That would have shown that the Middle East situation resurrects a dilemma conservatives have explored for decades: that is, the ways in which American culture undermines American politics. American-style capitalism seemed to triumph with the end of the cold war, but when markets have been opened to free enterprise, all too often they have yielded a flood of consumer goods and cheap entertainments more than the circulation of democratic ideals...How does a society thrive when its mainstream culture fosters adversarial and irreverent behaviors?

              Thus repines Mark Bauerlein as his mind grapples with the apparent contradiction between popular culture and democratic values. But it should not come as a surprise that the deluge of market goods and the ungracious behavior they inspire are what is driving this country. Adam Smith noted that people are selfish and vain above all else and it is that vanity that keeps the economy humming smoothly along. The adversarial demeanor that the culture engenders is nothing more than the clashing powers of our collective vanities. And it all works out. Smith proposed from his observations on the free market that an invisible hand would be responsible for the good of all but only if people pursue their own interests. Does the process sound familiar? The result will be a balance, much like how our federal government divides sovereignty. The fact of the matter is we cannot prevent culture from eroding at the national character. John Adams tells us why.
                 Once a country sets upon the path of wealth and riches nothing will bring it back to its first principles of frugality. People quickly forget what it was like to live a life absent of any luxury and get caught up in the high life. In 1819, at the twilight of both their lives, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson where discussing in their remarkable correspondence their wariness of corruption in public affairs. Jefferson's thoughts hearkened back to ancient Rome where he saw the citizens of that republic fall prey to a debased, irredeemable senate. Adams did concur that Rome had an awful political system but he had the utmost faith in the American constitution steeped as it was in the British tradition. He did doubt, however, any nation's capacity to restore it's infant principles once success crept in. "Will you tell me how to prevent riches from becoming the effects of temperance and industry? Will you tell me how to prevent riches from producing luxury? Will you tell me how to prevent luxury from producing effeminancy, intoxication, extravagance, vice, and folly?" In the alluring glow of riches, memories of the difficult, demanding past fade away.
                 Wealth's ability to render obsolete those classical republican virtues sounds so discouraging but it should not dampen one's spirits. As a conservative, Mr. Baurlein should understand as well as any other that conservatism recognizes the evanescence of purity. As George Will reminds us: "Thoughtful conservatives—meaning those whose conservatism arises from reflections deeper than an aversion to high marginal tax rates—are conservative because they understand how thin and perishable is the crust of civilization, and hence how always near society's surface are the molten passions that must be checked by force when they cannot be tamed by socialization." So too are conservatives aware of how chimerical it is to think that men will adhere to qualities of character that are perceived to only belong back in the revolutionary days, where doubtless Baurlein has seated high culture. Yet one need not think Americans will lose their morality in the crazyness of commercialism. Many still strive to preserve those positive habits, the dignity of religion, the attitude of political detachment through solid work ethic. Instead, by such efforts, "let us hope", as Abraham Lincoln put it, "that by the best cultivation of the physical world, beneath and around us; and the intellectual and moral world within us, we shall secure an individual, social, and political prosperity and happiness, whose course shall be onward and upward, and which, while the earth endures, shall not pass away."
                     
                 
                
    

    An anecdote was recently mentioned in George Will's latest article about whether the ISG report is at all related to the reality of affairs in Iraq. Rajiv Chandrasekaran, when being escorted by his driver, found out that the man behind the wheel had a wanton disregard towards the rules of the road as codified by the CPA.  Most assuredly baffled by this cavalier attitude, Chandrasekaran inquired why be so reckless to which the driver replied, "Mr. Rajiv, democracy is wonderful. Now we can do whatever we want." This belief is quite predominant in a nation that is ponderously plodding along the path towards self-government and stability; but Iraqis are hardly alone in interpreting freedom as an exercise in self-gratification. Indeed, such notions of unabridged freedom are typical of nations that are new to republican government--including our own.
              When John Adams, having returned from the continental congress, was greeted with an unpleasant encounter back in Braintree. He was accosted by a town ne'er do well who often ran afoul of the law. "As soon as he saw me his first salutation to me was: 'Oh Mr. Adams, what great things you and your colleagues have done for us! We can never be grateful enough for you. There are no courts of justice now in this province, I hope there will never be another!'" This could not have disconcerted John Adams, who was a consummate lawyer and an astute student of government, more. "Are these the sentiments of such a people? And how many of them are there in the country?...If the power of the country should get into such hands, and there is a great danger that it will, to what purpose have we sacrificed our time, health, and everything else?" Americans have stridently been asking this selfsame question that Adams posed over two hundred years ago about the Iraqis reluctance to appropriately embrace freedom. It is just the opposite, however: they embrace it all too much.
              Like the deadbeat horse jockey --"the reason there was for these melancholy reflections"--who confronted Adams, Iraqis have little allegiance towards their nascent government because they possibly do not feel beholden to any authority at all. It is an overreaction--justified, maybe; understandable, definitely--to the absence of Saddam's Hussein's brutal dictatorship. These sentiments are perilous because Iraqis, then, feel no responsibility for rebuilding their nation and mending the wounds of sectarianism. Yet, again we see the same phenomenon arising in post-revolutionary America. Under the weak Articles of Confederation, which adhered closely to the principles of states rights, many debtor uprisings sprung up and state legislation was thrown into turmoil as members enacted laws solely to their benefit.  The present Iraqi has similarities with the past Americans, who had largely personal, not continental aspirations. So what is the solution?
               It is evident that no easy answers can be obtained since putting one's trust in a federal government requires a subordination of one's self interest to the nation's--a task difficult in any era. But America managed to tame sectarianism with the reasoning of the federalists and men like John Adams, who asserted the government could only be successful if powers were set against one another (i.e checks and balances). What Iraq is currently going through, though distressing, is nothing new under the sun and America experienced something similar. However, those who sit in the Iraqi government need to convince their people of the need for reasonable democratic policy and conduct themselves according to the principles of federalism. Along with a strong army to purge extremism, Iraq also requires an intellectual discussion about the principles of government that will suit their nation so that the inhabitants become more willing to fight for a tempered freedom. Iraq ultimately needs to achieve a balance, a respect for authority and the nation that acts as a counterpoise to the idea of unbounded freedom that is already entrenched.