With popular revolutions springing up throughout the Muslim Middle East, and with Arab populations pining for representative government and self-determination in lieu of authoritarian despots and semi-permanent police states, the American Right should, if the presidency of George W. Bush is any indication of its bearings, be cheering the supposed vindication of its most recent president’s worldview. But instead, conservatives here in the States seem to be of two minds with regard to the possibility of a pan-Arabian series of popular uprisings, with folks like Bill Kristol continuing to express optimism, while the Glenn Beck crowd looks for every possible synonym for the term, “caliphate.” This division, I think, reflects the manner in which the American Right is far from a monolithic ideology. Instead, American conservatism is really a hybrid of classical liberalism and traditional, Burkean conservatism, two seperate and distinct points of view that often conflict with one another, and that are in diametric opposition when it comes to the notion of liberal democracy in Arabia. This piece is not intended to delve into the particulars of what democracy in the region may come to look like; that is for a future piece after further study. Nor is this piece meant to argue that either classical liberals or Burkeans are morally superior. Rather, I am attempting, with this piece, to point out that both classical liberals and Burkeans have a point when it comes to their conflicting views on a pan-Arabian revolution.
A few years ago, George Will penned a piece in which he argued that Ronald Reagan’s proclamation that “we have it in our power to begin the world over again,” was in fact one of the most un-conservative sentiments ever uttered by an American president. And yet this statement, heralded by the conservative president of our generation, illustrates the manner in which American conservatism is often a mixture of oil and water. A Burkean conservative, with his focus on the limits of humanity, would never agree with such a sentiment. But the classical liberal is concerned less with practical consequences than with principle. The classical liberal is, in many ways, more of an ideologue than the Burkean. With its intellectual roots in the Enlightenment, classical liberalism holds that men are born free, and that no one has the authority to deny any individual his freedom. The right to self-determination, then, becomes an issue of right-and-wrong to the classical liberal.
But wait, says the cautious, prudent conservative, doesn’t freedom for the people of, say, Egypt, really mean the freedom to force women to cover their bodies from head to toe? Wouldn’t a secular autocracy actually lead to a much freer Arab world? The classical liberal’s response is that, if done correctly, a high-information, high-tech, modernized liberal democracy, with a constitution enumerating the rights of the citizens and the powers of the state, should yield the sort of idyllic free society that would make an 18th Century student of the Enlightenment swoon. To the classical liberal, the problem is not the notion of too much liberty, the problem is the anti-liberty forces that exist throughout society, from oppressive governments, to pointless traditions, to meaningless superstitions, all of which, in the classical liberal’s view, inhibit free and rational actions that will create the best society.
Art often imitates life, and as a bit of a movie buff, I am struck by the number of films in which classical liberalism exists as a subtle, yet important, theme. Hollywood types do tend to be leftists overall, but there is also a strong dose of classical liberalism in many films. Mel Gibson’s William Wallace, for example, wasn’t fighting for the right to be the New Socialist Man. He was fighting for freedom. But a more complex look at the classical liberal’s worldview can be found, very subtly, but probably purposely, in the Coen Brothers film, O Brother Where Art Thou. Set in the Depression-era Deep South, the film’s protagonist, portrayed by George Clooney, proclaims Enlightenment values as he exists against the backdrop of a pre-modern Mississippi, filled with corruption and bathed in mysticism.
Clooney’s character is forced to navigate a world filled with corrupt politicians and law enforcement, an empowered Ku Klux Klan, and at least one cohort who attributes his musical talent to a deal with the Devil himself. At the end of the film, the protagonist delivers his monologue, solidifying his role not as the New Soviet Man, but as the New Enlightenment Man, the voice of classical liberalism:
Yes, sir, the South is gonna change. Everything’s gonna be put on electricity and run on a paying basis. Out with the old spiritual mumbo jumbo, the superstitions, and the backward ways. We’re gonna see a brave new world where they run everybody a wire and hook us all up to a grid. Yes, sir, a veritable age of reason. Like the one they had in France. Not a moment too soon.
The character’s vision of a future society filled with high-tech, educated, interconnected, rational actors, contrasted with the low-information, provincial world in which the characters lived, where folks were easily manipulated by their superstitions, traditions, and biases, sort of sums up the classical liberal notion that an idyllic free society can come into being provided that it is implemented correctly. To Burkean conservatives, this argument sounds like one that we’ve all heard before from any number of ideologues, including aging academics who still insist that Communism would have worked if only it would have been put into place just a little bit differently. Classical liberals see tradition, tribalism, and regionalism as things that inhibit the development of a truly free society; Burkeans see those things as sustaining civilization, and preventing the return to the primitive order of the state of nature.
