Krauthammer Contradiction? Not So Fast
Atrios thinks he's caught Charles Krauthammer in a contradiction. Here it is (shortened slightly, for brevity):
Charles Krauthammer - March 18th, 2005 Those who claimed, with great certainty, that Arabs are an exception to the human tendency toward freedom, that they live in a stunted and distorted culture that makes them love their chains -- and that the notion the United States could help trigger a democratic revolution by militarily deposing their oppressors was a fantasy -- have been proved wrong.
Charles Krauthammer - October 14th, 1993 Moreover, democracy does not just mean elections. It also means constitutionalism -- the limitation of state power -- in political life, and tolerance and pluralism in civic life. Yeltsin and Mubarak are clearly more committed to such values than those who would overthrow them. That is why it would be not just expedient but right to support undemocratic measures undertaken to avert a far more anti-democratic outcome. Democracy is not a suicide pact.
So, where's the contradiction? In the first quote, Krauthammer is saying that those who thought the Arab world could not take to Democracy were wrong. In the second quote, he's saying that even democracy can fall into tyrannical rule. There is no tension between these two statements, because Krauthammer is not suggesting that the sprouts of democracy we are now seeing are incapable of going rotten.
To the contrary, he states the opposite, explicitly (and has for some time):
Charles Krauthammer - March 18th, 2005 We do not yet know, however, whether this initial flourishing of democracy will succeed.
So, again, where's the contradiction? Democracy can be an unmitigated good without being invincible, and tyranny can be an unmitigated bad even though its replacement has the potential to be just as bad, or worse.
Even if these two statements were at odds with one another (which, as far as I can see, they're not), it would hardly deliver much of a rebuke to Krauthammer, given that the latter comments came twelve years ago. Events since then have given us reason to believe that the power of freedom is, perhaps, even stronger than even its advocates had once thought.
I don't believe Krauthammer is changing his tune, but if he is, I say he's doing it for all the right reasons: because reality dictates that the old view was wrong. What's the value of being consistent if you're consistently wrong?
» March 18th, 2005
|
|
Calendar
More Entries
Blogroll
Instapundit
Andrew Sullivan
Tom Maguire
Decision '08
Patrick O'Keefe
Categories
Blogging
Democrats
Economy
Elections '04
Elections '06
Elections '08
Entertainment
George W. Bush
Iraq
Media
Miscellaneous
Republicans
Social Security
Supreme Court
Technology
War on Terror
Email Me
|
