Bush as Liberal and Democracy on a Pedestal

Michael J. Totten makes “The Liberal Case for Bush” today at TCS.

I would take issue with this:

Woodrow Wilson, good Democrat that he was, fought to make the world “safe for democracy.” There is no more noble or inspiring reason to fight. John Kerry is no Woodrow Wilson. In his most important speech, the set-piece of his campaign, he didn’t mention freedom or democracy for Iraqis. Not even once. (emphasis mine)

No more noble or inspiring reason to fight? How about fighting for hearth and home? The defense of kith and kin? The protection of the innocent and defenseless? I don’t deny that the spread of democracy is a noble cause, but the noblest? Democracy is certainly a good, but chiefly as a means to an end. And untempered democracy, as political theorists from Plato onward have argued, can be a positive bad. It may well be “the least bad” form of government, but let’s keep things in perspective here.

Also, it may be doubted that the U.S. government is charged with the spread of democracy as its primary mission. Surely its chief duty is the protection of its citizens. When this duty overlaps with the broader good of encouraging democracy elsewhere, wonderful. But prudent statecraft would seem to require a realistic assessment of how much we can contribute to this broader good.