Bringing this discussion home to the notion of liberal democracy in the Muslim Middle East, the issue then is whether the present-day series of revolutions in Arabia and North Africa are going to yield a number of mini-Irans, or whether we truly are going to see something that would make John Locke cheer. Burkeans claim that there is a very limited choice that we face, a Middle East run by Shah of Iran types, or a Middle East run by the Ayatollahs. They feel that the ultimate endgame of democracy in the Middle East is illiberal theocracy, which would of course threaten Israel, as well as the U.S. and do nothing to liberate the Arab people. Classical liberals, though, would argue that Iran in 1979 only turned into a theocratic despotism due to the low-information society that existed at the time, where the only viable choices were the Shah or the Ayatollah. Apply the same situation to a high-tech, high-information, Twitter-ready, globalized modern world, where the revolutionaries on the ground are aware of their options, and aware of everything that’s happening in every corner of the world in real-time, and you have a recipe for the type of revolution that classical liberals have long pined for — the French Revolution done correctly. Corrupt clerics and politcians are sent to the gallows together while the individual is liberated to thrive in a new era of reason, modernity, and universality.
So are classical liberals correct that this is the beginning of the Modern Muslim Middle East? Or should we listen to the specter of Edmund Burke, wagging his finger and reminding us that the political graveyard is filled with failed ideologies, all of which looked good on paper, and all of which only needed one more opportunity to be “done right.” Is Egypt and Libya, 2011, the equivalent of Iran in 1979, or France in 1848? And even if it’s the latter, does a pan-Arabian version of the French Revolution inevitably produce its own Napoleon?
February 28th, 2011 at 3:20 pm
Got to go with Burke: http://frontpagemag.com/2010/02/05/how-the-veil-conquered-cairo-university/
1950s the women look western; the era of facebook/twitter, the women look like they’re in the 14th century. Jihadists can facebook/twitter/blog etc. You want to know what society will look like: look at the women (how they act/dress/treated,etc).
February 28th, 2011 at 3:24 pm
No rights for women, no freedom in a nation
By Jeff Jacoby
February 28th, 2011 at 3:30 pm
I think it has less to do with ideology more to do with an empirical question.
I’m a classical liberal and an American exceptionalist. As opposed to libertarians, I believe they go together, that America is the best implementation of classical liberalism, that freedom is historically fragile, and without a powerful defense of our interests in the world, this bastion of classical liberalism could be in danger.
The classical liberal in me cheers the revolutions. The American exceptionalist fears the possibility of Islamic fundamentalism rising in these countries, which is a dire threat to freedom, including ours, a far less preferable form of autocracy than that of Muburak and Gaddafi (both for the inhabitants of these countries and for America).
So it all rests on the question of what type of outcome we will see in these countries. An entirely empirical, probabalistic question, not one of ideology.
February 28th, 2011 at 4:28 pm
Dave:
First of all, very good post. The liberal/Burkian divide is an important one. I’d probably argue that you exagerate American classical liberalism’s fidelity to the French revolution and the pessimism of Burke both, but the foundational comparison is strong.
One thing which has moderated the tension between traditional Burkian conservatives and classical liberals within the US has been…well, US society. Burke’s conservative impulse–that change comes best through reform informed by tradition–as well as the classical liberal conception of societal openness and dynamism, mesh very well in the US, which has been both societally dynamic and informed by tradition.
But, what will this look like in the Middle East? Here I think you over-estimate Burkian pessimism. Burke himself–were he here–would probably tell us that every case is different. Tunisia, for example, has little political Islamism to speak of, where Egypt is both the heartland of traditional Arab liberalism and the Muslim Brotherhood. For Libya, he would have little hope (and if you look at scholars of failed states like Robert Rotberg, they’d agree that state failure in Libya is very possible). Here too I think you overestimate classical liberal cheeriness, because your average classical liberal is stuck, when examining these situations, between the rock of traditional despotism and the hard place of Islamism.
In short, I think both Cristal and Beck are probably wrong. Rather, I agree with George Friedman of stratfor and Anne Applebaum. This isn’t one, 1989-style revolution, but a series of loosely-connected revolutions, like those in 1848. Each revolution has a distinct character, and will more likely than not have a different outcome, with a wide variety of potential effects for the US.
