~ BANNED IN EUROPE! ~
| My Webpage
| |
"The stream of Time, irresistible, ever moving, carries off and bears away all things that come to birth and plunges them into utter darkness, both deeds of no account and deeds which are mighty and worthy of commemoration. . .Nevertheless, the science of History is a great bulwark against the stream of Time; in a way it checks this irresistible flood, it holds in a tight grasp whatever it can seize floating on the surface and will not allow it to slip away into the depths of Oblivion. "
- Anna Comnena (1083-1153), The Alexiad
"I have taken all knowledge to be my province."
- Francis Bacon, 1592
Friday, October 17, 2003
The Morality of French Foreign Policy
The high moral principles that are the foundation upon which the pillar of French foreign policy rests were on display again today.
Yes, we need to listen more and take to heart what the French say, for they are indeed more civilized and sophisticated in these delicate matters.
A good article applying Mead's "four schools" to current events and economic visions. (Via Instapundit). This part is particularly apt to what I've been posting about:
On the other hand, Mead warns that "Jeffersonians can do as they did in the 1930's... rest in denial concerning the true extent of the nation's vital interests... confine themselves to sniping at the moral inconsistencies, blunders, and costs of American foreign policy..." In that case, he says, they will marginalize themselves and their potential contribution will be lost.
It seems to me that the Jeffersonians have gone off-track in exactly the way that Mead feared. If they align the Democratic Party with our opponents in the UN, then as far as I am concerned, the best thing that can happen to this country would be an overwhelming Republican victory next year.
But the economic stuff is good too and, like Arnold Kling, I'm not a Jacksonian on economics. I wouldn't say I'm a Libertarian, but I'm not a economic Jacksonian either. Anyhow, check it out.
Only tangentially related (I could strain things and say that it's related because Zell is a Jacksonian) is this item on Zell Miller's book, which I plan to aquire and read (link also via Instapundit). Oh, and do also scroll up to the item on Barbour. "When will they ever learn? When will they, ever learn. . ."
No major post this morning for you all to read, but there is a transcript of a Think Tank with Ben Wattenberg episode that goes into the background of the polls that were conducted in Iraq recently, and an interesting discussion of how things are going.
Basically, if you haven't been watching Think Tank, you should be. It's regularly one of the better programs on PBS. (Ok, that might sound like damning with faint praise, like saying "one of the more balanced programs on Radio Pacifica", meaning its only a shade less radical and Marxist than the others. But Think Tank is really good: I'll say it's one of the better analysis programs on TV. . .again, damning with faint praise I guess. Just watch it, ok?)
Urges Member States to contribute assistance under this United Nations mandate, including military forces, to the multinational force [and] Appeals to Member States and the international financial institutions to strengthen their efforts to assist the people of Iraq in the reconstruction and development of their economy, and urges those institutions to take immediate steps to provide their full range of loans and other financial assistance to Iraq, working with the Governing Council and appropriate Iraqi ministries
So I'm wondering now when the people who have castigated America for "refusing to cooperate with the UN" will turn around and castigate countries ("our allies") who refuse to cooperate with this request for assistance, including military forces. Oh, wait, that's right: their decision not to is Amerika's Fault; they bear no responsibility for anything themselves.
Iran has made noises of cooperation with IAEA inspectors. We'll wait to see if their deeds fulfill this.
Regarding this post on Miller's book and the widespread attitude among even sensible Liberals that the military is the first, last, and always place to cut when looking for money and programs to get $$ from, even in wartime, Robert writes (heh1), via e-mail:
Excellent observation about the left's tendency to cut defense spending regardless of the circumstances. I have a theory about that: Back in grade school, we were taught that governments have to choose between "guns or butter" -- defense or The People. It doesn't seem to occur to them that the guns might be necessary to defend The People against those who want to do them harm, or that all the "butter" in the world won't stop madmen.
Yes, you're right. I remember that, myself. It comes in the following context:
The lesson of the LBJ Administration is that you can't have both guns and butter. LBJ tried to fight the Vietnam War at the same time he was enacting his Great Society programs. The Great Society was crippled (so the lesson goes) because of the heavy cost of the Vietnam War. This then forms part of the "Lessons of Vietnam" - wars aren't worth fighting because we Americans can't win anyhow (Quagmire! Iraq-nam! Pay no price, shirk every burden!), and it diverts funds from vital social programs aimed at addressing America's priorities here at home. Every dollar spent on the military detracts from what we're able to spend on schools. I don't know if you've seen them, but I have: one of the more popular bumpers tickers is something to the affect that "wouldn't it be great to live in a world where the schools had all the money they needed and they had to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber" (this post for education spending and more here for those wanting to debate that).
This attitude shows up in the current debate on funding for the troops in Iraq: on the one hand they say we should repeal some of the tax cuts to pay for it, and then the very same people saying we need to repeal the tax cuts to pay for the war want to divert the money for use in domestic social programs. So in essence their argument forms a bait-and-switch: their platform, what they would do in a perfect world if they got what they wanted, is repeal the tax cuts on the grounds of the costs of the war and then spend the money on domestic social programs - not the military (that should be cut, as Miller says).
Then they wonder why Americans don't view them as being as strong as the Republicans on matters of defense and national security. Go figure. But maybe they'll come back to seriousness on matters of national security once they aren't dancing to the tune of the Left. After all, though this is a general mindset, not all Liberals or all Democrats lack seriousness on defense issues. This is a widespread attitude and a troubling one, but though it's currently the prevailing attitude there are Liberals who stand against it. They need to be encouraged and supported in overcoming this pernicious perspective.
1I just noticed that was a play-on-words of "Robert Wright", that's all. 8-)
Also, the usual stuff on how open-minded and tolerant of different views our university professorate is (you know, the Good People, the intelligent ones who are open to differing points of views that we keep hearing so much about).
