George Will's Pessimism

|

One more sign that the noted conservative and war supporter is getting nervous. From the April 26 issue of Newsweek:

These [nation-building] attempts are Wilsonian, expressing President Woodrow Wilson's belief that America's mission?a practical mission?is to pacify the world by multiplying free governments. Wilson, a former professor of political science, was not the last or wisest Wilson in that profession.

Three and a half decades ago, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, then an adviser to Richard Nixon, urged the president to listen to "the smartest man in America." James Q. Wilson still is that. He had been Moynihan's colleague on the Harvard faculty, and is the pre-eminent political scientist of our time.

Moynihan wanted Nixon to know what Wilson knew about such domestic problems as crime and drug abuse. Today's president is waist deep in the problems of a Wilsonian (Woodrow, not James Q.) project of nation-building in a bad neighborhood. He might profit from pondering the foreign policy pertinence of this James Q. Wilson thought about why the combination of economic affluence and personal freedom is an achievement relatively rare in human experience:

"So common have despotic regimes been that some scholars have argued that they are, unhappily, the natural state of human rule. This tendency raises a profound question: Does human nature lend itself to freedom? It is not difficult to make arguments for personal freedom, but the history of mankind suggests that human autonomy usually will be subordinated to political control. If that is true, then our effort to increase individual freedom is an evolutionary oddity, a weak and probably vain effort to equip people with an opportunity some do not want and many will readily sacrifice."

Notice that Wilson, who wrote that long before the United States began the nation-building project in Iraq, was noncommittal. He said, "If that is true…" He was not necessarily endorsing pessimism. But before rejecting pessimism, consider its pleasures. Pessimists are right more often than not, and when they are wrong they are pleased to be so.

[Thanks to Bill Eggers for the link]

NEXT: The F Word

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Sandy:

    “(The demise of the Iraqi regime) will put pressure on nearby governments to consider these freedoms too…”

    Even if true, it would not be a viable reason for the Iraq war but alas, there is no evidence for prospects this “pressure” coming to fruition, and the US government is giving our tax dollars to nearby governments which repress freedom. (Egypt, Israel, Jordon, Saudi…)

  2. ryan,

    “Last I checked, there wasn’t a whole lot of democratic tradition in Asia as of a hundred years ago, and there are now a number of quite healthy democratic nations, all of which had their democarcy imposed by either some outside power or an enlightened despot.”

    Can you give us a few specific examples? Because in the case of India, South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan, you are flat wrong. Each of those nations chose to be democratic, despite the efforts of colonial and other powers to force them not to be. And if you think that British Raj contributed to democracy in India, well, one must also ask why ever autonomous attempt to create such in India going back deep into the 19th century was thwarted by the British – indeed, the Indian National Congress formed despite British efforts to destroy it.

    Regarding South Korea, it was ruled by a series of despots and thugs into the 1980s – it was only a struggle on the streets (where hundreds of students were murdered by the government) that ended this.

    No, none of these countries had democracy imposed on them; they earned the fruits of such by their own effort and blood.

  3. Jean Bart,

    Way to go! Good job excoriating Shannon Love for insulting you and making an ad hominem attack in the same sentence.

    Not to sound all namby-pamby, but one “so what” to Saddam being gone is that he’s no longer filling his mass graves. Oh, and the deaths caused by the sanctions regime (and therefore him, first for not submitting to proper inspections and the other parts of the original cease-fire agreement, and then for not allowing the so-called “oil-for-food” program to actually feed his people) are over. Shall I go on? And this is neglecting all the benefits that could be reaped if we achieve democracy in Iraq. I’ll be the first to admit our chances there are 50/50, at best, but I’d point out the relevant time-frame is several decades, not several months. And it certainly wouldn’t be the first time we built democracy out of tyranny …

  4. Jean Bart,

    Way to go! Good job excoriating Shannon Love for insulting you and making an ad hominem attack in the same sentence.

    Not to sound all namby-pamby, but one “so what” to Saddam being gone is that he’s no longer filling his mass graves. Oh, and the deaths caused by the sanctions regime (and therefore him, first for not submitting to proper inspections and the other parts of the original cease-fire agreement, and then for not allowing the so-called “oil-for-food” program to actually feed his people) are over. Shall I go on? And this is neglecting all the benefits that could be reaped if we achieve democracy in Iraq. I’ll be the first to admit our chances there are 50/50, at best, but I’d point out the relevant time-frame is several decades, not several months. And it certainly wouldn’t be the first time we built democracy out of tyranny …

  5. ryan,

    One begins to wonder who the real fanatics are here; the religiously fervent terrorists or the quixotic, fanatical dreamers of the new paradise they will build by consent or not.

