Iran & Obama's Hollow Moral Core

[Ed Hudgins]

Iran & Obama's Hollow Moral Core

By Edward Hudgins

June 25, 2009 -- In December 1989, I stopped in Moscow, on my way to Estonia as part of the first group from the West to hold a conference on free markets in the Soviet Union. A colleague and I met with scholars and others who we thought would be sympathetic to our mission. Not infrequently we were told that they had heard and, we gathered, been inspired by the rhetoric of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher about the nature of their regime, an evil empire, and what should be done: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

The commitment of those leaders in words and in deeds to freedom throughout the world helped to rid America of the communist threat as well as to free hundreds of millions of oppressed people from the scourge of that ideology.

Obama's Moral Poverty

When Iranian protesters took to the streets in opposition to the theocratic tyrants who rule their country, the best President Obama could muster at first was, "It would be unproductive, given the history of U.S.-Iran relations, for us to be seen to be meddling."

At a bizarre press conference a week later, Obama said we must "bear witness to the courage and dignity of the Iranian people, and to a remarkable opening within Iranian society. And we deplore violence against innocent civilians anywhere that it takes place." But he still stressed, "I have made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not interfering in Iran's affairs."

This continual "On the one hand, on the other hand" approach no doubt stems from Obama's commitment to a new approach to the most brutal dictatorships on the planet: engagement by holding out a friendly hand, perhaps in the hopes that they will grasp it, break into a chorus of "Kumbaya," and give up their mischievous ways as they succumb to the Obama charm.

Right-thinking Americans are disgusted by the moral poverty of this president's approach, a combination of kowtowing to his left-wing supporters, and his plain naiveté about the ways of the world.

Sharing Universal Values

So what principles should guide American foreign policy, especially in this time of great danger and opportunity?

The founding purpose of the U.S. government is to protect Americans' rights to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness from all enemies, foreign and domestic, leaving us otherwise free to run our own lives. The purpose is not to expend American blood and treasure when our security is not threatened in altruistic attempts to right every wrong in the world.

But several other facts should inform America's foreign policy in general and our approach to Iran in particular.

To begin with, when governments and the cultures they reflect are based on the same universal values of individualism on which the United States was founded, those governments and the peoples of those countries likely will not threaten us. Probably, they will be favorably disposed toward us and perhaps will even be our allies.

Democracy, the Holy Grail of so many neo-conservatives, is not a top-end value in itself. Rather, democratic procedures along with limited, constitutional government, checks on political power, and the rule of law all protect our fundamental freedoms from tyranny either by government itself or by a majority seeking to take the freedoms of a minority.

But if the values of a society are based on collectivism, tribalism, or any of the many forms of irrational ideologies, then democratic procedures can simply bring tyrants to power-witness Hamas and Hezbollah in Gaza. Further, it is extremely difficult to change an entire culture. Thus it is a quixotic and likely failed quest for the U.S. government to seek to protect the security of Americans by pushing many of the countries in the Middle East to adopt democratic procedures, since those same countries have the most backward and irrational Islamic and tribalist cultures on the planet.

Aspiring to Liberty

But in the case of Iran, the people in the streets are not simply protesting an obviously rigged election between four presidential candidates pre-approved by the ruling Mullahs out of hundreds who wanted to run for office. Rather, they long for a more open society in which they can live their own lives as they choose. They long for the values on which America was founded.

As such, this situation might not justify American military intervention, if that's how one defines "meddling." But it absolutely necessitates that American leaders, especially President Obama, articulate as clearly as possible those universal values of individual liberty.

Yes, in this way we should loudly and proudly "meddle" in the affairs of Iran because we are doing so to back the aspirations of freedom-seeking people against brutal tyrants. Those people protesting and dying in the street of Tehran are carrying the battle. But just as two decades ago the words of Reagan and Thatcher provided the people behind the Iron Curtain with the knowledge that they were not alone and the hope that they too could be free, so Obama's pronouncements should be clear and inspiring, and to hell with the "feelings" of the religious fanatics that rule that country.

But the rhetoric of a president who so many mistakenly regard as a great orator is revealed today as vapid and shameful.

Destroying a Threat

In the case of Iran there's a second glaring factor that Obama ignores in his "appealing to both sides" rhetoric. The government of Iran is the greatest threat to American security today. Its rulers are the most irrational, death-worshipping religious fanatics. It is the world's major exporter and bankroller of Islamic terrorism and fanaticism. The containment and destruction of that regime would be as significant to American security today as was the destruction of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union in times past. The only question is, "What is the most effective way of doing so?"

No, we don't want to repeat the mistakes of Iraq. Military action might not be wise at this point or even necessary. For America has been handed a gift by the brave Iranian people in the streets. They are threatening that regime. Obama might argue that if we show too much support for the protectors, if we "meddle," then the Mullahs as well as the protesters will unite in their hate for America. But what unites the protestors now against the regime is their commitment, however imperfect, to the values for which America at its best stands; Obama cannot articulate those values the way Reagan and Thatcher did because he does not share them.