Unexpected people are oddly enthusiastic (this one too) about the latest Krugman hit-job, in all its misleading magnificence. A good rebuttal roundup is out. One of the people behind the "Damocles" model Krugman invokes to support his assertions (Russell Jones) says this about Krugman's screed:
Krugman can be somewhat twisted and bitter on occasion. This analytic tool was not intended to be applied to developed countries. Damocles gave him an in to write a piece he wanted to write. He's making a career out of this kind of thing.
Which is about right. Krugman has, unfortunately, corrupted himself. He's no longer reputable even on economic issues. Which is sad.
In any case, if we wanted to do something about the growing deficit, we could always drop the unnecessary and expensive prescription drug program that is winding its way through Congress. That'd do more to stop the bleeding than kicking the economy in the head with tax rises the way Krugman wants. Yes, Krugman is worried - worried the economy is turning around and that will redound to Bush's benefit, and the only way to head that off is to do something to crush the recovery. Tax rises? Won't anyone please take up the banner of tax rises before the election? We have an economy to tank before election day!
Update: See the additional appended to that post regarding the Asner thing. Looks like the original report was distorted to misrepresent what Asner said and meant.
Great post. You're making the world safe for lazy bloggers.
In the sense, I can understand AL's apathy. I take it a little further...ie, let the Lefty-Dem house burn. I have friends who hit me with the "selection of Bush," so I ask them about the 2002 Congressional elections. Blank stare. Wait till I have 2004. This country needs two parties, at a minimum, but it needs two parties who put America, improving her and developing her potential, before the Euro Lecture Circuit.
I don't have any type of rabid partisanship. I'm an optimists about America. Contrary to current left speak, I think the American people as a mass of perform intelligently, daringly and surprisingly in a way that confounds "experts", but pushes our nation in better and better directions.
Again, great post.
Thanks. But I think we've come to a major difference of opinion. The whole point of the post is an argument that we can't afford to sit back with a bag of popcorn and a coke and watch these institutions implode, with a shit-eating grin on our face. After all, we're among the American people Beets points to, and we "perform intelligently, daringly and surprisingly in a way that confounds "experts", but pushes our nation in better and better directions" by taking constructive action, not by sitting back and watching the fire burn and expecting everything to turn out for the best because of other people's performance.
Sure, there is a good chance, in my opinion, that they will not survive - that the Left (or elements of it) will, when confronted, once again put a gun to the head of these institutions and say, in effect "let us go or the babe gets it." But if this happens, if things fall apart and the center does not hold, it should not be because we failed to do what we could, to do our best, to enact reform and salvage what can be salvaged. I don't think that path would lead to a healthier national atmosphere: I think it would cement lasting bitterness and mean that we would be on a path that was among the "bad outcome" possibilities rather than the "better outcome" choices.
The country will have parties (perhaps. . .among the "bad outcome" options are some really bad outcomes), but they won't naturally constitute what we would like to see, in the absence of our own efforts to try and produce a benign outcome. This "Nero Option" that Beets outlines (we'll fiddle while the fires burn till they burn themselves out) does not seem to be the most positive course we could take.
We didn't start the fire
It was always burning,
Since the world's been turning.
We didn't start the fire
Well we didn't light it,
But we tried to fight it.
George Atkisson writes the following, which I'm going to let stand on its own. It has some pretty good ideas that are at least worth trying:
I've been thinking about the difficulties of reforming the educational system, especially the Universities, which you so aptly described. For background, I'm retired military, I've worked as a substitute teacher, and I have 2 high school aged children.
Frankly, I agree that the University system can not be reformed from the inside. The current faculty system and the compliant, if not actually supportive administrators are too well entrenched.
Unfortunately, the physical plants, endowments, and support structures are too expensive to replicate if they are given the Carthaginian Solution. Don't forget that the Romans also sowed salt in the fields so that nothing would or could grow back.
The only hope I can see would be through a double pronged approach. The students need to arrive at the university with critical thinking skills plus a body of knowledge that enables them to recognize BS for what it is. The federal government needs to insist that faculties be more diversified to continue receiving any federal funding.
The precedent for the federal government would be the act that prohibits federal funding of schools that do not allow military recruiting on campus, and could even be justified on grounds of requiring "diversity". (Wouldn't that be fun!)
As for equipping the students with thinking skills and knowledge, the states would have to approve vouchers for alternative schools/charter schools, and actively support home schooling. These, of course, do not guarantee the desired end, but are currently the only existing suppliers of students who haven't been awash in PC some 200+ days a year. If the voucher program is put in place in Washinton, D.C., and succeeds, it would give major support to such efforts nation-wide.
Obviously, the teachers unions and their supporters would scream, rant, and rave and insist on controlling anything happening outside the current public school system. The sounds of "What about the children??????" would be deafening. The only possible answer is "Yes, what about the children?"
This will be very difficult and will require at least a decade of focused unremitting effort by many people to accomplish change to a measurable degree. I do see it as the only way to avoid the Carthaginian Solution and the unknown years in replacing the Universities.
Perhaps the establishment of protected educational enclaves is the best we can do, much as medieval monasteries provided a haven to protect scholars, libraries, and knowledge during the Dark Ages outside.
The "saving remnant" concept. But This is the result when we sit around waiting for things to turn out all right.
A good review of Miller's book in Commentary. Read the whole thing, but this is particularly apt:
Finally needing to be mentioned in any discussion of a book subtitled “Fixing America’s Problems in Ways Liberals and Conservatives Can Love” is Miller’s fierce disdain for defense spending. At a time when the world is more dangerous than ever, when the Iraq occupation is costing $1 billion a week, and when our armed forces are universally acknowledged to be stretched thin, his only discernible thought is that we need major cuts in the military budget.
It leaves one wondering whether Miller is in any position to upbraid our political establishment as “unserious.”
