Throughout its history the State Department (and usually indirectly, the president) has always had to take a stance on foreign regimes. The US has always been a prominent country in the Western world - distinguished by its fairly unique beginnings and eventually its size (in all respects of the word) - and its foreign policy doctrines have always gotten attention, regardless of their worth. These doctrines have always had to deal with foreign regimes, from Washington’s pleas for neutrality, to Monroe’s masterful colonial maneuverings, to Nixon’s brilliant support of China in the 70s. It is important to remember that in all of these cases the US was representing what it thought was its best interests. However if one, even casually, surveys the political zeitgeist today a clear conflict of interest will emerge: the US likes to be seen as a bastion of democracy, a shining example of how to do a revolution right and how to run a stable country. Although the notion of the US being a “protector” of democracy is relatively recent, it has become sufficiently prevalent so as to further illustrate the main conflict here: Stable democracies are competitive and able to look out for themselves (like the US, they are interested in protecting their interests and their people), while dictatorships, while usually maintaining some form of stability, exist only to help the elite.

For some odd reason, in the Middle East (and to be fair here there are very few actually stable democracies in the first place), the countries the United States has contributed the most aid to (with the exception of democratic Israel) have been dictatorships. Now the conflict of interest begins to emerge: How can the US look out for itself and spread democracy at the same time, when the two are in almost direct conflict with each other? At some basic level, our success depends on other’s misfortune, and the countries easiest to exploit are dictatorships.

But why can’t the US support democracy (for real, not just for posturing sake)? Why can’t the US officially come out in support of the protests breaking out (as this is written) in Bahrain, Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Tunisia, and more? Why can’t the US support fledgling democratic efforts and look towards these benefits in the long run? I am of the opinion that for the first time in our history, this is what we should do. The middle eastern arena has been incredibly unfriendly to the US for so long (and not without cause), by supporting these movements we are at the same time laying a groundwork for future close ties with these countries (I assume we’ll still need their oil, even after the revolution), and for once, we won’t be blatant hypocrites.