|
 |
December 24, 2003 NEOCON SINGLEMINDEDNESS....I don't mind admitting that I find Paul Wolfowitz to be one of the most interesting members of the Bush administration. Sure, I disagree with most of what he believes in, but I'd probably get a kick out of having dinner with him. (As opposed to, say, George Bush, who strikes me as little more than a vacant, backslapping mediocrity — a type I've had dinner with all too many times. I just never thought one of them would become president.) Still, the neocon persuasion itself leaves me pretty cold. The Washington Post profiled Wolfowitz yesterday, and one passage in the article goes a long way toward explaining why I find neocons like Wolfowitz fascinating even while I'm simultaneously shaking my head at their self delusion:
There's the basic contradiction all at once: Wolfowitz and the neocons seem to truly believe that they're motivated by an idealistic devotion to democracy, but at the same time they're willfully blind to the fact that their own Cold War history makes a shambles of that supposed devotion. After all, this is the same group that spent much of the 70s and 80s so intent on interpreting everything as part of a war of civilizations between the West and a resurgent communism that they ignored — or in some cases actively encouraged — the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East. (Remember Afghanistan and Iran-Contra?) The very single-mindedness that neocons are famous for blinded them to the fact that they were contributing to the rise of an even bigger problem, one that had nothing at all to do with communism. A more expansive approach to the Cold War would almost certainly have worked nearly as well — after all, communism was rotting from within and the Soviet Union was never as strong as the neocons insisted it was — and might have left room for a more democratically inclined Mideast policy as well. But instead of learning this lesson the neocons have simply shifted their familiar monomania to the very fundamentalism they helped midwife into creation. Even the methods are familiar: proxy wars around the world, domino theories, demonization of the left, and an insistence on huge military buildups. The old hatred of Europe is back too, this time even more virulent than before. Having failed so spectacularly in the 80s to understand the consequences of a single-minded foreign policy, they are now asking us to give them another chance against a different enemy. But wouldn't it be better, instead, to try a cure that hasn't already been proven worse than the disease? Posted by Kevin Drum at December 24, 2003 11:15 AM | TrackBackComments
There's the basic contradiction all at once: Wolfowitz and the neocons seem to truly believe that they're motivated by an idealistic devotion to democracy, but at the same time they're willfully blind to the fact that their own Cold War history makes a shambles of that supposed devotion. If you fight the same enemy long enough, you become them. Posted by: Thumb at December 24, 2003 11:21 AM | PERMALINKThis was your best post in a while, Kevin. Posted by: Mitch Schindler at December 24, 2003 11:22 AM | PERMALINKThe scariest part about the Neocons to me is this: their movement falls apart if they don't have that 'evil' in the world to fight. And they are more than able to create the idea of absolute evil in those they oppose, rather than modifying their world view. That is a very dangerous thing. Posted by: Timothy Klein at December 24, 2003 11:22 AM | PERMALINK"their movement falls apart if they don't have that 'evil' in the world to fight" Gotta love the moral relativism of the left. I guess they think that the fundamentalism that manifested itself on 9/11 wasn't "evil". Perhaps you think that poor Osama and his followers are just misunderstood? Posted by: Al at December 24, 2003 11:27 AM | PERMALINKMaybe we need a definition of "evil" too, if they really think there is none in the world?! Posted by: Charlie at December 24, 2003 11:28 AM | PERMALINKGotta love Kevin's ability to blind himself. Apparently, "Iran-Contra" was the problem... it contributed to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. Yep. Never mind, apparently, that, by that time, Iram was already ruled by Islamic fundamentalists. If he mentioned that, it would bring us perilously close to realizing that Iran fell to Islamic fundamentalism during the Presidency of Jimmy Carter... a fact which might just undermine his case that conservatives (er, neo-cons) are the source of Islamic fundamentalism... Posted by: Al at December 24, 2003 11:33 AM | PERMALINKI realize that it's fashionable in certain circles to downplay the threat that global communism played, but under what possible interpretation is radical Islamism (or whatever it is you believe we're fighting) an "even bigger problem"? Posted by: dave at December 24, 2003 11:34 AM | PERMALINKAl: The point is not that there was no evil in 9/11, the point is that it was an evil that was in large part a product of how we fought the previous evil, communist totalitarianism. Let's not forget those pictures of Saddam and Rummy all buddy buddy in the 80's. Care to make a reasoned response to Kevin's post, or are you content to throw around snarky, meaningless terms like 'moral relativism' as a substitute for an actual argument? Posted by: David Perlman at December 24, 2003 11:36 AM | PERMALINK"Communism was rotting from within and the Soviet Union was never as strong as the neocons insisted it was" Is this 20/20 hindsight? Communism was, or could've been, every bit as bad as islamic fundamentalism, with the added fact that communists had a whole hell of a lot more power than islamic fundamentalists. I don't think you can call the 80s a spectacular failure on the behalf of neoconservatives. The idea that the result of 70s/80s Neocon cures (islamic fundamentalism) is worse than the disease (communism) is arguable at best. And, if Islamic fundamentalism was a problem that was inevitably going to develop, no matter what we did in the 70s and 80s (I believe this), then causing a few problems with that situation if it helped in the fight against Communism was unfortunate but probably wise. Communism's evil, the expanse and extent of it, is easy to overlook. Posted by: Stone at December 24, 2003 11:37 AM | PERMALINKI take it, Al and Charlie, that it's easier to go off on these little riffs about evil and the left than it is to actually address Kevin's main point -- which is, in my understanding, that the record of much of the Bush administration's is rather poor in coming up with good plans for dealing with the world (evil and otherwise). Metaphysical speculation about the nature of evil is really neither here nor there. Posted by: Brandonimac at December 24, 2003 11:38 AM | PERMALINKAl: When did I say this? Here's a hint: I didn't. Keep your ideas of your own moral relativism to yourself. You know, Al has crossed the line form annoying guy with thoughts on the other side of the political spectrum, to destructive troll. Posted by: Timothy Klein at December 24, 2003 11:41 AM | PERMALINKJust when you think Al can't possibly be a bigger jackass than he is... there he goes!!
Extremism produces the same mechanical results no matter what the issue or ideology is: they always see everything in black and white, they always force every argument into one of black and white (Al's stretch to suggest Kevin is arguing 9-11 wasn’t an “evil” act would do the neo-cons proud), and they always act according to that worldview, in other words they always go too far and with full force. Doesn’t matter who it is, dudes torching Hummers, people shooting abortion doctors, “every act of penetration is an act of rape”, national leaders lying about national security in order to take over a country they want… There’s no big mystery. They’re extremists. What’s so mystifying is how did the “right” in general become so radicalized, delusional and corrupt and then how did they get half of America to go along with them? Man, it’s like they’re all brownshirts or something. There are two other possiblities that you have not considered: First, there is the possibility that the neocons were right. Communism was evil. The Communists would have enslaved the entire world if they had posessed the power to do so. Perhaps we did make some mistakes in propping up dictatorial regimes during the Cold War. Without question, our support for some of these regimes has come back to haunt us. I am not so sure that I buy this, though. Look what happened when our right-wing dictators were toppled -- they were simply replaced with left-wing dictators. Nicaragua is a perfect example of this. It is entirely possible that in much of the third world, there was going to be a dictatorship of one sort or another, and that the only realistic option available was choosing between our dictator or their dictator. I mean, suppose we'd encouraged someone like Somoza to hold elections, and the Nicaraguan had elected a left-leaning president. How long do you think it would take the Soviets to shower the new democratically-elected government with foreign aid, arms, and military advisors? What are the odds that they would have permitted a second election after making such a large investment? People who criticize our Cold War policy always ignore the Soviet half of the equation. I do suspect that we probably let our clients states get away with too much oppression on more than one occasion, to our eternal shame. But I don't think it is fair to call the policy of supporting dictators a failure. We may not have had any other choice. Significantly, you will notice that we are not supporting dictators any more now that the Cold War is over. And before someone brings up Chavez in Venezuela, you might want to take a look at a recent Human Rights Watch report on Venezuela. He may have been democratically elected, but he is having his opponents murdered and jailed just like any other dictator. Second, and far more importantly, We are not supporting dictatorships this time around. We are supporting democratization. This is a crucial distinction. The whole point of the neocon vision is to bring democracy to the Middle East. All of the paranoid leftists who thought that we'd simply replace Sadaam with some other more acceptable dictator have been proven wrong. We are clearly trying to build an Iraqi democracy. Obviously, we don't have the resources to do this all at once. That is why we are playing ball with Pakistan, Uzbekistan, the Saudis, etc. at the moment. But once Iraq is finished, we'll be turing our attention toward those others and will insist that they democratize as well. For this reason, I do not think it is fair to say that we are simply repeating the mistakes of the Cold War. On the contrary, we are pursuing a radically different policy. Posted by: Joe Schmoe at December 24, 2003 11:45 AM | PERMALINKAnd, if Islamic fundamentalism was a problem that was inevitably going to develop, no matter what we did in the 70s and 80s (I believe this), I don't believe this at all. By the 70s and 80s it might have been hard to turn around, and we should have started in the 40s, 50s, and 60s, but the West has a least some culpability in the current state of the Middle East. We drew a lot of the boundaries. We supported corrupt, despotic regimes. We treated them like colonies. The primary Islamic fundamentalist in the ME is Iran, and the US is pretty much directly responsible for that. We willingly put the Shaw back into power, via the CIA, regardless of the fact that the Shaw felt Iran was his own personal property. Posted by: Timothy Klein at December 24, 2003 11:48 AM | PERMALINK
Now, we've got the terrible, but real, risk of an atomic bomb going
off in Seattle or San Francisco or London. Twenty years ago, we had the
smaller, but not negligble, risk of a global nuclear war, and I lived
within about 15 miles of a dozen then first-strike targets. This worlds
safer than that one, thanks. "I think it's quite easy to explain the neo-cons: they're extremists. Fundamentalists. Either one will work just the same. " You guys don't understand the word at all. Neoconservatism involves looking at everything in the world as being either good or evil. Things can be more evil than others (Communists > OBL, Communists > Hussein). So, if we need to do one bad thing to take care of an even more bad thing, we're willing to take that chance. IE, bombing is bad (killing is evil). However, if we need to kill some people (soldiers and civilians) to remove a dictator who might harm Americans and will definitely harm foreigners, then okay, we'll do it. Neoconservatism is to the left of traditional GOP conservatism, and it's to the right of the DLC. Really, honestly, it's not that bad. Posted by: Stone at December 24, 2003 11:52 AM | PERMALINKThis could work itself into a nice essay, Kevin. Posted by: Brian C.B. at December 24, 2003 11:52 AM | PERMALINKSeveral have made good points about the relative danger of Islamic fundamentalism vs Communism. The threat to us under Communism was greater, that seems certain. But I don't think they are an either or proposition. I think things could have ended well for us with respect to Communism, and we could have tried harder to thwart Islamic fundies. But we made the mistake of assuming the world was completely bipolar. I think the Neocons are still making that mistake. Who will be the ones we piss off to no end while we are defeating Islamic fundies? So far, it seems to be certain parts of Europe ... ;-) I just don't think it has to be that way. Posted by: Timothy Klein at December 24, 2003 11:55 AM | PERMALINK
Sure, we're culpable about some stuff, but if we want to make partisan recriminations here, you've got to absolve all Democrats of their own wrong doings during the Cold War. Now, if you want to call cold war policy fundamentally neocon, I'll accept that and wear that burden gladly. But it's a little odd to think that our policy in the Middle East over the last fifty years is fundamentally "Republican" rather than 20th century American realpolitik. And that somehow Kevin's party is a meaningful break from that. Posted by: Andrew at December 24, 2003 11:55 AM | PERMALINKI don't think you can call the 80s a spectacular failure on the behalf of neoconservatives. Tell that to the tens of thousands of dead and their families in Central and South America. I don't mean to play some sympathy card but who the fuck are you to essentially say the paranoid policies of the 80s, that caused the deaths of tens of thousands and destroyed the political and social fabric of a few nations, were fine and dandy considering... what? That had their delusions been accurate, which they weren't, some bad shit might have happened? I get really tired of the "well they thought this was how it is so their actions aren't too bad considering what they thought" defense. As there are many, many people now who opposed the Iraq war and argued that the Bush case for war was spectacularly flawed, there were many people doing the same thing in the 80s. Reagan's people knew that the whole "4 days march" thing was bullshit, they knew Nicauragua wasn’t importing a bunch of migs as a client state of the USSR, they knew contras weren’t “freedom fighters”, but it if their ideological obsessions so they went for it. Wait, let me back up- either they knew or they honestly thought that’s how it was- either way their message and policies were wrong- WAY wrong- and plenty of people at the time knew they were wrong. You cannot look upon the 80s and give Reagan a pass because he might have honestly felt communism in Central America was a real threat because it wasn’t and people knew that. Jesus Christ, are you still swallowing the propaganda 20 years later? Look, Timothy, if you refuse to answer even a simple question on the other thread, don't be surprised if I return the favor. Posted by: Charlie at December 24, 2003 11:56 AM | PERMALINKa big part of the cold war that gets overlooked because of the usa/ussr rivalry is the decolonization that was going on at the time. in most of the 3rd world, the us/ussr split was irrelavent to most people's lives. what they wanted was independence from both. Posted by: Olaf glad and big at December 24, 2003 11:59 AM | PERMALINKStone This seems to be exactly Kevin's point, and it seems to be the problem. In reality, most of the world's nations are neither good nor evil. We simply have countries, and people, trying to survive. This artificial boundary of good and evil gets us in trouble. People that would be able to work with us, can't, because we brand them evil. People who we should be wary of, we give carte blanche, because they are in the good camp. That seems to have been precisely what we got bitten with in Islamic fundies. Posted by: Timothy Klein at December 24, 2003 12:00 PM | PERMALINKAl and Charlie, though brief, your comments are perfect examples of what Kevin is talking about. The black- and-white view of evil expoused by the Wolfowitzes, et al., are what sparked policies in which the U.S. found itself supporting (and sometimes engineering coups by) the Shah, Saddam, Batista, Trujillo, Mobutu, Savimbi, the Argentine generals, the Somoza dynasty, the Guatemalan colonels, and the precursors of al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Millions died because of these U.S. tax-supported criminals. Backing or boosting into power these "strongmen" was not "morally equivalent" with the kind of thing the KGB was doing, said honorary neocon Jeane Kirkpatrick in offering up her famous phrase delineating the philosophical underpinnings of the Kirkpatrick Doctrine. Support for mass murderers thus became unevil in the morally unequivalent world of the neocons. This isn't merely 20-year-old Cold War stuff. But, hey, our terrorists aren't evil. Just their terrorists. And you dare to even mention the alleged moral relativism of the left? Posted by: Meteor Blades at December 24, 2003 12:01 PM | PERMALINKOlaf, that is true, but that wasn't an option for them. If we had simply left the Third World alone, the Soviets would have gobbled it up. Posted by: Joe Schmoe at December 24, 2003 12:02 PM | PERMALINKBut it's a little odd to think that our policy in the Middle East over the last fifty years is fundamentally "Republican" rather than 20th century American realpolitik. And that somehow Kevin's party is a meaningful break from that. I don't think that is what Kevin said. The question here is have we learned any lessons from the policy failures of the past? Is the neocon vision, currently in charge of our foreign policy, so singleminded that we are repeating the same mistakes such as coddling dictators (Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Saidu Arabia), condoning the overturing of democratic results we don't like (venezuela), that will lead to worse problems in the future? Joe Schmoe thinks that we can only deal with one or two bad guys at a time, and that we will get around to the rest. I hope he is right, but he has much more faith in the Bushies than I do. Posted by: David Perlman at December 24, 2003 12:05 PM | PERMALINK"we are repeating the same mistakes such as coddling dictators (Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Saidu Arabia), condoning the overturing of democratic results we don't like (venezuela), that will lead to worse problems in the future?" This is based on the wrongheaded assumption that our "mistakes in the past" have "lead to worse problems in the future". I don't think they have. I would trade '03's foreign policy problems for '83s, or '73s, or '63s, or '53s, or '43s, anyday. We're making progress. Posted by: Stone at December 24, 2003 12:07 PM | PERMALINKExcuse me, I would not trade, I would not want to trade today's foreign policy problems for those of any prior decade. Posted by: Stone at December 24, 2003 12:09 PM | PERMALINKJoe Schmoe makes moderately good sense until he says that we are not supporting dictatorships this time around. We're not supporting dictatorship in Iraq, but we are certainly encouraging dictatorships when we find them useful, as in Uzbekistan and China. We have not suddenly become apostles of democracy--we are still realpolitikers, pure and simple, who mouth pro-democracy platitudes so that we don't have to confront the moral ambiguities in our actions. Posted by: englishprofessor at December 24, 2003 12:11 PM | PERMALINK"Second, and far more importantly, We are not supporting dictatorships this time around. We are supporting democratization. This is a crucial distinction. " The neo-cons have never been in favor of democracy. It's merely a buzzword for them. They've supported an endless list of dictators, only opposing those who weren't cooperative - whether for communism, or any other reason. Even in the US, democracy and limits on government were inconvenient things to be worked around.
