There’s been quite a bit of fuss in some circles over Francis Fukuyama’s new book, America at the Crossroads. The most immediate reaction for me is, it’s disappointing that such an acclaimed public intellectual has resorted to posturing and fuzzing of the truth in his latest tome, a critique of U.S. foreign policy that is as noteworthy and important as any of his previous works. Fukuyama is part and parcel of the famed “neocon cabal”, so his opinion on foreign policy definitely matters. So what is his new position, why is it so controversial, and what should we think of it?
You may recall Fukuyama from his essay, “The End of History”, which appeared shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union. Fukuyama posited that, with the passing of the USSR, the era of ideologies had ended because democracy had won the day; mankind had now entered “the end of history”:
The end of history will be a very sad time. The struggle for recognition, the willingness to risk one’s life for a purely abstract goal, the worldwide ideological struggle that called forth daring, courage, imagination, and idealism, will be replaced by economic calculation, the endless solving of technical problems, environmental concerns, and the satisfaction of sophisticated consumer demands. In the post-historical period there will be neither art nor philosophy, just the perpetual caretaking of the museum of human history. I can feel in myself, and see in others around me, a powerful nostalgia for the time when history existed. Such nostalgia, in fact, will continue to fuel competition and conflict even in the post-historical world for some time to come.
While Samuel Huntington’s The Clash of Civilizations replaced “The End of History” as the most publicly celebrated and debated critique of the post-Cold War era, Fukuyama very much remained a part of the conversation. Indeed, he played a prominent role in the formation of the neoconservative movement, the ideas of which our U.S. foreign policy has very much embraced.
As Bret Stephens notes, Fukuyama was the most notable intellectual who signed on to the neoconservative agenda of removing Saddam Hussein from power:
In January 1998, a group called the Project for the New American Century issued a public letter to President Clinton on the subject of Iraq. The threat posed by Saddam Hussein, it said, was “more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War.” Efforts to contain the dictator were “steadily eroding.” If Saddam acquired weapons of mass destruction, “as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course,” the whole Middle East would be put at risk.
“The only acceptable strategy,” the authors concluded, “is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power.”
Among the letter’s 18 signatories were Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Zalmay Khalilzad, John Bolton and the neoconservative political theorist Francis Fukuyama, best known for his 1992 book, “The End of History and the Last Man.”
Stephens remembers Fukuyama saying six months after 9/11 that “a passive policy that did nothing to clean up festering pockets of instability does not necessarily produce security, and there are times when bolder action is required.” Stephens also recalls Fukuyama being a prominent cheerleader of the United States’ decision to invade Iraq and remove Saddam from power. Fukuyama actively cheered the war and even published an article in the Wall Street Journal with his plan of what America should do next. Included were these comments:
After enduring criticism from much of the world for embarking on Operation Iraqi Freedom, Americans have been justly celebrating the downfall of Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship and the fact that the war was neither as protracted nor as morally ambiguous as many had feared.
…U.S. forces are today welcomed in Baghdad as liberators. But there is great suspicion throughout the Arab world–unfounded–that we secretly plan to occupy the country. Announcing a withdrawal from Saudi Arabia will underline the point that our military deployments in the Gulf are not ends in themselves, but serve specific and limited political objectives.
…So it would be entirely appropriate, as part of a broader shift in U.S. foreign policy in support of Middle Eastern democracy, to put some distance between us and the Saudis.
Why is this important? Because in his new book, America at the Crossroads, Fukuyama is now claiming to have had reservations all along. I’m with Stephens when he says, Huh?!?!?
The chronology here has no bearing on the validity of Mr. Fukuyama’s views. Nor does it count against him that he changed his mind. Credibility is another matter. Mr. Fukuyama is a public intellectual of the first rank, with influence and connections at the highest reaches of the Bush administration. Several thousand U.S. troops have now been killed or injured in a war he gave every appearance of supporting well after the Rubicon was crossed. If Mr. Fukuyama now judges the effort a terrible folly, the least he can do is offer an honest account of the part he played cheering it on.
Instead, we hear mostly the same old tired, moot criticisms:
The administration overestimated the threat from Iraq. The risk that Saddam would have passed nuclear material to terrorists was remote. And while a preventive war might have been justified to stop Saddam from acquiring the bomb and dominating the region, the “prevention” took place far too prematurely.
What’s especially frustrating and angering is Fukuyama’s blatant blurring of the facts. Charles Krauthammer picks up the case:
It was, as the hero tells it, his Road to Damascus moment. There he is, in a hall of 1,500 people he has long considered to be his allies, hearing the speaker treat the Iraq war, nearing the end of its first year, as “a virtually unqualified success.” He gasps as the audience enthusiastically applauds. Aghast to discover himself in a sea of comrades so deluded by ideology as to have lost touch with reality, he decides he can no longer be one of them.
…I happen to know something about this story, as I was the speaker whose 2004 Irving Kristol lecture to the American Enterprise Institute Fukuyama has now brought to prominence. I can therefore testify that Fukuyama’s claim that I attributed “virtually unqualified success” to the war is a fabrication.
The WaPo’s Kraut goes on to hammer Fukuyama’s errant recollection of the speech, presenting strong evidence that Fukuyama is fudging the facts to make himself look more appealing to the Iraq war’s critics. You can fact-check Krauthammer and Fukuyama for yourself here. But Krauthammer truly is devastating as he observes, “Fukuyama now says that he had secretly opposed the Iraq war before it was launched. . . . After public opinion had turned against the war, Fukuyama then courageously came out against it.”
This is sad, really. In fact, it’s downright pathetic. I’d expect better–much, much better–from such a brilliant man, and it’s disturbing for such a prominent intellectual to smear his credibility by hiding behind half-truths and making lame claims to reservations about the war at a time that is most convenient.
Yet despite my disgust with Fukuyama’s poor attempt to ingratiate himself with his new allies against the Iraq war, he still must be taken seriously. In fact, I think many of his criticisms merit heavy consideration, and his fellow war opponents in both parties would do well to consider his new position.
Most of Fukuyama’s arguments against the Iraq war I either disagree with on the merits or feel are the wisdom of hindsight, and almost all of them have been debated endlessly on this blog. As for some of his more novel criticisms, again, I’ll cede to Bret Stephens on his excellent critique of Fukuyama’s book, which I have yet to read.
For now, I want to focus on what Francis Fukuyama and Adam Garfinkle have to say in their latest article, in which they make the case that we should be “separating the struggle against radical Islamism from promoting democracy in the Middle East, focusing on the first struggle, and dramatically changing our tone and tactics on the democracy promotion front, at least for now.” They go on to say,
Authoritarian political cultures do function as enablers of radical Islamism, but the essential cause of the latter–today as before, in dozens of historical cases concerning violent millenarian movements–is the difficulty that some societies and individuals have in coming to terms with social change. That is why rapid modernization is likely to produce more short-term radicalism, not less. Muslims in democratic Europe are as much a part of this problem as those in the Middle East. This is not a trivial point; it is a central one that directly challenges a key tenet of the administration’s view.
This is a direct, frontal attack on the Bush Doctrine and neocon idea that much of the root of the terrorism problem stems from the stifling lack of democracy and freedom in the Muslim world. Indeed, if what Fukuyama and Garfinkle are saying is accurate, we should potentially be completely rethinking our foreign policy. Unlike the Democrats, who came out yesterday with a laughably flaccid document purporting to be a new agenda for national security and containing broadly similar goals to what President Bush has stated but containing absolutely no real strategies whatsoever to accomplish them, this criticism of the current U.S. foreign policy has bite.
Radical Islamism needs to be dealt with separately from democracy promotion. This involves doing everything we can to ensure the political success of the governments in Afghanistan and Iraq. It also involves killing, capturing or otherwise neutralizing hard-core terrorists in many parts of the world, and keeping dangerous materials out of their hands, in what will look less like a war than like police and intelligence operations.
