 |
 — Book Review —
THE CLASH OF
CIVILIZATIONS
by James R. Elwood
This book review appeared in the May/June/July 1999 issue of the Freedom Network News, the journal of the International Society for Individual Liberty.
One of the primary challenges facing libertarians is to make sense of the fast-moving events and trends in the world today – to determine whether they are favorable or unfavorable in bringing about greater individual liberty. Another challenge is to determine how to take advantage of the good trends – or alternately, minimize the damage from the bad ones.
No one can completely predict the future, but it is often useful to assess the perspectives of people who have done major studies of current social, cultural and economic trends and who have attempted to determine patterns, establish their root causes, and make predictions.
That is why I believe that it is important for libertarians, and ISIL members in particular, to read books by well-known authors on futurism and world affairs like Alvin Toffler, John Naisbitt, Kenichi Ohmae, Peter Drucker, James Dale Davidson and Lord William Rees-Mogg, and others. Some of these people are fairly libertarian, others much less so, but all are knowledgeable on their subject and provide stimulating reading.
Another author has recently appeared on the scene whose writings I can recommend to libertarians concerned with world trends and their implications for international affairs and the future of liberty. His name is Samuel P. Huntington and his book is The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (Simon-Schuster, New York, 1996).
Huntington is a professor of international affairs at Harvard University and chairman of the John M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies. He was director of security planning on the National Security Council during the Carter administration, and was co-founder of Foreign Policy magazine and a former president of the American Political Science Association.
Huntington certainly has establishment credentials, but his views have created a lot of controversy in academic and diplomatic circles. His book is extremely critical of some aspects of US government foreign policy for reasons that libertarians would generally endorse. His observations of the world scene and cultural/social trends uncover many lessons that libertarians would do well to heed. Indeed, some of his conclusions and proposals give hope for the spread of libertarianism, while some of his other proposals need to be fought by libertarians.
THE PRIMACY OF CULTURE
Huntington's thesis is that in the post-Cold War world, culture and cultural identities – in the broad sense defined as – civilizations – are the primary factors that shape cohesion, conflict and disintegration within and between nations. Instead of the bipolar Cold War conflict, he asserts that there are seven or eight civilizational groupings emerging into a multi-polar international system. Varying levels of hostility exist both between and among these groupings, although some civilizations will generally be allies of convenience, while others are implacable enemies.
While some thorny international issues such as weapons proliferation, human rights and migration, are seen by the West as universal concerns, they are seen by other civilizations as attempts by the West to use the international organizations that it now dominates to keep them weak. Consequently, the West is gradually losing the power to dictate its ideas to the other rising civilizations.
Technological modernization is generally accepted around the world, but other civilizations are increasingly coming to reject Westernization of values and institutions. Huntington focuses extra attention on the rise of Islamic and Sinic (Chinese) power. He also describes the gradual decline of the power of the West and calls for a renewed commitment within the West to Western traditions.
PARADIGM SHIFT
As a foreign-policy analyst, Huntington sees the need to look at the dynamics of global politics and devise a road map that will roughly represent reality, explain causal relationships that influence current events, help predict the future, prioritize available facts, and show a path for achieving goals.
For forty years after World War II, the paradigm of the Cold War world was very clear-cut. There was the relatively free and rich First World led by the United States, opposing the poorer communist Second World led by the Soviet Union – plus the non-aligned and swing countries, generally in the poor Third World. That model wasn't perfect, and for example, it blinded policymakers to the importance of the Sino-Soviet split – but overall it was a useful model for people in both the US and Soviet camps.
After 1989, with the collapse of communism, the Cold War disappeared overnight – so new paradigms were needed to make sense of the new situation. Four primary models were put forward by observers during the early 1990's:
- One World Euphoria and Harmony: Proponents, led by Francis Fukiyama of the US State Department and his famous "end of history" essay, thought that the collapse of communism would leave the Western institutions of liberal democracy and [relatively] free markets dominant around the world. Remaining conflicts would be minor and would not focus on ideologies.
With the rise of numerous and bloody regional conflicts within a few years of the fall of the Wall, it became clear that this model had little to do with political reality.
- Two Worlds: Us and Them: Usually described as the West vs. East, or rich North vs. poor South, believers vs. non-believers, etc. This model is too simple. It does not describe the real conflicts in the world, or the difference between groups elsewhere. It is more accurate to say "the West and the rest."
