Liberty, Safety And “Smart” Power: Contradiction By Design

In recent days, we’ve looked at the “Liberaltarianizing” of the United States, and how Americans seem to be too quick to trade their freedom for safety. In what is a third part of an unintended series, we focus on foreign policy and how that affects both of the previous topics. The Obama administration as made a big hullabaloo over the use of “Smart Power” in international relations (I would argue that Obama “Smart Power” is a repackaging of “Soft Power“, with an over-reliance of soft power strategies, while generally eschewing “Hard Power”). Under the guise of “restoring America’s standing,” one could argue that the ultimate result of the Obama strategy is to reduce the United States’ international hegemony, making America “just another country” in the world stage.

Unfortunately, there is evidence that such an approach would do nothing other than to increase unrest around the globe, thereby decreasing the safety so coveted by “liberaltarians.” Nature abhors a vacuum, and in a world without a dominant United States presence, the leadership vacuum is being filled by what Robert Kaplan terms Anarchy. This is borne out historically in an example provided by Kaplan:

The problem is, however, that in geopolitics equality usually does not work  very well. For centuries Europe had a rough equality between major states that  is often referred to as the balance-of-power system. And  that led to frequent wars. East Asia, by contrast, from the 14th to the early  19th centuries, had its relations ordered by a tribute system in which China was  roughly dominant. The result, according to political scientist David C. Kang of  the University of Southern California, was a generally more peaceful climate in  Asia than in Europe.

The fact is that domination of one sort or another, tyrannical or not, has a  better chance of preventing the outbreak of war than a system in which no one is  really in charge; where no one is the top dog, so to speak. That is why Columbia  University’s Kenneth Waltz, arguably America’s pre-eminent realist, says that  the opposite of “anarchy” is not stability, but “hierarchy.”

Of course, leftists would bristle at the notion that one country should be “more equal” than others, or that this source of inequality is the thing that creates international stability and peace. Since the end of World War II (especially) the role of international hegemon has been filled by the United States, inasmuch as America emerged as the dominant world power, and through a general consensus, was expected to lead on the world stage. When the hegemon fails to lead (or “leads from behind”) it is betraying its agreed-upon position, and can be said to be acting irresponsibly. However, as Kaplan continues:

Of course, hegemony has a bad reputation in media discourse. But that is only  because journalists are confused about the terminology, even as they  sanctimoniously judge previous historical eras by the strict standards of their  own. In fact, for most of human history, periods of relative peace have been the  product of hegemony of one sort or another. And for many periods, the reigning  hegemonic or imperial power was the most liberal, according to the standards of  the age. Rome, Venice and Britain were usually more liberal than the forces  arranged against them. The empire of the Austrian Hapsburgs in Central and  Eastern Europe often protected the rights of minorities and prevented ethnic  wars to a much greater degree than did the modern states that succeeded it. The  Ottoman Empire in the Balkans and the Middle East frequently did likewise. There  are exceptions, of course, like Hapsburg Spain, with its combination of  inquisition and conquest. But the point is that hegemony does not require  tyrannical or absolutist rule.

Stability is not the natural order of things. In fact, history shows that  stability such as it exists is usually a function of imperial rule, which, in  turn, is a common form of hierarchy. To wit, there are few things messier in  geopolitics than the demise of an empire. The collapse of the Hapsburgs, of the  Ottoman Turks, of the  Soviet Empire and  the British Empire in Asia and Africa led to chronic wars and upheavals. Some  uncomprehending commentators remind us that all empires end badly. Of course  they do, but that is only after they have provided decades and centuries of  relative peace.

Obviously, not all empires are morally equivalent. For example, the Austrian  Hapsburgs were for their time infinitely more tolerant than the Soviet  Communists. Indeed, had the Romanov Dynasty in St. Petersburg not been replaced  in 1917 by Lenin’s Bolsheviks, Russia would likely have evolved far more  humanely than it did through the course of the 20th century. Therefore, I am  saying only in a general sense is order preferable to disorder. (Though  captivating subtleties abound: For example, Napoleon betrayed the ideals of the  French Revolution by creating an empire, but he also granted rights to Jews and  Protestants and created a system of merit over one of just birth and  privilege.)

In any case, such order must come from hierarchal [sic] domination.

