Leadership and Crisis (33 page)

These views are echoed by President Obama’s Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice. In an academic article published in 2005, Rice and co-author Corinne Graff posit that terrorism is “a threat borne of both oppression and deprivation.” Wars are largely the result of poverty, they say. “The risk of conflict onset rises and its average duration increases with decreasing per capita GDP, rates of economic growth, and secondary school enrollment, or with higher child mortality rates.”
¹²

Unfortunately for Obama and Rice, empirical research shows the modern Islamic terrorist is not typically some poor, ignorant soul. Professor Marc Sageman of the University of Pennsylvania, a psychiatrist formerly with the U.S. Navy and CIA, analyzed 500 al Qaeda members. He discovered most of these terrorists are “well-educated, married men from middle- or upper-class families, in their mid-20s and psychologically stable.” In his book
Understanding Terror Networks
, Sageman reports that three-quarters of the al Qaeda members he studied are from the upper or middle class and fully 63 percent went to college, “compared with the 5-6% that’s usual for the third world. These are the best and brightest of their societies in many ways.” As he puts it, “The typical recruit to al-Qaeda is Western-educated and has a wealthy, professional background.”
¹³

Most of the terrorists came from a small number of wealthy Arab countries or from immigrant groups living in the West. Many were
like British-born terrorist Omar Sheikh, who was educated at a private school before heading to Afghanistan.

Terrorism scholar Peter Bergen has also studied the demographics of terrorists and found no evidence that poverty or lack of education play any role. “We found that a majority of them are college-educated, often in technical subjects like engineering,” he wrote with Swati Pandey in the
New York Times
. “In the four attacks for which the most complete information about the perpetrators’ educational levels are available—the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the attacks on the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, the 9/11 attacks, and the Bali bombings in 2002—53% of the terrorists had either attended college or had received a college degree. As a point of reference, only 52% of Americans have been to college. The terrorists, in our study thus appear, on average, to be as well-educated as many Americans.”
¹⁴

Strangely enough, Islamic terrorists often hail from the richest Middle Eastern nations—fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia—while dirt poor Muslim countries like Mali, Bangladesh, and Niger produce few if any terrorists.
¹⁵

Scott Atran, in a more narrow investigation of suicide bombers, found that most suicide bombers are well-educated and have a generally higher socio-economic status. Many had graduate degrees and well-paying jobs before they chose to murder innocent civilians in suicide attacks.
¹⁶

Nevertheless, the Obama administration continues to cling to the “poverty causes terrorism” theory because it supports the social work approach to national security that it favors. They sometimes call this “soft power.” While I’m all for using every aspect of our strength to fight terrorism, soft power alone is not going to protect us from
regimes and terrorist organizations that want to destroy us. Ronald Reagan would really have gotten a good laugh at the notion of “soft power.” He knew that “soft power” is only effective in containing evil regimes when you have the credible threat of hard power to back it up.

If the Obama administration were to admit that Islamic terrorists are not motivated by poverty but rather by an evil ideology, that would require a paradigm shift in the way it approaches terrorism. They’d have to admit the existence of evil, name the enemy, and acknowledge that military power rather than more anti-poverty programs must be the central means to fight and win.

As we engage and defeat our enemies on the battlefield, we also need to win the battle of ideas by projecting confidence in our values, history, and our way of life. Our president has made a bad habit of apologizing to foreign audiences for America’s supposed transgressions. This groveling needs to end—now. The American president must proudly represent the world’s greatest democracy to the world. It is naïve to think these apologies gain us respect—they simply convey a dangerous lack of confidence. We also need to begin making it clear that our words mean something. If we threaten Iran with consequences when it continues developing nuclear weapons, it should not mean, “Oh, okay, you crossed that red line, but here’s a new one, and hopefully you’ll respect our wishes this time.” If we draw a line in the sand, we need to be willing to follow it up with action.

We won the Cold War without firing a shot because we projected strength and stood up to the Soviet Union on every front. We countered its expansion everywhere, supported dissidents and freedom fighters, and perhaps most importantly, we proudly proclaimed the superiority of western individualism and liberty. Today, we need to say loudly and clearly that America harbors no ill will against Muslims,
but that we will fight radical Islam everywhere until it no longer threatens us.

The president should also declare much more emphatically our solidarity with dissidents suffering in Iran, North Korea, and Cuba. I recall a story about Natan Sharansky, a Soviet dissident who later became interior minister and deputy prime minister of Israel. He was in a Soviet prison when he heard that President Ronald Reagan had called the Soviet Union an “evil empire.” Although Reagan’s remarks sent American liberals into fits of apoplexy, Sharansky leapt for joy—Reagan’s speech emboldened him and other dissidents behind the Iron Curtain. I have no doubt there are Sharanskys in Cuba, North Korea, and Iran who would benefit from knowing that America stands with them.

Terrorism gives a small group of motivated, educated, and well-funded fanatics the potential for sowing massive destruction in the United States. To steal a phrase from Winston Churchill, never have so many had so much to fear from the actions of so few. But we need to remember that resorting to terrorism is actually a sign of weakness. They have to use fear, terror, and mass murder to advance their agenda because most people around the world reject it. America has to be confident we are on the winning side and stop apologizing for being there. As Dean Acheson once warned, “No people in history have ever survived, who thought they could protect their freedom by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies.”
¹⁷

I believe America is freedom, and therefore the American ideal is the hope of people all across this planet. I will never apologize for America. And I know that the American people still believe in the power and promise of America. Once, while I was waiting at the airport to meet some of our soldiers returning from Iraq, I saw an older man standing by himself on the tarmac. I walked up to him, shook his
hand, and asked what he was doing there. He explained that when he had returned from serving in Vietnam, no one greeted him at the airport. And he had vowed then and there that he would turn out to that airport whenever soldiers were returning from war, to make sure someone was there to thank them. That’s America.

