National Review Online<\/em><\/a><\/p>\nThere were many paradoxes left after the protests of the 1960s. One of the worst was American elites\u2019 hypocrisy toward authoritarianism abroad.<\/p>\n
Most Americans granted that anti-Communist strongmen like Ferdinand Marcos, Augusto Pinochet, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, and Anastasio Somoza stifled liberty and freedom. Yet they further agreed that during a lose-lose Cold War, in which our enemies the Soviet Union and Red China had collectively murdered perhaps 80 million of their own people, there were no good choices. Thus they were willing to go along with the American government\u2019s support for right-wing thugs who were enlisted in the war against Communism, although the elites, especially in the academy, regularly castigated them.<\/p>\n
Yet left-wing brutes \u2014 the Castro brothers, Che Guevara, the Eastern European puppet regimes, an array of monsters in Africa, and, later, the Ortega bunch and Hugo Ch\u00e1vez \u2014 were usually given a pass from commensurate scrutiny. The reasoning apparently was twofold. One, bloodthirsty liberationists gained exemption by claiming that their absolutism was in service to \u201cequality\u201d and \u201cthe people.\u201d Their supposedly noble ends justified their bloody means.<\/p>\n
Two, they were charmingly anti-American. Left-wing thugs found that their animus resonated with an affluent, postwar American Baby Boomer generation. The more leisured and comfortable American life became, the more Americans had the luxury of critiquing their own inherited privilege. Accordingly, the more left-wing authoritarians abroad dredged up all sorts of race, class, and gender transgressions of the United States, the more they were deemed authentic by our own elites, who shared their grievances against America.<\/p>\n
Even the stereotypes followed the script: Right-wing dictators wore easily caricatured epaulettes, plenty of gold sashes, chests full of gaudy medals, and sunglasses. Left-wing dictators had cool facial hair, wore camouflage or Mao suits, and appeared to be men of the people. Castro may have killed more than did Pinochet, and he destroyed the economy of Cuba while Pinochet rescued that of Chile, but he made a far better dorm-room wall poster for upscale American students.<\/p>\n
That dishonesty, unfortunately, remained with us, especially as the children of the 1960s aged and assumed the reins of American power. If an authoritarian mouthed egalitarian platitudes or even generic anti-American sloganeering, the new American establishment often accepted that buffoonery as conferring a sort of grass-roots legitimacy.<\/p>\n
Note how Barack Obama \u2014 who came of age on the fumes of the 1960s \u2014 reacted to the Green protests in Iran during spring 2009. Obama had run for office on the stereotyped idea that a reactionary Bush administration had ignored the cries of Iranian \u201creformers\u201d within the theocracy, imams who supposedly wanted a reset relationship with a long-awaited cosmopolitan like Obama.<\/p>\n
In perfect Sixties fashion, Obama believed that his own against-the-grain personal narrative \u2014 mixed racial ancestry, exotic non-Western name, fashionably radical early CV, and boutique ankle-biting of his own country \u2014 would ensure that he, almost alone, could engineer a breakthrough with the anti-American Iranians. After all, they might have something in common, in their shared suspicions of a \u201cyou didn\u2019t build that\u201d capitalism, Western chauvinism, and the privileged race\/class\/gender assumptions of the American establishment. The fact that most of the Iranian theocrats were by definition illiberal, anti-democratic, religiously intolerant, and statist, and that they were often violent was ignored. They even dressed the anti-Western part as tie-less bureaucrats and mimicked the 1960s boilerplate American anti-establishment rhetoric.<\/p>\n
No wonder, then, that Obama seemed startled when hundreds of thousands of democratic reformers destroyed his script by hitting the streets of Iran\u2019s cities. Apparently their desire for constitutional government and a pro-Western tilt made them almost suspicious in Obama\u2019s eyes. Maybe he felt their success would spoil his own supposedly singular ability to connect with the anti-American theocracy. Or perhaps their admiration for Western freedoms made them suspect neo-cons of a sort. In any case, the reformers got no support from the U.S. and were quickly crushed.<\/p>\n
In Egypt something depressingly similar followed. Like the Shah\u2019s, Hosni Mubarak\u2019s past help to America was ignored. That he was a bad guy among far worse alternatives meant little. Unlike Condoleezza Rice\u2019s August 2005 prodding of Mubarak to liberalize before it was too late, Obama\u2019s 2009 Cairo speech was pure mytho-history, inventing out of thin air all sorts of Lala Land Islamic achievements to woo Islamists, some of whom were especially invited to attend the occasion.<\/p>\n
We are told that James Clapper was a fool to describe the Muslim Brotherhood as \u201clargely secular,\u201d but he was at least a bureaucratically toadyish fool, who knew that his mischaracterization was in sync with the president\u2019s earlier Cairo fantasies. In any case, since 2011 this administration has made it clear that it believes the Muslim Brotherhood \u2014 forget its origins, its history, and its unapologetic agenda \u2014 is more legitimate and more authentic than the alternatives. In this dreamland, it\u2019s the unimaginative, straitlaced American establishment that deals with puppets like Mubarak. Only a gifted Barack Hussein Obama can navigate the complex and challenging eddies of the understandably anti-American Muslim Brotherhood.<\/p>\n