Alarm bells should be going off here. After 9/11, Bush immediately made the case that only freedom and democracy would smother the flames of radical Islam once and for all, and proponents of war against Afghanistan (and later Iraq) strongly emphasized that “9/11 was a declaration of war”, and we can’t respond to terrorism as we had been doing under the Clinton administration by sending out the FBI and CIA and shying away from military action, hoping to catch the bad guys somehow and send our lawyers after them. Yet here is Fukuyama, one of the leaders of that brigade, now reversing course and saying, “Sorry guys, we made a wrong turn.”
I cannot agree with his point, though. Just how will we be able to catch these terrorists in police and intelligence-like operations in countries that are hostile to our interests? If we let Iran, Syria, and other like regimes continue on, how are we ever going to be successful picking off the threat? Police and intelligent operations are what we need in places like America, Europe, Latin America, and regimes friendly to our interests when it comes to terrorism (e.g. Russia, Saudi Arabia, and so on), but as long as Iran and Syria are providing cover and funding for terrorists, Fukuyama is dreaming if he thinks we can win the War on Terrorism without threatening military action.
Fukuyama and Garfinkle continue:
Promoting liberal and democratic institutions in the Middle East should be decoupled from this fight, since it is a much more long-term project–and a project in need of significant redesign. The Bush administration has not admitted to itself the degree to which it has been knocked off its own timetable by the chaotic situation in Iraq.
…To put it mildly, the Iraq war has not increased the prestige of the U.S. and American ideas like liberal democracy in the Middle East. The U.S. does not have abundant moral authority for promoting the rule of law, since the first thing people in the region associate with America today is prisoner abuse at Guantanamo, Bagram and Abu Ghraib. …Fair or not, American insistence on rule of law and human rights looks simply hypocritical.
They go on to note how democracy promotion has brought in unlovable regimes in places like Iran, Palestine, Egypt, and Iraq that are debatably worse than the status quo ante-bellum:
The tide of public opinion today is not running in favor of pro-Western secular liberals, however, but rather the Islamists. In many Arab countries this means that premature democratic elections will most definitely and predictably bring the mosque into the public square while driving out all other forms of expression. The tolerant are making democratic way for the intolerant, who in turn are very likely to block the possibility of any reverse flow of authority. How such dynamics promote liberal democracy in the longer run is hard to see. More likely, U.S. policies that foster pro-Islamist outcomes will delay political liberalization, help the wrong parties in the great debates ongoing in Muslim societies and, quite possibly therefore, make our terrorist problem worse.
…The administration’s highly visible embrace of democracy promotion as a component of its national security strategy (as outlined in last week’s official document on the subject), and its telegraphing ahead of time of intentions to bring about regime change in places like Iran, only hurt the cause of real democrats in the region. The effort to push countries toward early national elections, given the rising Islamist tide today, will invariably force us into the appearance of further hypocrisy when they produce results we don’t like. …Moves afoot in Congress to channel democracy support through the State Department are well-intentioned but counterproductive: The last thing that democracy activists need right now is more American fingerprints on outside funding. Private foundations and groups with some distance from the administration like the NED or private NGOs will have better luck disbursing money than U.S. agencies. There are many quiet ways we can and should support democratic groups in the region, by working, for example, with other countries that have recently undergone democratic transitions that may have greater credibility than Washington.
They conclude strongly,
Democracy promotion should remain an integral part of American foreign policy, but it should not be seen as a principal means of fighting terrorism. We should stigmatize and fight radical Islamism as if the social and political dysfunction of the Arab world did not exist, and we should shrewdly, quietly, patiently and with as many allies as possible promote the amelioration of that dysfunction as if the terrorist problem did not exist. It is when we mix these two issues together that we muddle our understanding of both, with the result that we neither defeat terrorism nor promote democracy but rather the reverse.
These are some strong points, and the points Fukuyama and Garfinkle are making have some sting of truth to them. Indeed, Democrats would do well to latch on to these criticisms, even though it would still obligate them to a far more aggressive foreign policy than they’re comfortable with right now. At least they’d gain some credibility on national security, though.
Fukuyama and Garfinkle are strongest when they note that democracy’s short-term effects are very destabilizing; that Islamo-fascists who promote terrorism are primed to be the biggest winners in that instability; that the initial results of democracy in the region will definitely not be palatable to us; and that the clash of modernity with Islamic civilization is the primary driver for terrorism, not lack of freedom and democracy. But this position is still not totally solid.
What is modernity but the effects of “Western values” combined with the irreversible pace of economic globalization? And it is not easy to separate modernity from democracy; places like Singapore, China, and Vietnam have experimented with that attempt to varying degrees, and the long-term prognosis in all cases is more freedom and democracy: No one thinks China and Vietnam can truly remain dictatorial for much longer. Modernity makes democracy near inevitable; the only question is whether it will be birthed via bloodshed or warm reception. Places like China can’t afford bloodshed, so they’ll gradually need to embrace democracy, whereas places like the Middle East apparently will have to go the bloody route.
And so yes, in the near-term, the results of our aims at bringing democracy will at times appear discouraging–both to us and to the people of the Middle East. But Fukuyama and Garfinkle undermine their own argument when they say,
We should not even think about wanting to roll back recent election results; rather, the emphasis should be on pressuring newly empowered groups to govern responsibly. Islamist parties in Egypt and Palestine have gained popularity in large measure not because of their foreign policy views, but because of their stress on domestic social welfare issues like education, health, and jobs, and their stand against corruption. Fine, let them deliver; and if they don’t or turn out to be corrupt themselves, they will face vulnerabilities of their own [making] not far down the road.
Well, duh, Francis! You think the Bush administration and the rest of us neocons don’t realize that? The Hamas victory is not a stain on Bush’s foreign policy, it is a necessary test for the Palestinian people. Muslims will likely not be able to accept democracy and modernity fully until they see the failure of Islamism. By speeding up the democratization of the Middle East, though, we [hopefully] fast-forward that disillusionment with Islamism and help usher in a greater respect and desire for Western-type freedom, which many, many Muslims in the Middle East already and indisputably crave. Indeed, our efforts are generally going much better in Iraq than is generally reported, and somewhat worse in Afghanistan than is generally reported, and yet most of the [non-crazy-left-wing] Bush critics supported the latter nation-building exercise and not the former! It is simply far too early to declare that we have failed in our objective. What we’re seeing and feeling are the bumps in the road, and we need to have more patience–a virtue not well-bred in Americana.
In the end, the key rebuke to the Bush administration in Fukuyama and Garfinkle’s position is one that will remain debatable: How much is it “winning hearts and minds”, and how much is forceful intervention? To the pessimists, Abu Ghraib has damaged us gravely, and we have decimated our moral standing. In their minds, we need to distance ourselves from the action lest we taint the efforts of progressive Middle East agents of change. The cause of secular liberalism is losing, squandered by Bush’s illegitimate forays into the Middle East which has alienated allies both old and new. But others take the Reagan example and the Velvet Revolution of the 1980s and conclude that it is more important to stand tall against our enemies resolutely and vocally, and make clear our support for democracy in the region, with the sword and the pen. In other words, contra Fukuyama, we should not be afraid of putting our thumbprint on the Middle East. We will show the Islamic world that we are the strong horse, and eventually our success in democratizing the Middle East and victory in the GWOT will manifest themselves.
That’s really what it comes down to, and while I don’t respect how Fukuyama has arrived at his position, I am forced to recognize his critique of our foreign policy as the most credible alternative out there. If only our politics had a credible opposition capable of putting forth such a viewpoint, forcing Bush and the neocons to more openly consider adjustments and refinements to their policies….
|
Categories: Iraq, Iran & the Middle East
|
March 31st, 2006 at 3:08:47 am
Krauthammer took issue with the book’s first steps: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/charleskrauthammer/2006/03/28/191505.html
March 31st, 2006 at 3:24:36 am
Please start reading some real conservative thought. These neocons have no idea what they are talking about.
March 31st, 2006 at 8:32:06 am
Obviously he was a closet liberal all along. He’s a traitor to the cause and will be hunted down like the rest.
