Those who see hope in the Middle East uprisings seem to assume that they will lead in the direction of freedom or democracy. There is already talk about the “liberation” of Egypt, even though the biggest change in that country is that a one-man dictatorship has been replaced by a military dictatorship that has suspended the constitution.
Perhaps the military dictatorship will be temporary, as its leaders say, but we have heard that song before. What we have also heard, too many times before, is the assumption that getting rid of an undemocratic government means that it will be replaced by a freer and better government.
Advertisement
History suggests otherwise. After Russia’s czars were replaced by the Communists, the government executed more people in a day than the czars had executed in half a century. It was much the same story in Cuba when the Batista regime was replaced by Castro, and in Iran when the shah was replaced by the ayatollahs.
It is not inevitable that bad regimes will be replaced by worse regimes. But it has happened too often for us to blithely assume that overthrowing a dictator means a movement toward freedom and democracy.
The fact that Egyptians or others in the Middle East and elsewhere want freedom does not mean that they are ready for freedom. Everyone wants freedom for himself. Even the Nazis wanted to be free to be Nazis. They just didn’t want anybody else to be free.
There are very few signs of tolerance in the Middle East, even among fellow Muslims with different political or religious views, and all too many signs of gross intolerance toward people who are not Muslims.
Freedom and democracy cannot be simply conferred on anyone. Both have preconditions, and even nations that are free and democratic today took centuries to get there.
If there was ever a time when people in Western democracies might have been excused for thinking that Western institutions could simply be exported to other nations to create new free democracies, that time has long passed.
It is easy to export the outward symbols of democracy — constitutions, elections, parliaments, and the like — but you cannot export the centuries of experience and development that made those institutions work. All too often, exported democratic institutions have meant “one man, one vote — one time.”
We should not assume that our own freedom and democratic form of government can be taken for granted. Those who created this country did not.
As the Constitution of the United States was being written, a lady asked Benjamin Franklin what he and the other writers were creating. He replied, “A republic, madam — if you can keep it.” Generations later, Abraham Lincoln also posed the question whether “government of the people, by the people and for the people” is one that “can long endure.”
Just as there are nations that have not yet developed the preconditions for freedom and democracy, so there are some people within a nation who have not. America’s advance toward universal suffrage took place slowly and in stages.
Too many people, looking back today, see that slow progress as just being biased against some people.
But putting the fate of a nation in the hands of the illiterate masses of the past, many with no conception of the complexities of government, might have meant risking the same fate of “one man, one vote — one time.”
We have in this country I think, a misinterpretation of our own history that leads us to assume the creation of free government is merely a matter of getting rid of despotic government.
Though the Founders created the Constitutional structure in a year, it was built upon local institutions of self-government that had been in place for nearly two centuries, and a tradition of common law that had been evolving for over a thousand years.
As much as I'd like to hope the peoples of the Middle East can "secure the blessings of liberty to (them)selves and (their) posterity" I don't see the underlying structure in place.
That doesn't mean it can't be done, but it's not going to be easy or quick.
Freedom, as we know it, is a byproduct of our Jewish/Christian faith.
To quote George W. Bush:
"We have our freedom because of our faith; we do not have our faith because of our freedom."
Thomas Jefferson once said that it is folly to believe that our freedom could survive if ever removed from the minds of man that our freedom is of God. This is a principle reason for opposing the demands from the left that we completely sever our nation’s obligation to our faith.
Islam is incompatible with this structure in its present form…
The quickest way to learn the skills required for freedom is to practice it. Call it on the job training.
It's the same as raising children. Ideally there'd be a nurturing period, followed by limited responsibility accompanying limited freedom, then leaving the nest to strike out on their own. But when you have a sullen 32 year old camped in your basement and you've never let him get a job, drive the car, or do his own laundry you can pretty much toss the slow approach out the window. Kick him out. It won't be pretty, but he'll learn quicker. In this case you have a sullen 5000 year old who needs to learn to take care of himself.
You have the uncanny ability to hit the proverbial nail "on the head" regarding these issues that often lack an intelligent author to coherently address.