The only reason any other alternatives are being considered is that plan A collapsed. The current trick seems to be to have some sort of 'caucus' procedure, so that the 'right' outcome will come about (shades of Florida and Diebold).
Stone: Just to clarify, I was merely stating the question for debate, not asserting it was true. However, foreign policy problems that cause the country to shrug it's sholders when the president asserts the right to detain American Citizens indefinitely with no charges and no access to legal representation, I think those problems are pretty bad. Posted by: David Perlman at December 24, 2003 12:16 PM | PERMALINKOne more thing- BUSH IS NOT A NEOCONSERVATIVE. Bush co-opted parts of neoconservatism because it was politically expedient after 9/11. Bush ran as an isolationist for christ's sake McCain, maybe, is neocon, which is why the Weekly Standard supported him over Bush in 2000. Posted by: Stone at December 24, 2003 12:17 PM | PERMALINKOne of the silliest bits of revisionist history that gets bandied about these days is that only Republicans, conservatives, neocons or whatever were against the Communists. Nonsense! I lived through that era and I can assure you that EVERYONE in any way close to the political mainstream was a staunch anti-communist. We have never had a serious political party in the U.S. that was in any way friendly to Communism (a contrast to western Europe in which true left-wing and even Communist parties not only exist but have had significant representation in parliaments). Kennedy and Nixon in 1960 ran their whole campaigns over who would be tougher against the Communists - listen to the debates if you don't believe it. Johnson got us into Vietnam. Carter raised military spending significantly (contrary to popular belief) and pulled us out of the 1980 Olympics. Repeat - the idea that only one side of the political spectrum fought Communism is ludicrous nonsense. Posted by: WVMCL at December 24, 2003 12:21 PM | PERMALINKHowdy, This is mostly very intelligent conversation. However, I have to take very strong exception to the idea that the islamic fascism is a bigger problem than communist expansion. Back in the cold war, we went to bed every night not sure if, when we woke up, billions of people would be dead. Now, we go to bed not sure if, when we wake up, millions of people will be dead. That is a remarkably different and better situation. The fact that we certianly got many tactics wrong during the cold war (supporting regimes we shouldn't have, not pressing hard enough for democracy) does not take away from the fact that we had the right basic approach. Would it have been better to have a 1% increase in the chance that the Soviet Union would dominate the world just to not support the islamic fascists in Afghanistan? Perhaps, but I doubt it. Happy Holidays, David "And, if Islamic fundamentalism was a problem that was inevitably going to develop, no matter what we did in the 70s and 80s (I believe this), then causing a few problems with that situation if it helped in the fight against Communism was unfortunate but probably wise." Arguably, the support to the more extremist factions fighting the USSR in Afghanistan made things worse. For instance in Algeria, most of the leaders of the Islamist guerilleros/terrorists were veterans from Afghanistan. Posted by: amusedfrog at December 24, 2003 12:34 PM | PERMALINKHey, just what the heck is wrong with moral relativism, anyway? Posted by: bobbyp at December 24, 2003 12:42 PM | PERMALINKI do not feel safer than I did 10 or 20 years ago. The Soviet Union and the United States were both run by pragmatists who knew the dangers of nuclear war and were not about to start it. Now, we have more nuclear states, at least one with a government that could fall to the fundamentalists and a lot of terroists who don't care who they kill becuase their God tells them it is OK. Whenever anyone thinks that God has put that person in a particular position I worry. Posted by: ____league at December 24, 2003 12:50 PM | PERMALINK"The ugly american" was written about 35 years ago. IIRC much of the book was about winning wars but losing minds. I find it interesting in our foreign policy how little we have learned in the interim years. Posted by: chris/tx at December 24, 2003 12:53 PM | PERMALINK__league, Just because you don't feel safer does not mean that you aren't. I certainly felt a lot safe on 9/10 than on 9/12. It's easy in hindsight to say that the US and USSR were run by pragmatists who wouldn't blow up the world. However, many people disagreed at the time about Ronald 'We begin boming in 5 minutes' Reagan, Nikita 'We will bury you' Khruschev, Jack 'Cuban Missle Crisis' Kennedy. The millions of people who protested against ICBM's in Europe were not just protesting for fun (which they would be if they knew that the US and USSR would never use them). Happy Holidays, David Posted by: David at December 24, 2003 12:58 PM | PERMALINKMoral relativism is. Period. The right argues that their moral relativism isn't. They (and non-right hawks) argue, as we've seen on this thread, that U.S. policy in the Cold War was the only choice. They employ realpolitik as if the word meant realistic pragmatism, as opposed to great powerism. As my indigenous ancestors were victims of Manifest Destiny, I am not eager to see that policy rejuvenated worldwide as the neocons are so eager to do. U.S. supremacy is not the same as democratic rule, and is, ultimately, a chimera. International cooperation (which the U.S. - especially this administration - seeks when it suits its whim), allegiance to international law (which this administration ignores for itself and demands others follow at its whim), diplomacy (which the U.S. - especially this administration - sees as mere window-dressing for bullying) offer the only long-term solution to controlling terrorism and other military threats. The neocon idea that the U.S. can deal with conflict on its own (with whatever "allies" can be cajoled into helping) is prescriptive of disaster. That's realpolitik in the 21st Century.
David I did feel scared at the time of the Cuban missle crisis. Ronald 'We begin boming in 5 minutes' Reagan, Nikita 'We will bury you' Khruschev, Jack 'Cuban Missle Crisis' Kennedy all kept talking to the guys on the other side and they were all smart enough to know what the diplomatic rhetoric and speeches on the other side really meant. Bin Laden certainly does not want to have any dialogue with Bush or any other leader except perhaps Mullah Omar and while Bush will sometimes communicate with other leaders he simply repeats himself endlessly while ignoring whatever he is hearing. Posted by: ____league at December 24, 2003 01:15 PM | PERMALINKGreat post, Kevin. Great comments, Meteor Blades. I especially enjoyed this gem: "The right argues that their moral relativism isn't."
The media doesn't seem much inclined to ask the neocons how they
intend to pay for their foreign adventures. The budgetary aspects of
their grand plan have been given little scrutiny-I think the tab for
Iraq is around $170 billion at the moment, and this is happening at a
time when our federal government is running the biggest deficits in
national history ($400-500 billion.) It's interesting to think about which is worse - the cold war or the fanatacism we are facing now. I had nightmares about nuclear war for many years, but in the end the logic of deterrence won out and the superpower nuclear war we feared didn't happen. What we are facing now strikes me as potentially worse. As technology advances, we are rapidly getting to the point where any idiot or weirdo will be able to get hold of weapons of mass destruction. And we produce a lot of idiots and wierdos. I think the day may come when we truly look back on the cold war days with nostalgia for their relative stability. As Buckminister Fuller supposedly said after Hiroshima: The human race is about to take its final exam. Posted by: WVMCL at December 24, 2003 01:29 PM | PERMALINK___league, Well, I suppose we just have to disagree on the relative risks of Soviet communism vs. Islamic fascism (and therefore the merits of having supported Islamisists during the cold war). However, I have to take issue with your analysis of Bush. He has a multi-faceted foreign relations strategy, and he certainly does learn and adjust as time goes. Afghanistan - international action Iraq - cowboy action (round up a posse of whoever is ready and go get the bad guy) Iran - cowboy diplomacy (shout like a cowboy, but don't do anything) North Korea - traditional diplomacy (work with allies, try to manipulate others - china - to do things for you) Lybia - silent diplomacy Quite a range of tactics and learnings (regardless of whether you think any particular one is the right tactic for a particular situation), I feel. Happy Holidays, David Posted by: David at December 24, 2003 01:31 PM | PERMALINK"and the neocons seem to truly believe that they're motivated by an idealistic devotion to democracy, but at the same time they're willfully blind to the fact that their own Cold War history makes a shambles of that supposed devotion." During the Cold War supporting undemocratic but non-communist regimes usually led to those countries becoming democracies eventually, certainly in East Asia and South America. Accepting that you cannot democratise everywhere at once and you have to make priorities is called living in the real world. Posted by: Gracho at December 24, 2003 01:42 PM | PERMALINKActually, I would recommend everyone here read Gary Dorrien's "The Neoconservative Mind." Read the stuff the prominent neoconservative intellectuals were saying in the late 1980s (many of whom are still around) - ie that Gorbachev was just the latest in a series of sinister Leninist "ruses," that Reagan was committing a catastrophic mistake by trusting him. Norman Podhoretz was saying things like this as late as 1990. I think their credibility has to be read against claims like these. Also, the Marxist roots of neoconservative must be taken in to account. That many of the people who are/were neoconservatives were Marxists/leftists is very significant - it suggests to me that people such as these need some kind of totalizing philosophy through which to view the world. Not having an "absolute worldview" creates to much cognitive dissonance for people like this. Ben P Posted by: Ben P at December 24, 2003 01:45 PM | PERMALINKIf George W. Bush and Richard Cheney were erstwhile and genuine admirers of democracy, they wouldn't have permitted themselves to be sworn into office. They were, after all, not the popular choice in the general election, having been placed in office by dint of an electoral mechanism designed to frustrate pure majority rule. Given their dismissal of democracy, here, I hardly expect much of their efforts in exporting it. Which is good, perhaps, for the United States, because there is every reason to believe that an Iraqi democracy constituted now would be far more hospitable to religious zealotry than was Saddam. (In fact, this would be true in Egypt and Syria as well.) Fully 1/3 of the Iraqi Shi'a population, or about 1/5 of the total Iraqi population, would be happy to see a Khomeni-style theocracy. That's about the same proportion of the population that would like a secular republic (like the United States). The remaining 10 million Shi'a seem to want a milder theocracy. But, even in a secular one, Kurds, Turkomen, and Arabs will struggle for control, and Iran will play a part. Sometimes stability and a gradual nurturing of democracy is the best one can hope for. And, don't get me started on what democracies there might do with the national patrimony. Posted by: Brian C.B. at December 24, 2003 02:03 PM | PERMALINKNot having an "absolute worldview" creates to much cognitive dissonance for people like this. Yes, neoconservatives are absolutists, all right. They believe that all people have an absolute right to freedom and democracy. They are not open to "different perspectives," like theocracy, dictatorship, and pan-Arabism. Moroever, they are willing to impose their own notions of morality on other nations, such as Iraq. Color me a neoconservative. Posted by: Joe Schmoe at December 24, 2003 02:07 PM | PERMALINKBrian- 1/3 of Iraqis Shia crave a fundamentalist dictatorship, while the remainder want a milder form of theocracy? This is extremly insightful. When did you return from the Shia region of Iraq? Posted by: Joe Schmoe at December 24, 2003 02:09 PM | PERMALINKCalling what happened on 9/11 evil while ignoring the immorality of what our military did in Vietnam, Panama, Gulf War I and a host of other places around the world, wantonly killing foreign civilians for the political aims of a few here, is moral relativism of the worst sort. There's enough "evil" to go around, I say. Posted by: Joey Giraud at December 24, 2003 02:11 PM | PERMALINKExactly, Ben P. The neocons - Kirkpatrick, especially - noted that there was no such thing as a moderate in the Politburo; in their view, every Soviet somebody was a hardliner, no exceptions, and the USSR would never-ever-no-way collapse from its own corrosion. The hardest of the hardcore - the folks at the Committee on the Present Danger - continued to argue that a pre-emptive strike would ultimately be required. Posted by: Meteor Blades at December 24, 2003 02:13 PM | PERMALINKKevin, I went to dinner with Wolfowitz (he asked me to call him Bob for some reason), and I can tell you first hand, he's an absolute bore. Seriously, all he wanted to talk about was hitting the strip club and getting his mack on. It was embarrassing. I found him to be interesting in a "there is no God" kind of way, but by the end of the evening I felt like I had been slimed. Three showers later, that unfresh sleazy feeling was still there. Just an FYI. If you get the chance to go to dinner with Bob (or whatever he's calling himself that night), run in the other direction. Posted by: Oregon Duck at December 24, 2003 02:24 PM | PERMALINKNice post. Can the US even create democracy in Iraq? I wonder what problems the US will be creating for itself in the long run. As someone who is nearly a pacifist, I usually try to think of non-violent ways to change things. Perhaps if we went in this direction (e.g. creating a Department of Peace, stopping selling military arms, working with other nations to stop nuclear proliferation, etc.), we wouldn't have to pay such a high price in terms of human life expended and economic costs. Funny how this perspective is considered to be so far out there...like Kucinich. Did anyone mention one of the biggest reasons that the Middle East is polarized against the US? If the Israel-Palestine situation could be resolved, the US would be much safer. Posted by: kim at December 24, 2003 02:38 PM | PERMALINKI'm sorry, Kevin, but this is rather sloppy history on your part. proxy wars around the world So what wars are we fighting these days by proxy? Seems like we're directly involved in the fights we prosecute. domino theories Given that the domino theory proved to be more or less correct (after all, all of Indochina did go communist), I'm at a loss as to why you object to this. demonization of the left I know it's unpleasant to recall, but "the left" as a whole did not always acquit itself well in the Cold War. From Stalinist apologists in the '30s to Henry Wallace in the '40s to NVA-flag-carrying kids in the '60s to nuclear freeze nuts in the '80s, there was real reason to surmise that not all leftists were on the side of their own country in that period. and an insistence on huge military buildups A justified insistence during the Cold War. If you're prepared to argue it wasn't, have at it -- you'll lose. As for today, isn't it rather noteworthy that many neocons (including Wolfowitz) insist that there is no need for a huge military buildup in Iraq or elsewhere? I think you're getting this completely backwards. The old hatred of Europe is back too The Europe-haters of the Cold War sank into political oblivion with the demise of the Robert Taft wing of the Republican Party in the '50s. I don't know what you're talking about here. Sorry, but these parallels don't work as you intend at all. Posted by: Tacitus