- 184 States, More or Less: Assumes that all states will practice purely pragmatic politics, maximize their own power, seek balances of power, etc. Most states do this to some degree, but this model ignores cultural reasons for alliances. Huntington says that pure balance-of-power theory would have told Western Europe to align with the Soviet Union against the powerful United States after World War II. Instead, seeing the Soviets as a threat to their way of life, Western European governments joined with the US to form NATO.
Huntington thinks that nation-states will remain the primary players in world politics. He says this model is somewhat useful, but since states have always pursued their self-interest, this model does not explain possible differences between the Cold War and post Cold War international systems.
- Sheer Chaos: This model asserts that nation-states will fade in importance and in many cases break up. Power will devolve to smaller geographical areas or even to individuals. Racial, ethnic and religious conflict will
intensify, weapons of mass destruction will proliferate, and terrorism will increase in frequency and scale. Globally, much power will accrue to multinational corporations and mafia gangs. One-world government is not in the cards indeed the UN may
disappear.
Two proponents of the chaos scenario are James Dale Davidson and Lord William Rees-Mogg, editors of the Strategic Investment newsletter, and authors of books like The Sovereign Individual, The Great Reckoning,
and Blood in the Streets. (You may recall my review of The Sovereign Individual in the March/April 1997 Freedom
Network News). Their view is that the Internet will be the most powerful force in the 21st Century, and that the top cyber-entrepreuneurs will become significant world players.
Huntington acknowledges that this anarchy model describes much of the world today, but faults it for not providing ways of measuring the relative importance of trends among the various conflicts and – predicting their course.
CIVILIZATIONS AND
THE NEW WORLD ORDER
In his second chapter, Huntington moves into the definitions of civilization. There is a difference between the singular concept of Civilization, which has been identified with peace, prosperity and advanced learning, art and science; and that of cultural groupings that make up civilizations in the plural.
One quoted description of a civilization is of "the values, norms, institutions, and modes of thinking to which successive generations in a given society have attached primary importance." Civilizations are the largest grouping, short of the human race.
And the cultural backbone of civilizations is religion. The dominant religion of a region permeates the culture of that region, and determines to which civilization a particular society and country belongs. Race, language and other factors are secondary.
Being cultural in nature, civilizations have no clear-cut boundaries, tend to be dynamic and are long-lived. Like people and institutions, they tend to go through life cycles. Historians have various theories, but the summary appears to be: a rise in response to challenges, a period of growth, a period of major conflict, a universal state, and ultimate disintegration.
Huntington breaks the current world into eight major civilizations.
SINICS: China and Chinese-influenced cultures in Korea and Vietnam, also Chinese communities in Southeast Asia. The primary religion is Confucianism. Economic and military growth may make the Sinic civilization the premier force in world affairs by the middle of the century.
JAPANESE: Some scholars lump the Japanese and Chinese together, but many others including Huntington, consider Japanese culture to be quite distinct. There is some Buddhist influence in their society, but it is not dominant. In Huntington's view, Japan's status as a civilization, ethnic group, and a lone state bodes ill for its economy and relations with its neighbors.
HINDU: Essentially India. With its great ethnic diversity, and large communities of Muslims and other religious groups, the outlook is for considerable internal conflict. But many observers still consider India to be a potential world power if it stays unified and can get its economic act together.
BUDDHIST: Southeast Asia between India and Vietnam, plus Tibet and Mongolia. Buddhism was born in India and thrived in China, but it was absorbed into Hinduism and Confucianism in those countries. The Buddhist civilization is fairly small, and is expected to be politically subservient to its stronger neighbors.
ISLAM: This civilization ranges across North Africa, southwest and central Asia, and Malaysia and Indonesia in southeast Asia. There are four major sub-cultures: Arabic, Turkic, Persian and Malay. No country is a clear leader of the Muslim world, a fact which makes for considerable internal conflict, and makes relations with other civilizations more dangerous.
Muslim population is booming, with a very high proportion of youth right now. This will be a highly destabilizing factor for the next 20 years. Their economies are unable to keep up, so the outlook is for internal turmoil and conflict with all their neighbors. The conflicts will be worsened by the aggressively anti-Western nature of the Islamic Resurgence.
