A couple of weeks after Peter Beinart's discussion of the future of liberalism appeared, Franklin Foer has published a sort of parallel piece on the fate of neoconservatism. I think one of his hyptheses, that the neoconservative impasse over Iran is a manifestation of the end of any cohesive neoconservative movement, may be a bit strong, but in general he is right on. The troubles on the ground in Iraq cannot be separated from the neocons losing the war of ideas re American foreign policy; namely, that we could easily fight a new type of war on the cheap, that our brand of democracy would be easily exportable in the Muslim world, that Western imports such as Chalabi and Karzai would be embraced in their respective 'home' countries, etc. Neoconservative foreign policy (a.k.a. neoconservatism) is being seen for the vacant promise that it has always been. The article ends on a priceless note: many neocons are insisting that there was never really any such thing as neoconservatism to begin with, that it was a creation of the media and the paranoid left. Hmm, maybe the death knell has sounded after all.
There is one aspect of neoconservatism which has always been assumed to be true among writers on the topic, and it is something that I pretty strongly disagree with: namely, that there is a sharp dichotomy between realists on the one hand and idealists or democratic globalists on the other. When people refer to neoconservatism's Trotskyite roots, they are thinking in terms of democratic globalism, analogous to Trotsky's global revolution. Democracy should be seeded everywhere by the American hand. In contrast, the realists believe that the U.S. should only strive to create democracies where the situation is compatible with our strategic interests. Here's the rub: I don't think the former camp truly exists. It's a long time since Irving Kristol and Company's 'road to Damascus' experience, and more is made of the Trotskyite idealism than should be. I'm not so cynical as to say that neoconservatives are all realists to the extent that they are only concerned with, for example, petroleum interests, but they are far from idealistic crusaders. To them, democracy should be seeded where and when it can help American interests in general, but not solely because it does help American interests. It's too bad, because their ineptitude could more easily be explained by calling them pie-in-the-sky idealists, but I truly think there are few of those in the neocon camp.
Charles Krauthammer, a self-described realist, derided U.S. intervention in Bosnia as "social work," and I think that the apparent neocon disinterest in the Sudan shows how aligned most of them are with Krauthammer's realism, despite the incessant debates about the neocon division. There is maybe a 1% faction of idealists among them.
Wednesday, December 29, 2004
2004 Political Essays
Ethics
I just really liked the title of this New York Times article. When the G.O.P. regained control of the House after decades of Dem control, they rode in among claims that they were going to clean the place up and be the party of reform. It's been said already, but it's worth reiterating upon reading this article that Washington conquered the G.O.P. rather than vice-verse.
Tsunami
My old friend Joe Bridge and his girlfriend Lisa are in India at the moment, and you can read their first-hand account of the tsunami at their weblog.
Monday, December 27, 2004
Yushchenko
Victory is his. Besides my obvious pleasure at seeing a pro-Western, pro-reform candidate win in the Ukraine election, my other reaction is a strong curiosity as to how this will affect Russo-American relations. Too soon to tell, but it must chafe Putin that the heavy international monitoring left little room for trickery.
Flight 93
It seems like too much is being made of Rumsfeld's recent quote while visiting Iraq, regarding the downing of Flight 93 on 9/11:
Here's what Rumsfeld said Friday: "I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten – indeed the word 'terrorized' is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be."
My first thought was that if the plane had been shot down, that Rumsfeld would be equating the military pilots with terrorists carrying out bombings in Mosul and Spain, which is certainly not what he was intending. He meant the people who had hijacked the plane, of course. The suggestion of the article cited above is apparently that his reference of terrorists shooting down the plane could be a slip of the tongue caused by the supposed fact that the plane had been shot down by the military. This seems like a stretch not only because it is reading so much into a single quote, but also because the evidence surrounding the events of 9/11 does not support the idea that Flight 93 was shot down. The 9/11 Commission looked at the evidence and concluded that this was not the case. Cheney admitted that authorization had been given, albeit too late. This leads to an essential point: the administration was willing to admit that it had given the authorization, and had they used the authorization then I am convinced that they would level with the American people about it, as most people would find it completely understandable that a single plane be shot down to avoid potential catastrophe in DC. I give the administration the benefit of the doubt in this respect.
Here's what Rumsfeld said Friday: "I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten – indeed the word 'terrorized' is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be."
My first thought was that if the plane had been shot down, that Rumsfeld would be equating the military pilots with terrorists carrying out bombings in Mosul and Spain, which is certainly not what he was intending. He meant the people who had hijacked the plane, of course. The suggestion of the article cited above is apparently that his reference of terrorists shooting down the plane could be a slip of the tongue caused by the supposed fact that the plane had been shot down by the military. This seems like a stretch not only because it is reading so much into a single quote, but also because the evidence surrounding the events of 9/11 does not support the idea that Flight 93 was shot down. The 9/11 Commission looked at the evidence and concluded that this was not the case. Cheney admitted that authorization had been given, albeit too late. This leads to an essential point: the administration was willing to admit that it had given the authorization, and had they used the authorization then I am convinced that they would level with the American people about it, as most people would find it completely understandable that a single plane be shot down to avoid potential catastrophe in DC. I give the administration the benefit of the doubt in this respect.
