Can the U.S. export freedom?

Text _ 4 _Translation 2012

For Friday October 19, 2012 Make the gist in Russian, look up words that are missing from your active vocabulary and do the info search to get an insight into the topic.

Can the U.S. export freedom?

Cal Thomas is a conservative columnist. Bob Beckel is a liberal Democratic strategist. But as longtime friends, they can often find common ground on issues that lawmakers in Washington cannot.

Today: U.S. principles and foreign policy.

Cal: Hold onto your croissant, Bob, because I am about to sound like former Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern, who famously cried "come home America" nearly 40 years ago while asking that American troops be withdrawn from much of the world.

Bob: I can't wait to see where this is going.

Cal: There are limits to what America can do to advance its principles throughout the world. The promotion of liberty by this country is a noble exercise, but not all people define freedom the way we do. Some see what they regard as our loose morals as slavery and their own restricted way of life as true freedom from such things.

Bob: The U.S. has been slow to recognize the intensity of citizen resentment against dictators, such as the revolt we're witnessing in Egypt. The U.S. too often supports besieged leaders long after their countrymen have abandoned them. Why? Because the strongmen are allied with U.S. interests. From Chile in the 1970s to Egypt today, America has allowed its short-term strategic interests to eclipse all else. We have ignored the fact that the protesters' desire for freedom is driven by the same values rooted in the American Revolution over two centuries ago.

Cal: I wouldn't go that far. Not all revolutions are the same. I give you the French Revolution as one example. But I remember some of your liberal friends saying in the '60s and '70s that "we can't be the policemen of the world." I am coming to the same conclusion.

Bob: We should give you a "peace" necklace and a tie-dye T-shirt! The U.S. seems to be the "go to" country when blood and treasure are needed around the world. That's been the case since World War II. During the Cold War, America was similarly overextended, but that was justified because we were vying with the USSR to bring countries under our sphere of influence rather than theirs.

Cal: A war we eventually won, I might add. Thank you, President Reagan.

Bob: True, but since the fall of the Warsaw Bloc in the late 1980s, we continue to get involved in conflicts in countries that are not U.S. national security threats. Worse, we often get in on the wrong side and then stay too long. Two examples: Lebanon in the '80s where we lost hundreds of Marines and key CIA operatives, and Iraq in 2003 where a "clear and present danger" did not exist.

Cal: Freedom as we define it is not the natural state of humankind; otherwise more people would be free. Freedom must be fought for in every generation and sometimes within generations or it will be lost. Having said that, people who want to be as free as we are must fight for it themselves. They might expect encouragement and an example from America, but they shouldn't expect endless wars and endless treasure to help them get there. Maybe our money would be better spent assisting revolutionaries in their countries who mirror our values. That might better help them escape their bondage. Maybe a new commitment to the Peace Corps, in which you once worked, might also help.

Bob: I agree. Freedom to us means the right to vote, to speak freely, and not to allow religion to overly influence our government. Many emerging "democracies" believe in the right to fair elections — which do not necessarily guarantee freedom of speech and religion. Gaza had a free and fair election and Hamas won, but Gazans still can't express themselves freely, and Islam still dictates their governance and cultural values.

Cal: Exactly.

Bob: Unless our democratic values are aligned with another country's social and historical values, a U.S.-style democracy will never take hold. Afghanistan is a good example. It is a country where tribal authority has, for thousands of years, determined social and cultural values. U.S.-sponsored elections, no matter how successful, will never produce a government that will usurp the power of tribal authority.

Cal: In his second inaugural address, in 2005, President Bush said, "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands." Bush also made a theological point that God wants everyone to be "free" and that freedom beats in the heart of every human being. These are noble sentiments, but I fear we look at freedom from a Western perspective, one not shared by much of the world. What do you think?

Bob: We are so in agreement that it's frightening. President Bush certainly believed that American-style liberty should be the foundation of all governments, but that is wishful thinking and frankly it's naive. The U.S. is unique among democracies because we are a nation formed by immigrants who were often fleeing oppression at home. The American fabric is stitched by people willing to leave behind cultural norms for a new start in a country whose bedrock was individual liberty.

Cal: This rude awakening about different meanings of freedom shocked Bush aide Karen Hughes. On a trip to Saudi Arabia, Hughes spoke to a group of Saudi women about the rights American women enjoy. To make a point, she said American women can drive cars. Saudi women, of course, are prohibited from driving cars, and when they are in one, it must be driven by a close male relative and they must sit in the back. One of the Saudi women told Hughes she didn't need to drive a car and that Islam protects women in her country. That's what I mean by differing definitions of freedom.

Bob: And yet we are allied with Saudi Arabia and many other authoritarian regimes because those alliances support U.S. strategic interests. That is the dilemma. We can't insist on freedoms for people around the globe while we do business with the very governments that deny freedom. It's akin to backing up the bully in high school, only to know that one day the bully's victims will graduate. And when they do, they'll understandably hold a deep resentment for the years of pain.

Cal: That's the predicament we find ourselves in with Egypt.

Bob: Correct. And it's no wonder so many democratic opposition leaders in countries that suppress human rights and freedoms call into question America's commitment to their freedom.

Cal: Democracy must have a foundation in order to promote liberty. Many future dictators were voted into office, and that was either the last election they held, or they manipulated future elections to make it appear they had popular support. Think of Saddam Hussein's "elections." In 2002, Iraq announced that Saddam had won "100%" of the more than 11 million votes. Hugo Chavez in Venezuela is another example. Hitler? He was elected. Lenin used an uprising against the Russian czar to win power for the Bolsheviks. Communism was imposed for seven decades.

Bob: None of those countries had a history of democratic elections. That allowed these despots to use their victories in "free" elections as a front for dictatorial power. America has, since its founding, been rooted in the values of free and fair elections. We would rebel against anything else.

Cal: Our democratic foundation is rooted in the Declaration of Independence, which speaks of equal creation and rights endowed by "our Creator." Anything less than that threatens liberty and can make government the arbiter of rights.

Bob: So can we export an America-style democracy? Not really. But what we can do is stand firm on principles, even where our short-term interests might suffer for a longer-term good. That, we can live with, even if some countries aren't willing to adopt the American way. We can still be a beacon for freedom, whether other nations join us or resist us. In the end, their choice is not ours.

Date: 2015-12-17; view: 482