March 31st, 2006 at 9:05:12 am
I think it funny that you write, “What should we think?” with respect the book. Aren’t you allowed to think for yourself? Why does shouldn’t the next republican be allowed to have his own thoughts about the book? I didn’t read the rest of the post because I found it long-winded from the beginning, so I don’t know what you think republicans should think. I just thought the premise was funny.
March 31st, 2006 at 9:17:08 am
Andrew, what’s your thesis? I went for the jump figuring you might explain what you were talking about but I got lost in a sea of block-quotes… And why does being a neocon mean your opinion defiantly matters? You failed to sure up that point. While we are on the subject of points, what is yours?
March 31st, 2006 at 10:29:05 am
Ha! Fukuyama’s criticism is worth considering? Why. Because it is three years too late? Because it is essentially what those unpatriotic Dems were saying three years ago?
Fukuyama is a day late and a dollar short.
March 31st, 2006 at 11:08:29 am
Good post, Andrew. No thoughtful comments yet, though.
March 31st, 2006 at 11:09:49 am
And as you point out, that’s the biggest problem with Bush’s opposition.
March 31st, 2006 at 11:34:06 am
[sarcasm]
Joe Mama has officially achieved blind lemming utter moron status. All further comments by him can be safely ignored as they will contain no useful or thoughtful information.
Mr. Mama, we thank you for playing, and as a parting gift you will now receive a string of ad hominem attacks because you have provided nothing else in your comment with which to engage. Thank you, and enjoy the rest of your day in the Twilight Zone.
[/sarcasm]
March 31st, 2006 at 11:57:46 am
That post was funnier the first 689 times you made it on previous threads.
March 31st, 2006 at 11:58:06 am
But thanks for making my point :-)
March 31st, 2006 at 12:07:50 pm
Joe Mama-
Here’s a thought. Fukuyama was wrong in 1992 and he was wrong when he initially supported Bush on Iraq. If Fukuyama is an example of a “neo-con intellectual,” he easily demonstrates why Bush’s neo-con foreign policy has been such a disaster. Fukuyama, Rumsfeld, the Project for the New American Century, etc, are all part of group of bloviated hucksters who spent nearly two decades blowing nonsense out of their asses.
March 31st, 2006 at 12:47:33 pm
Sorry, A&A. Outside the tiny realm of your mind, that hardly qualifies as a thought.
March 31st, 2006 at 12:53:44 pm
Very good post, L.A. County. :) Forthright, as always. Thoughtful, as Usually. :>
I Think it funny that Think-For-Ourselves Nug Thinks it funny that he Thinks he doesn’t “know what you think republicans should think” because he “didn’t read the rest of the post because I found it long-winded from the beginning”. Nug, this democrat Thinks that you Should Think that you Should Take a deep-breath and read the rest. :> Just Trust me: it gets much shorter-winded as it Winds down to its billionth-word Conclusion. ;>
Fukuyama does seem disingenuous about the Extent to which he is a Convert (or, if you prefer, traitor to the Cause :) here. This in particular is what Takes the brittle Krauthammer’s Umbrage. (Hi Brendan. :) Of course with Krautie it’s Personal since Fukuie apparently Misquoted him. :> But I agree with Andrew that it’s the present Thesis that matters, not the accessorizing hypocrisies. OK, so maybe yer man done Charlie K wrong & also is lying about his own previously-Secret ;> doubts re The War. So, he’s a schmoe. Now, what about the merits of his argument?
Separating the selfDefensive War from The Democracy Project makes eminent sense to me. I’m actually closer to agreement with Fukuyama’s view on that than Andrew is. / In fact I’ve Always had Secret Doubts about Bush’s conflation of the two. :)
Incidentally, the Next “democratic” catastrophe will be Pakistan. When somebody over there actually Succeeds in bumping off Our Friend General Musharingum (hi again Brendan :) and then The People arise & Rule. Yes, that one will be Fierce all right. The Pakistani People, verydemocratically emPowered. / And with Nukes already. :|
“If only our politics had a credible opposition capable of putting forth such a viewpoint, forcing Bush and the neocons to more openly consider adjustments and refinements to their policies….”
We’ve Got one, Andrew. / Well. Maybe I should Capitalize that as, we’ve got One. Well. At least until next January. :|
March 31st, 2006 at 12:56:10 pm
Please start reading some real conservative thought. These neocons have no idea what they are talking about.
Who are “real conservatives”? Pat Buchanan? Go over to National Review Online, or The Weekly Standard, or Commentary, or Heritage Foundation, or AEI. Almost all the significant conservative intellectuals are on the same page here, with some very minor disputes between them. Really, I do a disservice to call it “neoconservative” because at this point, it’s simply conservative.
Because it is essentially what those unpatriotic Dems were saying three years ago?
If only that were the case. Many of his background criticisms aren’t new and are borrowed right out of the Democrats’ playbook, but the general thrust of his thesis is far more nuanced and provocative than anything the Dems have come up with. The Dems do not have a suggestion for a foreign policy, they only have an opposition to one.
Dane, where in the rules of blogging does it say I have to dumb things down to three sentences in eighth-grade language so you can understand it? You’re really starting to make me doubt the integrity of the USC admissions process.
March 31st, 2006 at 1:03:37 pm
Separating the selfDefensive War from The Democracy Project makes eminent sense to me. I’m actually closer to agreement with Fukuyama’s view on that than Andrew is. / In fact I’ve Always had Secret Doubts about Bush’s conflation of the two. :)
I’m not totally sure Fukuyama is breaking new ground here, I think he is simply eloquently stating a position that’s actually been out there for some time, just not popularly expressed. Instead, the standard criticisms from the Left has been “Everything Bush does is wrong”, and the realpolitik crowd that says this whole democracy business should not be a priority. Clearly Fukuyama thinks it should be a priority, just that we need to not conflate it with the war against Islamo-fascism.
You’re right to point out that people like you and Brendan and Sen. Lieberman fit nicely in Fukuyama’s camp, but that merely reinforces the observation that the Dems are turning their backs on the only people in their midst who have coherent and reasonable criticisms of the Bush administration’s foreign policy. Instead, the Dems have moved to the Left so that, from their perspective, you, Brendan, and Lieberman are indistinguishable from the president on this issue.
March 31st, 2006 at 1:06:13 pm
On my read-through here, what really struck me was the sense of longing for meaning in the whole of the first Fukyomama block quote. Fukyomama clearly indicates that his version of the “end of history” also means the death of some of the finer points of culture and civilization.
I was reminded of a comment (From WaPo, I think from Krauthammer) that the Winter Olympics had lost their former appeal because they were no longer a proxy for the hatred between the US and Soviet Union.
There is a sense of purity and virtue that we human beings can realize when we define ourselves against a sworn enemy. Accomplishment in any arena is simply not as genuine without the benchmark of a bitter rival. If US Men’s hockey defeats Russia today, that is a fine exhibition of sport. In 1980, it was somehow a defining cultural moment, even though the sport was the same.
Our enemies give us meaning. Our freedoms are more meaningful because they are denied by our enemies, and our democracy is more meaningful when cast against the tyranny of our enemies.
I think that the post Cold War US went into a sort of “enemy withdrawal”. While we appeared content to simply augment our own consumption of material goods until the end of time, there were plenty of people out there like Fukyomama who wanted to see our society encounter some salutary opposition. They were just aching for a real enemy to fight. And not some bullshit enemy like poverty or hunger or disease. Something with teeth and claws, something that posed a threat (pause for emphasis) … to our very way of life.
To the neocons and to many others, we found that threat on 9/11. It was Islamic terrorism, seen as a symptom of the social cancer of tyranny. The threat was certainly real, and perhaps even existential.
But now it turns out that this whole “wars in the Middle East” thing just isn’t as fun as it looked like to begin with. We haven’t seen this tremendous rekindling of pride in our democracy, and this renewed fervor in all of our cultural activities. That’s because this isn’t really the comprehensive clash that we wanted. The terrorists and tyrants whom we are fighting now have no culture that even comes close to ours in complexity or refinement. They don’t have art, or music, or athletics, or even ideas that are worth a damn.
