Political Pulse February 2006

Electing Terrorists

Developments in the Middle East over the past year raise serious questions about the Bush doctrine of protecting America's security by promoting democracy abroad.

"The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands," President Bush said a little over a year ago in his second Inaugural Address. That is the Bush Doctrine: The best way to protect America's security is to promote democracy abroad, particularly in the Middle East.

But developments in the Middle East over the past year raise serious questions about that doctrine. The Iranians have elected a radical president whose commitment to a nuclear weapons program threatens the security of the United States and the rest of the world. The Iranian-backed Hezbollah movement made gains in Lebanon's parliamentary vote. The radical Muslim Brotherhood showed electoral strength in Egypt. Elections in Iraq produced a government controlled by Shiite religious parties with armed militias and close ties to Iran.

What would happen if Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were to hold free elections? Would they elect governments less threatening to U.S. security—or more threatening?

At his January 26 press conference, Bush responded to last week's Palestinian election by saying, "Democracy can open up the world's eyes to reality." The reality is that the Palestinians voted for a radical Islamist political movement that the United States, the European Union, and Israel have labeled a terrorist organization. How does that promote peace and security?

Bush tried to argue that Palestinians were not actually voting for terrorism. He said that they were just voting for change. "Obviously, people were not happy with the status quo," he said. "If there is corruption, I'm not surprised that people say, 'Let's get rid of corruption.' If government hasn't been responsive, I'm not the least bit surprised if people say, 'I want government to be responsive.' "

Americans are familiar with anti-incumbent voting. So are Canadians. Two days before the Palestinian election, they threw the Liberal Party out of power after 12 years and elected a Conservative government led by pro-American Stephen Harper. "A Harper victory will put a smile on George W. Bush's face," a Liberal television ad warned.

Did Harper win because he is pro-American and friendly to Bush, or despite those things? "It was definitely in spite of," Canadian political analyst Dan Dunsky said. "The reason for the Conservative victory had as much to do with Liberal corruption and Liberal Party scandals as it did with the Conservative Party and the specifics of their platform." The winner acknowledged as much. "Our great country has voted for change," Harper said on Election Night. "And Canadians have asked our party to take the lead in delivering that change."

That is precisely the argument that Bush made about the Palestinian vote. Americans vote against the status quo all the time. Apparently, so do Palestinians. "A Hamas government should, first of all, put an end to unemployment," a Palestinian voter said on CNN, "and then do something about the high prices of food and fuel."

But electing radical terrorists makes a far bigger statement than simply expressing a desire for change. Are Palestinians really willing to destroy the peace process and provoke the United States in order to get better government services?

Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu differs with Bush over the meaning of the Palestinian vote. "What really put [Hamas] over the top," Netanyahu said in a television interview, "was the perception in the Palestinian street that they're the ones who, using terror, drove Israel out. Israel to them showed weakness. Terror works. Therefore let's reward the forces of terror." For Netanyahu as for Bush, there is a motive behind the interpretation. Netanyahu opposed Israel's withdrawal from Gaza and is running for prime minister again in his country's March 28 election.

Now, Bush insists, Hamas must renounce extremism. "I made it very clear," Bush said, "that the United States does not support political parties that want to destroy our ally Israel, and that [Hamas] must renounce that part of their platform."

For the Bush Doctrine to work, holding an election isn't enough. The winners must accept the rules of democracy and abandon extremism. That's true for the Palestinian Authority, and for Iraq as well.

Presented by

William Schneider is the Cable News Network's senior political analyst. He is also a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., and a contributing editor for the Los Angeles Times, National Journal, and The Atlantic Monthly. His column appears every week in National Journal, a weekly magazine covering politics and government published in Washington, D.C.

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register with Disqus.

Please note that The Atlantic's account system is separate from our commenting system. To log in or register with The Atlantic, use the Sign In button at the top of every page.

blog comments powered by Disqus


Confessions of Moms Around the World

A global look at the hardest and best job ever


A Stop-Motion Tour of New York City

A filmmaker animated hundreds of still photographs to create this Big Apple flip book


The Absurd Psychology of Restaurant Menus

Would people eat healthier if celery was called "cool celery?"


This Japanese Inn Has Been Open for 1,300 Years

It's one of the oldest family businesses in the world.

More in Politics

More back issues, Sept 1995 to present.

Just In