AFRICAN (possibly): This civilization includes all of sub-Saharan Africa except some Muslim areas along the east coast. Both Christian and animist religions influence the culture. Outside influence has been mostly Western, but the future is unclear. South Africa may assume a leadership role for the region. Barring radical restructuring of the African states, the region is likely to remain politically troubled and economically weak.
LATIN AMERICA: Some scholars consider Latin America to be a sub-culture of Western civilization, but others consider it distinct because of the large native influence in most Latin American countries, and the great difference in social structures and traditions from those of North America. Christianity, especially Catholicism, is the dominant religion. The region is becoming somewhat more westernized recently, especially in economic policy.
WESTERN: North America, Western and Central Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and because of its Catholic religion, the Philippines make up Western civilization. Although highly secular these days, Western culture is still heavily influenced by the Roman Catholic, Protestant and Jewish traditions. Church and state have tended to be more separate and competitive than in other civilizations, which has helped lead to the pluralistic nature and individualism of Western society. The West is still the dominant civilization, but its power is in decline.
ORTHODOX: Russia and Eastern Europe. The cultural roots have Oriental influences going back to the Byzantine Empire and the 200-year rule of the Tatars. The Orthodox Church has tended to be subservient to the state. The state, in the Oriental tradition, has been generally despotic, with the Renaissance and Enlightenment having exerted little influence. The Orthodox countries have and probably will continue to lag the traditionally Christian countries of Central Europe in economic and social recovery from communism.
IS THERE A
UNIVERSAL CIVILIZATION?
Many in the West view Western civilization as a universal human civilization, to which other civilizations around the world compare unfavorably in their levels of development. This view has been engendered largely by the overwhelming power of the West, which in recent centuries used superior military organization and technology to conquer much of the world and suppress other cultures.
Other civilizations have accepted modern science and technology. But they are increasingly rejecting Western ideas about individualism, materialism, democracy, etc. and are reasserting their own cultures and institutions – usually with a strong influence from the dominant religion.
Huntington notes that global media and entertainment is dominated by the West, but claims that this may actually help fuel the cultural backlash against the West. He also says that free trade by itself does not promote peace (although he favors it for its economic benefits). He also says that the notion of English as the world language is distorted. It is popular as a second language, but its usage as a primary language is actually in relative decline.
A major trend has been that of "indiginization." In many former European colonies in Africa, Asia and the Middle East, the élites of the generation that won independence in the post World War II era were educated in the West, and spoke Western languages. As these countries developed their own universities in recent decades, the teaching and materials have been in native languages. This has contributed to the reassertion of traditional cultures.
THE GLOBAL RESURGENCE
OF RELIGION
The modernization of societies has caused a massive urbanization of the population in many countries and has broken up traditional rural social structures. Many people have turned to religion to provide a new sense of identity, a stable community and a set of moral precepts to provide them with a sense of meaning and purpose. Of course, religion also fosters a sense of superiority of the "believers" versus all the "non-believers" and sometimes breeds vicious conflict.
The religious revival has attacked the secularism, moral relativism and self-indulgence that are seen as Western sins, and are reaffirming the values of order, discipline, work, mutual help and human solidarity. Surprisingly, the religious movements are being propelled by the young, educated urban middle classes.
Although in most places, the traditional religion is the one being revived, sometimes an old religion can be superseded if it is seen to not be suitable for a modern society. Protestant televangelism is quite popular in Latin America, winning adherents from the traditionalist Catholic church. Christianity has won 30% of the population of South Korea, where urbanization has left Buddhism behind. Christianity is also making inroads in China, despite severe official oppression. Huntington noted that "the emotional aridity of Confucianism" might make it vulnerable to energetic outside religions.
LESSONS FROM THE ISLAMIC RESURGENCE
Huntington pays special attention to the rise of Islamic and Sinic civilizations because they are large, energetic, growing in power, and have asserted their superiority over Western culture.
There are useful lessons for libertarians in the success of the Islamic Resurgence. Westerners may think of Shiite fundamentalists when they think of the rise of Islam, but in fact the Resurgence is a mainstream movement. It started as a cultural movement that has influenced social and political institutions. It also involves a revival of traditional Islamic ideas, practices and rhetoric.
The Islamist political movement began in the 1970's among student groups in the universities and spread outward. It has appealed to dynamic urban middle-class people, especially in science and the professions. It has led to an alternative system of Islamic schools, banks, and other social services – needs which were poorly and ineffectively managed by governments. Even a parallel Islamic legal system arose in many countries.
