Obama Slows the Long March toward Freedom

Most likely, Francis Fukuyama spoke too soon. You recall that Fukuyama made a name for himself by announcing that history had come to an end and that liberal democracy had prevailed.

Perhaps it was prophecy; perhaps it was wishful thinking. One thing it wasn't, was historical fact.

Fukuyama was assuming that history enacts a struggle for hegemony between different ideals-- assumption that I find dubious-- and he also seemed to suggest that the outcome was predetermined. If history is over and liberal democracy has won, why do we need to do anything to preserve it?

I doubt that this is what Fukuyama meant, but it is certainly one possible interpretation of his thesis.

Today, Fukuyama notwithstanding, freedom seems to be in retreat around the world. Fouad Ajami explains to us today that Freedom House has declared that we are living through a "freedom recession" in the world. Link here.

As Ajami sees it, the financial crisis has been a boon for autocrats and tyrants. He implies that President Obama's abandonment of his predecessor's freedom agenda has contributed mightily to this unfortunate turn of events.

As Ajami puts it: "Meanwhile, America's new standard-bearer, President Barack Obama, had come to a conviction that the pursuit of freedom in distant lands was not a legitimate concern. From his first days in office, Mr. Obama signaled his resignation toward the despotisms of the Greater Middle East: He would take them as they come."

How did this policy shift express itself in reality? To answer the question we need but look at events in Iran a year ago today. Then a manifestly corrupt election caused an "outpouring" of protest by the Iranian people. Eventually, the forces of darkness crushed the Green Revolution, as the United States stood silently by.

Ajami describes the event: "My Obama had bet on Iran's rulers, but a democratic opposition-- in our image, speaking the language of democracy and unfurling its banners-- was in the streets contesting the rulers' will and the rulers' truth. It was a moment of supreme embarrassment for the United States-- a case of both strategic and moral failure on the part of the president."

He continues: "There is no guarantee that categorical American support would have altered the outcome of the struggle between autocracy and liberty in Iran. But it shall now be part of the narrative of liberty that when Persia rose in the summer of 2009 the steward of American power ducked for cover, and that a president who prided himself on his eloquence couldn't even find the words to tell the forces of liberty that he understood the wellsprings of their revolt."

Perhaps, as Ajami says, Obama could not have done more than to assert his solidarity with the "forces of liberty."

The more salient question is whether Obama simply revealed a moment of consummate weakness, or whether his silence revealed a fundamental policy shift, a shift away from freedom and toward autocracy.

It's not about what you believe, but who you stand with. If you want to promote freedom and democracy in the Middle East then you will side with Israel. Not because it is a Jewish state; not even because it is the only trustworthy ally we have in the region; but because it embodies our most important secular values.

Keep in mind that the international left, the one that aligns itself with the Palestinian cause and believes that Israeli success was purchased at the expense of the Palestinians, is mining a narrative that considers America an organized criminal enterprise whose success was purchased by exploiting poor and disadvantaged people the world over.

You cannot turn away from Israel without also turning away from traditional American values. You cannot repudiate a thriving liberal democracy without revealing your vision of and for America. One might have considered Obama's silence at the suppression of the Iranian Green Revolution a function of inexperience and naivete. But given the development of his contemptuous attitude toward Israel, one must see it as policy, not as a Freudian slip.

If we Americans are leading the world on a long march to freedom, then, in the Middle East, Israel is the solution, not the problem.

To the shock of many-- especially those who did not look into Obama's background-- he has tried to marginalize and isolate Israel, to make it the problem more than the solution. When push comes to shove, Obama seems to side with those who have sacrificed their lives to the cause of destroying the Jewish state, and of ending democracy and free enterprise in the Middle East.

No one should have surprised to see Obama's warm handshake with Palestinian Authority President Abbas this week. No one should have surprised to hear that he wanted to send hundreds of millions of American dollars to Gaza, to support the Hamas-ruled government.

But what did the world think when it compared Obama's Oval Office public meeting with Abbas with his prior treatment of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. Compared with Abbas, Netanyahu was clearly treated as though he were the leader of a rogue state.

If you saw the contrast, whether you were sitting in Baghdad or Kabul or Damascus, would you conclude that Obama is going to champion your freedom. And if the President of the United States thinks free countries are the problem, not the solution, what incentive do you have to fight for freedom?