at December 24, 2003 02:39 PM | PERMALINKJoe, If you think imposing your moral view on others is a virtue, we disagree in a fundamental way. My political bible, in this regard, is JS MIll's On Liberty. Also, moral relativism is to me axiomatically the correct worldview - moral relativism is necessary to basic concepts like democracy and liberty. To assume that there is one and only right way and that you possess is arrogance and hubris of the highest order - and has potential totalitarian overtones. Its not that I prefer other cultural systems to America's (I don't - for me, western civ works fine). Rather, I could care less if others disagree and have found a way of life that they like that is different from my own - its only when their world view treads on my own that we have a problem - ie al Qaeda. Also, Joe, you don't address one of my post's central points - that neoconservatism proved spectacularly wrong in many ways in its assessment of the Soviet Union. It greatly overestimated its strength and greatly underestimated the potential for internal decay and/or reform. In this sense, neoconservatism seems to show a fundamental lack of confidence in the inherent, day to day superiority of liberal democracy. But most of all, neoconservatives err in thinking that the world can be understood solely through ideas. At the end of the day, I don't think it can. That the world can only be seen in grays and not fundamentally in black and white seems obvious. Its not to say that there is no good and evil - rather it is to say, that tendencies towards good and evil exist in all of us and in all societies. No one has a ABSOLUTE monopoly on virtue or vice. To say that America is fundamentally good (a statement I agree with) does not by any means also imply that America is absolutely and always good, and that therefore, America's foreign policy/role in the world is always virtuous, prima facie. Ben P Posted by: Ben P at December 24, 2003 03:11 PM | PERMALINKBy the way, I think that the day the planes crashed into the twin towers was the greatest day for neoconservatism since the fall of the Berlin Wall, whether or not any neocons would ever admit it. It provided the kind of singular focus for their thinking and their world view the post Cold War 1990s did not provide. For me, the War on Terror is merely a continuation of the Cold War through other means. Ben P Posted by: Ben P at December 24, 2003 03:14 PM | PERMALINKDavid I think that we have some pretty basic differences on the subject of Bush and ability to learn. I don't think so. I think that he does realize that there is a limit to how many countries he can attack. His neocon advisors thought Iraq could be done with less than 50,000 troops. I am sure that in their little heads they had done the calculation 500,000/50,000 equals 10 so let us get ready for the next 8. If Bush was capable of learning why were Canada and Germany who both have troops in Afghanistan cut out of Iraqi reconstruction. Bush's world view is very simple. "I know what is right and you can go along with me or suffer the consequences. If you are lucky I will just ignore you for now." You have to agree with Bush on everything, no compromise is ever considered. I remember hearing that when he was Texas governor that while he might listen to those who had a different view from his, it never made any difference, he simply did what he intended to do right from the beginning. International action not because of Bush but because everyone else agreed it should be done. Cowboy action because the rest of the world did not think it should be done. I assume the military explained to him that Iran was not Iraq and that it would be very bloody. Bush is not totally clueless, I think that even he realized that to attack North Korea would mean a lot (maybe millions) of dead South Koreans. Carried out be whom? Posted by: ____league at December 24, 2003 03:15 PM | PERMALINKGiven that the domino theory proved to be more or less correct (after all, all of Indochina did go communist), I'm at a loss as to why you object to this. Hogwash. The domino theory applied to all of Southeast Asia, not just the French ex-colonies of Indochina. Thailand, Burma, Malaysia and Singapore did not fall to the Communists after the Americans left Vietnam. How come? Posted by: Meteor Blades at December 24, 2003 03:29 PM | PERMALINKHow would the dynamics of neo-con-colonialism change if suddenly tomorrow someone figured out a wonderful ecologically sound alternative to black-crude? Would we even be in Iraq? Would the word "geopolitics" be on the lips of every conservative and liberal poster? [yeah...I admit, the word "geopolitics" makes me want to vomit up Goebbels, shit out Machiavelli, sweat out Saddam and fart out Cheney (little little little little boys)] Here is my roundabout answer to my own question: Nearly every thread of every post of every blogger in the last few years would be rendered obsolete if the energy problems of human beings was finally solved. Which only leads me to this observation: 1)Any government that does not passionately seek to solve the energy crisis currently facing humankind is a failure. 2)Any government failing (1) and working instead overtime to prolong the current black-crude economy until the last drop, is worse than a failure--it is travesty. Our current government is a travesty. Worse it is making a failure of our people, in that suddenly the word "geopolitics" slides so glibly off our lips. The stink of Rome is in the air. For shame America. For shame. [This high-volatge screed of mine appeared first in another thread...only the context has been minutely shifted to condemn the guilty] Posted by: -pea- at December 24, 2003 03:35 PM | PERMALINKDear Joe Schmoe, Your wrote: “Moroever, they (neoconservatives) are willing to impose their own notions of morality on other nations, such as Iraq.” (emphasis mine) Kinda’ says it all, doesn’t it? Merry Christmas The Essence of Neo-Conservatism. Posted by: David Ehrenstein at December 24, 2003 03:59 PM | PERMALINKDear Joe: I returned from Southern Iraq the same week you did. Man, is that convoy to Kuwait a bitch, or what? But the souvenirs from Najaf were worth the risk, for me. Zogby conducts polls, asshole. He did so prewar throughout the Arab world, and postwar in Iraq. Go to his website. These are the same polls that Cheney misrepresented on "Meet the Press," and that show, throughout the Arab world, a hunger for a more theocratic than secular state, particularly among the Arab poor. When the facts don't run your way, you show the true Bush Administration colors: the personal invective aimed at the messenger. Thanks for stopping by. Posted by: Brian C.B. at December 24, 2003 04:04 PM | PERMALINKThailand, Burma, Malaysia and Singapore did not fall to the Communists after the Americans left Vietnam. How come? US military commitment to Thailand; British military commitment to Malaysia and by extension Singapore. As for Burma, it didn't exactly live free of autocracy. Every one of North Vietnam's neighboring states went communist, MB. You can't assert that there was nothing to the domino theory. Seems to me it panned out regrettably well. Posted by: Tacitus at December 24, 2003 04:07 PM | PERMALINK I don't know if you've posted this or not, but it's worth
repetition. For a rather frightening look at the "tin foil hat" aspects
of the neo-Con con, check out Washington Monthly, Peter Bergen on
Laurie Mylroie, the fountainhead of Saddamdiditism, which seriously
afflicts Wolfie, Perle, Cheney, et. al. Mylroie is the guru of this
cult. Interestingly - or perhaps predictably - she was an apologist for
Saddam's regime back in the '80s. These folks scare me... The Mylroie
dissection is at "tacitus" - yeah, the domino theory worked out really well, most notably in the case of Cambodia, the key "domino" that was effectively neutral prior to the war, but which was totally destabilized by the war itself. Had there been no armed conflict in Vietnam it's very, very unlikely that Sihanouk's government would have fallen to extremist insurgents bent on murdering millions of their countrymen. It's that good old law of unintended consequences... Of course the gross oversimplifications, if not sheer idiocy, of the "domino theorists" are perhaps best understood by following the ensuing conflicts between China and Vietnam after the war and the ultimate overthrow of the Khmer Rouge regime by the Vietnamese. (Of course, what should have been viewed as a welcome regime change was condemned by such friends of the Cambodian people as Jean Kirkpatrick, then UN ambassador.) Posted by: brucds at December 24, 2003 04:28 PM | PERMALINKListening to the rhetoric coming from the neo-cons in the administration, I wonder how much is designed for consumption in the US. I suspect the neo-cons believe that the affairs of the world are governed by force. Currently, the US cannot be challenged when it chooses to act. However, I believe the citizenry requires a sufficiently lofty reason to endorse things like the Iraq War. I don't doubt that a great many people believe earnestly that it is possible to reconstruct the Middle East, but is this in fact possible? Someone pointed to Iran in this thread a while back as an example of something. The US successfully overthrew Mossedegh in 1953 after a disagreement between Iran and the Anglo-Iranian oil company could not be resolved. the Iranians had no great love for the Russia or the British, as they had been occupied by both nations at various points in time. The immediate aftermath of the coup was the Shah's government, which evolved into a fairly repressive regime. 26 years later Khomenei took over. Both these consequences seem fairly negative to me, though I suppose one can argue that having Iran under the Shah for 26 years outweighs having a hostile fundamentalist regime in Iran for the forseeable future. Sometimes, when governments are replaced with othre governments, there are unforseen consequences. Posted by: Roland at December 24, 2003 04:32 PM | PERMALINKWhat I don't understand is, just because the outcome of the cold war was favorable, conservative commentators take that as a validation of all previous U.S. policy. How much DID the CIA's machinations in central america and afgahnistan help topple the soviet union? From what I can gather, the rot came from within. Credit must also be given to Gorbachev for being willing to negotiate. How does that validate our support of all those despots supposedly "in our pocket", one of which turned out to be saddam hussein? Posted by: Angelica at December 24, 2003 04:42 PM | PERMALINK"US military commitment to Thailand" saved it from communism, Tacitus? This after we left Vietnam after abandoning our own military commitment to it after years of war? Posted by: Amigo at December 24, 2003 04:47 PM | PERMALINKTacitus wrote: "Given that the domino theory proved to be more or less correct (after all, all of Indochina did go communist), I'm at a loss as to why you object to this." Oh, nonsense. As already noted above, the whole of Southeast Asia, not to mention other countries in the world, did not topple into communism. Your response was rather lame. "I know it's unpleasant to recall, but "the left" as a whole did not always acquit itself well in the Cold War." And how many of those were truly representative of "the left" vs. fringe fanatics? I can bring up all sorts of examples of failures of "the right," but you would rightly question whether those incidents and people I cite are truly representative. "A justified insistence during the Cold War. If you're prepared to argue it wasn't, have at it -- you'll lose." I note that you do not offer even one fact or citation to back up your opinion. When you do, perhaps we can have that argument. And then you'll find out that -- you'll lose. "As for today, isn't it rather noteworthy that many neocons (including Wolfowitz) insist that there is no need for a huge military buildup in Iraq or elsewhere? I think you're getting this completely backwards." Free clue: what has happened to the military budget recently? "The Europe-haters of the Cold War sank into political oblivion with the demise of the Robert Taft wing of the Republican Party in the '50s. I don't know what you're talking about here." Cheese-eating surrender monkeys, anyone? Old Europe, anyone? Posted by: PaulB at December 24, 2003 04:49 PM | PERMALINKUS military commitment to Thailand; British military commitment to Malaysia and by extension Singapore. As for Burma, it didn't exactly live free of autocracy. Every one of North Vietnam's neighboring states went communist, MB. You can't assert that there was nothing to the domino theory. Seems to me it panned out regrettably well. This is unusually inaccurate, even for Tacitus's gibber. The domino
theory was that there was an organized, monolithic international
communist force, and that one state after another would fall and be
added to the forces opposing us. It certainly describes the way Eastern
Europe fell under the Iron Curtain, and it is trie that communism was
expansionist. But all its predictions concenring Viet Nam were
partially or totally wrong. The North got support from the USSR and
China, but one of their first aftions on conquering the South was a
military conflict with China. Cambodia disintegrated in something like a
societal suicide, and were invaded by VN as well. The insurgency in
northern Thailand was under control wel before the peak of the Vietnam
War. The "autocracy" in Burma wasn't Marxist. And perhaps the worse
howler is that the insurgency in Malasia had been stamped out in the
1950's, and some of the techniques used by the Brits were applied to
Nam. Last time I checked a map, Malasia isn't contiguous to any
contries that fell to Communism. The number of cases where the domino
