George W. Bush's second inaugural address, with its sweeping rhetoric about the spread of freedom abroad and at home, sparked strong but varied reactions. Most of the president's conservative supporters ranked it with the greatest inaugural speeches.... The president's liberal critics were less laudatory.
—William A. Galston
Washington Monthly, April 2005
July 7, 2005 (Associated Press)—Already fighting to keep its Social Security initiative afloat, the Bush administration struggled for a second day yesterday to rebut Democrats' charges that it is scheming to bring democracy to the whole world.
"We're very enthusiastic about democracy as a general proposition, which the president has made clear," White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters in a day dominated by partisan cross fire. "But the idea that this administration is harboring some sort of plan or intention to make the whole world democratic is just plainly not the case."
Other administration officials, speaking off the record, were more blunt. "The claim that this administration is democracy-mongering in some wild way shows that the other side is desperate and will reach for any smear, however scurrilous," said a senior White House aide.
To buttress their case, Republicans pointed to the administration's close ties to a host of unsavory authoritarian regimes, including Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Uzbekistan. "Look," said a senior State Department official, "we would hardly be propping up the likes of Hosni Mubarak if we were some gang of good-government zealots."
Democrats, however, redoubled their criticism, apparently believing that a recently leaked National Security Council memorandum—first reported by The New York Times on July 5—gave them fresh ammunition. "The NSC papers leave no room for doubt," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. "This administration will stop at nothing in its ruthless quest to impose democracy on the world."
According to the NSC memo, the administration believes that 90 percent of the world's population should be living under democratic governments by 2015, a goal it claimed was achievable if China and the Arab world were democratized. More controversially, the document also called for the use of "a wide variety of methods, public and covert," to attain that goal.
"Democracy is a great thing," said Kennedy. "But it is no substitute for stability in a volatile world, and no justification for imperial overstretch and presidential hubris. That was what my brother had in mind when he said we shall pay any reasonable price and bear any sustainable burden to assure the success of liberty."
Liberal talk radio was aflame over the NSC document, with both listeners calling in to express outrage. "It's just nutty," said one caller, identifying herself as Edna of Santa Barbara. "This administration and their Religious Right puppet-masters, really all they want is to impose their own values on everybody."
September 17, 2005 (AP)—With agreement tantalizingly close, congressional negotiations stalled yesterday over controversial pro-democracy legislation.
"We thought we just about had a deal," a tired Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., told reporters. Lugar, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said he would abort the negotiations if Democrats did not retract their filibuster threats.
Democrats, however, accused Republicans of grandstanding and said that Lugar was bluffing. "If the majority was serious about getting this done instead of scoring points, we'd have had a deal last week," said Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., the committee's ranking Democrat. "The numbers are basically settled, and both sides know it."
In comments at a public appearance with Attorney General Tom DeLay, President Bush reiterated his call for prompt passage of the legislation. "The world needs the right dose of democracy, and this bill would provide it," he said.
The Democracy in Moderation Act, as the legislation is called, is no stranger to controversy. The Bush administration, battered by accusations that it is seeking political freedom and democratic government for the entire world, argued initially that its aim of bringing 90 percent of the world's population under democratic rule by 2015 was "a goal, not a quota or timetable."
When that assurance failed to calm public and congressional alarm, the White House called for legislation formally enshrining 90 percent democracy as the maximum the administration would support without returning to Congress for further authorization. The administration insisted that its 90 percent democracy target, like its tax-cut target four years earlier, was "precisely the right amount."