Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
The brilliant George Gilder (...if you haven't read "Wealth and Poverty," you really should - one of the best books I've ever read...) has an article up at Real Clear Politics called "Israel - Leader of the Free World." His premise is quite simple, summed up in these two passages:
The issues in the Middle East could hardly be simpler. On one side is tyranny, dependency, and resentment; on the other is liberty and its redemptive fruits.
...
If, as seems increasingly likely, Iran goes to all-out war against Israel, it will be Israel, not the United States, that defeats our greatest enemy in the region. If the Iranian nuke program is terminated, it will be by Israel and not the United States. Israel is now fighting our wars and winning.
So, who is the leader of the Free World now?
There are many who lamented America's role in geopolitics in the 1900s. Why must we be the world's policeman? It's too expensive. Too risky. Too great a cost in riches and in American lives. Too abstract. And so on. All reasonable points.
There are obvious problems with being the Leader of the Free World.
But there are also problems with NOT being the Leader of the Free World. That means that someone ELSE is Leader of the Free World. Or even worse, perhaps it means there IS no Leader of the Free World. Which means that very soon there will be no Free World.
I run my own business because I don't like being told what to do. I don't always like the responsibility, but I like having the freedom to set things up the way I think they ought to be. There are days when I wish someone else was in charge - that the issues of the day just wouldn't be my problem. But overall, I'm much happier, and much more productive, when I'm in charge.
America should give careful thought about withdrawing from the world stage, and allowing someone else to take over.
I'm a great admirer of Israel. But sorry, I'd rather be in charge. America is better suited to global influence. It seems obvious that Israel has no interest in geopolitics beyond defending itself from genocidal antisemites. Which is perfectly rational, and perfectly understandable.
Despite Mr. Gilder's title, Israel clearly has no interest in being the leader of the free world. Neither does Europistan. Neither does New Zealand, Sweden, Singapore - there is only one Leader of the Free World. It's us.
Or it's nobody.
I understand those who are reluctant to deal with international issues. None of our business. OK. I get it.
But think about that for a moment. If we don't exert some control over international affairs, then someone else will. The current status quo is not chiseled in stone. Things can change quickly. And when they change quickly, they don't generally change for the better.
I know this is a simplistic perspective on an enormously complex problem. But really I'm only arguing that America is casually averting its gaze from geopolitics, like we've lost interest. But I think that decision should be made with very, very, VERY careful consideration.
International events don't just stop when we stop participating. They continue - we just lose influence over their destination. Influence that it may be very difficult to regain, once everything falls apart again. Which they will. They always do.
To repeat Mr. Gilder's closing point:
If, as seems increasingly likely, Iran goes to all-out war against Israel, it will be Israel, not the United States, that defeats our greatest enemy in the region. If the Iranian nuke program is terminated, it will be by Israel and not the United States. Israel is now fighting our wars and winning.
So, who is the leader of the Free World now?
I have enormous respect for Mr. Gilder. But I disagree in this case. It will not be, "Israel - Leader of the Free World." Israel cannot be the Leader of the Free World, and it has no interest in doing so. The Leader of the Free World will be nobody.
Briefly. Then there will be no Free World.
And that's it.
The only flaw I can find in my reasoning is that I have no idea what I'm talking about. Perhaps Israel actually could be Leader of the Free World. Maybe Sweden or somebody else. Maybe. But I just can't imagine it.
What do you think?
Discussion (51)
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
It seems by definition any "Leader of the Free World" that wants to be taken seriously, must be able to take on any other country if necessary, perhaps more than one, and perhaps with "one arm tied behind its back." That's not Israel.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Somewhere I have a book written by Mark Steyn seventeen or eighteen years ago. Toward the end, he said something about God getting what he could out of nations. I can't remember if Steyn was quoting someone or if it was his original thought. He mentioned the last few hundred years and Spain, Portugal, France, The British Empire, and now the U. S. Notice that whether or not God was involved the influence of each faded. Maybe our time has passed. The down-side of the passing is that certainly the British Empire and the U. S. were mostly influences for good. I don't see anyone to take our place as a positive influence, but my Crystal Ball has been under repair for decades now.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I think you are right. But the US doesn't have the commitment to follow things through. We won't stay the course, and over the last couple of decades, our allies have seen that. Nobody trusts us, and they are correct not to.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
We have been listening to Wormtongue for too long.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I thought Dan Rather had retired.
You're seeing five of 51 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.