17477 Issue 56 b 17/4/03 9:41 AM Page 16

OBJECTIVISM AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY CHRIS MATTHEW SCIABARRA Understanding the Global Crisis: Reclaiming Rand’s Radical Legacy

“The tree of ,” Thomas Jefferson wrote, “must be idea that it is possible to construct a political solution in a culture that does not value refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and procedural democracy, free institutions, or tyrants.” And so, when I saw those startling images of a the notion of responsibility is a delusion. Witness contemporary Russia, liberated Iraq—those first photos of fellow New Yorker, Major where the death of communism has given birth to a society of warring post-Soviet David “Bull” Guerfin of the U.S. Marines, ripping down the mafiosi, leading some to yearn for the good poster of Saddam Hussein in Safwan or that riveting footage of ol’ days of Stalin. Clearly, “regime change” is not enough. But even if procedural fellow Brooklynite, Marine Cpl. Edward Chin, helping jubilant democracy were to come to Iraq, it may be Iraqis in Baghdad’s Firdos Square to topple Hussein’s 20-foot no less despotic than the brutal dictatorship it usurps, for majority rule without statue—it seemed to me that Jefferson’s remark was as true as protection of individual rights is no check on the political growth of Islamic ever. fundamentalism.

The lunacy of nation-building and of imposed political settlements—which have The blood of that tyrannical regime—and Al Qaeda, my overwhelming concern was— been tried over and over again in the Middle the blood of patriotic American soldiers— and remains—the aftermath of the East with no long-term success—does not had been shed, becoming what Jefferson incursion. mean that there is no hope for the Arab had once called the “natural manure” world. Former Reagan administration necessary for the full flowering of human I have strongly supported the attempt to advisor Michael Ledeen (The Intellectual freedom. Liberty and eternal vigilance bring to justice the fugitives of 9/11—the Activist [TIA], January 2003) speaks of a rising revolt against theocracy in Iran, for 16 against despotism go hand-in-hand, after murderous Al Qaeda—or “to bring justice all. to them,” as President Bush has said. I think example, among a younger generation that this is an unconventional war requiring is fed up with their oppressive government. But powerfully symbolic images such as unconventional warfare, including ongoing They eat American foods, wear American these have a surface appeal that obscures a disruption of terrorist finance, weapons, jeans, and watch American TV shows. I much more complex reality. Too much and communications networks. But I don’t see how a U.S. occupation in any part Objectivist commentary on that reality has remain wary of any long-term U.S. of the region will nourish this kind of revolt. become a mere apologia for expansion into the region. And I believe If anything, the United States may be neoconservative folly. At risk is the that a projected U.S. occupation of Iraq to perceived as a new colonial administrator. abandonment of ’s radical legacy. bring about “democratic” regime change Such a perception may only give impetus to would not be comparable to the German the theocrats who may seek to preserve The Current Crisis and Japanese models of the post-World their rule by deflecting the dissatisfaction in War II era. their midst toward the “infidel occupiers.” I Over the last few months, I have aired my can think of no better ad campaign for the views about the war in Iraq throughout Iraq is a makeshift by-product of British recruitment of future Islamic terrorists. cyberspace (see the various links posted to colonialism, constructed at Versailles in my “Not a Blog” at 1920 out of three former Ottoman Even though I support relentless surgical ). To be clear, there has never divisions are mirrored by tribal warfare threat to the United States, I have argued been a time where I doubted the immorality among Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, and others. that America’s only practical long-term of a regime that fed its dissident citizens By contrast, both Germany and Japan course of action is strategic disengagement feet-first into wood chippers and industrial possessed relatively homogeneous cultures from the region. In the long-run, I stand plastic shredders. I never doubted the and the rudiments of a democratic past, with those American Founding Fathers who rightness of striking back against those who while retaining no allies after the war. And advocated with all, entangling initiate force or striking preemptively or in the case of Japan, the U.S. had the full political alliances with none. If that advice unilaterally against imminent threats to cooperation of Emperor Hirohito, who was good for a simpler world, it is even American security—whatever the objections stepped down from his position as national more appropriate for a world of immense voiced by members of that morally deity, to become the figurative head of a complexity, in which no one power can bankrupt organization known as the United constitutional monarchy. control for all the myriad unintended Nations. While I questioned the wisdom consequences of human action. The central and timing of the Iraq war, the imminence For those of us bred ’s insight planners of socialism learned this lesson of the Hussein threat, and the alleged links that politics is only a consequence of a some time ago; the central planners of a between Hussein’s secularist Pan-Arabist larger philosophical and cultural cause— projected U.S. colonialism have yet to learn Ba’ath Party and Bin Laden’s fundamentalist that culture, in effect, trumps politics—the it.

