I’ve been going through the online course offered by
Hillsdale College called Public Policy
from a Constitutional Viewpoint. Last week was week six. The lecture, given
by Will Morrisey, professor emeritus of politics at Hillsdale, was on “Terrorism
and Foreign Policy.”
Professor Will Morrisey screen shot |
What caught my attention was how he defined terrorism, using
the concepts of tyranny and civilization. There are three interrelated ideas:
political freedom versus tyranny, economic freedom versus coerced or controlled
economy, and civilization versus savagery. That sounds like we’re describing
the Spherical Model.
The half-hour lecture is coherent, so it’s hard to pull out
quotes without missing some of the flow of the argument (which is why I spent
the day transcribing the whole thing, as a starting point, just to make sure I
didn’t miss anything). So I recommend the entirety. [It may require signing up for the class in
order to view, but there is no fee.]
Here’s a key: as it says in the Declaration of Independence,
“all men are created equal,” and “they are endowed by their creator with
certain unalienable rights”: “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Morrisey uses the word regime
to mean, “the most authoritative form of ruling in a political community.” He calls
the type of regime we have in America a democratic republic—democratic because it is not based on
any right by birth to rule, but all citizens are equal; republic because, rather than directly ruling ourselves, we elect
representatives. He also calls us a commercial
republic, a term I hadn’t heard before:
In addition to being a Democratic Republic, we’re also a
Commercial Republic. And on the same natural rights foundation. Commerce, or
trade, is the practice of self-government in the realm of economic life.
Commerce and trade operate by persuasion, not command and coercion. In both our
political life and our political economy, Americans rule themselves by consent.
Consent isn’t mere assent, or acquiescence. Consent means
reasoned assent. Whether it comes to selecting a congressman or buying a house,
either way we’re comparing and contrasting; we’re thinking about the choice
we’re about to make.
A regime consisting of a tyrant or of an oligarchy,
commanding a military and a secret police, enforcing edicts on who is to rule
us and on what we buy and sell, with most of the profits going to the tyrant or
the oligarchs, would leave a people with very different habits of mind and
heart than a people that had established a democratic and commercial Republic.
To live in a tyranny or an oligarchy is to have a different
mental and moral environment. And the founders of tyrannical and oligarchical
regimes know that.
Both political and economic freedom require consent, as
opposed to coercion. This is background to the “what is terrorism” question.
Here’s the simple definition:
Terrorism is savagery
deployed as a technique by rulers or would-be rulers.
He adds more detail later, in describing the definition that
has been with us since the Declaration of Independence.
Terrorism, a form of
warfare and of ruling that refuses to distinguish ages, sexes, and conditions,
aims at ruling not by reason, but by fear. Terrorists attack civilians. This
is true of terrorist organizations that don’t control territory—the old Irish
Republican Army, Al-Qaeda, for example—and those that do control territory, and
indeed control sovereign states—the Nazis in Germany, the Communist Party in
the Soviet Union, the Maoists in China.
But more than that, terrorism is anti-civilian in a much
deeper sense; terrorism attacks civility
itself, the habits of self-government by reasons persuasion. It seeks
command with no backtalk. And it does so because, whether it’s deployed against
civilians and against civility, by the Nazis and Communists of yesterday, or
the jihadis of today, it denies the principle of the American founding that
“all men are created equal.”
Alternatively, it may deny that all those we call men are
really men, really human at all.
His definition is broader than I would have used. I would
have called the Nazi and Soviet regimes unjust wars, but their attempt at
gaining territory was mostly military. However, where they purposely targeted
civilians, including people living in their own countries, Morrisey and I agree
on definition.
So, terrorism, committed by either a state or a group, is a
war crime; it attacks all ages, sexes, and conditions. It is savage, not
civilized. It intends to rule, not according to the will of the people, but by
coercion. It intends to impose and enforce tyranny, both political and economic
tyranny.
He notes that those who claim “one man’s terrorist is
another man’s freedom fighter” are usually Americans—and they are Americans who
fail to remember what their regime is: a way of protecting life, liberty, and
property. More than that, terrorists who claim to be freedom fighters or
soldiers of God are nevertheless terrorists if they fail to value life—and fail,
even to view all humans as human.