theory worked out as prediced was zero. Listening to the rhetoric coming from the neo-cons in the administration, I wonder how much is designed for consumption in the US. I suspect the neo-cons believe that the affairs of the world are governed by force. Putting out false reasons for policy is part of the philosophy of Leo Strauss, whom many neocons admire. The idea is that there are harsh truths that most people can't handle, and it would impair social order to discuss them openly. The elite who are fit to govern can be trusted with them, but most people are better off with "different truths". This conflicts with the Enlightment doctrine that there is one public truth that everyone can know and discuss. In the PNAC materials, there are statements to the effect that our policy goal should be power for its own sake. If this is the elite truth, talk of bringing democracy to the ME is just window dressing. Posted by: Roger Bigod at December 24, 2003 05:26 PM | PERMALINKExcellent post Kevin. Religious fundamentalism has risen among Muslims, Christians and Jews in recent decades. Our sometimes misguided policies have played a very minor role in this worldwide phenomenon, dare I call it a secular trend. Exaggerating our responsibility for it is in some ways similar to the arrogance displayed by many neo-cons. Posted by: Mark at December 24, 2003 05:50 PM | PERMALINK"As for today, isn't it rather noteworthy that many neocons (including Wolfowitz) insist that there is no need for a huge military buildup in Iraq or elsewhere? I think you're getting this completely backwards." Free clue: what has happened to the military budget recently? Sorry, but no. The budget increases for the most part maintain the status quo in terms of military size. While there are plans to modernize the current forces, such as purchasing the F-22, there are no plans to create new Army divisions, new Air Force squadrons, or to increase the size of the Navy fleet. By my definition this means no hugh military build-up. Posted by: Proper response at December 24, 2003 06:57 PM | PERMALINKMy favorite Wolfowitz story, by Al Franken: "Speaking of pissing off a neocon: Later, at the after-party given by Bloomberg News, I went up to Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of Defense and the architect of the Bush preemption doctrine. "Hi, Dr. Wolfowitz. Hey, the Clinton military did a great job in Iraq, didn't it?" He looked at me for a couple of seconds, then said, "Fuck you." Which I thought was funny. I think he was "kidding on the square," a phrase I hope will catch on. It means kidding, but also really meaning it. People do it all the time. "Kidding on the square." If this book does two things, I want to get "kidding on the square" into the lexicon, and I want to get Bush out of the White House. -----Al Franken-Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: Page 212 In Al's honor, I have a weblog in process at Kidding On The Square Posted by: poputonian at December 24, 2003 07:22 PM | PERMALINKCongratulations on the weblog poputonian. I've enjoyed your comments here...and will certainly visit your new addy. Posted by: -pea- at December 24, 2003 07:49 PM | PERMALINKRoland: Listening to the rhetoric coming from the neo-cons in the administration, I wonder how much is designed for consumption in the US. I suspect the neo-cons believe that the affairs of the world are governed by force. Think about the average american growing up watching average american television shows. The most common tv plot is the one in which good guys overcome bad guys via violence. That's tv drama in a nutshell. Of couse sometimes there is a plot twist: the good guys really don't want to fight...but fate steps in somehow, and forces them into figthing the good fight : Kung Fu,the Cartwrights,Matt Dillion. Americans grow up watching these two tone morality plays. Is there any wonder why the neocons can so easily sell this particular pabulum to the public? Posted by: -pea- at December 24, 2003 08:20 PM | PERMALINKMuch appreciated -pea-. I'll be looking for guest authors if you're interested. I think part of Kevin's mastery is keeping the river flowing, (i.e multiple postings) which I know I could never do. I am using typepad which has the capability to use guest authors, so many can write to one weblog. On this one thread, there are several articulate folks, yourself, Bigod, Klein, plus others. I also like Praktike, Isbell, etc., so anyone interested in writing, email me at the link that can be found on the blog address in the earlier post above. Posted by: poputonian at December 24, 2003 08:22 PM | PERMALINKThis discussion brings to mind something James Baker said a while ago: We enter a new era characterized especially by the greater strength of our friends. We live in a world of increasingly influential allies whose cooperation is essential if we are to surmount common problems. There are new global dangers, such as terrorism, the international narcotics trade, and the degradation of the world's environment, that cannot be managed by one nation alone-no matter how powerful. These realities will not permit a blind isolationism or a reckless antagonism. Baker said this in order to frame the ending of the Cold War as an opportunity to tackle global problems using instruments that were originally created to destroy an enemy. It is interesting to compare this idea with the chiropractic notions of the neo-cons, who are skeptical that any of those instruments really can have a second life. As powerful a disagreement this question brings up between Baker and the neo-cons, they share the language in which maintaining "spheres of influence" is a prerequisite in securing US national interests. In consequence, the supposedly revolutionary ideas of Wolfowitz and company in regards to promoting democratic polity tends to obscure what would truly be a departure from the methodology of the Cold War: Declaring allegiance to a certain group of people because we thought they were getting screwed by another. Measured against this standard, the call for democracy as a self evident good is not only too easy but actually legitimizes being dishonest about who your allies really are. Posted by: Bag at December 24, 2003 08:34 PM | PERMALINK Joe Schmoe wrote: "First, there is the possibility that the neocons were right. Communism was evil. The Communists would have enslaved the entire world if they had posessed the power to do so." Communism wasn't evil. Many of those who held power in its system were. The same may be said for many who hold power in our capitalistic system. Democracy didn't defeat immoral communism, immoral capitalism did. So too is democracy not at war now with Islamists or terrorists, but rather it is those in power whose hunger for more power that are now, as always, waging war. For those who think otherwise, tell me, after a nuclear holocaust, what would we have then? Freedom? Posted by: jayarbee at December 24, 2003 08:40 PM | PERMALINKEvery one of North Vietnam's neighboring states went communist, MB. You can't assert that there was nothing to the domino theory. Seems to me it panned out regrettably well. Let's see, Tacitus. Neighboring China was already communist. In neighbor Laos, the U.S. chose to back a coalition government that included communists (while "secretly" bombing the bejesus out of the place). The despicable U.S. policy in Cambodia (post- and pre- 1975) has already been ably addressed upthread. There was a good chance that Cambodia would have remained, like Thailand, a non-communist kingdom if U.S. policy hadn't helped recruiting efforts of the Khmer Rouge. So, the only "country" that could be said to have fallen to the communists as predictedc by the domino theory was "South" Vietnam, a political entity put together by an arrangement that the U.S. did not even accept as legitimate and whose non-communist opposition the U.S. helped gut. There is good reason to believe that several million people wouldn't have been killed if the U.S. had chosen not to back the French colonialists - who had, unlike Ho Chi Minh - refused to fight the Japanese invaders. Vietnam WOULD have become communist, just as it is today. No doubt the Stalinists of Hanoi would have "reeducated" millions and murdered thousands, but the massive slaughter of war and its aftermath that occurred from 1959 into the early '80s might well have been avoided. Merry Christmas. Posted by: Meteor Blades at December 24, 2003 08:45 PM | PERMALINKI'd like to give a shout-out to the Hmong, btw. What happened to them was tragic, simply horrible. --------- I'd be happy to guest post, and thanks for the mention. Best of luck on the blog. Funny thing is, I think I write more interesting comments in threads than I do on my blog. That said, let's do a link-swap: I'm at: http://www.americanfootprint.com Merry Xmas, Chanukah, etc., and to all a good night. Be safe. Posted by: praktike at December 24, 2003 08:55 PM | PERMALINKThe whole war on terror is like having an arsonist as your fire chief. NeoCons = Arsonist The tanks in the fire truck are currently filled with gas. Who is bringing the dang halon? Awesome, Praktike. I'm busy on and off tomorrow but will reach you in the next few days. Happy Holidays to all. Posted by: poputonian at December 24, 2003 10:06 PM | PERMALINKThanks for those kind words Poputonian. Your site looks good. And I agree that those you mentioned would make excellent guest writers. And quite a few others as well. Your thoughts about "Kevin's mastery" and "keeping the river flowing" lead naturally to this question: What is it that makes a blog vital? That is obviously, and recursively, an interesting topic for a blog post. One that is sure to stir people to read and comment, as I suspect, we've all given it more than a little thought. (I once considered writing Kevin to suggest just that topic. As I think I've seen certain patterns to his posts.) Here perhaps is one secret for a strong flowing blog: Realizing that even auxiliary comments like "Kevin's mastery" and "keeping the river flowing" sometimes contain hidden gems waiting for the light of day. Posted by: -pea- at December 24, 2003 10:20 PM | PERMALINK"The whole point of the neocon vision is to bring democracy to the Middle East. All of the paranoid leftists who thought that we'd simply replace Sadaam with some other more acceptable dictator have been proven wrong. We are clearly trying to build an Iraqi democracy." Joe Shmoe What WAS the neo-con plan for Iraq? Wasn't it to instal Chalabi as ruler of Iraq? This is an example of democracy? Are you sure? Sounded to me like they were just replacing Saddam with another dictator more of their choosing. Meet the new Boss! Same as the old Boss! Posted by: Jon Stopa at December 24, 2003 10:27 PM | PERMALINKWarning: OT -pea-: poputonian: The thing that makes Kevin's blog so great for me is a) the high quality of Kevin's ideas, b) the great number of ideas Kevin posts, and c) (but not at all least) the quality and quantity of folks that respond to Kevin's blog. Posted by: Timothy Klein at December 24, 2003 10:42 PM | PERMALINKWolfowitz is obviously a very sick individual. The idea that it has any policy contribution to the US gov't is frightening. Of course, if Shrub had any policy contribution, that would be more frightening. But he doesn't. Posted by: raj at December 25, 2003 12:42 AM | PERMALINKI'd like to add something to the notion of monomania. I think part of the problem is not just that the neocons find a singular "evil" enemy and become obsessed with it -- it's that they define certain people as evil, rather than actions. So, once you have a set of "evil" people in the world, and a set of "good" people -- and you think of those two categories as metaphysical and immutable -- then anything the latter does to stop the former is justified, right? In other words, it's not only the ends that justify the means, but some kind of inherent goodness. Contrast with another way of thinking: it's not us that's good, it's what we do that is good. The communists were evil not because they had some sort of existential disease, but because they did evil things. To the extent we were morally superior, it is because we didn't do those things. And when we did similar things, even in fighting the communists, we too commited evil. So, to the extent we started propping up butchers, killing thousands in avoidable wars, and causing the social welfare of people in our country to suffer in favor of building a bloated military, we became like them. And that's what happens with any monomania -- you become, to some extent, the mirror image of your obsession. This is what, it seems to me, neocons and fundamentalists of all sorts miss: virtue is not a state of being, it is the sum of one's behavior. Oy -- it's very late and I haven't put my kids' gifts out yet. I doubt I'm making any sense. Merry Christmas, y'all. Posted by: Realish at December 25, 2003 12:56 AM | PERMALINKMade perfect sense, Realish. I very much concur. A lot of Americans, not just Neocons, have got it their head that we are inherently good, as you suggest. They thus give America a heck of a lot more leeway when we do nasty stuff than they would give someone that Americans consider evil. This is a major shortcoming. America is no more inherently good than any other country -- we have to strive for it, and do good things. To many, even the suggestion that America might do something that wasn't good is a reason to call 'treason' and 'unAmerican' or the like. Bad juju. Posted by: Timothy Klein at December 25, 2003 01:19 AM | PERMALINKThe neo-con movement is born out of the old Scoop Jackson socialism, which makes them so hard to refute from a Democrat socialist perspective. These neo-cons, many of them trotskyites, actually believe in big government, if not communist government. They come from the anit-stalinist wing of the democratic party and gave up on the party when the part rebelled against the genocide of that great liberal Johnson. Under the Reaganites, these trotskyites joined forces with the jesus freaks, and began a 12 year spending binge that racked up nearly $7 trillion in debt. The funny thing is that these nutcases created a debt so large that China's entire defense budget is paid for from interest received on money loaned to Reagan alone. The other funny thing is that these same idiots helped create Islamic fundamental terrorism when they joined forces with them against Breshnev. So, the paradox, is that these nutcases created what can only be called the Soviet Socialist Republicans, under Reagan, and as a result, lost the cold war to China and Russia, neither of whom are stupid enough to adopt socialism. Yet, Bus continues the communist tradition. They ran up the $7 trillion, and actually destroyed, rather than
strengthened, America's military strength. These idiots could find
their way out of a paper bag, and I'm being kind. Kevin You really want to refight who was right and who was wrong during the cold war? History has not been kind to the anti-anti-communists. But I see from the many posts here that many still delude themselves about the recent history of communism. I suggest reading The Black Book of Communism for a refresher. I say thank god the worst of communism is over. The last century involved the killing of 85 to 100 million people by communists, mostly fellow citizens that the communists ruled over. The threat from Islamic radicals can't even come close to the scale of peril the world was in from communist aggression. Remember the threat of global nuclear war? Or how about the threat of a nice re-run of global conventional war such as WWII? And thank god for Ronald Reagan. Until Reagan came along, the dominoes were falling fast and furious after the loss of Vietnam in 1975. The collapse of American will over the defeat in Vietnam led to an amazing burst of communist aggression, not just in S.E. Asia but all over the world. From terrorists attacks in Europe, to guerrila warfare in Central America, to imperialst adventure in Africa to outright invasion in Afghanistan. Yeah, sure, suuurrrre the communists weren't a serious threat. Bah. The WWII axis powers were pipsqueaks economically and in terms of population but they almost succeeded in overunning the whole world. After WWII the communists had a base of strength a lot greater than the WWII axis powers ever did. But remember, while America played it safe and tried to fight communism mostly on the cheap with a policy of containment and buying nuclear weapons, that was the time when communism racked up even more millions of victims killed. Those victims paid the real price and shouldn't be demeaned by minimizing the evil and danger of communism. Posted by: Brad at December 25, 2003 04:40 AM | PERMALINKThis was right on the money, Kevin. Great insight. Posted by: Kenneth Fair at December 25, 2003 04:58 AM | PERMALINKThe Black Book of Communism Here are some reviews from amazon.com
Communism did kill, Courtois and his fellow historians demonstrate, with ruthless efficiency: 25 million in Russia during the Bolshevik and Stalinist eras, perhaps 65 million in China under the eyes of Mao Zedong, 2 million in Cambodia, millions more Africa, Eastern Europe, and Latin America--an astonishingly high toll of victims. This freely expressed penchant for homicide, Courtois maintains, was no accident, but an integral trait of a philosophy, and a practical politics, that promised to erase class distinctions by erasing classes and the living humans that populated them. Courtois and his contributors document Communism's crimes in numbing detail, moving from country to country, revolution to revolution. The figures they offer will likely provoke argument, if not among cliometricians then among the ideologically inclined. So, too, will Courtois's suggestion that those who hold Lenin, Trotsky, and Ho Chi Minh in anything other than contempt are dupes, witting or not, of a murderous school of thought--one that, while in retreat around the world, still has many adherents. A thought-provoking work of history and social criticism, The Black Book of Communism fully merits the broadest possible readership and discussion. --Gregory McNamee
Book Description Brad, Put this in perspective: The fertility rate in Europe has dropped to 40% below replacement as Socialist Democracy has taken root. With a population of 300 million, this implies that the high cost of government has definately killed of 75 million of the Gen X offspring. Remember the cost of government takes 50% of the earning from young workers. If you think this is planned population control, remember that most of the missing are being replaced by immigration.
