Democracy is opposition

Pres. George W. Bush, right on target in his talk to Russia, said in the context of the former USSR's controlled states in the Baltics: "All free and successful countries have some common characteristics--freedom of worship, freedom of the press, economic liberty, the rule of law, and the limitation of power through checks and balances." These traits are the essence of democracy.

Democracies, as a pervasive rule, do not start wars and, as a natural consequence, democracies never have war with each other. This is the concept behind the attempts to spread democracy. We know this intuitively. Rudolf Rummel of the University of Hawaii established it empirically 30 years ago in his work on the "Dimensionality of Nations" project, a work that Pres. Bush probably has not seen yet. If we want peace, spread democracy.

Democracy is both a by-product of economic success and a prerequisite of it--they go hand in hand. Democracy expanded greatly during Bill Clinton's presidency, notably in Latin America, mainly because economies grew rapidly and demanded an educated populace. Educated citizens travel, communicate more, demand more--including participation in politics and the agendas set by governments.

This deep-set democratic growth is hard to retract. Once educated, it is difficult to transform a population back to ignorance. Once they can communicate, it is impossible to get them to stop using cell phones or the Internet or TV. Democracies are built from the inside out. They cannot be imposed on an unwilling culture, nor can they be withdrawn. Pres. Bush has not learned either of these lessons. Because of this, he looks hypocritical from the European perspective. While he is impelling Iraqis toward one form of democracy, he is attempting to backtrack on the concept in the U.S. He will fail on both counts--certainly in his own homeland.

"Freedom of worship" always has included the freedom not to worship as well as to choose among the many varieties of established religions. As Samuel Huntington points out in Who Are We?, the U.S. is an Anglo-Protestant culture but not an English and Protestant people. We cannot be put back in that bottle. Bush, though, is trying. From its positions on stem-cell research to its support of public monies for religious private schools to the evangelical atmosphere that has been created at the Air Force Academy, the Bush Administration is pushing an agenda in which religious diversity and freedom to hold divergent beliefs is less tolerated than at any time in the last half-century.

How can a press be free if it is being constantly pilloried by an Administration that tars it as being "liberal" (which the Republican language controllers have turned into a curse word) and biased? How did the Newsweek story on the Koran being toileted at Guantanamo Bay end up being retracted after heavy Administration and military attacks, only to receive support the next day from the International Red Cross and other substantial sources? How did an "embedded" press in Iraq turn out to be a shrouded press? Why is it the critical news about military behavior in Iraq comes from whistle-blowers and not the media? Moreover, why is it that Administration advocate Robert Novak can write classified information into his syndicated column but other reporters are prosecuted for not disclosing his sources?

A free press has a right to be muckrakers, and it is through their aggressive research that grains of truth--like ounces of pure gold in tons of ore--can be discovered. Yet, the Bush Administration seems to think that the media only can report its version of reality and nothing of the negative. When was the last time you saw a picture of a casket returning from Iraq? A free press is the essence of democracy; a controlled press is the essence of authoritarianism.

Then there is economic liberty. Liberty is not license, nor the right to receive government contracts without competitive bidding and then base operations offshore in the Caribbean so as to avoid paying taxes. Economic liberty is the right to compete, without the rules of the game being fixed by Administration insiders. Yet, here, the rules have become rigid in defense of strategic exigency. The terrorists are a threat, therefore we have to narrow the playing field to only those we trust. Halliburton wins and liberty--along with competitive contracting--loses.

Checks and balances are the enemy of absolute power. Many mistake the term democracy to be synonymous with rule by the majority. It is not. Democracy means, more importantly, the consideration and protection of minority rights. The Founders recognized this principle in Anglo-Protestant culture and built these protections into every aspect of the U.S. system.

Yet, the Republican government has pressed for absolutism in every branch of government: more Executive powers for the president, 100% Senate consent for court appointments (and no need for advice), and judges who perform only the activism of the Right. Neither check nor balance has entered the Bush-controlled conversation since he took office.