Apparently Michele Bachmann’s conception of democratic freedoms is predicated on the notion that despotic regimes are good as long as they are unquestioning allies of US interests. Labeling the perceived weakness of an American president as the primary cause of a transnational movement across the Arab world, she strips local actors of their agency and individual autonomy. That Bachmann has cast a negative signification upon the desire to rise against 30+ year presidencies and sham democracies is an unsettling sentiment from a presidential hopeful, and an apparent advocacy for American Imperialism: Strong US president= Strong local dictators; Weak US president= indigenous movement for human rights and democratic freedoms.
However, regardless of Bachmann’s sliding popularity, such thoughts are reflective of long standing US foreign policy. Namely, oppressive dictators who support US interests are “forces for stability and ‘democracy,'” while forces who attempt to free themselves from this domination are ‘brigands,’ ‘savages,’ and ‘insurgents.’ The freely elected representatives of a population who are apprehensive to sacrifice national sovereignty and human security to US demands are “Evil Doers.” Really, as confusingly simplistic Bachmann’s categorical signification: Arab Spring=Bad, may be, it is nothing new. There is frustratingly little new about neoliberalism or neoconservativism.