neoconservatives are american expansionists, pure and simple. whatever rhetoric they use to justify it, from manifest destiny to anti-communism to the war on terror to spreading democracy to weapons of mass destruction should simply be ignored. the only thing any of their policies are designed to do is expand american influence. once we realize that we can debate whether or not it is a goal that is worth pursuing. i would say no. it is not worth the risk or the cost. Posted by: Olaf glad and big at December 25, 2003 06:42 AM | PERMALINKSomething that the pro-neo-con people seem to ignore, or to deny if they get far enough to think about it, is that most people mean well, and most people would like the best for their country, and for other countries around the world. Most people want the best for others. IN fact, the only people I've seen explicitly reject that notion are the real-politikers (and adam yoshida and ann coulter) who advocate violently for a completely solipsistic and selfish view both of human nature and of political action. But what does the assumption of basic humanity and good intentions mean? It means that even--or especially--people who aligned themselves with the poor, with revolution, with anto-colonialism, with socialism and, yes (gasp) even with some portions of communism generally thought they did so because they thought the alternatives were either worse for themselves, or worse for other people, or both. Many, if not all supporters of communist, socialist, revolutionary, democratic and etc...social movements were sincerely convinced that they were working for the good of their fellow humans. And at many points in world history they weren't wrong. I'm not denying the validity of the "black book" and I am not now, and never was, a supporter of communist regimes but the fact remains that the countries that emerged into communism were often fighting against the decay, demoralization and criminal neglect of larger conventionally bad autocratic states. If we had helped those nascent states instead of pushing them directly into strong-men tyranny's maybe they wouldn't have felt the need to fight for nationalism under the guise of communism. If people are wrong to dream of a better world for everyone, hell, they were wrong--, everyone can be wrong at some point. The motivations remain the same as those postulated for the neo-cons by their supporters. If that is not true you are left with the position pilloried above that some people, once they are "communist" or not sufficiently enthusiastic about bush or whatever, are inherently evil and beyond human emotions and sympathies. If this observation about the general tendency towards good intentions is true, we are left simply arguing over the best way, at any given historical point, to promote world peace, happinness, and (yes, to my mind) democracy. The neo-cons don't have a monopoloy on good intentions, although they may have a stranglehold on the big guns during this round of attempts to create a utopia. Let the neo-con supporters remember that the road to hell is paved with good intentions for a reason: The road to human destruction starts with the conviction of one's own infallibility and nobility and the simultaneous belief that all who disagree are relentlessly evil and ignorant. I am more than willing to extend to wolfowitz et al "good intentions" but bad policy. It would significantly advance discussion here (and elsewhere) if the right would tender the left the same courtesy. aimai Posted by: aimai at December 25, 2003 06:43 AM | PERMALINKStrongly agree with Realish and the subsequent comments. It seems the neo-cons fail by not realizing that America emits signals of conquest and cultural encroachment, some coming from government, but some also from industry. Apparently incapable of introspection, the neo-cons are locked into the belief that the opponent is inherently evil. Another view, however, might be that the other side is not evil, but that they see themselves in a defensive war, a revolt fought in response to American stimuli of conquest and encroachment. The neo-cons then, with their "stranglehold on the big guns," are trapped in the same cycle of violence, and, in fact, may well be responsible for it. There are parallels in history. The American Indian for example, whose culture has been virtually extinguished based on much of the same logic of American superiority. *TK - I will take you up on that. pea, the topic you suggest would make great blog fodder. Seems to be both a science and an art to the craft. Posted by: poputonian at December 25, 2003 07:50 AM | PERMALINKCommunism was opposed by liberals from the get go. This liberal in particular has always been anti-communist. Anti-communisms were not all created equal, however. McCarthyism was simply paranoid careerism. And the more "intellectual" right wing anti-commies merely used their opposition to communism to advance their right wing agenda. Jeanne Kirkpatrick, for example, made a specious distinction between autoritarian right wing regimes and totalitarian communist ones, the latter being hopelessly impervious to change. Within ten years, many of those communist regimes were gone. I'm glad that finally some other people have demonstrated all the numerous holes in Tacitus' revisionist history of the domino theory, sparing me the tedium of demonstrating what is obvious to everyone but him, that the Vietnam War was a moral disaster in which the US played a major role in making things worse. As for "thank God for Ronald Reagan," spare me. Anyone who went
behind the Iron Curtain could easily see that communism would never last
because of internal problems. Did the US contribute to communism's
collapse? It had a role, but the major contribution was from within the
Soviet Bloc itself. Speaking of neoconcservatism, that was the topic, yes? I thank God that the neocons or their ancestors were not making the decisions during the Missile Crisis. Otherwise, none of us would be here today. Posted by: tristero at December 25, 2003 07:51 AM | PERMALINKIt's true that, during the 70s and 80s, the U.S. supported quite a few shady characters as part of our Cold War policy, and that some of them later turned on us. But how is this any different than our WWII policy? We supported the mass murderer Stalin during WWII because we had no real choice; it was that or a Europe ruled by an equally ruthless and even less sane monster. We could have stood back and let them fight each other, but I doubt that Kevin would approve of that Buchananite policy. Once we had eliminated the threat of Hitler, we were then able to face Communism undistracted. The current situation with Wahabbism is no different, except that this time it took us 12 years and the shock of a tragic terrorist attack on U.S. soil to bring us to the realization of who the new anti-Western threat was. At times this is all discouraging, and dispiriting. We've already fought and defeated two totalitarian threats (Nazism and Communism). Now we find ourselves face-to-face with Islamic Fundamentalism (Wahabbism). When does it end? When do the psychopaths, perverts, and scumbags stop coming up with new justifications to visit misery and suffering on the world's population? Posted by: Firebug at December 25, 2003 07:56 AM | PERMALINK"I'll take Islamic fundamentalism as a problem before I'd ever put us back into the Soviet era." The Soviets never attacked the U.S. directly. They knew the counter
attack would devastate them. They had too high a stake in preserving
their own status quo. Communists were never willing to kill themselves,
blow themselves up, just to make a point. They were not suicidal.
Kruschev backed down over Cuba because it wasn't worth starting a war
over. For all their idealistic Marxist talk, one could always "do
business" with them. Posted by: ciceraw at December 25, 2003 08:07 AM | PERMALINK "...a vacant, backslapping mediocrity.." In three words, you've nailed him. Though tangential to the major theme of the post, for my money this is the best description of GWB and his ilk that I've seen. Posted by: don freeman at December 25, 2003 09:03 AM | PERMALINKHmm, someone should start googlebombing "vacant, backslapping mediocrity" now. Yo, anyone who mentioned Vietnam really needs to understand that Ho Chi Minh's movement was Nationalist first, Communist second, and drew its strength from opposition to French colonialism. Our Democratic, Western, NATO, ally France could have tried to establish a thriving Western-style democracy in Vietnam in the 1950s. If the US gave a damn about democracy and freedom at the time, we could have encouraged the French to do so. Likely the will of the people would have landed somewhat to the left of the will of the US, but we could have had a powerful and independent ally there. Joe Schmoe writes Yes, neoconservatives are absolutists, all right. They believe that all people have an absolute right to freedom and democracy. I question whether the Bush Administration believes that Iraqis have an absolute right to freedom and democracy, if it turns out that the democracy in question would like the freedom to accept Euros in exchange for oil. I think our current administration would much prefer a puppet government (like that of South Vietnam back in the good old days). The Bush Administration doesn't even want democracy here, if it means they might lose an election. Posted by: Skinny at December 25, 2003 10:22 AM | PERMALINKKevin and others: First, if he is so dumb, what does that make your party? After all, he beat you, playing by the rules, after your guy tried to change them via the Florida state courts. (Just for the record I wasn't a Bush supporter - if I had my way, it would be President McCain in office now.) Also, if the neocons (a term that just begs for definition) are so
wrong, what was (as applied to the Cold War)/is (as applied to the
current situation) the better path that your party espouses? So far,
I've seen lots of criticism, but no real alternatives presented here.
What is the left/liberal alternative to those 'neocon' policies? The
catchphrases 'we should go to the UN' or 'we need to be more
multilateral' aren't enough to qualify as a foreign policy, by the way. I joined the thread far too late but I have a few points to make in brief: * 1980's Neoconservatives are not entirely the same group of people who are called neocons today, most whom, unlike Irving Kristol, were never on the Left. Many ppl called " neocons " like Cheney are simply conservative Republicans in favor of interventionism. Recall a fair number of Bush II people are not Reaganites but Nixon men ( at the start of their careers). * We overestimated the Soviet Union's GDP in the 1970's and 1980's but we also underestimated the insane percentage of GDP they were willing to spend on armaments because the percentage was.....insane ( approximately 1/3 of Soviet GDP vs. a U.S. peak of 6%). To argue that because our economic estimates were high therefore the USSR was not a threat ignores all of our estimates of their strategic and conventional forces ( which if anything was on the low end) which were vast. * No one on the Left correctly discerned the threat of Islamic fundamentalism back then either( or even as recently as 2001). MESA scholars insisted on viewing the Mideast through trendy academic Marxism that minimized the appeal and effects of Islamism and the connection to terror. * The USSR had approximately 50,000 nuclear warheads and a history of killing tens of millions of their own people and spawning third world client regimes that did the same. Islamism is a very bad thing but they have a ways to go to match Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Haile Menghistu Mariam or even the bush league Communist tyrants like Ho Chi Minh or Castro Merry Christmas Posted by: mark safranski at December 25, 2003 10:49 AM | PERMALINKI have a question about evil. I will state that I believe the 9/11 attacks were evil, so they must be opposed. In this sense, the war against the Taliban and Al Quaeda seem to me to be justified. Consider that the US during Vietnam launched attacks against population centers, resulting in a large number of civilian deaths. Was this evil? The goal of the US was more than simply to create mayhem, but I imagine the goal of Al Quaeda is more than simply to create mayhem. It seems like things like this are justified by the argument "Cause X threatens us. We are justified in using whatever means necessary to eliminate the threat." I guess I am hust confused. It reminds me of the Star Trek episode when Abe Lincoln, Spock, and Kirk are battling some historical figures associated with evil, but both sides are employing the same means inbattle. Posted by: Roland at December 25, 2003 11:30 AM | PERMALINKSure, we're culpable about some stuff, but if we want to make partisan recriminations here, you've got to absolve all Democrats of their own wrong doings during the Cold War. I don't absolve them of their wrongdoings. Anybody here want to step up and absolve Loyalty Oaths and Hearings and whatever else Democrats participated in? Anybody? I'd rather worry about trying to keep the world from blowing up right now than punishing somebody in the past. The mistakes of yesterday are relevant mostly insofar as those in power are determined to repeat them and use their past failures as justification for still more of the same. Posted by: Kip W at December 25, 2003 11:38 AM | PERMALINKSomething that the pro-neo-con people seem to ignore, or to deny if they get far enough to think about it, is that most people mean well, and most people would like the best for their country, and for other countries around the world. Also, moral relativism is to me axiomatically the correct worldview - moral relativism is necessary to basic concepts like democracy and liberty. To assume that there is one and only right way and that you possess is arrogance and hubris of the highest order - and has potential totalitarian overtones. Its not that I prefer other cultural systems to America's (I don't - for me, western civ works fine). Rather, I could care less if others disagree and have found a way of life that they like that is different from my own - its only when their world view treads on my own that we have a problem - ie al Qaeda. But you both are missing something fundamental here. We in the free world an choose the cultural system that works best for us. The people in the Islamic world can't. THEY DO NOT CHOOSE TO LIVE AS THEY DO. This renders any discussion about "moral relativism" or "cultural choices" totally and completely irrlevant. They are enslaved. If a women in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan wanted to expose her face to sunlight, she'd be beaten with a stick. If she decided to sleep with a man to whom she was not married, she'd be stoned to death. The people of the Islamic world DO NOT VOTE. They have no say -- none! -- in the structure of their societies. They have not "chosen a different path," one that seems foreign to our western sensibilities; they are being dragged down the different path. Do you non-neocons believe that is is okay for women in Saudi Arabia to be denied the right to drive, wear the clothing they wish to wear, and vote? Is it all right for people to be forced to live under monarchs who inherited their offices? Is it okay for young boys to be taught to become suicide bombers? Should young girls be forced to undergo clitrodectomies because some hate-filled cleric says that it fosters modesty? I say that it is not all right. We should not turn a blind eye to others in bondage. I guess I could understnad if your position was "well, I feel sorry for them, but I don't want to spend Americans do die so that Saudi women can drive." That is an understandable position, so long as you also believe that the lack of freedom and opportunity in the Islamic world is one of the root causes of the terrorism which endagers us here. But don't kid yourself that the way of life that prevails in the Islamic world is one which has been "chosen" by the people there. I do recognize that there probably are cultural differences between the Islamic and western worlds. There is not a Hillary Clinton behind every burqua, or a Billy Graham behind every suicide belt. But I do know that people from every culture seem to like the ability to (a) speak their mind, (b) choose their own leaders by voting in free and fair elections, and (c) dislike torture, secret police, and being machine-gunned into mass graves. These values are, I believe, universal. What will Iraqi society look like in 10 years? Probably somewhat unfamilliar. Most people are Muslims. They might well choose to outlaw pornography and alcohol. They might not be terribly friendly to Israel. They may well even become a little more culturally conservative than they were under Sadaam, who probably forcibly banned a lot of religious stuff because he percieved it as a threat. We almost certainly will not see eye to eye with the Iraqis on every issue; they'll probably be fairly sexist, racist, corrupt and superstitious by our standards. Remember, this is a predominantly Muslim country with a 50% illiteracy rate. It's not going to look like Ohio. But so long as we can keep the political and economic systems stable for long enough for the Iraqi people to get used to living in a democratic society, I am confident that it willl work out wonderfully. I do not think that 50% of Iraq's electorate, namely the women, will choose to don burquas, give up their drivers' licenses, and submit themselves to sha'ria. Nor do I think that they will permit genocide, mass graves, and the creation of a secret police to torture them. So long as Iraq has regular, free and fair elections, respects basic human rights, and recognizes the rule of law, I believe that it will be a PARADISE by Middle Eastern standards. Not by our standards, mind you, but it will be a thousandfold better than Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, or Egypt. It is easy for those of us who live in a free society to assume that the people of the middle east "choose" their different way of life for cultural and religious reasons. But that kind of "choice" is only meaningful in the context of a democracy, and there is no democracy anywhere in the Middle East except Iraq. Posted by: Joe Schmoe at December 25, 2003 12:04 PM | PERMALINKJoe I'm not sure how you define a democracy. I define it as a government whose powers are derived by the consent of the governed, at least to some extent. That is, there are periodically some elections and it is possible for the citizens of a nation to select some leaders from a list of choices. Also, I would require that the government protect minority rights to some extent. Given this, Israel seems to be democratic. I don't think Iraq has had national elections yet, nor do they have a constitution. There is no way to know upon what there political system will be based. In addition, I agree with a,b, and c, in that most people say they want these things. I do not believe that most people are willing to tolerate others doing these things if the beliefs of the others differ in some way. The political systems of the West are the triumphs of the Enlightenment. It is astonishing to me that they still exist today in some form given human nature. Throughout most of human history, people were governed by despots. There are examples of republics like our own being discarded in favor of a monarchy. I am no expert in history or psychology, but I suspect that most people want a government that reflects their point of view or requires the least effort possible to operate. A democracy requires the competing elements in a society to consent to lose. An absolutist point of view makes this unlikely. Posted by: Roland at December 25, 2003 01:10 PM | PERMALINKDear Joe Schmoe, I'll take a stab at answering your post. I've actually answered many
