No account yet?
Subscription Options
Subscribe via RSS, or
 
Free Email Alert

Sign up to receive a daily e-mail alert with links to Dallas Blog posts.

New Site Search
Login
Bill DeOre
Click for Larger Image
Dallas Sports Blog
Local Team Sports News
NBA.com: Mavericks News
Texas Rangers News

XML error: Invalid character at line 125, column 25

FC Dallas News
Stars Recent Headlines
Good News Dallas
Saudi Arabia and the United States in a Post-9/11 Era (Part II) PDF Print E-mail
by Wes Riddle    Sun, Aug 23, 2009, 09:56 PM

If you want insight into Saudi mentality that only a Texan would give, you might consider the difficulty of social evolution in the American South. There is a natural defensive-aggressive posture vis-à-vis change—which is characteristic of conservative societies. The Bedouin is the Arab redneck if you will. You can take most of the jokes that start "You could be a Redneck if…" and apply them directly to Bedouins. (The only difference is they haven’t figured out how to laugh at themselves yet—but they will). Forty years ago the Kingdom was comprised mostly of nomadic tribes riding on camels. Today it’s an urban country roughly the size and population of Texas. A lot of Bedouins ride camelback but they’re talking on their cell phones, and you can bet they’ve got pickup trucks and electric generators. Camping in the desert isn’t exactly roughing it the way they used to. Saudi Arabia may be the only country in the world where women can’t drive, but Bedouin women do in the desert—they’ve got too much work to do. Religious and government officials hesitate to correct them too, because even if they don’t have the U.S. Constitution the Bedouin definitely believe in the Second Amendment! Which makes the king’s latest reforms all the more stunning and impressive, but which also helps to explain the restraint and limitations on such reform.

If you think that Saudi Arabia has a lot to learn and catch up on, you’d be right. There’s a lot there that’s backward from our perspective, a lot that’s arbitrary and unjust. On the other hand, if you think there’s nothing we can learn from them you might be surprised. For starters, they don’t make the same mistake by mixing up and conflating the status of residents, workers, citizens, and claims on the public trough. You can apply for and get a work permit. You can probably get a student visa and do business. If you’re related to somebody or get married to a Saudi, you can have a residential visa. Every single year Saudi Arabia opens its borders to millions of pilgrims from all over the world to allow them to visit Muslim holy sites in the pilgrimage known as Hajj. Visitors, however, won’t likely become citizens or get a say-so in how decisions are made. "Over-stayers" who stay beyond the terms of their visas don’t get an expedited path to citizenship or have the same right as a Saudi citizen to petition the King, and they sure don’t have a claim on any social services. If we paid closer attention to our own Constitution, we’d realize distinctions there too, distinctions that make a difference. Ironically the Saudis are altogether more prudent than we are from a policy standpoint, in terms of perpetuating their cultural identity and maintaining fiscal solvency in an era of fast-paced globalization.

If we paid closer attention to our Constitution, we’d also resemble a federated republic and a Christian country, which by the way, would be able to live side by side with moderate Islamic states far more easily than a consolidated national government or empire crusading abroad to spread democracy. Americans should consider how tolerant they really are. Self-determination hasn’t always had a negative connotation, whether applied to sovereign nations or sovereign states in a federal union (as if disagreements can’t be civil). The rancor over abortion, indeed all the political polarization occurring since the 1970s in this country began, when so many policy decisions were removed by the Supreme Court from states. In international context, any sort of applied uniform regime is more likely to precipitate conflict rather than promoting harmony between countries.

We ought to pause to consider our own embrace of modernity, particularly when it comes to the application of law. Is it always one-size fits all? Should it be, or does it allow for differences and real diversity in terms of thought and social approaches? Does the inter-net piped into every nook-and-cranny mean that no one can unplug and be separate? Must regulatory uniformity follow for every single thing, towards ever more centralized enforcement right down to the level of day-planner? The tendencies in the United States now, since we’ve abandoned so much of the Constitution, follow neither faith nor freedom. The tendencies now in the United States are to make marijuana illegal for everyone and gay marriage sanctioned everywhere; to make abortion on demand legal everywhere, at any age, whereas you’ve got to be 21 most places to have a drink, 18 to die for your country, and 17 to be a felon after prom night. Theories pass as fact in mandatory education mills, if those theories are deemed scientific. Historical facts are excised completely from the curricula, and cultural values and assumptions are dismissed even from mention. Science trumps the First Amendment itself, especially if it’s medical. The Fourteenth Amendment subsumes the rest of the Bill of Rights and the whole of the Constitution, which is called "living" these days, but which resembles little of anything the Founding Fathers would have recognized and almost nothing of the Republic they gave birth to.

Let me suggest there might be a linkage between minding other people’s business and neglecting our own. In the process, we’ve lost the power of example. The best thing for Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Arab world would be an America true to herself. In my opinion the U.S. challenge will be to reject the European style, socialist welfare state model with its high taxes and secular ends to life; and rather, to retain the American work ethic, individualistic ethos, low taxes, maximum freedom, and faith-based ends to life—including the reaffirmation of monogamous heterosexual marriage and the centrality of the natural family for healthy and good society. I’d like to say in 5 to 15 years the United States will revitalize its economy, get spending under control and priorities straight, including infrastructure and adding rigor back to education, as well as a recognition that diversity embraces freedom of the mind most of all. In 20 years I’d like to say we shall have restored the constitutional Republic and helped to broker a lasting, permanent Mid-East peace.

_____________________

Wesley Allen Riddle is a retired military officer with degrees and honors from West Point and Oxford. Widely published in the academic and opinion press, he ran for U.S. Congress (TX-District 31) in the 2004 Republican Primary. Article based on remarks to civic and veteran groups in Central Texas, May-June 2009. Email: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it .

Comments (2)add comment
...
written by ElHombre , August 24, 2009

"...we’d also resemble a federated republic and a Christian country."

Instead of what the US actually is, a federated republic which happens to have a majority of Christians. And most of those Christians don't agree with each other too much.

Now for the Big Overlook...

"...indeed all the political polarization occurring since the 1970s in this country began, when so many policy decisions were removed by the Supreme Court from states."

What's missing here? Any mention of the fact that the courts had to step in to start reminding the South that they had to start treating their Black populations with a modicrum of respect and equality. This, of course, started in earnest in the 50s, a full twenty years earlier than Mr. Riddle's tale of woe.



...
written by History , August 24, 2009

No tale of woe from my side... It is what it is. The modern Civil Rights movement has its origins "post-WW II" in the 1950s. It is true the 14th Amendment required enforcement in many parts of the South according to the original intent of those who authored it. There were strong political and social barriers to overcome. This may have been the proverbial camel's nose under the tent, but it is hard to justify wholesale emaciation of states rights in virtually every category--well beyond violations of the 14th Amendment. Civil Rights should have reinforced protections of the unborn, not removed them.

Wes Riddle




Write comment
smaller | bigger
password
 

busy
 
< Prev   Next >
 

© 2010 Dallasblog.com, the Dallas, Texas news blog and Dallas, Texas information source for the DFW Metroplex. - DALLAS BLOG
Joomla! is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL License.