Posted by
Nerdus Maximus on Thursday, July 27, 2006 9:24:57 PM
Jed Babbin, talking
about a John Podhoretz article on the Bill Bennett show, posed an
interesting question. He asked if liberal democracies are too
nice to win a war because they are so concerned about the accidental
killing of noncombatants. The issue is illustrated by a cartoon
showing a boxing referee giving a boxer labeled "USA" a long list of
rules and then telling one labeled "Al Queda" that he can do anything
he wants. The self-imposed rules of a civilized society do get in
the way of dealing with those who don't follow the same rules.
Will liberal democracies eventually find a way to win? This is
where Maslow comes in.
Abraham Maslow, and most other developmental
psychologists, sees human development as happening in a hierarchy where
the individual can move on to a higher level only when the requirements
of all levels below it have been met. Someone who is constantly
physically hungry is unlikely to create a musical masterpiece.
The inherent drive to achieve these higher levels is what motivates the
individual to overcome the challenges at the lower levels. This
may work with societies as well.
The existence of liberal
democracies shows that people want to make real progress (not the kind
people who call themselves "Progressives" want). Progressing to a
higher level is why liberal democracies are more concerned about
noncombatant deaths than the Islamists who are stuck in the 14th
century (A.D or B.C. doesn't matter as they were pretty much the same
in either century). But as long as the lower level they
represent exits, mankind will only be able to progress so
far. That these 14th century barbarians have most of the
arsenal of the 20th century increases the pain, and hopefully the
motivation to deal with them. The liberal democracies have gotten
too far ahead and can move no further until the parts of the world
stuck in the 14th century are moved ahead.
Many liberals scoff at
President Bush's expressed belief that all people long to, and are
capable of, living in freedom. They think his willingness to
fight the violence of the barbarians with violence is a contradiction
to his call for raising all people to the dignity of freedom.
"Progressives" hate him for his "backwards" ways. They couldn't
be more wrong. One of the reasons that America moved ahead of
Europe in democracy is that it was largely freed from the bonds of the
past that hindered movement to the universally desired goal of
freedom. Only when the 14th century is fully expunged from the
Middle East, from sub-Saharan Africa and from China can any
people move ahead. Those who have progressed most will find a way
to set these people free. Their idealistic motivation will be the
good of the newly liberated, but there is an alignment with
self-interest as well. Their own desire to move ahead will be
thwarted until those in bondage to barbarians are freed to move with
them.