  6. “Saddam being gone is that he’s no longer filling his mass graves”

    But yet they’re still being filled.

  7. Jeez Louise! Is it that y’all have never heard the phrase “moral equivalency” or that you just didn’t realize it’s supposed to be a BAD thing? Are you honestly saying that our killing Baathists and fanatics who instigating violence in order to establish fascist governments of the respective secular and theocratic varieties is morally equivalent to Saddam’s executions of just about anyone? This sort of an argument hardly seems worth the retort.

    Jean Bart, I have to say, you impress me. It’s the responding to a admonishment for ad hominem attacks with yet another ad hominem that raises your posting to the level of art.

  8. ryan,

    Who is arguing moral equivalency? I am not. Mine is a consequentialist argument. Apparently our local Kantian – Shannon – disagrees.

    I wasn’t comlaining about her insults per se; I simply stated that they didn’t matter.

  9. Jean Bart,

    Oh, yeah. Regarding your discussion of East and South Asian development of democracy, I think you missed a bit of my comment. “Outside power or enlightened despot” — I don’t mean “outside power or outside despot” but “outside power or local despot.” I’m talking about the phenomenon of a local capitalistic authoritarian establishing rule of law and stability and eventually economic freedoms over the course of several decades before the development of “democracy” in the sense of elections. An excellent example would be the authoritarian rule of the KMT in Taiwan for fifty years. It’s true that “democracy” in the literal sense of free elections wasn’t a reality until the late 90’s, but you’re missing something if you think that the KMT’s rule was diametrically opposed to the development of democracy in Taiwan. Successful democracies tend to develop organically over the course of centuries or be the result of 50 years or so of more or less (or more and later less) authoritarian rule developing what is in essence the foundations of democracy. Singapore and South Korea had a similar experience. Without the basis of the rule of law, stability, and economic growth, you just don’t get real democracy. You get Haiti.

    NB: the corollary — this is a decades long process. We won’t know for certain whether Iraq develops healthy democracy for at least forty years (much as we didn’t know how Japan, Taiwan, or South Korea would turn out until fairly recently). But then again, I suppose from your point of view, you already knew the outcome before the war even started, eh?

  10. Ryan —

    You might not view killing “Ba’athists and fanatics” as morally equivalent to killing “just about anyone.” However, the people who’s opinions matter are the Iraqis. I think they have a problem with an army in their country, largely white and Christian, killing anyone. I would not take shit from a Chinese occupying army, even if they were only killing their definition of “fanatics”. Believe it or not, Americans are not the only patriotic people in the world. To you our killing is justified. To Arabs it might not be. How about this, we let them worry about it? 25 million people, some of whom are competent adults… I think they can find someone who can do as good a job ruling as Bush/Bremmer/Negroponte. And it won’t cost me as much money. Go sell your moral superiority somewhere else. I want my money.

  11. Jean Bart,

    My apologies. I meant to direct the comment re moral equivalency at jc (above). But I was, tongue-in-cheek, remarking later on your reduction of others’ position to that of quixotic fanatics. I must say, I don’t know if it’s fair to say we’re doing this without consent, given that the vast majority of Iraqis say they’re better off now and only 15% want us out now. But even if that fair, it seems irrelevant to the point. If you are a consequentialist eschewing Kantian ethics, why does consent matter? Consent seems more to do with deontological ethics, not realpolitick or teleological matters. The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must, right? Aren’t “quixotic” and “without consent” are effectively opposites, if not necessarily logically so? We fear things done without our consent precisely because we fear those doing them aren’t simply tilting at windmills, right?

  12. jb says:
    “Regarding the American and French revolutions, neither was particularly conclusive as far as American or French liberty were concerned.”

