. . .government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth. -- Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address.
Some dance to remember, some dance to forget - -- Eagles, "Hotel California."43rd president George W. Bush never caused me to doubt his commitment to democracy, even as his policies and actions gave me heartburn. His single-minded pursuit of "regime change" made for poor policy and, eventually, disastrous consequences -- for both the United States and Iraq as it fueled continuing suffering for millions of Iraqis, provided a fertile environment for the growth of al Queda, Islamic State and their fellow-travelers, and enabled the westward expansion of Iranian state influence -- because successful democratic institutions are the product of indigenous demand, not foreign imposition.
Despite poorly-conceived and faulty actions, Bush understood the value of protecting and promoting democracy world-wide.
All presidents have their failings. But, like the 43rd, every other president since the time of World War II has confronted an assault on democracy with actions to protect, and then to promote, democratic institutions and values. Abraham Lincoln might have been a few decades ahead of his time with his national vision, but his modern-era successors have consistently acted to protect and promote that vision.
Until now.
The president of the United States is Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief. The world's economic order -- based on stability in trade rules, laws and democratic values -- is in large part the product of those two roles being used effectively to protect, promote and defend democracy. The rules-based international order championed by the global alliance of democratic nations, with the United States as its leader, has been the foundation for prosperity.
Alarmed by this success, democracy and international stability are under attack by those whose power would ultimately be undone by further expansion of democratic governance. Russia's president Vladimir Putin is the leader of this pack.
Autocratic rule is making gains in nations that are populous, prominent, powerful and growing: Russia, China, Turkey, Philippines, Poland, Egypt and others. Official, state-sponsored Russian undercover operations have acted to interfere in, and influence the outcome of, American elections in 2016 and 2018; United States intelligence agencies are unanimous in this conclusion. Special Counsel Mueller's investigations have indicted 13 Russian individuals and three Russian organizations for illegal election tampering. British law enforcement and intelligence agencies have openly stated their investigative conclusions that Russian covert activities have conducted assassinations on U.K. soil. European governments are recognizing the same tampering in their elections and working to counteract it.
The measure of the success of this interference is the growth in popular distrust of democratic governing institutions in the targeted nations. Distrust yields chaotic and inconsistent governance. This feeds Putin's narrative of hostility to western democratic institutions and supports his confrontational posture against what he describes as western (especially American) persecution of Russian values and national integrity.
If history is any guide -- and we know that it is -- we expect the American Commander-in-Chief to act to punish outside interference in U.S. elections. We expect the American Chief Executive to publicly and energetically support an American ally in its efforts to counter state-sponsored murder within its own borders. We expect the Chief Executive to offer up loudest praise first to democratic governing successes, and only later express measured and subdued recognition of those achievements that can be attributed to autocratic governing regimes.
Instead, we have a Commander-in-Chief who does not coordinate the considerable resources at his command to administer proportional punishment, and a Chief Executive who is lukewarm and unreliable in supporting democratic allies, and fulsome in praising governing autocrats, prominently including Putin.
Political policy and practice that praises autocrats -- especially when done in preference over a vigorous defense of democracy -- ends up being a grueling dance that does not end well for those with democratic values. The British experience with Germany's Hitler, the American experiences with Central American and South Vietnamese autocrats (a long-running case of the ". . .he may be a son-of-a-bitch, but at least he's our son-of-a-bitch. . ." syndrome) provide graphic and lasting evidence of how dancing with the wrong partner ends poorly.
We have a president who dances with autocrats, and forgets how that dance always ends. We have a president who has forgotten -- or does not understand -- that any successful international alliance requires leadership that is reliable, visible and consistent.
If the question Who will defend democracy? had been asked in the past, the clear and immediate answer would always have been The United States of America.
The answer to that question is no longer so clear, nor is it timely.
We have never seen anything like this before.
The sooner that this ends, the better that it will be for all.
