Veeery interesting, this growing consensus that the Bush attack on Iraq has succeeded in promoting democracy in the Middle East.
I turn to this subject, having read the morning newspapers. Democratic Governor Richardson of New Mexico, I learn, has complimented the Administration for "sparking a wave of very positive democratic sentiment." Conservative David Brooks praises Paul Wolfowitz for his consistency in pushing democracy. And conservative John Leo clobbers Teddy Kennedy and other liberals for not seeing the great progress in the Mideast and elsewhere.
I also listened to "Counterspin," the syndicated press review radio program that speaks from a leftist point of view. ("Counterspin" lives up to its name, offering a P-O-V 180 degrees from the Establishment media P-O-V. Keep in mind that the exact opposite of untruth is not automatically truth.)
Still, on this morning’s program, a freelance American news guy – not imbedded - said the reports we get from Iraq are generally "hotel" journalism.
Backward reeled my mind to an adventure in the Dominican Republic during a mini-civil war in the late 60s. A French "journaliste" and I left the bulk of the press corps at the hotel and made our way through the "enemy lines" to talk to the left-wing faction. (The US considered them Communists, which may have been so.)
The leftist leaders were friendly to us, though, and we prospered. That despite a scary moment at night when a rifle-toting rebel teenager doubted that we deserved to leave. We confused the kid in French and Spanish and lived to tell the story.
My point? International reporting is tricky. Fear of dying can affect your work. Language and culture act as restraints, too. There’s often censorship, too. (In Vietnam the Pentagon brass told one story at the famous "Five O’Clock Follies" in Saigon, the grunts in the field gave us another.)
Editors can make mistakes when far away from the scene. And, of course, news consumers cannot check reports from overseas against reality as easily as when the story is down the street.
So we do well to be just a bit cautious when consuming reports from afar.
To these considerations, add that the White House has a vested interest in persuading Americans and the world that its latest rationale for the war – spreading freedom abroad - is paying dividends.
Broadcasting’s "news product, " meanwhile, heavy on celebrity anchors and packaging,light as a feather on content, conveys very little news at all, no less the kind that diverges from the consensus.
As for serious news people, the very appearance of consensus should raise the caution flag. It wasn’t that long ago, remember, that everybody from the New York Times to Fox knew Iraq possessed WMD. Knew!
So, as the White House, the GOP, its allies in the corporate Democratic Party and much of the press come together on all this good news about democracy in the Middle East, it’s just good common sense to remember:
o Not one Middle Eastern nation has, in fact, gone democratic since the US went to war. (What about Afghanistan? Kabul, maybe, but no, not Afghanistan.)
o.The much-ballyhooed Iraqi elections, while positive, do not come close to making that state a democracy.
o Democracy may not equal freedom. If Pakistan, for example, were to go democratic tomorrow, we would face another radical Islamist regime with nuclear weapons ready to fire.
What was that old saw about being careful what you wish for?
• In the Mideast, the spirit of democracy probably burns brightest in Iran, which has been the case for several years. We do not kow if it will survive the Bush policy on Iran.
Warning: Consensus may be dangerous to your grasp of the truth. As for this specific consensus, that the Bush war on Iraq has ignited a new democratic flame in the Mideast, it may turn out that way.
But, to say the least, it’s premature to proclaim it as truth today. Unless, of course, you do so as a White House apologist.