February 28th, 2011 at 5:06 pm
I congratulate Dave on the thoughtful essay. To me, however, the confusion is attaching labels like conservative and liberal to ideas such as freedom, liberty, and self-determination. The political meaning of liberal and conservative has changed dramatically overtime… especially here in the Western Hemisphere. Socialists are not liberal in the sense they do not generally believe in liberty and freedom. Statists are also not liberal in the sense they believe that power of the state is superior to the power of all other entities.
As for me, I count myself a modern conservative and classic liberal… and I trust the Thomas Jefferson was correct when he wrote:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
February 28th, 2011 at 5:31 pm
This is a topic that I, too, have been considering recently – though as one who takes the optimist’s view, I’ve approached it from the position of disgust that we have not done more to aide in the revolutions…that Ghaddafi is still alive in his bunker, rather than dead under a US bomb, is repulsive to me.
But I think the Beck-ish viewpoint comes from an inability to grasp the truly radical [contrast to radical islam] nature of the revolution. The idea that Arab self-rule, or at least domestic uprising against a strongman leader, would end in Radical Islam was indeed correct; until sometime between the elections in Palestine and Lebanon, and the revolt in Tunisia.
Consider that the common western view of Arab Muslims – and not wholely unjusifyably so – was of a fanatic, savage people. That pro-western, secular leaders were being toppled looked very much like the Iranian revolution to those such as Beck. Instead, as things appear, this is the fruit of the Bush Doctrine, long delayed, but the fruit nonetheless.
It isn’t that the skeptics are wrong – its just that they are no longer correct.
February 28th, 2011 at 5:47 pm
#6—look at what happened in Lebanon. The Cedar revolution was a failure by the US perspective.
February 28th, 2011 at 7:06 pm
#7 – and I think that is why Beck, etc. are suspicious.
But the people in Egypt aren’t calling for a Caliphate – sure, they want a moral society (just as many in the US do and should), but overall, they want freedom, and democracy, and peace.
Lebanon was a rebellion against external (Syrian) opression…these are not.
February 28th, 2011 at 7:49 pm
“Classical liberals see tradition, tribalism, and regionalism as things that inhibit the development of a truly free society; Burkeans see those things as sustaining civilization, and preventing the return to the primitive order of the state of nature.”
This is what I think is the most crucial point, and a perfect example of the problem we in America have. America in both domestic and foreign policy always considers the former, not the latter. The Burkean viewpoint every once in a while gets a resurgence, but it is an undercurrent. Too few people understand it. The classical liberal idea is what runs America. It’s also what is running her into the ground, on foreign policy too.
I argue the original classical liberal impulses are degraded and corrupt. They once supported noble endeavors in the advancement of humanity. They were contrasted by debauched and corrupted absolutist regimes that were not noble in any sense but blood and who were a scourge on their nations. In a reminder of how prescient Aristotle and Machiavelli were, though, as to the corruption of nations, liberals today exist measuring society based on how free we are to debauch and destroy ourselves, generally. Feminism, gay rights, and race-based politics are leading examples of its concerns. At its core it is a profoundly atheistic philosophy that hates religion. Modern conservatives are likewise corrupted by their love of money above all principles. If those are the measures of liberty, then I would plead with all Arabs to reject it outright and not pollute themselves with the repulsive refuse of a degraded materialist society we tempt them with.
The Arab world seems to be reacting generally to the same corruption that classical liberals originally reacted against in the Western world’s ruling elite. This is a good thing. What they must be wary of for their own sakes, is that corrupted Western despots may easily give way to corrupted Western liberty. This would necessitate the emergence of reactionary Islamic parties for the preservation of the traditional social order. But Arabs are still nonetheless doing all of us a favor by destroying some of the regimes our country has propped up. We have long dominated the Middle East with a usually soft form of imperialism, but as always in history imperialism corrupts its propagator and corrodes good society.
Demographically, the Arab Revolutions have the same source of most all other revolutions in history. When there is a large, discontent, disenfranchised cohort of young men, there is going to be agitation and upheaval of some sort unless there is an outlet. Arab youth are less docile and controllable than the young men of pretty much any other part of the world due to the very limited penetration of Western social values, and therefore when things go south in a system, they’ll be the first ones to spark. I think they are the harbingers of things to come.