May - June 2003 - The Free Radical 17477 Issue 56 22/4/03 10:24 M Page 17

A Deeper Cause failure to uphold its principles,” Berman another” (“The Roots of War”). explains. “His quarrel was with the “Armies are in motion,” observes Paul principles. He opposed the United States For Rand, capitalism had never existed in its Berman, “but are the philosophers and because it was a liberal society” (emphasis purest form. Still, semi-capitalism was religious leaders, the liberal thinkers, added). The most “dangerous element” of powerful enough to demolish the remnants likewise in motion? There is something to that society was, in Qutb’s view, the of feudalism, mercantilism, and absolute worry about here,” Berman continues, “an “separation of church and state.” His monarchy throughout the world. But with aspect of the war that version of liberation the rise of the collectivist, paternalist liberal society seems to have entailed an adherence to ideology and nationalistic imperialism of trouble understanding— strict Islamic law “progressive reformers” such as Theodore one more worry, on top of (“Shariah”) in defense of Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin all the others, and possibly “freedom of conscience.” Delano Roosevelt, relatively free markets the greatest worry of all” But such liberation “meant gave way to government regulation and (“The Philosopher of Islamic freedom from false privilege. The twentieth-century history of Terror,” NY Times doctrines that failed to U.S. foreign policy, according to Rand, was Magazine, 23 March 2003). recognize God, freedom a history of “suicidal” failure and hypocrisy from the modern (“‘Extremism,’ Or the Art of Smearing”). That worry is deeply schizophrenia.” It is no Failure—because the U.S. had abdicated philosophical—and one great leap to realize the the moral high ground, destroying that cannot be ignored. dictatorial implications of economic and civil from within, and There is a profound this utopian vision, whose losing any rational sense of the country’s antipathy between Islamic enforcement would echo moral significance. Hypocrisy—because the fundamentalism and the totalitarian projects of U.S. often fought evil with evil. Rand Western values, an fascism, Nazism, and maintained that Wilson had led the charge antipathy that lies at the communism. “to make the world safe for democracy,” root of their mutual cultural but World War I gave birth to fascism, alienation. But it took centuries to Berman wonders who, in the West, will Nazism, and communism. FDR had led the secularize the Western mind, and it is liable defend liberal ideas against its enemies. charge for the “Four Freedoms,” but he to take generations to accomplish a Those who admire Ayn Rand know the only empowered the Soviets in the process modicum of cultural change among Islamic answer. Rand fought against the mystics of (“The Roots of War”). nations. Berman provides one indication of muscle and the mystics of spirit; she fought the obstacles that lie ahead. He focuses on for a passionate integrated view of human Rand had long believed that the Soviet the philosophical forefather of Al Qaeda: existence that triumphed over the false Union was a primitive country, doomed to 17 Sayyid Qutb, who violently opposed the alternatives of mind and body, reason and economic stagnation and systemic collapse. secular, socialist Pan-Arabist regime of the emotion, morality and prudence, theory She had once excoriated Ronald Reagan for Egyptian dictator, Gamal Abdel Nasser. As and practice. She fought for reason, but invoking “fear” of the Soviets, for a member of the fundamentalist Muslim not against spirituality, for productive “exaggerat[ing] the power of the most Brotherhood, Qutb was executed in 1966. purpose, but not against creativity, for self- incompetent nation in the world,” which But his poisonous legacy lives on. esteem, but not against a humane society was “not a patriotic service to the United of voluntary cooperation and shared values. States” (“The Moral Factor”). Her Qutb’s progeny, Bin Laden, stands at one Objectivist Newsletter had featured a series end of the Islamic spectrum, while Hussein’s But the power of Rand’s vision is two-fold: of review essays by various writers who had Ba’ath Party, the most violent Pan-Arabist It enunciates broad epistemological and argued that the parasitic Soviets had stolen successor, stood at the other. That Bin moral principles that guide us in the rational military and other technology from the Laden sees Hussein as an immoral “infidel” pursuit of rational goals. At the same time, West, and that it was U.S. foreign policy is an extension of a fundamentalist credo, it provides an engine for contextual analysis, that had stabilized the regime. Drawing which repudiates “Zionists” and which enables us to understand the factors from John T. Flynn’s book, The Roosevelt “Christian” Westerners from without, and that thwart both moral means and the Myth, Barbara Branden stressed that FDR secularists from within, the Muslim world. pursuit of moral ends. Objectivists have was inspired by Bismarck, Mussolini, and The fundamentalists want to marginalize or been very vocal in stressing the principles of Hitler in establishing a liberal corporatist destroy not only the Pan Arabists, but also Rand’s vision, while often failing to grasp “New Deal” that further devastated a any “liberal” Muslims—who are viewed as the comprehensive critique that Rand depressed economy (The Objectivist no better than the pre-Islamic pagans of the offered of the statist enemies in our midst. Newsletter, December 1962). Provoking Arabian peninsula. This is quite typical: war in the Pacific, Roosevelt used “national Fundamentalists of any sort always begin by The History of U.S. Foreign Policy: defense” as a pretext for resolving the attacking the “impure” among their own Capitalism Thwarted unemployment problem by drafting faithful. American boys to fight and die in foreign Rand, who wrote minimally on foreign wars, while sending $11 billion in Lend- Pining for a theocratic Islamic caliphate, policy, recognized nevertheless that “[t]he Lease assistance to the Soviets, and Qutb’s influential “theological criticism of essence of capitalism’s foreign policy is free developing secret post-war agreements modern life” lamented the dualistic trade—i.e., the abolition of trade barriers, with Stalin to surrender nearly three- “schizophrenia” of the secular and the of protective tariffs, of special privileges— quarters of a billion people into communist sacred, science and religion. But as is typical the opening of the world’s trade routes to slavery. (Rand herself believed that this with religious monists, Qutb sought to free international exchange and strategy made Russia “the only winner” of collapse secular life into religion. His competition among the private citizens of World War II [“The Shanghai Gesture, Part “deepest quarrel was not with America’s all countries dealing directly with one I”]. She also questioned the wisdom of

