What has me a little puzzled, however, is that you source a good deal of your effort to Ayn Rand’s theory of benign/beneficent American imperialism. On my analysis, your explanation could just as equally have been sourced to traditional just war theory, which historically long predates Objectivist philosophy.
Rand is the inheritor of a great cultural tradition just as you and I are. That tradition has definitely inspired a reaction from the Islamic world these days. Or at least, from a certain faction within Islam – Saudi-sponsored Wahabism. This sect that would sincerely like to see a return to the cultural norms of 11th- or 12th-century Bedouin social order: a tribal-based system that ekes out its primary economic subsistence from driving herds of various useful beasts (primarily camels, asses, and goats) from place to place under desert conditions. It is fundamentally a reactionary movement against Western-style modernity (against industrialized, materialist society), and what it sees as the primary sponsor of same – the United States.
This is not a dispute about Western civilization in general – it’s about America in particular, as the primary articulator and defender of what we Americans consider to be humane values, values that we seem to perennially cherish (and seek to universalize): individual liberty, justice under a secular rule of law, economic progress, the amelioration of human distress and need and want wherever these “social diseases” are to be found….
America is not an “imperialist power” in the classical sense. We do not wage wars in order to seize territory and economic resources and colonize people. The whole world knows this. Still, America is considered “imperialistic,” even by our allies from time to time. The normal sense of the word is inverted to cover so-called cultural imperialism. The successful, uncoerced “export” of American ideas is the root of American imperialistic evil, and why the OBLs of this world regard the United States as the Great Satan. Bedouin societies are tribal societies. As such, they are what Ayn Rand would perhaps classify as “altruistic societies” in the sense that the individual is expected to sacrifice his own interests if they conflict with the interests of the clan or group. American individualism is corrosive to the stability of such societies, and a threat to the interests of their ruling groups. This is what makes us their natural enemy.
In clan-based or tribal societies, it is the tribal chief who legitimately “represents” absolutely everybody else, with or without their say-so. Certainly this is the pattern that we see playing out in Afghanistan today, as local warlords bloodily contest the power of what passes for the duly constituted and internationally-recognized interim government (formal elections to be held in two years) in favor of their preferred, familiar, and quite-comfy-by- now local chaos of twenty-plus years’ standing….
The Afghani people themselves have to figure out which way is objectively better for their personal and social welfare in the long run. We cannot do this for them, though we can give them plenty of help and support after the fact. To me, it’s doubtful that a full-blown democratic society is about to blossom forth there anytime soon. There is so much poverty and ignorance, and the old tribal ways will not readily fade away.
Regarding Ayn Rand’s American Imperialism: I gather (please correct me if I’m mistaken) that this all boils down to the singular idea that America has the moral right to impose “liberty” on each and every foreign nation. Otherwise, foreign nations might turn out to be national security threats to the United States.
Thus, the Imperium of the United States has moral carte blanche to impose – by force if need be. The United States is fully justified, for reasons of national security, to adopt a national mission to recruit/convert the rest of the world into the order of freedom. That such a national policy, fully willed and devoutly supported by the American people, would absolutely obviate the rise of powers hostile to the interests of the United States, forever.
The Founders must be spinning in their graves. Our nation began from the insight, “no foreign entanglements,” and now we’re being urged to become “the world’s policeman.”
I don’t think that can work. For one thing, the order of liberty is predicated on a world view and moral system that is almost uniquely American. Cultures that do not share that belief and moral system are unlikely to become truly free societies. (But I don’t care if another country is a monarchy or an aristocracy or a democracy, so long as it provides for geographic integrity and internal stability; fosters the prosperity of its people and respects their natural rights; and does not interfere with its neighbors – or with us.)
Ayn Rand and so many others by now have said that the best defense of a healthy American future is the total destruction of any nation that harbors evil intent towards us, whether or not they actually carry out their evil intent in ways that actually hurt us.
Gee. If that were official U.S. policy, we would have taken out France a long time ago :^), never mind the Arabist terrorists. Who by the way, probably learned a whole lot from the Algerian War of Liberation [so-called] from France. Certainly, Yassar Arafat’s PLO seems to have studied this historical event with great diligence, and have been applying its lessons….
Respecting the historical problems of colonialism: It has been tried, in spades, all over the globe –where natural riches (like gold, diamonds, copper, oil, etc.) remained outside the market, for lack of “diligent, rational exploitation.” The Powers then who did the “exploitation” (excuse me, the “colonizing”) euphemized the exercise by calling it the carrying out of “the White Man’s Burden.” I cannot think of a more cynical, deplorable, racist remark. And I don’t care if a great English novelist and poet spoke these words and made them immortal.
Anyhoot, when the “White Man” finally walked away from his “burden,” life in the formerly subject territories tended to revert to the more ancient cultural customs and understandings. When the White Man left, the underlying society pretty much wholly reverted to its traditional cultural forms. With the difference, perhaps, that they had learned from the White Man how to make the trains run on time.
Annalex, you touched on the importance of culture as the main cohering element in civilizational order. I would love to return to that subject again some time, but it’s time to wrap this up.
In conclusion, there is no “one-size-fits-all” rule for American policy. We need to stay diligent, focused, and committed to handling threats one by one, as they come. As important as military, economic, and diplomatic force, America must project moral force through unwavering commitment to our principles of right and wrong. If we have to act alone to protect American interests, then we do so. We don’t have to ask anybody for permission to defend our people and our way of life. If we can achieve true moral clarity on the issue of the terrorist threat against us, and if the American people share that moral clarity, then we will prevail. I don’t know by when, but we will. In the final analysis, there is no alternative.
President Bush is doing a truly outstanding job of communicating our American moral vision with unshakable conviction and unrelenting force. He has also turned out to be an exceptionally fine war-time commander-in-chief. What I would like to see is more Libertarians getting behind this man of great character and determination – instead of constantly taking pot shots at him during this extraordinarily difficult time in our national life. JMHO FWIW.
Thank you so much, annalex – for the excellent work. You’re a good man, a fine thinker, and I wish we could just clone you…. All my best – bb.