Leadership Requires Moral Clarity

The President has decided not to meet with Iranian President Ahmadinejad, and apparently not to accept his invitation to a debate as well. That didn't come as a surprise, but does that mean we should be OK with it? I'm a bit put off by the thought of an American president running away from a debate with any other head of state; the fact that it would be with a head of state as pompous and arrogant as Ahmadinejad and from a state as rogue as Iran makes it so much worse. But the real kicker is that this comes at a time when America needs to demonstrate moral leadership even more than it must demonstrate military resolve.

We're told that a debate right now would be a distraction from the more pressing issue of getting Iran to abandon its uranium enrichment programs. Well, that's certainly true, it would be a distraction... but I don't hear any counteroffers of having a debate after Iran brings itself into compliance. Forgive me if I sense that there's a bit of a cop-out here. A more likely explanation (and rather obvious, considering this came as no surprise to anyone) is that the debate will pretty much be an opportunity for Iran, Venezuela, et. al. to spout off all their complaints against us, and we don't want to face it.

Well, that's a problem. If we're being blamed for being "the root cause of all the problems in the world," we sure as hell need to face up to that charge. We're afraid to do so. Part of this is because we're worried that, although our detractors are wrong on most points, we will not be able to effectively rebut them and the global attention will hurt our image regardless of who is right. The other part that bothers us is that we know in some ways, they are going to be right, and that most of us within the US are going to learn things about ourselves we didn't know and were happier not knowing. Both of these excuses suck ass.

First of all, we never miss an opportunity to compliment ourselves on how great our political system is. One would think that in a country with such an advanced system, great politicians, orators, researchers, and scholars would be produced. We should be able field a team that can create and communicate a winning argument. Yeah, I doubt Bush is the best guy to actually articulate the argument. But Cheney may well be, and I don't see any problem with offering someone else. I'm sure Ahmadinejad wants Bush because he knows Bush will make an ass of himself, and he'll be angry if we offer a pinch hitter. And not offering Bush will signal weakness in the sense that we know Bush can't debate worth a damn--but guess what? The whole world already knows Bush is a shitty speaker. Making a counteroffer will put Ahmadinejad on the defensive though, because then he'll have to choose what is more important, embarrassing a leader with just 2 years left in his term, or having a discussion on issues that will continue to be important to the 3rd world for decades to come. By running away altogether, we signal weakness not only in Bush himself, but in America's policies as well.

Second, if we are doing wrong in the world, sticking our heads in the sand isn't exactly the kind of leadership we need to be demonstrating. The conflict we're in now is one of ideology, and what happens in the minds of people all over the world is just as crucial as what happens on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. If we want to persuade the poor, hopeless, and angry masses of potential terrorists not to resort to violence against the West, we can't do it by being hypocrites and by providing them with reasons to hate us. We're trying to persuade them to adopt a different moral order, because we know that the progress of society requires peace and stability and that peace and stability can only be achieved if (1) people are willing to accept their differences and co-exist rather than resorting to force, or (2) the sovereign is able to force the same views upon everyone and is repressive enough to ensure stability. We also know that the absolute power of (2) corrupts absolutely and will not work over time, and even while it is working it imposes terrible costs. A moral argument is not persuasive, however, if it comes from an immoral source. Clerics and other leaders will not endorse democratic reform and non-violence if they are firmly convinced that doing so will simply allow the US to expand it hegemony to their detriment. The rank-and-file will be happy to listen to radicals who blame the US for injustices as long as we fail to refute the cases where we are right AND to apologize and make amends for the cases where we are wrong. There will be such cases.

In our policies, there is often a conflict between acting in our interest and doing the right thing. We may be realizing, however, that our place in the world cannot be maintained through force of arms alone. It requires maintaining the cooperation of our allies and breaking up the unity of our enemies. Our old ways of supporting corrupt regimes, covertly toppling governments, assassination, exploitation of economic power, etc., must be reigned in if we're to be perceived as the "good guys" we like to believe we are. Doing the right thing is becoming our interest.

So why not tell the world that we are doing the right thing when we are accused of causing problems? Why not apologize when they are right, and resolve to act consistently with our values? This is what the version of America that exists in our hearts and minds would do; isn't it worth a little discomfort to make the America that actually exists act the same way?