The war on terror is against a very real security threat. But that is the limit of the threat. We don’t compete against the terrorists in any arena apart from just killing each other. We’ve tried to make this into a “war of ideas”, but come on — does anybody really think that the Western world is suddenly going to say to itself, “You know, our open and affluent societies really suck. Let’s give up Britney Spears and football and beer and all wear burkas and beat up women. That sounds like a much better idea.” Not gonna happen.
Maybe we should declare a truce in the war on terror for a couple of centuries or something. Give the terrorists some time to get their shit together. You know, come up with some sports teams and pop stars and alcoholic beverages and what not. Then we can have some fun with them. Then again, maybe I should stick to finance and give geopolitics a rest…
March 31st, 2006 at 2:00:40 pm
This is why I firmly believe Al Qaeda needs to start a space program and field an Olympic team.
:)
March 31st, 2006 at 2:07:07 pm
Casey, if you write my last name as “Fukyomama” again there will be hell to pay…
March 31st, 2006 at 2:25:21 pm
Casey, I enjoyed your comment. And think it well reasoned. Though I would suggest you examine the history of right wingers to create boogymen and perhaps analyze the impact of that on the nation. Such an examination may prove fruitful.
Andrew, I don’t mind if you write at a college, graduate, or post doctorate level and present nuanced interesting arguments that go on for 50,000+ words. However, in a post at this length I do like to see a thesis statement of some type before you start citing evidence left and right - it is generally helpful for identifying the salient evidentiary points presented. The strong thesis is something discussed in high school, so perhaps this is a problem with the California school system?
March 31st, 2006 at 2:28:21 pm
Casey, attend to Finance by all means but please don’t neglect Geopolitics. Your’re Good. / You’re also very Funny. :)
Yes, the USSR was an excellent Enemy. Very Satifying. :>
(Tip: keep yer eye on old Cathay. The Dragon awakens. / “He rose in fire, and flew away south toward Running River.” ~ Tolkien :)
March 31st, 2006 at 2:29:40 pm
Dane, there is nothing in the rules of blogging that says my post must follow some formula based upon its length. If you were looking for my “thesis statement”, it was this:
Yet despite my disgust with Fukuyama’s poor attempt to ingratiate himself with his new allies against the Iraq war, he still must be taken seriously. In fact, I think many of his criticisms merit heavy consideration, and his fellow war opponents in both parties would do well to consider his new position.
One of the reasons I chose to put the thesis statement further down the post, though, was to deliberately weed out people like you who have a habit of tuning out evidence and making up your mind three sentences into the post. I’m glad to report I’ve succeeded far beyond my expectations.
March 31st, 2006 at 2:44:42 pm
Casey, do you actually believe that the various states in the mideast don’t have appreciable cultural products along the lines or art or music? If nothing else, architecture is a form of functional art, and you have to admit that some of those palaces and mosques are rather impressive. Saying that it doesn’t compare to the epic level of competition as seen with the Soviets is one thing, but that they have absolutely nothing worth a damn? No.
March 31st, 2006 at 3:15:41 pm
“Sorry, A&A. Outside the tiny realm of your mind, that hardly qualifies as a thought.”
Oooooh! How can I ever respond to such a concise, intelligent and withering response?
Joe Mama. You truly are a ‘tard, aren’t you?
March 31st, 2006 at 3:24:41 pm
Andrew, the trouble is your post is a sprawling mess. Though your conclusion is interesting. Going about this in a more organized manner would have improved your argument significantly. I’m not suggesting you write like USA Today, but a certain level of coherence is helpful in a pice of this length.
Be that as it may. I think you are missing a central problem in the present method being used to execute the war that the quotes you have presented seem to allude to–at least it reminded me of them. Two thinks won the Cold War for the United Sates (okay, more than two, but two key things) and they dove tail into each other. First, economic strength and stability that far surpassed that of any other nation. Second, the projection of the economic strength and personal liberty and independence into Soviet nations–in other words, a public relations campaign that made the US look good, the benevolent hegemon if you will.
This is, of course, where the execution of the war on terror is troubling. First, we are breaking down the economic strength of this nation. There are many reasons and contributing factors to this. Massive amounts of foreign debt for one thing, especially to China. Continued deficit spending and fiscal irresponsibility on the national level as well as the personal level. Illogical tax policy, unsustainable immigration policies and situations that are out dated and backwards. Unstable wages and employment among the key issues. Add to this an udder failure to project American values and freedoms effectively. Failure to adhere to the rule of law for all persons. Replaced with arrogance and bullheaded behavior that makes getting new allies difficult and estranges those we already have. In short a failure of public relations–a malevolent hegemon.
There are a number of factors and important issues that I have left out. Some of them military some of them not, but the problem, as I see it, with your position Andrew is that you leave out half the strategy when you look at how to win the war on terror. A fully military solution is untenable. You must find ways to change minds not just blow them out. You must alleviate the things that cause people to want to harm us. You must use police style activities to find those that really do want to harm us. You must arrest and properly prosecute those that try and harm us. And we need to help those that want to move away from totalitarian theocracies and help them move towards secularism, freedom, and democracy–probably in that order. This is certainly not the type of battle you can win quickly. It will take time and lots of effort. The NYC Police Department seems to have the right idea on how to stop people from attacking us. The next important step is stopping them from wanting to hurt us in the first place.
March 31st, 2006 at 4:11:02 pm
Casey, what in God’s green earth are you talking about? Did any of that even resemble a coherent thought? Enemy Withrawal? Holy shit…
March 31st, 2006 at 4:11:39 pm
Not saying that there’s no culture in the Middle East. Islamic civilization in general has culture o’plenty. I was thinking more of the splinter terrorist groups and tyrranical states that we consider our opposition.
Islamic civilization was the place to be for hundreds of years back in the day, and it has plenty of cultural contributions to its merit. But I don’t see this as Western vs. Islamic civilization. Maybe if I did I would have more fun.
March 31st, 2006 at 4:42:46 pm
Like Casey, I was intrigued by the first block quote from Fukuyama, and I also see some truth in the comment. However, I don’t share Fukuyama’s(and apparently Casey’s) view that the end of history will be a very sad time.
It seems to me that the spread of democracy is geared precisely to bring about the end of history that Fukuyama laments, which is curious given his apparent association with the Neocons.
If we Americans think of the 9/11 perpetrators at all, we usually think of 70 virgins in heaven, Islamic fundamentalism, their desire to impose extremist Islam on the world.
The 9/11 Commission Report paints a somewhat different picture. As we all know, the Pentagon attackers spent the weekend of Sept. 8th-10th in Florida, not seeking 70 virgins but rather getting 70 lap dances in a ripper club. The ringleader Atta apparently spent his last night on earth wandering around a WalMart, symbol of American imperial evil.
The descriptions of the guys living in Hamburg are similar: Western dress, eating fast food, Western music, etc.
It is possible, though I am no expert, that a major reason that four planes were aimed at the nerve center of the American military/industrial/political complex was actually a desire to have all things American, but the Saudi (American-sponsored) government provided no freedom, no opportunity, just the depressing repression of corrupt kings and emirs.
In Fukuyama’s terminology, it could be that the WOT is waged against us by those looking to reach the golden end of history that America made it to in the late 20th century.
If so, then spreading democracy in the region might be a pretty good strategy. If it works, democracy = enfranchisement. Democracy = a middle class. Democracy = Taco Bell on every corner. Democracy = stable jobs. Democracy = self-destination. Democracy = the end of history.
Look, promoting democratic institutions doesn’t have the satisfaction of sitting in your barcalounger, eating a hamburger, and watching revenge bombs blow up your enemy on cable news. But I am not sure how easy it is to “win” that type of global war, e.g. the shock and awe war.
