Is "Ideology" Bad When it Comes to Foreign Policy?

In the realm of foreign policy, "Ideology" is getting a bad name. "Pragmatism" is, apparently, all the rage. Problem is we aren't being careful with our terms. (For a primer on the debate, see Chris Hayes' meditation on the subject, as well as this very interesting and provocative post from Glenn Greenwald). We tend to dislike ideology when it leads to bad outcomes. We tend to be much more forgiving when it leads to good ones. The problem with the last 8 years of Bushism is that ideology became dangerous. That doesn't mean ideology always is. It does mean that ideology in the wrong hands, and without a healthy dose of empiricism, can be.

When we say Bush's "ideology" failed, there are a variety of things that are implied, but aren't necessarily clear. The major objection to the Bush foreign policy approach was that it held to a fundamental belief in the primacy - and transformative nature - of military force. The military, if used in certain ways, could and would solve certain problems. This is wrong. An ideology based on this assumption is dangerous, because it attributes qualities to military force that military force, in reality, does not actually possess.

The second supposed "cornerstone" of Bushism was a fundamental belief that democracy either was or could be an antidote to political violence and terrorism. More broadly, democracy promotion would begin to address the root causes of so many of the Middle East's recurring problems. The logic was intuitive - that as long as Arabs were denied outlets to express their grievances through legitimate, democratic means, they would be more likely to resort to violent methods (in the absence of nonviolent ones). This is not, in fact, untrue. There is a growing literature which does, indeed, suggest a causal link between lack of democracy and political violence. I won't get into that now though.

In any case, when we say that Bush's "freedom agenda" failed, we can mean one of three things:

1) It failed because the basic premise was wrong. This would indicate a flaw in ideology.
2) It failed because means were not effectively matched with ends. This would indicate a flaw in execution.
3) It failed because it was never, in reality, attempted. This would indicate a different kind of flaw. It would render the assessment of failure essentially moot or irrelevant.

I would say that the freedom agenda failed mostly because of #3 and partly because of #2. The Bush administration never actually tried, in any sustained way, to support Middle East democracy (there was a brief period in 2004-5 where there was some pressure on Arab regimes, but that posture was quickly reversed in late 2005 when Islamists started doing quite well in elections in Egypt and Palestine). Too much of a good thing (in this case, democracy), apparently, was judged to be bad. So, of course, the freedom agenda failed. We all lost faith in it too quickly because what we thought was a good policy - supporting elections - led to what we thought was a bad outcome (this is also known as the "Islamist dilemma").

The execution problem is almost just as important. The Bush administration had a foreign policy objective - the democratization of the Middle East. It then decided that invading a dictatorship would be an effective means for doing so. Needless to say, this was a mistake of very large proportions. So much of the democracy agenda was dependent on Iraq being a relatively quick success, and when it wasn't, the agenda began to suffer elsewhere in the region. Moreover, as Iraq began to deteriorate (and Iran began to rise), the importance of having authoritarian Arab regimes on our side became more important.

In any case, the experience of the last 8 years tells us little about the broader notion of supporting democracy in what remains the most undemocratic region in the world. We are also not being clear enough about means or ends. It is possible to be pragmatic in the pursuit of ideological goals. It is possibly to be ideological in the pursuit of ideological goals. The latter is not usually good. The former can be good, particularly when you agree with the ideological goals being pursued.

Comments

[arvay]

Ideology was the disease of the 20th century and needs to be discarded.

The basic premise -- that some "laws" of politics or history can be discovered and applied is fundamentally flawed. Historical and political realities emerge, influenced by a combination of the past and newer realities, but what we need is a more scientific approach, rather than more political religions.

Observe, learn, think, try things. Not, wave your little Red Book, your Das Kapital, your fascist banner, your Bible, Koran etc. or any other pre-digested formula that's the intellectual equivalent of the upchuck birds feed their young. All of these "systems" are attempts for force-fit reality into someone' notions.

Reality always wins.

Hundreds of millions were sacrificed in the 20th century to these nonsensical notions. The workers of the world did not unite, the master race did not triumph, the world has not embraced Jesus, the Great leap Forward was a mega-death disaster, and on and on.

Let's grow up. There are no pre-set solutions. We're just going to have to do our best to figure things out.

[realpolitic]

This whole column is way off. The basic conclusion one can get from the Bush years is that we can not impose democracy through wars. Secondly, democracies are much more than free elections. When one just suddenly has elections, the most extreme elements will usually one, as in Gaza. One must prepare for democracy through institution building, a rule of law and democratic processes.