CHAPTER 16

IT’S THE CULTURE, STUPID

Remember the slogan “It’s the economy, stupid”? It was a Clinton-era homage to the notion that one must reduce all political comments to the eighth grade level. We hear the same argument from political strategists today. And just like in the 1990s, it’s not true.

I’ve spent a lot of my life in public service worrying about budgets, money, waste, taxes, and the economy. All these issues are vitally important. And make no mistake, when the economy is suffering, as it is today, that is the only thing on the voters’ minds. As marketing and campaign strategy goes, “It’s the economy, stupid” is genius. After all, it helped get a president elected.

In fact, I often gather my entire cabinet and staff for a leadership series where we hear from leaders in industry, politics, government, and the arts. We recently had a session with the inventor of the “It’s the economy, stupid” phrase, Democratic strategist James Carville, one of Louisiana’s favorite sons and a brilliant political strategist. Our session with Carville and his wife, former Republican strategist Mary Matalin, was fascinating and informative.

But step outside the world of campaign strategists—which is a parallel dimension in time and space if you ask me—and look at reality. What you discover is that this view simply doesn’t reflect the real world. The theme of this chapter is going to be regarded as heresy by both Republican and Democrat strategists, but here it goes: there are more important things than the economy.

During political campaigns, both parties divide people’s interests and concerns into neat little categories. Well-paid pollsters discern people’s attitudes by splicing and dicing. They poll about healthcare, foreign policy, defense, the economy, and moral issues. Our political dialogue is conducted in much the same way. Pundits go on the cable networks and pontificate on some narrow subject, then give way to other pundits sharing their expertise on some other narrow subject.

But that is not how real life works. All these issues are interconnected. Like spokes in a wheel, they are all linked to one central hub: America’s culture.

The word culture comes from the Latin word
cultura
, which means to cultivate. Our culture—our shared set of values, goals, and attitudes—defines who we are as a nation. And everything else—foreign policy, social policy, and yes, even the economy—springs from it. Culture is not merely the social issues or the moral issues that pollsters and pundits discuss. Culture is much more than that. Our culture defines what we strive for, what we value, and how we conduct ourselves as a people.

The beauty and promise of America is not our economic system—even though it has helped us to generate amazing prosperity. The beauty of America is not our political system—great as our form of government is. The beauty of America is not our military superiority—even though it can really come in handy.

The beauty of America is our culture. Our culture is the glue that keeps us together and the engine that makes the American Dream possible.

Let’s take these assertions one at a time, beginning with the first—that the beauty of America is not in our economy. Now, if you’ve read this far in the book, you have probably noticed that I’m a zealous proponent of free enterprise and an unapologetic advocate of American capitalism. I have written for the
Wall Street Journal
and spoken at the Hoover Institution and the Heritage Foundation. I even own an Adam Smith tie.

In fact, since I became governor of Louisiana we have cut taxes several times, including the largest income tax cut in our state’s history, and we have eliminated over 6,000 government positions. We aren’t just talking about fiscal responsibility and conservative economic principles; we are actually applying them to solve problems. In short, I’m an economic conservative if there ever was one, not just in theory, but in practice.

But I’ll be honest with you: I wouldn’t give you a plug nickel for capitalism and free enterprise in a country where people don’t play by the rules, don’t respect the rule of law, don’t share a common view of the dignity of all mankind as God’s creation, or generally don’t care for one another. Capitalism in such a society will fail. Even my tie tells me so, or at least the man on my tie.

Adam Smith wrote his masterpiece
, The Wealth of Nations
, to describe the power, morality, and efficiency of a market economy. He explained how the profit motive—the desire to make money—created incentives to be productive. In other words, selfishness was a good
thing because it motivates people. But Smith also wrote
The Theory of Moral Sentiments
, which he considered his most important work. Smith argued here that the free market system would not work well—and could even bring out the worst in some people—in a society that lacked a strong moral foundation. Values like propriety, prudence, and benevolence are needed to check our inherent selfishness, Smith argued. And he didn’t just preach this—he actually lived it, becoming famous in his native Scotland for his charitable efforts. Although he made a fortune during his lifetime, when Smith died his estate was minuscule because he had given away so much of his wealth.

America was founded on strong Judeo-Christian moral values, but some of these have weakened in recent years. This has given us a bitter taste of the consequences of embracing Smith’s economic theory without the moral prerequisites. The economic meltdown our nation experienced was in large part brought on by unchecked avarice. Adam Smith would have seen it coming.

We now know, for example, that subprime lenders were selling loans they knew were toxic. The Securities and Exchange Commission has released the email records of Angelo Mozilo, the CEO of Countrywide, as part of a civil suit that was filed against him. In those emails we discover that while Mozilo was pushing subprime loans and crowing publicly about how good they were, privately he was telling a colleague, “In all my years in business I have never seen a more toxic product.” In another email he wrote that the no-money-down mortgage—another instrument he was touting publicly—was “the most dangerous product in existence and there can be nothing more toxic.”
¹