115. Is Democracy an Ideology?

Is democracy an "ideology"? Does it have "agents"? Would they be "foreign agents"?

"No, you can't talk that way. An agent of a foreign ideology is somebody like those members of the Communist Party in the U.S. in the thirties. Somebody who works to undermine democracy."

Ah, but Marshal Tantawi and Prime Minister Putin are apparently talking that way. When Tantawi's people in Egypt's caretaker government accuse American NGOs of "interfering in domestic politics and stirring unrest" I hear his voice. When Putin's people lay responsibility for "turmoil in the streets" on American democracy-building groups I hear his. Both have gotten louder in the last month, with Putin's people accusing the American ambassador of "promoting revolution" (Huffington Post, 1-18-12) and Tantawi's people putting a travel ban on U.S. pro-democracy activists (Reuters, 1-26-120). What I'm wondering is how exactly their words are different from the words we used when we talked about communists as "agents of a foreign ideology."

"Well, the agents are certainly different and so are the ideologies — whatever the words. These give us enough to identify them."

Maybe so, but by the dictionary I think we're pretty firmly stuck. If an ideology is "the body of doctrine associated with a political movement" and an agent is "a person who acts on behalf of another person or group" and "foreign" tells you that person is from another country then those American-paid democracy-building people in Cairo and Moscow, right up to the ambassadors, are correctly called "agents of a foreign ideology." Putin and Tantawi are right.

"And so the only difference between communist agents in Washington then and democracy agents in Moscow now would be in their ideologies. But, you know, we shouldn't mind being stuck with that as long as we distinguish properly between their ideologies. Putin and Tantawi are each appealing to an ideology peculiar to their nation ("You're in Russia now, Ambassador McFaul") or culture ("Egypt is an Islamic country, sir") with its particular values; our ambassadors and NGOs are appealing to an ideology for the whole human race ("All men are created equal," they are "endowed with inalienable rights"). If democracy is an ideology our agents represent a superior one."

I know, I know. Universal values trump particular values. The American and French revolutions are the best. No nation or culture is justified in opposing them. Wonderful. Our ambassadors and NGOs work for humanity. And you know what? When I look at them all I can think of is "Old Dan Tucker." You know that song? "Get out of the way of old Dan Tucker, running late to get his supper.

"Don't you approve of those values? And of their priority?"

Yes, but they scare me to death. President Bush, appealing to them, loving them in the person of that Western, liberal president of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili, pushed to get Georgia into NATO. You know what that meant? It meant that if Russian troops invaded Georgia we, by the NATO commitment, would have had to send troops to their aid. All the way to Georgia, a country far from us, and which we could supply only through the Black Sea. Furthermore, it was adjacent to Russia, which still had a load of nuclear weapons. And we'd have had to take them on, or been "humiliated" — as they say of the worst thing that can happen to a Great Power.

The trouble with universal values is that you act on them in particular situations, facing a particular number of troops motivated by a particular culture or ideology. You can, as a friend in the Army once said, lose your particular ass.

"Isn't that the risk, more or less, of acting on any ideal?"

Yes, but risks vary with the ideal, and this one is loaded, especially for Americans. Talk about defending liberty and human rights and we'll line up behind you. How we lined up behind President Kennedy when he said, “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty” It excites me still. But where did that line lead? Into the agony of Viet Nam.

Think of President Bush going into Iraq. Get out of the way of Old Dan Tucker. He was like the other presidents except that he called up the defend-democracy spirit late, after he was already in the particular place. "No weapons of mass destruction? No Al Qaeda? No real threat? OK, we're here to build democracy." The American public will always excuse action toward that ideal. They wouldn't do that for an "ideology."

"That gives me an idea. Call 'democracy' an ideology and they'll quit excusing action in its name. And they won't be so eager to fight for it in every corner of the world. Good verbal move."

Sure, and it's exactly the move Putin is making. Democracy is an ideology like any other, and it happens that this particular country, the United States, is pushing it. On us.

"Is democracy an ideology like any other?"

Only, I suppose, if the American revolution is a revolution like any other.