Posted on 03/11/2003 8:31:41 PM PST by beckett
1: THE PROBLEM
Of the many words written for and against the coming war with Iraq, none has been more perceptive than Paul Johnson's observation in his essay "Leviathan to the Rescue" that such a war "has no precedent in history" and that "in terms of presidential power and national sovereignty, Mr. Bush is walking into unknown territory. By comparison, the Gulf War of the 1990's was a straightforward, conventional case of unprovoked aggression, like Germany's invasion of Belgium in 1914 and Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor."
The implications of this remark - like the implications of the war with Iraq - are profound. The war with Iraq will constitute one of those momentous turning points of history in which one nation under the guidance of a strong-willed, self-confident leader undertakes to alter the fundamental state of the world. It is, to use the language of Hegel, an event that is world-historical in its significance and scope. And it will be world-historical, no matter what the outcome may be.
Such world-historical events, according to Hegel, are inherently sui generis - they break the mold and shatter tradition.
(Excerpt) Read more at techcentralstation.com ...
Please, ping your lists. Thank you.
The complete text (besides the TechCentralStation itself) is in this locked, duplicate thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/862627/posts
"The Lesson of Marx," the author calls this. Have Freepers adopted Marx as a teacher? Then they are in for a surprise, since if we believe this teacher capitalism is another fantasy likewise doomed to failure. Perhaps we lost the Cold War, after all.
Our author does not tell us why this dream house description applies only to rogue states, and not to the pie-in-the-sky capitalists who brought us the dot-com boom-bust and the Enron economy. And what about the fantastic neo-Wilsonian imaginings of our own president?
At the heart of the dialectically emergent concept of neo-sovereignty is precisely the double standard that Mr. Butler denounced - a double standard imposed by the U.S. on the rest of the world, whereby the U.S. can unilaterally decide to act, if need be, to override and even to cancel the existence of any state regime that proposes to develop WMD, especially in those cases where the state regime in question has demonstrated its dangerous lack of a sense of the realistic.
At the heart of American governance is the principle that a just government derives from the consent of the governed--What touches all, must be approved by all. If America decides to declare itself the world governor described here, we are betraying our foundational principles. I suspect this author would argue that such principles are out of date, "concepts from another age." All the more reason to distrust his foreign policy recommendations.
We must not let our noble ideals betray us into betraying our very ideals... We must take a hard look at every idea we hold dear and ask, Does this idea even fit any more?
How easily we abandon self-evident truths for the pragmatic.
And does it any longer make sense to speak of conservatives in a world in which a catastrophic change of some kind looms, or liberals when it is the core liberal values of all of us - even the most conservative - that are being threatened?
I'd rather stick to my principles and die than submit myself into the Leviathan State and live.
For neither in war nor yet at law ought any man to use every way of escaping death. For often in battle there is no doubt that if a man will throw away his arms, and fall on his knees before his pursuers, he may escape death; and in other dangers there are other ways of escaping death, if a man is willing to say and do anything. The difficulty, my friends, is not in avoiding death, but in avoiding wickedness; for that runs faster than death.
-Socrates, in Plato's Apology
But to call the United States' response a bid for empire is simply silly.
So what do you call a government that arrogates to itself the right to control the military of every other nation, as this very author advocates?
If people want on or off this list, please let me know.
Harris is a scholar of Marx, as I learned when I read some of his other work, but not in the way you think. He is a highly skilled debunker of Marx and persona non grata in socialist circles. His point is simple and clear: There is no free lunch. Free rider systems cannot work. To suggest that the dot.com busts and Enron are analogous to the failure of free rider systems like communism and oil rich Arab tribal societies is deeply problematic, to say the least.
I suspect this author would argue that such principles are out of date, "concepts from another age."
You're right. That's why I said in my opening post that he's presenting us with a novel point of view. It will be no easy task for an American conservative, with an abiding commitment to American foundational, constitutional principles, to wrap his or her mind around the world-historical role for the country Harris lays out in the piece. But his central point should give pause to every serious person. Are we targeted? Can the weapons aimed at us cause mass destruction? How do we deal with the threat? How much of your disagreement with Harris grows out of a longing for the Fortress America that sadly disappeared in a miles long cloud of smoke and ash on a crystal clear September day?
So what do you call a government that arrogates to itself the right to control the military of every other nation, as this very author advocates?
I don't believe he is speaking as an advocate. I don't read the article as a work of advocacy. Harris wants us to think about these ideas, and, as he says in his final sentence, do so with some trepidation.
The analogy to a spoiled brat who lives off his parents' generosity while badmouthing them at every turn is apt. Fortunately, most surly, freeloading kids do not end up killing their parents, while leftists and radical Islamists will surely destroy us, unless we wake up.
With the phenomena of radical Islam, however, we are confronted with the phenomena of individuals and groups who value a self-destructive fantasy more than their lives and interests. The presumption self-intrest is no longer valid when dealing with many parts of the Islamic world. This realization is tremendously disorienting for a typical Westerner
I disagree. The problem with the critique of realpolitik in this article is that it takes a much more narrow definition of "rational actors" than is really necessary. "Rational actors" are basically defined as "people like us", or more specifically, people who will ultimately value self-preservation above all else, just as we do.
