Bush is invoking the economic freedom of the economic liberty myth together with the political freedom of the free-market freedom theory.
Here is Colin Powell, speaking at the Heritage Foundation on December 12, 2002, building support for the invasion of Iraq and proposing a “U.S.–Middle East Partnership Initiative.”
The spread of democracy and free markets, fueled by the wonders of the technological revolution, has created a dynamo that can generate prosperity and human well-being on an unprecedented scale. But this revolution has largely left the Middle East behind … Internally, many economies are stifled by regulation and cronyism. They lack transparency and are closed to entrepreneurship, investment, and trade … Combined with rigid political systems, it is a dangerous brew indeed. Along with freer economies, many of the peoples of the Middle East need a stronger political voice. We reject the condescending notion that freedom will not grow in the Middle East or that there is any region of the world that cannot support democracy … Given a choice between tyranny and freedom, people choose freedom …
Our initiative rests on three pillars. We will engage with public and private-sector groups to bridge the jobs gap with economic reform, business investment, and private-sector development. We will partner with community leaders to close the freedom gap with projects to strengthen civil society, expand political participation, and lift the voices of women. And we will work with parents and educators to bridge the knowledge gap with better schools and more opportunities for higher education.
Ladies and gentlemen, hope begins with a paycheck … we will work with governments to establish economic rules and regulations that will attract foreign investment and allow the private sector to flourish.
Powell is presenting classic free-market freedom: Strict father economics leads to democracy.
Free-market freedom explains the attitude of the Bush administration toward recent political developments in Venezuela, Bolivia, Brazil, and Chile, where leaders have been elected who openly oppose laissez-faire free markets as not benefiting large impoverished segments of their populations. As you might expect, the Bush administration does not see these democratically elected governments in a positive light. Rather, it sees these changes as movements away from freedom and democracy, movements that threaten freedom—that is, free-market freedom—in the world.
But beyond free-market freedom, there is an even stronger neoconservative vision. We can see this in the Bush administration’s inaccurate predictions about the Iraq War, predictions born of ideology, not evidence.
Why did the neoconservatives predict that simply toppling Saddam would bring democracy? Why did they think that American troops would be greeted with rose petals? Why did they stage Bush’s now-embarrassing “Mission Accomplished” landing on the aircraft carrier as the troops marched into Baghdad?
General Eric Shinseki had estimated that several hundred thousand American troops would be necessary to bring order to Iraq. Donald Rumsfeld overruled him—and fired him as head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—sending only one-fourth to one-third as many troops. Shinseki was right. Why was Rumsfeld so wrong?
Reasoning within the strict father model leads to a preference for thinking in terms of direct causation, not systemic causation. Direct causal reasoning says you free a country by removing the tyrant. That all that’s necessary: simple direct causation. “Regime change” is all that’s needed. The troops march in, the statue of Saddam comes down, and it’s all over. The fall of one person will automatically lead to freedom, democracy, an ordered civil society, and economic prosperity.
In addition, there was a second, implicit neoconservative theory of democracy—a natural accompaniment to free-market freedom. Let’s call it self-interest democracy. If it sounds familiar, it should. Radical conservatives see big government as tyranny, and they view the removal of tyrants as similar to shrinking big government and drowning it in a bathtub. Here is self-interest democracy:
Everyone is, and should be, motivated primarily by self-interest.
If everyone is free to pursue his or her self-interest, then the interests of all will be maximized, as a law of nature, by the invisible hand.
Democracy is the system of government that permits this.
Tyranny keeps people from pursuing their own interests; the tyrant’s interests prevail.
All you have to do is remove the tyrant, and democracy is inevitable. Just as all you have to do is shrink government—eliminate regulation, taxes, class action suits, and social programs—and economic prosperity will prevail.
You don’t need several hundred thousand troops. One-quarter of that was enough to remove Saddam. After that, everything should have been hunky-dory, if not right away, then not long afterward.
The idea of self-interest democracy makes some sense of Donald Rumsfeld’s classic comment on the lawlessness, chaos, and looting that accompanied the “liberation” of Iraq: “Stuff happens, and it’s untidy, and freedom’s untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things.” Freedom from the tyrant produces an immediate stew of self-interest, including looting and lawbreaking, but when it settles down—to self-interest driven by discipline—democracy will prevail.
Perhaps not enough time has passed, but so far the predictions have not been met. What has gone wrong?
On the whole, strict father reasoning has failed.
