The false debate of Idealism vs. Realism

In his daily briefing today, State Department spokesperson, Sean McCormack, recommended some extra reading to the group of reporters questioning him.

He was asked about the speech made by Defense Secretary Bob Gates, and dealing with the future of democracy, and how it compares to a speech made by Secretary Condoleezza Rice in Cairo a while ago. "Secretary Rice", McCormack said, "talked to Secretary Gates and saw the speech in advance of its delivery. She also gave a speech I would urge you to take a look at up in New York just a while ago, this past year, talking about American idealism and the importance of moving forward with the democracy agenda but also pursuing our interests, and how those two things are coincident".

So here it is - the argument against the false Realism/Idealism divide: From Bush to Rice to Gates. Whether you agree with this argument, or find it to be an excuse for the fall of the "democracy agenda", the key to it all is President Bush's second inaugural address.

Gates in Williamsburg, VA

"Since September 11th, once again we have people talking about the competing impulses in U.S. foreign policy: Realism versus idealism, freedom versus security, values versus interests.

I still remember working on the advance team for President Ford when he attended the Helsinki conference in 1975. Many critics were opposed to America's participation, since they believed that the accords did little but ratify the Soviet Union's takings in Eastern and Central Europe. The treaty's provisions on human rights were disparaged as little more than window dressing. However, the conference and treaty represent another of history's ironies. The Soviets demanded the conference for decades, finally got it, and it helped destroy them from the inside. We 'realists' opposed holding the conference for decades, and attended grudgingly. We were wrong. For the meeting played a key role in our winning the Cold War.

Why? Because the human-rights provisions of the treaty made a moral statement whose significance was not lost on the dissidents behind the Iron Curtain. Helsinki became a spur to action, a rallying cry to fight tyranny from within and plant democracy in its place.
Vaclav Havel later said that the accords were a shield, a chance to resist coercion and make it more difficult for the forces of coercion to retaliate. Lech Walesa called it a turning point on the road to change in Gdansk.

President Carter's promotion of the spirit of Helsinki - his elevation of human rights - for the first time in the Cold War denied the Soviet Union the respect and the legitimacy it craved. Ronald Reagan's muscular words ? labeling the U.S.S.R the 'Evil Empire' and demanding that Mr. Gorbachev tear down that wall - combined with his muscular defense policies hastened the implosion of the Soviet system.

Did these policies reflect hard-edged realism or lofty idealism? Both, actually. Were they implemented to defend our interests or to spread our democratic values? Again, both.

An underlying theme of American history is that we are compelled to defend our security and our interests in ways that, in the long run, lead to the spread of democratic values and institutions.

Read it here.

Rice in New York

In terms of foreign policy, Teddy Roosevelt is often misunderstood. Some see him as a progressive idealist; others as a cold-eyed realist. After all, the same Teddy Roosevelt who sent the Marines to Cuba also won the Nobel Peace Prize for helping to end a war between Russia and Japan. The same Teddy Roosevelt who built the Panama Canal by any means necessary also used American power to eradicate yellow fever and support public health in the Philippines and in parts of the Americas. And the same Teddy Roosevelt who spoke softly to our enemies never hesitated to carry a big stick.

This was realism, to be sure, but it was something greater, something nobler, a disposition that perhaps we should call the uniquely American Realism. It is this idea that I'd like to spend a few minutes talking about tonight.

American Realism is an approach to the world that arises not only from the realities of global politics but from the nature of America's character: From the fact that we are all united as a people not by a narrow nationalism of blood and soil, but by universal ideals of human freedom and human rights. We believe that our principles are the greatest source of our power. And we are led into the world as much by our moral ideas as by our material interests. It is for these reasons, and for many others, that America has always been, and will always be, not a status quo power, but a revolutionary power - a nation with New World eyes, that looks at change not as a threat to be feared, but as an opportunity to be seized?

Read it here.

Rice in Cairo

We know these advances will not come easily, or all at once. We know that different societies will find forms of democracy that work for them. When we talk about democracy, though, we are referring to governments that protect certain basic rights for all their citizens -- among these, the right to speak freely. The right to associate. The right to worship as you wish. The freedom to educate your children -- boys and girls. And freedom from the midnight knock of the secret police.

Securing these rights is the hope of every citizen, and the duty of every government. In my own country, the progress of democracy has been long and difficult. And given our history, the United States has no cause for false pride and we have every reason for humility.

After all, America was founded by individuals who knew that all human beings -- and the governments they create -- are inherently imperfect. And the United States was born half free and half slave. And it was only in my lifetime that my government guaranteed the right to vote for all of its people.

Nevertheless, the principles enshrined in our Constitution enable citizens of conviction to move America closer every day to the ideal of democracy. Here in the Middle East, that same long hopeful process of democratic change is now beginning to unfold. Millions of people are demanding freedom for themselves and democracy for their countries.

Read it here.

Bush, second inaugural address

America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time.

So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world?

Some, I know, have questioned the global appeal of liberty - though this time in history, four decades defined by the swiftest advance of freedom ever seen, is an odd time for doubt. Americans, of all people, should never be surprised by the power of our ideals. Eventually, the call of freedom comes to every mind and every soul. We do not accept the existence of permanent tyranny because we do not accept the possibility of permanent slavery. Liberty will come to those who love it.



Others quoting Bush's second inaugural address

Rice in Cairo: As President Bush said in his Second Inaugural Address: "America will not impose our style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, to attain their own freedom, and to make their own way."

Gates in Virginia: President Bush said in his second inaugural address, "[I]t is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."


Today on Rosner's Domain:

Rosner's Guest:
Author of Terror in Black September

What To Read:
Who shot Mohammed al-Dura?

Previous blog:
Petraeus and Crocker complaining about Iran

Updated The Iran Time Saver:
Features, opinion, interviews, studies

Updated The Israel Factor:
Ranking Thompson's views on Iran and the Palestinians