This dreary story has been repeated elsewhere around the world. During the 2009 constitutional crisis in Honduras, in which the Honduran Supreme Court, Congress, and military together removed the dictatorial president, Manuel Zelaya, the Obama administration showed that its sympathies were with the authoritarian. Bashar Assad was deemed a \u201creformer\u201d in a way Hosni Mubarak or monster-in-rehab Moammar Qaddafi was not \u2014 largely because he was much more vehement in his anti-American obstructionism and had proved his bona fides by despising the Bush administration. When the Assad fantasy dissipated, the administration was initially hesitant to side with pro-Western reformers, meager though they might have been. Who knows whom we are clandestinely arming now, other than that they probably do not like the U.S. any more than they do Bashar Assad.<\/p>\n
Compare Benjamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas. The former is a product of a pro-Western, democratic, and tolerant political system \u2014 and therefore somewhat worrisome in his pro-Americanism. The latter stifles free expression, persecutes dissenters, is religiously intolerant, and mouths cheap anti-American rhetoric \u2014 and therefore apparently is an authentic, grass-roots voice that we should pay attention to. That Israelis enjoy the sort of free public expression that Palestinians both deserve and are denied is a secondary consideration, or perhaps so taken for granted as to be boring.<\/p>\n
There should be little reason why Prime Minister Recep Erdogan of Turkey would be a favorite of an American president. Since his election in 2003, Erdogan has spent most of the last decade insidiously undermining Turkish democracy as he stifles free speech and Islamizes the Kemalist culture. Recently he offered an abjectly racist denunciation of the leader of the opposition in the Turkish\u00a0parliament (\u201cKilicdaroglu is striving every bit he can to raise himself from the level of a black person to the level of a white man\u201d).\u00a0Apparently, Erdogan\u2019s chief appeal to the Obama administration is that he shares the same suspicions of the West that many elites in the West hold. Accordingly, when thousands hit the streets of Istanbul to call for the same sort of Western freedoms that those in Iran had demanded in 2009, the U.S. was largely silent. The protesters, not Erdogan, were suspect.<\/p>\n
The now-incarcerated con artist Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, despite his prior petty criminality, was not in jail on September 11, 2012. Nor did his amateurish video really cause the riots in Libya, much less earn him incarceration for national-security reasons. His real crime instead was that his having chosen to immigrate to America and his crude anti-Islamic propaganda made him easy pickings: For Obama he was a bigoted Westernized reactionary, who could be publicly pilloried to win favor with anti-American, religiously intolerant Islamists. The latter supposedly represented, for good or evil, far more authentic voices for Middle Eastern values.<\/p>\n
The irony is that equating anti-Americanism with some sort of legitimacy is paternalistic to the core. We assume that millions abroad must be inauthentic if they dream of enjoying the same freedoms that we take for granted. The result is counter-intuitive: To get on the good side of the U.S. today, an authoritarian should employ some of the cheap jargon that our Sixties elites used of their own country. Such illiberalism conveys legitimacy and offers the likelihood of being coaxed and charmed by Barack Obama.<\/p>\n
NRO\u00a0contributor<\/em>\u00a0Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. His latest book is\u00a0<\/em>The Savior Generals<\/a>,<\/em><\/span>\u00a0published this spring by<\/em>Bloomsbury<\/em>\u00a0Books.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Mouthing Sixties-style anti-Western slogans is the way to win the president’s heart. by Victor Davis Hanson \/\/\u00a0National Review Online There were many paradoxes left after the protests of the 1960s. One of the worst was American elites\u2019 hypocrisy toward authoritarianism abroad. Most Americans granted that anti-Communist strongmen like Ferdinand Marcos, Augusto Pinochet, Mohammad Reza Shah […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":6207,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false}}},"categories":[11,196],"tags":[233,12,882,1036,88,527],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/07\/OvalOffice.whitehouse.jpg?fit=401%2C247&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p466Sb-1C3","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":9419,"url":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/the-betrayal-of-the-intellectuals\/","url_meta":{"origin":6203,"position":0},"title":"The Betrayal of the Intellectuals?","author":"victorhanson","date":"August 22, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"After nearly eight years of aiding and abetting Obama, leftists now fear the possible constitutional overreach of our next president. By Victor Davis Hanson \/\/ National Review Online Peter Beinart writes\u00a0angrily in The Atlantic of the supposed Trump intellectuals, apparently on the premise of not whether one has endorsed formally\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Trump"","block_context":{"text":"Trump","link":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/ahref=\/index.php\/categories\/angry-reader\/categorylink\/a\/trump\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":2072,"url":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/change-weakness-disaster-obama-victor-davis-hanson-answers-the-questions\/","url_meta":{"origin":6203,"position":1},"title":"Change, Weakness, Disaster, Obama: Victor Davis Hanson Answers the Questions","author":"victorhanson","date":"December 16, 2009","format":false,"excerpt":"by Bernard Chapin PJ Media \u201cVDH\u201d are three letters that may appear random to the general public, but for conservatives they have definite meaning. They signify the person of Dr.