April 20, 2005

On the Politics of Churlishness

I'm a little late in finding this article on the Jewish World Review website, but I'm glad I did. Martin Peretz fantasizes on what George W. Bush would have to face if he found a cure for cancer:

If George W. Bush were to discover a cure for cancer, his critics would denounce him for having done it unilaterally, without adequate consultation, with a crude disregard for the sensibilities of others. He pursued his goal obstinately, they would say, without filtering his thoughts through the medical research establishment. And he didn't share his research with competing labs and thus caused resentment among other scientists who didn't have the resources or the bold Ñ perhaps even somewhat reckless Ñ instincts to pursue the task as he did. And he completely ignored the World Health Organization, showing his contempt for international institutions. Anyway, a cure for cancer is all fine and nice, but what about AIDS?

It's so true. And W has faced exactly this sort of criticism and scrutiny for his successes in the Middle East. Granted he isn't responsible for each and every victory...Afghanis and Iraqis were critical to their own evolution from totalitarian regimes to burgeoning democracies.

However, Bush was in the right place at the right time...and he did something about it. He didn't just sit back and say, "Gosh, if not everyone is behind me 100%, then I shouldn't do anything here." He has convictions and he followed them. Certainly mistakes were made (as they are in any military endeavor), and they can be hashed out by future historians.

But are those on the left happy? Hardly:

Most American liberals, alas, enjoy no similar gladness. They are not exactly pleased by the positive results of Bush's campaign in the Middle East. They deny and resent and begrudge and snipe. They are trapped in the politics of churlishness. [emphasis mine]

You'd think these "champions" of human and civil rights would be pleased at the ouster of both the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, regimes that crushed and terrorized their respective populaces. But Afghani and Iraqi freedom began with a Republican president dedicated to their cause...and not just any Republican, but a...cowboy! How gauche! How embarrassing! What will our champagne-sipping elite friends in Europe think? How will we ever live this down?

And it's not over yet. Lebanon is throwing off the yoke that was Syria after decades of puppet rule. Election improvements have been made in both Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Iranian students are clamoring for an end to theocracy of the mullahs. All of this was made possible because Bush had the courage to hold to his convictions.

Were his motives selfless? No. No country ever helps another out of pure humanitarianism. Usually there's an underlying reason, such as self-protection. Sometimes money is a factor, and many of Bush's critics claim his greed for oil was the main reason for our going into Iraq. That's baloney, pure and simple. Saddam Hussein constantly flouted UN resolutions and was known to help terrorists. WMDs notwithstanding, the man had to be gotten rid of for the sake of stability in the region. And look at the results!

And what about our safety here at home? Al-Quaeda hasn't made it back here since 9/11. Numerous plots have been uncovered before they came to fruition. Many are complaining about Bush's homeland security policies...to wit, his reluctance to clamp down on border violations between Mexico and the U.S. It's not so much the illegals who come over and overburden our social programs (that's another issue altogether), but the chance that al-Quaeda operatives or other terrorists could slip in undetected. It's definitely something the Bush administration needs to address.

The significant fact is that Bush's obsession with the democratization of the region is working. Have Democrats begun to wonder how it came to pass that this noble cause became the work of Republicans? They should wonder if they care to regain power. They should recall that Clinton (and the sanctimonious Jimmy Carter even more so) had absolutely no interest in trying to modify the harsh political character of the Arab world. What they aspired to do was to mollify the dictators Ñ to prefer the furthering of the peace process to the furthering of the conditions that make peace possible.

We hear so much from the left about our "invasion" of Iraq, the "killing of babies" and so on. This is just a distraction. The peacemongers on the left have no solutions. They only seem to have complaints. "Peace, not war!" Sorry, but sometimes peace can only be achieved by force. People of Saddam Hussein's ilk aren't interested in sitting down and discussing issues with the hope of resolution. People like him only understand one thing: force and power. Human nature hasn't changed as much as we'd like to think it has.

It has been heartening, in recent months, to watch some Democratic senators searching for ways out of the politics of churlishness. Some liberals appear to have understood that history is moving swiftly and in a good direction, and that history has no time for their old and mistaken suspicion of American power in the service of American values. One does not have to admire a lot about George W. Bush to admire what he has so far wrought. One need only be a thoughtful American with an interest in proliferating liberalism around the world. And, if liberals are unwilling to proliferate liberalism, then conservatives will. Rarely has there been a sweeter irony.

Exactly.

Show Comments »