When one read the newspaper and magazine headlines of the past month one was led to believe that spring is finally here, after a long hard winter, and freedom and democracy were breaking out all over the world. The Palestinians had a free election and “Sharon extends an olive branch.” The Iraqis had an election of sorts and “U.S. Senators in Iraq optimistic.” “Iraqi leader says violence won’t divide the nation,” and the subheading proclaims, “Suicide blasts: Fifty-five die in the attacks on the Shiite holy day, but the number is far less than last year.” We have also been told that, “Israel’s parliament approves plan to remove Jewish settlements.”

The Bush administration is currently engaged in a charm offensive. First Condi Rice was sent to Europe and the Middle East to assure their leaderships that the wind that is blowing from the West is changing to a gentler breeze and subsequently our President himself followed up with a quickie trip to Brussels, Mainz and Bratislava, of all places, where he met with Mr. Putin. In spite of all the charm that is currently exuded there were also stern warnings what Iran, Syria and Russia “must “ do in order to keep enjoying spring-time weather sent by the U.S.A. The American public laps it up because unless one is motivated to pursue the facts and has Internet access that’s all the news one gets. Time magazine had a most revealing statistic that demonstrates the type of information the average American is exposed to. It was a short blurb under “Numbers” and cited diverse figures from a 57% increase in AIDS in Africa, through 157,281 illegal immigrants shipped back to Mexico, to $452,800 as the winning bid for one of Kennedy’s maple desks. The item under discussion reads, “6 min. 21 sec. Amount of time a typical half-hour local TV-news broadcast devotes to sports and weather. 38 sec. Amount of time a typical half-hour local newscast devotes to U.S. foreign policy, including the war in Iraq.” The rest of the time is spent on advertisements and local mishaps. Is it any wonder that with this type of information the average proverbial Joe-six-pack gets a distorted view of the factors that will impinge on his life in the long run? What is even worse is that he has been trained not to care because high-schools do not teach world history as a compulsory subject in any degree of depth. Under those circumstances it is no wonder that people are satisfied with headlines and catchy phrases.

But let us look at the facts which remain as unpleasant as they have been for the past several years. Mahmoud Abbas who is now a genuinely elected leader of the Palestinian government can do all the reforms he wants but it will not get him anywhere unless Sharon gives him more than a smile, a handshake, the release of a few prisoners and the dismantling of some settlements, which he really doesn’t want anyway, especially in Gaza. The bedrock of Palestinian demands namely genuine freedom from Israeli occupation, removal of the major settlements, rather than some ram-shackle ones, the rights to their water and air space, and East Jerusalem as the seat of their internationally recognized government are still non-negotiable. But as long as these are not met and olive trees are cut down to expand current settlements and to permit the building of the “wall of separation” no “olive branch,” will have credibility. As mentioned in “Palestinian State or Israeli Protectorate?” (April 1, 2002), Sharon does not want an independent Palestinian state he wants the equivalent of Hitler’s “Reich Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia.” That means they can have their own police, postage system, currency, sewage removal etc. but they have to toe the line and do what Berlin, or in Israel’s case the Knesset, wants them to do.

There can be no Middle East peace under those circumstances and this is where the second part of this month’s headline comes in. Sharon, even if he wanted to, which is doubtful, cannot accede to the Palestinian’s demands because not only would it lead to the fall of his government but possibly even to some sort of civil war within Israel itself. This is the point where his freedom to act ends. Barring massive demonstrations in Israel which demand the total withdrawal from the occupied territories and for granting the Palestinians their rights, there is only one group of people who is, theoretically at least, indeed free to act in this sphere and bring an end to the bloodshed and the waste of our tax payers’ money in Palestine. As has been repeatedly pointed out in these pages it is only the leadership of Jewish organizations in the U.S. who enjoys this freedom. Neither Congress, nor our President is free to enforce their own wishes in this thorny problem unless the grassroots Jewish population in our country demands from their own Jewish leadership a change of direction and the granting to the Palestinians all the rights that they have been deprived of for so many years. Although the Jewish people in our country are considerably better educated and interested in world affairs than our average citizens, they have not yet confronted this challenge. This may become one of the greatest tragedies of this century because without genuine peace in Jerusalem there cannot be peace in this interconnected world.

