbarization” of much of the world.

You see, in Hobsbawm’s world democracy is a rare and unstable thing, one of "The World's Most Dangerous Ideas," achievable only in those few states where the government enjoys “legitimacy, consent, and the ability to mediate conflicts between domestic groups.” Without such freely given consent democracy will fail, the state will dissolve, or it will be plagued by endless civil war. Attempts to instill democracy will therefore destabilize existing regimes and promote ethnic conflict. It is better, in Hobsbwam’s view, to maintain stable tyrannies than to risk the chaos sure to attend democratization.

In fact, Hobsbawm views democracy as a troublesome inconvenience – an impediment to effective governance. The European Union is a case in point. It is effective, he argues, precisely because all important decisions are made between representatives of governments and are not subject to ratification by any electorate. It is this “democratic deficit” that makes the European Union a reality. Problems emerge only when member governments subject initiatives to popular vote.

Here the Professor has a problem. Clearly the American government has acted effectively despite being burdened by democratic procedures. To resolve the difficulty Hobsbawm lapses into leftist, Kennedyesque fantasy. He supposes that the American action in Iraq was hatched and implemented by a tiny cabal who acted in private, out of the sight of the people, much as would be done in a tyranny. Here the famed historian ignores the inconvenient fact that public opinion polls clearly showed a majority of the American public in support of the decision to go to war and that the decision was supported by a large majority of the people’s elected representatives. He ignores the months of debate, both at home and abroad, that preceded military incursion, and he ignores the fact that George Bush and his supporters were recently re-elected to office. The American people were not shut out of the decision making process.

Thus is revealed the underlying intolerance, despotic tendencies, and fanatical delusion that have long sustained this senescent hero of the left. He advances the proposition that the people, whom he claims to champion, cannot be entrusted with their own destiny. To him freedom is a chimera that must be held in check in the name of effective government. Legitimacy, in Hobsbawm’s world, is conferred by the agreement of governments, not by the consent those who are governed. And, he argues, the hopes and aspirations of individuals and peoples must be forever suppressed in the name of endless stability and order. Finally, this ageing communist true believer and defender of tyrants has the temerity to accuse President Bush of being a dangerous “ideologue.” I, for one, know which man is the true ideologue and whose positions represent a real danger. It is not President Bush.

UPDATE:

Although they proceed from opposite ends of the political spectrum, Professor Hobsbawm and Abu Masab Al-Zarqawi find common ground in their detestation of democracy.

In a 35-minute tape posted on two Islamic Web sites, a voice claiming to be al-Zarqawi said that anyone who participates in the Jan. 30 elections - voters or candidates - would be considered an enemy of God.

"We have declared a bitter war against democracy and all those who seek to enact it," al-Zarqawi said.

Read about it here.