Conservatives as Revolutionaries
“We have no right to tell other people how to live their lives.” “We shouldn’t force our culture on anyone else.” These are all variants of this argument: “We should not overthrow the status quo.”
And the people who believe this call themselves “liberal”.
Actually, the “we” in the above arguments really needs to be qualified as “The United States” – since it’s okay for anyone else to initiate change. When Yugoslavia fell into civil war in 1991, the USA stood back and let the EU handle the situation. How did they handle it? By handing over 8,000 Muslim men and boys to be slaughtered in Sbrenica, allowing genocide in Bosnia and the “change” of ethnic cleansing.
During the mid 1990s the USA was criticized for not intervening. Finally, when it did in 1995 it did so on the side of the Muslim region of Bosnia. It doesn’t hurt to be reminded that the year after the Dayton Accord was signed, Bin Laden’s group al-Qaeda struck the Khobar Towers complex in Saudi Arabia killing 19 American servicemen, ostensibly in defense of Islam. Al-Qaeda then struck the US embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam in August 1998.
Similarly, in 1999 NATO, under American leadership, launched a 72 day air campaign against Serbia to protect Kosovo. Note that this attack occurred without a UN mandate of any kind since Russia had promised Serbia that it would veto any such measure.
What does this tell us? It tells us that the EU, United Nations, or any other trans-national group cannot act effectively without the backing and support of the United States. Since the American economy remains the world’s largest, economic sanctions will fail unless the USA takes part. Because the militaries of the EU have atrophied under the Cold War umbrella supplied by the USA, an aggressor has nothing to fear unless confronted by the US military. For example, France has one aircraft carrier that spends more time in dry dock than it does at sea. What does North Korea have to fear from France?
The majority of people who say, “We have no right to tell other people how to live their lives,” actually believe that the United States has no right to unilaterally tell other people how to live their lives. It’s okay as long as trans-national organizations like the UN or EU say it’s okay.
The problem is that by promoting this belief, they are sowing the seeds of something much more dangerous: cultural isolationism – or multi-culturalism taken to its logical conclusion. Cultural isolationism is the belief that cross-cultural norms such as human rights for gays, minorities and women do not exist. If Japanese society does not recognize that eating whale meat is wrong, then the world does not have the right to tell that nation to stop killing whales. If female circumcision is practiced in some cultures, we do not have a right to put a stop to it.
When someone says, “We shouldn’t force our culture on anyone else,” one should respond by asking if he or she supports honor killings in Brazil or crushing to death of gays in Afghanistan? Ask him or her if slavery should be allowed in Saudi Arabia, especially since it is allowed under Islam and continues today.
But why stop there? If we are unwilling to recognize universals such as human rights, why not allow slavery back into the American South? As a straight American male, why shouldn’t I be allowed to discriminate openly against gays and lesbians since my (former) religion, Roman Catholicism, allows it?
Enough reduction ad absurdum. The reality is that the meanings of “liberal” and “conservative” have flipped. Today’s conservative champions universals like human rights. People on the right distrust China for its human rights abuses much more than those on the Left who appreciate its Communist roots. I cannot understand how gays and lesbians (like my Kerry-supporting colleague) are so anti-Bush while he stopped the persecution of women, gays and lesbians in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan.
President Bush believes that the way to stop terrorism and secure America is to “drain the swamp” where terror breeds and spread democracy. This is a truly revolutionary doctrine, much broader in scope than anything imagined by Castro or Che Guevera. Bush understands at a deep and fundamental level that America can no longer be secure in the world as long as people aren’t free to choose their own destinies. People in the Middle East have been oppressed for time immemorial. They have never known freedom, and those that champion it are silenced – often permanently. They cannot choose their own destinies in the way that we can.
America has never imposed its values on a people: it has imposed human values on people. Today nations such as Germany, Japan, Bosnia, Philippines, South Korea, France, Italy, Great Britain are free because of America’s direct intervention to impose human rights on sometimes reluctant populaces. Ask any Japanese, is Japan today better off than it was 60 years ago?
America is doing the same to the Middle East. It is attempting the transformation of an entire region, and is being resisted by terrorists, autocratic regimes, and even those it liberated sixty years ago. If America fails in its revolutionary mission, the French and Germans can pat each other on the back for stopping American “hegemony” – the same hegemony that liberated their nation twice over the past 90 years. They can rest assured that should America fail in its attempt to transform the Middle East, there will never be a third.
5 Comments »
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://therazor.org/wp-trackback.php/207
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title="" rel=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Hey Scott -
Thanks for the very thoughtful and thought-provoking essay. Couple of thoughts:
1). The tension between intervening to address human rights issues one one hand, and respecting national sovereignty on the other, has been around a long time. Where’s the line? When are things “bad enough” to intervene?
A specific question: www.nationmaster.com has Iraq as the 9th worst country (as of 2001) for human rights. The 8 countries which are worse are Turkmenistan, Libya, N. Korea, Sudan, Syria, Burma, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia. Why no boots on the ground in any of those countries?
In particular: 15 of 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi. We’ve seen financial links between Saudi’s and the hijackers, and between Saudis and any number of other terror organizations. Saudis fund the madrassas that spawned the Taliban. Why haven’t we ripped the House of Saud a new one?
Another question: the death penalty is common in the US. Not so in Europe. Assuming they had the horsepower, would the EU be justified in “intervening” in the US to put an end to the death penalty? (This is not a question about whether the death penalty is legitimate or not – it’s a question about the limits of national sovereignty).
Whose “universals” are really universal?