May - June 2003 - The Free Radical 17477 Issue 56 22/4/03 10:24 M Page 18

U.S. involvement in World War II, who had wholesale into the business of creating been smeared as “America First’ers” terrorists,” as Leonard Peikoff observes. (“Britain’s ‘National Socialism’”). She “Most of them,” says Peikoff, “regarded despised those who had coined the “anti- fighting the Soviets as only the beginning; concept” of “isolationism” as a means of our turn soon came” (“End States Who denouncing “any patriotic opponent of Sponsor Terrorism”). America’s self-immolation” (“The Lessons of Vietnam”). Rand was not against all A Radical Insight involvement in overseas affairs. In the context of the Cold War, for example, she The crisis of U.S. foreign policy led Rand to opposed the appeasement of the Soviets, a key radical insight—that there was an and recognized the strategic importance of inextricable connection between Taiwan and Israel—despite her antipathy government intervention at home and toward the latter’s socialist, religious, and abroad. Rand states unequivocally: tribalist nature. Israel was preferable to the “Foreign policy is merely a consequence of Palestinian Liberation Organization, argued domestic policy” (“The Shanghai Gesture, Rand, which had abdicated any “rights” it Part III”). When Rand called for a complete may have once held by engaging in a “revision of [U.S.] foreign policy, from its entering that war’s European theater on the sustained policy of terror (“The Lessons of basic premises on up,” she knew that this side of the Soviets—suggesting that a Nazi- Vietnam”; “Global Balkanization” Q&A would entail a simultaneous repudiation of Soviet conflict might have severely tape, 1977). Still, Rand stood firmly against the welfare state at home and the warfare weakened the victor [e.g., see the “altruistic” evil of foreign state abroad, an end to “foreign aid and “Communism and HUAC” in Journals of “interventionism” or “internationalism” [to] all forms of international self- Ayn Rand].) that had undermined long-term U.S. immolation.” She knew that “a radically interests. She repudiated the claim “that different foreign policy” required a radically Government intervention in the economy isolationism is selfish, immoral, and different domestic one—and that both and U.S. intervention abroad mirrored each impractical in a ‘shrinking’ modern world” required a philosophic and cultural other in one significant respect: each (“The Chickens’ Homecoming”). revolution (“The Wreckage of the problem caused by statist intervention led Consensus”). to new interventionist attempts to resolve it. The crisis of U.S. foreign policy did not end Just as World War I begat World War II, and in Southeast Asia. Containment of Rand had identified U.S. domestic policy as World War II begat the Cold War, so too did insurgencies throughout the world often the “New Fascism.” This was—and is—a 18 the Cold War beget “hot” wars in Korea enraged local populations, as the U.S. de facto, predatory fascism, the result of and Vietnam, in which more than 100,000 propped up puppet dictators to do its pragmatic expediency and of ad hoc, drafted Americans lost their lives. Vietnam global bidding—stationing its troops till this incremental policies that had enriched some especially had laid bare the inner day in over 100 countries worldwide. This groups at the expense of others. A contradictions of U.S. foreign policy. “There policy was partially responsible for the rise business-government “partnership” was its is no proper solution for the war in of Islamic fundamentalism as an anti- “economic essence” (“The New Fascism: Vietnam,” Rand counseled at the time; “it is American political force in Iran; the Iranians Rule By Consensus”). In such a system, she a war we should never have entered. We threw off the U.S.-backed Shah, and argued, we are all victims and victimizers; are caught in a trap: it is senseless to elevated Khomeini to a position of the whole society becomes a “class of continue, and it is now impossible to leadership. A hostage crisis followed. beggars” (“Books: Poverty is Where the withdraw” (“From My ‘Future File’”). Rand Supporting the Iraqis in their war with Iran, Money Is”). For once the rule of force had opposed U.S. involvement in both opposing the Soviets by aiding Afghan begins to predominate, the institutional Korea and Vietnam, and wondered why the “freedom fighters”—the theocratically means for legalized predation expand U.S. had “sacrificed thousands of American inclined mujahideen who became Al Qaeda exponentially. “If this is a society’s system,” lives, and billions of dollars, to protect a and Taliban warriors—“put the U.S. writes Rand, “no power on earth can primitive people who never had freedom, prevent men from ganging up on one do not seek it, and, apparently, do not want another in self-defense—i.e., from forming it” (“The Shanghai Gesture, Part III”). It is pressure groups” [“How to Read (and Not advice well worth keeping in mind— to Write)”]. anytime the U.S. wages war with the expressed aim to free an oppressed people. The New Fascism therefore “accelerates the process of juggling debts, switching losses, Rand understood that “international piling loans on loans, mortgaging the future politics” among “statist regimes” often and the future’s future. As things grow entailed a “‘balance of power’ game”— worse, the government protects itself not though she believed that U.S. statist by contracting this process, but by politicians were “crude, naive and innocent expanding it” beyond its national borders. compared to their European and Asian Just as pressure groups had slurped at the counterparts” (“The Shanghai Gesture, Part government trough in seeking domestic I”). In contrast to the “range-of-the- privileges, so too did they benefit from a moment manipulations” of “Metternichian whole global system of foreign aid, amorality” on display in the global political involving financial manipulation (through, arena (“A Last Survey, Part I”), Rand for example, the Federal Reserve System, invoked the spirit of the Old Right critics of the Ex-Im Bank, and the IMF), “credits to