    Huh?
    A guillotine in action is fairly conclusive.
    But liberty without a head isn’t a very good deal. Good thing the U.S. Founders hung around long enough to create a constitution. You know, Bill of Rights and all that. The French “founders” lost their heads quicker than they could be fitted for new hats. So Americans gained their liberty. The French got a bloodbath. Then a “republic.” Or five. And counting…

  13. ryan,

    Well, if I were a Millian (the father) utilitarian perhaps that would be the case, but I am not. Furthermore, consent does have something to do with the “greatest good.”

    dork,

    The American founders did not deal with profound and ultimately dangerous issues like slavery; ergo your civil war – part of the unfinished business of your founding. And despite your attempt to paint the French revolution as one long period lasting to 2004, I would differ; the “Rights of Man” have remained part of nearly every French government since the time of its promulgation, and the various codes created under the Napoleonic regime have also lasted to this day, providing a very firm and predictable foundation for public and private law to exist upon, no matter whether France was a republic or not. You see, your metric is incorrect; mere changes in constitution do not connote failure by themselves.

  14. Aside from funding and training all sorts of terrorists, from the Red Brigades to the IRA Provos, the totalitarian states of the late 20th century – USSR and its pawns, China, Cuba, etc. -practiced terrorism from the top down against their own people, and in some cases still do.

    Even the “good guys” gave military training to client states who used it, and the arms we made available, to maintain non-representative governments. Let’s not forget the counter-insurgency training that was perverted into the “death squads” infamous in Latin America.

    The idea that America is the friend of freedom everywhere, but the guarantor only of her own, has not been true since the end of World War II. But can we not recover a portion of that attitude, to the extent that we don’t erupt in quixotic fits of Wilsonianism when what is needed is an efficient chastisement of those who have actually harmed us?

    Kevin

  15. “one long dark period”

  16. Kevin,

    I don’t believe it has ever been true; America, like France, is something of a dream (both being good dreams); dreams are excellent motivators, but they should not be dealt with as reality.

  17. JC,

    Not to belabor the (my) point, but you seem very certain of yourself given that only 15% of Iraqis actually agree with your desire that we leave now. Or is that they only count as compentent adults if they agree with your opinions about foreign policy (and your opinions about their domestic policy)? Excuse me, but who’s morally superior here?

  18. Jason Ligon,

    I think that’s beside the point; Shannon argues for a totalistic policy of action for action’s sake – a quixotic path as it were; this is at best rather unwise, and at worse disasterous. One must moor one’s decisions in real interests; not theories about possible future outcomes that are divorced from real interests.

    This doesn’t make me a friend or lover of tyrants, etc.; it does make me understand that it is the primary responsibility of the people of a nation to free themselves of such despots. Involvement in these processes – without a very real and concrete threat or interest to address – is fraught with much potential future harm and little potential benefit.

  19. ryan,
    and you are mistaken if you assume I have no comprehension of what people think they mean they talk of ‘democracy’.
    “Freedom and democracy” is a required buzz phrase politicians must use to convince voters that they mean well, but the idea that “the people’ actually rule themselves through the political process of democracy is an enormous simplification of what actually takes place.

  20. JB,

    If we shouldn’t act on “theories about possible future outcomes” and so any overt attempt at democratizing is not in our “real interest,” what exactly is your plan to fighting terrorism?

  21. ryan,

    I did not post as oy vey, though said poster did echo some of my unstated points. I was only stating the fact that the killing in Iraq is not ending simply by the extraction of Saddam. If most of the freshly killed were Saddam loyalists you would have a valid point. Instead you are preaching a moral relativism, which probably isn’t any better than moral equivalency.

    Obviously Saddam’s mass killings were of his opposition, many of which were fundamentalist fanatics; if it’s OK for us to kill fanatics now, why was it not OK for Saddam to kill fanatics then? Your argument was nothing more than saying “We’re God’s chosen moralists, so it’s OK when WE kill ’em because we obviously are more enlightened.”

    But even if I’m wrong by putting words in your mouth, it is complete bullshit to say that Ba’athists are instigating violence when a large foreign military is making its presence known. WTF would you expect them to do, bow in reverence to the moral superiority of the US military, ala Rumsfeld? Even career soldiers in the DoD knew that wasn’t realistic.

  22. JC,

    You’re right. All killing is wrong, and all equally so. The morality that exists within the bubble of a state exists in exactly the same form as it does between states. We are mass murderers just like Saddam was. Although the majority of Iraqis do not support the Baathists and the insurgents in general, they are wrong to do so. Because we are wrong. We should not have ended Saddam’s regime, despite his mass killings, despite his repeated and constant violations of the cease fire agreements, despite his general nastiness, because, ultimately, in removing him and attempting to rebuild Iraq and create ane economically vibrant, pluralistic society based on constitutional freedoms and the rule of law (not to mention no longer being a general threat to international stability), we killed some people. Yes, I agree.