First, direct causation failed. Iraq is a very complex system: twenty-five million people, three major religious and ethnic divisions, hatreds and blood feuds for generations, a history of violence, and no experience of democracy. The country was cobbled together by the British from remnants of the Ottoman Empire. It never had a national identity. Systemic causation prevails. Saddam’s brutality was holding the country together. When that was removed, all hell broke loose—the old religious and ethnic hatreds were realized in violence, and without several hundred thousand troops, there could be no order.
Second, self-interest democracy makes the mistake of essentialism: It assumes everyone is the same and by nature motivated primarily by self-interest. One of the many problems with this assumption is that it does not take into account the existence of suicide bombers, who operate not from self-interest but from love for and utter devotion to God, as well as vengeance against an enemy that has, in their view, humiliated their culture and their faith.
Third, free-market freedom ignores the use of the common wealth for the common good through the building of the infrastructure. Iraq had virtually no functioning infrastructure. Saddam put his money elsewhere, allowing what there was to fall into disrepair, and between American bombing attacks and more than a decade of embargoes, the rest was destroyed and not replaced. So-called free markets cannot function without such infrastructure: roads, bridges, transportation systems, electric lines, communication systems, hospitals, sewage systems, a police force, and industrial infrastructure like functioning oil refineries. Three years after the invasion and occupation, two basics of common wealth infrastructure still have not been established: electricity and security.
Free-market freedom also requires jobs. No electricity, no security, no jobs! And the most lucrative rebuilding contracts went to American corporations like Halliburton. Partly for fear of sabotage and partly for the maximization of American corporate profits, jobs are being outsourced to Americans—not because Americans are paid less, but because Americans are paid more.
RELIGION AND FOREIGN POLICY
For President Bush, fundamentalist Christianity ultimately supports a moral foreign policy and economic policy:
A religion that demands individual moral accountability, and encourages the encounter of the individual with God, is fully compatible with the rights and responsibilities of self-government.
—speech presented at the twentieth anniversary
of the National Endowment for Democracy,
November 6, 2003
Individual moral accountability is what is demanded of the child in
the strict father family and by God in fundamentalist religion. Individual responsibility is the moral touchstone of right-wing politics. And it is the basis of strict father economics, in which government should provide nothing for the individual, who is on his own and completely responsible for himself, requiring no support from community or country. Free-market freedom leads inevitably to democracy and to right-wing “freedoms” in all domains of life. Religion, economics, family values, and foreign policy are one. Human rights in other countries—which the United States all too often has authority to impose—are taken to include unrestricted free markets, free trade, and the freedom of fundamentalist Christians to practice and proselytize, to be free to speak their “truth.”
Accordingly, Christian missionaries are seen as exercising a “human right” when they attempt to convert indigenous people to Christianity, and any restrictions on missionaries are seen as “antidemocratic” and an affront to human rights. Accordingly, it is taken as appropriate that fundamentalist Christian beliefs guide important aspects of American foreign policy. One of George Bush’s first acts in office was to stop American aid to all reproductive health clinics that performed abortions or even counseled women on how to obtain safe abortions. The Bush administration agrees with the pope: The essence of woman is to bear children. Family planning and reproductive health clinics should therefore not be part of American foreign policy.
But this is the least of the commonality between fundamentalist religion and Bush’s foreign policy. Evangelical fundamentalism is about spreading the “good news,” about being a missionary and having a mission. That religious mission is about freedom, as we saw in Chapter 10: how to become free of sin and free of hell and suffering for all eternity. Strict father Christianity is the answer. First, take Jesus as Savior, and have all your previous sins washed away. Second, follow God’s commandments, following the path of Jesus, and you will be saved from eternal suffering in hell. Third, it is your mission to pass the word on.
Bush has a mission as well: to spread the radical conservative version of freedom and democracy, and its foundation, strict father morality, which is identical to the foundation of fundamentalist religion. The fundamentalist mission fits the neoconservative mission. Bush, as a thoroughgoing radical conservative—fundamentalist and neoconservative—has two missions at once. Both concern the spread of “freedom.”
THE NATIONAL INTEREST
In our discussion of the nation-as-person metaphor, we saw that just as it is in the interest of a person to be strong, healthy, and influential, so it is in the national interest for the nation as a whole to be militarily strong, economically healthy, and politically influential. That is what the national interest is about—not about individual people, who may be impoverished, in debt, disabled, aged, uneducated, sick, or discriminated against. If the GDP and the stock market are up, the military is strong, and the country can intimidate other nations and twist arms around the world, the national interest is served.