It does sometimes seem that there is a reflexive sentiment among Liberals to cut defence, regardless of the circumstances. That's the one government program that they are apparently always in favor of enacting cuts in (not just cuts in the rate of growth, either, but real cuts).
I doubt that this would help us solve our current problems. It certainly wouldn't do so in a way conservatives would love.
By the by, the bit at the top of the review on "solutions" is also very apt.
Tacked-On Rockefeller Update: Just in case folks aren't scrolling down to watch the dog pile grow and in the off chance you're not reading SSDB regularly, the big dog is on the pile; one of the better posts on this whole thing, not just Rockefeller but the whole new twist to the "imminent" canard - that the opposition wants people to infer what Bush didn't say, so that they can still be "right" when they're empirically lying.
This post is directed primarily at my conservative, or at any rate non-Liberal, readers (almost certainly the majority of my readers), though there are some thoughts in here for the Liberals to consider as well. I mentioned in the "additional" appended to the Questions post the need for us to distinguish between the Left and Liberals, rather than contribute to the blurring of this distinction. I don't know how many sincere Liberals remain; it's hard to tell because not only are we on the "Right" confused about the distinction between the Left and Liberals, but Liberals themselves are often confused and fail to make distinctions (and then on the other hand bemoan the fact that we fail to distinguish between the radical Left and Liberals). The radicals, the Left, the "Progressive Democrats", have worked hard over the last thirty years, ever since they decided the best way to defeat Liberal Democracy was to bore from within, to blur the distinction.
It's more important to make the distinction than some might think. It's not just a matter of pedantic typology, putting each variety of misbelief in the right box out of finicky pedagogy. It's because, when it comes to the matters I have been focusing on, my thesis is that, given the right appeal, a willingness to reach out, a willingness to make distinctions, and a capacity to show that we may disagree with them on some issues but we see them as actual or potential partners in upholding what is valuable about our nation and civilization, sincere Liberals will make common cause in defeating not only Jihadist Islam abroad but radical Leftist encroachments at home.
Right now, it hardly seems possible, so I know I need to argue for this thesis. Armed Liberal, who is one of the sincere Liberals, is occasionally pointed to, by people nominally on his side, supposed Republican or conservative wickedness. This post isn't aimed at arguing over that issue (as I mentioned in Questions, it's not that I don't think threats to liberty can come from the Right). The reason I bring that up, though, is that his general response to people raising such points is "for some reason that doesn't interest me as much". The implication he is making is that the problems of the other side, and solving them, aren't in his interest: if "his side" can solve the problems that alienate the electorate from it, then "hooray for our side" - his side will stand a better chance of winning in election battles and defeating the other side. This is, of course, something of an interesting attitude for someone who, in other contexts, decries the extreme polarization that I think is inevitable given the current environment - but which would not have to be inevitable if things were otherwise.
See, I don't agree with Armed Liberal's mindset on this, at least in the matter I'm concerned with here. I don't take it as a given that the other side's problems are for them to worry about fixing and that the only dog we have in that fight is a negative one (self-interest in seeing them circle the drain). Not when I think it could take us with them. There are, in other words, matters that are beyond narrow partisan interest. And I argue that the problems besetting the Democratic Party, and Liberalism, are one of them, because it is of a piece with the other problems we have been talking about.
In my sincere, considered opinion, the Democratic Party is one of those institutions that needs reform. Yes, all political parties and movements have their problems and I'm far from a utopianist believing that either the Democrats or the Republicans can be cleansed to perfection. But problems vary in severity, and what has befallen the Democratic Party since the "progressives" who walked out of it over the Truman Doctrine snuck back in being "clean for Gene" and then sealed their influence in the nomination of McGovern (and, of perhaps more enduring importance, re-writing the bylaws of the Democratic Party during that '72 convention to cement their influence permanently).
Yes, conservatives and Liberals, Republicans and Democrats, will always have political differences. But while people may not have agreed with Truman Democrats on every little thing, they could trust that Truman Democrats weren't alienated from their own country and its civilization. Truman was as tough on foreign enemies and domestic subversion as just about anyone, to the point where he's a bete noir of the Left (and they've managed to spread a "McCarthyism before McCarthy" meme that has influenced even sincere Liberals). The kind of "questions" that John F. Kennedy raised during his Presidential campaign are completely foreign to the current crop of Democratic candidates: they were of a sort indicating concern not whether we were going overboard in protecting ourselves, that asserting our right to defend ourselves was somehow "bullying arrogance". They were instead questions regarding whether we were doing enough: he ran as a candidate who would be stronger on defense issues and more effective in dealing with the Soviets. He didn't run on cutting defense and being apologetic, much less deferring to the wishes of the French or Chinese or Russians (in the Security Council) when it came to America's foreign interests. The only thing that prevented the Left from demonizing JFK as they did with Truman and then later with LBJ ("how many kids did he kill" that day?) was his martyred status - which caused them to instead build a mythical edifice around him (JFK was gonna call off this so-called Cold War against progressive National Liberation Movements around the world that was created by the Military-Industrial Complex, and that is why he was killed. Just ask Oliver Stone). But during Kennedy's Presidency, the Left that would later embrace him as their own didn't have any more love for him than they had for Truman (he represented the establishment that they railed against), later revisionism on their part to the contrary notwithstanding.
A chemist could explain the following analogy better than I can, but in a suspension, a very small thing can create a precipitating moment that causes everything to crystallize. When it comes to American political history one of those small moments, almost forgotten today, may have been when Jerry Rubin was called before HUAC (chaired, as all House Committees were, by a Democrat) inquiring into whether he was a revolutionary and a subversive. Rubin's response can be boiled down to: "yah, so? Wadda ya gonna do about it?" Their answer was a blustery "um, er. . .nothin." HUAC folded up and blew away. Good riddance. (Here is a account sympathetic to Rubin).