2). A point of fact: historically, there have been governments in the middle east that have been based on democratic principles, or at least the constitutional rule of law. To say “they have never known freedom” is not really correct. Unfortunately, some of those governments (ex. Mossadegh) have been overthrown by the US and/or other western governments.
3). I reject the analogy of what Bush is trying to do in the Middle East with WWII. We did not go to war with Germany or Japan to insert democracy. We went to war with the nation of Japan because we were attacked by the nation of Japan. Germany was their ally and declared war on us as a result. Injecting democratic institutions was not the agenda. There is **no** analogy to the invasion of Iraq.
It would be great for governments based on the rule of law to emerge in the middle east. Unfortunately, the US and the west in general have a piss-poor record of supporting them. This is not a “hate America first” thing, it’s simply a matter of the historical record.
I understand that you see the neocon agenda as being one of forceful insertion of democratic values into the middle east as a long-term strategy of liberation. If that was the actual motivation, I’d applaud it (although probably not military intervention as the tactical means). From what I’ve read by that crew, and from what I see of how they’ve carried out the Iraq adventure, however, I don’t buy it. There are a variety of interests at play, but the well-being and political enfranchisement of the middle eastern people is fairly low on the list, IMO. Follow the money.
Best -
Comment by Russell Lane — 10/18/2004 @ 11:01 pm
Russ
I have advocated the overthrow of the house of Saud for years now. However putting in “boots on the ground” there would
a) inflame the entire Muslim world. Don’t forget that troops in Saudi Arabia were one of Bin Laden’s big beefs with us.
b) be opposed by Europe.
c) be viewed domestically as an act of imperialism.
So how do we do it?
I have been to Seoul, South Korea and lived in Japan for a number of years within North Korean Nodong missile range. Do you realize how close Seoul is to the DMZ? It’s about 26 miles - easily within artillery range. Any fight in NK, ANY, would result in tens of thousands of dead South Koreans and possibly Japanese.
War is simply not an option in North Korea.
Turkmenistan? Would upset the Russians. They are still pissed about our new arrangements with Uzbekistan.
Libya is reforming. That said there are good reasons not to attack all the countries you list.
But look at Iraq.
Sanctions were failing (as the oil-for-atrocities investigation deepens), troops to “protect” Saudi Arabia were instead inflaming the muslim world. My question becomes, why not Iraq?
Death Penalty
Europe has every right to levy sanctions against us or threaten us over the use of the death penalty. In fact, they are already doing so. For example, I live in the metro Philly area. A generation ago hippy activist Ira Einhorn killed his girlfriend, stuffed her body in a trunk, and disappeared. He was tried in abstentia and sentenced to death. He later was found in France.
France refused to extradite him until the PA prosecutor promised a new trial WITHOUT the death penalty.
Whose “universals” are “universal"? I would hope that we could all agree that basic human rights are universal. If not, then we are in deep trouble.
2. Mossadagh’s reign was brief and limited in scope (Iran). At the time the USA viewed the world in terms of Communist/Non. Given the events in Europe after WW2 (sham elections in eastern block under Soviet control, Soviet attempts at overthrowing democries in Western Europe), the Soviets were seen as the true threat and the countries in the world as pawns. The USA feared Mossadagh leaned towards Soviets and so overthrew him - yes to guarantee oil supply, but also to keep oil out of Soviet hands.
Nations act in their own self-interest. Past policies have consistently shown that what is best in the short term (Israeli funding of Hamas to balance PLO, US support of Mujahadeen in Afghanistan) are often worse in the long term. The problem becomes, without hindsight, how do you know which policy is preferable in the long-term?
I think that much of your criticism is “Monday morning quarterbacking” that ignores the challenges, and information available, at the time. That said I agree with you that looking back on it, it was a mistake to support non-democratic regimes during the Cold War.
While it may have made sense in the short run to support non-democratic states (Zaire, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Iran) during the Cold War, in the long-run I think it was a mistake. I believe that America has learned that its best defense is to encourage freedom around the globe.
Call that the “neocon” agenda, but it stinks of Jimmy Carter circa 1977 to me.
Scott
Comment by Scott Kirwin — 10/19/2004 @ 8:23 am
Hey Scott –
Why not Iraq?
1. “Why not” is not a strong enough case for going to war.
2. Iraq posed no realistic threat to the US, and the arguments for thinking otherwise were known to be weak by decision makers at that time.
3. An intervention for reasons other than national security (violating sanctions, humanitarian reasons) were arguable, but we had much, much bigger fish to fry.
We disagree about this. I understand your argument – draining the swamp – but I do not believe what we’re presently engaged in is going to make that happen.
Fundamentally, I believe, for good reason, that Iraq was on the agenda prior to 9/11 for reasons having nothing to do with terrorism, humanitarian goals, or threats to the US, and Bush (or at least his crew) seized on 9/11 as the excuse to go ahead. Frankly, I think that is criminal. I also think it was stupid, and is being stupidly carried out. We, you and I, are paying for those decisions, and will continue to. It would be great if things turned out as you expect, but I’m not holding my breath.
Regarding “Monday morning quarterbacking", I’m not interested in second-guessing decisions made 50 years ago. I am interested in noticing if history can tell us anything about our present circumstances.
Best -
R
Comment by Russell — 10/23/2004 @ 6:35 pm
adipex
In the matters we propose to investiage, our inquiries should be directed, not to what others have thought, nor to what we ourselves conjecture, but to what we can clearly and distinctly see and with
Trackback by adipex — 4/21/2005 @ 9:11 am
viagra
I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that
Trackback by viagra — 4/21/2005 @ 10:29 pm