Charles Krauthammer has an intriguing theory about the
unfolding of history, but messed it up when he tried to expand on it. This
happened because he let his political preferences get in the way.
He wrote “The arrow of history,” a column that was published
on May 26, 2016 in the Washington Post. The piece seems to begin smartly,
though we notice that the seeds of its future demise were already sown right
there at the start. We see them grow larger the deeper we burrow into the
article, such that by the time we reach the middle, we discover that the theory
had succumbed to their weight.
It is obvious that the objective of the author from the
start had been to draw a distinction between the political Left and the
political Right using a device known as analogy to help him illustrate his
point. This is a legitimate course to take, but where he went wrong is in the
fact that he overused the device. He did so by creating several layers of
analogies that confused his message rather than clarify it.
The problem is that Krauthammer constructed his piece on
several levels that did not interweave too well. On one level, he drew a
parallel between idealism and realism. Layered on top of it is a parallel
between optimism and pessimism. Layered on top of that is a parallel between
the cyclical nature of history and its directional nature. And finally, layered
on top of that is a parallel between the liberal viewpoint and the conservative
one.
Having argued that to conservatives: “history is an endless
cycle of clashing power politics ... the best we can do is defend ourselves ...
expect no alteration in the course of human affairs,” he sets out to contrast
these sayings with the liberal stance – that which he says aspires for
“something more humane and hopeful.” But that's where Krauthammer balks because
he is a neoconservative, and he just made the liberal stance sound loftier than
that of the conservatives. What to do now? There was only one thing he could
think of: correct history.
This is how he does it: “What is usually overlooked is that
this hopefulness for achieving a higher plane of global comity comes in two
flavors – one liberal, one conservative.” Alas, this is where the readers
become confused. They do because the author has just demolished the notion of
history being “an endless cycle, promising no alteration in human affairs”.
To repair the damage and make his theory work again,
Krauthammer is compelled to go beyond correcting history – he distorts it, even
mutilates it. His new objective being to avoid creating the impression that the
liberals are fixing the world whereas the conservatives are hunkering down in
fortress America ,
he invokes the already circulating mother of all lies, and liens against it for
support. Here it is: “Because in the end, democracies are inherently more
inclined to live in peace.” And this is a falsehood that goes beyond grotesque.
The truth is that no one can wage a sustained war without
the support of the population he governs unless he is a Third
World tinpot dictator that's manipulated and financed by a foreign
power. These nobodies aside, you'll find that for a reason that may be
legitimate or illegitimate; moral or immoral – the initiators of wars have come
from such places as Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Democratic India, and
successive American and Israeli administrations; all of whom got elected by
promising to wage war.
With this in mind, let it be known that war is the highest
item on the populist causes. If you want proof as to the validity of this
statement, look what's happening in Europe and America these days. It's as if the
“Western” world was clamoring for the ships of state to be run on time as well
as Mussolini made the trains run on time.
Now that Krauthammer has killed the idea of history being
cyclical, he tries to show that the conservative arrow of history is superior
to the liberal arrow. To this end, he says that the liberal variety, which
depends on global institutions, is inherently flimsy and generally powerless
... whereas the conservative variety relies on the sturdiness of democracy to
bring about the sought after international harmony.
Is that all? Is democracy the only remedy the author says
will save mankind from itself? Not on your life – not to Charles Krauthammer,
the neoconservative. His mouth may sound like that of a dove, but his heart
beats like that of a hawk.
Lucky for him, he discovers that Obama was forced to suspend
his idealism and adopt realism – or so he believes. To contain China , says he, President Obama returned the
American military to the Philippines ,
and has allowed the sale of weapons to Vietnam . And this, my friend, is
what makes a hawkish heart flutter with joy.