"Democracy" and "freedom" are two of the most ambiguous and misused words in the English language.
"We (Iraqi war) hawks were wrong about many things. But in opening up the possibility for a slow trudge toward democracy, we were still right," David Brooks concluded in a recent column for The New York Times.
Like the quagmire that has become Iraq, this statement confounded me with its cloudiness. To try to understand what Mr. Brooks so vaguely asserted, I cracked open a copy of the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Here's what I discovered:
Democracy: 1. "Government by the people; the common people, considered as the primary source of political power." As in, a U.S. military presence that continuously blocks the ability of the Iraqi people to run their own country? No, that can't be right.
2. "Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives." Such as foreign companies that exert a disproportionate amount of political influence, jeopardizing the Iraqi people's chance for economic opportunity?
Hmm, we seem to be getting stuck on a common phrase here: "the people ... "
I tried flipping to "freedom." 1. "Exemption from the arbitrary exercise of authority in the performance of a specific action." As in, American media that spin the news under pressure from the Bush administration, conveying a picture of Iraq that coincides with Bush's dubious claims of victory? Eh, don't think so. (And if you're a passive observer, you're already dead.)
2. "A right or the power to engage in certain actions without control or interference; the capacity to exercise choice." Take the United States' monopoly on Iraqi oil reserves, for example?
For Iraqis, freedom is more like "Live free, or die tryin'."
Bush seems determined to relinquish control to the Iraqis on June 30. Many pundits have forecast that by July 1, Iraq will dissolve into anarchy.
Help, dictionary! Anarchy: the absence of government (not chaos, as many people incorrectly assume). Sometimes used ironically, as in: Americans like to think our government is more "democratic" and "free" than Iraq's, yet the current president of the United States was not elected by its people.
But I was still confused. I tried squinting through a kaleidoscope while staring at the sun, and still I couldn't mold those dictionary definitions with the entropy of Iraq today.
Less than four months after President Woodrow Wilson's speech urging the United States to "make the world safe for democracy," Robert M. La Follette said, "We should not seek to hide our blunder behind the smoke of battle to inflame the mind of our people by half-truths into the frenzy of war, in order that they may never appreciate the real cause of it until it is too late."
What in the hell did David Brooks mean by "democracy"?
I flipped forward in my dictionary, and there it was, staring with the sort of unblinking gaze only the dead can muster:
Imperialism: "The policy, practice or advocacy of seeking, or acquiescing in, the extension of the control, dominion or empire of a nation."
Synonymous with: neocolonialism in Iraq today.
Jennifer Kursman is a biochemistry freshman. She can be contacted at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.