Who are we, anyway, to impose democracy on the Middle East? We can cajole, persuade, and give funds to support democratic movements, a free press, and moderate forces. However, it is not up to us to go in and impose our brand of democracy. Unlike what Bush and his Texas crowd thinks the whole world does not want to be like little Americans. They respect their own traditions, even if our leadership may not. Therefore, support moderate forces, the rule of law, a free press, and most of all, set a good example, which is another premise we have forgotten.

The Bush failures in the the Middle East go much deeper than a lack of execution or that the administration gave up too easlity. The whole premise was flawed, only supported by a narrow, ideological few in America, and pushed and instrumented through lies. Bush remains a disaster.

[arvay]

Bush's 'democracy" movement halted as soon as the administration saw that the result was the election of Hamas in Palestine, that real democracy in Egypt would result in an electoral sweep by the Muslim Brotherhood and that if given a real vote, the Iraqis would vote for the American to leave.

It's a total sham. At best, it was hurriedly invented after no WMD were discovered in Iraq to explain our unwarranted invasion.

For decades now, the US has used "democracy" as a shield for its real purpose, which is to install servile/sympathetic regimes. Israel is touted as a "democracy" -- when if fact it's as democratic as apartheid South Africa. Jews only, please, except for some token Arab window-dressing.

For generations, we've suppressed every liberation movement in Latin America, supporting "democratic" alternatives when they can be faked, or "authoritarian" ones when they can't. Somehow, being killed by an authoritarian government is supposed to be better than by a Communist government. Allende, a harmless idiot who would have probably been rejected eventually by the Chileans, was murdered for the gift of Pinochet.

Caesar Chavez, an open Marxist, has accepts rejections from the democratic majority in Venezuela, but we're somehow supposed to see him as a dictator.

This old, worn-out, fundamentally dishonest Washington b.s. is both obvious and transparent. And repugnant in its hypocrisy.

[CactusTom]

All ideologies, whether purely political, economic or social, work exceedingly well under specific conditions. It is when folks get blindly conditioned to a particular ideology and then circumstances change that the nightmares begin. Perhaps the only ideology one need fully commit to is the one that says go with whatever does to most long-term good for the most people in any given time.

[flyers]

I think that foreign policy decision should always be shades of grey, and the problem is our leaders look at every country as good or bad. I disagree with many neo-cons that preach war, war, war, and disagree with many liberals who don't think war should ever be an option.

I always look back at WWII as we befriended Russia to beat Hitler, yet Russians were communists, they had human rights problems, and were eventually a threat to us, but we needed them to stop Hitler from conquering Europe.

In the middle east it is the same way. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt are all our 'friends' simply because we need them and they need us, but I'm sure they sponsor terrorism and don't let their citizens practice Christianity the way we have a freedom of religion in our country.

I think every situation goes case by case, as I will not lump in Iran, Iraq and North Korea as the axis of Evil like Bush because even though they are all rogue states, they all present different problems to us and should be handled differently.

[RoloTomassi]

This liberal firmly believes that war should never be a tool for trying to change the nature of another sovereign nation, unless the nation in question is aggressively attacking others.

There is no such thing as a valid ideology that supports using military might in that fashion; any such ideological characteristic is no more than a contrived excuse to use military might as a means of amassing/exploiting land and/or resources that said nation has no right to exploit.

Every sovereign nation has the right to maintain its own set of values, norms and traditions without interference.

[canuckmoose]

Let us differentiate between ideals and ideology, between practicing ideals and developing pragmatic ideologies. Ideals are inclusive, ideology exclusive.
Ideology, be it religious, economic, philosophical, or social *always* fall into the wrong hands.
The U.S. was founded on ideals. As citizens, we choose to either practice those ideals, or develop the pragmatic ideologies which smother them.

[earthandfire]

(part 2 )
However, task is much wider and deeper. I want to say again: We need a new definition of freedom and democracy. Bush's failure was (if I could talk in a past tense) freedom and democracy was mixed up with predator's freedom (freedom for a few, or exploitation) rather than freedom for all.
Please, remember: democracy is a concept of compromise rather than the final product of human achievement. I don't mean other known forms are better. It is best SO FAR. But, we should focus on how to improve the idea itself so that it can apply universally to everywhere in the world which is totally different even from only 50 years ago. Thanks.

[RoloTomassi]

Sorry, but I have a problem with your assertion, particularly this bit:

"But, we should focus on how to improve the idea itself so that it can apply universally to everywhere in the world which is totally different even from only 50 years ago."

