"The Liberal Order Has Become Illiberal"

Sydney M. Williams

Thought of the Day 

“The Liberal Order Has Become Illiberal”

July 19, 2018

“We must especially beware of that small group of selfish men who would

 clip the wings of the American eagle in order to feather their own nests.”

                                                                                                President Franklin Roosevelt

                                                                                                State of the Union, January 1941

The so-called “liberal world order” arrived in the aftermath of World War II –an epic war between forces of good and evil. Millions had experienced the horrors of a hot war. In victory, the Allies wanted to ensure that such wanton killing would never happen again. It was a time when moral absolutes reigned. Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings” and C.S. Lewis’ “Chronicles of Narnia” were written just before and just after the War. Both fantasy parables were based on the Biblical notion of good triumphing over evil.

In the wake of World War II, democratic nations agreed to create an international system – a liberal order – rooted in democracy, the rule of law and mutual respect for each country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. It would be inspired by the U.S., but not submissive to her. Global organizations like the UN, NATO, WTO, World Bank and IMF were created to provide a forum for parties to meet, transact and discuss. But it was fear of mutually assured destruction – the threat of nuclear weapons and the power of a strong military – that kept major powers at bay during the first four and a half decades after the War. 

In the aftermath of the War, the United States was the only nation in a position to help revive its Allies…and its former enemies, and it did so. The U.S. had emerged from the War largely unscathed. Between the years 1940 and 1945, its economy expanded 75%, while those of other major combatants shrunk. The Marshall Plan, the Truman Doctrine and the deployment of U.S. troops provided economic assistance and acted as a buffer against the nascent spread of Communism.

The world evolved after 1945. While liberal capitalism helped drive economic growth and prosperity in the West, the East remained imprisoned, yoked to dictatorships and subject to the economic deprivation of Communism. The Cold War was eventually won by the forces of freedom, capitalism and democracy against confinement, poverty and authoritarianism. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States became the world’s sole hegemonic power. In 1990 President George H. W. Bush addressed the United Nations: “Out of these troubled times, our objective – a new world order – can emerge. Today, that new world is struggling to be born, a world quite different from the one we have known.” Unfortunately, the collapse of Communism created a vacuum of leadership in the West. The Cold War had been won, but what to do with the spoils? Reagan and Thatcher, the giants who had slain the Soviet dragon, were gone.

Over the past several decades, as politics in Europe moved inexorably to the left, American capitalism became questioned. The credit collapse of 2008 added fuel to those flames of concern, in part because most analyses ignored the consequential role played by government leading to that crisis. In the eyes of Europeans, the U.S. was no longer the savior it had been in 1945. In fact, it became begrudged. Simultaneously, to middle Americans, Europeans appeared condescending, arrogant, hypocritical, ethereal and weak. They were seen as Elois to the Morlocks who had liberated them. Americans came to resent the costs of defending a people who seemed unappreciative, self-centered, dependent on state-funded amenities and accepting as their due security provided by Americans. 

Over seventy years things change, and change happened in the West. Nationalism, which had been blamed for the rise of Nazism in Germany and fascism in Japan, became a component of liberalism during the Cold War, as the West urged nationalists to help defeat Communism. Keep in mind as well, Brits, French, Belgians, Scandinavians, Chinese and others had taken pride in their nations’ defeat of Hitler and Hirohito. Today, European elites condemn what they see as a rebirth of nationalism in Eastern and Central Europe, especially when progressive policies are challenged. Ivan Krastev, Chairman for Liberal Studies in Sofia, put it this way in a recent article for The Guardian: “Postwar German democracy was built on the assumption that nationalism leads ineluctably to Nazism…But, unlike German nationalists in 1945, central European nationalists in 1989 felt they’d come out the winners…” 

Sovereign rights and laws, once the domain of independent states, were relegated to bureaucrats in Brussels. Deprivation led to excess. Rising costs associated with ever-higher welfare payments, deteriorating demographics, increasing debt and dependence on an omnipotent rich uncle across the sea. In this fiscal morass, a debt-laden future was seen as acceptable to ensure a comfortable present.

Aggravating the situation, unfettered immigration policies put strains on cultures and economies. A rise in Islamic terrorism, emanating from the Middle East and Africa, and a return of socialist authoritarianism in Central America created floods of refugees – some in need, but among them many who look for “freebies” and a few were intent on harming their host country. Immigration, the engine of growth and diversity, became a fulcrum for division. From globalism emerged multiculturalism and then a concomitant dispersal of moral clarity. The lines between good and evil became blurred, washed away by a desire for inclusion. Under the guise of political correctness, the West adopted a theocracy of relativism. When asked whether the population of Muslims in Europe was a “very or somewhat” serious threat, more than 60% of respondents in Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands and England said yes. Yet, open borders are favored by many Western leaders in Europe and in the U.S. As Mark Steyn recently wrote, when the concerns of the majority are “regarded as unmentionable by mainstream parties, you have a crisis of democracy.”