We Americans should be united today proudly in support for the brave freedom fighters in Iran and shocked by what Obama's morally relativistic rhetoric reveals about his hollow moral core.
--------
Hudgins directs advocacy and is a senior scholar at The Atlas Society, the Center for Objectivism in Washington, D.C.

For further information:

*David Kelley, "The Assault on Civilization." September 13, 2001.

*David Kelley, "The War Against Modernity." Navigator , May 2002.

[BaalChatzaf]

No, we don't want to repeat the mistakes of Iraq. Military action might not be wise at this point or even necessary. For America has been handed a gift by the brave Iranian people in the streets. They are threatening that regime. Obama might argue that if we show too much support for the protectors, if we "meddle," then the Mullahs as well as the protesters will unite in their hate for America. But what unites the protestors now against the regime is their commitment, however imperfect, to the values for which America at its best stands; Obama cannot articulate those values the way Reagan and Thatcher did because he does not share them.

We Americans should be united today proudly in support for the brave freedom fighters in Iran and shocked by what Obama's morally relativistic rhetoric reveals about his hollow moral core.

--------

I am sure the Iranian people, on the whole, love their imams more than their liberty. The people their are not protesting for their liberty. They are protesting an election that was fouled by fraud.

Keep in mind that Iran is a Shi'ite country ruled for the last thirty years under Shariah law. Liberty and Freedom (as concepts) simply do not exist in the Islamic culture. Islam is not about liberty, it is about Submission.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited June 25, 2009 by BaalChatzaf

[tjohnson]

I think absolute moral code leads to war more often than not. What's so bad about relativistic moral code?

[Brant Gaede]

I think absolute moral code leads to war more often than not. What's so bad about relativistic moral code?

Relative to what?

--Brant

[Ed Hudgins]

Ba'al - Only about a third of those American colonialists favor freedom. Another third love their king more than their liberty and the rest are bloody apathetic. So who cares?

In any case, I think that this sort of passion and risk-taking is not simply about a rigged election. It's about something much deeper, the possibilty of a fundamentally different regime. I doubt the protesters will reject the Islamic religion and become atheists but will do like so many other religious people do when they embrace modernity and restrict their religion to a more personal matter.

[Ed Hudgins]

By the way, check out the movie Persepolis, which is a cartoon format flix by Iranian women Marjane Satrapi about her growing up in that country.

[Xray]

Islam is not about liberty, it is about Submission.

Isn't every religion about submission?

Edited July 2, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

I think absolute moral code leads to war more often than not. What's so bad about relativistic moral code?

Since moral codes can be only subjective, there exists no such thing as an "absolute" moral code.

And indeed, it is the illusionary belief in an absolute moral code which often leads to war. Many of those wars are examples of one fallacy fighting another, like e. g. Christianity versus Islam.

Edited July 3, 2009 by Xray

[sbeaulieu]

I am sure the Iranian people, on the whole, love their imams more than their liberty. The people their are not protesting for their liberty. They are protesting an election that was fouled by fraud.

Keep in mind that Iran is a Shi'ite country ruled for the last thirty years under Shariah law. Liberty and Freedom (as concepts) simply do not exist in the Islamic culture. Islam is not about liberty, it is about Submission.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Be that as it may, not all Muslims are cut from the same cloth. Iran is not cut away from the rest of the world. Iran, however, is trying to put a wall around its people. It's so pressing that the protestors are railing against it, try to break free. As Americans, as individuals, we should voice our support.

~ Shane

[galtgulch]

I think absolute moral code leads to war more often than not. What's so bad about relativistic moral code?

Since moral codes can be only subjective, there exists no such thing as an "absolute" moral code.

And indeed, it is the illusionary belief in an absolute moral code which often leads to war. Many of those wars are examples of one fallacy figthing another, like e. g. Christianity versus Islam.

Xray,

Have you read Ayn Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness?

The moral standard of Objectivism is Man's Life on Earth.

Nothing subjective about that. By that standard using your own judgment is good and not thinking but accepting the judgments of others is a big mistake especially when it comes to your understanding or accepting a view of existence and a code of ethics.

www.campaignforliberty.com 3Jul 6 AM 165,249

gulch

[BaalChatzaf]

Be that as it may, not all Muslims are cut from the same cloth. Iran is not cut away from the rest of the world. Iran, however, is trying to put a wall around its people. It's so pressing that the protestors are railing against it, try to break free. As Americans, as individuals, we should voice our support.

~ Shane

Why? These people are not our friends and they do not mean us well.

As a practical matter, if Iranians want to isolate themselves from the world, we should do nothing to stop them. If the Iranians bury themselves alive, that would be a good thing for us.

