What We Can Learn From Iraq
by Robert Russo
Before the reader replies "look before you leap", hopefully not all mention of this subject has to revive once again the strong political opinions we've all nursed since its onset, such as regret, frustration and military or political hindsight (though for people with family overseas that might be impossible). Saddam Hussein is dead, the death toll of American soldiers has passed 3000, and a new strategy has yet to be unveiled. So to share a non-war-related observation I have made let us pretend for the moment that there is no pretense with Iraq, it is a current sovereign nation as middle schoolers would study whose origins date before their social studies began.
Some people believe we Libertarians have no foreign policy, or that it's simply a conservative hands-off "live and let live", the affairs of other countries are not our business, and some libertarians do proudly state this opinion and its merits. Most of us however would like to see liberty spread throughout the world, and that is difficult where even democracy itself is unheard of. The very concept of our movement does not exist in most countries still struggling with our parents’ or grandparents’ issues like hunger, suffrage, civil wars and lack of education. It may only be on the coattails of democracy that some will ever hear the words laissez-faire, after a country like Iraq has gotten used to democracy for at least a generation, unless we present ourselves as a conservative rather than liberal movement to individual cultures not yet indoctrinated by their neighbors. Unfortunately these have a hard time surviving in the modern world, with the exception of the Netherlands which has the most liberal government of any nation and prides on social tolerance. Compassion and selflessness do sometimes prevail in a small country with strong allies (their parliament contains representatives from 10 parties including "Party for Freedom", "Green Left" and "Party for the Animals").*
Yes Iraq is an exercise in frustration and futility for everyone involved. It is not easy for any political movement, nor is partisanship necessarily appropriate in helping a foreign country manage its own affairs. They have a right to reject even democracy itself, but they won’t because it is the doctrine of letting people decide for themselves (just as libertarianism is "the politics of leaving people alone"). Self-respecting people can’t help but agree with it.
The Iraqi government has something however that our own government does not, and this is what struck me. Like some other foreign democracies their executive power is divided between two offices, a prime minister who conducts the logistics of running the country, and a president who provides moral leadership and guidance. In the US our president and governors only fill the logistic role. They are custodians, every single one of them, maintainers like Gov. Mark Warner who did a great deal for Virginia’s economy, but how many Virginians can repeat something notable he has said between the time he was elected and the day he left office? When people only care about doing their job, larger issues go rampant such as global warming, the spread of imperialism and the Enron scandals.
It is this knowledge that libertarianism brings to the field and will make a Libertarian candidate overcome, because all the two major parties bring to the office are political solutions. We need full leadership that engages doctrines and confronts institutions. We do not elect a prime minister but a president, one who pardons a turkey once a year, consoles us in times of crisis and gives endorsement with his very presence by visiting schools, churches and businesses, and yet he does not use this power to engage in the most important social issues. If I were commander-in-chief I would have a prototype computer designed for my personal use without the dysfunction of current PC technology, and if successful market it so anyone can have the same quality materials as the president. I would also confront hate groups in this country, which have a right to convene under the constitution but this does not prevent citizens from speaking against them through honest capitalist advertising, a national campaign. On this note I would start the first national boycotts.
Why do we found new governments overseas with cultural leadership when we have none of our own? Because Iraq is a country divided into cultural sects that do not unanimously agree on one set of laws and one man to maintain them. Greater reassurance is required to get public cooperation. We too have diverse cultures and mindsets in this country but there is such security and insulation to protect our government it is run as if culture is a non-issue. Cooperation is expected, disagreement no real threat. Although the president and governors respect that everyone in a democracy supports different choices, they don’t know the very manner in which they do their job and what they consider that responsibility to be is disputed. Much like a parent conducts their children they just proceed as if it’s the way of the world. Fighting demoralization does not require one to overstep or impose their own morals except that they demand of themselves to try, nor do the culture wars have to increase by simply acknowledging they exist and discussing those differences. Effort itself sets an example and encourages people to speak on what is most important to them.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_netherlands
Question of the Week: As a Libertarian do you believe we should mind our own business when it comes to foreign affairs or try to spread our cause abroad? Is there a middle ground? Please send your opinions to henrico@richmondliberty.org.
If you have topics of interest to Libertarians please let us know. We welcome your input.