by Pete Hegseth
According to Dan Wachtell—and the reflexive, elite, left-wing view he gave voice to—America was mostly to blame for the attacks. He wrote in the Daily Princetonian that day:
Tuesday’s terrorists felt that such monumental wrongdoing had been inflicted upon them, their families and their way of life by the United States that such calamitous action was the only remedy . . . at this moment in which emotions are understandably running wild, the question we must ask is not “Who?” but “Why?” . . . What has America done to lead these people to the conclusion that murderous terrorism is the only appropriate action?
America’s blame didn’t stop there, but instead extended to retaliatory attacks that hadn’t even happened yet. To Dan Wachtell, America’s soon-to-be military response was racist, outdated, and no more moral than the actions of Al Qaeda terrorists. He continued:
[T ]o attack large groups of people or entire nations makes us no more just or moral or right than were the 19 who attacked humanity on Tuesday. . . . The conflation by this country’s leadership of the “terrorists who commit such acts and the nations that harbor them” is dangerous, illogical, unacceptable and, in fact, nothing short of a prejudiced and racist statement. [America’s leaders] only want to arouse the anger and hatred of the American people to justify their rash, outdated and hawkish military action.
But the argument Dan Wachtell concluded with reveals the Left’s underlying worldview, to wit: not only was—and is—America on the wrong side of the 9/11 attacks, but the very idea of America is wrong. He concludes:
Nothing pains me more than to hear people who live in this country announce, as one woman did on yesterday’s news, that she is, in light of this tragedy, “not Yankee, not Southern, not Black, not White, but above all else, American.” Is she not, above all else, Human? Would she—would our political and military leaders—rather be called Inhuman than be called Arab?
His final point—that America is not worthy of fundamental allegiance—brings the entire argument into focus. Dan Wachtell does not see himself as an American, but instead as a global citizen. It’s not that he is an apologist for terrorists or anti-American, per se. He’s a perfectly nice guy. He is just over America. As Teddy Roosevelt foreshadowed in his speech, his “international feeling swamps his national feeling” and “he does not care for his country because he cares so much for mankind.” To Wachtell, and to the modern Left, patriotism is outdated, exceptionalism passé, and America too flawed to merit allegiance. Instead the cause of naked humanity—regardless of flag, freedom, or creed—is the future.
Our response to Dan Wachtell the next day in the Daily Princetonian was not Pulitzer worthy, but at least it didn’t pull any punches. We summed up his argument with a phrase: “cowardice masquerading as conscience.” We zeroed in on his blame-America-first argument, answering his why? question and laying out the so-called grievances used to justify mass murder—support for Israel, defense of Kuwait, and the promotion of human rights and freedom around the world. Like the rest of America, we echoed the need for unity, for patriotism, for justice, and for prayer. Finally, we pointed out the ultimate irony to the likes of Dan Wachtell: “American soldiers will die to give you . . . the privilege to sit safely in your dorm room and criticize your own country . . . [and] we hope you would be ashamed to send your article to the families of [the] victims.” With bodies still being pulled out of the wreckage, our response was more ’Merica! than anything else—but at an Ivy League campus we felt it needed to be said. It may have only been a student publication, but it was the most consequential rebuke we had at our disposal. It was what we could do, where we were. As Roosevelt might say, “We held our own.”
It’s not that Dan Wachtell was, or is, a coward. It’s that he and a generation of rank-and-file liberal “elites” like him have been educated and socialized to unilaterally disarm themselves, and thereby disarm America. His argument was dangerously naïve and ungrateful for the sacrifices of all those who have fought and died on the battlefield to preserve America. Worst of all, he is far from alone. In fact, he is typical of a growing American elite who, as Roosevelt put it, “but for the vile guns would have been a valiant soldier.” To them, America is not special and therefore America should not act; and when America does act, we’re usually the real problem. In their mind America is the problem, not a part of the solution. To them, if we can all just coexist and mutually understand, the ills facing humanity will eventually wash away. Those pesky “vile guns” have turned generations of citizen soldiers into cynics and cowards, prospective “good patriots” into detached global observers.
