Human Rights and the American Right
I've been writing a post on this subject for quite some time, but I've figured out that, like most of what I try to write, it'll never be done right. Since I'll be heading back to Missouri to see the folks soon, and since there ain't no web access on the farm, I've decided to post a short, rough-and-ready version before I go.
This could be another in my semi-series
Why I Am Not A Republican. Ever since I can remember, the American right has been almost exactly wrong about human rights and foreign policy. As a kid, I first began to develop something like my own political opinions during the lead-up to the '76 election, Ford vs. Carter. I decided that I should support Ford (for what that was worth) because he was (allegedly) tougher on communism, and I regarded totalitarianism as the biggest threat to humanity.
I still think I was right about the threat that communism and other versions of totalitarianism pose, but I was wrong about how to oppose them. Partway through Carter's presidency, some things began to become clear to me. I've changed my mind about the details several times in the intervening years, but I still affirm the basic idea.
If there's no real evil in the world, then there's something that is basically indistinguishable from it. It must be opposed. Neither Democrats nor Republicans are all that good at opposing it, but the former are lots better at doing so than the latter.
For one thing, Democrats have not, in my lifetime, shrunk from making human rights a central part of American foreign policy. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton--the only two Democratic presidents of my conscious lifetime--both pushed the U.S. to do things for purely moral reasons, even when those courses of action were not in our narrow national interest. Both men were harassed and ridiculed mercilessly by their conservative foes for doing so. "We can't be the world's policeman" was the battle cry of the right. It became clear to me that at the heart of the American right was a type of ethical egoism that urged us--individually but in particular as a nation--to get what we could get just about however we could get it from just about whoever we could get it from. As long as it wasn't outright murder or theft, it was America first and devil take the hindmost.
Republicans of course made a big show of opposing Communism, but it was never clear how much of this opposition was based in morality and how much in the mere prudence associated with national interest. Totalitarian communism was evil, but it was also a threat to the U.S.
Over the years, however, evidence mounted that the right was willing to deal with even the most heinous dictators--and even install them in power--to gain even the slightest advantage for the U.S. When the demands of morality and the counsels of prudence agreed, then the right was willing to do the right thing, and point to morality in its public justifications. When morality and prudence diverged, however, it was prudence that won.
On the other hand, when Democrats urged us to give up slight advantages in the name of human rights, Republicans trotted out the "world's policeman" charge, accusing the Democrats of being soft-hearted, fuzzy-headed and naive.
It is common to confuse hard-heartedness with hard-headedness.
This trend has continued up to the present. Look, for example, at the scorn Tom DeLay and other Republicans heaped on our efforts to stop genocide in the former Yugoslavia. Then look at their pathetic efforts to pretend that their motives in Gulf Wars I and II were moral rather than...otherwise.
Democrats, on the other hand, have been willing to expend American blood and treasure to help the downtrodden, even when there is nothing in it for us. They have not done this lightly, but only in the most egregious cases.
They are portrayed as "soft" on defense, but this charge simply does not accord with the facts. It was Democratic presidents who shepherded through two world wars. More recently, Democrats almost unanimously supported military action in Afghanistan--where such action was clearly justified--and opposed it only in Iraq where it was pretty clearly not.
In general, Democrats have been reasonably sensible about the use of American military might, whereas Republicans have tended to use it recklessly and/or merely in the service of our narrow national interest.
In the first Gulf War, for example, Bush '41 used moral reasons to persuade us to go to war, whereas it is fairly clear that he would have taken no action were oil not involved. He also lied to us, but that's a different subject. In the new Gulf War, moral reasons were proffered when prudential reasons were debunked. What the real reasons were for this second war we may never know.
It's also important to note that, had we actually listened to the allegedly naive Carter, we would not be in our current fix. Had we followed through with Carter's push for energy independence, we would have been able to avoid both Gulf wars. At least we could have reasoned more objectively about whether to get involved. And if we'd have kept human rights concerns at the center of our foreign policy, we wouldn't still be stuck defending the Middle Eastern tyrants that fan the flames of anti-Americanism there.
And, finally, we should realize that if we had conducted ourselves in a more Democratic and a less Republican manner, we would also probably be safer today. What Democrats seem to realize is that the good will of the world pays prudential dividends. The rest of the world seems to desperately want to like us, and when we conduct ourselves in a minimaly decent manner, the civilized part of the world is generally on our side. We would be better off if we exercised a minimal amount of common sense and recognized that, having and needing a big stick, we should speak softly. That is how the hero acts.
The guy with the big stick and the loud talk, he's probably the villain. And the more we act like him, the less we will deserve to be liked and admired.