others like this that you've posted before. Forgive me if I'm repeating
myself but, since you insist on repeating yourself without regard to
historical facts unfolding around you, I think I need to. We are, in addition, rewriting the economic rules for the country, breaking up and intimidating workers and preventing them from forming unions, proposing to sell of national property to foreign investors, and independently negotiating complex international deals like debt etc... that would, in an actual democracy (let alone in a counquered country) be left up to the actual Iraqi people to handle. Like many other "non-neo cons" I would have supported any moves to put America's might and moral authority behind liberalizing, democratizing regimes in the middle east. We could have gone about that in a different way by, for instance, stopping propping up dictatorial regimes while favoring those moving rapidly towards democracy. Instead we chose to insult Turkey, the one seriously working democracy and to shore up Saudi arabia and etc... My problem as a non-neo-con isn't that we went to war with Iraq to change the face of the middle east and bring democracy there, its that we didn't even bother any of the other things we might have done with all the other countries in the region first. We chose to put our big-swinging-dick (thanks to whatever poster first used that phrase) over the difficult, knotty, complex and often quiet work of diplomacy that might have paid off without the loss of thousands of Iraqi lives. Do I hope that Iraq turns into a model democratic society? ABsolutely. Do I think that the neo-cons, with their disengenous arguements, their undisguised contempt for democratic practices at home and for our civil liberties are the cabal to bring it about? Absolutely not. Oh, and to get back to my original post. What I really think is that the neo-cons and their armchair supporters seem to be fatally eager for credit on some illusory scoreboard "most eager for democracy somewhere else", "most willing to bet someone else's life for a paper ideal," "more enthusiastic about the right things than my neighbor." There is no big scoreboard in the sky, no one is watching to see which of you is more earnestly in favor of helping the Iraqi's without risking your own life. No one is checking to see which of you more willingly embraces the loss of your own civil liberties under bush/ashcroft. we are at war and your enthusiasm for it is merely a planned byproduct of the big sell; we are losing our civil liberties and your enthusiasm for that is merely the planned byproduct of the fear merchants in the Bush regime (and the fact that we live in a scary world.) In the end, you get what the rest of us get: perpetual war, new enemies in the middle east, a huge tax burden on our children and grandchildren, and maybe a nice postcard from your neighbor when they turn you in for some perceived infraction and you wind up in Gitmo. aimai Posted by: aimai at December 25, 2003 01:17 PM | PERMALINKDunno why we consider neo-cons as non-socialist or even non-communist. They are the greatest spenders since WW2, even beating out LBJ under Bush. If their is a single characteristic of communism, it has to be the absorbtion of the private sector into government; and neo-cons are the modern equivalent of Lenin today. I mean, consider the $7 trillion in over spending represented in our federal debt. This is almost entirely neo-con spending. And don't forget the entire Chinese defense budget is paid for by Americans with interest payments accrued under Reagan alone, not even counting the two Bushes. If we are talking about good intentions, let me remind you that the
universal destroyer of civilizations is massive government spending,
whether done for good or ill intentions. What aimai said. I guess part of the problem as I see it is that neocons, again like other fundamentalists, establish this comic book vision of the world in their heads -- thus, when anyone says anything other than, "I'm for the Good Guy!" they have literally no way of interpreting it other than, "I'm for the Bad Guy!" Take this, for instance: When does it end? When do the psychopaths, perverts, and scumbags stop coming up with new justifications to visit misery and suffering on the world's population? I think the neocons, and many Americans generally, have this story in their head whereby America is a peaceful sleeping giant who is roused to action periodically by the sudden and inexplicable appearance of Evil in the world. We smite the evil and then go back to sleep. Certainly this is how the administration strove to portray 9/11. But it's a fantasy. America is deeply involved in world events, in every part of the world, and as an actor (by virtue of its size and wealth, a significant actor) in events bears some responsibility for what develops. This is not "blaming America first," it's having fucking common sense. In any relationship among multiple parties, all parties bear some responsibility for how the relationship develops. "Evil" does not spring from Satan's loins and befall us without warning. The neocons and their ilk would have us simply stipulate the evil in our midst and then consider how to deal with it. As a result, they attack it in the same way over and over again, and always a new evil is born, and always they act surprised and beset all over again. One must consider history, how things have come about, and think about avoiding the next set of desperate, violent lashings-out. To take one example, instead of considering whether WWII was a virtuous war once Hitler was already invading his neighbors, why don't we think more about what, if anything, we could have done to avoid the events that led to Hitler in the first place? One does not lose one's virtue, or one's ability to forthrightly fight for the right, by understanding. Every compromise is not a surrender. Sometimes an obsession with meeting evil on its own terms propagates rather than destroys it. Posted by: Realish at December 25, 2003 01:56 PM | PERMALINKDear Calpundit Kevin? "The people of the Islamic world DO NOT VOTE. They have no say -- none! -- in the structure of their societies." And we do? Posted by: David Ehrenstein at December 25, 2003 02:34 PM | PERMALINKJoe Schmoe: Moral relativism doesn't mean that nothing can be deemed pernicious, only that one should be circumspect in doing so. Nice post, Kevin, and comments, all. Posted by: Bloggerhead at December 25, 2003 03:26 PM | PERMALINKDave Gjestland Ph.D., You suffer from the same partisonship that you criticize. My guess is that you have a simple rule: WHen your government programs are implimented, it is from a sincere desire to equilibriate society and return to egalitarian virtue, but when the other guy's government programs are implimented it is from an evil desire for power. Unfortunately, whatever the motives, construed or otherwise, the
result is the same; massive power transferred to government enevitably
kills the population. The Soviet Union was evil. Period. The ghosts of millions starved and
slaughtered attest to it. To say that Islamism is a bigger evil is a -
thankfully - unproveable assertion because thanks to the present
administration Islamism will never rule hundreds of millions of people
and thus slaughter some significant percentage of them. As for the Europeans, to assert that America 'demonizes' them is to grossly ignore the history, that America: (1) saved them from themselves in WWII, (2) rebuilt them afterward (3) saved them from the Soviets. Remember, Europe is the birthplace of nationalist xenophobia, ethnocentrism, chauvinism and totalitarian ideologies of every stripe. France and Germany have no interest in democracy or freedom or the lives of individual Arabs. They have one interest: their own domination of their neighbors in the European Union. If the Germany/France/UN axis had been successful, Hussein would still be in power putting people in shredders. The neocons do not demonize the Europeans, the Europeans demonize themselves through their behavior. Posted by: Deema at December 25, 2003 05:03 PM | PERMALINK aimai I suggest you drop the "Bush regime" talk if you really wish to be taken seriously, since I appreciate your effort to talk to the 'other side' (that is myself and others you oppose). Communist utopians I'm sure had only the best interests of mankind at heart as they slaughtered millions of "class enemies" and "counter-revolutionaries". That's the problem with many utopianians, they seem to find it all too easy to construct their castles in the sky with a framework of human bones. Pesky humanity always seems to be an obstacle to the bright perfect dreams of the utopians. I recognize and acknowledge the basic decency in the vast bulk of humanity. But the the failure to recognize vast evil and then act to oppose it has led to the deaths of millions in the past. The nazis got the same benefit of the doubt which you now advocate giving to communists. Bad idea. Posted by: Brad at December 25, 2003 05:12 PM | PERMALINKOh come on Brad. So saying "Bush regime" is a synonym for "slaughtering millions of class enemies"? Is this not a parody of what this thread has been about? You
disagree, but the only way you can express that is to leap straight to
mass murder? Is there no ground between criticizing this government and
killing millions of innocent people? 'Oh come on Brad. So saying "Bush regime" is a synonym for "slaughtering millions of class enemies"?' Actually, if you run the numbers, Brad is exactly right. Bush and his policies will likely place a hardship on young workers, causing them to delay their faimilies, or forego familes all together. This hardship can be measured fairly accurately, we have 20-25 examples of various government spending policies and they correlate very well with the drop off in the ability of populations to reproduce themselves. When you examine the next clear measure of the US population change, you will find a 20-40% increase in immigration, and a 20-40% drop off in new families started by second generation and beyond, native American. This can be traced directly to the 30% increase in government consumption by Bush; and will be visible as a 10-15 million loss in new children, a slaughter by any other name is still a slaughter.
Matt. You assert the following: "This (demographic changes alluded to) can be traced directly to the 30% increase in government consumption by Bush" Now really. I'm no great defender of the Bush administration by any stretch of the imagination, but your assertion is questionable since it 1.) Conflates correlation with causality; and 2.) Is totally devoid of either factual or logical content. Sadly, in spite of the attractive anti-Bush angle, your assertion is absurd. I'd ask you to recant, but I know better. Merry Christmas Posted by: bobbyp at December 25, 2003 07:19 PM | PERMALINK"The Europe-haters of the Cold War sank into political oblivion..." Checked NRO lately? Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at December 25, 2003 07:45 PM | PERMALINKJoe Schmoe asked, "Is it okay for young boys to be taught to become suicide bombers?" Is it better to teach our boys to become homicide bombers, killing not a handful of innocents as they perish themselves on a bus or in a market, but thousands as they soar anonymously above and then fly away? "Do you non-neocons believe that is is okay for women in Saudi Arabia to be denied the right to drive, wear the clothing they wish to wear, and vote?" Why do you base your arguments on insulting false premises? Who to the left of neocons has advocated denying rights to Saudi women? What statements of theirs can you point to which would support your implied assertions? "Is it all right for people to be forced to live under monarchs who inherited their offices?" They can revolt. They would likely be shot and killed, of course--as would we if we revolted against the largely inherited power that installs our leaders. "THEY DO NOT CHOOSE TO LIVE AS THEY DO," you wrote. Choose, eh? Let's think about our choices. There are nearly 300 million people living in this country. Among them are many with dazzlingly brilliant minds, stupendous achievements, unusual capacities for understanding the complexities of science and human nature, inspiring communication skills and charisma, and devoted commitments to reducing hardships and suffering. They are not gods, not infallible, not perfect; but they glow with substance and goodness. I've had the good fortune to know a few such persons. Perhaps you have also. Among 300 million, there must be at least hundreds or thousands of them. Imagine them all lined up, complete with evidentiary summaries of the lives they've led. Imagine that we are choosing from among them who will be our next president. Now, try to imagine that Bush would even be near that group, much less be chosen from it as its most shining star--a leader among leaders. One must be at least thirty-five years old to be president. That minimum was chosen because it was believed that by that age people would have developed their character to a matured degree, whereby they would no longer be consumed with self-interest and pursuits of folly. Bush was fully five years past that point when his born again state purportedly caused him to swear off the lubricants for his alcoholism. Behind him were desertion from military duty and several failed businesses. But he didn't swear off the inherited wealth that had allowed him to prosper despite his utter failure at being responsible and productive. Thus, he was propelled into a governorship and the presidency on nothing more than a belief on the part of those with inherited wealth and power that he could be counted on to act in their interests. He has done that unfailingly. You talk about choice and democracy as if we have it. You talk about freedom in Iraq as if it were ours to offer. As surely as the subjects of monarchs, we are forced to live under leaders foisted upon us. "So long as Iraq has regular, free and fair elections, respects basic human rights, and recognizes the rule of law, I believe that it will be a PARADISE by Middle Eastern standards. Not by our standards, mind you, but it will be a thousandfold better than Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, or Egypt." Standards, schmandards. How good one's life is in Iraq or anywhere
(the U.S. included) depends on how much power one has, which is directly
related to one's wealth. Again you posit your false assumptions. No one I know in this ostensibly free society makes any such assumptions about the choices open to people in the Middle East. As for there being democracy in Iraq, that is laughable considering its absence in our own country. Our always imperfect and badly flawed democracy was all but erased in the 2000 election. In the years since then it has become so tenuous as to be little more than a dream as remote as the hopes of Iraqi citizens for true freedom. As to parties infuriated by references to the "Bush regime," your denial of reality has no limits, does it? Any president's administration is, by definition, a regime. If you want to get your hackles up, chew on the fact of the OPPRESSIVE Bush regime, no matter that such a description is also definitively accurate. Posted by: jayarbee at December 25, 2003 08:36 PM | PERMALINKbobbyp claims that we cannot correlate government growth with populations decimation. I am not sure why this continues to be doubted, and why this continually has to be shown with specific data. For posters who have not seen the data on this, all I can say is I am tired of having to continually demonstrate the obvious. But, here goes: In modern industrial societies the rate of population decline is directly corelated with over 85% accuracy with the relative size of government. The causality is simple. Young workers pay the bills. Young workers are also responsible for Now, the ignorant will say, but wait, taxes were reduced. It matter not whether the payment is via debt or taxes, to cost is immediate because the Communist Republicans have simply transferred 30% of the private sector resources that young families need and given these resources to government. These resources are gone, they are not available for new families. The data is available if you want references for, well... the fifth time on this blog. But I doubt that facts will make much of a difference when denial seems to be the order of the day.
