Condoleeza Rice, in a article in a Foreign Affairs magazine, defined the Bush doctrine as: “promoting the National Interest by rebuilding military power, expanding free trade agreements, confronting “rouge regimes,” renewing relationships with allies and building ties with “great powers” such as Russia and China.”
Further, Bush, in his January 2005 inaugural, added additional substance to the doctrine when he pledged to confront “every ruler” on issues of domestic oppression and the treatment of people.
Clearly, this strategy signals a bias on the part of the President to transform the word in “his” own image of what “he” thinks the world should be. And, as experience in Iraq shows, he is willing to use military power to enforce “his” vision.
These neo-conservative biases capture the attention of the few. However, they are not universal nor universally popular. For example, a survey of nearly 22,000 people in 21 countries by the BBC World Service in January 2005, found that 47 percent see U.S. Influence in the world today as largely negative and 58 percent believe Bush's reelection will make the world more dangerous.
We can see the problem in the Bush doctrine (bias) by looking at one challenge – Russia. Under Russian President Vladimir Putin, the Kremlin took over or shut down independent television networks. They ousted democratic reform parties from Parliament, through manipulation elections. In addition, Putin imprisoned or drove business magnates who defied the President into exile, and eliminated the election of regional governors.
To confront the Russians on these issues would likely return the United States to the cold war era. While that might be good for the military-industrial complex it would hardly be good for the nation or domestic policy.
Historically, Presidents, including the elder Bush, dealt with International issues using conciliatory and transactional statesmanship. This was done for good reason – it's more reasoned, it saves money and lives.
Many Democrats, Republicans, former military leaders and other subscribers to the traditional school of U.S. Foreign policy know this. They see Bush-the-Younger heading down a treacherous road that will unravel a half-century of thoughtful international relationships.
Certainly, security at home depends on stability abroad. But, its unreasonable to believe that our Nation – as great as it is - could impose, what is essentially, a neo-conservative bias on a World of many cultures and institutions. The consequences of such a prolonged attempt would likely be an all-out World War.
Why, one might ask, would anyone even think that they can transform the world to their own view – their bias - and do so without significant consequences?
The answer probably lies in biology and the primitive brain. The “primitive” brain reacts rather than reasons. It specializes in quick generalizations, not subtle distinctions. Such mental shortcuts probably helped our ancestors survive, and seems to do well for Politicians. But, it's not the way to reason out a National policy.
Reverting to mental shortcuts simply because it requires less effort is no way to govern a Nation as powerful as ours. In fact it's down right dangerous.