The freedom loving American taxpayer who reads only headlines and gets snippets of world news on TV doesn’t realize that it is our money that keeps the Israeli government afloat. First we pay for the military buildup, then we pay for the settlements, now we will pay for the removal of some settlements from Gaza and we pay for the wall. I will be challenged on this because we really don’t pay directly for these items but we do so indirectly. Creative book-keeping on the Israeli side assures that while the letter of the law is obeyed, the spirit is, in good Talmudic fashion, disregarded. Unless one knows, what may be called, “the Talmud mentality,” negotiations with the Jewish leadership is likely to run on parallel tracks which meet in infinity. This is the reason why I wrote The Moses Legacy and made it freely available. Please download it at your leisure and read the chapters on the Talmud as well as on Jewish Power.

The Iraqi elections, although important, are a side-show. The freedom in which they were conducted was severely hampered in the Sunni part of the country and when we heard at first that the Shiites won about 67 per cent of the vote it seems that Bush the son decided to emulate his father in this particular situation by silently vowing “this must not stand.” Mr. Negroponte had to get into the act. The data were massaged in what was called a “recount” and the Shiites 67 per cent majority shrunk into a more manageable 48 per cent. That this, now elected but still interim, government is free to write the constitution it wants rather than what is compatible with U.S. demands is questionable. What would have been the purpose of our invasion if we abolished  a secular Iraqi dictatorship where women and Christians had guaranteed rights provided they kept their mouths shut and did not agitate the pot, to an Islamic one that is governed by the law of Sharia? What if that government were to become friendly with Iran and to make matters worse if both of those countries were to decide to sell their oil not for dollars but the Euro? Why should the oil producing countries continue to pay with dollars when our currency has been devalued considerably over the past years? Those are the questions an educated American government ought to ask itself, an educated Congress should debate, and an educated public take part in.

What is the reason for our belligerency against Iran and the demand that it must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons? Who are the mullahs really threatening if they have the bomb? Are they going to annihilate, Rome, Paris, Berlin, Moscow, or Vienna? Hardly, but Tel Aviv and possibly Jerusalem, would surely be on the list. Even the achievement of peace with Iran depends, therefore, on the interests of the mentioned key players in Jerusalem and Washington. Nuclear proliferation is obviously undesirable and we should have less of those weapons rather than more. A sane American foreign policy, which would be enthusiastically supported by the Europeans and the rest of the world, would not only demand that Iran gives up its nuclear ambitions, but that Israel destroys its nuclear arsenal as well as its assorted other WMDS under international inspections. It is that arsenal and Israeli nuclear subs in the Mediterranean, the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean that give Teheran the shivers. Unless and until Americans learn to put themselves into the shoes of others and begin to see the problems from both sides there will not be peace in our time.

Consider also some other headlines that tell us about our “overflights” of Iranian airspace and that a Syrian intelligence officer admitted to training Iraqi insurgents. How would we feel if the Iranians had the capability to spy on us either via satellites or drones? What are our CIA and other operatives currently doing in Iran (see previous installment) and possibly Syria if not to foment rebellion? Do the Mossad and their agents just sit on their hands? When foreign governments try to protect themselves this potential freedom from interference into their internal affairs is intolerable to our government.

These are the fundamental problems our President should have discussed with the European leadership but he played it safe. Smiles and partially conciliatory words were to take the place of substance. When I read the President’s itinerary I had to laugh. While Kennedy had met with Khrushchev, at the height of the Cold War, in Vienna Bush went to Bratislava for his meeting with Putin. Americans don’t know this but every Viennese of my generation is familiar with the “Preszburger Bahn.” Preszburg, or now Bratislava, being about 18 miles to the east was regarded more or less as a suburb of Vienna and connected during the monarchy by light rail- the Preszburger Bahn, similar to the Badner Bahn (still in existence) that connects the center of Vienna with that spa resort. The local analogy would be if the President were to visit Utah but eschew Salt Lake City because of its potentially more cantankerous populace and head instead to the safety of the Mormon bastion Provo.

