Why the West Has Won...So Far

As Osama bin Ladin, who must somehow get the MSM in his mountain redoubt, grandly offers us a truce (not that he's losing or anything, of course), maybe we should consider why our society, not his, has been dominant in history for a century or so. There is a terrific article on just this subject in the National Interest. Author Lawrence Mead, in a piece headlined "Why Anglos Lead," noted that many commentators see the emergence of a new American empire. Some blame Bush; some blame the end of the Cold War for "unleashing" the Americans on the world.

This is short-sighted:

"Actually, American pre-eminence extends much further back--to World War II or before. It really continues a British primacy that dated back at least to 1815. During the 20th century, Germany, Japan and Soviet Russia challenged the Anglo ascendancy, but they were turned back. So today the world order bears a remarkable resemblance to the late Victorian era. Now as then, the world is globalizing, and English is its lingua franca. The United States has merely supplanted Britain as the leading power."

But why? Mead explains:

What explains Anglo primacy? One immediate cause is that other rich countries that might show leadership have abdicated. Following the devastating wars of the 20th century, the continental nations and Japan sought to banish war by subordinating themselves and other states to international institutions--the United Nations, NATO and the European Union. Germany and Japan even adopted legal curbs on the use of their militaries abroad or for offensive purposes. The ethos of most of the developed world now runs strongly against war, even for a good cause. Thus, in moments of military crisis, America seems "bound to lead" because no other country can do so.

But beyond this, the Anglo nations also possess, to an unusual degree, the resources needed for war--wealth, a capacity to project force, confidence in war and the deference of other countries. Other commentators have noted these assets. What I add is chiefly the argument that all these resources ultimately stem from the Anglos' political achievements: Good government at home is the ultimate reason for Anglo leadership abroad....

The British passed the rule of law, like capitalism, on to their colonies, and it was the most precious of their gifts. In America, political and economic competition can look like a free-for-all, but it is undergirded by a formidable legal order. Enterprise is free yet regulated to limit collusion and other abuses. Most people pay their taxes and obey the law. A civic ethos suffuses the regime. Abuses and corruption occur, but they are exposed and redressed, as in the recent Enron scandal. American judges and juries are not for sale, which is why drug kingpins fear extradition to the United States. Equal opportunity, based on an elaborate education system, is generous. The whole system rests on a commitment to public impartiality that America imbibed, like mother's milk, from its British forebears.

The left, increasingly virulent, refuses to recognize that America is a country in which wrongs such as Enron are righted. I think this failure to appreciate the gifts cited in Mead's piece is highly destructive. That's why I put "so far" in the headline. We may live in a society that no longer values its, well, values enough to risk lives and treasure to preserve them. Here's what I am wondering this afternoon: How long before somebody on the left says we should take Bin Laden up on his offer of a "truce"? (It would actually be a surrender.)