tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1080950.post110625839760887207..comments2023-07-02T06:44:56.536-05:00Comments on con·cept: Must Reads and Must SpeakAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08859207022400336413noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1080950.post-1106345245218056962005-01-21T16:07:00.000-06:002005-01-21T16:07:00.000-06:00I think the interesting thing about the president'...I think the interesting thing about the president's speech is the words he used throughout. Twenty-seven times he invoked the word "freedom," 15 times he invoked the word "liberty," and only once did he invoke the word "democracy." They're not all the same concepts. In some sense, liberty and freedom are negative. They're about the absence of something, the absence of constraint, the absence of tyranny. Democracy is a positive concept. It presumes creating certain kinds of processes, institutions, norms, and behavior. What we learned in Iraq is that it can be very easy to remove the constraint or remove the dictator, but it can be extraordinarily difficult to produce democracy. Looking at the president's speech, you seldom see a detailed argument about how the United States can best promote democracy. <br /><br />I think that's a real challenge. What we're seeing in Iraq is that, even though the bad guys are removed, it doesn't mean democracy will spontaneously take root, in part because it requires all people agreeing to certain types of behavior. And if significant portions of the population refuse to do so, it can make it very, very difficult. Which is why, as you look ahead to the elections in Iraq coming up, the tendency has been to treat them as the destination as opposed to just another marker along the road. <br /><br />This is from James M. Lindsay<br />http://www.cfr.org/pub7617/james_m_lindsay_bernard_gwertzman/lindsay_inauguration_speech_marks_a_second_bush_doctrine.phpAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08859207022400336413noreply@blogger.com