May - June 2003 - The Free Radical 17477 Issue 56 22/4/03 10:24 M Page 19

foreign consumers to enable them to advised: “The less ties we have with any Rand, the real “dividing line” between consume” U.S.-produced goods, “unpaid other countries, the better off we will be.” neofascism and dictatorship is “freedom of loans to foreign governments, and subsidies Suggesting a biological analogy in warning speech,” since “censorship is the to other welfare states,” to the United against the spread of neofascism, she quips: tombstone of a free country.” This is why Nations, and to the World Bank “If you have a disease, should you get a she condemned a “servile press” even more (“ and Inflation”). more serious form of it, and will that help than a “censored press”; the “servile press” you?” (“Egalitarianism and Inflation” Q&A embraces “‘voluntary’ self-enslavement,” Rand goes further: “If looting collectivists tape, 1974). In discussing a section of the relying on government manipulation of did not exist, America’s foreign aid policy 1972 Communiqué between the U.S. and news “‘as an instrument of public policy’” would create them.” The overwhelming Red China, Rand suggests a universal (“The Fascist New Frontier”). The New profiteers of this system were those peculiar “products . . . of the mixed economy,” Rand states unequivocally: "Foreign policy is merely a consequence those statist businessmen who “seek to grow rich not by means of productive of domestic policy." . . . She knew that "a radically different foreign ability, but by means of political pull and of policy" required a radically different domestic one---and that both special political privileges.” Rand observes required a philosophic and cultural revolution. “that there are firms here and there, in various businesses and industries, who are growing prosperous by trading with foreign principle. “[L]ike charity,” she writes, Fascism, therefore, is a kind of liberal countries, the specific foreign countries “courage, consistency, integrity have to corporatism, which keeps in place who receive American aid. In other words, begin at home . . . [w]hat we are now doing democratic forms and procedures, while there are businessmen who are selling their to others . . . we began by doing it to deadening the prospect of real political and products to the foreign countries receiving ourselves. We are the victims of self- social change. Not even an Objectivist American aid and who are paid by inflicted bacteriological warfare: altruism is sympathizer, such as Alan Greenspan, can American funds—who are paid by the aid the bacteria of amorality. Pragmatism is the stop the system from the boom-and-bust money granted to those countries. In other bacteria of impotence” (“The Shanghai that emanates from the financial levers of words, some Americans are draining the Gesture,” Part III). the central bank that he controls, or the money, the tax money, of other Americans, massive redistribution of wealth that ensues into their own pockets, via a longer tour This critique of the “New Fascism” is as from that control. In Rand’s view, even through every corner of the globe which relevant today as it was in the time that noble actors pursuing noble goals are receives our foreign aid. This tax money is Rand first presented it. Some writers (e.g., defeated by this system. The New Fascism taken from some citizens, handed to Adam Reed, 26 March 2003, SOLO Yahoo can only engender “parasitism, favoritism, foreign governments and pressure groups Forum) have argued, however, that Rand’s corruption and greed for the unearned”; its and then comes back to some of our critique was limited to—and grounded in— power to dispense privilege, Rand 19 