A Necessary Wart

From Iraq to Afghanistan, Will History See It Any Differently?

Victorious English general Oliver Cromwell, Britain's Lord Protector, leader of the New Model Army and victor in England's Civil War once told a portrait painter, who assumed he would be covering over anything unsightly, to paint him "warts and all." And so Cromwell has come down through the years full of warts - physical imperfections, yes, but also more long-lasting ugliness: brutal treatment of Ireland, unforgiven by the Irish still; the execution of a king (who, as monarchs of the time go, wasn't so bad); and an oppressive Puritan reign. No dancing, no colorful art, no fun.

Fast forward to our place and time, we find an American leader faced with a decision regarding Afghanistan. President Obama had promised to get the troops out of Mr. Bush’s war in Iraq, and send them to Afghanistan where we join other NATO forces in fighting one of the unquestionable evil forces in the world, the Taliban. Of course, Mr. Bush sent our troops to topple another unquestionably evil force, Saddam Hussein. Which they did. All that got the then-president was about a 26 percent approval rating and a legacy-loss for John McCain in 2008.

The current presidential portrait of Barack Obama is a pretty one. Some luster has come off the President's image by way of a nasty health care debate, but forces seem to be rallying toward some sort of health care reform. But for Americans, war tends to un-do presidencies. President Johnson had his Great Society social programs unravel at the feet of Vietnam. President Carter was done in by a failed military mission over Iran. The senior President Bush’s successful campaign leading an international coalition to oust Saddam Hussein’s forces from Kuwait left him with soaring popularity ratings, but the glory was too short-lived for a second term. The junior Bush’s adventurism in Iraq turned into a long-lasting insurgency; Iraq is a foreign policy wart that will endure for a long time.

Even as Obama acknowledges his Nobel Peace Prize, he is pursuing what he calls "a necessary war." Which is to say, a necessary wart. Losing American lives in the faraway Hindu Kush, over a long struggle, with little chance of a democratic Afghanistan, will not be what wins a second term for Obama. How can he minimize the blemish? He can keep NATO involved to take some of the heat, and win some big ones at home - on health care; on energy; and on economic recovery - using his domestic victories to mask the wart that will be Afghanistan.

What if the world is too complicated for democracy?

Could 2009 be the beginning of the post-democracy era, complements of the current financial crisis?

Francis Fukayama once declared the "end of history," to wit, that the Great Questions of History have been answered, and that the consensus was that the best course for mankind was economic capitalism combined with a democratic government. There would be no more need for conflict; the case was closed in favor of modern Western values. The winning model included human rights, free and fair elections, and free markets.

Then came 9-11, which left no doubt that conflict remains, and that the consensus was not so consensual. There are people who object to modern notions of economics and government, and some become violent.

Asia would seem to be a case study proving that capitalism and democracy don’t need each other. Post-World War II Japan was democratic on paper, but a one-party state in reality. South Korea and Singapore followed suit. All three became wealthy. President Lee, the former leader of Singapore said that personal freedoms, which we value as key to our democracy, will lead to the downfall of the US. Such freedom unleashes individualism, which leads to decadence and instability. Meanwhile "soft authoritarian" countries on the Pacific Rim are sporting growing economies; their price is personal freedom, which Confucian societies value less than conformity and stability. China is following the same lead as the other "tiger economies," and this formerly-communist economy is increasing its GDP faster than any other nation, while its currently communist government swats away the flies of dissent. This model says that government will offer a stable environment for business; people are free to do as they will, within the confines of this ordered society, and everyone benefits. Except perhaps artists, oddballs, weirdoes, innovators, non-conformists, rebelling teenagers, and anyone else not in line with the grand scheme of things. And why defend them, at the expense of a rising prosperity?

So maybe we are too free, and our decadent lifestyles will cost us our position atop the hierarchy of nations. But the financial crisis of 2008-2009 brought another possibility: that the sheer complexity of economic life in the modern world is in the process of making democracy as we know it obsolete.

When the effects of the largest financial crisis in 3/4 of a century were becoming felt, who took the lead in addressing the issue? Appointed, not elected, bureaucrats. The Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, and the Fed chairman, Ben Bernanke, laid out the national response, leading our representatives in Congress to at first interfere with and then rubberstamp President Bush’s economic team’s plan. Meanwhile, we regular citizens tried to grasp both the causes and the enormity of the situation. Seven-hundred billion tax dollars to begin to fix this? Maybe a trillion-and-a-half when all is said and done? To paraphrase the late Senator Dirksen, a trillion here and a trillion there and now we’re talking real money.

The Chinese understand a system run by unelected bureaucrats. That is not what Americans expect out of government. But we have to deal with the complexities of re-regulating investment banks, controlling complex investment instruments, manipulating our $13 trillion economy, not to mention coordinating with central banks around the globe. It is possible, just possible, that the local politician we elected (wherever in the U.S. we live) as our congressperson because she/he did such a great job on the school board is not up to this?

In fact, the elected head of the executive branch was little visible at the forefront of the crisis, which added to the inclination of the nation to elect the opposition political party to the presidency. What bold actions are in store from our new elected officials? Well, the new president brought in experienced bureaucrats to fill his economic team. Other fundamental changes? No. There is a stimulus plan, pretty much like the one pushed by President Bush, only bigger.

Is this abrogation of the policy limelight by elected officials in favor of insiders a good thing or a bad thing? If the central bankers deem it necessary to bail out big corporations, increase unemployment benefits, and create jobs, why should we object? If the welfare of big business means the welfare of most of us, what is the problem? If we need fast action, why put our faith in the slow, political process of democracy?

Maybe we shouldn’t worry about the rights of those on the political and social fringe, because our idea of the fringe has changed over time. In his book Supercapitalism, Robert Reich, who is more optimistic than I am about the state of democracy today, looked back at the ‘50s as the Golden Years, saying that America offered high-paying blue collar jobs, corporate statesmanship, and a government-industry-labor partnership that maintained stability and prosperity; he noted that the cost was a rigid and stifling conformity. Peter Beinart recently wrote in Time that "The public mood on economics today is a lot like the public mood on culture 40 years ago: Americans want government to impose law and order -- to keep their 401(k)s from going down, to keep their health-care premiums from going up, to keep their jobs from going overseas..."

Maybe people need only the appearance of control over their own lives. We can debate personal rights, protest over the internet a military action we disagree with, and decide local issues. Are we ready to leave the meat of national/global policy-making, the part that controls how people make a living, to the experts? That is how China does it and they are expanding at 8% a year.