Which is, to be sure, pretty much what the classic notion of realpolitik was based on - you could bluster people into submission, because you knew that, faced with the choice of accepting defeat or dying, they would accept defeat and opt for self-preservation. But that's no reason to think that the concepts can't be expanded to encompass what we're facing now.
And what we're confronted with now is a culture that has arrived at precisely the opposite set of values than what we're used to - given the choice between submission (i.e., failing to advance their own interests) and death, they would rather die. But this is a value choice, and no more or less rational than the opting for self-preservation in the face of certain defeat that we would choose. Admittedly, it's very much an all-or-nothing proposition for them - either they get what they want, or die trying - but it's a perfectly rational calculus at work here, albeit not the sort of calculus we are used to dealing with.
So we're still confronted with rational actors, but actors for whom submission is not an option. And it goes too far to define that sort of value choice as prima facie "irrational", IMO - all value choices are, to some extent, not subject to rational bases. We tend to think that it's better to be alive than dead, but I think that given a moment's reflection, you might find that it's actually very difficult to put together a rational foundation underlying that choice other than that it's simply your personal preference - in a very real sense, saying that being alive is better than being dead is not at all different than saying that chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla. No matter how much poking and prodding you do, you're going to end up with the same basis in purely personal preference for both of those choices.
So where do we go from here? Well, realpolitik is far from dead - we just have to recognize and understand the sorts of rationality at work in the minds of those who would destroy us. They still have interests, and act in furtherance of those interests, but part of their rational calculation is the conclusion that it's better to be dead than submit. And so if deterrence won't serve to rein in their actions, then we simply take the next logical step and kill them before they kill us - which was always a final option held in reserve under the notion of realpolitik. QED.
So, although it may very well appear that I end up in much the same place as the author, I think I do so by rather a different route. I very much dispute the notion that a "new paradigm" is necessary or desirable, particularly when the old one is still perfectly serviceable, given a bit of tweaking. And isn't that the essence of conservatism? ;)
And maybe that's all us common folk need to keep as our prayer.
You have stated the situation well for us simpler folk who survey the view from our present outlook and are hoping that someone can find us a way.
I have lifted a few of the points that I found to be quite enlightening.
"The motivations of those who want to murder us are not complicated: To watch an American city go up into a fireball is its own reward.
This is the lesson that 9/11 should teach us in dealing with the fantasists of the Islamic world. A fantasy does not need to make any sense - that is the whole point of having one.
.....
An empire acts to insure its own self-interest. But, in this case, the U.S. is rather acting as an agent for the interests of others at precisely the same time it is acting to insure its own national interests. Indeed, this is what Hegel meant by the cunning of reason. No matter how cynically one might choose to view American motives, what matters, at the world-historical level, is the objective consequence. Interpret America's true motives as cynically as you please - let it be the defense of the interest of big business in the stability of world markets - it makes no difference. What counts in the long run is the kind of world that arises out of this subjective intent. And this is where the enormous difference between the obsolete concept of empire and that of the emergent neo-sovereignty becomes strikingly clear. For in its role as neo-sovereign the United States, in pursuing its selfish policy, is also forced to increase the general level of security throughout the world.
.....
(speaking of the islamists)Success comes when we have created a higher degree of pragmatic realism on their part; failure comes when we have simply encouraged them in their fantasies.
And judged by this criterion, much of American policy toward the Islamic fantasists has been a signal departure from the American tradition of realism. For so much of our policy, from the Iran hostage crisis up until the events of 9/11 have almost been designed to encourage the growth of fantasy thinking among the most dangerous social forces in the Islamic world. Their policy has been to make us fear them through displays of force, whether in taking the staff of our embassy hostage or by flying airplanes into our buildings. And we have given our enemy the ultimate satisfaction - we have shown we are afraid. We have displayed how much their acts have devastated us, and our grief has provided a sickening opportunity for Schadenfreude on the part of far too much of the Islamic world. We must learn not only to exact a price for those who murder our citizens - but for those who, though technically innocent of the crime, dance in the streets to celebrate its consequences. This thirst for the indulgence of bloody fantasies at our expense must be brought to an end by whatever means it takes. Indeed, in the long run the greatest danger we face comes not from the terrorists of today, but those being bred for tomorrow - the children who are being inducted and brainwashed into the terror cult that is at the heart of the fantasy ideology of Islamism.
.....
But it is equally critical that we are not misled into trying to win the hearts and minds of the Islamic fantasists. We must not set about trying to convert them in believing in our principles and accepting our values, however noble and lofty these values might be. Nor must we be seduced into believing that we are in a popularity contest, as if we were trying to sell Western values as if it were a consumer product. If it should happen to come about that these values make inroads in the Islamic world, fine and good. But it must not became our aim.
Our aim is simple. It is to make the Islamic fantasists respect the dictates of reality. If they wish to compete with us, if they wish even to be our enemies, we will accept that, as we accepted this situation with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. But they must be made to accept the basic rules of play - rules that are accepted by the rest of mankind, from the U.S. to Communist China.
And that is why, in order to achieve our end of heightening their grasp on reality, no means should be ruled out. We must be prepared to use force "unstintingly," as Woodrow Wilson declared on America's reluctant entry into World War I. On this count, we must have no illusions. Until they are willing to play by our rules, we must be prepared to play by theirs."
Again thank you for posting this illuminating article!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.