citizens, through those successful pressure the historically specific period of the emphasizes, “cannot be used honestly” groups who have pull in Washington.” This Kennedy and Johnson administrations (see, (“The Pull Peddlers”). was a “siphoning” process, in Rand’s view, for example, “The Fascist New Frontier,” in a “necessary corollary of a mixed economy, which Rand cites approvingly the similarly It is a process of privilege-dispensing that, I or rather the necessary expression of a constituted critique of New Leftist Charles might add, will only be augmented in the mixed economy, now being carried to the A. Reich). But while the world scene has wake of any long-term U.S. occupation of international scene. It is a civil war gone changed immeasurably in the last 40 years, Iraq. Whereas the estimated war costs are international; it is pressure groups using Rand did not quell her attacks on this over $75 billion, the open-ended price tag foreign countries in order to destroy our neofascist system in any of her subsequent on occupation is anyone’s guess. Already, own. That is the meaning of our foreign aid analyses of the Nixon, Ford, Carter, or officials are suggesting $1 billion in taxpayer policy” (“The Foreign Policy of the Mixed Reagan administrations. Not even the start-up costs for the “bidding” process, Economy,” tape). collapse of central planning and the Soviet going directly to U.S. corporations Union would have given Rand pause in responsible for re-building Iraqi Thus, the New Fascism exports “the bloody these attacks, because neofascism was “infrastructure” (“Who Will Put Iraq Back chaos of tribal warfare” to the rest of the never about central planning—even if its Together?,” by Diana B. Henriques, 23 world, creating a whole class of “pull current court intellectuals (i.e., the formerly March 2003, NY Times). The projected peddlers” among both foreign and socialist neoconservatives) wish to apply the costs of Iraqi reconstruction are upwards of domestic lobbyists, who feed on the carcass precepts of such planning to the task of $100 billion, “the largest postwar of the American taxpayer, causing massive global nation-building. Rand’s comments rebuilding since the Marshall Plan in Europe global political, social, and economic focused not on the historical concretes, but after World War II” (Henriques 2003)—a dislocations (“The Pull Peddlers”). Whereas on the principles entailed in plan that, according to Rand, brought the the Left derided “capitalist imperialism” for interventionism. Like and United States to “the brink of economic this state of affairs, Rand recognized that F. A. Hayek, Rand predicted that the ruin” (Letters of Ayn Rand, 490), a typical capitalism, “the unknown ideal,” had taken interventionist system would expand its by-product of the U.S. tendency to “waste the blame for the sins of its opposite. She reach, making possible an ever-deepening her wealth on helping both her allies and lamented the internationalization of the social fragmentation among warring her former enemies” (“Philosophy: Who New Fascism; given “the interdependence foreign and domestic pressure groups. Needs It”). The NY Times reports that the of the Western world,” all countries are U.S. government has invited “only “leaning on one another as bad risks, bad Rand never saw the New Fascism—or what American corporations to bid on . . . consuming parasite borrowers.” She the Left had called “socialism for big contracts . . . financed by the taxpayer” for recognized how the system’s dynamics business” (“The Moratorium on Brains, Part reconstruction of transportation, propelled such internationalization, but II”)—as authoritarian in character. For communication, irrigation, medical

