Might versus Right

Freeman Center for Strategic Studies | June 24, 2002 | Prof. Paul Eidelberg

[BenF]

There is a powerful democratic tendency, especially among left-wing intellectuals, to regard might in defense of right as morally suspect.

This tendency may be related to the principle that democracy is based on consent, not on coercion, on the primacy of speech or persuasion, not on force. Democrats naturally believe that conflicts between nations may be resolved if only the parties concerned are open to "reason." This is why such notions as "conflict resolution" and "confidence building" are peculiar to democracy (but utterly alien to Islam).

Actually, these notions are the product of an advanced stage of democracy. Might in defense of right is morally suspect nowadays because morality itself has become problematic. Witness Europe's hostile attitude toward Israel's "Operation Defensive Shield" against Arab Palestinians terrorists in general, and homocide bombers in particular. Of course, Europe is also animated by anti-Semitism-the ultimate negation of morality whose origin is Judaism.

Because morality has become problematic, so has the idea of a just war. Many left-wing intellectuals regard war as unqualifiedly evil because, for them, the greatest evil is violent death. Although left-wing intellectuals parade as moralists, the truth is that many are at war with traditional morality insofar as the latter acknowledges irreconcilable conflicts between good and evil.

Also animating many left-wing intellectuals is the belief that the just nation must be the weaker, the victim. Not only do intellectuals of this persuasion usually assume that justice is benevolence, but they seem to believe that benevolence alone is sufficient to disarm evil. To be sure, there is also the opposite error of believing that evil can be eliminated merely by the application of brute force. But to identify justice with benevolence is to guarantee the victory of the wicked.

Moreover, the equation of justice and benevolence reduces justice to equality. Democracies, it is naively believed, should display good will to all nations regardless of their political or ideological character. This would require the leaders of democracies to ingratiate themselves with the leaders of dictatorships. It would be tantamount to treating ideological friends and ideological foes as equals.

This "even-handedness" has been the currency of American and European foreign policy in the Arab-Israel conflict. Actually, this policy is animated by material motives-greed, to put it plainly-but also, at least in Europe's case, by anti-Semitism. In any event, the West's supposedly "even-handed" policy in the Middle East encourages the designs of Arab dictatorships on the one hand, and undermines Israel on the other.

Here is a case where "realists" and "moralists" both contribute to war. They legitimize dictatorial regimes, whose domestic and foreign policy is based on the primacy of force. By treating ideological friends and foes as equal, "realists" and "moralists" sew the seeds of death and destruction. Consider, therefore, these words of Ibn Hazm of Cordova (994-1064):

"He who befriends and advances friend and foe alike will only arouse distaste for his friendship and contempt for his enmity. He will earn the scorn of his enemy, and facilitate his hostile designs ... "The height of goodness is that you should neither oppress your enemy nor abandon him to oppression. To treat him as a friend is the work of a fool whose end is near. "The height of evil is that you should oppress your friend. Even to estrange him is the act of a man who has no sense, for whom misfortune is predestined. "Magnanimity is not to befriend the enemy, but to spare them, and to remain on your guard against them."

Although democracies are inherently peace-loving, their "even-handed" policy-makers close their eyes to evil. War is the consequence, and the magnitude of force required to remove evil may then become awesome.

[BenF]

fyi

[monkeyshine]

Good article. But it's too short. Some of the themes need to be expanded. He mentioned anti-semitism twice but never explained how it's in play in Europe.