Two days after our exchange in the Princeton newspaper, another “citizen of the world” gave his take on the 9/11 attacks. Writing in the Hyde Park Herald, a state senator from Illinois named Barack Obama gave his first public statement on the attacks. Page four of the Herald provides reaction from multiple local Chicago officials, most hitting familiar tunes: calling for a “heroic spirit . . . against evil forces,” calling out the “arrogance and cowardice” of the attackers, and quoting Churchill’s words at the dawn of World War II. Barack Obama’s first instinct, on the other hand, was none of those things. He started out his brief post by saying that he hopes America “draw[s] some measure of wisdom from this tragedy.” He compels America to “understand” the source of terrorism, and blames the attack on “a fundamental lack of empathy” from the attackers. Ultimately, to Barack Obama, the nineteen hijackers were motivated by “a climate of poverty and ignorance, hopelessness and despair.” He concludes by chiding the U.S. military to “take into account the lives of innocent civilians abroad.”
Dan Wachtell eventually became a lawyer in New York City, but Barack Obama became a two-term president of the United States. Both—along with an entire generation of young Americans—are the “citizens of the world” that Teddy Roosevelt warned about a century earlier. Swamped by layers of education and cultural reinforcement, even the attacks of 9/11—the worst single act of terrorist violence in American history—motivate them only to introspective empathy, mutual understanding, and a restrained response. To both, military action is “outdated.” Even simple facts—like the fact that the 9/11 terrorists all came from intact families, most were upper-middle-class, and none came from the fringes of society—seemed to have little to no impact on the worldview of global citizens hell-bent on “coexisting” with even the most poisonous ideologies. The resulting common thread between Wachtell and Obama—as forewarned by Teddy Roosevelt—is cowardice masquerading as conscience. Their self-emasculation unwittingly turns them into foes of freedom, foes of American values, and ultimately, “foes of mankind.” It unknowingly turns them into cowards, and it weakens the resolve of our American experiment.
• • •
Early in his speech at the Sorbonne, Teddy Roosevelt cites the “war-worn Hotspur”—one of Shakespeare’s best-known characters. Sir Henry Percy, nicknamed Hotspur, was one of the most valiant knights of the fourteenth century, who, after helping to bring King Henry IV back from exile, ultimately rebelled and took up arms against the king—citing a long list of grievances, among them “tyrannical government.” Hotspur ultimately fell on the battlefield, but rumors spread that he was not really dead. King Henry, eager to squash any talk of further rebellion, had Hotspur’s body exhumed, impaled, and displayed throughout the land. Said Teddy Roosevelt, “It is war-worn Hotspur, spent with hard fighting, he of the many errors and valiant end, over whose memory we love to linger . . . not over the memory of the young lord who ‘but for the vile guns would have been a valiant soldier.’ ” For the past seven years, America has been led by the type of “young lord”—Barack Obama—that Roosevelt warned about. But for the vile guns, but for the founding principles, but for fanatical enemies, Obama and his fellow global citizens are valiant soldiers . . . against climate change! Prior to the era of Obama, both Republicans and Democrats, if at times reluctantly, embraced a life “spent with hard fighting,” filled with “many e
rrors,” but ultimately tending toward “valiant ends.” Such lives—and such countries—are “over whose memory we love to linger.” In a dangerous world, we don’t have the luxury to sit back and simply remember the days when America was a great power, was the world’s beacon of freedom, and ultimately was the guarantor of free peoples from Krakow to Kalamazoo. Defending freedom has always required vile guns and good patriots willing to use them, and the twenty-first century will be no exception.
The manifestation of our “young lord’s” worldview—I call it a “coexist” foreign policy—has been laid bare before America, and the world, since Obama’s inauguration on January 20, 2009. On that date a “citizen of the world” became president of the United States. Of course Barack Obama considers himself an American, and mountains of his rhetoric underscore that, but unlike any of his forty-three predecessors, there is very real reason to confidently posit that at his core, Barack Obama’s “international feeling swamps his national feeling.” Teddy Roosevelt once again diagnoses the manifestation of this shift; it creates an “exceedingly undesirable citizen of whatever corner of the world.” Once again it comes back to citizenship, but this time it applies to America’s interaction with the world—a relationship that is currently off the rails.
