In the coming years the United States may face the most dangerous armed conflict in the nation’s history, possibly including simultaneous challenges in Europe, the Middle East and Asia. In the event of such conflict, the government could also be confronted with unprecedented civil opposition, testing the limits of constitutional liberties in wartime. To prepare, the nation needs both military and moral rearmament.
A frightful chasm has opened up in our society, one driven by ideological, dogmatic, and irrational beliefs, and deepened by the propagation of alternative facts and conspiracy theories that erode commonalities and trust. Many thousands of campus and street demonstrators, defending an Islamist terror group’s genocidal attack on a democratic ally, denigrating the constitutional order, and in some cases taking part in acts of anarchistic violence, are evidence of the dramatic deterioration of simple American patriotism in recent decades, not to mention riots in recent years sparked by racial incidents exploited by leftist ideologues. Educators, media, progressive philanthropies, and internet propaganda from hostile foreign powers have nurtured deeply entrenched ideological anti-Americanism, while deep distrust in the federal government, and threats of armed resistance, have accompanied enlargement of the federal bureaucracy and domestic programming.
Major swaths of society, from diverse ideological backgrounds, would presumably oppose military support for an ally under assault. Large numbers would blame America itself if the country were gratuitously attacked, and oppose any military response, resulting in noncompliance with military conscription, massive and violent street demonstrations, unwitting or willful collusion with assaults on national solidarity by foreign adversaries, and even sabotage.
No liberal society can expect to retain all of its rights and freedoms in times of war. Past American administrations have violated constitutional rights on numerous occasions in the name of national security. During the Civil War, President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus when the capitol came under threat not only from Confederate armies, but also from rioters in Maryland. During World War I, civil liberties and dissent were curtailed by the Espionage and Sedition Acts, both endorsed by the Supreme Court, and President Wilson demanded that disloyalty among foreign-born US citizens be “crushed out.” In World War II, the Court also upheld the internment of 120,000 Japanese Americans, including those with only 1/16th Japanese lineage. The Patriot Act of 2001 allowed, inter alia, wiretapping, indefinite detentions without trial and searches by law enforcement without consent, and the Bush administration greenlighted interrogation techniques widely regarded as torture, as well as forced disappearances of detainees.
The latter policies were harshly criticized by American and international human rights organizations and intergovernmental institutions as being at variance with international human rights obligations. Some of this criticism reflected political prejudice against the Republican administration prosecuting the “War against Terrorism,” and among activists sympathetic to anti-American violence, while other opprobrium was principled. Since then, along with increasing domestic polarization, the human rights and civil liberties communities have become more ideologically driven, and states hostile to America have come to dominate United Nations human rights institutions.
While human rights and civil liberties discourse has thus become more politicized, it likely that in the event of a major shooting war, the government would feel a greater need to restrict constitutional rights than if society were more unified, and American policymakers might well face more difficult choices between domestic freedom and national security than their predecessors. More than in past wars, a future one could be fought within our own borders, for our own hearts and minds. Adversaries have honed methods for disrupting and manipulating America’s open society -- psy-ops lite that will turn lethal. Restrictions on constitutional rights deemed necessary for national security will encourage more political and civil protests. Elements of the human rights community could become the face of a political fifth column, while patriotic civil libertarians could be seen as disloyal, as they generally are in authoritarian societies. And how will Americans respond to the personal sacrifices and economic hardships imposed by war with major powers? Government benefits, some now classified as “human rights,” will need to be cut. Adversaries will promise peace and prosperity in return for some form of Finlandization. Many in American society, complacent about fundamental freedoms they enjoy, seem likely to be warm to such a deal.
While the armed forces urgently require upgrading, so too, does America’s civic spirit. Toleration of restrictions on civil liberties depends on trust that they will not be exploited for partisan political purposes, and will be restored along with peace. If Americans lose their rights, the moral distinction with authoritarian enemies will make a war defending freedom and self-determination meaningless. The natural rights central to the American creed rights will need to be preserved to the greatest degree allowed by genuine security threats. People in totalitarian societies often value freedom more than those who enjoy it. With proper leadership and guidance, Americans, too, could retain and even increase appreciation for our most cherished constitutional freedoms if they are threatened, and if external challenges require that they be temporarily curtailed.
Mr. Rhodes is president of the Forum for Religious Freedom-Europe and author of The Debasement of Human Rights (Encounter Books 2018).
Read Full Article »