Does America have a responsibility to spread democracy around the world, even by force if necessary? Quite a few conservatives today seem to think so, but this hasn't been the normal view through American history. Indeed, Americas Founders appear to have rejected it outright and disagreed with the one model where it was tried: France.

The Autumn 2005 issue of Wilson Quarterly discusses “The Freedom Crusade” by David C. Hendrickson and Robert W. Tucker, in The National Interest (Fall 2005):

For the Founders, the question of using force to revolutionize foreign governments arose early on, as a result of the French Revolution, according to Hendrickson, a political scientist at Colorado College, and Tucker, an emeritus professor of American foreign policy at Johns Hopkins University. The French Convention in 1792 decreed that “it will accord fraternity and assistance to all peoples who shall wish to recover their liberty.”

To Alexander Hamilton, this was “little short of a declaration of War against all nations, having princes and privileged classes,” and was equally repugnant “to the general rights of Nations [and] to the true principles of liberty.” Even Thomas Jefferson, who strongly sympathized with the French Revolution, said that the French should not force liberty on their neighbors.

Perhaps the biggest example of the use of force to spread the ideals of liberty is not one which people usually think of: Napoleon. He wasn’t exactly a friend of general liberty, but he was the expression of imperialistic attitudes combined with messianic belief in one’s nation having a “destiny” to spread certain ideals.

Is George W. Bush America’s Napoleon? I doubt he would want to be.

Moreover, making the end of tyranny the declared aim of U.S. foreign policy turns all tyrannical regimes into enemies—which makes it harder to negotiate with them, as the crisis over North Korea’s nuclear weapons capability illustrates. If the Bush doctrine were to be applied consistently, even friendly regimes such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan would be pressed to democratize. There is little sign that the administration actually intends to press very hard.

Napoleon at least seemed willing to “liberate” any nation he came across — he didn’t pick and choose based upon what was politically convenient at the moment. The Bush administration is doing just that, which wouldn’t be so bad, perhaps, if they were at least honest about it.

American governments have always picked their battles as to whom would be pressured over things like democracy and human rights — and this was always recognized as an unfortunate facet of a pragmatic foreign policy. The Bush administration has retained the double-standards, but added a new layer of hypocrisy by insisting that they are following a higher calling.

 

Quick Poll: Can democracy be spread through force of arms and military conquest?

1. Yes - if we get rid of evil dictatorships, we can install democratic regimes and make the world a safer place.
2. Maybe in certain extreme circumstances, but not very often and it is not a course that should be pursued lightly.
3. No - even when military force is necessary to eliminate a dictatorship, other factors are needed for the actual development of democracy. It can never be imposed.
4. I don't know.
5. I don't care.

Click an option to vote, or View Current Poll Results

 

Read More:

• Guide to Ethics and Morality
• War and Morality
• War on Terrorism
• News on Free Speech and Civil Liberties
• Recent Books on Free Speech