Democracy: Obama v Bush

After all the sneering intonations by Rush Limbaugh's legions about a Kenyan father's choice of a middle name for his son, after all the bizarro conspiracy theories about forged Hawaiian birth certificates, Thursday was a day to revel in the wonder that America had elected a president whose full name is Barack Hussein Obama. The president's long-awaited speech in Cairo at times was an exercise in speaking truth to the powerless of the Arab world, the ordinary citizens from Riyadh to Rabat who have scant say in how they are governed. Words were uttered that rarely cross a president's lips, like "Palestine," and long-ago CIA coups (ousting Mohammed Mosaddeq in Iran in 1953) were lamented.



And yet the lengthy speech was oddly hollow when it came to a worldview that has been the centerpiece of the American experience for more than two centuries – the promotion of democracy. Yes, Obama devoted 17 sentences to the topic. But his rhetoric was often more reluctant than forceful. "I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years," the president began, referring to the recent unpleasantness, "and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other."

Obama's hesitancy extended beyond the troubled legacy of George W. Bush, such as when he said in language that had to bring a brief smile to the faces of slow-changing autocrats: "Now there is no straight line to realize this promise (of democracy)." Even Obama's central claim that "governments that protect these (human) rights are more stable, successful and secure" seemed difficult to square with the one-man rule of his host, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. If only democracy can bring true security, then how has Mubarak survived in power for nearly 28 years?

Every president feels the irresistible urge to substitute his own priorities for those of his predecessor. And let's be honest here – Bush was not exactly an ideal foreign-policy role model for future presidents. But, still, in the democracy and human rights section of his Cairo speech, Obama did tilt heavily in the direction of pragmatism.

"We have an irony here," said Michael Mandelbaum, who holds the chair in American foreign policy at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. "A conservative Republican president – namely George W. Bush – turned out to be on the subject of democracy, a Wilsonian. And a liberal Democratic president – namely Barack Obama – turns out, on the subject of democracy, to be a Nixonian." That is the great ying-yang of American foreign policy – Woodrow Wilson's League of Nations idealism on the one hand and Richard Nixon's unsentimental, gimlet-eyed realpolitik on the other.

In November 2003 – when his administration was still basking in the heady folly of "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq – Bush delivered a speech on democracy in the Middle East that, in rhetorical terms alone, remains the gold standard on the topic. Speaking in Washington to the National Endowment for Democracy, Bush declared, "The United States has adopted a new policy, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East...The advance of freedom is the calling of our time. It is the calling of our country."

From its contempt for the Geneva Conventions to its scorn for congressional legislation that it found inconvenient, the Bush administration, in reality, barely gave lip service to the rule of law. And certainly the sad-eyed American misadventures in Iraq underlined the difficulties of securing democracy through the barrel of a gun. But (and, I realize, we are getting into "Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?" territory) Bush does deserve credit for his blunt honesty in saying, "Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe."

Bush's speechifying can be dismissed as mere words that were not backed up by American deeds. That is the problem with rhetoric – it only takes you so far. But the same objection can be applied to the "not since Pericles" gush over Obama's speech in Cairo. A president who grew up in a Muslim environment in Indonesia does have a calling-card credibility that another politician, say John McCain, would lack. But personal biography alone is a very fragile basis for a transformation of America's standing in the Middle East.

In truth, Obama's speech in Cairo was more about 21st century America than a Muslim world that often seems locked in the 16th century. As an American, it is easy to be proud of a president who can speak eloquently about his understanding of Islam – and the ties that should bind Muslims, Jews and Christians. Sadly, what is far harder to believe is that Thursday's words will make a lasting difference.