May - June 2003 - The Free Radical 17477 Issue 56 22/4/03 10:24 M Page 20

facilities, education, and utility plants. The governments are the free countries—and all “savages” in order to start from scratch. bidding process has been a closed one, the free countries are natural allies. Free Pisaturo stands, like Archimedes, outside allegedly because only a select few countries are those that essentially embrace the context he wishes to reconstruct. His corporations have security clearance. Of the principles of liberty, including freedoms canvas-cleaning strategy is the logically course, these corporations are among the of speech and assembly, competitive horrific conclusion and destructive essence “largest and most politically connected.” elections, the rule of law, and property of his utopianism. It applies literally to ‘no- rights.” In Thomas’s well-reasoned where’ on earth—though, in all fairness, discussion of principles, the New Fascism is It is claimed that the reconstruction will be the Brave No-World of Ron Pisaturo is far never mentioned. And though he admits funded by Iraqi oil revenues for the benefit that certain foreign policy goals require us more dystopian than it is utopian. of the Iraqi people—thus relieving much of “to hold our noses” when entering into the U.S. tax burden. This, of course, “alliance[s] of convenience” with less free According to Pisaturo, the U.S. must crush remains to be seen—though it is always countries, he does not seem to appreciate all the “evil governments” of the Middle possible that the Iraqis will not want to the extent to which such pragmatic East (e.g., Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan, invest their money in precisely the way considerations have brought the globe to Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and dictated by U.S. occupiers. Not quite a free the current crisis. other “murderous regimes”). This is a market. Nevertheless, as one consultant sentiment shared by his puts it: “Anytime you have an emergency In the end, however, Thomas supported the colleagues, including Yaron Brook (ARI response driven by time, the opportunity for war in Iraq—and a possible war with North Media, 10 April 2003) and Leonard Peikoff fraud, waste and abuse is huge . . . And Korea as well. He sees the post-war (“America versus Americans,” Ford Hall when the opportunity is that great, it will reconstruction as a requirement, “the only Forum, 7 April 2003)—both of whom see occur” (Henriques 2003). means of eliminating the longer-term Iran as the next target in the war against threat.” Keeping the peace, funding our Islamic fundamentalism. Pisaturo argues The Objectivist Response allies, and building a free Iraq, will require that the U.S. government must take back “billions upon billions of dollars . . . for the oil fields for Western oil companies, The response of Objectivists to the reconstruction and re-education.” Re- appropriate Arab assets worldwide prospect of this kind of U.S. construction? Re-education? Funding our (including “real estate, bank accounts, and occupation has been mostly positive allies? I am tempted to ask the perennial all other financial holdings”), and “isolate, (with a few notable exceptions, e.g., Randian question: At whose expense? colonize, and settle the lands the savages Arthur Silber at “The Light of Reason,” now roam.” Sensing perhaps that such a ). Robert Tracinski, for culturally or financially infeasible to region might entail an exponential increase example, rightfully criticizes the pragmatism transform . . . enemies into allies - or at least in U.S. tax rates and in the size of the U.S. into stable, non-threatening regimes, then 20 and religiosity of the Bush administration, military—perhaps even necessitating which pays no attention to “context or war will not resolve the longer-term threat conscription—Pisaturo declares that if the history” (“The Era of Muddling Through: . . .” To his credit, Thomas accepts the Western oil companies “agree to pay the How We Got Here and Why We’re Still possibility that U.S. occupation might “fuel cost of waging this war,” then the U.S. Moving,” TIA, March 2003). But this does anti-Americanism throughout the region.” government could continue “occupying not stop Tracinski from applauding Bush for To his credit, Thomas understands “that and defending these oil-rich territories.” “a breathtakingly new grand strategy to political policy is a symptom, but culture is Once the U.S. has seized the Middle East— remake the Middle East,” a policy that the root cause.” Still, he supports the risk of I suppose after several years of waiting for Tracinski admits “is a kind of indirect war and a long-term occupation that the nuclear fallout to settle—it will allow colonialism. The colonial administrators will empowers “better educated” and “more American pioneers to enter the region as be the nominally independent leaders of secular” Iraqis, so as to “cement the international homesteaders. “Over time, Middle Eastern countries - but the essence transformation” of other Middle Eastern pioneers, with the paid support of our of their form of government and their nations. military, can go into these isolated foreign policy will be inspired or imposed by territories, subdue the remaining savages, the United States of America.” Deriding the Pisaturo’s Epistle install a civilized, colonial government muddling ways of “Old Europe,” Tracinski protecting the rights of both the pioneers suggests approval of the U.S. ambition “to To “cement the transformation” is Ron and the savages, and settle the land—as remake the world, sweeping aside hostile Pisaturo’s goal as well. Except that he offers American pioneers subdued the savage, regimes and securing America’s safety” a much more robust strategy. Writing murderous American Indian tribes and (“New Hollywood and Old Europe,” TIA, in the aftermath of the World Trade settled America.” Of course, the “savages” March 2003). Center disaster, Pisaturo is an unabashed will eventually realize that they will be the Objectivist advocate of a new U.S. “most fortunate beneficiaries” of such William Thomas writes (“What Warrants colonialism (“Why and How to Conquer colonialism. War? The Challenge of Iraq & North Korea”; the Savages,” Capitalism Magazine that “[t]he 117>). finds inspiration in Rand’s own Objectivist view of foreign policy derives condemnation of Arab terrorists as from its view of morality. Just as each Pisaturo begins on the correct premise— “savages” (on “The Phil Donahue Show”). person should pursue his rational self- interest in his personal matters, so should a that Americans have the right to defend She saw the “Arab whose teeth are green proper government uphold the interests of themselves from murderous attacks. But he with decay in his mouth” (“The Left: Old its citizens in its conduct toward other goes further: He urges the creation of a and New”) as living “a nomadic, anti- nations.” Thomas goes on to say that it is a new Middle East as if from a state of nature; industrial form of existence” (“Requiem for “basic tenet” of “Objectivist political his regional tabula rasa, however, requires Man”). But this is a far cry from Pisaturo’s philosophy . . . that the only just the “nuclear” incineration of millions of genocidal call for an American Lebensraum.

