The Leaven of Democracy:
A Critique of Bush's "Idealism"

April 5, 2006

I propose a variant reading for Matthew 13.33:

[Jesus] told them another parable: "Democracy is like yeast that a woman took and mixed in with three measures of flour until all of it was leavened."

Democracy, in my version, replaces the more religious minded "Kingdom of Heaven." Like the Kingdom of Heaven, democracy is an element that changes everything. It does not keep separate in one part of the flour, but works its way through the whole bunch. In practical terms, this means that democracy is not a force effective in a single arena of political life, but one that is meant to be applied everywhere.

Bush often gets called an "idealist" when it comes to foreign policy. The grounds for this reputation is contained in his second inaugural speech:

We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.

This leads to a statement of policy:

So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.

There are several ways to approach this statement, and the most obvious would be to point up the striking contrast between those words and the facts on the ground. Consider for a moment a different critique.

In the first quotation above we read: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands." The word "land/lands" is a stand-in for a sovereign nation. Then in the second quotation Bush pledges his support for democratic movements "in every nation and culture." Both of these quotations thus offer support not necessarily for democracy, but for democracy as the preferred form of government within a nation-state.

If we try to channel Bush's point of view, we could say: Out there are a bunch of.. you know.. nation-states, some big, others small. The citizens of those countries must be allowed to elect their own leaders. The benefit to us.. some people don't understand this, you know.. the benefit will be that these democratic countries won't go to war against each other.. it's that simple. And terrorism will not thrive in a land where economic opportunity exists..

But perhaps Bush misses the radical nature of democracy.. and converts that word into a tool for the stability of the biggest nations. I think of those patriots who threw the tea overboard during the Boston Tea Party in 1773. And we all learn at an early age that these colonists were outraged by the notion of taxation without representation. Is this so different from the protests in countries like Brazil or Indonesia about American policies? In a world as interconnected and bound-together, the idea of getting a vote in one's own (perhaps tiny) national elections may pale in comparison with the desire to have a voice in the larger economic issues.

The decisions made by our American leaders affect the economic well-being of men and women in distant places. And it is not too much of a stretch to say that they are being taxed without real representation.. especially if they come from a tiny nation that does not have a seat at the G-8 summit. I think the patriots that fought for our freedom would understand something of the anger currently directed at the United States.

This is not to say that democratic national governments are not important, and not worth supporting. Obviously they are. But if we stop there, it would be very convenient for the United States and other established and advanced nation-states. The challenge in our interconnected world is to give everyone a voice in the decisions that directly affect them, and that will mean expanding our concept of democracy outside of the confines of the nation-state. Although I am not sure that the United Nations represents the best path to this broader democracy, it is surely significant that any kind of national accountability is ruthlessly undermined by this administration.. a way of letting people know that no vote outside this country matters.

Democracy has another sharp edge.. this time one that many so-called liberals would do well to notice. Democracy is force that should be felt on the small scale too. Think of all those academic departments that work as little fiefdoms, that shun transparency and accountability.. I am amazed how many left-leaning academics can run their world like Cheney and co.

That is another example of how we lose track of the radical nature of democracy. The challenge for liberals throughout the next decades will be to fight for democracy in its fullest sense.. We should repeat these lines from William Blake each morning:

I will not cease from mental fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England's green and pleasant land.

The idea that such a Jerusalem could be confined to a single nation, such as England, is obviously an anachronism.. This leaven of democracy must work its way through the whole loaf.