To be clear, Teddy Roosevelt does not believe being some form of a “citizen of the world” is inherently a bad thing, and neither do I. Seeking strong international alliances, being good stewards of shared natural resources, and humanitarian relief are all things America—as a citizen of the world—has done, and should do. We live in a more interconnected and international world than ever, and retreating behind Fortress America, or unilaterally withdrawing from our alliances, is not an option. But there is a necessary precursor to constructive global engagement that Teddy Roosevelt identified clearly, which is even more necessary in today’s international world: “a man must be a good patriot before he can be, and as the only possible way of being, a good citizen of the world.” Note the certainty in his voice—must be a good patriot as the only possible way to be a good citizen of the world.
“The Good Patriot” was the original title for this book, as I felt it succinctly encompassed the sentiment that America, and her leaders, need in the twenty-first century. Loving a free and prosperous America—warts and all—is the best way to constructively engage an equally fallen world. Teddy Roosevelt believed it, presidents since have believed it, but Barack Obama (and his fellow coexist adherents) does not. His upbringing, education, and career track reinforced a deeply held belief that America—and the West generally—have not been a force for good in the world, and therefore being a “patriot” is passé and fully subjective.
But Obama is not the problem; he is once again merely a symptom. A new generation of elitist leftists fundamentally misunderstands human nature, thereby underestimating the threats to America and undermining American power. Like the “foolish cosmopolitans” of Teddy’s time, modern progressive elites—perched in their Ivory Towers and insulated government orbits—see nothing exceptional about America, believing instead that the “global family” can simply “coexist,” “mutually understand,” and be made more “culturally aware.” As such, they minimize their American allegiance and maximize their global orientation. They seek to neuter American power for the sake of leveling the global playing field. Obama may have been the first American to go on a post-inauguration global apology tour, but he did so with the adoring approval of the mainstream media, foreign policy establishment, and Ivy League professoriate—his fellow global citizens. I went to school with the next generation of “coexist” leftists at Princeton and Harvard; armies of Little Obamas ready to legislatively save the world from climate change, income inequality, and . . . America.
But not every action taken by the Obama administration on the world stage has been driven by a core “coexist” ideology. A second pitfall of Barack Obama’s foreign policy orientation centers on another elite group, whom Teddy dubs “perpetual pragmatists” in his speech. Less ideologically committed than their progressive brethren, these modern pragmatic elites take soft solace in shades of gray that perpetually prohibit them from decisive, contentious—and necessary—actions. This group of squinting, “thoughtful,” and on-the-one-hand-and-on-the-other-hand elites emphasizes their conflicted nature at every turn—only thinly veiling their sheer lack of fortitude. In the minds of left-of-center foreign policy pragmatists, because every U.S. action has a potential reaction or unintended consequence, every raid the potential for civilian casualties, and every piece of strong rhetoric a potential offense, they default to consensus, capitulation, and the lowest common denominator.
Whereas ideological progressives believe America is the problem, America’s modern “perpetual pragmatists” still believe in America—they’re just ashamed of it, beaten down by leftists, internationalists, and elite institutions. They believe in principles like advancing freedom and free markets, defending our allies, and defeating Islamism. They’re just intellectually timid, their instincts and beliefs blunted by leftist pressure and the inevitably messy nature of foreign affairs. As the world grows more complex, solutions more difficult, and stark contrasts more passé, modern pragmatic elites hide behind international institutions and faux causes. They believe in a strong America, but they’re more worried about getting an invitation to the next Council on Foreign Relations luncheon (of which I’m a term member, I will note), so they hedge every bet, caveat every stance, and slap “coexist” bumper stickers on their Volvos. They look thoughtful and nuanced, but they actually lack the fortitude to fight the real fights. More cowardice masquerading as conscience.