But the New Left gleaned from this episode a lesson that they would put to use in other contexts, where it's not clear that "good riddance" is the proper reaction. The lesson they took from Rubin's performance was that, when confronted, the Liberal establishment would respond not with repression, but by caving in with concessions. That, unlike in the regimes the Left admired, subversion in America was no-fault. They would be, in Ayers words, "guilty as hell and free as a bird". Tenured, even: well paid by the very nation, the very people, they railed against as repressing them. So even while the Left continued to decry how repressive this society was, how it was on the verge of Fascism (think that they have only recently expressed concerns about incipient Fascism in America, under George Bush? Wrong. This is a perennial: we're always on the brink of Fascism with only the brave Left standing up to it; n.b. the Rubin link mentions Rubin standing up to "the history of American fascism"). They were emboldened, just as the Liberal establishment was losing its confidence. The results were, in retrospect, both predictable and tragic.
Berkeley, California, is not only a microcosm of this but it should have been the canary in the coal mine - an early warning of the consequences of radical encroachments on the Liberal establishment and the Liberal's loss of nerve in the face of their influx. There is an article, unfortunately not available online, which was published in the Winter '89 issue of The Public Interest, called "Slouching Towards Berkeley: Socialism In One City," by Peter Collier & David Horowitz. It's also reprinted in their book Destructive Generation. I recommend the article to anyone, especially those who see the authors as polemical bomb-throwers. It's worth the effort. If the article is a homage to anything, it isn't conservatism or Republicans, or the '50s - it is a homage to the Liberal Berkeley of the '60s, before the radicals came to dominate its politics.
What happened to Berkeley is a microcosm of what has happened to Democrats nationally. Look at the current political atmosphere of the Democratic Party's politics: the candidates are like monkeys dancing to the tune of a Leftist organ-grinder. A Democratic candidate could run against Bush in the same way Kennedy ran against Nixon in '60. Theoretically. Theoretically someone could run on a platform of being stronger and more aggressive in prosecuting the war, building up our military to close a "capabilities gap" between what we need and what we have, of paying any price and bearing any burden in the defense of liberty. But their aint a snowball's chance in hell of that happening, because a Democrat (like, say, a Zell Miller type) with such a attitude would never make it through the Gauntlet. When it comes to Liberal politics, the Radical Left follows the maxim of "Why help pick the monkey when you can own the organ grinder?" Then the candidates all dance to the tune they set - the dance varies a bit from monkey to monkey, but the tune is a given.
The problem is that sincere Liberals are essentially cowed in their own Party, as in their own institutions elsewhere. The radical Left calls the tune and sets the tone and the Liberals keep their heads down and try to avoid being put in the "reactionary" category (by speaking out and actively opposing Leftist excesses). Most would rather ignore and minimize the problem than deal with it. But it's a threat not just to us on the Right, but primarily to them. What's in it for us? Not only would their Party be healthier (and more competitive), but American politics would be healthier for all but the dedicated partisan. Lets look at it this way: Would I become a Liberal and a Democrat again if they fixed their problem? No. My political philosophy has evolved in ways that I wouldn't go back. But - I wrote last week that given a choice between a Democrat I liked better than the Republican candidate in that race, right now I would not vote for the Democrat under any circumstances. If the Democrats fixed their problem, though, I could vote for a Zell Miller, for a Jim Marshall, for a decent Democrat over a flawed Republican.
That's what's in it for Democrats - additional votes not just from people like myself but from the "sensible middle", and its also what's in it for most of us who would like to be able to have an option rather than be in a "increasingly polarized" situation where we pull the lever for "our side" regardless, because we abhor what the other side represents and what their intentions are for our country.
Fact is, only Liberals can fix the Democratic Party. But we can and should encourage sincere Liberals to do just that. We also need their help in fixing the other institutions which need to be reformed. We need to recognize that, and do more to demonstrate that we're willing to work arm-in-arm with sincere Liberals when it comes to the defense of, and survival of, a nation, civilization, and its institutions that we admire.
And this is one way to tell a sincere Liberal from a Leftist-in-Liberal Clothing: sincere Liberals value this country, its liberty, its Constitution, its system of government, as much as we do. They might put a different interpretation on aspects of it than we do, but they do not "pledge allegiance to the America that can be" - aiming at a radical transformation to make it worthy of them. They see more to admire than to deplore in our country's history (though, again, they may emphasize different aspects than we would), and consider our role in the world to have been primarily beneficial rather than destructive. Also, sincere Liberals are not Socialists of any stripe, nor do they make excuses for, much less admire, Castro (or for Hugo Chavez for that matter) nor do they engage in the self-congradulatory anti-Americanism that is the halmark of the Left and its main gift to political rhetoric (that this country is exceptional mainly in being racist, exploitative, &tc, &tc). Anyone who does identifies themselves as a Leftist-in-Liberal-Clothing.
In other words, sincere Liberals of the Truman-Kennedy tradition would share a lot of concerns with us when it came to what our role in the world should be and the need to protect it. They would share a concern that it thrive. They would also, as Arthur Schlesinger Jr. did in his book on the subject, share a concern with us regarding the radical program to transform America - not in its racial composition but in its attitudes. We can and should work together with them on those issues. William Raspberry is another example of a sincere Liberal.
I firmly believe that if we're able to forge a working partnership with sincere Liberals on these things, it will be a majority that will make the 60%+ of Californians who voted for a Republican candidate in the Recall election look like a close-run race. It will be an overwhelming majority. But by that I do not mean it will be a Republican or a Conservative majority or partnership. It will be true bi-partisan cooperation on issues of joint concern. I believe it is highly likely that the only way that we will be able to roll-back some of the problems that I see right now as insurmountable will be to fan the flickering embers of Liberal confidence, revive it, and then forge a partnership with them on these issues, to reform American institutions - institutions that are dear to their hearts, not just ours.