@Jprev40: I don't thing that's what Sowell is saying. The point is that it's unrealistic to assume this change will be for the better.
Sometimes (often, in my view) we are not faced with a good vs bad option. Both are often undesirable. And often (as here, IMO), there really isn't much we could do about it, anyway.
To me, the key is this: "limitations on government power that preserve the people’s freedom." Without that, the prospects are very dim. And as Sowell says, the jury is still out on us, as well.
While I'm in nearly total agreement with Dr. Sowell's main point, the Post WW II rehabilitation of Japan and Germany give hope. Although it is wise to recognize the unlikeliness of a freedom nourishing government springing up spontaneously when the despot du jour is deposed; rapid transitions from authoritarian regimes to more Liberal (in the classic sense) governments remains entirely possible.
I too agree with most of what Dr. Sowell said. But I am not sure what he is saying in the last two paragraphs. Is he suggesting that Obama does not have respect for the constitutional limitations on government power? And if so, how? I am not sure about those two paragraphs.
As always, Dr. Sowell is brilliant. Yet I am perplexed that he, like so many leaders, emphasizes democracy (majority rule) while quoting Franklin’s emphasis on a republic (the rule of law). Madison pointed out in Federalist 10 that America is a mixture.
On Page 464 of Ratification (2010), Pauline Maier points out that (most) Americans refer not to the US Constitution, but to the Declaration of Independence for a statement of their rights. It states “all men are created equal” and are “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights.” Governance by “their Creator” directly contradicts the Preamble to the US Constitution, which defines “we the people” and claims government of the people, by the people, and for the people. In this phrase “government” implies laws, but I wish Lincoln had clarified, for example by adding “under the rule of law.” Until Americans are literate enough to understand and commit to the Preamble, that is, accept responsibility for governance, the nation will remain weak.
I think I understand what Dr. Sowell is suggesting in the last two paragraphs, regarding POTUS.
As MIlton Friedman said, "It is important to preserve freedom only for people who are willing to practice self-denial, for otherwise freedom degenerates into license and irresponsibility."
BHO envisions a nation in which people are given everything they need, and in return, surrender their dreams, their ambitions--indeed, their very souls--to the government.
That's what freedom means to people like BHO, and a silly little thing like the constitution gets in their way. I believe that's what Dr. Sowell is getting at.
Phil Beaver makes an interesting point, but Lincoln bears a lot responsibility for the focus on the Declaration. After all, the opening words of Gettysburg Address, "Four score and seven years ago," explicitly and intentionally grounded the foundation of the Republic not in the Constitution but in the Declaration. The Constitution could thus be construed as an imperfect attempt at realizing our self-evident Rights.
In any case, people have a way of deciding for themselves when they are ready to exercise their natural rights. But as democracy does not necessarily result in a liberal society, there is no basis for assuming a priori that the interests of a democratically elected government will harmonize with our own.
The world is men amongst men. Thinking and believing that one man can provide solutions for all is ludicrous. Freedom, as I see it is a state of mind. That's why rules of laws are broken, because the mind is free. Free to think whatever whenever. It can not be stopped.
I re-read Dr. Sowell’s column and now recognize that my concern is the focus on freedom and democracy. Americans seem to celebrate freedom and democracy, neither of which America has. The Founders of 1776 were focused on liberty from England. However, the Founders of 1787, focused on unity, justice, tranquility, defense, welfare, and preservation of liberty. Instead of attributing governance to “our Creator,” they claimed it as “we the people.” We the people established and ordained laws and institutions. The States ratified what the 1787 Founders created, which was neither democracy nor freedom. We the people commit to the Preamble to the US Constitution, and others are only of the people. The people enjoy freedom as long as they do not subjugate themselves by being observed breaking the law. The people’s failure to memorize, practice, promote, and celebrate the Preamble is the reason Americans unfortunately do not celebrate justice and the American republic.
An example of what our tremendous union-backed public democratic educational system has wrought...
Q: Why are you here?
A: To get money.
Q: What kind of money?
A: Obama money.
Q: Where did it come from?
A: Obama.
Q: Where did Obama get it?
