Tigerhawk points me to Madeleine Albright's address to the 2006 Princeton Colloquium on Public and International Affairs - "Promoting Democracy: 14 Points for the 21st Century":
"I have often said that those who have never held the highest jobs in government do not know how tough they can be, while those who retire from such positions often forget too quickly. Critics have an obligation to be both objective and constructive, standards I will strive to meet this afternoon.
...Others say that promoting democracy is fine, but not now or not here or not so fast; such pleas remind me of St. Augustine's famous prayer to become abstinent and celibate – but not yet.
This latest controversy has revived the oldest and phoniest of academic debates – between so-called realists and idealists in foreign policy. The truth is that for any foreign policy to work, it must reflect the world both as it is and as we would like it to be. On a globe this complicated; even the purest of principles must sometimes be diluted. Still, we are kept alive by hope, which cold-blooded cynicism can neither inspire nor satisfy.
To lead, we must blend practical politics with moral considerations. For unless we are practical, we will spin our idealistic wheels; unless we are principled, we will drive off in the wrong direction.
Now, I have to admit that I am prejudiced in favor of democracy. I am Chair of the National Democratic Institute, which helps to build democratic institutions around the globe. And all my adult life, I have heard people say that this region or that culture or those countries were not ready for democracy. I have replied by stating my conviction that no country has ever truly been ready for anything else.
So I believe the Bush Administration deserves credit for promoting democracy. My question is whether it is going about that task in the right way. This afternoon, I would like to explore this topic by making, in honor of Woodrow Wilson and with your indulgence, no less than fourteen points....."
The transcript is here, in HTML and PDF form. there's also a webcast, which includes a long and wide-ranging Q&A (RealVideo 56k | Windows Media 56k).
I've often lurked here at WoC and enjoyed the thoughtful discussion. This post about Albright got me motivated enought to write up some comments... perhaps too long winded.
Albright's presentation is just too empty of meaningful content for me to get anything out of it; however, since she draws so much attention to herself I thought I would go through it point by point and try to see what she is really saying. Here is my go at interpreting her, point by point:
1. An assertion of "right" and "smart" qualities to an effort (assist in establishing democratic institutions), without establishing why it is either right or smart for the US to do so. She wants it to be right and smart and believes it so, but it is offered as just that.
2. Stating the obvious - you can't change another person.
3. Standard Democratic party talking point - Iraq was botched and it is Bush's fault.
4. It takes a village....
5. Moses was distracted by thunderbolts, the real way to get things done is with political party machinery and bureaucracies.
6. She is really hung up on the "power" thing, as is so common among those who aspire for it greatly. What is totally missed in this point of hers is that the culture in the middle east is formed around an religion in which people are fundamentally all not the same, not treated the same, under the laws they follow and the religion they embrace.
7. A rather rambling "point", the upshot of which appears to be that she heads a group of experts that is looking into the problem...
8. On the face of it rather straightforward and hard to disagree with - there are things that democracy cannot do. However, if we do accept that then many of the rest of her points are not necessary to make (except to take up time on the podium). Rather, I suspect the real goal of point 8 is to raise the McVeigh card - that is, if you try to link terrorism Islam then somehow you are just too narrow minded. Indeed, it seems this talking point, if taken to heart, would lead me to wonder (if I were sitting in the audience) why I would even want to try to think about this subject anymore. Let's see, if one were to want to change the Middle east and it's terrorism what should we do - we can't use religion (e.g. convert them to Christianity), we certainly wouldn't want to stop them from being the socialists that many are, and now we discover that democracy doesn't stop terrorism either. Who can save them?
Ahhh, that is what point 7 was about... it is Albright and her committee of experts arguing over legal system for the poor that will save them!
9. She wants the middle eastern dictators to "compete" with Islamist groups by offering better governing techniques? Funny, I missed that part in all the videos about jihad and showing beheadings, etc. Albright of course begs the question, of whether the public really wants what she calls honest government.
The kicker about this point is her obsession with Arabs, when indeed it is the non-Arab Islamicists today in Iran which are the hot button.
10. Seems like another DNC talking point - i.e., Bush can only keep one thought in his head at a time. E.g., he only is thinking about the middle east, when obviously we are to be the parent to the rest of the world also. Another DNC talking point - Bush is a wild cowboy and doesn't want to play with anybody else. Albright is taking the standard position that Kerry did in the last election, that the UN and various international bodies should be in charge.
This point of hers really includes the heart of her discussion - the problems are the US fault, and especially that of Bush. Because we won't play by the rules (made by whom ???) then the rest of the world won't either, so it's all our fault.
11. Send money to my group of experts.
12. Frontline DNC talking points, without addressing the real issues in each of the specific subjects. This point of hers encapsulates quite well the ability to create issues, profit on them, and even provide fodder to your enemies.
She goes on to present an "issue" - that the US is not being accountable to the Middle East. How she can actually even present this keep a straight face is beyond me.
13. White male guilt.
14. A warm fuzzy so we can all do a group hug.
Her closing remarks: forget the group hug, it's still Bush's fault.
Two comments.
1. At approximately 47:30 in the video, an audience member asks a question about Clinton-era Iran policy. That was me. So now you have a voice to go with the nom de plume.
2. The thing that I thought was most interesting about Albright's speech is that when you break it all down she essentially agrees with the Bush adminstration's strategy. Her criticisms, while annoying to Bush partisans, are by and large reasonable, or at least reasonably debateable, criticisms of execution. Put differently, if you imagine you don't care about the American domestic political implications of Albright's various points, some of them are quite useful, and the Bush administration would do well to listen to them.
3. For better or for worse, she is the strongest prominent foreign policy thinker the Democrats have. That may be a measure of how weak they are, or how shallow their bench is, but it also means that we would do well to listen to her. She is going to influence the next Democratic administration, which may be upon us in a trice.
OK, so I thought of a third comment to go with my "two comments." Sue me.
I'm with TigerHawk on this one. My main impression is that if you ask a Democrat who is important on foreign policy to make a long series of "motherhood" statements, the result is pretty healthy.
Partisan shots and lapses - from my point of view -aren't the main story. A general consensus on pushing democracy is the main story. This is good.
Does this mean it's safe for foreign policy to elect Democrats any time soon? No. But I saw a hopeful sign that time will come.
Which is good, because sooner or later, whether it's safe or not, the Democrats are going to get back control of the federal legislature and the federal executive.
Yes - but failed to deliver what, Madam Ex-Secretary? Not peace, prosperity, and democracy.
I think time run out on this series of posts but it has always burned in my craw the pooh poohing by you and this site on The Constant Gardner. You were wrong: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/06/AR2006050601338.html?sub=AR
RE: #6. ???? Don't recall this ever being an issue, or even discussed. I'm going to treat further stuff re: this movie or subject as being off-topic in this thread, as it has no relevance to Mme Albright's speech.