American Realism?

Yesterday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice delivered an important address to the Economic Club of New York--a speech in which she posited the notion of a "uniquely American Realism." Dr. Rice believes that American presidents since T.R. have been led by this theory of international relations.

Her speech gives us a glimpse of how foreign policy experts in the Bush White House think; it allows us to peer through the glass through which they see the world.

Just what is this so-called American Realism?

The Secretary of State argues that "we are led into the world as much by our moral ideas as by our material interests"--that America will always be a revoluntionary power embracing change as an opportunity.

The moral current underlying American Realism is the notion that "we are all united as a people not by a narrow nationalism of blood and soil, but by universal ideas of human freedom and human rights." A human creed. One to which all the children of God adhere and in which we all believe. That sounds great.

But it's not accurate. In fact, it is this misconception that has fatally misguided American politics since the Bush Doctrine took hold in the days after 9/11.

All people do not share the same ideas of universal human freedom and human rights.

What, exactly, do I mean by that?

First, the values of democracy are not shared by people everywhere. Particularly in the Middle East, democracy and free markets are seen as pulling America off its course and making sex the great god of the masses. The American system is seen as pushing us toward the pursuit of the all-mighty dollar and away from the enjoyment of life.

Second, as much as I wish all humans placed equal value on all human life, that's just not the case. All over the world, women are subjugated; they are seen as inferior to men. Right here in America, the glass ceiling is a very real phenomenon. And the situation is even worse for many women of color, as Dr. Rice should recognize.

Third, most of the world is not ready to be governed through democracy. The United States started as a Republic, one in which only free, white male landowners could vote. Those were the folks with education. Instead of embracing such a system, which now offends Americans as elitism and violative of the egalitarian notion to which America now aspires, the Bush Administration has attempted to force nations into democracy when they're not ready. The result will be either (a) civil war (see Iraq and Afghanistan), (b) the election of immoral strongmen (see Russia), or (c) both.

Fourth, there is something patently arrogant about assuming that our morals are better than everyone elses. What right do Americans have to go into the world and tell others that our system, our values, and our rights are above those shared by the people of the East, the global south, or anyone else? Sure, there are certain values that we should impose on others. But free market capitalism isn't one of them. Democracy isn't one of them.

The President and his crew see the world through rose colored glasses. They see it as they wish it would be; they don't meet it where it is.

There is one word I would use to describe Dr. Rice's speech: dangerous.