Democratic belief in democracy and a Return to Edwardian economic rhetoric. Two commentaries from The New Republic several weeks ago are too good to let pass by. First, the authenticly Democratic belief in spreading the word:

In Peter Beinart's column, the editor worries that might abandon the one thing we have all agreed upon in Bush's post-missing-WMDs-justifications for going into Iraq: spreading liberal democracy. Here are key graphs:

That worldview is democratic universalism--the belief that every people, no matter how alien their culture or despotic their history, desires liberal democracy. During the cold war, this quintessentially American faith was tempered by a global ideological foe that also claimed to represent the aspirations of mankind. But, when Soviet communism collapsed, so did American inhibitions about telling authoritarian governments what was best for their people. The Clinton administration made democracypromotion the centerpiece of its policy toward the Third World. And, even after the Somalia fiasco suggested the limits of America's ability to implant liberal democracy in weak states, the Clintonites kept trying--in Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, and East Timor.

For a time in the 1990s, Republicans worried that America's democratic missionizing was stretching our military too thin and breeding resentment. In a debate with Al Gore in 2000, candidate George W. Bush said, "I just don't think it's the role of the United States to walk into a country and say, 'We do it this way, so should you.'" But, after the September 11 attacks, when Bush needed an ideological foundation for the war on terrorism (and later, a post-hoc justification for war against a WMD-less Saddam Hussein), he too turned to democratic universalism. The United States, Bush has argued again and again, will help the people of the Middle East fulfill their democratic desires--thus undermining Al Qaeda's appeal. And, while many Democrats have criticized Bush's reliance on unilateral, military means, few oppose Bush's goals themselves. The suggestion that Iraqis, or others in the Middle East, may not really want democracy has remained largely taboo in Washington, a violation of the democratic-universalist ethos that both parties share.

Beinart worries the right + left consensus that All people deserve (nay, are full under) liberal democracy may soon decay on the right side of the board:

But some on the right have begun flirting with a far more subversive interpretation of events: that perhaps Iraqis don't want democracy after all. While Bush in his prime-time press conference virtually called people who think Muslims cannot achieve democracy racists, National Review Online this week published a piece by freelancer Steven Vincent arguing that "there is something unstable and ungovernable at the heart of Shiism--something that is not specific to Sadr's intifada, but which in fact runs through the entire religious sect." And more prominent conservatives have also lapsed into cultural pessimism. On "Fox News Sunday," Brit Hume wondered "whether the Iraqi people have it within them to do what it takes to establish, participate in, and run a democracy." On his show the next day, Bill O'Reilly raised similar questions. "The future," he declared, "really all hinges on the Iraqis themselves. If they fight for their freedom, they'll get it. If they support the terrorists and the religious fanatics, they'll be enslaved again." In other words, it's at least possible that Iraqis want to be enslaved.

As my colleague Spencer Ackerman notes on his Web log this week (www.tnr.com/blog/iraqd), John Kerry has also begun subtly reflecting this new pessimism, eschewing the word "democracy" in his April 13 Washington Post op-ed in favor of a merely "pluralistic" Iraq. But liberals can scale back their expectations of what is now possible in Iraq without abandoning democratic universalism--they can simply say the Bush administration has bungled the job. It is conservatives, who remain generally unwilling to criticize the administration's postwar stewardship, who will more likely be forced--if the situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate--to blame Iraqis instead. If the Iraq project fails, and John Kerry wins the presidency, it's quite possible to imagine a headlong return to the right-wing cultural relativism of the late '90s.

That would be a tragedy, not least because, fundamentally, I think President Bush is right that Iraqis want democracy.

A very good piece. For the right, it challenges some old notions found in a pre-presidential Bush; to wit, a fear of boldly spreading OUR way of governing. For the left, it challenges the libertarian wing of the left...that generally shares the to-each-its-own philosophy.

2) Remembering Edwards:
The Democratic Party needs to get away from short term, albeit spectacular, indices of the economy (jobs, namely) and focus on the fundamental WRONGNESS of Bush economics. The TNR editorial does a fine job of making this point. (And, note to Kerry...read the paper, the jobs will rise again). Here is TNR(with emphasis via me):

But the biggest problem is that, by concentrating on a grab bag of disparate indicators assembled only because they're all negative, Kerry is missing an opportunity to focus attention, broadly but clearly, on the ongoing pattern of fiscal recklessness and economic injustice that has consistently characterized the administration's policies. Yes, there are times when running on voters' anxieties--whether or not they have anything to do with administration mismanagement--is the only option a presidential challenger has. In 1992, for example, George H.W. Bush's generally sound management of the economy left Bill Clinton with no other choice.

But 2004 is not 1992. And, unlike the first Bush administration, the current one has taken every opportunity to reward the wealthy interests that finance its election efforts at the expense of the public good: a reduction of the top marginal income tax rate, a planned repeal of the estate tax, a large reduction in the tax on dividend income and capital gains, a "Medicare reform" bill that doubles as a windfall for pharmaceutical companies, an energy policy heavily skewed toward fossil-fuel industries--the list goes on and on. Which is to say, whether or not college tuition rises this year, there are plenty of grounds on which to criticize the administration's economic stewardship.

John Edwards, Kerry's main rival in the Democratic primary race, developed a pithy and effective way of critiquing this agenda. The administration, Edwards argued, had embarked on a relentless effort to shift the country's tax burden from those who live off of their wealth to those who work for a living, and, more generally, to enforce one set of rules for the wealthy and another set for the poor and middle classes. Of course, each candidate has to articulate a critique that works for them, and it's unlikely that a Brahmin like Kerry would sound particularly believable aping Edwards, the son of a North Carolina mill-worker. But, unless Kerry can translate these same ideas into his own words--perhaps using the Kennedy-esque language of shared mission and shared responsibility he tends to favor--his chances of making inroads on domestic issues look worse and worse. As the recent jobs number demonstrates, economic circumstances may change between now and the election. President Bush's economic agenda won't.

These are two important columns for Democratics, and our nominee, I hope, will take heed.