We will still differ on what the optimal tax rates will be, how much regulation is appropriate and at what level of government it should be imposed, spending priorities and certain matters of law. This is not a utopianist scheme to eliminate political disagreement between conservatives and Liberals. This is a overture that both conservatives and Liberals recognize that they have areas of shared interest - that the radicals don't share. That they recognize, as perhaps they once did (though lets not romanticize the past too much), that though we disagree on a lot there are areas where our interests coincide.
Clinging to the last shred of the torn illusion is typical of the intellectual cowardice that prevails on the Left
- Arthur Koestler.
This is going to be difficult. In my opinion, it will end up being more difficult for Liberals. They are going to have to realize that in their coalition with the Left they have shackled themselves to a corpse that is dragging them down. This corpse, like a vampire, is undead - it isn't dying. But it is killing them. They'll have to recognize that the antics of the Left aren't things that they can afford to wave aside as only of concern to Right-wing polemicists: that it is a big deal for them, that they have a dog in this hunt, too, and right now the radicals have it by the throat and the time for being in denial about it is long past. Liberals are going to have to make a differentiation. In his novel, The Middle of the Journey, Lionell Trilling depicts a biplay between a Liberal character (Laskell) and the radical (Maxim):
Certain things were clear between Laskell and Maxim. It was established that Laskell accepted Maxim's extreme commitment to the future. It was understood between them that Laskell did not accept all of Maxim's ideas. At the same time, Laskell did not oppose Maxim's ideas. One could not oppose them [he thought] without being illiberal, even reactionary. One would have to have something better to offer and Laskell had nothing better. He could not evem imagine what the better ideas would be.
Liberals will have to recover from the cobwebs of memory that which they once understood, which is that better ideas do exist and we - this country and the political tradition it embodies - represent them, right here in river city, and that the programs of the Left are ultimately antithetical to those better ideas.
But we on the conservative side of things have to stop pushing them back into the pit. We have to be willing to let bygones be bygones on some of the things where they essentially worked with the Left to screw us all over. This does not mean being patsies. It does not mean accepting being screwed over again and smiling about it. We need to bend over backwards to reach out and accept a "yes" when its offered - but this does not mean bending over forward for them. Perhaps most importantly as a starting point we need to phrase our arguments in ways that don't just preach to the choir but which appeals to sincere Liberals and convinces them, encourages them to not roll over for the Left or stand mute out of fear of the inevitable charges of selling out to the Right or betraying the movement to its enemies. They need to rediscover their backbone and we need to support them rather than undercutting them on the occasions that they do. Leaving them hang out to dry on the rationale that they have left us hanging out to dry all too often is cutting off our nose to spite our face. It's not going to be easy for anyone, and its certainly not something that's going to be accomplished this year or the next.
The problems in California that caused the Recall weren't created in a year and won't be solved in one year. Neither will the problems I've been writing about. It's important to find a starting point, though. Because while they won't be solved immediately, we don't have forever, either.
(By the way, when looking for links for this post and finding the link for The Public Interest, I noticed they had an article that people who found this post interesting might find worth reading).
Howard Kurtz on possible legislative reforms of "Studies" programs. My prediction: dies in Senate. I try to only rarely ask readers to do something, but if you don't want my prediction to come true, there are things you can do. . .
Holliwood types are all for higher taxes on the rich and corporations "paying their fair share", well themselves excepted, naturally.
Amir Taheri has, as usual, a column worth reading. It actually is a nexus between what we've been talking about here, both the war abroad and at home. The key section in that respect is:
The modern world order is based on the common heritage of mankind, including the teachings of ancient Greece and the three monotheistic religions of the Middle East. It is the expression of common values in the shaping of which Islam played a crucial role, at least in part of its history.
The principle that governments should not imprison and murder their critics is not exclusively Western or Judeo-Christian. Nor is it necessarily Islamic for rulers to plunder their countries and place the proceeds in Western investment accounts. Killing women on the flimsiest pretexts, denying them basic rights and treating them as chattel are not necessarily Islamic either.
The division of the world between Islamic and non-Islamic tells us nothing. The real division is between tyrannies and democracies.
Frankly, it's about time the Bushies threw some punches.
Criticism from the media and from Democratic presidential wannabes has been fueling a false - and dangerous - perception that the war was unnecessary and unjust, and that the post-war period has been a disaster.
That, in turn, has been undermining support for vital U.S. efforts in Iraq.
Yah, what we've been saying.
Elsewhere, Andrew Sullivan on legitimate questions and what one would be, if the critics of Bush were for America and in favor of it succeeding.
[Leftists] abhor Western Civilization because its tenets include science, logic, reason, and individual liberty. These principles are a direct threat to the Leftist vision of utopia — collectivism, multiculturalism, and group identity. Assaulting Columbus' reputation is a way for the Left to destroy the "messenger" of Western Civilization. This tactic is quite a bit easier than attacking the substantive ideas of Western Civilization since Mr. Columbus is no longer around to defend himself.
Note the original article had "Liberals abhore" where I inserted "Leftists" in its place, because in my considered opinion it was a missuse of "Liberal" - yes, Leftists, "Progressive Democrats", have expropriated the term and used it to mask their radicalism; but we don't have to follow their lead in blurring meaningful distinctions. It is one of the things that makes it hard for "our side" to appeal to sincere Liberals: lumping them in with the Wolves-in-Liberal-clothing is what the Wolves want.
In other respects the article is worth reading, though I might quibble here and there with a few of the things it says; check it out.
Harold Bloom (self-described Socialist) wants people to swoon over Wesley Clark. Michael Kinsley tells you why. For many, it'll be a bit like deja vu all over again: yet another Rhodes Scholar from Arkansas fobbed off on the electorate for reasons of "electability". This time because they believe that hanging a uniform over the same old crap will deflect the obvious and apt criticisms about their record & position on defense & security issues and how they would handle the war: their position is "we'll do what the French will let us do and no more". Put starkly, a referendum on whether America should give France, Russia, and China a veto over our foreign policy, I think most Americans would make the obvious choice ("No").