What did the President really accomplish during his visit with Mr. Putin in that new democracy of Slovakia, which actually was given its very first birth through the good graces of Hitler when he disassembled Czechoslovakia in 1939? Is “Vladimir,” whose soul he had looked into a few years earlier and found spotless, now less willing to support the Syrians and Iranians? Did he promise to grant the Chechens their freedom and allow American style smut on his state-run television? Obviously not; Russian democracy has limits and her citizens are left in no doubt about it. But so does ours, only that we don’t talk about it and nobody else is supposed to point it out to us. Fortunately The Salt Lake Tribune and especially its Opinion page cartoonist Pat Bagley are at times still willing to risk their freedom by voicing some dissenting notions as the cartoon from February 24, reproduced with his permission at the bottom of the essay, shows. The subtle truth about the President’s real opinions, which is contained in the change of one vowel, may, however, escape the attention of many readers.

Let us now leave the present for a moment and step back into the past, the cradle of democracy Athens, and see how people felt about it at that time. Fortunately we do have the contemporary voices of Thucydides and Plato, who paraphrased Socrates. America is commonly likened to the Roman Empire but this is not quite correct because a) we don’t have obligatory emperor worship as yet and b) we don’t have the legions. The Athenian League and its rise as well as its demise might be the more appropriate analogy. Thucydides, who served in some of the campaigns, informs us in Chapter IV of The Peloponnesian War about Athens’ “progress from Supremacy to Empire.” For the Greek city states Athens’ naval victory at Salamis over the Persian fleet and the subsequent route of the Persians at Plataea by the Spartans was the equivalent of America’s victory in WWII. While the Spartans, a continental power, were content to go home after a while the Athenians, who had relied on their navy, exploited that success and “liberated” several Aegean islands and Ionian cities from their Persian overlords. That liberty came, however, at a price. The members of the “Athenian League,” as it was officially called had to contribute taxes and/or ships. When they were no longer willing to do so, and joined instead the Peloponnesian League dominated by Sparta, punishment was brutal, swift and effective. After some decades it was no longer love for Athens but fear of retribution that held the League together. Athens’ high-handed conduct led to fear and loathing and became co-responsible (apart from the foolish greediness of the leadership in Corfu and Corinth) for the outbreak of the Peloponnesian war that finished Athens’ years of glory.

To what extent was Athens a democracy in her prime and what were its virtues? First of all the vote was limited to free, native born, male citizens who made up only a minority of the total population. A person like Socrates who challenged popular wisdom was tolerated for a while but when he preached his ideas to youngsters of the establishment class he was put on trial and convicted of not honoring the time-honored gods as well as of seducing the young. The judges would have let him pay a fine but Socrates, ornery as he was, suggested such a ridiculously low one that they were forced to let him drink hemlock juice for his insolence. From Plato’s account it is obvious that Socrates wanted to die in this manner because not only was he already 70 years old, he had a nagging wife, sons who may or may not have been wastrels, and the future had only slowly progressive physical and mental decay to offer. While Caesar, when asked what kind of a death he wanted, said “a quick one,” Socrates opted for a noble one and both got their wish.

What was Socrates’ opinion of democracy and what does it tell us about human behavior? It is no secret that he was not enamored with the rule of the people by the people. His first choice was philosopher kings: rulers who were skilled in the art of public service as well as war. This was essentially Sparta’s model where there were two kings; one presided over domestic affairs and the other led the army in foreign campaigns. But since everything in life degenerates the next best idea of government was “timocracy,” which means rule by honor. When the most honorable and meritorious citizens were in charge the city-state would be well administered. But again human nature does not lend itself to this blessed state very long so oligarchy – rule by a few – comes next, which is a further degradation of the art of government. People then become dissatisfied with having no voice and demand democracy which is next to the worst form of government on the Socratic scale, because its excesses of freedom lead to the destruction of morals and eventually anarchy. Since people can’t live in an anarchic society a strong leader emerges who then becomes a tyrant and that completes the cycle. Thus, very little has changed in the intervening twenty-four hundred years.

It becomes positively funny when one reads subsequently how Plato, through the mouth of Socrates, describes Athenian democracy. Here are excerpts from Book VIII of The Republic with Socrates as the speaker:

“The good which oligarchy proposed to itself and the means by which it was maintained was excess of wealth-am I not right?