Friday, December 24, 2004
Geography
Rumsfeld got in a few jabs at the press while visiting with troops in Iraq, when asked why the media coverage of the war seems to be so negative (which, by the way, might be due to an unnecessary war that has unleashed months of mayhem with no end in sight). His response:
"I think the country does understand that we lost 3,000 people on September 11th and the fact that those people were operating in this part of the world ... You've seen the evil up close and personal, you know the danger that this poses."
By "this area of the world" he must mean east of France and west of Thailand. And how big of him to note that he "thinks" that Americans know we lost 3000 people on September 11th.
"I think the country does understand that we lost 3,000 people on September 11th and the fact that those people were operating in this part of the world ... You've seen the evil up close and personal, you know the danger that this poses."
By "this area of the world" he must mean east of France and west of Thailand. And how big of him to note that he "thinks" that Americans know we lost 3000 people on September 11th.
2004
Media Matters has a helpful look back at 2004, from the vantage of the nuttiest of the nutty right-wingers. And in the spirit of Christmas, enjoy these warm, yuletide thoughts from the Very Revolting Pat Robertson. My eggnog suddenly tastes bitter.
Wednesday, December 22, 2004
Gregoire
Two victories for Gregoire today: even without the 700+ disputed votes, she would apparently win by 8 votes. Second, the state Supreme Court has ordered that the 700+ votes be included in the recount, votes that will most likely favor her. An earlier version of the P-I article had a quote from a state GOP spokeswoman saying that Gregoire would not be a legitimate governor if she won the recount by such a small margin. Funny, they were willing to declare Rossi the winner when he had a forty-odd margin of victory. After the article was updated at 4:13 PST that quote is no longer in the article. One valuable outcome of this election has been learning how ethically-challenged the WA GOP is. Concern for disenfranchisement? Nope. Intent to honor the outcome of a democratic election? Nope. I'm curious if the local newsstations will finally stop referring to Rossi as "governor-elect." He never was, by the way.
Conversion
This is an example of me being a bit nitpicky, but anyhow, I don't understand why newpapers on both sides of the Atlantic regularly do unnecessary alterations to stories that come from overseas. This recent story of the Northern Ireland bank heist is a perfect example. All American news outlets are reporting that "$39 million was stolen," when in fact it was 20 million pounds sterling that was stolen. If you are discussing somebody's wealth or a company's net worth, then I can understand converting it to the currency of the country that the newspaper serves, because it is easier for readers to understand the amount and all that is important is the value anyway. But in this case, the amount stolen should refer to the actual items stolen, which in this case were pounds. So unless the thieves stole 20 million pounds from the vault and then walked over to the bureau de change and enquired as to the conversion rates, it's a mistake to be referring to $39 million being stolen. You might as well say that they stole 39 million Lotto tickets or 39 million copies of the NYT.
I've noticed an analogous trend in British newspapers, wherein quotes from American officials are often peppered with Britishisms that you know weren't in the original quotes.
I've noticed an analogous trend in British newspapers, wherein quotes from American officials are often peppered with Britishisms that you know weren't in the original quotes.
8 Votes
Democrats who have been receiving daily recount tallies are claiming that Gregoire will win by 8 votes . The state GOP is saying that they reserve all their options if the original result is overturned (i.e. they won't accept Gregoire winning the recount without a fight).
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
Washington Recount
State GOP chairman Chris Vance has basically taken to character assassination in his attempt to disenfranchise hundreds of voters whose ballots were mistakenly rejected during the first tabulation and recount. He has said things along the lines of "I am trying very hard not to call King County election officials 'liars'," and hints that they might be pulling off vote fraud at the worst, and in the least are changing the rules midway through the election process. He's making these personal attacks because there is little legal wiggle-room for trying to disenfranchise voters, and the best he can do at this point is to spread conspiracies about deliberate, partisan fraud. Now we find that it is not unusual for counties to include ballots that were rejected the first time around. Isn't this precisely what recounts are for? It is actually hilarious that Vance would argue otherwise, for recounts exist precisely to make sure that the process was carried out thoroughly and fairly. What he wants to ensure at all costs is that the result doesn't change from the first time around. What then, Mr. Vance, is the point?
Monday, December 20, 2004
Iraq Arrangements
I haven't seen any other blogs or commentators pick up on this thread from yesterday's Meet the Press, but Richard Lugar's response to Tim Russert's question about the impending Iraq elections was a bit disturbing. Russert suggested that the Iraq elections might result in an Iran-sponsored Shiite government that ends being more theocracy than democracy:
So the United States loses 1,200 men, 10,000 injured, and the Iraqis vote for someone who is sponsored by the Iranian government next door.