May - June 2003 - The Free Radical 17477 Issue 56 22/4/03 10:24 M Page 21

I submit that this “cure” is far worse than Empire”—they'll find out that the pretense policy must be built. Based on an the disease. of knowledge, which destroyed socialism, individualist ethics, such a policy must will similarly destroy their Wilsonian recognize that there are no fundamental Let’s analyze Pisaturo’s proposal more designs. We simply never know enough to conflicts of interest among rational men— closely. The Western oil companies whose construct or reconstruct, wholesale, social or rational nations. Echoing Rand, interests Pisaturo wishes to defend are the systems and nations from the ground up. Rowlands states that any nation has the same Western oil companies that (On this point, see especially Hayek’s Law, right—though not the obligation—to collaborated with the U.S. government and Legislation, and Liberty, Vol. 3, pp. retaliate against those nations that initiate Middle Eastern governments to develop the 107–109.) Such schemes for a Pax force. Justice requires judgment and oil fields. The U.S. government socialized Americana are fraught with endless consistency or “evil wins by default.” These much of their risk, and replaced the possibilities for negative unintended are important insights—but their application requires careful attention to context. A “nation” does not exist separate So "nation-building" as a neoconservative goal is understandable--- from the who compose it. To equate a “nation” with that nation’s given the socialist lineage of its champions. But when an “government” and to assume that the “Objectivist” advocates mass murder and U.S. colonialism and government can and should come to the aid of other nations under attack may be a valid supports the oil industry's employment of the government like a application of an individualist ethics—only if mercenary private protection agency to secure its foreign financial the assisting government generates its and material holdings, it is beyond baffling. These are the same revenues and armed services through voluntary means. The principle cannot kinds of Objectivists who would accuse the U.S. Libertarian Party of possibly apply unconditionally to less-than- "context-dropping" (in contradistinction to "atomic-bomb- ideal social systems. dropping") for wanting to build political solutions on a fragile Indeed, Rand’s view that the rational philosophic and cultural foundation. Pot. Kettle. Black. interests of human beings do not conflict pertains to laissez-faire capitalism. “In a non-free society”—such as the one we have colonizing British as the chief power in the consequences, however “noble” the today—“no pursuit of any interests is region. From the 1920s through World War intentions. possible to anyone; nothing is possible but II and beyond, the government and the oil gradual and general destruction” (“The industry worked hand-in-hand to win So “nation-building” as a neoconservative ‘Conflicts’ of Men’s Interests”). In 21 concessions from, and bolster the power of, goal is understandable—given the socialist examining the “interrelated considerations various “pro-Western” Arab regimes, such lineage of its champions. But when an which are involved” in judging one’s as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Jordan, Objectivist advocates mass murder and U.S. rational interests, Rand stresses first and trying to create stability with money, colonialism and supports the oil industry’s foremost reality and context. And one munitions, and political machinations (see employment of the government like a cannot drop the reality of the given context Sheldon Richman’s “‘Ancient History’: U.S. mercenary private protection agency to when offering ethical advice in the realm of Conduct in the Middle East Since World secure its foreign financial and material international politics. We can certainly War II and the Folly of Intervention” at holdings, it is beyond baffling. These are strive toward an international political order ). The “pull-peddling” between accuse the U.S. Libertarian Party of Rowlands emphasizes, but those principles the oil industry and the various “context-dropping” (in contradistinction to will never be achieved globally in the governments was a quintessential “atomic-bomb-dropping”) for wanting to absence of a similar domestic movement. expression of the New Fascism. (Rand did build political solutions on a fragile Rand’s maxim is worth repeating because it not examine these oil industry-government philosophic and cultural foundation. Pot. is right: “Foreign policy is merely a ties; but she did believe, ironically, that U.S. Kettle. Black. consequence of domestic policy.” If foreign policy had “brought the entire governments rob the wealth of their own Western world to the position of a colony Rand’s Tri-Level Model citizens to fund foreign adventures, and if ruled by Arab sheiks” [“The Energy Crisis, they conscript people to fight and die in Part II”]). Human liberation from tyranny is a noble such adventures—all ethical bets are off. and just cause. But the pursuit of freedom, When a neoconservative defends the ideal like the pursuit of justice, can never be In Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical, I explored of a new U.S. colonialism, I am disgusted— disconnected from the context that gives it Rand’s mode for analyzing every social but not surprised. Neoconservatism was meaning. And ethical discussions cannot be problem on three distinct levels: (1) The founded—as a movement—by a group of considered in a vacuum, disconnected from Personal, in which she focused on the disaffected socialists and “social other levels of analysis that help us to psycho-epistemological and ethical democrats.” Its modern representatives are understand the nature of that broader dimensions; (2) The Cultural, in which she now the intellectual architects of U.S. context. focused on the linguistic, pedagogical, foreign policy. Having given up the fiasco of aesthetic, and ideological dimensions; and defending economic central planning, they For example, in a recent essay (3) The Structural, in which she focused on now embrace global social engineering to (), Objectivist Joseph Every social problem—and solution— of the world. And if some of them get their Rowlands begins an analysis of the entailed mutually reinforcing personal, wish—of establishing a new “American principles upon which a rational foreign cultural, and structural factors. This is why

