"Idealists" vs. the World

According to Norman Podhoretz, author of World War IV: The Long Struggles Against Islamofascism," if you have an absolute moral compass that guides your initiatives and responses to life, the rest of the world thinks of you as an "idealist." They also think your idealism may be a little dangerous, especially if you occupy a position of influence, such as the President of the United States.

Until recently, presidents historically have been guided by an absolute moral compass. For example, President Lincoln embedded his opposition to slavery in the absolutes referenced in the Declaration of Independence, which says "all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights."

Another author and historian, John Tebbel, quotes these words from President McKinley regarding his policy toward the Philippines during the Spanish-American War:

"I walked the floor of the White House night after night until midnight, and I am not ashamed to tell you, gentlemen, that I went down on my knees and prayed to Almighty God for light and guidance more than one night. And one night late it came to me this way...that there was nothing left for me to do but take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift them and civilize them and Christianize them, and by God's grace do the very best we could by them, as our fellow-men for whom Christ also died. And then I went to bed, and went to sleep, and slept soundly, and the next morning I sent for the Chief Engineer of the War Department (our map-maker) and I told him to put the Philippines on the map of the United States, and they are there, and there they will stay while I am President."

Similar appeals to moral absolutes continue on through Presidents Wilson, FDR, Truman, and Kennedy, to name a few. Wilson is famous for the theme of "making the world safe for democracy." FDR is legendary for his list of the four freedoms (of speech and expression, to worship God, from want, and from fear). Truman carefully marked the difference between us and so many others in the world as the difference between "the will of the majority" involving "free institutions, representative government, free elections, guarantees of individual freedom, freedom of speech and religion, and freedom from political oppression" and "the will of a minority forcibly imposed upon the majority" while relying on "terror and oppression."

In the same vein, these are the words of President Kennedy:

"I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forbears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago. The world is different now....And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God."

All of these quotes demonstrate how this "idealism" historically did not attached itself to only one political party. Nevertheless, this "idealism" of our former leaders began to fade during the Vietnam era, especially in relation to the presidencies of Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter. There was a resurgence under President Reagan, who in his "idealism" actually had the nerve to refer to the former Soviet Union as "an evil empire."

So what began to rise up in the place of "idealism." Podhoretz groups the opponents into three categories: isolationists, liberal internationalists, and realists.

The cry of many isolationists is "America first." That might not sound bad initially, until one considers that the philosophy of "America first" involves turning a blind eye toward expressions of evil outside of our borders, no matter how evil they may be. Podhoretz shows how the slogan "American first" actually originated during World War II among folks opposed to fighting the Nazis. As you might imagine from this, a plank in the modern-day "America-first" movement involves blaming Israel for the troubles of the world.

Liberal internationalists, according to Podhoretz, are best known for their near "religious commitment" to negotiations and involvement of international institutions (such as the U.N., World Court, et. Al.) as the means of solving international disputes or the pursuits of America's interests and values.

Realists reject the notion that a country like ours has any right whatsoever to interfere in the "internal affairs" of another country, even if those "internal affairs" involve egregious expressions of evil. This is the view that began to dominate once our country moved beyond the idealism of the Reagan years, which stood in such marked contrast to the failed liberal internationalist policies of Carter.

Today, we have a President in Bush who has been targeted with all kinds of venom, hatred, and ridicule, because he holds to an "idealism" no longer fashionable among elites around the world. In some cases, the President's "idealism" is also no longer fashionable among common people. (For more on the President's idealism, read Podhoretz' book).

To me, the most astounding thing about all of this is how the isolationists, the liberal internationalists, and the realists no longer think at all in terms of good and evil as we know it. To the isolationists, good is peace at home at all cost, even if fellow human beings, "for whom Christ also died" (McKinley), are facing unmentionable horrors with evil. To the liberal internationalists, evil is using anything but talk and trust to somehow cajole the perpetrators of evil into changing their behavior. To the realists, there simply isn't any such thing as good or evil, not in an absolute sense. Rather, they are relative terms.

So what happens when the political elites of the world stop thinking altogether in terms of absolute good and absolute evil as we know it? This post has already gone on for too long, so more tomorrow...