    Wasn’t it Oscar Wilde who said, “Sir, your arguments do not merit the compliment of rational discussion”? If you really think either that we’re no better than Saddam, and that the Baathists are in the right to attempt to reinstitute their fascist regime, I’m afraid it would be impossible to dissuade you. That’s just prima facie absurd.

  23. ryan,

    Not to fight quixotic wars over abstract theories is part of my plan. The other part being killing or detaining terrorists.

    Even so, the U.S. didn’t even invade Iraq effectively enough to actually go about its plan; and it continues to muck up the operation. Indeed, one wonders why you have a group marines in Fallujah, who are not trained to police a population, but are trained to go running into battle, the exactly wrong thing under the circumstances (attacking their positions of strength – city fighting – was almost criminal on the part of their commanders) – you surround the place and starve them out. Instead what they have done is added confidence to the their bravado. Indeed, some of the operations where they had massive casualties points to basic problems that should be well in hand after a year: lack of intelligence; poor coordination between various elements of the military; poor coordination with the civilian administrator (shutting the paper down was stupid as it occurred right before the 82nd left); etc.

  24. “Our effort to increase individual freedom is an evolutionary oddity, a weak and probably vain effort to equip people with an opportunity some do not want and many will readily sacrifice.”

    Er… not looking too good for the libertarian project, then.

  25. Freedom is spreading in the world.
    Read Julian Simon.
    But the spread of freedom comes in spite of anything any government does.
    In fact, by definition, government spreading freedom is a silly oxymoronic concept.
    Remaining to be defined is exactly what it is Bush is spreading.

  26. Hmm, Bush kicked out one of the worst dictators in history and wants the people to create a non-theocratic (yes, that’s right) government that represents all groups in the country, one that will allow freedoms not seen in Iraq for decades, and will put pressure on nearby governments to consider these freedoms too, and Ruthless can’t tell what exactly Bush is spreading. Keep opposing Bush and I guess we’ll find out.

  27. Sandy,

    You misapprehend Ruthless’ argument; he may agree with you that this is Bush’s purpose; but as they say, the road to hell is laid with good intentions.

    BTW, your statements regarding Saddam are rather hyperbolic; and the fact is that a non-theocratic state existed under Saddam as well; so Bush would merely be re-gaining the status quo regarding that.

    “…will allow freedoms not seen in Iraq for decades…”

    When exactly was this golden paradise period in Iraqi history? 🙂

    “…and will put pressure on nearby governments to consider these freedoms too…”

    So goes the theory; so far, Iraq remains a magnet for violence, and American reconstruction agents are stuck in the green zone for fear that they will be killed. Its a naive, pollyannish view at best up to this point.

  28. Jean Bart

    I’d bother to differ, except nothing you said refutes my argument to begin with.

  29. Sandy,

    Boo hoo.

  30. Sandy,

    BTW, a little more specificity on your part is in order; that is to demonstrate your conclusion that “nothing” in my statement refuted your earlier so-called “argument” (one could generously call it the parroting of Bush agitprop of course).

  31. Sandy,

    Saddam is one of the “worst dictators in history”? Open a book or two on world history.

    “freedom not seen in Iraq for decades”? Huh? Freedom? In Iraq’s history? Open a book.

    “pressure on nearby governments to consider these freedoms too” please explain. Will this work the way it has in Cuba for the last 40 years? Prove to me how this war will spread democracy and freedom in Saudi, Iran, Kuwait etc…

    In short — wake up and smell the history.

  32. JB:

    You don’t think you are being a wee bit unreasonable here? The pollyannas are the guys who said there would be a flourishing democracy within two years of Saddam’s departure. There may be some, but not many who said that. If we hold the current project to a standard of increasing liberty for the average Iraqi, we have had a degree of success already. The place does not have to be Eden to be considered a success, or even worth the effort.

    It all depends on the metric you are using, I suppose. One could easily ask under what criteria is the ‘stability’ of a regime like Saddam’s preferable to what is happening now? For some, it won’t be worth it, but I suspect those are largely the benificiaries of the previous regime.