Francis Fukuyama, neoconservative intellect, declared with the fall of the Soviet Union that we had reached the “end of history”. The neoliberal and neoconservative consensus of open markets, globalization, democracy, the eradication of the few remaining enemies of a free society left (as Bush undertook) was invincible. Liberal democracy would now be virtually irresistible. Twenty years later, it’s obvious with the financial crisis and its ensuing results that our vacation from history was a lie. Aristotle and Machiavelli were right – history is cyclical. We are repeating it today. Use your liberties wisely – they were paid for by your forefathers and have been the right of no one in history, not even yourselves. The notion of a right is a lie. Liberty is a privilege
As for what course we should take on the Middle East, I believe Thomas Jefferson remains correct, and most all of our foreign problems have been caused by ignorance of his advice, insofar as America remains a nation whose only existential threat is itself. “Commerce with all nations, and alliances with none”
I am reminded by what one of my religion professors said that is probably the most profound statement I’ve ever heard about the Middle East. It changed the way I see everything about it. Paraphrased, what Muslims are really afraid of is what Western culture and values will do to their civilization. They fear the freedoms Americans seem to most treasure – the freedom to make as much money as they want, however they want, and to spend it in as degraded and immoral a way as they want.
February 28th, 2011 at 8:15 pm
#8–one, you don’t know what the Egyptian people want because you don’t live there or have polled there. Doug Schoen has and the chances of an islamic takeover is definitely possible. I don’t care what Beck says; you don’t understand that the Cedar revolution was touted at the time as making Lebanon free and democratic. Hezbollah won some of the elections and remains a force, and would totally take over if there weren’t Christians in Lebanon. The same will happen elsewhere; it doesn’t matter who the former leaders were, the populations remain similar.
February 28th, 2011 at 8:31 pm
This is why I insist that each of these revolutions is essentially different, though they may have similar aspects. For example, the danger in Egypt comes from the Muslim Brothers in coalition with, say, the political wing of Gamaa Islamiyah. However, the danger of Libya is actually state failure. Qaddafi has so thoroughly wrecked things that there’s no guarantee Libya won’t somalia on us. Tunisia should be fine. But trying to universalize the revolutions is a mistake; we need to look at them independently.
February 28th, 2011 at 8:49 pm
Somalia has never in its history had any successful institutions running it. Libya has. In spite of Gaddafi, Libya has the marks of centuries of Arab culture, which ensure that government or no government, it’s people will interact in a certain way to preserve the natural order of society. You see this in simple acts as local security forces joining the uprising as they are essentially brothers, people banding together to ensure the maintenance of order in their neighborhoods, and groups coming together to cooperate to form a fledgling governing structure amenable to the interests of society.
Libya will reform itself quite reliably, and with a government better constituted to the social institutions that underlie it and unite that nation.
February 28th, 2011 at 9:04 pm
Dave,
“Nor is this piece meant to argue that either classical liberals or Burkeans are morally superior.”
Then let me settle it. Burkean conservatism is morally superior.
And all revolutions end up eating their children…….
February 28th, 2011 at 9:16 pm
Not entirely so, Matt. Sometimes, in the existence of a political order that is offensive and corrosive to its underlying society, a revolution is the only proper recourse for a nation.
But revolutions against the natural social order, I agree, are bad things
February 28th, 2011 at 9:46 pm
I love how #9 informs us that our inalienable rights do not exist.
Then goes directly to quote Thomas Jefferson.
February 28th, 2011 at 9:53 pm
MPC,
Then in Burkean terms, it would be a restoration, not a revolution.
He went to great pains in Reflections to explain why the “Glorious Revolution” was not actually a revolution.
February 28th, 2011 at 10:05 pm
Dave:
Good essay. I find myself torn between the Burkean hesitation about Revolution and the embrace of these people who want their freedom.
It should be noted though that Burke did support the American Revolution against George III, so even he acknowledged that some Revolutions are justified.
I would also say that the Mideast Revolutions are the fulfillment of Burke’s warning about what happens when a regime doesn’t change. In Reflections Burke says that the regime must accept some change or it will be disbanded.
February 28th, 2011 at 11:24 pm
Good discussion. I wish we would have more of these instead of the “My canidate can beat up your canidate” conversations, as intelectually stimulating as the latter conversations are.
