Freedom is not a Handout
Imagine if, to end the problem of homelessness, we decided to give every homeless person a check tomorrow for $10,000 and tell them to start their own business. It is not cruel or prejudicial to make the simple observation that the conditions that gave rise to the person being homeless in the first place might mitigate against their chances of success, at least without a certain amount of prior preparation. A few would use the money to get back on their feet. Most others would probably find themselves right back on the streets as soon as the last of it was spent. At the end of the day, we would have spent a lot of money, set a terrible example, and not done a thing to solve the real problem. It’s sad and it’s a waste, but any conservative will tell you that no amount of misguided liberal faith will make it otherwise.
In domestic welfare politics, conservatives are right about a few important things. Good values precede good habits. Giving handouts to people who lack good values and habits will only perpetuate pre-existing problems and possibly make them worse by reinforcing them. And true, durable success must be earned.
So why is it that conservatives lose this perceptive kernel of common sense when it comes to the matter of Iraq? Now that the WMD question has been whisked from the public forum as a justification for war, we are left with the humanitarian goal of liberating the oppressed Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam. A noble goal, except for this:
Freedom cannot be given. It must be wanted, it must be understood, and it must be earned.
Like the homeless person, the Iraqi citizen is part a victim of circumstance, but also partly complicit in his or her own fate. Saddam didn’t rule alone. Tens of thousands, and perhaps more, participated in his reign of terror for their own reasons. Millions tolerated their oppression, partly out of fear of Saddam, but also perhaps out of fear of the alternative – chaos and the unknown. Saddam was a dictator, of course, but he was no one’s puppet: he was the product of whatever indigenous process produces leaders in his society, and he successfully defended his power against all challengers in a way that was, at least implicitly, acknowledged as legitimate by his people.
All over the world, in every culture, we have seen examples of nations ridding themselves of oppressive tyrants. The Philippines, Chile, South Korea, Zaire, and many other states made a transition – sometimes peaceful, sometimes otherwise – from the rule of ruthless authoritarians to a freer form of democracy without outside interference. Were Saddam’s torture chambers and secret police any worse than those of Pinochet or Mobutu? The people of Eastern Europe and Russia overturned the entrenched power of the most effective totalitarian state in world history. No one handed them their freedom. No one invaded their countries and got rid of their tyrants. But the freedom they won is treasured dearer for having been fought for. Even in World War II, the people of Germany and Japan were exhausted from a long struggle and were ready to accept the values imposed on them by the victors. Their systems and leaders were not suddenly gone in a day, but eroded by a lengthy, systematic exploitation of their failures.
The people whose countries were liberated by real struggle had their dedication and principles tested in the crucible of conflict. When they triumphed, they had a clear understanding of what they had won, and what it would take to keep it. From these good, freedom-loving values came good habits of government: constitutions, transparent bureaucracies, free and open debate, civil liberties. Not all of these institutions work perfectly everywhere they are preached, but their importance is seen as fundamental by the vast majority of the people.
Meanwhile in Iraq, a sullen populace is resisting the restoration of even the basic building blocks of civil society. Religious intolerance is brewing just under the surface, ready to explode. The rights of women and minorities are being rolled back in communities across the country. Terrorism is being celebrated as resistance to occupation; those genuinely committed to reform and democracy are being targeted as collaborators. As soon as the Americans are gone, regardless of what kind of façade of popular government we leave behind, the country will certainly collapse in chaos or fall easily into the hands of another dictator. And the neoconservative geniuses who cooked this whole thing up just can’t understand why.
They should stop and listen to their own advice about the welfare state. Freedom is a universal aspiration, as is prosperity. But like anything worth having, it must evolve naturally from a series of choices and responsible actions, not by a deus ex machina intervention. The freedom of Iraq was not earned. It was a handout – unasked for, poorly understood, subject to the twisted and pathological ambitions of a closed and suspicious culture – a seed fallen on hard and unready soil. As soon as America loses enthusiasm for the “nation-building” exercise, it will wither, for all the same reasons that giving a fat check to a homeless person on the street is unlikely to produce the next Sam Walton.
Conservatives are about to learn the same hard lesson in Iraq they have been trying to teach Great Society liberals for 40 years. Freedom is a noble intention, same as ending poverty. With enough resources and effort, you can alleviate the material conditions of poverty and tyranny temporarily, but you can’t help someone who is not (yet) willing to help themselves.
9:55:37 PM 
|
|
