Coddling Tyrants


Pages: 1 2

The imbecilities of our majoritarian intellectuals go hand in hand with the blindness and casuistry of our political leaders, who are like reverse Midases: whatever they touch turns to lead. They also resemble weathervanes, turning with the wind and formulating policy according to the vagaries of time and chance as they perceive them. Settled principle is beyond their means. Buckminster Fuller was differentially correct in Utopia or Oblivion when he relegated our politicians, by and large, to the lowest rung of human accomplishment, if not to the class of mental defectives. Really smart people, he suggested, usually go into science or one of the select professions; the remnant take up politics or the Law. There are exceptions, thank the Lord, but Fuller’s taxonomy, irrespective of his own delphic hankerings, seems to be borne out in most cases.

Stupidity and hypocrisy are the central characteristics of most of our political leaders. The subject would take an Encyclopedia Dementica to do justice to, but for the moment let us consider the political response to the turmoil in the Islamic sphere as an illustration of such ineptitude and, indeed, depravity of mind. The Middle East is aflame with revolutionary fever whose eventual results are completely unpredictable and might well be catastrophic. Although these upheavals are expressions of spontaneous combustion and appear uncontrollable, what is it that our presidents, prime ministers and chancellors propose? Why, it’s time for Israel to make another “gesture” for peace and behave in a conciliatory fashion toward its Arab “neighbors.” If a Jewish resident in the Sheikh Jarrah quarter of Jerusalem agrees not to extend his front steps, Egypt will quiet down, Gaddafi will abdicate and the mobs in Green Square will pack up and go home. Hamas will rewrite its bloody charter. The spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood Yusuf al-Qaradawi will moderate  his inflammatory rhetoric and forswear jihad. The fires of revolt will subside.

This is called “linkage,” a notion that has no anchor in reality but floats in the murk of the diplomatic fantasy world. According to the Israeli daily Haaretz, German chancellor Angela Merkel, for example, whose country continues to flout international sanctions against Iran, clearly believes that “the revolution in Egypt made it necessary for Israel to create a peace initiative”—a fallacy she shares with many other political notables. Whether they are suffering from a self-induced mirage or are preoccupied with ensuring commercial transactions and oil contracts, or both, remains an open question. It cannot be denied, however, that they are either witless, naive or disingenuous.

We also learn that Western political leaders are in the process of freezing the bank accounts of Arab potentates like Ben Ali, Mubarak and Gaddafi now that they are or are about to be deposed. Why did the authorities not proceed to move against their holdings when these dictators were still in power? After all, a tyrant is still a tyrant whether he remains in power or is fleeing for his life. He has been robbing his people, skimming foreign aid and embezzling the state treasury for the last thirty or forty years, depositing his loot in Swiss banks and the Caymans, investing in profitable companies and acquiring lavish properties in London, Los Angeles, Washington, New York, Englewood and who knows where else. He has been feted by world leaders, posed for photo-ops with the privileged and celebrated, and addressed the sessions of the United Nations. All this was perfectly in accord with international protocol. Scarcely a whisper of disapproval was heard. Suddenly, the tyrant is having his assets seized and his former friends and associates are in high moral dudgeon at his reprehensible conduct and fiscal malversations.

Stupidity and hypocrisy. They don’t make them like Churchill, Ben-Gurion, Adenauer, Thatcher and Reagan anymore. We are governed by an entrenched clan of panderers, charlatans, Pharisees and—though this is not a nice thing to say—plain idiots. “Men without chests,” to quote C.S. Lewis from The Abolition of Man. Only here and there, perhaps in Canada, perhaps in Poland, possibly in a few other places, do we see glimmerings of hope. Strong and principled individuals, “outliers” whose achievements fall outside normal (political) experience, as Malcolm Gladwell puts it, have begun to make their voices heard on both sides of the Atlantic. Great—or at least competent—leaders may yet come to the fore.

Our mainstream intellectuals and main-chance politicians can still do enormous harm. Nonetheless, they are like dead men walking, whose “faith,” as Arnold wrote, “is now/But a dead time’s exploded dream.” They are moribund, only they don’t know it yet. Ordinary people everywhere are beginning to awaken to the weakness and bad faith of their political leaders and the muddle-headedness of the intelligentsia and the left-wing punditocracy. The Tea Party in the United States may be a sign of things to come, as are many of the recently-formed national parties in Europe. Perhaps a new dispensation will arise and a degree of common sense and nobility of purpose will prevail—until, of course, the human stain once again asserts itself. History, pace Fukuyama, doesn’t stop. But an interregnum in this epoch of corruption and enfeeblement has become essential if we are to avoid the various cataclysms that threaten: war, cultural decay and economic collapse.

Meanwhile, we live in the in-between, cantilevered betwixt past and future over a profoundly uncertain present. Obviously, the future may not fulfill the promise we have intermittently glimpsed, but the work of construction must nevertheless continue. Let us hope Matthew Arnold is right and that his concluding vision remains in force. “And through the wood, another way,/Faint bugle-notes from far are borne.”

Pages: 1 2

  • USMCSniper

    Noam Chompsky claims he supports liberty and yet compare Khomeini and Pol Pot favorably with the United States? How can an angry writer remain calm about fanaticism and genocide when carried out by anti-Americans? In the case of Cambodia, Chomsky felt he had to show that the massacres were less serious than the alleged crimes committed by the United States, the most powerful country in the world and the one that Chomsky considers the most destructive. It was Hitler who killed the Jews, not the United States; it is Indonesia that committed murder in East Timor, not the United States. Indonesia, a dictatorship and an Islamic country, is not America.

    • Ghostwriter

      Thanks for saying that but you'd better be careful. I criticized Chomsky a couple of times and I was called an idiot because I attacked his anti-Americanism.

      • USMCSniper

        Noam Chomsky is a charlatan, and a non-colleague when I was at MIT. He has never done anything of any real significance yet he struts about at MIT as though he were a Nobel Laurate.

  • StephenD

    Great article Dr.Solway. I don't walk away feeling any better for reading it though. Are we to hope regardless or would that lend to the dellusion of the intelligentsia?

  • http://apollospaeks.townhall.com ApolloSpeaks

    Is it A More Perfect Union Barack Obama wants? Or A More Perfect Unionism? For the answer click my name and read my piece: "The Death of President Civility, Or A More Perfect Unionsim" for the answer.

  • stosh

    I was recently thinking about pandering…and the extent to which even once "solid" journalists like Chris Mathews and Christine Amanpour are complete sell outs. Maybe my memory escapes me, but 10 years ago, I didn't mind listening to either of them. Today, I can't bear to watch.

  • Ghostwriter

    As I was reading this article,I remembered reading a book called "Intellectuals and Society" by Thomas Sowell. In one chapter,he quoted George Bernard Shaw on a visit to the United States. He said that Americans were fools for fearing dictatorship and that we should embrace them. In fact,he thought that America should have a dictatorship of it's own. Now,beyond the obvious stupidity of those statements,there were a lot of people in the United States who had come from dictatorships,who were probably thinking to themselves as they read the interview he gave in the "New York Times,""Has this man lost his mind?" Since Shaw was originally from Ireland,those who'd emigrated here were probably thinking the same thing.
    Unfortunately for Shaw,history would prove that most Americans fears about dictatorship were right and he was wrong.

  • Margalit

    David Solway does it again: in precise cogent terms he describes our civilisational maladies. I only wish his voice could be heard, loud and clear, from the mountaintops (or our contemporary equivalents in the mass media). He is telling us: wake up fools! you are the blind led by the blind…