Here is the first part of Lugar's response:
SEN. LUGAR: Well, that column is joined by others who feel that somehow we are not sufficiently involved in a politically savvy way in trying to arrange the election, the list, how it may come out. Now, others are writing -- equally distinguished columnists -- that we already are deep in the weeds, that the CIA is manipulating the various parties and so forth. Both cannot be right at the same time, and the knowledge about what we are doing is interesting.
Lugar doesn't give, and can't give, a direct answer as to the extent we are manipulating the process, but if the likely outcomes of the election are a) an Iran-sponsored Shiite theocracy, or b) an American pick, then it is not going to be unsettling merely for those who anticipated a "Jeffersonian-Madison" type of democracy, but for those who expected fair democracy at all.
So the United States loses 1,200 men, 10,000 injured, and the Iraqis vote for someone who is sponsored by the Iranian government next door.
Here is the first part of Lugar's response:
SEN. LUGAR: Well, that column is joined by others who feel that somehow we are not sufficiently involved in a politically savvy way in trying to arrange the election, the list, how it may come out. Now, others are writing -- equally distinguished columnists -- that we already are deep in the weeds, that the CIA is manipulating the various parties and so forth. Both cannot be right at the same time, and the knowledge about what we are doing is interesting.
Lugar doesn't give, and can't give, a direct answer as to the extent we are manipulating the process, but if the likely outcomes of the election are a) an Iran-sponsored Shiite theocracy, or b) an American pick, then it is not going to be unsettling merely for those who anticipated a "Jeffersonian-Madison" type of democracy, but for those who expected fair democracy at all.
Saturday, December 18, 2004
Half of Us
The closing of the American mind:
Nearly half of all Americans believe the U.S. government should restrict the civil liberties of Muslim Americans, according to a nationwide poll.
The survey conducted by Cornell University also found that Republicans and people who described themselves as highly religious were more apt to support curtailing Muslims' civil liberties than Democrats or people who are less religious.
Update: It reminds me of this .
Several politicians — including Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a liberal MP of Somali origin and van Gogh’s co-producer — were forced into hiding after death threats from Islamic extremists, and a poll revealed that 40% of the Dutch now hope their 900,000 Muslim neighbours no longer feel at home. Some 80% want tougher policies against immigrants.
Nearly half of all Americans believe the U.S. government should restrict the civil liberties of Muslim Americans, according to a nationwide poll.
The survey conducted by Cornell University also found that Republicans and people who described themselves as highly religious were more apt to support curtailing Muslims' civil liberties than Democrats or people who are less religious.
Update: It reminds me of this .
Several politicians — including Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a liberal MP of Somali origin and van Gogh’s co-producer — were forced into hiding after death threats from Islamic extremists, and a poll revealed that 40% of the Dutch now hope their 900,000 Muslim neighbours no longer feel at home. Some 80% want tougher policies against immigrants.
GOP History
Let's see how proud the party of Lincoln is regarding their supposed favorite son. They failed to carry the mantle of Lincoln for most of the 20th century, so what's to suggest that they would do so now?
Thursday, December 16, 2004
Gregoire vs. Rossi
King County's Canvassing Board has decided to include 573 mistakenly rejected ballots in the present recount. Here's the position of the state GOP chairman :
"At some point it just lacks credibility that they keep finding ballots," Vance said. "None of these ballots should be counted."
I'm not sure that the party wants to take a pro stance on the issue of opportunistic rejection of people's voting rights, but I'll let them hang themselves.
"At some point it just lacks credibility that they keep finding ballots," Vance said. "None of these ballots should be counted."
I'm not sure that the party wants to take a pro stance on the issue of opportunistic rejection of people's voting rights, but I'll let them hang themselves.
The Rumsfeld List
It's the hottest thing this Christmas season, and everyone's clambering to get on the Rumsfeld List: the non-partisan list of high-profile politicians calling Rumsfeld inept and undeserving of a second term in his position. These are the ones I'm aware of:
John McCain
Chuck Hagel
Norman Schwarzkopf
Joe Biden
Jon Corzine
Susan Collins
Trent Lott
William Kristol
John McCain
Chuck Hagel
Norman Schwarzkopf
Joe Biden
Jon Corzine
Susan Collins
Trent Lott
William Kristol
Monday, December 13, 2004
Richard Clarke
The Kerik soap opera sure gets more entertaining by the minute. McClellan says that they will be interviewing (and vetting) several people for the position, and it got me thinking about who the best choice is. No doubt about it, it's this guy - and he doesn't have a prayer. After reading through the 9/11 Commission Report, Clarke comes off seeming like an astoundingly solitary hero in the very early days of the fight against al-Qaeda. He was eerily prescient about the group as far back as the early 90's and experienced frustration after frustration as those around him didn't take the threats as seriously as he did. In a perfect world, one where presidents are big enough to take a little criticism and learn, Clarke would be the new homeland security secretary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)