    By the way, I think it is equally important not to take a pollyannish view of what democracy is. Even when it works, it is very messy, and there are power struggles that will occur. Any political discord that doesn’t result in violence is a success of this mission, not evidence of its failure.

    Yes, I know there is a lot of violence; I am only asking that we not lump all the negatives together, when some of them are in the long view desirable.

  33. Jason Ligon,

    I would argue that yes, a project to re-make the middle east is pollyannish, and deeply naive (I generally accept that it was not predicated on notions of “empire” – for most that suppported it). I think what has been especially illustrative of this is how many commentators have been stating that Iraqis are “ungrateful” to America; as if they “owe” something to America; as if the relationship is paternalistic. This illustrates a sort of naive attitude about such things I think.

  34. James Q. Wilson is indeed a very perceptive guy. But the Will column gives no idea where that one paragraph quote is from. I’d love to see the context and the development.

    Does anyone have a cite or, even better, a url?

  35. oy is a bit too dismissive of the domino effect, I think. You can point to Cuba, others can point to the American revolution and the French.

    The questions to ask are, how compelling a vision is self governance? What has, to this point, prevented such a vision from being realized?

    I remain unconvinced that people prefer to live under tyrants.

  36. Jason Ligon,

    “I remain unconvinced that people prefer to live under tyrants.”

    Whether they perfer to or not is beside the point I believe; at least according to the aforementioned argument as stated by Wilson.

    Regarding the American and French revolutions, neither was particularly conclusive as far as American or French liberty were concerned; furthermore, they were relatively organic in nature. Iraq has no such organic precedent.

  37. JB:

    I agree that the whole idea that people would be waving American flags right away is naive, but I don’t think such a display is a requirement of success either.

    To me, the replacing of a tin pot with a representative body is all about changing the locus of self interest for Iraq. Even if most people don’t like the US, there is little doubt that hostile relations with us over the long haul is detrimental to a majority of Iraqis. The key difference is that such a policy is not necessarily detrimental to a single tyrant who doesn’t care what his people think or how hungry they are. This is not really a controversial point of view.

    The domino effect, then, is about gains for the populace relative to their lorded over neighbors that are brought about by democratic change and hopefully more trade, private property, and so forth.

  38. Perhaps liberty comes only to those willing to fight for it. Witness the colonial United States (and I guess, pace Jean Bart the name-caller, France). If a people do not have the desire and temperament to put their lives and property on the line to fight for a concept such as liberty or democracy, then perhaps they are not suited to operate a successful democracy and thus to have one imposed on them from outside. Russia may be one example. Iraq certainly will prove to be another example. Compare Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany, who did succeed under the democracy-imposed method.
    (BTW: none of this has anything to do with whether GWB is the antichrist – or whatever is the secularist equivalent.)

  39. America and France were hardly neighbors. Sandy argues that geographical proximity to freedom will pressure nearby dictators to consider changes. I completely disagree. I think that on some levels freedom can breed freedom… but plopping a democracy (and I argue that Iraq will not likely become one in the end) at gunpoint in the middle of a land that has ALWAYS been ruled by tyrants will not magically free it’s neighbors.

    JL – I agree that people prefer not to live under tyrants. But foremost, people prefer to feed their families. People don’t care too much about their government if they can make a living. Revisionist history has erased the fact that Saddam was seen as a nice compromise in the 80s. He was the model secular capitalist dictator. Yes, he was an asshole but life for most Iraqis steadily improved in the 70s and 80s… the improvements were in spite of Saddam, not because of him… but it kept people happy enough to work and mind their own business.

  40. How do you folks feel about the proposition that tyrannies breed terrorism? If you agree, what, in the absence of a demonstrated willingness to remove tyrants, are we to do about it?

    If you don’t agree, there are some strong correlations you would need to explain.

    There are multiple dimensions to this whole project. In the first place, is it desirable to remove the tyrant, just to demonstrate that you will do so? Many here say no, I say that the re-establishment of credible military threat is the most important step to regaining security. In the second place, if you remove the tyrant, should you shoot for, as JB would have it, a pollyannish dream of creating the first non Turkic arabic democracy, or should you stomp and leave?

    I was myself promoting a policy of ‘gong show diplomacy’ right after 9/11. The first time you utter the words, “Great White Satan”, you get the Gong, and you are unceremoniously removed from the stage. I no longer believe this is feasible, since we don’t have the intelligence to find the guys so as to end their glorious reigns.