March - April 2003 - The Free Radical 17477 Issue 56 22/4/03 10:24 M Page 22

Rand maintained: “Intellectual freedom an apologia for despots, I do believe that he In the end, however, it is simply wrong to cannot exist without political freedom; puts his finger on a crucial principle and think that an advance in the technology of political freedom cannot exist without problem: Just because we cannot do death changes the central principle involved ; a free mind and a free everything to change the system radically in our understanding of the roots of war. market are corollaries” (“For the New and immediately, does not mean that we As Rand puts it, “there is something Intellectual”). It is also why she criticized should do nothing to lessen threats to our obscene in the attitude of those who regard Libertarians: for seeking political and freedom. On this point, Perigo and I are in horror as a matter of numbers.” Indeed, “it economic change without the requisite complete agreement. makes no difference to a man whether he is personal and cultural foundations. But it is killed by a nuclear bomb or a dynamite bomb or an old-fashioned club. Nor does just as faulty to focus on ethics or culture to The bottom line, therefore, is indeed the number of other victims or the scale of the exclusion of structural realities. By practical: Will a U.S. occupation of the the destruction make any difference to him disconnecting any level from the others, we Middle East lessen despotism—or provide . . . If nuclear weapons are a dreadful threat drain the radical life-blood out of renewed impetus for its long-term growth and ossify Rand’s system into a and mankind cannot afford war any longer, form of conservatism. The active embrace of one-dimensional thinking by some Objectivists undermines fundamentally Destroying American liberties in order to "liberate" the few Rand’s contextual, dialectical way of looking remaining "savages" who survive the nuclear winter is not a at the world. It is a perverse kind of prescription for peace, "homeland security," or freedom. Unless one “vulgar” one-sidedness that has led “far too many Objectivists [to] act as if they are wants the New Fascism to look a lot like the old one. conservatives who simply don’t go to church,” as economist Larry Sechrest suggests (OWL list, 29 January 2003). at home and abroad? Is there not any other then mankind cannot afford statism any An Objectivist resolution to the current way to deal with such despotism short of longer . . . if war is ever to be outlawed, it global crisis will require a veritable establishing a new U.S. colonialism? That I is the use of force that has to be outlawed” revolution on every level. Rand stresses the have argued for surgical strikes to neutralize (“The Roots of War”). interconnectedness between levels: outright and imminent threats to American A military battle of any scope is like a Rampant tribalism is “a reciprocally security coupled with a long-term shift “political battle”—“merely a skirmish reinforcing cause and result” of “rule by toward strategic disengagement suggests fought with muskets”; for Rand, “a brute force” (“The Missing Link”), she one alternative. philosophical battle is a nuclear war”—and argues, just as the neofascist “mixed only rational ideas will ultimately win it 22 economy” is “the political cause of Such practical alternatives cannot be (“‘What Can One Do?’”). tribalism’s rebirth” (“Global considered, however, without addressing Balkanization”). Tribalism and statism briefly the issue of “Weapons of Mass Conclusion require each other; this is as valid an Destruction” (WMD). It is said that the assessment of the situation in the Middle existence of WMD changes the whole The Middle East is a region with many East as it is of the situation in the United equation significantly. Looking at what oppressive, theocratic regimes at war with States of America—whether we call the terrorists can accomplish with box cutters human life, human liberty, and human interventionists “theocrats” or “social and commercial passenger jets, the justice. But even when the U.S. democrats.” destructive possibilities are infinite should government retaliates appropriately against they ever come to possess WMD. Much of those who act out their jihad-ic desires, it This is not to say that the U.S. government the practical argument for intervention in cannot hope to transform that region’s is the moral equivalent of the despotic Iraq, for example, revolved around the despotism by creating, necessarily, a regimes in the Middle East. Context- belief that any illegitimate chemical, garrison state at home to support a colonial keeping means, among other things, biological, or radiological weapons that it occupation abroad. Destroying American keeping a sense of proportion. One of the possessed could be dispersed to terrorist liberties in order to “liberate” the few most important insights on this subject organizations, like Al Qaeda. In my view, remaining “savages” who survive the comes from Lindsay Perigo however, the pro-war advocates did not nuclear winter is not a prescription for peace, “homeland security,” or freedom. (), who writes of the between the lethally opposed Ba’ath and Al a lot like the old one. libertarian antiwar crowd: “They invoke Qaeda gangs. That it was “pragmatic” U.S. imperfection to justify inaction against evil. foreign policy that first gave Hussein’s Those who think that the interventionist They say America may not liberate slave regime the wherewithal for the production power of the state will wither away, after it pens because America itself is not wholly of some of these weapons, that the U.S. has built a mighty colonial fortress, atop free & is becoming less free. They blur the could have used its own overwhelming deficits and debt, rising taxes and the threat distinction between ‘not wholly free’ and WMD stockpile effectively to contain Iraq by of conscription, are suffering from a Marxist ‘wholly unfree’ & effectively advocate threat of “mutually assured destruction,” delusion. Objectivists are neither Marxists surrender of the former to the latter. They that a growth in direct U.S. intervention nor conservatives. evade the fact that in America, one is still could make WMD proliferation among free to proselytise against its slide into potential terrorists more likely, since it Objectivists are radicals. And it is only by statism, just as they are free to apologise for becomes their prime manner of reclaiming Rand’s radical legacy that we can despots.” While I take exception to Perigo’s counteracting an overwhelming U.S. begin to understand this global crisis as a belief that the antiwar crowd—which is far military force—have all been dismissed by means to overturn the irrationality and from monolithic—has offered nothing but pro-war advocates. statism that breed it.

May - June 2003 - The Free Radical