Politicizing Tragedy and Perverting History

In the aftermath of the disastrous earthquake that hit Haiti, most in the global community are focusing their energies on relief operations and charitable contributions. But as is almost always the case, some political activists are exploiting the tragedy to make a political point. Pat Robertson inexplicably blames the earthquake on a "pact with the devil," referring to Haiti's independence from France in 1804.

The professional hate-monger, Keith Olbermann, used the tragedy to justify the need for healthcare reform in the United States, while calling Rush Limbaugh a "deranged racist" and wishing he "go to hell."

But another, more insidious, strand of politicization that happens to be a staple of left-wingism is quickly taking root: blaming America and Europe for Haiti's plight.

In a New York Times op-ed, author Tracy Kidder uses the tragedy to make a larger point about why Haiti is more vulnerable to natural disasters than wealthier nations. According to Kidder, "the essence of it seems clear enough":

Haiti is a country created by former slaves, kidnapped West Africans, who, in 1804, when slavery still flourished in the United States and the Caribbean, threw off their cruel French masters and created their own republic. Haitians have been punished ever since for claiming their freedom: by the French who, in the 1820s, demanded and received payment from the Haitians for the slave colony, impoverishing the country for years to come; by an often brutal American occupation from 1915 to 1934; by indigenous misrule that the American government aided and abetted. (In more recent years American administrations fell into a pattern of promoting and then undermining Haitian constitutional democracy.)

Kidder's interpretation of Haiti's history is oversimplified, misleading, and frankly, perverse. While it is true that the Haitian people (as have all people at some point in history) suffered as a result of slavery and occupation, Haiti's current problems stem not from imperialism but from its inability to establish a durable constitutional republic that respects the Rule of Law and is not susceptible to extreme corruption.

The 1804 Haitian revolution and subsequent independence was marked by a reign of terror at the hands of dictator and despot Jean-Jacques Dessalines, who was assassinated only two years later by disaffected members of his own administration. For decades later, Dessalines was reviled by Haitians for his cruel and autocratic rule, and only began to emerge as an emblem of Haitian nationalism in the 19th century, when generations who suffered under Dessalines died out (one might compare this phenomenon to the recent surge in Joseph Stalin's popularity among Russians).

Since its independence, Haiti has seen over 30 coups, as numerous political factions and dictators vied for power. Contrary to Mr. Kidder's assertion, the United States did not always "aid and abet" indigenous misrule. As a matter of fact, in 1986, the United States arranged the exile of the hated tyrant "Baby Doc" Duvalier, whose family terrorized the Haitian people since 1957.  In 1994, U.S. forces peacefully entered Haiti under "Operation Uphold Democracy" to restore the ousted, but democratically elected, Jean-Bertrand Aristide as President. Aristide's administration was inept and corrupt, but not as tyrannical as that of his predecessors. In subsequent years, more coups followed, with the United States often playing the reluctant role of a mediator having to choose the least evil alternative.

Mr. Kidder willfully disregards these facts because they contradict his leftist world view, which holds the West responsible for the plight of third-world countries. He mentions "indigenous misrule" only in passing and in the misleading context of America's "aiding and abetting" such misrule, while irresponsibly downplaying the pervasive tyranny and corruption in Haiti. His message is simple: Haiti and its people are hapless victims. Implicit in Mr. Kidder's thesis, is the notion that Haiti bears absolutely no responsibility for its systemic economic and political failures. As I explained in The Left's Moral Absolutism, victimhood is a dominant theme in the left's world view. You're either the oppressor or the oppressed (master or slave), and if you're the oppressed, your fate is essentially sealed. Of course, this sophomoric explanation doesn't explain why some societies that went through periods of colonialism and slavery (again I stress that all societies have been colonized, oppressed, and enslaved at some point) enjoy more freedom, prosperity, and stability than others. This disparity in wealth despite a similar history is perhaps best illustrated by Haiti's next door neighbor, the Dominican Republic, which is far more prosperous and stable than Haiti.