It may be the best way for us to sustain our society is to promote democracy in the middle east. Admittedly, this would be so in spite of significant risk of electing a Hamas or Hitler or Lukashenko…(and the additional risk of several more decades of shitty movies, music and visual arts).
March 31st, 2006 at 9:15:07 pm
Let me encourage you guys not to dwell too significantly on the excerpt about the “end of history”. That article is almost fifteen years old, and its thesis was debated ad nauseum in the post-Cold War, pre-9/11 era. Fukuyama himself has indicated that his current thinking on the subject is quite a bit removed from the content of that essay. I guess it is rather interesting, though, to see that Fukuyama’s essay has remained timeless and debatable, even in the post-9/11 world.
March 31st, 2006 at 9:19:15 pm
Andrew, the trouble is your post is a sprawling mess. Though your conclusion is interesting. Going about this in a more organized manner would have improved your argument significantly. I’m not suggesting you write like USA Today, but a certain level of coherence is helpful in a pice of this length.
Dane, the only one here who seems to have had any trouble digesting where I was going with this piece is you. I can understand if you got lost because you have ADD, but there wasn’t much incoherence there. And while I played around with the organization, I settled on the flow that exists for a reason. Ultimately I’m not turning this in for a grade, I’m posting a thought to a blog, so I couldn’t care less if it meets your preferred level of organization or not.
March 31st, 2006 at 9:39:19 pm
Fukuyama and all the other neo-con nuts thought Democracy won over Communism and that was the end of the story. Unfortunately Democracy is back under attack because the poor and working class in Russia and South America didn’t benefit from Democratic reforms in the 1990s. The wealth of their countries remained in the hands of oligarchs, the state and/or multi-national corporate benefactors, while the poor and working class were kept from rising to middle class or from being able to compete as entrepreneurs.
Now we have a wave of nationalism taking hold in Russia and several puppet regimes rising in the former Soviet Republics and socialism is back on the march in South America. Fukuyama didn’t know what he was talking about when he wrote “The End of History.”
March 31st, 2006 at 9:39:34 pm
Two thinks won the Cold War for the United Sates (okay, more than two, but two key things) and they dove tail into each other. First, economic strength and stability that far surpassed that of any other nation. Second, the projection of the economic strength and personal liberty and independence into Soviet nations–in other words, a public relations campaign that made the US look good, the benevolent hegemon if you will.
That’s a selective interpretation of history there, David. Recall that going into the 1980s and throughout the 1970s, we experienced a general economic malaise, complete with stagflation. Even with Reagan’s economic reforms, which jumpstarted GDP growth, the effects failed to reach “Main Street America”, resulting in the common criticism of the time of supply-side economics being “trickle-down economics”. We had a genuine recession going on at the end of the ’80s in the middle of George H.W. Bush’s term, and it was right around that time that the USSR collapsed once and for all. So, really, it wasn’t the economic performance per se that gave us strength, it was the market economy in general, despite its weakness at the time, which proved to be unshakeably strong and resilient to the USSR’s Cold War threats. The Soviets had the resources to compete, but they could not allocate capital nearly as effectively to sustain their military.
Fundamentally, nothing has changed on this front. If anything our current economic position is stronger: national debt is lower as a percentage of GDP than it was in the 80s; foreign investment is at an all-time high, as other countries’ investors flock to get a piece of Main Street America’s prosperity; inflation remains low and containable; interest rates have been growth-fueling; and unemployment has remained at historically low levels over the past decade, despite the brief blip that occurred after 9/11. You will not find an economist outside of Paul Krugman’s Roman bath buddies who will agree with your argument that our economy is fundamentally weak and incapable of handling the challenges of the GWOT.
As for the public relations in the 1980s, you’re wearing rose-colored glasses there as well. Europeans hated us back then. They were scared shitless of us placing nuke-tipped missiles in Europe; they wanted rapprochement with the Soviets, not a nuclear build-up on their soil. Every liberal in America screamed Reagan was alienating our allies and risking a nuclear holocaust. Thatcher and Reagan were viewed as twin evil rulers everywhere you went–everywhere, that is, except in the underground places in Eastern Europe, where Poles and Czechs held onto every last word of solidarity even as the world lambasted America for her provocative foolishness.
March 31st, 2006 at 9:44:38 pm
Now that I’ve hopefully disabused you of your ridiculously rosy remembrances of past history, let’s turn to your next charge:
First, we are breaking down the economic strength of this nation. There are many reasons and contributing factors to this. Massive amounts of foreign debt for one thing, especially to China. Continued deficit spending and fiscal irresponsibility on the national level as well as the personal level. Illogical tax policy, unsustainable immigration policies and situations that are out dated and backwards. Unstable wages and employment among the key issues.
Where is your evidence for this? Your accusations here are extremely shaky. Our foreign debt is a direct result of capital investment flowing into America–in other words, other countries are so convinced that they can make a buck here, they are pouring their capital into our economy faster than we can export our products to their markets, resulting in massive trade imbalances. These trade imbalances and investment flows indicate that other countries are placing their bet on America. That’s a sign of strength, not weakness.
And while I refuse to defend Congress’ reckless spending, it is fundamentally true that national debt and our running deficits are less a percentage of GDP than they were when we were fighting the Cold War, striking a fatal blow to your comparison vis-a-vis our staredown with the Soviets. We are at alarming high levels of debt, true, but we were worse off back then, and we can better afford our current levels of debt than we could our debts of the past.
As for illogical tax policy, sign me up for that flat tax or national sales tax, but you’re crazy if you think our tax structure is worse than it was twenty years ago. Not only are we taxed less than we were then, but the tax code has been simplified quite a bit since then, too (just not nearly enough for my tastes). As for immigration, we may very well be worse off in that department than we were a couple decades ago, but immigration isn’t going to be our Achilles heel. If anything, our weakness is in education, where we’ve spent the past few decades installing waves of liberal America-haters in schools and universities that have eroded Americans’ faith, belief, and patriotism in their own country and its ideals. Given that potential weakness of resolve, the Islamo-fascists have a huge step up on us, as they will not falter–they are committed to their jihad.
As for our current ability to win hearts and minds in the Middle East, again, compared to how much we were hated in the 1980s, I see no discernable difference between the two scenarios. Frankly, I think the way to success is the same as it was under Reagan–be the stronger dog in the fight, and the enemy will eventually succumb. None of this makes us a “malevolent hegemon” anymore than we were a malevolent hegemon when we beat back the USSR and help Eastern Europe throw off the yoke of communism in the 1980s by standing forcefully for democracy with our swords drawn and ready for battle.
A fully military solution is untenable. You must find ways to change minds not just blow them out. You must alleviate the things that cause people to want to harm us. You must use police style activities to find those that really do want to harm us. You must arrest and properly prosecute those that try and harm us. And we need to help those that want to move away from totalitarian theocracies and help them move towards secularism, freedom, and democracy–probably in that order. This is certainly not the type of battle you can win quickly. It will take time and lots of effort.
If you were paying attention, that is more or less a version of what Fukuyama is saying, and I’ve already stated my position vis-a-vis Fukuyama and Garfinkle. What it boils down to is I think your way is wrong and won’t work, and you think our way is wrong and won’t work. Fortunately our way is the way that is in power right now, so time will tell if it was the road to success or not.
March 31st, 2006 at 10:40:48 pm
Andrew, I’m not saying I couldn’t understand what you wrote I’m saying that on an objective level your writing style in this pice was shit. There is a difference. You seem to be able to confuse who is writing within the same comment though. this is amusing to me. I’m not ADD I’m dyslexic, Brendan is the one that is ADD, come on, get it right.
Anyway, your point RE percentage of GDP is actually bogus, you do know that right? It is the highest deficit to GDP since WWII — which if recollection serves, makes it second highest ever. At least then the country was acting responsibly in relation to its debt… Come on, pay attention to your current events.
Foreign debt to a communist totalitarian dictatorship is, objectively, not a good group to be beholden to in connection with our economy. That should be a simple point to understand.