Modern pragmatic elites are, as a result of their conflicted and timid nature, seduced into advancing causes favored by committed leftists. Perpetual pragmatists still believe in America’s role as freedom’s guarantor, but they are coaxed into advancing a much narrower leftist agenda that neither believes in America nor confronts the big problems of our time. Instead of fighting hard threats, they join the self-congratulatory chorus of leftists combatting soft threats—most especially radical environmentalism, but also many forms of political incorrectness and historical reparations. They vow to defeat faceless enemies but cower and equivocate when asked to defeat—or even confront—enemies with faces. They rally against global climate change using apocalyptic and militaristic rhetoric but stretch the limits of imagination to understand and “coexist” with committed Islamists.
The two camps of elites—ideologically progressive and obsessively pragmatic—differ in their roots but reinforce the same pitfalls. The former believe American interests, unilaterally or aggressively applied, are actually the cause of the world’s problems. The latter are so consumed with consensus, collaboration, and context that they are often paralyzed in confronting real threats. Both undermine America, both live inside the mind of Barack Obama and his national security staff, and both contribute to the “coexist” foreign policy disaster that has unfolded since 2009.
• • •
The world Barack Obama inherited in 2009 was much more stable than today, but still far from a perfect place. Between his election and inauguration alone, Pakistani-based Islamists killed nearly two hundred people in a brazen terrorist attack in Mumbai, India, Israel launched an air and ground offensive in the Gaza Strip in response to rocket fire from Hamas, and Vladimir Putin shut off all Russian gas supplies to Europe through Ukraine. All a preview of things to come. At the same time, on the battlefield of the war Obama was elected to “end,” U.S. war casualties in Iraq plummeted to an all-time low between his election and inauguration. And just ten days after Barack Obama assumed office, Iraq held critical provincial elections with very minimal violence. The world was not perfect in 2009, but Iraq was stable, the world relatively secure, and America at least respected.
Yet, in Barack Obama’s mind—and in the mind of progressive elites, foreign policy intelligentsia, and millions of voters—George W. Bush’s response to the
9/11 attacks was fundamentally wrong. To them Bush was a cowboy, a bumbling idiot, a simpleton, whereas Obama was the opposite—a peacemaker, a smooth sage, an international man of nuance. George Bush spoke loudly and carried a big stick, while Barack Obama spoke apologetically and was willing to set the stick down and talk to anyone.
But what would Obama actually do? His foreign policy platform in both elections centered on slogans—first I’m not George W. Bush and then, in 2012, Osama bin Laden Is Dead. Both were popular with voters, but neither constituted anything resembling a strategy. As a result, since his first day in the Oval Office, a great deal of ink has been spilled attempting to decipher what an “Obama Doctrine” actually looks like. Speeches have been analyzed, interviews given, and books written—yet nobody, including this author, actually knows what the real Obama Doctrine is. If George W. Bush’s foreign policy was defined by bold, unilateral action, Barack Obama’s is defined by incoherence.
But why? The answer is simple, and again rooted in the flawed leftist view of human nature and history. Progressive elitists like Barack Obama—and the so-called elites I went to school with at Princeton and Harvard—are eventually forced to emerge from their utopian ideological cocoons, only to find that there are still lots of people in the world who don’t want to coexist with even a “progressive” America led by someone as culturally sensitive as President Barack Obama. But what do progressives like Obama do when—instead of coexisting—enemies of freedom saw off the heads of our journalists, savagely massacre thousands of innocent civilians (and Christians) in their own lands, and target our military veterans at home for attack? What happens when, instead of coexisting, enemies of freedom want to expand their sphere of influence in the South China Sea or threaten Eastern Europe? What happens when, instead of coexisting, enemies of freedom want to accumulate permanent nuclear capabilities while denying the Holocaust and reiterating their desire to wipe our allies off the map? What happens when, instead of coexisting, the Islamic State throws four gay men off the top of a five-story building in Iraq at the same time the president is lighting up the White House in rainbow hues? At that point, Barack Obama’s brain—and the brain of the American Left—reads: DOES. NOT. COMPUTE. Unilaterally disarmed by decades of a “coexist” moral equivalency, the modern American Left is incapable of confronting such unspeakable evil—the real threats to America and the West.