To deny that political and economic institutions play a vital role in shaping a nation's destiny is to deny history. Yet by blaming America and Europe for Haiti's abject poverty and political instability, and by essentially exonerating Haiti of all responsibility, that is precisely what Mr. Kidder does. He cannot muster enough intellectual honesty to admit that Western institutions, most notably the Rule of Law, property rights, and capitalism, are integral to freedom and prosperity. To Mr. Kidder, institutions are of secondary importance, almost incidental. It's as if sustainable political and economic systems emerge naturally so long as they're not hindered by imperialism and insufficient aid, which are the real culprits:

The usual excuse, that a government like Haiti’s is weak and suffers from corruption, doesn’t hold — all the more reason, indeed, to work with the government. The ultimate goal of all aid to Haiti ought to be the strengthening of Haitian institutions, infrastructure and expertise.

Mr. Kidder is right in the sense that foreign aid should be used to strengthen institutions, but his prescription for rescuing Haiti is too vague to be meaningful, since we have no idea what kinds of institutions Mr. Ridder has in mind. Based on his inability to grasp the root cause of Haiti's plight and his attributing all of Haiti's problems to colonialism and slavery, we can only assume that Mr. Kidder is in favor of perpetuating some form of third-world despotism.

As the United States devotes unprecedented military and civilian resources, on top of massive treasure, to relieve a tragedy-stricken foreign country, the "blame America first" folks like Mr. Kidder cannot even write a single sentence in praise of America's contributions. Rather, Mr. Kidder uses the tragedy as an opportunity to condemn colonialism, imperialism and slavery as the sole causes of Haiti's suffering.   




         

The Libertarian's Fatal Conceit

Over the last several years, I have been closely affiliated with the libertarian movement. I worked for the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, a wonderful organization that supports free-market groups around the country. During my time with CGKF, I had many opportunities to communicate with prominent libertarian thinkers, who were highly intelligent and persuasive. I continue to be active in the free-market movement.

Although there are numerous strands of libertarianism, all libertarians are united by the belief that a just government exists to protect individual rights and do little else. On matters of political economy and philosophy, I see eye-to-eye with most libertarians on most issues. However, there is one area that continues to be a major point of contention.

At the risk of generalizing, most libertarians have a special disdain for Republican politicians who do not fight for transformational change. By transformational change libertarians mean a radical departure from our current mixed-economy that boasts a massive welfare state and is constrained by burdensome regulations. Libertarians vehemently oppose the strategy of incrementalism, advocating major leaps in policy instead.

The brilliant libertarian scholar and historian David Boaz, Executive Vice President of the libertarian Cato Institute, once said that he did not think Ronald Reagan was a very good President because he did not abolish the Department of Education or privatize Social Security. The free-market conservative scholars, activists and politicians who helped drive the Reagan Revolution supported these libertarian proposals in theory, but the President and his Cabinet did not attempt to implement them--and as we shall see, for good reasons.   

To my shock, David Boaz also noted that many libertarians feel like Thomas Jefferson betrayed the libertarian cause by purchasing Louisiana from Napoleon and waging war against the Barbary pirates of North Africa who were terrorizing and hijacking American merchant ships, and often killing or enslaving the ships' crews.

David Boaz represents the majority of libertarian thinkers who believe that any departure from a pure libertarian ideal is a betrayal of that ideal. Furthermore, libertarians believe that political compromise and pragmatism are convenient cop outs that hinder progress towards greater liberty.

I strongly disagree with this view and it is the primary source of my beef with the libertarian movement.

To begin with, impugning Thomas Jefferson for expanding and significantly strengthening the young and fragile republic is naive, for if it wasn't for Jefferson's vision of an American navy that ultimately subdued the menacing Barbary pirates, America might have been fatally vulnerable to British aggression in the War of 1812. Moreover, do libertarians really believe that the Constitution prohibits the Commander-in-Chief from deploying the military against an enemy with a track record of murdering and enslaving Americans? The Constitution is not a suicide pact and neither the Louisiana Purchase nor the just war against the Barbary pirates violated the Constitution or betrayed America's founding principles.

To castigate Ronald Reagan for not achieving transformational libertarian change seems to me equally foolhardy. The political process is highly complex, and all politicians are constrained by precedents, rules, and procedures that make transformational change very difficult if not impossible. We are witnessing this first hand as the Health Care legislation nears its final stages. Barack Obama (and I would venture to guess most Congressional Democrats) supports a single-payer healthcare system. But due to a plethora of political constraints, neither Barack Obama nor Democratic leaders dared to even seriously consider single-payer. In fact, it appears almost certain that even the so-called public option will not be included in the final healthcare bill. And this is despite the fact that the Democrats have a super-majority in the Senate and a significant majority in the House.