Taxed less, skyrocketing spending and deficit spending. That is logical tax policy? Flat taxes have an inherently regressive character. I would not object to a creative solution to tax policy.
liberal America-haters in schools and universities that have eroded Americans’ faith, belief, and patriotism in their own country and its ideals.
I think that is quite possibly the dumbest thing you have ever typed. Liberals are the only ones fighting for the ideals this country was founded on… Bill of Rights, rule of law… that sort of thing…
too bad your way is in power right now… it means were fucked… you are focused on one part of the solution, I’m suggesting that we look at the entire puzzle and take appropriate action at all phases… And you are arguing we just try and go in a blow the fuckers up. That approach is simply untenable.
April 1st, 2006 at 1:32:08 am
Casey, it’s too bad you didn’t show up at Rochester ’til after I was gone. We could have used someone else with a sense of humor about the world.
April 1st, 2006 at 11:32:52 am
Andrew conveniently forgets to mention that another contributing factor to the Soviet Union’s decline was a protracted and unwinnable 10-year war in Afghanistan, which helped drain the Kremlin’s treasury and shake the confidence of the military and the people in the party leadership. Not like anything like that could possibly happen here.
April 1st, 2006 at 5:00:21 pm
The war agaisnt Islamifacism and the spread of democracy need to be separate endeavors. I can see why the Bush administration bundles them together: democratic states are less likely to foster terrorism, and democratic people are freer, thus everyone thinks democracy and freedom are the same thing. It is lamentable that, despite our nation’s own history with freedom and democracy, we seem to think democracy and freedom are the same thing. A politician has to sell his message in two-second sound bites, otherwise people will not listen, and it is everyone’s fault–including the media and it’s love of soundbites, and our lazyness and lack of historical perspective, our desire to antagonize, polarize, and dumb down everything–that we end up thinking the ilogical stories we tell ourselves. It is our collective ignorace that allows us to think democracy leads to freedom and freedom to democracy, without quantifying and qualifying the steps in between, and to believe a politician when he tells us it is so. It is our collective ignorance that leads us to believe that hiding makes a threat go away, and to believe a politician when he tells us it is so. We could use a little history, and we need to develop more pride in our western liberal values and customs so that we are more ready to defend them, both physically and philosophically, from physical and philosophical threats.
The spread of democracy in societies not ready to embrace liberal values and customs is a recipe for disaster (see: Weinmar Republic), and you need to foster economic liberalism that leads to economic prosperity, which in turn creates the middle class necessary to sustain democracy and the more affluent class that can keep the government in check, creating the conditions for democratic institutions to grow and thrive. If you skip the economic step of the equation, you will end up with radicals in power, rampant coruption and a weak understanding of liberal values which is ripe for radicalism to thrive. Democratic elections one time does not a democracy make, and this is why authoritarian regimes friendly to economic reform are better (for national security and for the spread of democracy)than democratically elected radicals. Oftentimes, those nasty dictators we love to hate are more moderate and open than anything that would replace them and that is ready to mobilize in a democratic election. It upsets many people, but it is part of this big lie we are feed–on the left and on the right–that democracy is this panacea, and that constitutional liberalism and democracy go hand in hand. If only we would recall America’s own bitterwseet history with respect to democracy, perhaps we would understand. A good book on this: Fareed Zakaria’s The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad.
I disagree with Fukuyama (or atleast the Fukuyama Andrew painted in this post) when it comes to the war agaisnt Islamofacism. Terrorists are willing to do anything to achieve their goal, and sometimes it will require more than police-like surgical operations. I was never terribly excited about the war in Iraq, but I understood deep down we had no choice. I have been frustrated with the rethoric and the execution ever since, but I still think that sometimes, all out war is necessary, and it is deeply tragic. As long as people out there feel they can better achieve their goals through terrorizing others, we will need to have the means to counter the security threat they present. Humankind has been waring since the beggining of time, and it is never going to change. It is foolish to think the contrary, really.
April 1st, 2006 at 6:51:49 pm
Bea, I agree totally with your first two paragraphs. I generally agree with your second paragraph, though I don’t think that the war in Iraq was inevitable. Certainly it could have been better handled and still could be. I’m in the process of reading the book you mentioned and thus far have been quite impressed and would recommend it as well.
April 1st, 2006 at 6:52:42 pm
the second sentence should read, I generally agree with your third paragraph… Obviously…
April 1st, 2006 at 8:29:44 pm
Andrew conveniently forgets to mention that another contributing factor to the Soviet Union’s decline was a protracted and unwinnable 10-year war in Afghanistan, which helped drain the Kremlin’s treasury and shake the confidence of the military and the people in the party leadership.
So how come we didn’t collapse after Vietnam? It’s not like Jimmy Carter had us on the road to prosperity after that disaster.
April 1st, 2006 at 8:44:08 pm
Andrew, I’m not saying I couldn’t understand what you wrote I’m saying that on an objective level your writing style in this pice was shit.
Dane, I took your criticism to heart and went back and read my post from start to finish. I hadn’t looked at it for over 24 hours, so I thought maybe after a fresh look I might understand where your criticism is coming from.
But I can’t.
I know I should take seriously the criticisms of someone who spells almost as well as my dog Sadie, but while this post isn’t quite Pulitzer material, it’s light-years beyond I’ve ever seen anything that’s come from your fingertips. Aside from the general fact that I think it’s in poor taste to criticize any guest-blogger’s writing form on Brendan’s blog, I simply see no merit behind what you have to say.
You seem to be able to confuse who is writing within the same comment though.
Example(s)?!?!?!?
I’m not ADD I’m dyslexic, Brendan is the one that is ADD, come on, get it right.
Dane, I never accused you of ADD, I simply made a generic comment that I could understand someone with ADD getting lost in the length of my post. When I said, “I can understand if you got lost because you have ADD,” I was using “you” in the generic sense, not you specifically. But I’ll take the hit on that sentence, at least, for not being as clear as it could’ve been.
April 1st, 2006 at 8:51:19 pm
I think that is quite possibly the dumbest thing you have ever typed. Liberals are the only ones fighting for the ideals this country was founded on… Bill of Rights, rule of law… that sort of thing…
Dane, I am talking about the 7th-grade history teachers who tells his class that the Founding Fathers were all hypocrites because they owned slaves, and that America is evil because it committed genocide against the Native Americans. I quote Peggy Noonan:
I absolutely agree with her here. We need to learn about the pockmarks on American history, but first we must teach our kids to step back and see that our country’s history is mythical, magical, and beautiful. Instead, academia and schools are filled with teachers who do nothing but paint a broad, bleak picture of our country, and in turn we have a generation of Americans who don’t understand why they should be patriotic except when planes are flying into their buildings and killing their brothers and sisters.
April 1st, 2006 at 9:04:32 pm
Anyway, your point RE percentage of GDP is actually bogus, you do know that right? It is the highest deficit to GDP since WWII � which if recollection serves, makes it second highest ever. At least then the country was acting responsibly in relation to its debt… Come on, pay attention to your current events.
WRONG!. Next:
Foreign debt to a communist totalitarian dictatorship is, objectively, not a good group to be beholden to in connection with our economy. That should be a simple point to understand.
China is a totalitarian dictatorship, and we are beholden to them? You mind showing me how we are beholden to China? Trade creates interdependencies, not dependency. Taking foreign investment from companies and individuals in other countries doesn’t make us beholden to anybody. You’re spewing the same sort of xenophobia-laced pseudo-analysis that we heard in the 1980s, when everyone feared Japan was buying up America.
Taxed less, skyrocketing spending and deficit spending.
The spending side of the equation has nothing to do with whether our TAX policy is screwed up, it means our FISCAL policy is screwed up.
In fact, if you look at the evidence, the income side of things is doing quite well. If we could just cut spending and/or restructure Social Security and Medicare, we could very quickly fix our deficit problem.
Anyway, come back to the table when you actually know what you’re talking about.
April 1st, 2006 at 9:16:23 pm
“our country’s history is mythical, magical, and beautiful.”
