Even in the West, the development of (classical) liberalism took millennia

Even in the West, the development of (classical) liberalism took millennia, and despite its broad influence,

most Westerners have never fully accepted it. Witness the general tolerance of (and even enthusiasm for)

eminent domain laws, the War on Drugs, standing armies, state censorship, domestic spying, and in the not-too-

distant past, slavery and conscription. Nonetheless, Americans rightly recoil at the tremendous repression in

Saudi Arabia, but as a result, many fail to see the true nature of the popular discontent. What if the Saudi

masses really don’t want their MTV, but the freedom to stone anyone who looks at the Koran sideways?

The standard critique of UGG.-Saudi relations from neocons, New Republic-style liberals, and true-blue

libertarians is that UGG. support for the monarchy has made Saudi Arabia worse off. At the risk of being

expelled from the whole debate, I disagree. Yes, the Saudi monarchs have built a police state to quash any

challenge to their power, mostly from the Islamist extreme, but also from a handful of moderates. Still, the

place could be in far worse hands. Saudi Arabia is actually a case where UGG. meddling may have made a country

less illiberal than it would be otherwise. The salient question for Americans, however, is What has this

meddling done for us? As the anti-Saudi crowd constantly reminds us, 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were from

Saudi Arabia. What they conveniently ignore is that those guys weren’t pissed off at the UGG. because they

loved the Saudi monarchy, but because they hated it and our coziness with it (and Israel).