Had Ronald Reagan committed political capital to the goal of abolishing the Department of Education or privatizing Social Security, he would have been thoroughly defeated by the Democrat-controlled House and humiliated. Such an ambitious goal would have made the failure all that more dramatic, and rendered Reagan largely inefficacious for the remainder of his term.

Foregoing this political suicide mission, President Reagan instead chose to eloquently defend the principles of liberty, while fighting for significant, but non-transformational change. He succeeded in lowering taxes, growing our economy, stimulating entrepreneurship, and reining in some wasteful spending.

President Reagan wisely differentiated between idealism and pragmatism. What good is idealism if it doesn't affect positive change? Libertarians resent what they view as Reagan's lackluster efforts to rein in the welfare state, but would the country have been better of if President Reagan unwaveringly embraced idealism at the expense of failing to push through any pro free-market initiatives?

The axiom that we shouldn't make the perfect the enemy of the good should teach libertarians an important political lesson: it is better to fight for incremental change than to stubbornly perpetuate the status quo just because the ideal is unattainable. Libertarians cannot ignore the constraints imposed by the political process, and should not view politicians who compromise in order to advance pro-free market change as spineless, or worse, perfidious. The freedom movement should continue to defend the virtues of laissez-faire capitalism and attack the folly of the welfare state. But libertarians ought to accept the immutable law that in politics, if you allow idealism to trump pragmatism, you will not advance the ideal.

      

Moral Absolutism

Recently, I published an essay in the American Thinker entitled The Left's Moral Absolutism, in which I argued that despite conventional wisdom, the far left does not subscribe to moral relativism. Rather, the far left adheres to a strict ethical code that condemns central aspects of Western Culture, most notably capitalism and individualism. As I explained:

Moral relativism holds that all morality is subjective; nothing is fundamentally good or bad. Morality is in the eyes of the beholder and no one can claim the moral high ground. I don't doubt that there are purists who unwaveringly adhere to this nihilistic philosophy, but the far left does not belong to this orthodox breed. In fact, the far left shuns moral relativism with as much fervor as the "moralizers" the far left purports to despise.


The far left has no qualms about defending third-world barbarism, yet proclaims with an aura of ultimate righteousness that corporations are evil and that the men who lead them are corrupt tyrants, who profit at the expense of the public good. They routinely vilify Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, Christians, and all others who do not adhere to utopian Marxist ideals and variations thereof. To many of these so-called relativists Dick Cheney epitomizes evil; a man who served not only as the Secretary of Defense for the imperialistic United States but as Chief Executive of the multinational corporation Halliburton, itself a symbol of evil.


The far left's tirades against "evil" corporations and Christian (but almost never Muslim) zealots are not relativistic, neither in tone nor in substance. They are unambiguously absolutist. The left moralizes about perceived injustices -- be it the effects of capitalism or the war against global jihad -- with a religious-like conviction, never uttering the word "relative" in its condemnations.

In discussing this essay with my liberal and Democratic friends, I attempted to clarify that this essay is not about liberal Democrats or even social Democrats; it is about the far left, which is admittedly an imprecise characterization. Think Reverend Wright and Noam Chomsky, not John Kerry and Thomas Friedman, I told them. I think my left-leaning  friends were generally receptive to this distinction, but some questioned the pertinence of this essay to today's political environment. After all, they argued, Noam Chomsky and his cohorts are on the fringes of ideological discourse, and no one in mainstream politics takes them seriously.

While I agree that Chomskyite and other far left-wing doctrines have been marginalized over the last several decades, I believe that left-wing intellectuals, particularly academics, continue to be influenced by them and that influence inevitably trickles down to their students and apprentices. Moreover, I think that there are elements within popular culture and mainstream politics that reflect the far left's world view, particularly when it comes to questioning America's moral highground in world affairs, vilifying corporations, or embracing class warfare. So while most mainstream political and media outlets don't wholeheartedly embrace Noam Chomsky's world view, his influence nevertheless manifests itself discreetly throughout our culture.