First, this statement is nonsensical. It was hardly mythical, magical and beautiful when Washington’s troops were starving at Valley Forge, or when the British burned the White House in 1812, or when Americans slaughtered each other at The Wilderness and Gettysburg, or when Japanese Americans were interned during WWII, or Joseph McCarthy rode shotgun over the Constitution, or etc, etc, etc.
The problem with Conservatives is they long for this mythical America where John Wayne led the Normandy Invasion or commanded the Flying Leathernecks. I got news for you. The real John Wayned never saw combat! His name wasn’t even John Wayne. He was an actor.
America is one of the greatest nations on Earth because, in the end, our people have overcome hardships and differences in an effort to achieve Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. The path there has involved blood, hardship, hunger, racism, and just about every problem you can think of. It has always been this way and it always will.
If our nation’s history is beautiful at all, it is because we have survived those “pockmarks” while other nation’s haven’t. Those pockmarks, and how we overcame them, should be examined thoroughly because they tell the real story. They should not be glanced over as we search vainly for the Frank Capra version of American History.
April 1st, 2006 at 9:31:03 pm
The problem with Conservatives is they long for this mythical America where John Wayne led the Normandy Invasion or commanded the Flying Leathernecks. I got news for you. The real John Wayned never saw combat! His name wasn’t even John Wayne. He was an actor.
That’s a common accusation, but it’s not based in any fact. We’re not arguing to skip past all the bad stuff, we’re simply saying that the bigger picture should be taught: That our country is special, and worth celebrating. Most liberals in the classroom paint the opposite picture for their students, and it’s a shame.
And by the way, it’s rather comical that you’re telling me about Marion Morrison, who went to my alma mater and was my county’s most famous resident (we only named our airport after him, after all). In fact, Marion Morrison and I were almost fraternity brothers… but that’s a story for another time.
If our nation’s history is beautiful at all, it is because we have survived those “pockmarks� while other nation’s haven’t. Those pockmarks, and how we overcame them, should be examined thoroughly because they tell the real story. They should not be glanced over as we search vainly for the Frank Capra version of American History.
Again, I (and Peggy Noonan) am not arguing that we should glance over the pockmarks. Read this again:
It’s also the people who mean to be honestly and legitimately critical, to provide a new look at the old text. They’re not noticing that the old text–the legend, the myth–isn’t being taught anymore. Only the commentary is. But if all the commentary is doubting and critical, how will our kids know what to love and revere? How will they know how to balance criticism if they’ve never heard the positive side of the argument?
I am arguing that we teach the positive in addition to the negative. If that’s what you believe too, great, but the fact is far too many liberals focus only on the negative.
April 1st, 2006 at 10:10:59 pm
You quote me and then reefer to David, see comment 32 on this post… Next.
I looked at your graph, it proves my point, it is the highest level since IKE and the ramp down from WWII… Next.
Sorry, just deriving some Schadenfreude for giving you crap about your writing given that you never pull your punches in that regard with others I’m taking this one for all its worth. Next…
Damn Conservatives always nostalgically yearning for some mythical better time in the past… Guess what the past is past, and the future is what we make of it. We need to move forward, not gaze at our navels. The US has done some great things, and we’ve done some bad things. We need to teach all of it so we learn from or mistakes and our successes. Among our success, things like the rule of law and Liberalism the conservatives want to roll back to some nostalgic vision of perfection. And I don’t know what kind of crack ass teachers you had Andrew, but in my high school, they taught the good the bad and the indifferent. They taught that Jackson was an important populist president that expended suffrage and did a lot of good for the country but that he was also an ass. Jefferson (who in my opinion still gets way over valued to guys like Hamilton and Mason and Madison who did more for this country, but I digress.) they talk about treaties with France, the Declaration of Independence, his Deist beliefs, the Jefferson Bible, The University he founded, his political writings. And the paradox that despite his beliefs he was so far in debt when he died he couldn’t afford to free his slaves. From my personal experience the problem seems to be that teachers are teaching the reality of what happened instead of some mythically inspired belief that your beloved conservative navel gazers want to believe is history. Next…
Making stupid ass decisions about tax policy is, guess what tax policy. First in regard to fiscal policy you make untenable tax decisions. Then in regard to tax policy alone you love to tax the people least able to pay — Republicans, returning you to the better time when there were Feudal Lords and we could chop of your head if you didn’t got to church on Sunday — because were nostalgic. Next…
Andrew, cut spending? Cut spending? If your stupid ass president hadn’t gotten us into a superfluous war costing us in excess of a hundred billion dollars a year we might not be in quite the financial crisis we are in now. What are you suggesting we cut? Never the military, oh no, they can waist billions of dollars a year on toilet seats hammers and ash trays — lets cut everything else. Next…
Because if we ever had to go to war with China, what exactly do you see happening? Next…
Andrew, I suggest you come back to the table when you get your had out of your ass, or the sand, or whatever orifice you’ve got it stuck in.
April 1st, 2006 at 10:17:58 pm
I do realize the inherent disconnect between saying we should cut military spending in one breath and then in the next start talking about a war with China. I should have been more clear. We get very uppity about wasteful spending in every nook and cranny of government except for the military–where we are less vigilant about such things… For example hiring independent contractors to feed our troops ended up costing more than having the military do it itself. Beyond that I do still think that standing armies and the attendant MIC issues are a important issue that we need to pay close attention to.
April 1st, 2006 at 10:19:14 pm
Oh dammit, I hate it when I make typos, especially when I’m launching an ad homonym attack…. It was supposed to be “when you get your head out of your ass” obviously…
April 1st, 2006 at 11:12:41 pm
You quote me and then reefer to David, see comment 32 on this post… Next.
What the hell does that have to do with the supposed incoherence of my original post?
I looked at your graph, it proves my point, it is the highest level since IKE and the ramp down from WWII… Next.
Wrong. In 2007, we are projected to finally eclipse the level of debt as a percentage of GDP that we had under Bush Sr. and Clinton. But this is 2006, so we’re still below where we were fifteen years ago.
Among our success, things like the rule of law and Liberalism the conservatives want to roll back to some nostalgic vision of perfection.
This is completely unsupported by any evidence, and does not at all reflect what I said above or what I quoted Noonan as saying. Again, you might want to work on your reading comprehension here instead of setting up straw men.
Making stupid ass decisions about tax policy is, guess what tax policy. First in regard to fiscal policy you make untenable tax decisions. Then in regard to tax policy alone you love to tax the people least able to pay � Republicans, returning you to the better time when there were Feudal Lords and we could chop of your head if you didn’t got to church on Sunday � because were nostalgic. Next…
lol, you chide me on incoherence? That paragraph was a beaut!
And I don’t know what kind of crack ass teachers you had Andrew, but in my high school, they taught the good the bad and the indifferent.
I’m glad that you had good history teachers. I did, too. But as an aggregate, there are far too many liberals who are only teaching the negative.
If your stupid ass president hadn’t gotten us into a superfluous war costing us in excess of a hundred billion dollars a year we might not be in quite the financial crisis we are in now.
Okay so we don’t go to war, and that now reduced our annual deficits from $400 billion to $300 billion. That’s still a structural spending problem, whether or not Iraq is a moneypit.
Never the military, oh no, they can waist billions of dollars a year on toilet seats hammers and ash trays � lets cut everything else.
Ah, so you’re in the bakesale-for-fighter-jets camp eh? Nice to know.
Because if we ever had to go to war with China, what exactly do you see happening?
We’d kick their ass. Except, oops, we cut out the military, because who needs $100 hammers and toilet seats? At least in the next comment you save yourself from sounding even stupider by noting the disconnect within your argument.
Oh and by the way, you’re referring to NASA examples there, buddy, not Pentagon examples. Get your facts straight and they might be more useful to your argument.
