Joel C. Rosenberg: Two Great Dissidents - Natan Sharansky’s vision, and President Bush’s

National Review Online ^ | November 19, 2004 | Joel C. Rosenberg

[NutCrackerBoy]

When Natan Sharansky stepped into Condoleezza Rice's West Wing office at 11:15 last Thursday morning, he had no idea the national security advisor would soon be named the next secretary of state. He was just glad to see her holding a copy of his newly published book, The Case for Democracy.

"I'm already half-way through your book," Rice said. "Do you know why I'm reading it?"

Sharansky, a self-effacing man who spent nine years in KGB prisons (often in solitary confinement) before becoming the first political prisoner released by Mikhail Gorbachev, hoped it had to do with his brilliant analysis and polished prose.

Rice smiled. "I'm reading it because the president is reading it, and it's my job to know what the president is thinking."

A close friend of the president had sent over a copy several weeks earlier with a note urging him to take a close look. The president nearly polished it off during a weekend at Camp David, then suggested to Rice that she read it as well.

For nearly 40 minutes, Rice engaged Sharansky — now an Israeli cabinet member — and co-author Ron Dermer, a former columnist with the Jerusalem Post, in a discussion over how best to help democracy take root in such hard soils as Iraq, Iran, and the West Bank and Gaza.

At precisely 2 P.M., Sharansky and Dermer were ushered into the Oval Office for a private meeting with the president. They were scheduled for 45 minutes. They stayed for more than an hour. What the president told Sharansky was off the record. What Sharansky told the president was not.

"I told the president, 'There is a great difference between politicians and dissidents. Politicians are focused on polls and the press. They are constantly making compromises. But dissidents focus on ideas. They have a message burning inside of them. They would stand up for their convictions no matter what the consequences.'

"I told the president, 'In spite of all the polls warning you that talking about spreading democracy in the Middle East might be a losing issue — despite all the critics and the resistance you faced — you kept talking about the importance of free societies and free elections. You kept explaining that democracy is for everybody. You kept saying that only democracy will truly pave the way to peace and security. You, Mr. President, are a dissident among the leaders of the free world.'"

From one of the most famous dissidents of era of the Evil Empire, such is not faint praise.

Early in The Case for Democracy, Sharansky, 56, recalls another Soviet-era dissident named Andrei Amalrik, who in 1969 wrote, Will The Soviet Union Survive Until 1984? Predicting the Communist empire's inevitable collapse, Amalrik, who was imprisoned by the KGB for his observations (and whom Sharansky later had the privilege of teaching English), explained that "any state forced to devote so much of its energies to physically and psychologically controlling millions of its own subjects could not survive indefinitely."

Sharansky writes: "The unforgettable image he left the reader with was that of a soldier who must always point a gun at his enemy. His arms begin to tire until their weight becomes unbearable. Exhausted, he lowers his weapon and the prisoner escapes."

At the time, many so-called "democrats" in the West dismissed Amalrik as downright delusional. But his prediction proved to be off by only a few years.

"How was one Soviet dissident able to see what legions of analysts and policymakers in the West were blind to?" asks Sharansky. "Did Amalrik have access to more information than they did? Was he smarter than all the Sovietologists put together? Of course not.... But unlike them, he understood the awesome power of freedom."

For Sharansky, this is the critical line of demarcation in the war on terror, dividing the naysayers from those who both believe in and are willing to fight for the notion that freedom is a universal human right.

He is convinced that democratic institutions can take hold throughout the Middle East. He concedes it will not be easy, but argues the key is bold moral leadership from the West of the kind that Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher demonstrated in the 1980s.

"Everybody knows that weapons of mass destruction are very dangerous in the hands of terrorists," says Sharansky, his passion as strong as his accent. "But very few people understand how powerful weapons of mass construction can be in the hands the free world. There are so many skeptics, so many people who doubt whether Iraqis and Palestinians really want to live in freedom, or whether democracy in the Middle East is really such a good idea. But I lived under a totalitarian regime. I know the horrors of these regimes from the inside. I know they can be transformed. They won't be perfect, and they won't agree with us on every issue. But it is better to have a democracy that hates you than a dictatorship that loves you."

Sharansky cites the example of post-World War II Germany. Many doubted a true democracy could ever take root amidst the ashes of the Third Reich. But it has. True, most Germans opposed the recent war in Iraq and increasingly side against the U.S. in international policy debates. But so what? Sharansky asks. At least they are not carpet-bombing the whole of Europe.

Toward the end of the book, Sharansky quotes current Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as having once told him, "I understand that in the Soviet Union your ideas were important, but unfortunately they have no place in the Middle East."

Sharansky respectfully disagrees. With the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime, and the passing of Yasser Arafat, Sharansky calls himself "an optimist." Never before in human history has the moment been more ripe for Iraqis and Palestinians to hear and embrace the case for democracy. The transitions for both will be difficult. But Sharansky is not daunted.

"When given a real opportunity to choose between living in a free society or a fear society, the vast majority of people will choose a free society. And a free society — a society where people feel safe to argue and dissent — will always be a stable society."

This is what Sharansky is working for, and he has just earned the ear of the president of the United States and the new secretary of state.

— Joel C. Rosenberg is the author of The Last Jihad (about the fall of Saddam Hussein) and The Last Days (about the death of Yasser Arafat). Rosenberg briefly served as a senior advisor to Natan Sharansky in the year 2000.

[NutCrackerBoy]

I'm reading it now.

[shield]

Interesting....

[Tamar1973]

Rice smiled. "I'm reading it because the president is reading it, and it's my job to know what the president is thinking."

