May God bless Ariel Sharon as he fights what could be his final battle, and may God also bless the Israeli people in an hour of crisis.

Thinking about the worldwide reaction to his illness, I can’t help but reflect on the ironies of liberalism versus conservatism, left versus right, and the balance sheet of good intentions versus good results. In 2002, President Bush called Sharon a man of peace, at a time when much of the world’s media was focused on the “Jenin Massacre,” and of-course continuing to fawn at the feet of the committed terrorist Yasser Arafat. Sharon was certainly commonly portrayed since his election as prime minister (and before) as a stubborn obstacle to peace and progress. He was surely going to “exacerbate the polarization,” and pursue aggressive policies that would only fuel the “cycle of violence.”

Now, in early 2006, Ariel Sharon (the “hard-line conservative,” “right wing hawk” etc. etc.) is on his death bed and the media is filled with voices wondering who else is capable of carrying the peace process forward. Sharon had broken with precedent by accepting the concept of an independent Palestinian state, and by unilaterally withdrawing Israeli settlers from the Gaza strip, while making clear that Israel would fill the void of Palestinian “law enforcement” by aggressively responding to attacks. The difference between these decisions and actions on his part, versus the peace moves made or wished for by more “dovish” Israeli politicians, is that they came not out of any sentimentalized notion of the Palestinians as trustworthy partners for peace, but rather out of a hard-nosed strategic vision for the security of Israel. I think it’s fair to suggest that his enormous personal popularity with Israelis has come from just that: the confidence that he has had Israel’s best interests at heart, and is not a man who could be seduced by idealistic chimeras or Nobel Peace prizes. So has the reality-based conservative come closer to achieving the results desired by the leftist dreamers, but pursued by them in all the wrong ways.

It brings to mind another conservative who achieved things that were ostensible liberal goals but ones which were very far out of their reach. That would be Ronald Reagan, who came to power in the United States amidst worldwide predictions of nuclear conflagration. His uncompromising attitude towards the Soviet Union—actually calling their regime “evil,” amongst many other things—was surely destined to deepen the Cold War and probably turn it into a hot one. The years spent on strategic arms limitation talks (S.A.L.T.) by his predecessor Jimmy Carter were thrown onto the trash heap by the reckless cowboy who cared nothing for setting limits on how many nuclear weapons the United States could have versus the Soviet Union. He claimed the Soviets had superior arms at that point, and that the United States would therefore proceed to match them—with the MX ICBMs, and with Pershing missiles in Europe. The Soviets could either agree to start talking about reducing the numbers of nuclear weapons, or they could watch as the United States deployed more of its own. The old entrenched observers and experts were horrified. This would lead, in the best case scenario, to an out-of-control arms race; and in the worst, to a sufficient disturbance of the balance of power to cause one side to attempt a nuclear attack.

In 1987, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (”INF”) treaty was signed, totally eliminating all intermediate and shorter-range nuclear missiles possessed by the Soviet Union and the United States. Four years later, in negotiations started during Reagan’s presidency and finished during George H.W. Bush’s, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (”START”) was signed, committing both nations to a 40% reduction in their strategic offensive nuclear weapons.

Does anyone really need to wonder what the situation would be had Jimmy Carter, in a second term, and Walter Mondale, in a first, continued to plead for “arms limitations” from a position of weakness?

(Oh, and besides achieving massive nuclear arms reductions, Reagan—and Bush—won the Cold War.)

Reagan got to watch his policies bear fruit, though he didn’t get to bask in the credit quite in the way one would have liked to see. Sharon lies in a hospital bed, his vision not yet having played out, but already having moved the situation beyond what would have been guessed a few short years ago.

Somewhere in here there’s a lesson about liberal dreamers versus conservative, or reality-based, achievers. I hope it’s not too obscure to pick up.

…

What has he done to wear so many scars?
Does he change the course of rivers?
Does he pollute the moon and stars?
Neighborhood bully, standing on the hill,
Running out the clock, time standing still

...................
Share this!

Posts which might be related to this one based on a mysterious algorithm:

• What Was It You Wanted?
• Good news
• Cat’s in the Well?