For Americans, what is happening is consequential. A recent “Quality of Life” ranking by US News placed the United States 17^thin the world, behind most of those helped. Social welfare states have been abetted and protected by the United States. Assumptions and expectations are that the status quo ante would continue, notwithstanding the human cost to administrative-led welfare states. In a recent op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, Erica Komisar, psychoanalyst and author of “Being There: Why Prioritizing Motherhood in the First Three Years Matters,” wrote about Sweden, which has the highest personal income tax in the world: “While Sweden has worked hard to eliminate material poverty, it is creating a society whose children are suffering from emotional poverty.” A warning more than a quarter of a century ago by then Director of the UN World Health Organization Brock Chisholm portends ominously: “To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family, traditions, national patriotism and religious dogmas.” His words are reminiscent of George Orwell’s 1984.

As much as some Euro-centrics would like Europe to become politically, as well as economically, united, they should keep in mind that Empires have been tried in Europe and all ultimately failed. Think of the Holy Roman Empire, the epic battles between France and England during the Hundred Years War, Philip the II of Spain, the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, Napoleon and Nazi Germany. When the United States was formed, the history of individual colonies stretched back less than 200 years. The principal language was English, and a large percentage of the population came from the British Isles. Even so, the forming of the Union was not easy, and a Civil War had to be fought eighty years later to solidify the Republic that had been created in 1787. History, culture, religion, customs and language separate nations. Democracy, free trade and trade associations, forums to meet, student exchanges and the like are measures that help maintain friendships, alliances and peace, without forming an imperfect union.

If the EU were truly liberal, it would allow the UK to withdraw and then work out the mutually best trade, defense, cultural and immigration policies and practices. It would ask why and for what reason did Britain choose to withdraw? It would want to know, what is it that can be done better? It would make it easier for the aspirant to succeed by lessening regulations and reducing taxes. It would agree to eliminate all tariffs. It would become self-reliant in terms of defense, and it would face the harsh reality of domestic, social welfare policies that burden future generations, and which fail to account for changes in demographics.

At bottom, it is the cavalier attitude toward defense that is most troubling. In the years since the collapse of the Soviet Union, defense spending in the U.S. declined from 6.8% of GDP, during the height of the arms buildup in the 1980s, to 3.5% last year. Even so, as a percent of GDP, the United States still spends almost twice as much on defense as do France, Germany, the UK, Japan, Australia, Canada and Austria. Given the world we live in, amidst the threats that abound, we cannot afford to let defense spending slip further. Mr. Trump is not denying the relevance of NATO. He is asking, in his blunt and undiplomatic way, that beneficiaries re-think their obligations to help pay the price. He wants people to acknowledge the presence of good and evil, to stand up for the former and against the latter. As well, he wants trade with no tariffs. The current system has disadvantaged the United States, with deficits being garnered by the U.S. and surpluses gathered by those like Germany. The result, its trade deficit has ballooned, along with federal deficits and debt. In 1990, after a spurt in defense spending that brought down the Soviet Union, national debt was about 65% of GDP. Last year, it was 105%. The United States’ role as a rich uncle available for handouts is coming, by necessity, to an end. Nephews and nieces have done well and are now being asked to bear more of the burden, even if it means reducing the beloved welfare state.

The stories of Tolkien and C.S. Lewis remain relevant. Evil persists, in the guise of Islamic terrorists and in the re-birth of a territorial-aggressive Russia, and a China intent on dominating Asian seas and trading routes to Africa and the Middle East. Iran is on a glide toward nuclear weapons. Syria’s Assad remains in power. Kim Jong-un clings to his nuclear weapons. But, I believe we must also watch warily the growth of the Administrative State – executive and administrative orders, without legislative support, and non-elected district judges who issue nationwide injunctions. The risk to liberty too often emanates from inside. A Freedom House report last January noted that seventy-one countries suffered net declines in political rights and civil liberties, while thirty-five countries experienced gains: “Democracy faced its most serious crisis in decades in 2017.”

It is democracy and republicanism that is wanted – the voices of the people and their elected representatives, not sanctuary cities, political correctness, “hash-tags,” “diversity,” “victimization” or edicts from Washington, London, Paris, Berlin or Brussels that is critical to liberalism. Tolerance, respect, universal values, fairness, equality of opportunity and obeisance to laws and cultural norms are necessary guidelines for a civilized, liberal society.  

In the rubric at the start of this essay, Roosevelt was speaking of dictators in Europe and Japan, but his warning, in both a domestic and global sense, has relevance today.