There has also been extensive international economic, social, political and military networking among private Islamic organizations, as well as between governments. The military aspect of that reality is the sight of mujahedin fighters from Afghanistan showing up in conflicts between Muslims and others around the world.
The Islamic movement also influenced curriculum in state schools – and with their large and highly-motivated support base, became politically powerful – either taking over the government, as in Iran, or becoming the principal opposition in numerous countries and forcing the rulers to move in an Islamic direction.
The parallels to the dynamics of the libertarian movement are striking, except that the much smaller libertarian movement has not yet been involved in the setting up of alternative institutions of any significance, and has not yet had comparable political influence.
Another interesting point is that Islamic fundamentalism as a political force was strongest in those countries where the government has suppressed secular opposition parties. The Islamists were able to operate within and behind their networks of mosques, schools, foundations and social-welfare organizations.
THE CHINESE REAWAKEN
As noted, the other rising power is the Sinic civilization, based on tremendous economic growth in the last 20 years. Chinese entrepreneurs in the four Asian Little Tigers – Hong Kong, Taiwan, Malaysia and Singapore – have generated considerable wealth. Now China itself is emerging as a significant economic power. The rate of future progress is in question, but it is certain that there will be no turning back to doctrinaire Marxist/Leninism by the Chinese Communist Party rulers.
Using their extended family contacts, Chinese businesspeople have built very successful international networks. The Chinese in southeast Asia are increasingly linking with and investing in the homeland. In return, the Chinese government is becoming increasingly assertive about its interest in the protection of overseas Chinese, especially in the face of ethnic violence against them in Indonesia and Malaysia. The traditional Chinese position as the hegemonic power in East Asia, to whom the neighbors play a tributory role, does appear to be gradually returning.
Economic growth provides the resources for military power. All the East Asian governments have been increasing their military spending, while the Western governments have decreased theirs. Much of this spending has been fueled by the threat of armed conflict in East Asia, where there are potential conflicts between six civilizations – plus intra-civilizational conflicts on the Korean peninsula and China/Taiwan.
Huntington makes the point that hard power (economic and military) leads to soft power (the spread of cultural influence). The hard power of the West has helped lead to the popularity of its culture around the world. Now, the Asians – especially the Chinese – are asserting their conservative and collectivist Confucian values against "decadent" Western individualist influence. More of the world may look to the Asian model in the future – although it is also true that economic freedom often leads to greater political freedom.
PATTERNS OF
CIVILIZATIONAL CONFLICT
In Huntington's view, civilizational groupings will determine most of the world's international politics during the next half-century. Civilizations generally have core states that enjoy preponderant economic, political and military power within their civilization; and have concentric circles of smaller countries which look to the core state for leadership. The United States is the core state of the West, as Russia is for the Orthodox, and China is for the Sinic civilization. India and Japan are both core and lone states. The Africans, Buddhists, and Latin Americans lack core states. Islam also does not have a core state because of language and the division of Islam into the Sunni and Shiite sects.
The most serious conflicts in the world will be "fault-line" wars along the borders of civilizations. These are the ones that carry the greatest chance of expanding into a world war. Core states generally both support "kin" countries against countries of other civilizations, and work with core states of other civilizations to contain the conflict.
The most common fault-line wars are and will be happening between Muslims and their neighbors because of population pressures in the Muslim countries. The lack of a true core state in the Muslim world increases the risk of spreading conflicts, although Huntington thinks Turkey may emerge as a core state in the future.
The Balkans are the primary fault-line war today, with the Western, Orthodox and Islamic civilizations all involved. Thus Russia, the Orthodox core state, has supported Orthodox Serbia in the Yugoslav conflict, but has been attempting to negotiate a peace settlement and is taking part in peacekeeping forces in Kosovo.
In the earlier Bosnian conflict, Russia supported the Serbs, while the West supported Catholic Croatia – and turned a blind eye to Croatian ethnic cleansing. Turkey, Iran and other Muslim countries supported the Bosnian Muslims. But these outside states also worked to bring an end to the fighting, after considerable bloodshed.
There has also been a lot of private support in these civilizational conflicts. Much funding of both humanitarian and military aid has come from the diasporas of various ethnic groups. Islamic foundations gave a big share of the support for the Bosnian Muslims. The Armenian diaspora in the United States and western Europe supported their (Orthodox) Armenian kin against Muslim Azerbaijan.
