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.
It is important for me as a libertarian to build upon the central notion of individual rights. The time-honored just war theory naturally came to the same conclusions that Rand did and I did, because individual rights are the intuitive system of justice since Moses. This should explain my interest in Rand on the subject. Another facet of it is rhetorical: since most libertarians were herded by Browne/Rockwell in the opposite direction, it was important to point out to them where their matrimony lies.
The use of the word "imperialism" is deliberate because any time one advocates any robust foreign policy at all, the countercharge is, unthinkingly, "that's imperialist". I needed to point out that America in the 20 century is a natural empire so that a meaningful discussion on what is a good imperialism versus bad imperialism can ensue. Incidentally, it is a corruption of Rand's ideas to suggest that America should simply export its political system everywhere. Rand's logic is twofold: that when a nation is oppressed, foreign intervention by a power that (relatively) uphold individual rights is rightful with respect to the nation being invaded; and when a national interest is served through the invasion, then it is also rightful with respect to the American citizenry. It does not follow that imposition of American values by force is always right; in fact the opposite is true because such imposition, for most part, makes us enemies. Thus, our adventures in the Balkans, Haiti or Somalia were not just interventions, while the intervention in Afghanistan is.
Thenk you, again, for the praise and the critique.
Something tells me you should also enjoy this:
Few libertarians would disagree with this:
"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."
However, though I could certainly say the following, I'm sure my meaning would be quite different from yours:
"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."
I don't think it likely that the American people can achieve moral clarity. A comprehensive understanding of the relevant facts is essential to making many of the fine judgements necessary to achieve such moral clarity. Few if any grass-roots Americans have the time, energy, or resources to acquire those essential facts. We are, therefore, left only to trust or not trust what we are told those underlying facts are. IF there is a perceived need or a desire in the highest echelons of our government and/or intelligence community to deceive us we are always quite vulnerable, but now, with emotions inflamed by the events of 9/11 we are more vulnerable than ever. Should we trust? Your penultimate paragraph indicates firmly that you say "yes":
"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."
Having observed the actions of our national leaders and our intelligence community (at times "up close and personal") over the course of over two decades, I say "no." Saying I do not trust is not the same as saying I'm sure that funny business is going on, but I've seen plenty in recent events to make me more suspicious than a simple "I don't know."