Personally I would love it if every Iranian male went to Paradise to lay with his 72 dark-eyed virgins. He would be happy and I would would be happy.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

The moral standard of Objectivism is Man's Life on Earth.

How can "Man's Life on Earth" be a moral standard? The phrase 'Man's Life on Earth" could mean anything.

[Xray]

Xray,

Have you read Ayn Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness?

Yes.

The moral standard of Objectivism is Man's Life on Earth.

But where is the "moral" in a statement of this kind? "Mans life on earth" lumps them all together - e. g. Hitler, Mother Theresa, Al Capone, Paris Hilton, and the people next door.

"The only objective value is man's life", Rand claims. Again, this comprises the whole gamut of people. So going by that logic, one could say that to Rand, a mass murderer's life has the same objective value than any other person's.

Rand claims from a simple fact (the fact that human beings exist) the "objective value" of the fact.

Applying that logic, one could also derive from the fact that e. g. stars exist that they are of "objective value".

Nothing subjective about that. By that standard using your own judgment is good and not thinking but accepting the judgments of others is a big mistake especially when it comes to your understanding or accepting a view of existence and a code of ethics.

It is not about personal opinions or tastes but about epistemological disproof of a claim.

The mere fact that there exist people (and philosophies) who don't value life disproves Rand's claim of it being an objective value and thus reduces her claim to a mere subjective value judgement (based on a fallacy in that case).

There would have been no logical problem in Rand's reasoning if she had said "What I value most is ..." , since in that case, the identification of her value as subjective would have been clear.

Edited July 3, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

The moral standard of Objectivism is Man's Life on Earth.

How can "Man's Life on Earth" be a moral standard? The phrase 'Man's Life on Earth" could mean anything.

So true.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

How can "Man's Life on Earth" be a moral standard? The phrase 'Man's Life on Earth" could mean anything.

GS,

When Rand uses this terminology, she is referring to human beings with a reasoning faculty. In her view, since people are born with brains that work in one manner only for correct identification of reality (observation and conceptual integration), then living on earth refers to using that faculty correctly as part of the standard.

She is not referring to, say, a Hitler, who identified the essence of human nature through hatred of Jews and Aryan superiority instead of the volitional mind both bear. Observation and integration do not validate racism as a proper manner of using a conceptual faculty, however blind emotions do. Once the emotion is set on a premise level, anything goes, including building rationally on it. Thus Hitler did not use his cognitive faculty correctly for his motivation, his hatred premise level, although he did use rational thought correctly on superficial levels for obtaining power and things like that. His acts show that ultimately he was a parasite on others at the premise and motivation level, not a producer in his own right. Without other people, Hitler was nothing but poor to mediocre.

Careless thinkers always leave the mind out when bashing Rand about her living on earth standard (or her admittedly odd "man qua man" jargon).

I always imagine these kinds of people in the same light as I do those who cheat at a crossword puzzle, then congratulate themselves on solving it.

Michael

[tjohnson]

When Rand uses this terminology, she is referring to human beings with a reasoning faculty. In her view, since people are born with brains that work in one manner only for correct identification of reality (observation and conceptual integration), then living on earth refers to using that faculty correctly as part of the standard.

So the human species has evolved to a certain intelligence and we are morally obliged to use that intelligence as we go about our lives?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

GS,

If you want to have rational morals, you do. Reality dictates that, not people.

It's like eating. You have to eat food to survive. (Yes, we are obliged to eat food to survive. We are slaves to that, if you want to use those terms.)

Likewise, you have to identify reality correctly in order to produce.

A lot of people get away with not using their minds on fundamental issues because others provide for them. If everybody stopped using their minds to identify reality and produce goods, the human race would start dying off.

One of the most basic things you can identify in existence is your own nature. Once you are aware of it, it's hard to ignore it. Call it coming of age, rite of passage, whatever. It's a line and once you cross it, it's hard to turn back. You have to consciously choose to shut down part of your mind to do that.

What do you say of a person who correctly identifies reality, but refuses to accept it?

Michael

[Alfonso Jones]

(snip_

No, we don't want to repeat the mistakes of Iraq. Military action might not be wise at this point or even necessary. For America has been handed a gift by the brave Iranian people in the streets. They are threatening that regime. Obama might argue that if we show too much support for the protectors, if we "meddle," then the Mullahs as well as the protesters will unite in their hate for America. But what unites the protestors now against the regime is their commitment, however imperfect, to the values for which America at its best stands; Obama cannot articulate those values the way Reagan and Thatcher did because he does not share them.

We Americans should be united today proudly in support for the brave freedom fighters in Iran and shocked by what Obama's morally relativistic rhetoric reveals about his hollow moral core.

(snip)

Excellent piece, Ed. Thanks for posting it. "Obama cannot articulate those values the way Reagan and Thatcher did because he does not share them." - - - that says it!!!

Bill P