April 1st, 2006 at 11:52:39 pm
Andrew, why is it surprising that the 7th graders and up are getting a critical analysis? Or, even, wrong? There already exists a time in which the children get a sanitized and mythic version of our country–it’s known as elementary school. As the kids get older, teachers *should* be teaching more of the reality and less of the pretty picture. History is a legitimate academic subject, and by the time you start actually having history teachers, there’s nothing wrong with teaching the complicated network of facts which show that many otherwise great people did some things we find deplorable, and that good intentions do not always make for good results. If you want to argue for the need for a civics class to instill patriotic values, go ahead–that could be an interesting debate–but don’t muddy the discipline of History with it. What that argues for isn’t education; it’s indoctrination.
And Dane, you continue to suffer from substantial party blinders. “Liberals are the only ones fighting for the ideals this country was founded on”. Only ones? Not on your life, Dane.
April 2nd, 2006 at 8:54:52 am
I believe we should teach American kids the good and the bad about our history. For instance, FDR’s New Deal gave the American people hope. At the same time, FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court. Ronald Reagan helped turn America’s self-image around in the 1980s. At the same time, he directly and indirectly supported right-wing death squads in El Salvador.
History is only interesting when you can see that humans, with human weaknesses, made that history. Presenting history as mythical or magical makes no sense to me, because current events are rarely mythical or magical. If Conservatives expect them to be, no wonder they bought into this idea of the “end of history.”
April 2nd, 2006 at 10:27:46 am
Andrew, Point Re: comment 32 was in reference to this statement:
in comment 41. In which you quote the same comment and attribute it to two different people. This is an objetivly impossible argument for you to win at this point.
April 2nd, 2006 at 10:33:33 am
so far we have no proof for this statement: I’m glad that you had good history teachers. I did, too. But as an aggregate, there are far too many liberals who are only teaching the negative. and yet you accuse me of setting up straw men with no evidence. Whereas my point on Republicans wanting to make middle and class Americans bend take it up the ass on taxes is based on the record of Republicans change the tax code to screw workers and save millions for millionaires and billionaires. Which, if we didn’t have these asinine untenable tax cuts we wouldn’t be in the complete budget crisis we are in now. Republicans really do seem like they are trying to claw their way back to the gilded age or even Feudalism…
April 2nd, 2006 at 10:41:43 am
Mike, oh yeah, show me one Republican that is a member of the ACLU and I’ll concede this argument. I might not agree with what the ACLU decides to sue on some of the time, a lot of the time. But in terms of Liberal Democracy, the ACLU is the group out there every day fighting for those freedoms and fighting for Liberalism (big L Liberalism not small l liberalism…) Given that this Country was founded on enlightenment ideals and Liberal Democracy I don’t have a problem saying these are things everyone should be fighting for.
April 2nd, 2006 at 10:53:23 am
Let me make that last point another way too. Bush seems to think the rule of law and the Constitution don’t apply to him and he can do whatever the heck he wants. And Republicans in congress seem more than happy to genuflect until their head are up their bums and let him get away with it. This is not fighting for the principles this country was founded on: the rule of law as embodied in the Constitution. these people only seem to care about power for powers sake.
April 2nd, 2006 at 5:32:09 pm
And here I’ll accuse you of false dichotomy, Dane. Even if I were to accept your (to my opinion, insane)notion that no Republican was fighting for any of the ideals on which this country was founded, it does not follow that the only ones who are doing so are Liberals. There are also people in this country known as libertarians, populists, centrists, socialists, and a whole slew of other political persuasions.
Beyond that, you’re focusing on the ideals nearest and dearest to your own heart. There were other ideals on which this country was founded. Such as, oh, freedom of religion. Now, you *know* that I don’t agree with this position, but you should understand that in the minds of those who are pushing for prayer in the public school, they too are fighting for freedom of religion–that they be allowed to worship as their community chooses, not as distated to them by the courts. I feel that they’re misinterpreting what the term means, and that they’re trying to infringe on the rights of those who live there and don’t hold the majoritarian views, but at least I acknowledge that they honestly believe that they’re fighting for an ideal on which this country was founded. This is an example of what I was trying to get across to you the other day about the importance of being able to realistically drop your own views for a moment and try to understand why people do things with which you disagree.
Or, if you want to leave religion out of it, there’s the American Dream ideal of coming to this country to make a better life for yourself and your children. Note that not all immigrants, by any means, are liberals–from our own peanut gallery, witness Bea. Or we can extend a generation, as Ricardo was born here but both of his parents are immigrants, and he’s too close to the middle these days to truly be considered a liberal. The small business owner who wants to be able to hire whomever she wants, regardless of whether they’re unionized–hell, the non-unionized worker who wants to be able to choose not to join a union and still be able to find employment–are also embracing ideals of this country. As, of course, is the worker who wants to join a union and thus does so. The ability to make decisions is a fundamental aspect of freedom.
Fundamentally, Dane, you should know me well enough by now to know that I’m going to attack almost any use of absolutes in political debates. Lately, you’ve been letting your emotions overrule your logic, and your arguments have suffered. If you want to keep on in the same style, go right ahead, but recognize that, like Brendan, I have a tendency to go after the low-hanging fruit, and the attitude infusing your comments of late has been leaving you a wide-open target.
April 2nd, 2006 at 8:00:15 pm
Mike, I have no problem with freedom of religion, though it bugs me that Christians running around clamming to be persecuted — come with me to the zoo and I’ll show you some persecution (Any one watch Bill Maher, anyone? That’s a bit less funny if you don’t…)
April 3rd, 2006 at 9:11:58 pm
Andrew, why is it surprising that the 7th graders and up are getting a critical analysis? Or, even, wrong? There already exists a time in which the children get a sanitized and mythic version of our country–it’s known as elementary school… If you want to argue for the need for a civics class to instill patriotic values, go ahead–that could be an interesting debate–but don’t muddy the discipline of History with it. What that argues for isn’t education; it’s indoctrination.
Mike, that isn’t what I am saying at all. Look, you, myself, Dane–obviously we had fairly good teachers from 7th grade on up. But I’ve seen plenty of teachers and professors out there whose fundamental philosophy is apparently that the U.S. is the root of all that is wrong in the world. Those are the people I am railing against here, not teachers who look at the good and the bad.
April 3rd, 2006 at 9:14:42 pm
I believe we should teach American kids the good and the bad about our history. For instance, FDR’s New Deal gave the American people hope. At the same time, FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court. Ronald Reagan helped turn America’s self-image around in the 1980s. At the same time, he directly and indirectly supported right-wing death squads in El Salvador.
Again Mad Max, I completely agree. How are you not getting that?
Presenting history as mythical or magical makes no sense to me, because current events are rarely mythical or magical.
I’m not talking about current events, I’m talking about our nation’s founding, and how we survived-and thrived after-the Civil War. There is much that is mythical about how the odd chances of history brought the men who founded this nation together, as well as the leaders and heros that guided us through the Revolutionary War, 1812, Civil War, and WWII.
April 3rd, 2006 at 9:17:59 pm
In which you quote the same comment and attribute it to two different people. This is an objetivly impossible argument for you to win at this point.
Dane, I obviously was referring to you. I don’t think David has even commented on this thread, I just mixed up your names momentarily. Also you have it backward, comment 41 referred to comment 32. Besides, we were talking about the incoherence of my post, not mis-attributes in my comments.
April 3rd, 2006 at 9:22:57 pm
Whereas my point on Republicans wanting to make middle and class Americans bend take it up the ass on taxes is based on the record of Republicans change the tax code to screw workers and save millions for millionaires and billionaires.
How is cutting taxes and eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax screwing the middle class? That makes no sense! Maybe we are cutting taxes too much for the rich, but even after the cuts, the rich still have a higher tax rate than the middle class. Plus, most establishment rich make their money on tax-free muni bonds or are somehow tied into a business and get taxed at the corporate rate, which hasn’t changed in eons.
As for Republican members of the Anti-Christian Litigation Unit, ever tried Google? While the ACLU would be wrong to publish its membership lists, there are plenty of examples out there of Republicans joining in fights with the ACLU.
April 3rd, 2006 at 9:41:45 pm
Fair enough, I say we call it a day on this one.