Credit to Bush for Pro-Democracy Movements? Not So Much.

Saturday, February 26, 2011 - 05:05 PM

As the pro-democracy uprisings across the Middle East and North Africa surprise and inspire the world, now would be an appropriate time for everyone to thank John Lennon. After all, his lyrics in “Imagine” are clearly the catalysts for the transformative moments we’re witnessing. I’d also like to thank the Beastie Boys for telling the world, “You’ve got to fight for your right to party.”

Chances are that the protesters in the streets of Tunisia, in Tahrir Square, in Benghazi, Libya and in the plazas of post-liberation Iraq are not humming those tunes. The courageous people of those countries, showing us all what active citizenry looks like, have their own songs to march to and their own passions that have stirred this movement. The Beatles and Beastie Boys offer good words, but they are not the sparks of this revolutionary spirit.

Which is the same way I feel about my colleague Karol Markowicz’s provocative post asking It’s A Free Country readers to thank President George W. Bush and his agenda to put “democracy on the march” for the events we’re seeing now. Karol quotes a great line from the former president as evidence that he was right about the Middle East. But Bush did a lot more than give a couple good speeches — he launched an unnecessary war that killed countless civilians, cultivated partnerships with undemocratic allies and weakened America’s reputation in that region. Whether Bush genuinely was passionate about democracy in that region, I can’t say. His desire may have been authentic but the events we’re seeing now repudiate his course, rather than reaffirm it.

President Bush believed massive military action would lead to democracy. The current events across the Middle East and North Africa show us a very different route. Civilian casualties were called “collateral damage” and considered acceptable costs of war. Now we cheer for those civilians as they challenge brutal dictators and long-standing regimes. Our approach to the region — under President Bush and his Democratic successor —has relied on Egypt for extraordinary rendition, tolerated false elections in Afghanistan and turned a blind eye to anti-democratic abuses in Pakistan. There may be ways to justify all of these decisions in the name of American security, but certainly not in the name of Middle East freedom.

We can’t know the inner motives of every protester, but if even a fraction of those in the streets pointed to Iraq as a model of the kind of democracy for which they aspired, we would hear that quoted relentlessly by right-wing media. Iraq hasn’t been the model that has inspired this movement. The citizens of other countries don’t wish for an American-led invasion and occupation.  

Just because Bush said “a new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region” doesn’t make it so. A Hezbollah spokesperson could claim that party’s electoral success in Lebanon inspired the uprising. Al Qaeda could claim that discontent with Mubarak’s American ties stirred the unrest. The sons of John Lennon could applaud that the world finally is acting upon the lyrics of “Imagine.”

President Obama went to Cairo and spoke about democratic aspirations around the world in the summer of 2009. Eighteen months later, the people of Egypt ousted their dictator. Should this American president get the credit for igniting the events of Tahrir Square? Of course not. And yet it’s far more plausible than the claim that Bush was a shining example of freedom.

While America has a valuable role to play in supporting the cause of democracy around the world, it would be foolish to take credit for the events of the past two months. The months ahead will show us where this trajectory leads, and we can’t predict the future. But it doesn’t take a crystal ball to see the past and know that George W. Bush wasn’t the inspiration for Tahrir Square any more than the Beastie Boys. 

That said, Beastie Boys would probably edge out the former president in a popularity contest here or abroad, so let’s not rule them out just yet.

Justin Krebs is a political organizer and writer based in New York City. He is the founder of Living Liberally, a nationwide network of 250 local clubs that create social events around progressive politics, and author of "538 Ways to Live, Work and Play Like a Liberal."


More in:

Comments [4]

mudashir from india

Name any two events which have contributed to the establishment of democracy in the world.please send me answer of this question as soon.

Sep. 08 2011 02:30 AM
Karol from NYC and the Beastie Boys were overrated. As was Lennon solo.

"Whether Bush genuinely was passionate about democracy in that region, I can’t say."

Oh come on. He was passionate about it to such an extent that he blew all of his political capital on it. He alienated a ton of people over it. He didn't have to talk the democracy talk. We could have invaded, killed Saddam, stole their oil (if that was ever our objective--newsflash liberals, it wasn't) and called it a day. Instead we stayed, rebuilt and walked the walk on democracy. You can say whatever you want about Bush and the war but I don't see how you can question his commitment to democracy in the region.

Feb. 28 2011 09:57 PM
Marcello from Brooklyn

@Mike from Oakland
Actually the issue is exactly the opposite.
As I wrote in the comments space of Karol Marcowicz's post, is there any evidence of a link between the American invasion of Iraq and the current political unrest in these Middle Eastern countries? You see, you don't prove a negative as you are suggesting. It is the other way around: if you want to establish a link between two events you need to point to some evidence that would corroborate the claim. Without any evidence, it is just an empty slogan.

Feb. 28 2011 08:54 PM
Mike from Oakland, CA

You wrote: "President Bush believed massive military action would lead to democracy." Whether he believed it or not, it happened in Iraq. More tellingly, the Neo-Cons were talking about attacking Iraq, turning it into a democracy, and standing back for "a domino effect" before 9/11 or WMD story. That seems quite prescient now. I'm a liberal democrat and I say that. Can you be sure that Iraqi democracy had no effect on what we're seeing sweeping across the middle east? I don't think so.

Feb. 28 2011 12:43 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.


About It's A Free Blog

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a blog, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Supported by

WNYC is supported by the Charles H. Revson Foundation: Because a great city needs an informed and engaged public.  Learn more at



Supported by