This is no doubt why they couch their position in vague platitudes, fine-sounding generalities, and euphemisms. But it's the same old crap, even dressed up in four stars. It's the issue on its merits (or, rather, demerits) that matters - not the front-man they get to carry that banner forward.
I really cannot say I'm surprised that this happened. Preventing such infiltration would have meant violating some of our society's current taboos - ones that, by the by, I have been railing against.
Perhaps something will be done now to prevent future, similar infiltrations before we experience something worse as a result of them.
Hmmmn. . .well, setting asside the other things, this is clearly a hope in Bejing as in Paris. The most interesting aspect of the article is how China hopes to use ties with the EU as a means of upgrading their military, and they are getting what they want:
France and Germany have been pushing hardest for closer ties with China, hoping to cash in on a lucrative market but also to develop a strategic alliance as a counterweight to American power after the diplomatic trauma of the Iraq war.
Last June, the French defence minister, Michele Alliot-Marie, proposed sharing sensitive military technology with Beijing. She called for a softening of the arms embargo imposed on the country after the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989.
The Chinese already have the world's second biggest defence budget, £40 million annually, but they have to rely on outdated weaponry bought from Russia and Ukraine.
Yesterday's white paper said the ever-closer military ties rendered the EU embargo a relic from the last century.
I'd like to thank everyone who participated in last week's discussion-string of posts. There is thing that didn't occur to me when I was making those posts, and which I'm surprised I wasn't questioned about.
I wrote of my grave concern, that this is a struggle with our civilization at stake. However, I then balked at the "Carthaginian Peace" proposal, the idea that if it's a choice between the survival of what we value and our universities then we should (to mix metaphors) be Joshua, and let those universities come tumblin' down. After all, if I'm arguing that the universities in question are largely lost causes and that their current situation is self-perpetuating and irreversible, and the choice is either the whole thing goes down the drain (which would include these universities anyhow) or the universities do, well the choice should be clear. If you have a cancerous growth you don't let yourself die out of misguided affection for the growth, right? So the Peace is a Carthaginian one, with the institutions in question laying in ruins after it's all said and done: the point is we would survive and, well if the Romans rebuilt Carthage we could rebuild the universities and other institutions ("we could rebuild them. Stronger. Faster. Better." It would probably cost more than six million ducats, but it could be done).
After all, why worry overmuch about the apocalyptic nature of the choice? The other side would do it without a second thought. Though some may react to that sentence and see it as theoretical, a rhetorical question demonizing the other side as worse than we are, that actually isn't the case. It is, rather, an empirical observation - because they already demonstrated that this is what they would do.
"Satisfy our demands, and we've got twelve more. The more demands you satisfy, the more we've got"
- Jerry Rubin
They got where they are today by putting a gun to the head of the universities and saying: give us what we want, or we'll close this place down ("burn this motha down"). Faced with that choice, the Liberal establishment of the time gave in, after the radicals in question demonstrated that, yes, they meant just that.
So they ended up running these institutions: first as students forcing policy changes on the administrations (this or that "Studies" Department, this or that hire, this or that alteration in how things were administered, &tc), and now they are the faculty & administration themselves, with a lock on hiring.
That was the, in retrospect, obvious question about the position I outlined: if it's us or them, then the choice should be clear.
Only a part of my resistance to the "Carthaginian Peace proposal" was practical (I don't think we could, at least at this point, get a majority to say "aye" to it). But the other part is a reluctance to take such a step. I would rather we be builders. It is more natural to the other side to be nihilistic, not to us.
If we broke down the feedback I got last week, it was essentially of two kinds. One was the group ready to cut the Gordian Knot: the solution, the choice, is clear. But the other, and the one which interesting is closest to what I describe in the above regarding myself, is a sort of Right-wing version of the Liberal "MoveAlong.org" see-no-evil reaction to radical encroachments. Call it the "and this too shall pass away" mindset.
To which I say: yes, it will. In time. But historical time can be a long time, and it begs the question of with how much destructiveness and what will be left behind when it passes? How much damage will be done in the interim?
Richard Meixner doesn't fall precisely into the "and this too shall pass away" category (disclamer: all categories are general and "perfect embodiments" of a category are hard to find, outside the category of EU Drones - see, even a general disclaimer about categories doesn't apply universally). Richard wrote, in a general mail about several posts, a sentence which is very apt here in that it's something I can "play off" with my argument to follow:
Although it [all that we've been discussing] is troubling (personally as well, for unwitting accidence in my own life), it seems that the struggle to preserve individual liberty is just part of life, something not never to be taken for granted.
This is a true generalization. There are often threats to liberty that we need to be vigilant about and combat. However, they are not always the same: that which threatens liberty is not precisely the same across the generations. For example, I am not someone who believes that no threat to liberty can come from the Right (I just happen to believe that in our time the most grave threat to liberty, and indeed much of what has made our civilization what it is, comes from the Left).
So a lackadaisical attitude that says "well, the universities have always been hotbeds of radicalism", for example, as if there is nothing about the character and nature of the radicalism of this time that differentiates it from the past, is dangerous and can cause us to rest on our laurels. Sure, we can draw an intellectual "family tree" that connects things in an unbroken chain back to the French Revolution, to Rousseau, even to the Sophists.
However. . .but. . .the methods that were used in combating and defeating earlier outbreaks of this ideology may not apply now. Why? Because they too have adapted. Some. Sure, they aim at the same goals. But they have refined their methods of achieving them. Lets go back to the initial post of mine in this particular discussion. It acknowledges that in many, many ways we are facing a position resembling that of the Sophists. However, the method Socrates used to defeat it is not, in my opinion, working: not enough, in any case.
