While international terrorism has certainly changed the way we operate in the world, and as much as we pride ourselves on our ability to quickly assimilate to new environments and to improvise solutions to new problems, there are some issues as old as our democracy (which are apparent in Iraq) which we simply have not been able to wrap our collective heads around. Daily we get news about the progress (or lack thereof) the provisional government is having (or not having) in establishing a democracy in Iraq. Against this familiar backdrop, it is worth noting why our imperial/colonial inspirations have always spluttered and died (i.e., Cuba, the Philippines). It's not simply that we're bad at it. It's largely because the nature of our own society is anathema to it. Republicanism has long argued that democracy is not something that is simply bestowed, but that if people are to be allowed to govern themselves, they must demonstrate that they are both capable and deserving of self-government. Bush has said that the Iraqis meet this standard. Unfortunately, his statements on the subject are the quintessence of empty rhetoric (how would he know?). Nevertheless, the opposing view holds that all people are, by the very fact of their existence, entitled to govern themselves; to suggest that they must subject their character, ethics, and principles to some arbiter smacks of the worst kind of elitism. In this country, we are continually fighting this battle in numerous little dust-ups: Should all felons be disenfranchised in perpetuity? If voters in California pass a ballot measure legalizing medicinal marijuana, should their votes be counted? Are parents capable of determining for themselves what their children can and can't watch, or should the FCC make the call? At what age should a child be entrusted to make his or her own decisions regarding sex, alcohol, etc? If, as the those who demand at least a minimum standard of civic responsibility from citizenry in order that they may enjoy self-governance, we are to be such an arbiter in Iraq (as we currently are), who's standards ought we use? Theirs? Ours? Clearly, in places like Haiti and in the burnt-out roadsides of rural Iraq we can point to people and say, "Here are people who are not capable of governing themselves". Once again, however, we find ourselves with little choice but to let them; regardless of the consequences. We want them to be free, but cannot make them so. We want them to be responsible, but cannot make them so. We want to believe that every human being yearns for freedom, but see evidence to the contrary in abundance. We must either rule with absolute authority, as Britain and the Caesars did, or get out of the game altogether. The problems are old, and as much as our leaders claim to be "thinking outside the box", there are no new solutions.