World
A boy walks past a mural painted outside the house former South African President Nelson Mandela once lived in, in Johannesburg A boy walks past a mural painted outside the house former South African President Nelson Mandela once lived in, in Johannesburg's Alexandra township June 9, 2013. South Africans prayed for Mandela's recovery on Sunday as the 94-year-old former president spent a second day in hospital with a recurring lung infection. Mandela, who became a global symbol of triumph over adversity and South Africa's first black leader in 1994 after the defeat of apartheid, was hospitalised early on Saturday after his already frail health worsened. REUTERS/Mujahid Safodien (SOUTH AFRICA - Tags: POLITICS HEALTH TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY) - RTX10HAC  

Why Nelson Mandela surprised us

Photo of Matt K. Lewis
Matt K. Lewis
Senior Contributor
  • See All Articles
  • Send Email
  • Subscribe to RSS
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Bio

      Matt K. Lewis

      Matt K. Lewis is a senior contributor to The Daily Caller, and a contributing editor for The Week. He is a respected commentator on politics and cultural issues, and has been cited by major publications such as The Washington Post and The New York Times. Matt is from Myersville, MD and currently resides in Alexandria, VA. Follow Matt K. Lewis on Twitter <a>@mattklewis</a>.

Every once in a while, a great man surprises us. Such was the case with Nelson Mandela.

If you’re in the business of playing the percentages around the globe, it’s safe to assume today’s insurgent will be tomorrow’s tinhorn dictator. Rarely does a George Washington come along. “Much more common,” observes Max Boot, “are insurgents like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Mugabe, Kim Il Sung, and (fill in the blank) who, while posturing as freedom fighters battling an evil dictatorship, swiftly become dictators in turn as soon as they seize power.”

So if you were placing a bet on the odds that an imprisoned man who was officially considered a “terrorist” would turn into one of the great men of the 20th century, you know which bet is the smart money. As Quin Hillyer notes, in the early 1980s Mandela “wouldn’t publicly renounce violence while in prison; his wife was a Marxist who countenanced ‘necklacing’ enemies with tires full of burning fuel…” It’s understandable why a lot of conservatives — a lot of Americans — were skeptical of Mandela.

But that’s assuming a neutral environment. If pessimism is a safe strategy in good times, it’s important to consider the context of much of this taking place during the Cold War. As Dave Weigel observes: “You don’t hear many of the (minority of) Republicans who voted against sanctions on South Africa reminiscing about it, but at the time they weighed anti-Communism against racial oppression and anti-Communism won out.”

In retrospect, it’s easy to think of Mandela as the grandfatherly statesman, just as it’s easy to think of Cold War as a time of overwrought paranoia. But the Soviet Union posed an existential threat; it’s not like nuclear weapons weren’t aimed at us. Such a thing has a way of focusing your priorities. In that milieu, one can understand why the U.S. would have been very cautious about anyone who had even “dabbled” in Communism.

In hindsight, of course, some Americans now have egg on their faces. It’s always safer to assume the worst and then beg forgiveness later. And it’s safe to assume that in any given moment we, as a nation, are overreacting about something — but you never know which of the precautions you’re taking are superfluous until it’s too late to do anything about it.

A big part of Ronald Reagan’s legacy was defeating Communism. One cannot undertake such a large task without there being some serious unintended consequences. Our hasty withdraw from Lebanon, for example, can only be properly understood when viewed through this prism. And yet, this move may have also emboldened Iran and its Shiite clients. By his own admission, it emboldened the Sunni terrorist Osama bin Laden.

This, of course, makes me wonder what collateral damage our war on terror is causing today. Even if the ends justify the means, we may be planting the seeds for tomorrow’s problems. As Peter Daou observes,

This is not an argument for paralysis. But it is an argument for constant introspection and occasional optimism. Sometimes we are surprised. Such was the case with Mandela, a man whose character led him to eschew violence and bitterness, and be a uniter. But it wasn’t obvious this story would have a happy ending.  As Weigel notes, “The U.S. sometimes identifies the wrong guy as the black hat.”