Why? Because the other side has taken into consideration the possibility of Socratic refutation of their position and built post-modernist and multicultural defenses into their ideology: rationality is used as a tool of the White Male Patriarchy to oppress women and people of color (note the internal contradiction in a position that often asserts that the Greeks stole their philosophy from Egypt and then dismisses that philosophy as a tool of white oppression. Well, they have an answer to that, too: we corrupted it so it's no longer reliable, and can be dismissed in preference of a more "emotive, intuitive basis for knowledge, more in harmony with nature and cycles rather than linear time").
Elaborate rhetorical edifices have been built to ward themselves against past vulnerabilities. Indeed, this is the area in which they have shown the greatest creativity (almost their only creativity since the nineteenth century). "McCarthyism" has been re-defined to mean not reckless accusations against innocent people, but accurately calling a self-professed radical a radical but doing so disfavorably, or quoting them unfavorably. Heck, it's being re-defined as simply expressing disagreement with and criticizing radicals (which has a "chilling affect" on these fragile, retiring flowers). Meanwhile, who are the ones really imposing McCarthyite tactics? Ideologically driven codes on campuses and ideologically based hiring decisions for professorships? Are you or have you ever been "racially insensitive" - as they define it? (and their definition can change at any moment, without warning, for any reason or none). Do you have a NAZI in your family tree? Who is more likely to lose a TV job for saying something, Martin Sheen or Rush Limbaugh?
Lets take the all purpose "Devil Made Them Do It" theory of history, used to rationalize the behavior of "mascots" (themselves and those useful to their cause) but never "targets" (America, the West in general, conservatives, &tc). Sure, this stuff has us rolling our eyes and Fisking away. But it affects a lot more people than it seems many of us want to believe.
It includes the old Orwellian corruption of language, of doublespeak and doublethink, where the "rule of law" is invoked to refer to the rather arbitrary wills of the despots and the decadent who happen to make up the UN Security Council on any given month (and then is only invoked against the U.S., not against Saddam for his ongoing continuous violation of previous edicts from that same body), or used to refer to the whim of an administrative functionary, rather than to the Rule of Law properly understood.
It is not that I lack confidence in our ideas; indeed, I believe that in any honestly conducted debate, in any honest marketplace of ideas, they would win out. It is for this reason that the other side uses their dominance of the media and other "opinion leading" institutions (such as universities) to filter them in a way that distorts them and misrepresents or selectively omits evidence supporting them. This, indeed, is a problem that those who are arguing that "we'll just have a debate and stack our ideas up against theirs" and are confident about the outcome need to come to grips with and take into account.
My problem is that I don't think we've yet come up with the method of defending our liberty and the society it exists in, yet. We're acting as if the old methods will work when manifestly they are not. Sure, these radical assaults don't convince everyone. But how successful have we been in rolling them back, or even stopping their slow and steady Long March Through the Institutions? Sure, the NYT has always been Liberal but has it always been this way? I'm doubtful. I know with absolute certainty that the universities haven't always been this way.
After all, Jaques Barzun's magnum opus tracks not only the continuities in five hundred years of the Civilization of the West, but also an arc. It isn't titled "From Dawn to Dawn to Dawn to Dawn, day after day, year after year a Dawn, here a Dawn, there a Dawn, everywhere a Dawn Dawn".
Sure, the arc may be reaching a close-point where certain things are decadent. That in and of itself isn't necessarily awful. But it's nothing to be sanguine or lackadaisical about, either. It means we're at a very critical juncture. A juncture which will determine what will come next, in the dawn to follow - if their is to be a new dawn out of this decadence, just as there was as the Medieval period passed into the current one in the Renaissance. We are at a juncture that will determine how dark any darkness gets, or even if their will be one (their doesn't naturally have to be a "dark ages" between the decadence and a new dawn). It will determine whether themes and traditions and traits which we value are renewed and carried forth with vigor into the next era, or lost and buried for a time (sure, anything of true, enduring value will be revived at some point. But "at some point" may be decades, centuries, in the future. Historical-time can be long indeed and our children and our children's children will live in the immediate future).
We have a duty to be more creative than longing for the past. I believe the best accomplishments of the gay, feminist, and black civil-rights movements in the second half of the 20th century can live alongside the moral clarity that has made America the Shining City on a Hill. These are not mutually exclusive concepts. We do not have to choose one or the other.
Our responsibility to ourselves and to future generations is to take the best of what we've become and bring it together.
Now, let me paraphrase a great American and say that, like the generation of Americans he addressed, our generation faces its own rendezvous with destiny. The stakes are as high now as they were then, though the situation is different. We need to respond with the same determination and resolve - but we cannot simply copy their efforts and we need to recognize that what they left unfinished and undone, they left for us, in carrying on where they left off, to resolve. And to go forward, because we are the real progressives – but that means we need to be more creative than we have been so far in coming up with methods of resolving this particular problem. We cannot afford to let them back us into doing what their North Vietnamese comrades backed us into doing in Vietnam: destroying an institution in order to save it. (Yes, before I get mail: I do mean “their North Vietnamese comrades”. It wasn’t Goldwater supporters out there in the streets chanting “Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Min, the NLF is Gonna Win” and waving North Vietnamese flags. Well, I mean no Goldwater supporters except Hillary!!!).
Update: Having been on the other side of the spectrum, though not as a radical (as a pro-defense Liberal; what would be called a "Scoop Jackson Democrat") and had many Liberal and Lefty friends over the years, having grown up in Madison, Wisconsin and gone to the UW (see my bio, above), I can confirm this letter from personal experience. That is why, during the Great Tempest in a Teapot over how Bush described our foreign foes (with some not liking his tone), my position was that what they really didn't like was his expropriation of terms that they believe should be reserved to describe conservatives & Republicans.
Carl Raymond Crites sends a link to this article, which is relevant to the discussion here.
