Speaking as an expert on the subject of exhaustion, I'd say the
indulgence that traditional conservatives have shown for their
neoconservative brethren seems about exhausted. Traditional
conservatives have been extremely forgiving of the neocons and
their little idiosyncrasies, like bigger government and a messianic
belief in democracy to cure the world's ills, while they themselves
regard such idealistic mumbo-jumbo as, well, mumbo-jumbo. This
includes the utopian notion that "freedom is universally valid."
It's an interesting phrase, that. Once neocons would have said
straight out that "everyone desires freedom," or as George W. Bush
preaches that freedom is the God-given right of all. No more. No
matter how you put it, the phrase reeks of the metaphysical, which
is not something traditional conservatives are comfortable with.
They prefer the pessimism of a Mark Twain in his latter "Damned
Human Race" period, or a Mencken who snarled that "the average man
does not want to be free. He wants to be safe." Or the cold, steely
realism of Bill Buckley who defined conservatism as the politics of
reality, which is why conservatives have long opposed all attempts
at social engineering.
Nonetheless, conservatives reluctantly went along with the
neocons' grandiose and high and moral mission to remake the world,
and in particular to bring democracy to the Middle East. It was
9/11 that provided the impetus. For a moment, in the swell of
patriotic fervor, and the rush to avenge the 9/11 victims,
conservatives supported regime change and nation-building and just
about anything else the neocons proposed. We would liberate the
Iraqis and Afghans from their totalitarian yoke and they would be
eternally thankful.
Some thanks.
Grand ideas have a tendency to get slapped down by the cold,
calloused hand of reality. And flush with what seemed like easy
victories, it was easy to forget that, in Jeffrey Hart's words,
"Historically, holiness, power, glory, conquest and empire have had
greater appeal than freedom and democracy." It turned out that
Saddam's heavy jackbooted heel was the only thing keeping the
various Islamic sects and tribes from slitting each others'
throats.
On paper the neoconservatives were right. The Wilsonian notion
of spreading democracy could bring great benefits. At least two,
anyway: a more secure world, and free and prosperous peoples. But
societies -- even primitive ones -- are a little more complex off
paper. There is tribalism, sectarianism, and there is Islam to
consider, a word that means pretty much the opposite of freedom,
i.e., "surrender." It was forgotten that the West, in order to get
where it is today, went through the Reformation, the Enlightenment
and the Modern period, and that the Muslim lands, by way of
contrast, have seen only anti-Modernist movements achieve success,
witness the Iranian Revolution, the Talibans rise to power, the
spread of Wahhabist doctrine by Saudi Arabia, and the election of
pro-terrorist regimes in Palestine and Egypt. As certain as the
neocons were that democracy was the "recipe for universal
happiness," fundamentalist Muslims were even more certain and more
willing to die for their belief that happiness isn't important, but
that Islam and Islamic Law are.
Despite these obvious setbacks, a few neoconservative have not
completely abandoned the fight. Just the other week two think tank
types suggested it was time for a neocon offensive. Among Joshua
Muravchik's comeback strategies are -- I'm not making this
up -- draft Joe Lieberman for vice president, train Middle East
journalists, and bomb Iran. More, Muravchik calls for "a range of
American nongovernmental organizations to maintain a presence of
the ground" in Arab states. Yes, al Qaeda will love that. Easy
targets. Can the neocons really be that bereft of ideas?
Meanwhile Janet Daley, writing in the Daily Telegraph,
chastised the quitters, asking if "some countries are better left
with their genocidal dictators in place?" Well, no, but the problem
is there are too many genocidal dictators and not enough American
troops to throw at them. The U.S. has seldom intervened to remove
genocidal dictators. Imagine the carnage if the U.S. had gone after
Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung, Menghistu, Ismail Enver, Yakubu
Gowon, and Idi Amin, to name just a few of the dozens of genocidal
dictators of the last century. Obviously genocidal dictators are
bad news, but the U.S. can hardly be expected to invade every
backwater ruled by a psychopathic butcher, especially when the
thanks we get, as in Iraq, are more roadside bomb attacks.
President Bush has apparently learned this lesson. His government
insists there is ongoing genocide in Darfur, and does almost
nothing to stop it.
In a descant of denial that would make O.J. envious, Ms. Daley
says that "what failed in Iraq was not democracy, or the popularity
of it. The Iraqis put their amazingly brave heads above the parapet
every time they are given an opportunity to vote." True, but there
is more to liberal democracy than voting one day and slitting your
neighbor's throat the next. There is an independent judiciary,
human and civil rights, freedom of press, speech, etc., tolerance
and pluralism, majority rule with rights for minorities, and most
importantly there is basic local governance and security. Democracy
has a long way to go in Iraq, but despite reports of democracy's
demise in Iraq, there are as yet a few signs of life. We'll have to
wait until the American troops leave and full-blown civil war
erupts to see whether democracy survives.
Yes, the neocons were too naive, too optimistic. Like bleeding
hearts, they sought to perfect an imperfect world. Neocons had
their opportunity in Iraq and Afghanistan to prove the genius of
their ideas. They botched it. Such hubristic thinking was doomed to
failure.
Yet for all their differences conservatives and neocons have
similar goals. Both want a safer world, both want democracy to
spread globally like melted butter. Traditional conservatives just
aren't so sure such a transformation is possible. Right now, it
looks like they're right.
topics:
Islam, Law, Iraq, Iran, Conservatism
