To Advance Freedom, Remember Religion, Labor, and Technology
How to overcome the new Vietnam Syndrome
Ten of the wisest national security and foreign policy minds in America participated in our recent forum on what America can do to promote freedom, democracy, and rule of law in other countries.
As a reminder, the prompt was:
What are the most promising, concrete, specific steps America can take over the next few years to promote freedom, democracy, and rule of law in other countries? What places and people would you focus on, what’s the case for making the efforts, and how, practically, do you get it done given the constraints imposed by the American political and fiscal landscape?
And the answers included:
“Don’t Lose Any Countries” Is Elliott Abrams’s Advice, by Elliott Abrams
Counter Communist China in the U.S. and at the U.N., Ellen Bork Recommends, by Ellen Bork
Help Ukraine and Israel Prevail, Says Carl Gershman, by Carl Gershman
Resist Redefining “Democracy” as Elite Preferences, Kontorovich Says, by Eugene Kontorovich
Spend More on Defense and Less on Everything Else, Mandelbaum Warns, by Michael Mandelbaum
More Building, Less Lecturing, Mansour Recommends, by Hussein Aboubakr Mansour
Tell the World the Truth About Iran, Says Richard Perle, by Richard Perle
Let Argentina, Israel, Italy, Taiwan and Others Lead, Daniel Pipes Says, by Daniel Pipes
Free Trade for Free Nations, Scheinmann Suggests, by Gabriel Scheinmann
Encourage the Iranians to Liberate Themselves, Wurmser Says, by David Wurmser
The quality of the responses surpassed even my high original expectations, and I’m super-grateful to all ten of the contributors for taking the risk of writing for a new publication like this one.
Before moving on to other topics, I want to take the editor’s prerogative to circle back, fill some gaps, and add my own final suggestions, and a postscript, to the series. This is intended not to disagree with the earlier contributions, but to add on and perhaps synthesize and summarize some:
***
To promote freedom abroad, America should remember religion, labor, and technology.
My first point has to do with the first freedom in the Bill of Rights: freedom of religion.
Religion functions to promote democracy, freedom, and rule of law in at least two important ways.
Throughout American history, as I write in my books about Samuel Adams and John F. Kennedy, faith in God inspires Americans with the courage to take risks and endure in the struggle against tyranny. Understanding that “all men”—even people on the other side of the world—are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” makes it harder to look away when those rights are trampled.
And faith in God also inspires non-Americans, those stuck in unfree countries, with the courage to fight their dictators. Pope John Paul II, who was from Poland, and the movement to free Soviet Jewry both helped to win the Cold War. The religious connections helped to pierce and pull down the Iron Curtain.
What does that mean today, practically? It means that in looking for ways to undercut the dictatorships in Iran and in Communist China, American strategists and tacticians should pay special attention for the potential to partner with religious communities. They have some of the best track records when it comes to success. It also means that those who care about American leadership and involvement overseas should promote policies that are friendly to religious communities here in America, including equal access to funding for religious schools and an end to restrictive land-use regulations that put roadblocks in front of expanding congregations.
The second point has to do with labor. Right up there with Pope John Paul II and Natan Sharansky in defeating Soviet Communism were Lane Kirkland of the AFL-CIO, Albert Shanker of the American Federation of Teachers, and Lech Walesa of Solidarity, the Polish trade union. The old quip is that a neoconservative is someone who supports unions so long as they are in enemy countries. Labor’s role in democracy promotion has become attenuated in recent years as “progressives” hostile to what they see as American imperialism have made inroads in U.S. union leadership. These are the United Auto Workers locals of university graduate students and “academic workers” calling for cutting off American aid to Israel. But Donald Trump’s election amid a push to restore U.S.-based manufacturing may provide an opportunity to revitalize the involvement of labor in the effort to promote freedom and democracy abroad.
Just as dictators can’t abide religious congregations they do not control, the dictators also can’t abide independent labor unions. Both institutions pose threats to the otherwise total power and control of the state. One of the big problems with U.S. trade with China is that in China, labor unions independent of Communist Party control are outlawed. No wonder it’s cheaper to make things in factories there. That’s not the only reason, but it is one of them. And it’s not just factory workers. The teachers in Iran don’t like the regime, either. A possible investment in democracy promotion might involve a project to cultivate a cadre of American union leaders who will devote their energies to finding and backing the Lech Walesas of Iran and Communist China.
Finally, in addition to the religion and labor pieces, there’s a technology piece. What Lane Kirkland and Albert Shanker did with Lech Walesa is send him fax machines and copiers and other tools to get the message out. What that looks like today probably involves social media memes and video, or something having to do with smartphones, or some technology that hasn’t been invented yet. But communications technology for secure coordination among in-country activists, out-of-country-helpers, and to spread messages remains as vital as it was in the days of Samuel Adams working with the hand-printed Boston Gazette or Paul Revere riding to Lexington on horseback.
***
I was struck by how many of the contributions to the forum emphasize defense. “Don’t lose any countries,” as Elliott Abrams puts it. Ellen Bork focuses not on freeing China but rather on countering Chinese Communist influence here in the U.S. and at the U.N. Daniel Pipes recommends allowing other countries, such as Argentina, Israel, Taiwan, and Italy, to take the lead. Michael Mandelbaum advises adjusting U.S. government spending to prevent a fiscal crisis.
America, after the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, appears to be experiencing something of a replay of the Vietnam Syndrome, a reluctance to get involved overseas for fear it will end in a costly quagmire. That is what I mean in the prompt by “the constraints imposed by the American political and fiscal landscape.” The problem is that when dictators are left unchecked, they wind up not only wreaking regional havoc but also attacking America and American interests. That’s not an argument for reckless military intervention, but it is an argument against passivity.
In the Cold War, the Vietnam Syndrome was cured in part by the World War II generation, people like Ronald Reagan and Caspar Weinberger who understood the risks of isolationism and remembered that America could win. Today perhaps the solution to the new Vietnam Syndrome—the Iraq-Afghanistan Syndrome—will come from Cold Warriors who remember that it was possible to defeat the Soviet Union without a hot war. It took a military buildup and also moral clarity, creativity, and courage. See, as a statement of the possibilities, “Tell the World the Truth About Iran, Says Richard Perle.” As Israelis learned on October 7, as New Yorkers and those at the Pentagon learned on September 11, and as the World War II generation learned on December 7, it’s better to be on offense.