A: I don’t know…his stash…I don’t know where he got it from but he givin’ it to us. We love him, that’s why we voted for him…O-BAMA…O-BAMA!!!
"Is the mind free to believe what it sees as self-evident absurdities? To believe that 2+2=5?"
Sure it is. Based on some given rules in mathematics, we are told not to break the rules to solve numerical problems. One such rule is 2+2=4. The rule could have been as absurd as you mentioned it to be. Moreover, it does not stop the mind from freely thinking absurdly.
"If so, then what is the difference between random involuntary acts, and voluntary ones?"
Even though acts are carried out -involuntary or voluntary, we are still free to think contrary to what we are displaying. The mind remains free.
Dr Sowell perfectly pointed that freedom is ones own freedom not others. Thus, their minds remain free. Bondage, slavery, suppression are unnatural states of being human.
Do you really believe that? Assuming one understands the proposition, can you truly believe that we can think "A and not A"? If so, what do you mean by thinking?
Can you believe what you know to be untrue? If this is the case, what is the point of discussion? If there is no kind of evidence which commands belief, then is not any statement simply "true for me?" And what does that do to the proposition that "the mind remains free"?
You see, your account makes the statement "I believe X" and "X is true" identical in meaning. But someone else, who says "I disbelieve X" would also be saying "X is untrue". How do we tell who is right? Or do you say they are both right?
Perhaps I threw you off course, but try this:
What is the difference between random and voluntary thoughts? Do you distinguish between "I believe this for a reason", and "I believe this for no reason". What is the difference?
How do you distiguish between actually choosing your entree, and just flipping a coin? How is the latter "free"?
Of course, if you really believe that the laws of mathematics are just rules in the sense that driving on the right is, I'll grant your position is unassailable. Incoherent, as the rejection of reason always is, but strictly not unassailable.
I once struggled with the 2+2=5 argument, which I first encountered in Dostoyevsky’s Notes from the Underground.
It is self defeating. For example, consider two apples and two oranges, or four fruit. If you define addition as “a+b+1=c,” you get five apples and oranges plus a digit, or four fruit plus a digit. In other words, “c” must be defined to accommodate the reality of four fruit. Of course, one can consider nothing.
Cycling back to freedom and democracy, society needs justice and a republican form of government (representative rule of law).
Prior comments caused me to think of these stages in American history: 1) colonization by England substantiated by Europeans who wanted freedom from something, depending upon the individual, many of whom wanted religious freedom; 2) taxation without representation provoked a declaration of independence with a profound statement of the rights of each human in Deist terminology; 3) recognition that the Articles of Confederation were insufficient, leading to assertion of seven secular intentions by “we the people” of the States which would ratify and maintain laws and institutions, including slavery; 5) attacks on the secularity of the US Constitution by the First Congress, for example, purging the right to conscience from the first ten amendments; 6) election of an abolitionist President who moreover swore to defend the Constitution and freed slaves only in the Confederate States; 7) continual attacks on America’s secularity by fervent Christian groups, initially Protestants, but joined by Catholics in 1954 when “under God,” was added to the pledge of allegiance; and 8) today’s confrontation with the hypocrisy of “freedom of religion.” (Attend a David Vitter town meeting to experience tyranny of the Louisiana majority.) America is not old by the world’s standards, and it is not too late for Americans to awake to the hope the Preamble to the US Constitution offers the nation and the world. We the people must elect leaders who will stop all slogans and symbols that detract from the peoples’ sense of responsibility and accountability for governance: freedom and democracy won’t cut it, but commitment to the Preamble and a democratic republic might.
OK, so if we have all the alleged pre-conditions for democracy and yet we still elected Obama, who does not respect the constitutional limits on goverment power, isn't the argument weakened quite a bit?
The point of democracy is not that the masses are perfect. The point is to shrink the size of the group against which government can be used simply as a club. In any system in which the government is controlled by a minority, a majority of people are servants of the government(if not targets!) rather than masters. In a democracy however abusive at least that group is no more than 50%. Then you add minority protections.
Yes, under a democracy you sometimes get one man, one vote, one time, but that's one more than one dictator, one vote, every time.
