Who Loses When Freedom Comes To Town?

I think it's interesting to ponder why the US has such a bad rep on the international stage these days. Many like to say that Bush's poor diplomacy are singularly responsible. I'd concede that the arrogance of the Bush administration has contributed. However, I think there's a bigger picture. America is the world's chief advocate of freedom and human rights, and these are concepts that have ready-made enemies all over the world.

The history of human populations is a consistent story in which the masses have been subjugated to the whims of a small group of powerful individuals. Regardless of how they laid claim to their power, one thing has always been true - the powerful have controlled the powerless. The powerful have controlled the living conditions of the powerless, and they have limited their options in life. The powerful have confiscated the belongings of the powerless, and they have limited the flow of ideas to the masses. They have been able to do this by fear through the threat of force and through economic coercion. With the exception of the 200 or so years of democracy in ancient Rome and Greece, it had always been so until the late 1700s.

Then, everything changed. Suddenly, philosophers such as John Locke, put forth the notion that all humans were born with the same entitlement to rights to life, liberty, and the fruits of their labor. The paths of France and the British colonies in the New World were drastically affected by this idea. The US founding fathers managed to incorporate the notion of human rights into a republic that still stands today. The French, on the other hand, could only muster the outrage to revolt. They could not translate their collective outrage into a government by the people and for the people. But it is the American interpretation of freedom that has us in such a pickle these days.

If we think of human rights and freedom as memes (ideas that either succeed or fail based upon their ability to be installed into the minds of humans), we can see that they are astoundingly successful. It seems that humans are naturally inclined to appreciate the idea that they should have the right to live life as they see fit, to appreciate the idea that they should be able to keep the fruits of their labor, and to appreciate the idea that they should be able to dispose of their property in any way they choose (so long as they do not violate the rights of others). This, however, poses a problem for the powerful.

Throughout most of history, the powerless have more or less accepted their lot in life. They have been practical enough to realize that they could not overcome either the force or economic hurdles associated with changing their existence for the better. Freedom changed all that. All of a sudden, the powerless had a weapon - the idea that their situation was unjust. Beforehand, though they may not have liked the arrangement of things, they saw them as "how things were." The spread of the freedom meme brought with the evidence (from the success of the US) that things that did not have to be that way. The powerless could become powerful. Once the freedom meme was sufficiently installed in the population, the powerful ceased to preside over the docile powerless. In short, the easy life instantly got harder for them.

When freedom comes to town, it is those who have oppressed the powerless who lose. This is important because they have not yet lost their power. They can step up the force or economic coercion to keep the masses in line. They can also limit the flow of information to the masses in an effort to eradicate the freedom meme from within. This is exactly what we've seen many times in the last two centuries. The Cold War was a case study in this practice, and now we're seeing the same thing in the Middle East.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - there's a big difference between getting a population to buy into freedom and getting a population to do what it takes to achieve it. The information age necessarily implies that the freedom meme will spread faster than ever. But it does not bring with it a corresponding commitment to fight the status quo. This, in my view, is why America has such a bad image in the world. We continue to operate as if freedom is easily installed, denying the barriage of evidence to the contrary. When the machinations of our efforts bring unintended negative consequences, the whole enterprise gets a bad rap. Moreover, the powerful have a lot to lose when freedom comes to town, so it makes sense that they do whatever they can to stamp it out.

They paint American foreign policy as cloaked imperialism, and many in this country are all too willing to agree with them. Many Americans take past foreign policy missteps as conclusive evidence that anything we do that meets with the disapproval of our supposed allies is wrong. But let's not forget that the powerful often have influence with our allies, as we have seen from the UN Oil-For-Food scandal, which means that the opinions of our allies cannot play a leading role in how we evaluate our efforts abroad.

So what's the point? I come to two conclusions.
1. The US must stop trying to install freedom in non-free countries. Our efforts should be aimed at educating the non-free world about the value and achievability of freedom. If we succeed, the non-free will demonstrate their willingness to take matters into their own hands. Then, and only then, should we consider forceful assistance.
2. The US must do a better job of exposing the influence of the oppressive powerful on the leaders of free countries. If they already hate us, how does it hurt to publically call out the French for negotiating behind the scenes with Saddam prior to the Iraq war? The pundits weigh in on this stuff all the time, but it is a taboo topic among our elected officials.

I am convinced that the philosophical underpinnings of our country are the greatest testament to what humans can do when they put rationality above tradition. I, therefore, believe that it is upon this that we must base all of our international efforts. We need to talk about who loses when freedom comes to town. At least then we are clear about where we stand in the world.