I am not entirely sure whether I would have to categorize myself as a Burkean conservative or a classical liberal. I generally find myself opposed to those who claim to be proponents of classical liberalism as it seems to have become a defense of an infallible free market and a materialistic value system. On the other hand, I do strongly believe in individual liberty and believe that this along with a life that allows one to enjoy such liberty are the core values that society must protect. I much prefer America with its freedom with its freedom to be a soul-less mercenary, than any the Arab society, because in America I also have the freedom to express myself and Woship the God I love, and live the life I want. So while, with MPC I strongly disagree with the materialistic infallible free market ideology of certain classical liberals, I perfer to allow that ideology to survive or die on its own merits, so that my Christian values can also survive or die on their own values. So I do not know if I am a Burkean because I believe in transcendent values protected by society rather than an infallible market, or if I am a classical liberal since I believe that the fundamental transcendent value is individual liberty which allows one to hold a different view than this.
February 28th, 2011 at 11:41 pm
I will agree with Metro (something that is not likely to happen often) that the current situation in the Middle East is largely a practical question. While the outcome one hopes for will be affected by their philosophical persuasion, most philosophical positions will allow that the outcome could possibly go either way. As a youth, I was a staunch Neo-Conservative, or perhaps more accurately a liberal nation builder, who believed that America should democratize the world. I have sense realized that Democracy does not happen in a vacuum but has been built upon centuries of intellectual tradition. Therefore, it does work to simply force it to happen militarily. Again I do not know If I am Burkean on this issue because I believe that the value for democracy is formed over time by a historical process, or whether I am a classical liberal because I hold a value for democracy. Whatever the case, the revolutions are coming from the inside so they have a better chance of working than revolutions imposed from the outside. However, the outcome could go either way.
February 28th, 2011 at 11:48 pm
“Then in Burkean terms, it would be a restoration”
It may become a restoration in more than Burkean terms…there is a monarchist element in these protests.
Actually, a king-figurehead may be exactly what the Arab world needs to ensure democracy…
February 28th, 2011 at 11:49 pm
Jonathan,
“It should be noted though that Burke did support the American Revolution against George III, so even he acknowledged that some Revolutions are justified.”
I would argue (and I think Burke did too) that the American Revolution wasn’t really a revolution at all. Sure, we dumped the Crown and Parliament, and there was some shooting, and a few hangings, but how much really changed? Consider:
1. Of the possible range of systems of government, our system is still remarkably similar to England’s.
2. Nothing fundamentally changed in our economy, or in the laws that affected most people’s everyday lives.
3. Most of the local powers-that-be politically, economically, and socially, were still the powers-that-be after the “Revolution.”
Obviously, self-determination for this country was a huge shift, and historically of enormous consequence, but life in 1783 for the vast majority of Americans at all social strata wasn’t much different than life in 1775.
February 28th, 2011 at 11:52 pm
John Mark,
“Again I do not know If I am Burkean on this issue because I believe that the value for democracy is formed over time by a historical process, or whether I am a classical liberal because I hold a value for democracy.”
If it helps settle your ambivalence, Burke also held value for democracy (he was an MP after all) as long as it was formed over time by a historical process and contributed to a just and stable society.
February 28th, 2011 at 11:53 pm
….though Burke would reject the notion (as would I) that democracy is a pre-requisite for a just society.
February 28th, 2011 at 11:59 pm
Matt:
I always interpreted Burke’s support of the American Revolution as one that was acceptable because it didn’t result in a massive social upheaval. The preservation of the societal order and societies traditions, which the American Revolution did, allowed Burke to support it.
March 1st, 2011 at 12:03 am
Jonathan,
Right, and that made it more of an unRevolution. That, and not a great deal really changed about government (relatively speaking). Compare our “revolution” to the real deal- France 1789, Russia 1917, Germany 1933, China 1940something, etc…… and I think you’ll agree that it was a revolution in name only, despite the understandable pride we have in the courage of our forebears.
March 1st, 2011 at 12:08 am
Matt:
While I’d agree that the American Revolution was probably the most conservative one you could get, it still was nonetheless a revolution. The fact that a Republic was established over such a large area, and it worked, was a remarkable achievement. All previous republics had been small, like Genoa, Athens, or even Venice. Also, the very lack of a monarch, which Old Europe had looked to as the main source of stability in their nation, was a pretty radical notion.
March 1st, 2011 at 4:55 am
I love how #9 informs us that our inalienable rights do not exist.
Then goes directly to quote Thomas Jefferson.