He tells this story from shortly after 9/11.
An Arab television station aired a film in which a
three-year-old girl was asked, “What are the Jews?” “The Jews,” she answered
dutifully, “are apes and pigs.”
Such a catechism of contempt flows from the rejection of
natural right. It forms habits of mind and heart consistent with the regime of
tyranny. Tyranny enshrines not the natural rights to life, but the right to
kill.
The Islamic version of terrorism is new, but tyranny—and its
refusal to value all lives as equally human—has been around all along.
Either you value all lives equally, or you don’t. In America
we do. One example Morrisey shares is about the natives of the continent:
When fighting the American Indian nations during and after
the Revolutionary War, George Washington and the other founders distinguished
between what they understood as the savage nations and the civilized ones. For
example, they referred to the Cherokee Nation, the Chickasaws, the Choctaws,
the Creek, and Seminole Nations as the five civilized tribes. Civilized Indian
nations that were not allied with the British Empire against us were not the
enemy. Some of them even fought on our side.
The early Americans settled land for these civilized tribes,
gave them farming implements, and intended to live peaceably together. Morrisey
acknowledged, later in the lecture, that there were unfortunately times the
nation failed to follow its own policies, as in the Trail of Tears. It isn’t,
of course, a matter of race the determines who is savage, but the behavior.
Early on, during Thomas Jefferson’s presidency, he faced,
not terrorism, but piracy, sponsored by the Muslim states of Morroco, Algiers,
and Tripoli. Jefferson was no isolationist when it came to keeping our trade
lanes clear.
But Jefferson fought, not all Muslims, but those whose
savage behavior was intended to ruin the democratic and commercial republic
that was the fledgling United States of America.
While there were very few Muslims in America early on, we
can see how the founders treated various religions in general.
There were few if any Muslims in the United States in the
1790s when he was president. But we do know the way Washington thought about
religious congregations generally. Among his first acts as president were his
letters to the major American religious congregations, his own Episcopalians,
but also Presbyterians, Methodists, Catholics, Quakers, and perhaps most
importantly Jewish congregations in Newport, Rhode Island.
Although European regimes had reestablished one or several
types of Christianity as politically privileged, Washington’s America was
having none of that. The government of the United States, he told all of them,
“welcomes members of any religious confession insofar as they conduct
themselves as good citizens of the United States.” [from “Letter to the Hebrew
Congregation,” August 18, 1790]
Although many American protestants had looked with asperity
at Catholics, and peoples around the world had persecuted Jews, Washington and
the other founders cared only that citizens act like citizens, obeying the laws
respecting the civil and natural rights of their fellow citizens. “No set of
religious practices consistent with American constitutional law will be grounds
for denial of civil rights by the American federal government.”
The simple way was the best way—don’t judge the religious
people on their beliefs, but look at whether they live as good citizens. They
need to support our laws, and value and respect the natural rights of their
fellow citizens.
The lecture was, on the whole, about developing policy, so
it ends with this:
Any American foreign policy must first understand what
America is, what we stand for. Confusion on that basic point can only yield
confused policy.
After clarifying who we are, the next priority for American
citizens who think about our foreign policy must be to identify the primary
enemies of our regime and rank them in order of danger…. In dealing with the
terrorists we must take care not to exhaust ourselves, leaving our country
vulnerable to more formidable powers.
The third and last priority is the strategic one. Setting a
strategy, choosing allies, calibrating diplomatic, economic, and military
actions to weaken and eventually defeat the terrorists. No simple rule can
guide us in that strategy, because it’s a matter of practical judgment on the
spot.
In such judgments we should take care to guard our
sovereignty, our self-government, by recurring to the principles of the
Declaration of Independence, which can and should both animate our actions and
restrain.
So, to summarize, we need to have confidence in who we are:
the people who believe in freedom, free enterprise, and civilization—because we
have God-given rights to life, liberty, and property. We live in peace with
those who believe those same things. Those who want to impose some other regime
on us must be resisted to the fullest extent.
No comments:
Post a Comment