\u00a0Victor Davis Hanson\u00a0[1]. The\u00a0scholar\u00a0[2],\u00a0professor\u00a0[3], and\u00a0political pundit\u00a0[4] is especially well known to readers of Pajamas Media.\u00a0His blog\u00a0[5] consistently enriches the homepage and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Interviews"","block_context":{"text":"Interviews","link":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/ahref=\/index.php\/categories\/angry-reader\/categorylink\/a\/interviews\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":13575,"url":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/historians-corner-assessing-america-in-the-age-of-woke-2\/","url_meta":{"origin":6203,"position":2},"title":"Historian\u2019s Corner: Assessing America in the Age of Woke","author":"victorhanson","date":"June 20, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"G-7 Summit Victor Davis Hanson \/\/ Private Papers Part Three Militarily\u00a0 The Left used to march on the Pentagon; now it runs it from the inside. Secretary of Defense Austin represents the new profile of a defense secretary and upper-echelon of the military. In exchange, upon retirement and without criticism\u2026","rel":"","context":"With 7 comments","block_context":{"text":"With 7 comments","link":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/historians-corner-assessing-america-in-the-age-of-woke-2\/#comments"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/G7.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":1217,"url":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/the-gift-of-obamas-foreign-policy\/","url_meta":{"origin":6203,"position":3},"title":"The Gift of Obama’s Foreign Policy","author":"victorhanson","date":"October 8, 2010","format":false,"excerpt":"by Victor Davis Hanson National Review Online The Obama reset foreign policy has, in an unintended way, brought clarity to America\u2019s traditional role in the world. After 2004, \u201cblame Bush\u201d proved an easy way for Europeans and American liberals to delude themselves into thinking the world\u2019s problems neither predated nor\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "October 2010"","block_context":{"text":"October 2010","link":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/ahref=\/index.php\/categories\/angry-reader\/categorylink\/a\/archives\/2010\/october-2010\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":3342,"url":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/ideals-trump-interests-in-obamas-libya-policy\/","url_meta":{"origin":6203,"position":4},"title":"Ideals Trump Interests in Obama’s Libya Policy","author":"victorhanson","date":"April 15, 2011","format":false,"excerpt":"by Raymond Ibrahim Hudson New York President Obama's\u00a0recent explanation\u00a0for militarily engaging Libya is yetanother example\u00a0of how US leaders increasingly rationalize their policies via sentimental and idealistic platitudes, rather than reality or the long view \u2014 or just plain common sense. In a speech replete with moralizing intonations, Obama did manage\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Libya"","block_context":{"text":"Libya","link":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/ahref=\/index.php\/categories\/angry-reader\/categorylink\/a\/the-world\/the-middle-east\/libya\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":11786,"url":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/the-progressive-revolution-from-democratic-to-liberal-to-progressive-to-socialist\/","url_meta":{"origin":6203,"position":5},"title":"The Progressive Revolution: From Democratic to Liberal to Progressive to Socialist","author":"victorhanson","date":"April 16, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Victor Davis Hanson \/\/ National Review Americans voted for Barack Obama in 2008 despite, not because of, his most partisan voting record in the Senate. They were once willing to look past his earlier dubious associations with abject anti-Semites such as the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, former terrorists like Bill Ayers,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Progressivism"","block_context":{"text":"Progressivism","link":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/ahref=\/index.php\/categories\/angry-reader\/categorylink\/a\/progressivism\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6203"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6203"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6203\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6233,"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6203\/revisions\/6233"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6207"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6203"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6203"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/victorhanson.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6203"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}