    These days, I find myself nearly certain that military action against a middle eastern tyrant was absolutely needed after 9/11, and that an attempt at rebuilding is better than the alternative.

  41. Jean Bart,

    So, if we try to establish a democracy, we are “pollyannish.” If we establish an authoritarian regime for reasons of realpolitik, we’re selfish and cruel. If we just ignore the area, we’re indifferent and letting the place rot (like Afghanistan in 90’s). Bet you’ve got a pejorative for every choice.

    Worldly cynicism is just intellectualized cowardice. Rather than risk failure, you construct elaborate justifications for never trying at all. Since you never try, you never fail and can claim to be ever so wise because no one can lay a disaster at your feet.

    We now live in an unique time in history where the majority of the peoples of the world consider some form of democracy the only valid form of government. Even the Mullah’s of Iran must provide the illusion of a democracy. This gives us an advantage we never had before.

    It is better to dare great things and fail than never to try at all. Call that pollyannish if you will.

  42. “How do you folks feel about the proposition that tyrannies breed terrorism?”

    Disagree. Look at USSR, China, Iraq, Cuba etc… There are more tyrannies throughout history (and alive today) that do not breed terrorism than there are that that do.

    As for your other points: When attacked, hit back with force. If you are morally justified, as the US was against Japan, the majority will support you both inside and outside your country. When you take on unclear and partially (at best) justified projects like Vietnam and Iraq, you will have no support and you will erode your credibility. This is not to say that just because you are justified in going to war you must. I feel we were justified to take out Iran during the 80s. I am not sure it would have been a good idea.

    Shannon — “It is better to dare great things and fail than never to try at all. Call that pollyannish if you will.”

    So if we decide to free China and nuclear war breaks out you will stand by this statement? Ridiculous. Let people worry about their own problems.

  43. I would have to agree that the best way to inculcate freedom in a population is organically and through their own initiative, but let’s not buy into the argument that democracy can’t be imposed. There are maybe a dozen major nations that developed democracy on their own. Unless we’re going to say they’re the only democracies, we’re going to have to admit that democracy can be imposed, even in a culture that has never experienced it. Last I checked, there wasn’t a whole lot of democratic tradition in Asia as of a hundred years ago, and there are now a number of quite healthy democratic nations, all of which had their democarcy imposed by either some outside power or an enlightened despot.

    In a similar vein, while it does make me all warm and fuzzy to hear someone arguing that the spread of freedom always happens in spite of government support, that’s just not true. Even if you reject out of hand all of Hobbes, you’re going to have to explain exactly either WWII didn’t advance freedom by ending the Axis regimes or how the war was achieved by anything other than government action. You’re also going to have to do some intellectual acrobats to explain how the American Revolution had nothing to do with the early American government and how abolition came about through something other than government action. Oh, and how the slave trade ending in general had nothing to do with the British navy. Sure, I suppose these examples generally have to do with one government fighting the (more) negative influences of another government. But given that governments are a bit of a worldwide epidemic, saying that governments can’t help freedom except where governments already exist doesn’t mean much.

  44. The Bush administration, as is typical of politically motivated forces (and their supporters), has focused on the wrong goal.

    Democracy is not the eqivalent of freedom.
    Repeat

  45. Sam,

    You’re right that democracy is not the equivalent of freedom. You’re wrong to assume that the dictionary definition of democracy is what anyone’s talking about. When they say “Democracy” they really mean “free societies characterized by limited governments, rule of law, constitutions and related liberties, and stability.” When we say, “promoting democracy” we mean “promoting the stability, rule of law, progress, basic liberties, and general order and safety that are the necessary prerequisties to both freedom and meaningful elections.” The confusion happens when we make the mistake of thinking of the elections as the process’s beginning rather than its culmination.

  46. Democracy may not be the equivalent of freedom, but it is much closer than tyranny. And if you believe the USSR and Cuba, if not China, supported terrorist organizations, you have missed alot of history in the 60s and 70s. In fact, check the backgrounds of most of the terrorists/”freedom fighter” of the period (Arafat, Beider Meinhof, Red Brigade, Sandinistas, Shining Path) and you will find direct ties to a tyranny, usually Moscow. The whole m.o. of a tyranny is to terrorize the population into submission. It is natural and logical that it would spawn and support like movements in other countries that are a threat or a desire physically or economically.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.