Via email, reader Dan R. reacts to my post this morning on George Bush and his failed democracy agenda:
The problem with Bush's so-called "democracy promotion" wasn't just that it was half-hearted or hypocritical, but that it was such a simplistic approach to democracy: Elections are all that counts. It showed little appreciation for the elements of civil society that are a fundamental requirement of a successful democracy, and that make U.S.-style democracy possible in the U.S. but might not make it possible in a lot of other countries.
Now, I don't think Obama wants to go out and say that some countries aren't educated enough or have the civil traditions and institutions required for American-style democracy. So he's treading a fine line. But the reality is that the things he talked about — rule of law, government transparency, lack of corruption, equal administration of justice, freedom of the press, minority rights — are more realistic goals for many countries and appropriate way-stations on the way to what we would consider a full-fledged democracy.
I think Obama is exactly right in focusing on the values that underly democracy rather than the external forms....By striking a middle ground between "idealists" who would make democracy and human rights the sole focus of foreign policy and "realists" who would ignore American values in favor of American interests, this kind of thinking represents a very sophisticated step forward in our foreign policy.