Yes Victor, The Mediterranean Has A Future

Victor Davis Hanson seems to be mellowing. He appears to be leaving behind (I hope permanently) the rabid extremism he used to espouse in favor of adopting a more moderate approach when discussing the important issues of the day. In this new spirit, he wrote: “The Stagnant Mediterranean” an article that also came under the subtitle: “Socialism and Islamism don't foster a climate of economic growth and security.” It was published on June 6, 2013 in National Review Online.

The point of the article is stated in the subtitle. To develop it in greater detail, Hanson argues that Southern Europe, which makes up the North shore of the Mediterranean Basin, is succumbing to the influence of Socialism. Also, North Africa, which makes up the South shore of the Mediterranean Basin, is succumbing to the influence of Islamism. He then appears to be trying to argue that as a system of economics, neither Socialism nor Islamism alone is conducive to fostering economic growth. When you have them together in one place, they make matters worse. And this is happening to Europe where Muslims from North Africa and elsewhere are migrating to settle there, he goes on to say.

Despite the difficulties he encounters when discussing economic matters, he concludes that the Mediterranean region is going to lag behind the rest of the world for a long time to come but that it has a chance to rebound because history is cyclical and does not always go in a straight line. Well, the man seems competent enough when it comes to political history, but his grasp of economic matters is so limited, it lessens the effectiveness of his argument. Look at this passage: “Yet the Mediterranean has not always proved to be History's incubator of great civilizations – Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Ottoman, Florentine, and Venetian.” He explains that sometimes the Mediterranean proved to be a cul-de-sac. What is glaring about the passage is that under the guise of discussing economics, the author goes from the formulation of a political hypothesis to a conclusion that coincides with his political views. Where's the economics, Victor? Where's the beef?

And he manages to do all that with omissions that baffle the reader. When you see a passage like that, your first reaction is: What about Egypt and Phoenicia? Where would Greece or Rome be without Egypt and Phoenicia? And where would Byzantium, Florence or Venice be without Greece and Rome? You realize at this moment that the author has conveniently erased the entire South shore of the Mediterranean Basin to promote the idea that when it comes to civilization, only Europe counts. Yes, he later mentions the Middle East, Africa and Asia in passing, but he does so only to argue that bad things are occurring in those places today. And this happens to be the political view he has been making for years.

And that's not the only serious omission Hanson has committed. Look at this other passage: “With the rise of the Ottoman Empire … the Mediterranean became more of a museum than a catalyst of global change. In contrast, the Reformation and the Enlightenment energized Northern European culture.” The thing is that the moment you mention Reformation and Enlightenment, you point to a culture. And this means you're talking about a system that has a political as well as an economic component. In this case, the author is referring to the work ethic and capitalism that were brought about by the Protestant revolution.

But when he begins the sentence with “In contrast,” you expect him to contrast apples against apples or oranges against oranges. That is, you expect to see a contrast between an economic system that he says works against an economic system that he says does not work. In short, you want to know what economic system was there in the Ottoman Empire and before it going back to Egypt and Phoenicia. But Hanson does not provide such information. Instead, he later talks about modern European socialism and current Arab statism. And this omission is what renders his comparison of the civilizations null and void.

Really, Victor Hanson, what economic system do you think powered the great civilizations of Egypt and Phoenicia? Was there a hint of socialism there? A hint of Capitalism? How about statism? Were the Pharaohs practicing a form of statism? If yes, did that contribute to a success that lasted thousands of years?

At the end of the article, Hanson offers this point of view: “Before we see another Mediterranean renaissance, constitutional government would have to sweep the Muslim world.” Really? What was the constitution of ancient Egypt or Phoenicia? The constitution of China for that matter? Or Rome? Or Greece? Or the Ottoman Empire?

No, Victor. Next time you want to talk about economics begin by studying economics. Till this happens, consider yourself stagnant in this subject.