Mayby this kind of thinking will produce a more consistent message coming out of the White House.

[JeeperFreeper]

Thanks for the post. No doubt the book will now( if it hasn't already) get a bad review from the N.Y. Slimes. The left will be surprised that Bush, the evil genius or dumb redneck (Dems can never make up their little minds on that one), can read. Democracy will march on; the liberals will wail in the dust.

[Tamar1973]

The left will be surprised that Bush, the evil genius or dumb redneck (Dems can never make up their little minds on that one), can read.

Liberals will never believe that the President would recommend a book. They presume it's always the other way around.

[NutCrackerBoy]

No doubt the book will now( if it hasn't already) get a bad review from the N.Y. Slimes.

I'm actually curious to find out; I don't see how they could pan it. This is great Schadenfreude; I think the left will squirm bigtime. The book validates Bush's policies. It does mildly criticize the execution of the Iraq War.

I think ultimately for cover the Left will fall back on virulent criticism of how badly Bush bungled the invasion, not the idea of toppling Saddam.

[hershey]

Hmmm, very interesting. But I thought GW didn't know how to read. Gee, that's what the MSM keeps saying.

[Piranha]

Wow. Thanks for posting this article.

Sharansky has been one of my heroes since the early days of the Soviet Jewry movement in the early 1970s.

I never understood why his political party failed to get traction in Israel. His analysis is that the Russian immigrants didn't need a party that focussed just on them, but in fact he tried to expand his party to include English-speaking immigrants and others as well.

[Tolik]

Sharansky:

"I told the president, 'There is a great difference between politicians and dissidents. Politicians are focused on polls and the press. They are constantly making compromises. But dissidents focus on ideas. They have a message burning inside of them. They would stand up for their convictions no matter what the consequences.'

"I told the president, 'In spite of all the polls warning you that talking about spreading democracy in the Middle East might be a losing issue — despite all the critics and the resistance you faced — you kept talking about the importance of free societies and free elections. You kept explaining that democracy is for everybody. You kept saying that only democracy will truly pave the way to peace and security. You, Mr. President, are a dissident among the leaders of the free world.'"

He [Sharansky] is convinced that democratic institutions can take hold throughout the Middle East. He concedes it will not be easy, but argues the key is bold moral leadership from the West of the kind that Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher demonstrated in the 1980s.

"Everybody knows that weapons of mass destruction are very dangerous in the hands of terrorists," says Sharansky, his passion as strong as his accent. "But very few people understand how powerful weapons of mass construction can be in the hands the free world. There are so many skeptics, so many people who doubt whether Iraqis and Palestinians really want to live in freedom, or whether democracy in the Middle East is really such a good idea. But I lived under a totalitarian regime. I know the horrors of these regimes from the inside. I know they can be transformed. They won't be perfect, and they won't agree with us on every issue. But it is better to have a democracy that hates you than a dictatorship that loves you."

Moral Clarity BUMP !

This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of good stuff that is worthy attention. I keep separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson, Lee Harris, David Warren, Orson Scott Card. You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about).

[SJackson]

If you'd like to be on this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.

[BibChr]

"You, Mr. President, are a dissident among the leaders of the free world.'"

Cool!

Dan

[kabar]

I was in Berlin when Natan Sharansky was exchanged on Glienicker Bridge in 1986. He got in Ambassador Burt's car and rolled through the streets of West Berlin. He asked Burt if he could wave to the some of the people lining the streets. Burt responded, "You are a free man now, you don't have to ask permission." While in the car, Sharansky received a call from President Reagan congratulating him on his release. I shook Sharansky's hand when he was processed at Templehof airport. It was a magical moment for all involved. He is a great man with tremendous courage and unwavering principles. It was men like him and Reagan who helped lead to the downfall of the Soviet Union.

[goldstategop]

I've read it. It makes a powerful argument for freedom and I've yet to see one opponent make the claim people prefer tyranny to freedom. In every case, a dictatorship has to be imposed by force and kept in power by force over the wishes of the people. And such a regime has to spend all its enegies into controlling its own people, thwarting them from even tasting the fruits of freedom that could bring it down. Fear societies look strong from the outside but because they lack genuine support, are in reality brittle and the slightest spark from within can doom them. That is why history is with free societies. Never underestimate the power of freedom.

[Stultis]

But I thought GW didn't know how to read. Gee, that's what the MSM keeps saying.

Hehehe. I lent a left leaning friend a copy of Theodore Rex, Edmund Morris' biography of Theodore Roosevelt. He had it for two months. I bugged him to finish it because I hadn't read it yet myself. What finally worked was when I said, "it only took President Bush a couple weeks to read it."

Truth is I have no idea how long it took Bush to read the book, but it sure lit a fire under Lefty and got me my book back!

[Stultis]

I was in Berlin when Natan Sharansky was exchanged on Glienicker Bridge in 1986.

I was here in Texas, but I remember that day. A great day in the world and a great day for freedom in Ronald Reagan's America!

[traviskicks]

The left will be surprised that Bush, the evil genius or dumb redneck (Dems can never make up their little minds on that one), can read.
---

Similarly, I read 'Ronald Reagan: a life in letters' and you never saw such intelligent writings. The left called him stupid too... Notice that they attack the person, not their ideas.

[traviskicks]

I read that one too (theodeore Rex). There is an earlier one my dad is bugging me to read that is just as good.

Another good one is 'john Adams'. The new one, forget who by. Very patriotic and indirectly discusses the essence of Conservatism.

[traviskicks]

I just bought it on amazon a second ago.

[Stultis]

I'm only half way. Don't give away the ending!

[priceofreedom]

The President reads upside down remember.