[Leftists] abhor Western Civilization because its tenets include science, logic, reason, and individual liberty. These principles are a direct threat to the Leftist vision of utopia — collectivism, multiculturalism, and group identity. Assaulting Columbus' reputation is a way for the Left to destroy the "messenger" of Western Civilization. This tactic is quite a bit easier than attacking the substantive ideas of Western Civilization since Mr. Columbus is no longer around to defend himself.
Note the original article had "Liberals abhore" where I inserted "Leftists" in its place, because in my considered opinion it was a missuse of "Liberal" - yes, Leftists, "Progressive Democrats", have expropriated the term and used it to mask their radicalism; but we don't have to follow their lead in blurring meaningful distinctions. It is one of the things that makes it hard for "our side" to appeal to sincere Liberals: lumping them in with the Wolves-in-Liberal-clothing is what the Wolves want.
In other respects the article is worth reading, though I might quibble here and there with a few of the things it says; check it out.
This started as a letter to Armed Liberal but I decided to make it a post after having written it. It is in response to this post.
1) Wish I had been at the party. Sounds like it was a gas.
2) I mostly second the points A.L. made in the post. Mostly.
3) Except this one:
"I've said all along that what matters is that the paper act with at least the appearance of impartiality"
I for one don't want the appearance of impartiality. IMO, that's the worst of all possible worlds. The substance of impartiality, or as close as human beings can reasonably be expected to get, which arguably won't be completely impartial - for example, IMO neither Prager's questionare nor A.L.s post on "what is a Liberal" is impartial - but people can and have done a damn site better than most of these newspapers currently are, esp. the Times, at being impartial or fair1 to both sides of an argument OR let it all hang out, don't try and pretend you don't have an axe to grind - be the Guardian or the Torygraph. That route works just fine for me (the BBC is another matter since the BBC is funded by all Britons, just as PBS/NPR is problematic in its partisanship since it wants and gets funding from all Americans, not just one partisan side).
I guess I'm mostly having a problem with Armed Liberal's use of "appearance" (it might have been possible to choose a better word) in that sentence.
1Regarding "fairness" - judging by what I can glean from the post, I think he had a different understanding of what constituted fairness than others might. His concept seems to approximate that of "Progressives" - being "fair" means taking sides and treating others differently based on whose side they are on. Those on the Progressive side can and should be cut some slack, because they mean well, while those opposing Progressivism must be held to more exacting standards as a matter of course because they are not advancing the cause of justice, equality, and social change anyhow. So, in reporting on Gray Davis (for example), one takes into consideration his progressive policies when deciding how much effort to focus on investigating anything that might discredit him in the eyes of voters, because it would be unjust (unfair) to give the Progressive cause an undeserved setback by focusing on the foibles of one individual. On the other hand, it is entirely fair to give different weight to the anti-feminist, anti-woman behavior of a racist (anti-Latino) candidate like Arnold, because it reveals rather than obscures what his policies would be based on (where Davis' personal behavior is irrelevant because it obviously does not impact his progressive politics. He's still objectively pro-women and pro-worker, regardless of how he treats those under him. So whether or not he's ever behaved as reputed is entirely irrelevant and indeed might unfairly prejudice the voters against the progressive agenda).
That, I believe, is what the reporter meant by "fairness but not objectivity". It is the fairness of progressive activist journalism.
The thing I noticed that hasn't brought up yet is that Rockefeller seems to have gone to the John F. Kerry School of Legislative Slight-of-Hand:
I just go back to -- I understand, Tony, that you're giving me what I said when I made that vote, because when I made that vote, I wanted to, you know, give the president the authorization to go to the United Nations. I fully felt that he would be able to get help from the United Nations. And it turned out that he didn't really make that much of an effort and hasn't since.
West Virginia & Massachusetts don't have mechanisms to Recall their Federal Senators, do they? Because these guys should be recalled on the grounds of legislative illiteracy: failure to understand what they're voting on. See? It's got a nice clear title and everything:
Joint Resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq
It doesn't say "Resolution Authorizing the President to Go Kiss Kofi Annan's Ring", much less "Resolution Requiring the President to Defer to the French Will on Iraq".
Is the Senator, who I can assure you I still hold in (a minimum of) high regard, too stupid to understand the bills he is voting on? Or is he just trying to mislead and delude people about what was passed?
Additional: The dog-pile continues. See, this is what actually happens when guys like Rockefeller are confronted with actual facts, rather than being able to slip inconvenient aspects of the record down the memory hole. That's why that side of the divide works so hard to prevent it from happening insofar as they are able.
Further: the big dog jumps on the pile. Don't mess with the big dog, 'cause the big dog is always right. But do read his post.
I'm working on a post or two but won't have them written till tomorrow. In the mean time, good news regarding the Iraqi Generals, while even the Saudis are dipping a toe into this 'democracy' thing they've been hearing so much about (in a limited way, I know. But it's a start).
If you're lookin for stuff to read, I'll recommend this site if you haven't been reading already.
Well, you know what? I bet that, as the song goes, he's not the only one.
Look, these people claim to be for freedom of speech and human rights, correct? And these dudes have openly expressed their admiration for Castro and make regular pilgrimages to the Holy City of Havana. Castro whose reaction to dissent is to lock those who disagree with him in prison or have them killed. Castro whose conception of solving the AIDS crisis is to imprison those who are infected, and homosexuals in general. Castro who learned his governing methods from Stalin & Mussolini (yes, this last is true - though rarely commented on; Castro was an admirer of Mussolini's writings).
All this needs to be remembered when these people invoke their "idealism" and "principle" (as well as their "exceptional sense of morality and immorality") and the "progressive future" that they want to build. Yes, Imagine.
These are people who have forgotten nothing and, more importantly, learned nothing from history. This is why the same patterns repeat, endlessly, whenever they are able to implement their program in full.
(By the way, yes, I am aware that this post is Neo-McCarthyite).
