Friedman's error

Sticking to the topic of democracies, Thomas Friedman’s column today laments the “democratic recession” around the world. His explanation of this recession is two-fold. First, the rise of oil prices is known to make democracy less stable, because oil revenues allow authoritarian elements to ignore citizens’ voices. Friedman calls this ‘petro-authoritarianism’. Secondly, the ‘moral authority’ (whatever that is) of the U.S. is diminished, because of various well-known recent moral missteps, and along with it its political influence.

Friedman’s central example of democratic recession is Zimbabwe. No doubt there are serious problems with Zimbabwe, but the example is puzzling since Zimbabwe is neither an example of a petro-authoritarian state (it exports no oil) nor does Friedman give any evidence whatsoever of the connection between Mugabe’s authoritarian behavior and the so-called decline in the U.S.’s ‘moral authority’ (whatever that is).

Aside from that incoherence, Friedman’s reference to the U.S.’s moral authority must be some kind of joke. If a nation wishes to assert moral authority with respect to authoritarian governments, it must work to undermine or at least stop supporting the economic foundations of such governments. The evident relationship between the U.S. and authoritarian oil rich nations is exactly the opposite. Of the top 5 exporters of oil to the U.S., 2 come from authoritarian (by Friedman’s own lights) nations (Nigeria, and Venezuela) (see here for data). If you include Saudi Arabia, it would be 3 out of 5.

It is typical of champions of free-trade like Friedman to explain the existence of authoritarian governments wholly in terms of local factors. This is a convenient error, for when things go wrong it focuses blame on local factors (government corruption, poor domestic financial institutions, natural resource wealth, etc.), and permits us to ignore global ones. To be sure, Friedman wishes the U.S. to assert its ‘moral authority’ to correct such wrongs, but this is to be understood in terms of moral aid that we are not obligated to perform. This leaves out the reality that the U.S. is partially to blame for the continuation of these regimes. Now, it is not politically feasible to suggest that the U.S. cease importing oil from these regimes. However, we need a conceptual framework in which our material support of, and hence blame for, these regimes is made clear. Only then will it be clear that we have an obligation (and not merely a prudential motive) to do something about our damaging behavior.