George W. Bush Was Right

Given that the above title is likely to annoy or amuse all 20 of my readers, I'll quickly explain why I believe it: part of the "Bush Doctrine" included efforts to reform authoritarian governments in the Arab world and to get them to grant more freedoms to political opposition in their countries. He was specifically targeting Egypt, the nation that now finds itself embroiled in large-scale demonstrations by its citizens.

The argument runs this way: America has involved itself in the affairs of the Middle East because of our need for the petroleum there. Political stability = economic stability because uprisings, terrorism, and the like make the price of oil head for low-Earth orbit. To ensure this stability, administrations both Republican and Democrat have tolerated "strong men" like Mubarak (or, once, Saddam Hussein) if they kept the oil flowing. This toleration has been especially important in Egypt because they are the only Arab nation to officially recognize the State of Israel. They're a major military power in the region. And, like Mubarak after him, Anwar Sadat for the most part kept the more radical elements in his nation under control. The fact that that control included a lot of very harsh prisons and torture was overlooked. Those who cling to a Wilsonian view of foreign policy believe that the U.S. should not just protect its own interests, but be a force for good, making the world "safe for democracy." As such, we should insist on good conduct from our allies--that they should behave like us.

Furthermore, there has been a view in some circles (especially just after 9/11) that the reason "they hate us" is that we have supported repressive regimes like Egypt or Saudi Arabia or (the pre-1979 Shah of) Iran. The first nation to take Bush's rhetoric about reform seriously was Lebanon, which had its "Cedar Revolution" in 2005, throwing out the repressive Ba'ath regime sponsored by Syria. Admittedly, it was another five years before another similar uprising occurred, this time in Tunisia, but happen it did, and the calls for freedom have been expanding elsewhere in the Middle East, most recently Egypt.

This will be an interesting and difficult test case for the Obama administration. Despite campaign rhetoric to the contrary, Obama has continued George W. Bush's foreign and anti-terrorism policies, albeit under a different "brand." American troops remain in Iraq and Afghanistan to support legitimate, if tenuous, elected governments. Perhaps lovers of freedom in the Arab world have gotten the message that the U.S. is not leaving anytime soon. This is why Iraqis started helping American troops openly: they didn't fear that they'd be killed by their enemies as soon as America left, as happened in Vietnam, because we aren't leaving. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has had the lead on this one. She has, probably wisely, taken a wait-and-see attitude toward the demonstrations, calling on restraint from the protestors and Mubarak alike. Tanks are in the streets as I type this, so odds are that Mubarak will take some sort of direct action soon. A violent crackdown is likely, as happened in Iran in 2009. However, unlike Iran, Egypt is a major--if not the most important--American ally in the region. Mubarak's actions reflect on the U.S., as the "Arab street" believes, perhaps rightly, that he does whatever America allows him to do.

But going back to my title here, George W. Bush had good reason to press for moderate reform among our regional allies after 9/11. We did not and do not need another radical state like Iran in the region, especially right next door to Israel. If moderate freedoms are not granted to the citizens of our allies, America will continue to be seen as a conquerer and tyrant, regardless of the freedoms now enjoyed in Iraq. Governments that continue to resist reform ultimately face revolution. We will see what happens next, but the lessons of history are there to be learned, from Louis XVI to Czarist Russia to the Shah's Iran to Tunisia. Whether authoritarians learn them or not remains to be seen.

A Voucher System for Healthcare Insurance?

Okay, I feel like irritating some folks this evening. The nationalized healthcare service President Obama wants to impose would cost in the neighborhood of $2 trillion. That's because it assumes that the government would become an insurance company, complete with adjusters and on-staff doctors to evaluate claims. I've got an alternative solution, which might not please my fellow conservatives, but it sure as heck won't amuse my liberal friends, either: send uninsured citizens vouchers, akin to school tuition vouchers, so they could buy private insurance.

The basic problem, I am told over and over, is that we have somewhere between 40 to 50 million people without healthcare insurance. Something like 13 million of those people are illegal immigrants. So let's take that off the top number. So: 37 million people X $1,500 (approximate cost of a decent one-person plan, mine--based out of Massachusetts, by the way, not Alabama--plus a couple hundred bucks thrown on top for good measure) = $55.5 billion.

If you're a liberal, you're happy because the government is providing aid to the uninsured. If you're a conservative, you're happy because citizens get the choice of private-sector health plans less government is required to send checks than to control people's healthcare.

Vouchers would force both sides to put up or shut up. Liberals get to feel good about government, conservatives get to feel good about offering personal choice. The vouchers are only good for one thing, health insurance. And here's a thought: people could get a refund if the price of the insurance plan they select is less than what the government offers--assuming, of course, that prices remain more or less stable. Even at $55.5B per year, after 20 years, the total tab would still be only about $1.1 trillion, which would be less than the annual cost of this year's healthcare tab. Or am I dreaming here?