Home - Politics - The modern right - The right and freedom


 


In memory of Ronald Reagan, 1911-2004.
The man who won the Cold War for the free world.
The man who destroyed communism.
The man to whom we owe our freedom.



The U.S. military

Europe and America

Bushisms

 

The right and freedom

As I explain here and here, I am a libertarian or a classic (18th century) liberal. I agree with liberals on things like domestic civil liberties, free speech, free private life, freedom of sexuality and freedom of religion (and freedom from religion).

But I agree with conservatives on things like the economy, crime and foreign policy.

Liberals lead to freedom at home, but are disastrous abroad. Only conservatives understand how the world as a whole works - that the world is full of folly and brutality, that the west is imperfect but the best there is, that it must now and always be defended against its enemies.


The right has the best record on freedom

Having destroyed the Nazis, Mussolini, Imperial Japan, the Soviets, Milosevic, the Taliban and Saddam, America and its "right-wing" supporters are, it seems to me, the greatest defenders of freedom in practice in this world. Conservatives defended our world against Nazi and Soviet tyranny. And now conservatives are defending us against Islamic fascist tyranny. Every liberal should support them.

I do not deny that the defence of the west has involved crimes, the worst of these by far being the bombing of civilians in WW2, and the collaboration with Russia in WW2. But the fundamental points remain, that the left will not support, that: (a) the west is the best part of planet earth - everywhere else is worse, and: (b) the west does need to be strongly defended.



SR-71 Blackbird strategic reconnaissance aircraft.
Public domain image from here. More here.
See full size.




The Past - The defence of the west has involved crimes

I agree that crimes have been committed in the defence of the west, notably:


My idea of an ethical foreign policy is to only ever be allies with free countries. But I do have sympathy for the politicians, who are often faced with horrible choices. I accept that to defend the west without any alliances with unfree regimes often seems impossible. Unfree regimes (notably Pakistan and Kuwait) were essential to the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, for example. Should their help have been rejected? I accept that it is easier to be an idealist than a politician.




Worse than Pinochet, El Salvador, Saddam, the Afghan Mujahideen, Suharto, Marcos, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.
This is the worst example of realpolitik in the history of the West - the alliance with the Soviets in WW2.
US government poster, 1942. Public domain image from here.




The Present - Western foreign policy is still flawed

American foreign policy is still today often in conflict with American values of democracy and freedom.

Not its support of the democracy of Israel, which is perfectly right and proper.

Rather its support of unfree states like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan, that share no common values with the west, and where human rights do not exist. These regimes should be dumped by the US at the earliest possible opportunity.



How to criticise policy while still being pro-West:

  1. Ralph Peters shows how to criticise policy while still being pro-West:

  2. Michael Ledeen also does a good line in scepticism and caution. He is gung-ho in favour of the war on Islamism, but worries that we are not serious enough.

  3. Cox and Forkum blog also does a good line in scepticism, and thinks the US has not got remotely serious enough with Islamist and communist states. They also refuse to be happy with Iraq and Afghanistan until these countries become free societies.

  4. Capitalism magazine also shows how to criticise the Bush administration while still remaining clearly onside and pro-War-on-Islamism. Indeed, they criticise the Bush administration for caring too much what Europe and the UN think.


What Democracy Is

The main debate on the right, among the pro-West critics above, is whether it is acceptable if regime change leads to simply a leader chosen by the majority (the narrow definition of "democracy"), or leads to an actual free society (the broader definition of "democracy").


Everyone should still support America

Despite the above issues, America, the oldest democracy in the world, is the country in the world best suited to hold power, and every lover of freedom should support America at a time like this.



Name the country that has done more good than America

It is true that America has committed crimes, but can you name any country in world history that has done more good than America? I cannot.



The Statue of Liberty, for generations a beacon of hope to the oppressed peoples of the world, that here, at last, was a land where they could be free.
Photo by Bjorn Ruwald, 2004. See terms of use. From here.




The world's oldest (and best) democracies




"To Kill An American". America is not a place. It is an idea.
This is why non-Americans like me can get so excited about it. Whereas so many countries represent some ethnic or tribal identity, which leaves non-members utterly cold.
Where this excellent short video perhaps goes wrong is in failing to understand that those who want to kill Americans (such as fascists, communists and Islamists) know precisely that America is an idea, and they hate that idea. Islamists, for example, absolutely hate the idea of freedom of religion.
Hosted at Metacafe.





Europe and America (separate page)




Tony Blair's address to Congress after the Iraq War, July 2003, on why America has the thankless task of saving the world (and why everybody else in the West should support them):

"And in some small corner of this vast country, out in Nevada or Idaho or these places I've never been to but always wanted to go - I know out there, there's a guy getting on with his life, perfectly happily, minding his own business, saying to you, the political leaders of this country, "Why me, and why us, and why America?" And the only answer is because destiny put you in this place in history in this moment in time, and the task is yours to do. And our job - my nation, that watched you grow, that you fought alongside and now fights alongside you, that takes enormous pride in our alliance and great affection in our common bond - our job is to be there with you."

See also Tony Blair's speech at Sedgefield, Mar 2004, on the central dilemma of 9/11 - whether to take action on possible threats, or wait until we are attacked again. We as pundits have the luxury of playing each side. The lonely prime minister, however, has to decide.



Return to The modern right.



Feedback: Comment on this page

About feedback

  1. Enter URL:

  2. Select one:
    This URL doesn't reference your site. It's just something you should see.
    This URL references your site.

  3. This image contains a password:
    Enter password (this is to confirm you are not a spam program):