aimai and Realish: Your essays were profound and inspiring. Posted by: poputonian at December 25, 2003 10:14 PM | PERMALINKHey, I go away for a day and a half, and the thread has 130+ posts that have gone NOWHERE! I started the thread off complaining about the moral relativism of the left... and they're still at it! We've even got one bozo who seems to find moral equivalence between the decrease in population growth among Western Europeans and the fact that Communist governments have killed 100,000,000 people! As if there were no real difference between a freely made choice whether to have a baby and the murder of a live human being! Classic!!! Posted by: Al at December 25, 2003 11:14 PM | PERMALINK"There's the basic contradiction all at once: Wolfowitz and the neocons seem to truly believe that they're motivated by an idealistic devotion to democracy, but at the same time they're willfully blind to the fact that their own Cold War history makes a shambles of that supposed devotion." Screw speculating what people "truly believe" or what "idealistic devotion" they are "motivated" by. [Though democracy's not bad.] "The very single-mindedness that neocons are famous for blinded them to the fact that they were contributing to the rise of an even bigger problem, one that had nothing at all to do with communism." Bigger than communism? It seems silly to minimize the new freedoms of Eastern Europe and many of the S.S.R.'s and even Russia itself. What is really the point here? "A more expansive approach to the Cold War would almost certainly have worked nearly as well ·after all, communism was rotting from within and the Soviet Union was never as strong as the neocons insisted it was ·and might have left room for a more democratically inclined Mideast policy as well." I don't really remember much about this "more expansive approach" and the debates about it. But the other approach worked and "almost certainly" and "might have" are pretty weak. I don't think any administration in my lifetime has proposed to promote democratic revolution in the Mideast. "But instead of learning this lesson the neocons have simply shifted their familiar monomania to the very fundamentalism they helped midwife into creation. Even the methods are familiar: proxy wars around the world, domino theories, demonization of the left, and an insistence on huge military buildups. The old hatred of Europe is back too, this time even more virulent than before." That said, those neo-cons are el diablo. "Having failed so spectacularly in the 80s to understand the consequences of a single-minded foreign policy, they are now asking us to give them another chance against a different enemy. But wouldn't it be better, instead, to try a cure that hasn't already been proven worse than the disease?" The Berlin Wall fell in 1989. How is that "failing so spectacularly in the 80s"? What does a war Democrat have to do to hear some common sense around here? Posted by: russ e at December 25, 2003 11:15 PM | PERMALINKNow this is good late night reading! Happy holidays and all that. Democracy was not planted in this country; it grew from the hearts and minds of those who experienced taxation without representation. It is reasonable to assert that democracies cannot be created from the outside, they must grow from within. Look at Indian and Pakistan as examples of imposed democracies not faring well and look at the former Soviet Union as a place of growing democracies following the collapse of communism from within. As with our friends in the UK, we seem to think we are the saviors of the poor savages in the east and seek to democratize them. Perhaps we should look at our own society and see the degree of dispossession eligible voters experience and the degree of control political parties and corporate dollars have on government here. Be careful America, one of those revolutions we hope to ignite and then direct may take place in out own backyards. Someone pointed out that Sadam was useful because he opposed the Islamic Fundamentalists that took over Iran. They “took over” from the Shah, a US political stooge installed by us. Much like the stooges in Kuwait, the Saudi “royal family”, and soon. Communism was a powerful force, because it put the power of the country into the hands of a single party. However, Islamic Fundamentalists, like Christianity in the middle ages, puts the power punishment in this world and eternal damnation in the hands of a very few religious leaders. Communism was to be respected. Islamic Fundamentalism is to be feared. I don’t remember many communists blowing themselves up in restaurants or on busses. When the Soviets had the bomb, we were all much safer than today. The excess tonnage of warheads on each side and the defensive alliances formed virtually assured that any nation launching a nuclear strike would suffer mightily. There could be no winner. However, the rise of Islamic Fundamentalism and marginalization of such groups as the Palestinians has created individuals willing to die simply in hopes of killing some of the enemy. This, coupled with the availability for purchase of nuclear weapons and material from former Soviet states or countries desperate for cash, such as North Korea or Pakistan, makes today’s world a heck of a lot more spooky. By the way, the whole Axis of Evil thing was convenient, but far off the mark. Clearly, the countries most dangerous to us (and others) are Pakistan, a ready source or nuclear know-how with a need to make some dough; several former Soviet Republic that has nuclear weapons and needs money, and South Africa, where chemical and biological weapons developed to control the black population under apartied are for sale. Oh, the most likely country to use nuclear weapons is Israel. Remember the 6-day war? Speaking of neocons, the term refers to a group of people who want conservatives to support them, but don’t really want to ascribe to many conservative principles. They find huge deficits, runaway spending, tax cuts that are really just loans for our kids to pay, and being the world’s policeman (nation building) to be desirable as long as it helps them get what they want. What do they want? That’s easy. Now that the Soviet Union is no longer, they want to prevent any individual country or group of countries from ever challenging the superiority of the US. Mostly, they want to control world markets, but the US armed forces are convenient tools to achieve their goal. They oppose and seek to undermine the European Union (use the UK as a wedge), OPEC, the UN, NATO, and more. Integral to the neocon approach is to accept that all individuals are not created equal; that some people are more important (worth more) than others. Hence, we suspend the count of civilian deaths in Iraq for clearly ludicrous reasons. Asserting that the Iraqi people are less important than we are has dangerous consequences. Taken to its logical extreme, we should have simply nuked Iraq to get Saddam out of business. If a few (hundred) thousand Iraqis died, so what? They are less important that we. OK, last point. We want some kind of quasi-democratic government in Iraq. However, we do not want it functioning until most of the businesses, land, mineral rights, and public agencies (water and oil) have been sold off to foreign investors and the tax and reinvestment structure are good for our friends wallets. The administration is allowing foreign investors to have 100% ownership of Iraqi businesses, encouraging the sale of Iraqi businesses and utilities, and allowing 100% of money earned to leave the country. Oh, they have also instituted a flat tax, Investor Haven, if you know anyone in the business. Gotta get some sleep. "[Moral Equivalence] A decrease in population growth among Western Europeans and the fact that Communist governments have killed 100,000,000 people" Hey Al, you dip. Let me clue you in. The fact that Western Europeans killed of 80 million of their population in a collective suicide via family strangulation is hardly different than the hard line communists who starved them. As a matter of fact, both parties engaged in their slaughter with very similiar big government good intentions. In one case, farm collectivization was considered something that would bring more abundance; in the other retirement and medical collectivization was going to bring abundance. And, oh, by the way, infertility and mal-nutrition are both considered significant medical maladies. And I hope you realize that increasing government by 30% under Bush is leftism by any other name, especially if you include his lunnatic idea about socializing religion. What a numbskull. Posted by: Matt Young at December 26, 2003 12:06 AM | PERMALINKAccording to Russ: "The Berlin Wall fell in 1989. How is that "failing so spectacularly in the 80s"?" Dunno what I am supposed to think, except that the fall of the Berlin wall is a peculiar result of policies that Russ supports? I doubt it. I suspect that the Polish labor movement had more to do with the fall of the Berlin wall than anything the US government did or didn't do. I also expect the desire for a good meal had quite a bit to do with it, as well as a desire to get better cars and improve the plumbing. If anything, by the way, running up $5 trillion in additional, and useless spending by Reagan probably allowed the Communistic block to last longer than they should have. Posted by: Matt Young at December 26, 2003 12:22 AM | PERMALINKAl Do you suppose the comments which ascribe all kinds of evil to neocons and also claim communism wasn't a menace are typical of the worldview of the common Dean voter? Posted by: Brad at December 26, 2003 01:07 AM | PERMALINKAl: You broached the topic of moral-relativism. What the heck did you think that would make people talk about, Martians? Brad: I am not saying neocons are evil -- simply that they have several personality traits which I find alarming, even dangerous. I do think many of them have good intentions. The legend of the Communist threat needs to be diminished. The Soviets were very dangerous, so don't try to pretend I said they weren't. But the American perception of thier danger was larger than the actual danger. That is very much worth talking about. And what's the point about the Dean thing? Posted by: Timothy Klein at December 26, 2003 01:20 AM | PERMALINKAh, the Dean thing. First get back to the "absolute evilness" of communism. Much of the damage the communists did to their population was indirect. The bulk of the deaths were via farm collectivization, in both Mao's China and Stalin's Russian empire. But, the collectivization, sprang from a theory, often heard in post war Europe and the US, that government takeover of industry results in economies of scale. An evil theory, but a theory born of ignorance not malice. Otherwise, hardline communists were evil in their direct killings, which was the second greatest bulk of deaths. How do I distinguish between the two? I distinguish between malice and ignorance. Which brings us back to modern America. We know, factually, and proven beyond any shadow of doubt, and proven from recent historical statistics that massive government growth causes population decimation. This has been know well before Bush's election. It may not have been known as widely during Reagan's time, but certaintly much economic theory pointed in that direction. In any event, all doubt was cleared up by the destruction of Europe's big government populations. And we have a counter example from the smaller government policy of Clinton/Gingrich. Since the last four years everyone knows the danger of massive government, ignorance is no excuse Which gets us back to Dean and Bush. Both advocate a policy that will bring nothing but devastation to the populations that support these policies, big government expansion proposed by Dean and implimented by Bush. At this point, ignorance is no longer an excuse, and both of these politicians are absolutely evil, there is no moral relevance here, they are evil in every sense that Lenin was evil. Sorry, but its too late to say, as Reagan said, "I just didn't know" Posted by: Matt Young at December 26, 2003 03:08 AM | PERMALINKThe problem with necons is that they are: a) impenetrably self-righteous. b) zealously faithful that "the ends justify the means" Not unlike the criminal mind, one provides false conviction and
motive, the other eliminates all restraint from doing the
unconscionable. Either one is a dangerous by itself. The combination of
the two is a disaster when combined with the opportunity inflict their
ideals. Matt: Could you please explain why wealthier families have fewer children? Surely this suggests some other explanation for our low birthrate than the burden imposed by government. "First get back to the "absolute evilness" of communism. Much of the damage the communists did to their population was indirect. The bulk of the deaths were via farm collectivization, in both Mao's China and Stalin's Russian empire. But, the collectivization, sprang from a theory, often heard in post war Europe and the US, that government takeover of industry results in economies of scale. An evil theory, but a theory born of ignorance not malice." Until you have enough evidence to know better. Then, sticking to your evil theory can only be a result of malice or criminal recklessness. "Ever since the Nixon administration there has been a relentless effort by the right-wing power mongers, in business, the media of all sorts, and the government to do everything possible to extract and extort and steal by every means possible legal and illegal any benefits average citizens might have earned through long determined struggle." So when was the money stolen? Unless by "extract and extort and steal" you mean "give them less booty extracted from the rich than before"? "We are, in addition, rewriting the economic rules for the country, breaking up and intimidating workers and preventing them from forming unions, proposing to sell of national property to foreign investors, and independently negotiating complex international deals like debt etc... that would, in an actual democracy (let alone in a counquered country) be left up to the actual Iraqi people to handle. " Of course we're rewriting the economic rules for the country, because the ones that Saddam had in place were counterproductive and injurious to the people. Having lots of "national property" is a problem, not an artifact to be preserved. And "democracy" is not the real goal. Liberty is. In some times and places, democracy is a mechanism that produces some degree of liberty for the people; even in the United States, democratic rule was deliberately limited in the hopes that a limited constitutional republic would be less likely to trample on our liberties while protecting them from invaders and criminals. A democracy in Iraq today would not produce much in the way of liberty, so we must embrace some other mechanism (i.e., US rule) until conditions are such that a democracy in Iraq would produce liberty. "Behind him [Bush] were desertion from military duty and several failed businesses. " "Desertion from duty" has been debunked in several places. As for a string of failed businesses, Bush shares that distinction with one Abraham Lincoln and one Harry Truman. "Thus, he was propelled into a governorship and the presidency on nothing more than a belief on the part of those with inherited wealth and power that he could be counted on to act in their interests. " Not to mention the belief of several million voters. Posted by: Ken at December 26, 2003 07:13 AM | PERMALINKKen '"Desertion from duty" has been debunked in several places.' There are documents showing his absence and also a form on which he checked that he did not want to go to Vietnam. 'As for a string of failed businesses, Bush shares that distinction with one Abraham Lincoln and one Harry Truman.' Neither of whom, as far as I know started off with money and family connections. 'Not to mention the belief of several million voters.' Actually far less than one-half of those who voted. Posted by: ____league at December 26, 2003 08:12 AM | PERMALINKThere is a poem by Yeats called 'The second coming' which explains things well; Turning and turning in the widening gyre In the case of Paul Wolfowitz, certainly he might make an
entertaining dinner companion but I suspect that history will judge him
rather more harshly. Firstly much is made in his favour of his
overarching desire to bring democracy to the Middle East and in
particular, Iraq. I think his idea of democracy was a Chelabi-led [a
fellow who has 0 credibility outside the Beltway and clearly a pitiful
amount of indigenous support] quisling government. So given that reality
[and the clear evidence that the longer we stay in Iraq the more
inimical to our interests the counterreaction is going to be-let us not
forget that the counterreaction to the Shah was the Iranian Ayatollah
revolution] that it is Sistani and his cadres that command majority
support, his rhetoric is either naive or duplicitious. Secondly, W gave
incredibly short shrift to General Shinseki when he said the occupation
footprint had to be sized three/four times higher. Shinseki is proving
correct and here again W was wrong. Dear _league: It is not polite to fib. You said - "Desertion from duty" has been debunked in several places.' You said: 'As for a string of failed businesses, Bush shares that
distinction with one Abraham Lincoln and one Harry Truman.' Neither of
whom, as far as I know started off with money and family connections. You said - 'Not to mention the belief of several million voters.' Actually far less than one-half of those who voted. Bush hater? Not me. I find him kind of irrelevant. I am no fan of the Kristols or Grover Norquist that essentially run the show. I am really no big fan of the Bush Family Fixer James Baker III, who helped shove him into office and is now twisting arms to reduce the Iraqi debt so oil money can flow to FOB rather than countries who have already provided goods and services to Iraq. W's first act as Pres was to sign a law rewarding his bifggest campaign contributor, a credit card giant, by tightening bankruptcy rules. Perhaps he should apply those to Iraq. Thanks! Posted by: c_scott at December 26, 2003 11:10 AM | PERMALINK"Bush hater? Not me. I find him kind of irrelevant. I am no fan of the Kristols or Grover Norquist that essentially run the show." Lots of blather over the holiday. Dean voters don't seem to spend the day cooking and eating turkey. The trouble with communism was the compulsion involved. The Shakers happily practiced communism in a harmless community. Sort of like religious orders. The Bolsheveks took over a huge country with a very small group of cold-eyed schemers. Communism made an effective ideology to control large populations by small elites. The Islamic fanatics have had 20 years to dominate the educational systems of middle east Islamic countries. They prepared the ground. The Saudis are clearly contributers but the harm this caused was not seen until 9-11. Population statistics probably track tax rates. As taxes rise, people have fewer children. Of course, the other force in less developed countries is the change in child mortality and the change from agriculture to other industries. The welfare state seems to offer an alternative to fathers with a rise in single motherhood. This is best seen in the Scandanavian countries. Single mothers are also the most loyal Democrats. Reagan had a lot more to do with the fall of the Soviet Union than the left wants to admit. He showed them that we were not going to let them win. The Clinton response to the embassy attacks in Africa and the withdrawal from Somalia gave the impression that we would let them push us out of the mid east. In all fairness, Reagan gave mixed signals with the withdrawal from Lebanon. Still, Iraq is a lot about changing an image of the US as a helpless giant. Hitler thought we were "mongrels" and the Japanese thought we were merchants, sort of like Napoleon's comment about the English. Vietnam was a consequence of decisions made in 1945 to let the French try to regain their pride, and empire, in spite of their abysmal behavior as Vichy. In Indochina, for example, they collaborated with the Japanese. Turned over US servicemen who escaped the Philippines to them. The domino theory was partially vaild. Laos was indefensible and Cambodia would never have survived as a free state once SVN was gone. Our war in VN may have saved the Philippines and Indonesia. This is a theory that cannot be proven one way or another. I don't know that I support it. We would probably be better off if we had supported Ho Chi Minh in 1945, as the OSS wanted to do. Interesting sidelight in "Paris 1919". Ho was a dishwasher in a Paris hotel during the postwar conferences and tried to interest the Americans in freedom for Indochina. Didn't get far. Posted by: Mike K at December 26, 2003 12:21 PM | PERMALINKAs for the Europeans, to assert that America 'demonizes' them is to grossly ignore the history, that America: (1) saved them from themselves in WWII, *sigh* I run into this way too often, but let me start again - first of all, I fail to see why it's so important to focus on stuff that happened over 50 years ago, when the whole world was different, and the politics even more so. But if we have to do that, then let me bring to your attention that the major players in bringing Germany down was Britain, which kept up the fight even when no-one else was left (you know, before USA joined the war) and Communist Russia/Soviet. The dept that is owed to those two countries, in terms of fighting Nazism, is much greater than the dept owed to USA. Not that I feel we shouldn't be thankful for what USA did, but I never hear anyone say that we should be forever thankful to Russia/USSR. (3) saved them from the Soviets. There is still some debate about that, as this thread shows, but I for one appreciate the role of USA during the Cold War. Remember, Europe is the birthplace of nationalist xenophobia, ethnocentrism, chauvinism and totalitarian ideologies of every stripe. As are many other places. Unfortunately it seems to be in human nature to think of such ideologies. France and Germany have no interest in democracy or freedom or the lives of individual Arabs. They have one interest: their own domination of their neighbors in the European Union. You obviously have no clue of the internal power games in Europe. If Germany wanted, they would be very much in their right to demand a much more dominating role in the EU. They have covered the cost for most of the existence, and have been willing to listen to the small countries before making decisions that mght affect the EU, also on a national level. It's natural that the large countries Germany, France, Spain, Italy etc. are going to have a more dominant role than the small countries, but power-wise the populations of the small countries are over-representated in the EU. France is heavily involved in trying to protect the democracies in
North Africa, so that fundamental Muslims don't take over the power.