THE DEMOCRATIC IDEAL
From the time America broke free of England in the American Revolution, freedom has been a centerpiece in American foreign policy. The goals have been what we will call the democratic ideal:
To protect our domestic freedoms
To extend those freedoms to other nations
Besides defending our freedoms from foreign conquest, it became a goal of our foreign policy to be a “beacon of freedom to the world,” to be a “shining City on a Hill”—an example to the world of the possibilities of a free society.
All too often our national interest has been at odds with our freedom-loving ideals. We supported dictatorships when they served our national interest. We even supported Saddam Hussein once as a buffer against Iran, and we now support Saudi Arabia.
For this reason, it was notable when George W. Bush, defending his Iraq War policy, said in his second inaugural address, “America’s vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one.” He might have meant, “We pursue our national interest independent of our democratic ideals, but in Iraq they happen to coincide.” But I think his remark had a deeper meaning.
In strict father morality, pursuing self-interest is being moral.
In the democratic ideal, being moral (“our deepest beliefs”) is bringing about freedom and democracy (via free-market freedom).
Suppose we pursue the following foreign policy (Neoconservatism):
Build up and use our military strength (military self-interest)
to impose free-market freedom (economic self-interest),
thus creating a democracy and a democratic ally (political self-interest).
In this foreign policy, pursuing the national interest is achieving the democratic ideal. This is the Bush Middle East policy and the neoconservative rationale behind the Iraq War.
To repeat, “America’s vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one.” The line takes on a new meaning: America’s foreign policy, as exemplified in the Iraq War, is at once supremely moral and pragmatic. The plan was this: American geopolitical interests in Iraq—oil, military supremacy in the region, Israeli security, and political leverage—were to be pursued by using our military to impose a free-market democracy in Iraq, a system that is essentially moral, embracing freedom both in Iraq and in the homeland, now protected from terrorists. It’s idealistic: Iraq is free and democratic, we remain free and protected, Israel is protected. And it’s self-interest: We control the oil, we are the supreme military power in the region, and we have political leverage. “America’s vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one.”
The plan was drawn up long before September 11, 2001.
THE PROJECT FOR A NEW
AMERICAN CENTURY
George W. Bush’s foreign policy was designed before he took office and was described in a document issued on June 3, 1997, by a group called the Project for a New American Century. The signers included a number of the most influential guides to foreign policy in the later Bush administration: Dick Cheney, I. Lewis Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz, as well as the president’s brother Jeb Bush and the president’s father’s vice president, Dan Quayle. The signers also included many of the right wing’s leading intellectuals—William J. Bennett, Midge Decter, Francis Fukuyama, Donald Kagan, and Norman Podhoretz—as well such power brokers as Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer, and Steve Forbes. The statement of principles included the following:
If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.
Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:
we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
we need to accept responsibility for America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
In 1998, PNAC wrote and published an open letter to President Clinton proposing an invasion of Iraq. This was to become the basis of the Bush foreign policy and the framework for Bush’s claim to be promoting freedom in the world.
The strict father must at all times maintain his moral authority and make sure it is not challenged by unruly children. As soon as the children get out of hand, he must use preemptive force to keep them in line. He has a unique responsibility to teach them right from wrong, to get them to internalize the principles of what’s right and what’s wrong. If he teaches them correctly, then he can depend upon their kn
owledge and their discipline to be sure they do what is right and not what is wrong, so that they can be prosperous and free.
As the strict father is leader in the family, so the president is leader of the country, and America is leader of the world. Being the “leader” means that he (1) is the moral authority who knows right from wrong, is inherently good, and can be trusted to do what is right; (2) has, and must use, great power to do right; (3) is responsible for protecting us from evildoers and may have to use preemptive force; (4) has the authority to do whatever is necessary; (5) requires obedience from followers (who he is protecting); (6) may have to fight fire with fire as part of protection; (7) pursues his self-interest, which is in the interest of everyone; and (8) serves the prosperity and freedom of all. Strict father morality maps directly onto PNAC principles, which describe the Bush foreign policy.
PROGRESSIVE VERSUS CONSERVATIVE
FOREIGN POLICY
We can now understand radical conservatives’ views on a wide range of diverse foreign policy issues. Radical conservatives look down on the UN, don’t accept the authority of the World Court, and see international organizations as impinging on American sovereignty, our essential goodness. They approve of preemptive war. They want free trade without environmental, labor, or social regulations, and with maximal privatization. They view war and the dangerous expansion of executive power as appropriate responses to terrorism. They want to maintain a world oil economy and are against introducing environmental regulations into world affairs.
Whose Freedom?: The Battle over America's Most Important Idea Page 20