In truth, there is no alternative in Egypt to liberal democracy, or, to be more precise, a democratizing Egypt. And what is true of Egypt will soon become true throughout the Middle East, as the autocratic dominoes fall. ~John Guardiano

Like the Takeyh column I wrote about earlier today, Guardiano’s argument relies heavily on asserting that his recommended response is the only alternative, and it is the only alternative because there is “no alternative” to Egyptian democratization. I have to say that this claim betrays a lack of imagination. There are at least a few alternatives to a democratizing Egypt. One of these is the perpetuation of an entrenched military ruling class behind the facade of a government of nominal reformers. Another is a new autocrat who has a greater interest in liberalizing reforms. Yet another might be a caretaker junta in which no one officer becomes the sole ruler, and the period of “transition” proves to be as unending as the “emergency” situation that permits arbitrary detentions and gross abuses of power. I have been trying to point out many of the potential dangers of democratization, but democratization may not be the most likely outcome from all of this. Dr. Hadar draws comparisons with 1848 revolutions in his new TAC article. That reminded me that the alternative to a fully democratizing France at that point turned out to be Bonapartism and the Second Empire with its failed attempts at a revisionist foreign policy. There was an election, and then there was a coup. That was in a country that had some experience with political liberalism and representative government alongside its bouts of democratic despotism. Egypt has plenty of experience with Bonaparte-like rulers, and it it reasonable to expect that someone like that will assume power in the years to come.

Guardiano calls on us to see the world as it is. That’s a good idea. In the “world as it is,” the Egyptian military dominates, the opposition has access to power at its discretion, and the constitutional changes the military council is proposing so far appear to be very limited. Set aside military rule for a moment. Let us ask the most important question: why should the U.S. be assisting a transition towards liberal democracy? Other than the pious sentiment that this is a Good Thing That Americans Do, what is the actual argument for it? Guardiano doesn’t really provide one, and the tone of his articles on this subject is one of exasperation and puzzlement that other conservatives do not see the obvious virtue in what he is proposing.

Guardiano is certainly disappointed:

I don’t typically agree with left-wing columnist Eugene Robinson; but he’s absolutely right about the Republicans’ stunning — and seriously disconcerting — lack of strategic vision and apparent indifference to the momentous events that are now rocking Egypt, North Africa and the Middle East.

Of course, Robinson is engaged in a bit of cyclical point-scoring. A few years ago, it was mainstream conservatives’ turn to preen and claim that they were the far-seeing supporters of universal freedom, and their political opponents played the skeptics, and now the wheel has turned. Unfortunately, some people on the right seem to have come away from the debacle of the Bush years convinced that the “freedom agenda” was something other than a disaster. Many Republicans may not be indifferent to what is happening. They may be very opposed, but they are probably unsure how to speak out against the democratism that remains fashionable in many circles on the right. It is possible that many of them maintain the double standard that “people power” is desirable only when it lines up with U.S. policies. That may be inconsistent and somewhat cynical, but at least I can understand why they feign interest in certain foreign political movements and ignore others. Enthusiasts for democratization regardless of the situation are the ones I don’t really understand.

As for strategic vision, what is a bit stunning is that Guardiano doesn’t offer any hints of what his vision is other than aiding liberal democracy. He objects to the apparent lack of enthusiasm for democratization on the right, but he doesn’t explain how this translates into a “lack of strategic vision.” In fact, it seems to me that it is the democratists that have been entirely indifferent to U.S. strategic interests. I had to laugh when I saw Guardiano ask at the end of his column, “And how can we hasten similar awakenings in other places such as Iran and Syria?” The uprisings we have been seeing have largely been working to the advantage of Iran and its allies. While sympathizers with the Green movement might hope that the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt will spark a new wave of Iranian protests, they are missing that Iran is the chief beneficiary of all of the unrest we have seen for the last month. It is also doubtful that “we” can hasten popular uprisings in countries where our government commands little or no respect.

Guardiano’s argument reminded me of Nick Kristof’s column from this morning on the unrest in Bahrain. Kristof wrote:

Bahrain’s leaders may whisper to American officials that the democracy protesters are fundamentalists inspired by Iran. That’s ridiculous. There’s no anti-Americanism in the protests — and if we favor “people power” in Iran, we should favor it in Bahrain as well.

That provides as succinct an argument against supporting “people power” in Iran as I could ever hope to find. If people insist on promoting popular uprisings against any authoritarian government as a matter of general principle, that is a good argument against promoting them anywhere. If we can’t even make the distinction between using popular unrest to destabilize rival or hostile governments and destabilizing allies, we have no business attempting to promote political changes abroad. As I see it, we don’t really have any business promoting political change abroad anyway, but a view that can’t even distinguish between a modestly liberalizing monarchy allied with the U.S. and the government in Tehran is one too blinded by optimism and sentimentality to be worth anything.

I doubt that the protests in Bahrain have anything to do with Iran, but anti-Americanism or the lack of it in the protests is beside the point. It isn’t hard to imagine how a successful uprising in Bahrain that weakens or overthrows the monarchy there fits into the overall pattern of aiding Iranian influence and undermining the American position.