You cannot improve upon something you have never experienced, and you have NEVER experienced democracy in US government, of that I can absolutely assure you.

We are a democratic republic, which means were sort of half-assed democratic; we have far too little representation in government for the present population, and that fact is one of the primary reasons we are stuck with a two-party system that keeps multiple parties in this country marginalized.

Until we have 1) more representation in government, and 2) more than two viable political parties, we will have this sham system that is in truth far from democratic in nature or operation.

[earthandfire]

(part 1)
I like your clarification. I'm not sure about historic study, but it looks like "all" ideologies were aimed to execute for the agenda to prevail. Ideals or idealism however is the core how to build better society. It is very clear for me that we need new definition of freedom and democracy. For my surprise, as a just nameless self raised artist, no so called experts on this area (if it exists at all) haven't been discussing seriously enough about the historic meaning of this matter how to convey the change. (But, thank you Mr. Hamid for bringing the discussion here.)
Anachoret wrote (a few comments below): "I heard that Axlerod said that he was trying to capture the idealism of the 1960's in the campaign". This is the best mindset we saw in this election cycle.

[Dr Scott]

Well said! I think that above all, our foreign policy should be based on ideals. And we should resist domestic pressures to change those ideals as well.

[RStolorow]

Your idea about establishing criteria for determining whether a particular instance of ideology is bad or dangerous is an excellent one. To me, what is central in such determinations is the aim of the ideology in question. Some ideologies aim at the betterment of humankind. Others aim at the preservation or restoration of some form of collective grandiosity. These latter ideologies are the truly dangerous ones, as they usually motivate destructive actions against those who threaten us. Bush's ideology was clearly of this dangerous type. As I contended in my posts of Oct. 7, 10, and 15, 2008, at the core of Bush's ideology was a "holy crusade" against the forces of evil, which promised to deliver us from the collective trauma inflicted by the attack of 9/11 and resurrect the grandiose illusions of invincibility shattered by this trauma. Such grandiose "resurrective ideologies" only fuel the lamentable, endlessly recurring cycle of atrocity and counter-atrocity that has been so characteristic of human history.

[ElBruce]

As long as we're still relying on Saudi allies while attacking Iraqi enemies, no ideology regarding democracy is being practiced. Ideological approaches must be consistent - and that lack of consistency makes all the difference between being viewed as an occupier or a helper. See the Shah of Iran for details.

I believe that ideology is important - so much so that ideology cannot be compromised for execution.

We should consistently and constantly assert what we believe. If that insults useful allies, then so be it. But it will equally impress troublesome enemies. And in time, both will come around, no military force necessary.

[tailgateshirts]

Idology and Ideology are just as bad

[anachoret]

I heard that Axlerod said that he was trying to capture the idealism of the 1960's in the campaign. So, I guess this means we are now in a "post-ideological-60's retro-idealist era."

[LiarLiarIraqsOnFire]

It beats Neo-Fascism every time!

[FearlessFreep]

"Pragmatism" is an ideology in itself. And not such a successful one.

[jhamm1]

The fact remains that regions like Saudi Arabia, as opposed to Iraq had become breeding grounds for terrorists, and thus promotion of "democracy" could have been provided within such areas through more pragmatic means of diplomacy and encouragement. The keypoint in Iraq was that it represented an opportunity not to instigate "democracy" in a practical sense, but a form of "democratic government" customed tailored in accordance to parameters dictated by the United States, itself, thus insuring a regime more likely to remain sympathetic to U.S. interests.

Thus, most of us acknowledged the virtues of "democracy" as all fine and good, but forcefully instigating such a process through unprovoked military aggression as not an appropriate way to instigate it.

Thus, Bush's ideology entailed not just "democracy" but specific methods in which such
"tramsformations" are to be instigated; namely via the application of military force.

Naturally, we would love to witness the collapse of North Korea's totalitarian structure as much as anyone. However, the progress in diplomacy achieved during the clinton admintration insured practical means to achieve reunification peacefully and without firing a shot. But thanks to Bush's ideology (yes, ideology), our national policy decreed such developments as far less glamourous than the concept of achieving democracy in the aftermath of a military victory.

So, contrary to your insinutations that we have somehow misinterpreted the definition of "ideology", we have in fact correctly analyzed Bush's "ideology" for what it has been all along.

[magen]

Ideology isn't inherently bad.

When your ideology is proven to be wrong, and you still adhere to it, is when the problems start.

Isn't one of the signs of schizophrenia-"doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results??"

Hopefully, we will now have people in positions of power who take facts, history, and consequences into account.