Beware the low blood-sugar levels of pundits

Michael Gerson, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote this column for Newsweek magazine titled The View From the Top. I suggest you read the entire column. But here are some highlights.

First, Gerson takes on the issue of Iran's nuclear program:

Behind all the chaos and death in Lebanon and northern Israel, Iran is the main cause of worry in the West Wing—the crisis with the highest stakes. Its government shows every sign of grand regional ambitions, pulling together an anti-American alliance composed of Syria, terrorist groups like Hizbullah and Hamas, and proxies in Iraq and Afghanistan. And despite other disagreements, all the factions in Iran—conservative, ultraconservative and "let's usher in the apocalypse" fanatics—seem united in a nuclear nationalism.

Some commentators say that America is too exhausted to confront this threat. But presidential decisions on national security are not primarily made by the divination of public sentiments; they are made by the determination of national interests. And the low blood-sugar level of pundits counts not at all. Here the choice is not easy, but it is simple: can America (and other nations) accept a nuclear Iran?

In foreign-policy circles, it is sometimes claimed that past nuclear proliferation—say, to India or Pakistan—has been less destabilizing than predicted. In the case of Iran, this is wishful thinking. A nuclear Iran would mean a nuclear Middle East, as traditional rivals like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey feel pressured to join the club, giving every regional conflict nuclear overtones. A nuclear Iran would also give terrorist groups something they have previously lacked and desperately want: a great-power sponsor. Over time, this is the surest way to put catastrophic technology into the hands of a murderous few. All options have dangers and drawbacks. But inaction might bring the harshest verdict of history: they knew much, and they did nothing.

Gerson also argues for democracy in the Arab-Islamic world:

A second point: the promotion of democracy in the Middle East is messy, difficult, but no one has a better idea.

There is no question that democratic societies are more likely to respect human rights, less susceptible to ideological extremism, more respectful of neighboring countries, more easily trusted with nuclear technology.

Yet the democracy agenda is under heavy questioning. Some critics—who might be called soft realists—concede the spread of democracy is desirable. It is just not possible. They argue that democratic governments require democratic cultures, which develop over centuries, and have never developed at all in the Arab Middle East.

Realism, however, is not always identical to pessimism. Arab societies, in fact, have strong traditions of private association, private property and a contractual relationship between ruler and ruled. It is not realism to ignore unprecedented elections in Afghanistan and Iraq and serious reforms elsewhere. The past half century has shown that the cultural obstacles to democracy are less formidable than many predicted, from Roman Catholic Southern Europe to Orthodox Eastern Europe to Confucian Asia. Our times provide strong evidence that liberty improves life and that people in many cultures eventually prefer liberty to slavery. And Americans, of all people, should not be surprised or embarrassed when our deepest beliefs turn out to be true.

Other critics of the democracy agenda—what might be called hard realists—think democracy in the Middle East may be possible, but it is not desirable because elections are likely to bring anti-American radicals like Hamas to power.

It is certainly true that democracy means more than voting. Successful democracies eventually require the rule of law, the protection of minorities, the defeat of corruption, a free press, religious liberty and open economies. Any democracy agenda worthy of the name will promote all these things.

Gerson is right to point out the fact that cultures change over time. He mentions Southern and Eastern Europe along with East Asia. But the American South is another excellent example of a culture of slavery and stagnation transforming itself into a culture of freedom and prosperity.

Since we are all searching for a proper historical parallel for the current war against Islamo-fascism, we should compare the situation today in Iraq with the American South following the American Civil War. From 1865 to 1900, the American North entangled itself with Southern politics in ways similar to how the entire United States is trying to influence Iraq. Then it was a hardheaded group of Southern Whites who, having previously ruled over Black slaves, were defeated in war but would not accept anything less than a return to White Supremacy. Today it is the Sunni Arab Muslims who reject a modern Iraq run by the newly liberated Shia. Just as Islamic radicals reject modern Western society as decadent and declining, a Georgia newspaper printed the following prior to the Civil War: "Free Society! we sicken at the name. What is it but a conglomeration of greasy mechanics, filthy operatives, small-fisted farmers, and moon-struck theorists?"

What happened in the American South after the war? As in Iraq, it was a war of attrition and the old-line attitudes of the South won, for a time. The KKK, a terrorist organization, intimidated Blacks and liberal northerners during election contests. The North, when in control over the federal levers of power, investigated and convicted the domestic terrorists. But by 1900 the North had "redeployed" (to use Representative Murtha's phrasing) out of the South. In the election of 1900 not a single Black was elected to the US Congress. This wasn't due to gerrymandering. Instead it was due to the effective intimidation of Black voters and ballot stuffing. It wasn't until the 1965 voting rights act when Blacks all over the south could vote without putting their lives at risk.

But today's American South leads the nation in elected Black officials and competes with the West having the fastest economic and population growth. Looking at history, it seems obvious that cultures change over time in response to events. Our goal in the Arab world isn't to perform miricles, but to shape events to our advantage and to the advantage of Arabs who will make good use of freedom.