Civilizational conflicts can occur within countries too. Torn countries are those in which political leadership has tried to change the culture from the traditional civilization to another. This has never been fully successful, so the result has been a schizophrenic cultural conflict.
The classic example is Peter the Great's attempt to make Russia a culturally European country instead of an Asiatic one. The cultural debate has raged ever since. Turkey has been torn between its centuries of Islam and Mustafa Kemal's Westernization of the early 20th Century, and Mexico is undergoing the same agony now as its political leaders try to align with North America instead of Latin America.
Cleft countries are those whose territories straddle civilizations, and are very likely to break up violently if the political leadership tries to hang on. Yugoslavia is the premier example today, while the internal conflict with Islam helped kill the Soviet Union. Currently, the Ukraine is a cleft country, with the Christian western third and Orthodox eastern two-thirds. Orthodox Romania's Transylvania region has a mostly Catholic Hungarian population. For decades Sudan has suffered a horrible war between the Arab Muslim north and black Christian/animist south.
WHITHER THE WEST?
Huntington is very pro-Western and wants it to remain the premier military power, but thinks that in foreign affairs it needs to recognize and respect other civilizations and not try to dominate them. He believes that Western interventionism carries with it the greatest potential danger of causing a world war. He also believes that the West is in decline, and needs a recommitment to its culture and values.
Interestingly, for a former official of a liberal Democratic Party administration, Huntington is vehemently against the politically-correct multi-cultural movement in the US. He abhors their denunciation of Western culture and the glorification of non-Western cultures as models. He condemns their promotion of the concept of group rights over individual rights; their programs of teaching immigrants in their own language in schools instead of in English; and their attacks on the traditional American political creed of "liberty, democracy, individualism, equality before the law, constitutionalism, and private property."
He is afraid that if they succeed, the United States would become a multi-civilization country, and would fall apart. He notes the Soviet Union was a multi-civilizational empire that was held together only by communist ideology (and force). The internal civilizational conflicts with Islam eventually overwhelmed the ideological and military glue. He thinks the same would happen to America if the multiculturists win, particularly with the likelihood of Hispanic majorities in the southwestern states within about 20 years.*
He goes on to say that if the US were to cease being a culturally Western country, then Western civilization itself would essentially cease to exist, due to Europe's being too small to be a major civilization on its own. Huntington says that America's heritage is European, and that is where the affinity should lay.
Huntington's observations and warnings are generally things with which I agree. But Huntington goes on to call for the economic and political integration of North America and the European Union – expanded to include all the traditional Christian countries of Central Europe and the Baltic republics.
If such a confederation could be made into a big Switzerland, including its strict neutrality, but much more libertarian, then I wouldn't mind.
But I'm sorry Sam. To think about a US/EU political integration (under the EU model?) under current or likely near-future circumstances is horrifying to me. The political, intellectual and media establishments on both sides of the Atlantic are thoroughly in favor of the authoritarian welfare state, with its high taxes, regulations, prohibitions and military interventions in other countries.
Europe is traditionally more collectivist than America, and with its larger population would dominate a confederation. Americans would either be subject to rule by a virtually unaccountable EU-type international bureaucracy; or if there were a full merger, to a European-dominated democratically-elected legislature. In that case, would we get the European parliamentary system, which allows virtually dictatorial power to the party that rules the government? And wouldn't the lack of economic and political competition between states make the Western superstate much more oppressive?
Such an arrangement would almost certainly guarantee that America's considerable military subsidy to Europe would be expanded to direct subsidy of the bloated European social welfare programs. It would also mandate the involvement of American forces in any European conflict with their Islamic and Orthodox neighbors.
In my opinion, Europe is economically, politically and militarily weak today because the US subsidy of NATO has enabled European politicians for fifty years to avoid the hard choices between guns and butter. If Europe had to foot its own bills, the politicians would be forced to cut back the enervating social programs and regulations.
To make Europe get its act together and strengthen itself – and by implication – Western civilization, the US should do the opposite of Huntington's proposal and withdraw from NATO immediately, end the subsidy to Europe's defense, and reject the idea of political merger. An economic semi-merger through a genuine trans-Atlantic free-trade agreement (unlike NAFTA) might be a great improvement, although the ultimate goal should be pure, global free trade.