However, as I alluded to above, these days seem to be behind us; not only is a hegemonic role for the United States antithetical to Obama’s world view and political philosophy, but after two lengthy wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Americans in general seem to have a case of battle-fatigue. Obama’s strategy is playing directly into it: outside of some special-ops personnel to carry out surgical drone-strikes on individuals, there is a reluctance to put “boots on the ground” to right wrongs in places such as Libya, Syria. Granted, since Korea, presidents in general have been reluctant to use force; it wasn’t until George W. Bush after 9/11 (and to a lesser extent, George H.W. Bush in Kuwait) that U.S. force was employed en masse. However, Obama seems to have accelerated a shift:

In a world of strong states — a world characterized by hierarchy, that is —  the United States often enforced the rules of the road or competed with another  hegemon, the Soviet Union, to do so. Such enforcement came in the form of robust  diplomacy, often backed by a threat to use military power. Richard Nixon, Ronald  Reagan and George H.W. Bush were noted for American leadership and an effective,  sometimes ruthless foreign policy. Since the Cold War ended and Bill Clinton  became president, American leadership has often seemed to be either unserious,  inexpertly and crudely applied or relatively absent. And this has transpired  even as states themselves in the Greater Middle East have become feebler.

In other words, both the hegemon and the many states it influences are  weaker. Hierarchy is dissolving on all levels. [emphasis mine]

Thus, the exact kind of international policies that “liberaltarians” are asking for in order to preserve their ability to safely exercise their personal pleasure license could be creating the conditions that directly threaten that safety. As we’ve noted, as safety is threatened, Americans are tending to not think twice about giving up their liberty to the state in order to protect them (again, from the situations they’re directly creating. Of course, in an imperial presidency, the surrender of freedom is not a problem and is even welcomed. However, to those that value our civil and political liberty, it is increasingly problematic. As Kaplan concludes:

Unless some force can, against considerable odds, reinstitute hierarchy — be it  an American hegemon acting globally, or an international organization acting  regionally or, say, an Egyptian military acting internally — we will have more  fluidity, more equality and therefore more anarchy to look forward to. This is  profoundly disturbing, because civilization abjures anarchy.

Anarchy and Hegemony is republished with permission of Stratfor.”

Watertown: Liberty And Safety

With the two suspects in the Boston Marathon bombing accounted for (one dead – Tamelan, the other in custody – Dzhokhar), and more details of the story emerging, I’ve been spending some time thinking about the issues of liberty and security, considering the breadth and scope of the massive manhunt for the Tsarnaev brothers.


It’s been well documented that most of Boston was shut down, and Watertown was eventually under lockdown as well, with streets barricaded,  and public transportation shut down. Further:

Massachusetts State Police issued a plea on Twitter for residents of Watertown to lock their doors and not open them for anyone, as dozens of police officers, many of them off duty, searched backyards and exteriors of houses there, and a police perimeter of several blocks was established.

 Worried residents were also told to turn off their cell phones out of fear that they could trigger improvised explosive devices.

No doubt it was a tense time as authorities were searching for Dzhokhar; who knew what kind of IEDs or other weapons he was carrying, or what he might do to escape. Governor Deval Patrick (D) even issued a “shelter in place” or lockdown order for the area. However, as far as I know, such an order does not equal Martial Law and signal a suspension of habeas corpus and other civil liberties (and as far as I know, the military can’t get involved in domestic law enforcement without congressional approval).

The reason I bring this up is because it appears that contrary to many news reports, the searches conducted by the police were not only of backyards and house exteriors, but also of the inside of houses as well. Judging by the video below, it also appears that these home searches were not necessarily voluntary:

 I’ll be honest, the sight of these homeowners being led out of their house at gunpoint with their arms raised like common criminals – for nothing more than the “crime” of being at home is a bit disturbing to me, especially since there doesn’t seem to be a search warrant presented at any time. Now I’ll be the first to admit that I have no idea what’;s going on up close or inside the house. It could very well be that the homeowners were more than happy to volunteer for the search, and have agreed to be led out as they were in the interest of public safety. It could also very well be that the “shelter in place” order includes some sort of blanket search warrant.
But then again, it sure didn’t look like it.
 Of course everyone was relieved when the ordeal was over and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was caught:

Watertown residents–finally able to leave their homes around 8:45 p.m.–broke into cheers and applauded police officers after word spread that the suspect was in custody.

“We’re so grateful to bring justice and closure to this case,” Alben said at a 9:30 p.m. press conference. “We’re exhausted … but we have a victory here tonight.” Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis said he could find no explanation for the “savagery” of the attacks, but that the capture made him proud to be a Boston police officer.

No doubt it was a time when we could all take a collective sigh of relief and get back to a sense of normalcy. Most praised the hard work of law enforcement officers in apprehending the suspect; but considering the above video, at what price? Events like these always lead me back to Benjamin Franklin’s famous quote:
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Maybe I’m overreacting, but after our liberties were eroded after 9/11 with the Patriot and similar legislation that have “protected” us by giving us the TSA among others, I guess I’m particularly sensitive to a possible slippery slope, especially since the current administration adhere’s to the “never let a good crisis go to waste” philosophy (not to mention the various accusations that the NDAA effectively repeals the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878).
Again, maybe I’m overreacting, but I would prefer to die free than to live as a slave to the state.