—-
Metro,
Rights do exist in a sense, as privileges accorded in advance through the social order. But he is owed no rights from his fellows for existing. This notion of rights is a lie of modern society that abrogates responsibility to his fellowman. Any privileges man may be accorded are a result of his agreement to participate in that order. History supports this – any liberties systematically enjoyed by civilizations have been the result of a social order, and absent it, these so-called rights vanish and bear no weight whatsoever. Without a responsibility to society, the privilege of liberty naturally fades and vanishes. Hence, all concerned about this privilege should be severely preoccupied with the social decay of Western civilization.
How many people can claim the “rights” of Roman citizenship today? These of course disappeared with the disintegration of the empire and its social order which had become decrepit and rotted from within. Roman liberty became meaningless, even as it asked increasingly little of its recipients and continually expanded. How much will American liberty be worth, if we do not guard the source of it?
The only natural rights in existence are those granted by God, which are existence, and free will. But those aren’t the rights I was referring to, and nor are they questions of government
And I can believe that Thomas Jefferson’s advice on foreign policy was sound, and even prefer a Jeffersonian society as the only true society upon which a republic can be based, while thinking that “inalienable rights” is a pretty flawed concept. Jefferson, being an admirer of the French, would have also understood that outside the context of society rights mean nothing.
March 1st, 2011 at 7:14 am
27, If by rights, you mean the freedom rights in practice, I would agree. If by rights you mean societies’ moral obligation to protect certain freedoms I would disagree. We have a linguistic problem when we speak of rights. We will speak of inalienable rights and then in the same breath talk about winning rights from the government or the threat of government destroying rights, when clearly inalienable rights, by definition, cannot be granted or destroyed by the government. The problem is not that we are philosophically confused, the problem is that we are talking about rights using two senses of the word; when we talk about inalienable rights we are talking about a moral obligation of society, when we talk about rights being granted or destroyed we are talking about our freedom in practice.
March 1st, 2011 at 7:42 am
In a sense the Civil War was more revolutionary, than the American Revolution. In the Civil War we completely changed the social relations of four million slaves to freedmen and we also shifted the responsibility for protection of individual freedom from state governments to the federal government. Although the latter was not fully carried out, as the Supreme Court assumed that Congress did not intend any kind of revolution in our old power structures and nullified a great deal of the Fourteenth Amendment a few years after it was passed. The facisnating thing about the Civil War, is that those who had fought did not agree over whether they had just fought a revolution or a restoration. Conservatives argued that the war had been fought for the restoration of the Union as it was, while the liberals argued that the Union as it was had been destroyed, and while the war had been fought for the Union, a new order must be created out of the ruins. The liberals won in getting their ideas in the constitution, they lost in that Courts did not recognize their ideas until decades later.
March 1st, 2011 at 7:50 am
“though Burke would reject the notion (as would I) that democracy is a pre-requisite for a just society.”
I would say that democracy is a means to an end not an end in and of itself. The end is the protection of life and liberty, who gets to pick who is at top is not entirely fair even in a Democracy, and there’s no objective way to make sure it is perfect and fair. Democracy, does however, have a better track record when it comes to protecting individual freedom than other forms of government.
March 1st, 2011 at 7:59 am
MPC:
The problem with Libya is that you’re not likely to get a government capable of encompassing the likely factionalization. Intra-tribally, I think you’re right, but inter-tribally there’s likely to be friction, and that doesn’t even consider the AQ factor.
Att. no. 20: that might be the best option, particularly in Libya. A traditional king-as-ombudsman model would work very well there. It would have been the best option for Afghanistan as well, but that bird has officially flown. Had we restored Zahir Shah after the Soviets pulled out, we would not be in Afghanistan today, the Taliban would likely not have gotten any traction, and Afghanistan would not have become a failed state. For Egypt, of course, it’s probably way too late for any descendents of Farouk, and their association with Britain would make such a restoration unlikely in the extreme. Bahrain’s revolution, if/when it occurs, is likely to be explicitly anti-monarchical, but aside from Bahrain (where king and people have different religions), it can’t have escaped our notice that the monarchs of the region are handling the revolutions better than anyone else.
March 2nd, 2011 at 12:32 am
I don’t care whether Arabs are free or not. They can go hang. I only care about America, and Europe (esp. Great Britain), Australia, Canada, New Zealand. As for the Civil War, it was a self-inflicted genocide.
March 2nd, 2011 at 12:34 am
hang (figuratively of course). Although, it might be preferrable method of execution to the stuff you see in some of the Muslim countries.