THE LIBERTARIAN RESURGENCE AND
THE RENEWAL OF THE WEST
Huntington includes some discussion on whether the West is in decline or is moving into a universal-state stage that he thinks will be a golden age. Positive signs are the increasing linkages between the US and Europe (in his view), the tremendous cultural creativity, clear Western leadership in science and technology, and its relatively strong economy. Signs of decline include the decline in education quality, moral climate, low investment and high consumption, and an aging population.
I assume that every member of ISIL knows that the revival of adherence to the principles of individual liberty is the key to the survival and renewal of the West and of Western culture. The West's wealth and the richness of Western culture has been made possible by the relative freedom allowed by the West's unique package of social and political ideas and institutions.
These ideas of individualism, pluralism, the rule of law, citizen democracy, constitutionalism and private property are all under heavy attack by authoritarians in the political establishment and their accomplices in the state educational system and the media. If not reversed, these attacks will not only wreck our economy, but will stifle creativity and culture. The authoritarians threaten to make our society poor, oppressed and stagnant.
Libertarians are the only systematic defenders of these valuable Western traditions. We do not wish to turn back the clock; rather we promote time-tested principles of liberty to create the environment of freedom. That freedom is essential to allow the creativity that will enable the achievement of human progress and a bright future.
THE GLOBAL PROMISE OF LIBERTY
The libertarian movement promises not only to revive the West, but it will benefit people all around the world. At heart, libertarianism is a moral code based on the principle of non-aggression, and the concept of voluntary agreement based on mutual-informed consent.
Huntington observes, as have others, that certain moral tenets are common for all human societies. Nearly everyone has a belief in basic truth and justice, and nearly everyone condemns murder, torture, deceit, oppression and tyranny. This observation gives great hope for the promotion of libertarianism around the world. The underlying moral principles of libertarianism are universal, not just Western.
Since a primary goal of ISIL and the international libertarian movement is to promote world peace, then it is important to show in ways relevant to people in each civilization how individual liberty is the way to create societies that will honor these basic moral precepts and will prosper.
Fortunately, libertarianism is on the rise, both in the West and around the world. ISIL has members in 80 countries in all of the civilizational zones. The libertarian movement has come light years in the last three decades in the number of people involved, the number of publications and organizations, and in its visibility in the intellectual and political debates.
Nearly every society in history has had proponents of liberty, and many societies that are today collectivist have enjoyed periods of relative liberty and prosperity. People relate to their own history, so it is important for libertarians to remind people of the brighter times of their history, and explain why they were bright times. It is also important to find and popularize the writings of these liberty proponents of the past and link the ideas to today's world and the vision of the future.
The Saracens of the early Moslem period had a very free and wealthy society that produced major advances in science and technology. Central Africa in the same time period had free trade and relative prosperity, plus Timbuktu was a world-renowned center of learning. China prospered during its freer periods, which included a proto-industrial revolution in the eleventh century – which was tragically aborted by the bureaucratic mandarins. India enjoyed relative freedom and enormous wealth around the time of the Roman Empire. Late 19th Century Argentina was one of the freest and wealthiest countries on earth.
In Europe, ISIL members in France have been reviving the writings of Frederic Bastiat, Benjamin Constant and other classical liberals. Our friends at the Liberal Akademie Berlin are doing the same for the 19th Century German liberals, as well as the Austrian economists. This activity is going on in many countries and languages.
For all this talk about civilizations and cultures, it is important to remember that, ultimately, the direction of human affairs still comes down to choices made by individuals. Ideas do travel, and the people who see their value and adopt them do influence the course of their countries and civilizations.
This is why it has been so heartening to see Ken Schoolland's libertarian fable The Adventure of Jonathan Gullible being received so well by people in numerous cultures. Hayek is a best-seller in China today. Ayn Rand has excited people around the world. I am happy to see that ISIL Rep Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad has founded the Minaret of Freedom Foundation to do outreach among Muslims. Libertarianism is now a global phenomenon.
The Internet, which Sam Huntington barely mentions, is now enabling ordinary people easy access to vast amounts of information and the ability to communicate directly with individuals anywhere. It is an incredible tool for the spread of liberty. Davidson and Rees-Mogg predict that the Internet will be the great force in the world in coming decades, not China. I tend to agree.
In spite of a few flaws, I still highly recommend that libertarians read The Clash of Civilizations.
James R. Elwood is executive vice-president of ISIL.
|
|
