In his therapeutic 2009 Cairo speech, Mr. Obama outlined all sorts of Islamic intellectual and technological pedigrees, several of which were undeserved. He exaggerated Muslim contributions to printing and medicine, for example, and was flat-out wrong about the catalysts for the European Renaissance and Enlightenment.
He also thinks history follows some predetermined course, as if things always get better on their own. Mr. Obama often praises those he pronounces to be on the “right side of history.” He also chastises others for being on the “wrong side of history” — as though evil is vanished and the good thrives on autopilot.
When in 2009, millions of Iranians took to the streets to protest the thuggish theocracy, they wanted immediate U.S. support. Instead, Mr. Obama belatedly offered them banalities suggesting that in the end, they would end up “on the right side of history.” Iranian reformers may indeed end up there, but it will not be because of some righteous inanimate force of history, or the prognostications of Mr. Obama.
Mr. Obama often parrots Martin Luther King Jr.’s phrase about the arc of the moral universe bending toward justice. But King used that metaphor as an incentive to act, not as reassurance that matters will follow an inevitably positive course.
Another of Mr. Obama’s historical refrains is his frequent sermon about behavior that doesn’t belong in the 21st century. At various times, he has lectured that the barbarous aggression of Russian President Vladimir Putin or the Islamic State has no place in our century and will “ultimately fail” — as if we are all now sophisticates of an age that has at last transcended retrograde brutality and savagery.
In Mr. Obama’s hazy sense of the end of history, things always must get better in the manner that updated models of iPhones and iPads are glitzier than the last. In fact, history is morally cyclical. Even technological progress is ethically neutral. It is a way either to bring more good things to more people or to facilitate evil all that much more quickly and effectively.
In the viciously modern 20th century — when more lives may have been lost to war than in all prior centuries combined — some 6 million Jews were put to death through high technology in a way well beyond the savagery of Attila the Hun or Tamerlane. Beheading in the Islamic world is as common in the 21st century as it was in the eighth century — and as it will probably be in the 22nd. The carnage of the Somme and Dresden trumped anything that the Greeks, Romans, Franks, Turks or Venetians could have imagined.
What explains Mr. Obama’s confusion?
A lack of knowledge of basic history explains a lot. The president or his speechwriters have often seemed confused about the liberation of Auschwitz, “Polish death camps,” the political history of Texas, or the linguistic relationship between Austria and Germany. Mr. Obama reassured us during the Bowe Bergdahl affair that George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt all similarly got American prisoners back when their wars ended — except that none of them were in office when the Revolutionary War, Civil War or World War II officially ended.
Contrary to Mr. Obama’s assertion, President Rutherford B. Hayes never dismissed the potential of the telephone. Mr. Obama once praised the city of Cordoba as part of a proud Islamic tradition of tolerance during the brutal Spanish Inquisition — forgetting that by the beginning of the Inquisition an almost exclusively Christian Cordoba had few Muslims left.
A Pollyannaish belief in historical predetermination seems to substitute for action. If Mr. Obama believes that evil should be absent in the 21st century, or that the arc of the moral universe must always bend toward justice, or that being on the wrong side of history has consequences, then he may think inanimate forces can take care of things as we need merely watch.
In truth, history is messier. Unfortunately, only force will stop seventh-century monsters like the Islamic State from killing thousands more innocents. Mr. Obama may think that reminding Mr. Putin that he is now in the 21st century will so embarrass the dictator that he will back off from Ukraine. However, the brutish Mr. Putin may think that not being labeled a 21st-century civilized sophisticate is a compliment.
In 1935, French Foreign Minister Pierre Laval warned Josef Stalin that the pope would admonish him to go easy on Catholics — as though such moral lectures worked in the supposedly civilized 20th century. Stalin quickly disabused Laval of that naivete. “The pope?” Stalin asked, “How many divisions has he got?”
There is little evidence that human nature has changed over the centuries, despite massive government efforts to make us think and act nicer. What drives Mr. Putin, Boko Haram or the Islamic State are the same age-old passions, fears and sense of honor that over the centuries also moved Genghis Khan, the Sudanese Mahdists and the Barbary pirates.
Mr. Obama’s naive belief in predetermined history — especially when his facts are often wrong — is a poor substitute for concrete moral action.
Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian with the Hoover Institution and Stanford University.