Blogbat

« Reagan: A Time for Choosing | Main | Venezuela: Canary in the Latin American Mine Shaft? »

January 24, 2007

Blogbat Publicitus: Isobel Coleman on Arab Opportunities

 

 

I attended an interesting luncheon today hosted by the World Affairs Council (of which I happen to be a member) at the beautiful Arlington Hall at Lee Park. The event featured a seemingly somewhat sunburned Isobel Coleman, Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy specializing in women’s issues for the Council on Foreign Relations (maybe it was her coral outfit).

 

The discussion focused on the exploding growth of the 15-25 age group in the Middle East and the opportunities and dangers it offers. Ms. Coleman offered a pretty thorough assessment of both; however, she closed by making the statement that the U.S. (and perhaps the West in general) is “obligated” to help this region take advantage of the opportunity for economic growth and stability which presents itself during this time in which these states have relatively fewer senior citizens and school-age children to subsidize. While I’m pretty sure I can guess why she would state that, it still seems a bit shallow to make an assertion that calls for perhaps tens of millions of dollars and other resources to be spent without explaining the rationale.

 

That’s not to say most of us would completely disagree with her, though I probably do disagree a bit with what might be her reasoning. She seeming a bit left of center probably holds to some of the ideas as expressed by Andrew Simms in the New Statesman awhile back in his article, “Why We Owe So Much to Victims of Disaster”. Naturally, Simms is far more wild-eyed and far-left (he’s on the board of directors for Greenpeace) than Ms. Coleman, but the idea expressed in his piece illustrates the general thought processes of the left that we’ve raped, pillaged, and ruined the world; we caused Islamofascist terrorism, and we must therefore pay reparations through the “obligatory” funding of various projects and schemes throughout the disaffected south (Third World). Reagan-Conservatives on the other hand are motivated less by guilt and more by compassion, and that is where I arrive at a similar conclusion: that we should offer help to improve (and de-radicalize) education and help build stable regions that attract business and provide jobs (as Ms. Coleman mentioned, unemployment is literally off the scale among most Middle-Eastern teens and twenties). Although unemployment has always been big in that region, while this round of radicalism has been a bit more recent, it is still a tremendously beneficial thing to provide the framework for opportunities for young men who otherwise might fall into radicalism as part of a bigger solution. However, education and jobs (and trade) alone don't lead to peace and gentleness, as we learned with Nazi Germany. We cannot discount the role of ideology. In reality, materialism alone will lead to more problems than solutions. In addition to compassion, there is also the natural self-interest which states, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Both of those, compassion and practical long-term self-interest (or "self-compassion"), rather than conflicting work in tandem to offer a far more rational approach to thoughtful consideration of what needs to be addressed than the insane frenzy of guiltism, which can hardly bare to look at the problem long enough to throw money at it.

 

Ms. Coleman was also wrong in her assessment that, as she put it, U.S. military efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq were “a failure”. While Iraq is certainly a child in the special-needs class, Afghanistan has been an amazing success. By her own seemingly begrudged admission, Afghanistan has moved ahead in light-years with respect to the position of women in society. That’s not to say there’s room for improvement still – and by her own admission, such things take time. However, none of it would have been possible if first there had not been a military solution to liberate the people from their cruel oppressors. Also, Coleman’s apparent assumption that it has to be an either-or with respect to the use of military versus non-military aid and support ignores the fact that Afghanistan has been the success that it is precisely because both, not one or the other, were used. Iraq too, is similar, and is bearing similar fruits in the Kurdish region. The difference it seems between Afghanistan and Iraq has been what appears to be a popular readiness for relief from tyranny through the work necessary to attain it.

 

It also cannot be discounted the dramatic inflow of interference coming from Iran and Syria, which curiously, left-leaning policy wonks seem to always state must be left alone at all costs. While the cynic may say that this is because it helps maintain the crisis as it now stands in Iraq, which then serves the political interests of the American left, I think in most cases it goes back again to this guilt and anxiety disorder that motivates that galumphing, knuckle-dragging monster known as the appeasement collective. Notwithstanding, she is correct in underscoring the danger of radicalist teachings within the educational establishments of countries like Saudi Arabia, Syria, and so on. However, the fact she understands this and still prefers to think that materialism is the water that douses all errant ideology puts faith in a far too fragile statue.

 

While Ms. Coleman is not entirely off-target in her assessment of the problem or her proffered solution, how she arrived at what she believes led to the problem and how she then arrives at its solution is also critically important, since the logic following those perceptions will determine the critical details of how that solution is to be applied and its eventual outcome.

 

Ms. Coleman is well-spoken and no doubt sincere, though she is certainly someone who is on the left at least with respect to the matter addressed today. She is also, no surprise, pro-abortion. However, there’s nothing “conspiratorial” about that: she’s just someone who lives in a “blue state” and is the product of likely considerable exposure to a leftwing educational establishment. She’s also clearly an emotional person, which arguably makes her more prone to modern Western liberalism’s guiltist thinking. There are certainly also many noted conservatives who share membership in her organization, including the great Charles Krauthammer. The fact that there are many of leftwing orientation in the CFR says more about the region in which it is headquartered and the large number of academicians who no doubt have joined to make themselves feel more important than they really are. Other organizations, study groups, and think tanks such as the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research are no different. Such groups are open to diverse political walks, but their location tends to make them more prone to leftwing thinkers than otherwise; not too different really than how one expects to catch more salmon in some streams, bass in others. If the CFR had been based in Enid, Oklahoma, it no doubt would instead have a right-ward slant (and a parking lot full of pickups). That’s not to discount the fact that some leftwing members would like to see bad things happen to the United States as we know it, but that’s a truism across the board for at least the radical members of the left in any organization, church, or business. The fact that as luck would have it they may make up most of this organization only states the obvious: the glass is most often defined by its contents, but the glass itself is not what it contains. One must simply change the contents of the glass to redefine it. That isn’t to say that those such as Ms. Coleman do not have a place; they not only do, believe it or not, we need them too. However, I would like to see more conservatives taking part. A think tank (among other things) that addresses such a wide scope of international issues as does the CFR absolutely has a necessary place, but it’s rendered a bit less useful when it has been to some degree hobbled by its abundant leftwing idealism and at times also a short-sighted economic idealism.

 

On a final note about this afternoon’s luncheon (and to leave you with something that struck me as a bit funny), I have a short little story to offer from something that happened during the Q & A portion of the event. A Brazilian educator who was present mentioned that she had been present at some sort of NEA (National Education Association) conference recently in which she brought up the subject of private school teachers and the NEA. The woman explained to us how shocked she was that those NEA members refused to even discuss letting private school teachers join the union. Indeed, she couldn’t comprehend why an organization made up of teachers would put politics ahead of education, apparently unaware of that union's long history of doing just such; something at which most of us knowingly chuckled. Even our speaker was forced to admit the proof was in the pudding, so to speak: public schools largely controlled by this union which almost always gets its way when it comes to textbooks and policies by and large are a failure. As for whether private school teachers would wish to join the NEA, that’s probably not something the NEA truly has to worry about; the NEA and private school teachers obviously have different agendas. :)

 

 

         

Posted by Martin at January 24, 2007 02:52 AM

Comments

Posted by: Angel at January 24, 2007 06:00 PM

Posted by: Debbie at January 25, 2007 02:23 PM

Posted by: Mark at February 3, 2007 07:10 PM