ENDS AND MEANS:

Fukuyama in Tel Aviv: Benjamin Netanyahu, Shimon Peres, and Francis Fukuyama come together to discuss the end of history in Israel. (Peter Berkowitz, 03/19/2004, Weekly Standard)

Under the bright lights on the large auditorium stage, the diminutive professor held forth for 40 minutes. With his characteristic calm cogence, Fukuyama rehearsed the key elements of his argument: history displays a broad pattern of human progress; bourgeois civilization will not be transcended; history will terminate not in a socialist utopia but in liberal democracy and market capitalism; this conclusion is fortified by the empirical evidence of people around the world who have voted with their feet for freedom, democracy, and modernization; and it is further fortified by theoretical reflection on human nature which discloses the rationality of economic and political systems based on individual rights and the consent of the governed.

The key question thus far posed by the 21st century, Fukuyama observed, is whether there is a Muslim exception to the end of history. Fukuyama doubts it. He pointed out that the real democracy deficit is not in Muslim or predominantly Muslim countries but in Muslim Arab countries of the Middle East. And there the problem, he suggested, was not Islam, though he indicated it still awaits its Luther, but bad government and dismal economic prospects that produce an angry alienation on which purveyors of radical Islam prey. What is necessary on the part of the liberal democracies of the world, according to Fukuyama, is the right kind of politics, one that knows that individual freedom is the long term goal but which takes careful account of, and learns to work with, the distinctive culture of Arab and Muslim societies. [...]

Netanyahu began by explaining that he rejected the descriptive part of Fukuyama's thesis but embraced the prescriptive part. Never mind that the descriptive and prescriptive parts of Fukuyama's thesis--liberal democracy was in fact and appropriately triumphing around the world because it satisfied genuine and powerful human wants, needs, and desires--were inseparably connected. What Netanyahu really wanted to dwell upon was that terrorism is a monumental threat to liberal democracy, and while inflamed by poverty and oppression, it "is a product of the totalitarian mindset." In concluding that the issue in connection to Fukuyama is not whether he is right about the end of history but rather how we can insure that he is right, Netanyahu agreed with Fukuyama as well as Peres that the world's liberal democracies have a moral and strategic interest in the spread of liberal democracy.

Because Mr. Fukuyama's overarching thesis is correct, the war on terror truly doesn't matter much: the destiny of the Islamic world is liberal capitalist protestant democracy, regardless of anything we do. And, because of its resistance to that fact, the Middle East is so backwards that it doesn't offer any serious threat to our domestic security in the United States. Were we so inclined--were we French, German, Spanish, Canadian, Democrats, paleoconservatives, libertarians, etc.--we could sit back and wait for it to happen on its own.

The Bush revolution in foreign policy though--one echoed above by Mr. Netanyahu--consists in putting the full force of American military, economic, and moral power into an effort to hasten the End of History in those regions that are lagging. It is disingenuous to understate how radical is this transformation. It is obviously a reversal of America's traditional isolationism, but it is also a major departure from the containment policy that was used to fight the Cold War up until Ronald Reagan was elected and goes well beyond what even the Gipper did to win that war. (Mr. Bush can be bolder precisely because the dysfunctional culture in this case is so weak--there's no Mutual Assured Destruction in this confrontation.)

Indeed, while the President does sometimes dress up his policy in the garb of security, it is really much more a function of his (and our) religious faith:

Historians in the future will reflect on an extraordinary, undeniable fact: Over time, free nations grow stronger and dictatorships grow weaker. In the middle of the 20th century, some imagined that the central planning and social regimentation were a shortcut to national strength. In fact, the prosperity, and social vitality and technological progress of a people are directly determined by extent of their liberty. Freedom honors and unleashes human creativity -- and creativity determines the strength and wealth of nations. Liberty is both the plan of Heaven for humanity, and the best hope for progress here on Earth. [...]

Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe -- because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export. And with the spread of weapons that can bring catastrophic harm to our country and to our friends, it would be reckless to accept the status quo.

Therefore, the United States has adopted a new policy, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East. This strategy requires the same persistence and energy and idealism we have shown before. And it will yield the same results. As in Europe, as in Asia, as in every region of the world, the advance of freedom leads to peace.

The advance of freedom is the calling of our time; it is the calling of our country. From the Fourteen Points to the Four Freedoms, to the Speech at Westminster, America has put our power at the service of principle. We believe that liberty is the design of nature; we believe that liberty is the direction of history. We believe that human fulfillment and excellence come in the responsible exercise of liberty. And we believe that freedom -- the freedom we prize -- is not for us alone, it is the right and the capacity of all mankind.

Working for the spread of freedom can be hard. Yet, America has accomplished hard tasks before. Our nation is strong; we're strong of heart. And we're not alone. Freedom is finding allies in every country; freedom finds allies in every culture. And as we meet the terror and violence of the world, we can be certain the author of freedom is not indifferent to the fate of freedom.

With all the tests and all the challenges of our age, this is, above all, the age of liberty.

The implications of this are twofold: first, we can not be too surprised that the nations of Europe--which no longer share that faith--show so little interest in this crusade; and, second, given that the two political parties in America divide to a significant degree along a faultline of faith, we should not be too surprised that the Democrats wish to call the whole thing off.

Posted by Orrin Judd at March 19, 2004 11:07 PM