Yes.

And the insatiable desire of wealth and the neglect of all other things for the sake of money gathering was also the ruin of oligarchy?

True.

And democracy has her own good of which the insatiable desire brings her to dissolution?

What good?

Freedom I replied; which as they tell you in a democracy is the glory of the State – and therefore in a democracy alone will the freeman of nature deign well.

Yes; the saying is in everybody’s mouth.

I was going to observe, that the insatiable desire of this and the neglect of other things introduces the change in democracy, which occasions a demand for tyranny.”

Socrates then details some of the changes he and the audience have observed. With unlimited liberty:

“anarchy finds its way into private houses. . . . the father grows accustomed to descend to the level of his sons and to fear them, and the son is on a level with his father, he having no respect or reverence for either of his parents . . . .

In such a state of society the master [teacher] fears and flatters his scholars [pupils], and the scholars despise their masters and tutors, young and old are alike; and the young man is on a level with the old, and is ready to compete with him in words or deeds and the old men condescend to the young and are full of pleasantry and gaiety; they are loath to be thought morose and authoritative, and therefore they adopt the manners of the young. . . .

            . . . at length they [the citizens]cease to care even for the laws, written or unwritten; they will have no one over them. . . .

            Such my friend, I said, is the fair and glorious beginning out of which springs tyranny.”

            In addition to these evils Socrates found it intolerable that slaves should have the same rights as free men. That women should have the same civil rights as men and even animals could do whatever they wanted on a public road thereby menacing passers-by.  The statement about animals’ rights brought to mind a little incident that occurred at the time when Clinton was liberating the Yugoslavs from Milosevic by bombing the citizens of Belgrade. The good wife, Martha, who loves all living beings, had received in the mail from the Animal Legal Defense Fund a bumper sticker, “Abuse an animal . . . go to jail!” My immediate next thought was, “bomb a city . . . become a hero!”

            When we look at the state of our democracy we’d hardly know that 2400 years have gone by since Plato penned those words. Among other aspects the enforced equality and concomitant lack of respect have become all pervasive. First academic titles were abolished when addressing someone, subsequently Mr., Miss, or Mrs. before last names, thereafter last names, and now we are all Tom, Dick, and Harry’s. I am not sure that President Putin relished being referred to as Vladimir in public. The sad part is that people in our country don’t even know any more that this is disrespectful and breeds dislike rather than friendship. In Europe and elsewhere in the world the use of first name by others is a privilege that must be granted rather than a right to be usurped. But it seems that in parallel with an excess of freedom - coupled with disrespect - we also experience increasing coercion. This is justified by the so-called War on Terrorism for which we are now supposed to sacrifice our lives, liberty and fortunes. The invasions of Afghanistan and subsequently Iraq were supposed to have gotten rid of this evil but now we are told in another headline, “Intelligence, military officials say the U.S. faces a growing terror threat.” What have we been paying all these billions of dollars since 9/11 for and why have we invaded other countries when this does not achieve the stated aim? The answer is, of course, obvious, the reasons we are being given are not reasons but excuses to justify policies that are hatched in secret for the benefit of a few rather than the citizens of our country or those in the rest of the world.

            This brings me to the final question, “What freedom does the individual citizen have regardless of the type of government one lives under?” This will be explored in greater detail in the April installment. For now it is important to state that absolute freedom does not and cannot exist for the human being. Statisticians introduced the useful concept of “degrees of freedom,” and those also apply to people living in a given society. In authoritarian states personal degrees of freedom are restricted but can be retained as long as one does not belong to a persecuted minority and does not criticize the government in word or deed. In our democracy we are given greater latitude but we still have taboos that must not even be discussed, lest one is in danger of losing one’s job. 

            When our President talks about bringing “Freedom and Democracy” to the rest of the world he would be well advised to look back on history and see the cyclical progression rather than expect that democracy will be the end all and be all.

But as Mr. Pat Bagley so astutely noted in his cartoon, this is really not what it’s all about and readers of this essay will be well advised to look beyond the obvious humor to the deeper message. Nevertheless, we are witnessing a moment of hope but Lady Opportunity has restless legs and unless she is firmly grasped now she may take her leave again for a long time.