They might not be involved down to the individual level, but they are
doing what they can. If the Germany/France/UN axis had been successful, Hussein would still be in power putting people in shredders. Does this even make sense to yourself? The EU wanted an UN-based enforced inspection of Iraq for WMD, and in case that any were found, they were very willing to invade. Saddam Hussein as a person, or dictator, was never really relevant to the debate back then - remember Bush's argument for invading? (hint: overthrowing Saddam Hussein wasn't it). The neocons do not demonize the Europeans, the Europeans demonize themselves through their behavior. If this is demonizing ourselves, then I guess we can live with it (oh, and FYI, there are some Europeans living outside France and Germany). Posted by: Kristjan Wager at December 26, 2003 12:29 PM | PERMALINKPopulation statistics probably track tax rates. As taxes rise, people have fewer children Mike, as logical this might sound, this simply is not the case. Italy has by no means the highest tax rate, but they have Europe's lowest birth rate. It seems that urbanization and problems with getting places to live are the major contributors to this trend. Also there seems to be a connection between a higher social security (be it paid out of your own pocket or through the state) and a lower birth rate. Some theorize that it might have something to do with the fact that fewer kids are needed to keep you fed when you are retired. Posted by: Kristjan Wager at December 26, 2003 12:34 PM | PERMALINKthe soviet union was a large, industrialized, antagonistic country with an enormous stockpile of nuclear weapons. as such it was appropriate for the us to treat it as a security threat. iraq did not pose a threat to the us and all resources used to "disarm" it were wasted. wasting resources on fake threats is dangerous. Posted by: Olaf glad and big at December 26, 2003 12:47 PM | PERMALINKI agree with Kristian above about tax rates and social security. On the other hand, the advent of the two earner family has had an effect on family size. Some of this is feminism and the opportunities that women have now. I teach medical students, more than half of whom are women. We talk about career options. Most are concerned about balancing children and career. Second concern is the high divorce rate of women physicians. Another huge factor is the pill ! And abortion, which has become the birth control method of choice in places like Japan. An interesting phenomenon is the role of fertility treatment in mid-thirties women of high income. One young wife of a friend told me a month ago that, if she were not pregnant after 6 months of marriage, she would start fertility treatment. All her friends felt the same way. They now have ultrasound parties where everyone shares her ultrasound tapes ! Many mid-thirty women are having their entire family at one time with multiple births. All those women pushing two seater strollers are members of the same club. I don't know how prevalent this is in Europe. My comment was far too brief to cover all the factors but I still say that, all else being equal, high tax rates tend to decrease family size. People worry about the cost of education and all the other stuff. Plus they like those 84 inch TVs and BMWs. Social security is a factor both ways; taxes were low 50 years ago, both FICA and income. We forget how low they were. Inflation made them far more onerous. Posted by: Mike K at December 26, 2003 01:49 PM | PERMALINKAgain, back to the issue of the decimation of populations in big government nations: Italy - Has the highest government burden in Europe according to the economic freedom index, and they have the lowest fertility rate (and one of the worse immigration problems) Two income earners - This has nothing to do with the pill, MTV, or feminism. The two inconme family rose in exact corelation with the rise in government consumption of the economy. Families today must bear the burden of a government that has alomost doubled its share of the economy since 1958, the year that Kevin Drum thinks things got better.
high tax rates tend to decrease family size. People worry about the cost of education and all the other stuff. Mike, you overlook the fact that in most countries with high tax rates, stuff like education is free (or rather paid through taxes). Matt, are you even remotely aware of how poor people used to live in Europe? We are not speaking two-income families, we are talking familes where everyone, down to the kids, had to work for it to survive. America wasn't much better - read Kirk Douglas' biography The Ragman's Son to get a perspective of this. Has the highest government burden in Europe according to the economic freedom index, This is meaningless to me - I haven't got a clue what they base their
numbers on, and frankly, given the name of the index, I don't really
care. And why the focus on immigration? The immigration to Europe is no
worse than the immigration to America, yet you seem very preoccupied
about how Europe is being overrun. Most of the immigration you see in
Europe is between European countries. Kevin: Great column! Apparently you struck a nerve. Posted by: Scot D at December 26, 2003 03:14 PM | PERMALINKAl, How is it possible for moral relativism NOT to be a part of a successfully functioning liberal democracy? If you want to avoid moral relativism, I suggest you move to Afghanistan and help the Taliban in their current effort to regain power. Mike K, I don't think Reagan was unimportant in bringing about the end of Communism. But I think a large part of Reagan's success was his ability to recognize that Gorbachev's overtures needed to be taken seriously, agains the advice of many of his advisers and intellectual supporters. Indeed, as I mentioned above, neocons like Norman Podhoretz still viewed perestroika as a sinister Leninist ruse as late as 1989/90. The neocons greatly overestimated the strength of the Soviet Union in the 1970s and 1980s, betraying their over-reliance on the importance of ideology in shaping human affairs (ie that Communism was so alluring that it could really brainwash large segments of the world - indeed, many of the neocons were once seduced by the promise of Marxism), as well as betraying a certain insecurity in their own faith in America. Clearly, the Soviet Union was falling apart internally at the same time the neocons were forming the committee on the present danger. Deema, That you think the US alone won world war II is clear evidence of a misguided soul. Of course, the US was instrumental, but so was the Soviet Union (ever heard of the Battle of Stalingrad) and Britain (Battle of Britain?) - whenever conservatives trot out this tired talking point, I suggest that they peruse any decent historical account of WWII. And to the fellow who maid the claim that Europeans demonize themselves - if this is the case, than why is the US generally hated in the third world, while Europe is viewed much more ambivalently? Ben P Posted by: Ben P at December 26, 2003 04:06 PM | PERMALINKBen P and Kristjan Wager Re: The role of the USSR in WWII I'm always kind of amused at the tremondous historical blind spot
demonstrated by many when it comes to the behaviour of the Soviets and
international communism during WWII. Unlike WWI when Germany was starved into submission by British naval blockade, the Soviets provided all the vital foodstuffs and oil resources the Germans lacked at the start of WWII. The more successful the Germans were, the more supplies were freely offered to Germany by the Soviets. Besides vital resources, the Soviets were also military allies. The Germans and the Soviets invaded Poland together, dividing the nation between them. Plus the Soviets were granted a zone of dominance where the Soviets were free to invade and occupy many of the small nations bordering the Soviet Union such as Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Finland. The Soviets also handed marching orders to communist parties in other countries such as France and America to conduct propaganda efforts discouraging anti-nazi policy. In fact there is some evidence to indicate French communist party efforts to sabotage the French defenses against the German invasion of 1940. It wasn't until the Germans invaded the Soviet Union in 1941 that world communism did a sudden about face and became anti-Nazi. Until Hitler stabbed Stalin in the back, Stalin and his puppets around the world were the greatest allies of Nazi Germany. I know many make excuses for Stalin's alliance with Germany. How it was all a calculated move to save international socialism until it was strong enough to stand up to Germany and all that baloney. But the fact remains that without the Soviets help, Germany might not have overrun Europe in the first 18 months of WWII. Without the backing of the Soviets, Hitler might have even delayed risking war with Britain and France. There may have never been an invasion of Poland by Germany which was the final straw that led France and Britain to declare war on Germany. No Soviet alliance with Germany -- no WWII. Posted by: Brad at December 26, 2003 05:03 PM | PERMALINKEducation is free in many high-tax countries but in many it is also of poor quality (also true of non-science US education in many cases). Some of these universities have 100,000 students per campus. Reagan did much more than respond to Gorbachev. The reason for perestroika was the realization by Gorby that the USSR was losing. Reagan turned him down at Reykjavik when he tried to bargain away the anti-missile program that scared him to death. The Soviets did support the Nazis and, without that help, the Germans might not have invaded France. In an interesting comment elsewhere, someone wrote that Stalin doomed his conquest of Europe by insisting on a second front. Of course, he realized how close to losing he was even if leftist historians don't. Posted by: MIke K at December 26, 2003 05:40 PM | PERMALINKEducation is free in many high-tax countries but in many it is also of poor quality (also true of non-science US education in many cases). Some of these universities have 100,000 students per campus. Mike, these kind of numbers are meaningless. The University of
Copenhagen is quite large, but is spread all over Copenhagen. It's just a
question of how you define the University. Brad, thanks for the history lesson, but I'm well aware of the
history of USSR during WWII. That doesn't mean that USSR wasn't
instrumental in the collapse of Nazi Germany. Matt, you've got a point, try not to over play it. Condoms and Zykon B are not morally equivalent, even if their net effects on overall population numbers might work our the same. I think the common link between high government spending and personal wealth both reducing fertility, is whether people percieve a personal need to have children who will support them in their old age. That those children do have to be there, no matter who has them, is a given. But welfare programs make the next generation a commons, causing people to under-invest in it. Posted by: Brett Bellmore at December 27, 2003 08:00 AM | PERMALINKMy, this thread sure has taken some odd turns. Matt: Government spending is a higher per centage of GNP in wealthier nations, therefore government spending causes wealth, right? Or how about this one: Birth rates are lower in industrialized nations as compared to developing nations. Therefore, industrialization causes lower birth rates. Both of these assertions have the same degree of validity as your central thesis, which is to say, absolutely none. The Hitler-Stalin Pact. I urge Brad and Mike K. to read some good diplomatic history books on the 1930's and the sequence of events leading to WWII. Take the ideological blinders off, please. Thanks so much for your attention to these matters. Posted by: bobbyp at December 28, 2003 09:47 AM | PERMALINKMaybe Al would like to define "moral relativism" and reveal the derivation of the term, and its purpose. Posted by: moses at January 3, 2004 11:04 AM | PERMALINKImitation is the sincerest form of television. Posted by: Deangelis Andrea at May 2, 2004 03:16 PM | PERMALINKTo be poor without bitterness is easy; to be rich without arrogance is hard. Posted by: Birnbaum Daniel at May 3, 2004 02:25 AM | PERMALINKGratitude is merely the secret hope of further favors. Its rather interesting for me.. http://puppy-sale.healz.com/ The greatest administrators do not achieve production through constraints and limitations. They provide opportunities. Posted by: Walker Tyrone at June 30, 2004 07:03 AM | PERMALINKasian sex | sexy bikini | black porn | nude cheerleader | transsexuals | ed powers | mature sex | outdoor sex | pregnant sex | cumshots | fat sex | gay porn | interracial sex | hardcore movies Posted by: mikes apartment at June 30, 2004 07:01 PM | PERMALINKBest XXX Sites - |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
