What does the Arab Spring mean for the United States?

As reported by CNN, the Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes project recently discovered that the recent events of the so-called "Arab Spring" have not improved the image of the United States in Muslim nations throughout the Middle East. The fact that the question was even investigated by the Pew group and reported with such a by-line by CNN suggests two important truths about the average American's conception of foreign policy.

First, we need some kind of context with which to digest new information. Often, that context is historical. When George W. Bush identified enemies of the United States in the 2002 State of the Union Address, he used the term "Axis of Evil" to unite radical terrorist factions in the Middle East and Asia with the unquestionably-evil dictatorships of the Second World War. Today, when a military effort begins to go south, the immediate go-to phrase is that the conflict is becoming "another Vietnam." By naming this the "Arab Spring," the media introduces a narrative of brief success followed by catastrophe. The rebels in Libya and Egypt are fighting against a cruel and un-American ideology. They are struggling for the formation of democratic ideals in their country. And they are doing so in spite of the pernicious influence of an autocratic government clinging to a level of sovereignty they no longer possess (if they did in the first place) through the mandate of the people. The distinguishing characteristics of the actual conflicts in the Middle East fade behind the historical context that is imposed upon them through the classification of the "Arab Spring." The thoughts, concerns, and goals of the reformers in these countries mimic those of the Czechs in the minds of historical-conscious Americans. And, because the ideological conflict in the Cold War was between Soviet authoritarianism and American democracy, the average person jumps to the conclusion that the participants in this rebel movement hold the same values as Americans. Pew's research, then, becomes surprising for the average American.

Though it shouldn't be. Vaclav Havel wrote in the 1980s that the American model of democracy would not work for an independent Czechoslovakia. The efforts of the Prague Spring were made by independent thinkers who sought the creation of their own democracy on their own terms. Though they struggled against Soviet influence on their government, this alone did not unite them with American principles and values. However, the ideological view is simpler to digest. So Americans watch the Arab Spring with confidence, pride, and the belief that even if Gaddafi is somehow able to restore his rule, the clamoring for democracy in the Middle East is a product of the example established by the United States and the modernization of Libya is an eventual inevitability.

This leads us to the second important illuminating feature of the Pew report. Americans generally view their path to democracy as the only possible one, or at least the only desirable one. And why not? Hasn't American democracy been delivered to numerous countries throughout the world (Japan, South Korea, even Iraq) with moderate to extensive levels of success? When any country in the world subsequently calls for a more democratic form of government in the face of autocratic oppression, most Americans view this as a consequence of the fine example of liberal democracy we present. The belief dates back to Winthrop's assertion of Plymouth's status as a "City on a Hill" during the colonial period, and of course Reagan's subsequent use of the metaphor in 1984. We've never quite relinquished that belief, that somehow America is the paragon of liberal democracy. The impulse to question citizens of these countries, during times of great political turmoil and uncertainty, how they feel about the United States in response to these occurrences illustrates this continued insistence upon viewing any democratic development in the world through an American lens.

The events of the so-called "Arab Spring" are undoubtedly important and essential. Autocratic governments, in any shape or form, cannot and should not exist in a global community committed to the values of democracy and equality. When we read into these events the superiority of the American model of democracy, and insist upon our own ideological involvement in what is occurring, we obscure the truth, however. President Obama and all American citizens should welcome the democratic reforms in the Middle East that will emerge from this political movement. But we should treat these developments as indications of the unquestioned strength of our own democratic system, nor should we expect democratic governments modeled after and openly friendly to ours once these reforms are inevitably put into place.