Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gulliver unbound: can America rule the world?
Sydney Morning Herald ^ | August 6 2003 | By Josef Joffe

Posted on 08/05/2003 6:29:24 AM PDT by dead

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-84 last
To: dead
the U.S. is a hyper-puissance

Sounds French. And if you said that to someone on the street you would earn a knuckle sandwich.

51 posted on 08/05/2003 11:46:55 AM PDT by RightWhale (Destroy the dark; restore the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dead
And don't forget: the WSJ ran an op-ed entitled "Germany made a choice, and it isn't France" (or something similar). The Germans are far more pragmatic than the French, the current Chancellor notwithstanding.

And just for the record: this particular writer is also on the editorial board of the National Interest. There's more, but let the "assume-first" crowd do their own searching. He's no intellectual lightweight, nor is he left-leaning.

52 posted on 08/05/2003 11:52:55 AM PDT by austinTparty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: mtbopfuyn
We value those but our freedoms are being taken away by every PC group that comes down the pike

While we must be alert to attacks on the Constitution itself, especially the Second Amendment, consider that PC groups are not capable of taking away any freedoms. If there is a Constitutional Convention, then worry, or if a raving, unbalanced liberal such as Hillary actually becomes President and screeches every day at us like Eleanor. Also be wary of those who use incomplete statistics to make points.

53 posted on 08/05/2003 11:56:52 AM PDT by RightWhale (Destroy the dark; restore the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: dead
To: DoughtyOne

I'm sorry, you're right.  Like Kyoto, Clinton gave his token nod to it, knowing his signature at that point was as meaningless as his word - it would never ever ever be approved by the Senate. His support was a symbolic sop to the world government wing, but (IMO) he would never have signed on if he thought it might actually be binding. He was evil, but not stupid.

48 posted on 08/05/2003 11:28 AM PDT by dead (Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead!)
 

I agree with you on the merits of your comments, but I think there's much you're not addressing here.  Let me explain.

While Clinton's signature was meaningless as far as what the United States' Senate would back up, it was not considered meaningless on the world stage.

The U.N. was so desperate to get the ICC approved, it let world leaders sign on for their nations, even if their nations legislative bodies hadn't gone through proper motions to legally back up that signature.  Clinton's signature, not worth a damn to us, was cherished by Kofi Annan.  Once a certain number of world leaders signed on, the ICC was ratified, whether that ratification was approved legally or not, in the nations who's leaders signed on.

Futhermore, the number of nations required to sign on to ratify the ICC was something like 65 (approximate from memory) out of some 160 to 200 (I don't know what the exact figure is).  There wasn't a two thirds requirement.  No, the ICC ratification only required something like 35 to 40% of nations to sign on.

Thus the signature of Bill Clinton loomed large.  If even the United States was willing to sign on to this, since a super-power would have the most to lose, smaller nations shouldn't have anything to fear.  In fact, it could make them equal to the United States before the eyes of an ICC.  What a deal...

The US leader's signature on this document emboldened other nations to sign on.  Not only did Bill Clinton's signature constitute all that Kofi Annan needed, but his signature encouraged others to sign on.  He actually helped push this thing through his signing on board.

Leadership means having to stand out in front of the pack and explain why you must or mustn't do something.  It doesn't constitute signing on board claiming it's meaningless.  It doesn't involve looking the other way while other nations sign on to this.  It reguires a clear head and a willingness to take bold reasoned action to stave off global actions that 'will' come back to haunt you.

You see, once the ICC is ratified, France, Germany or any of the other nations that "so called" signed on to promise never to prosecute the US before the ICC, can't stop the ICC from bringing charges of it's own.  Once ratified, the ICC takes on a life of it's own.  The water was cold before it came into being.  It's luke warm now.  In ten years it will be boiling while we fiddle on.

In the United States, we ratify new ammendments to the Constitution by having states sign on.  I think it's two-thirds of the state houses that must sign on to ratify an ammendment.  But once an ammendment is ratified, it is the law of the land in all 50 states.  The ICC is the law over every nation of the world.

We can choose to say that we are not bound by the ICC.  The fact is we are.  We did not take bold action to assure that a world body would not be set up over us.  It is a reality today.  We are going to rue the day when we ever allowed this thing to rear it's ugly head.  It may not have an army to enforce it's will, but we are becoming so intertwined with our globalist ferver, that we will have no choice but to work with the ICC or suffer the consequences.

Bill Clinton's signature helped usher that in.  George Bush's complacence sealed the deal.  If you seek to claim that you are a bold conservative leader, you can't in the same breath claim that it took you fifteen months to figure out the ICC was a terrible idea, thirty days after it was known it was a certainty that it would be ratified.
 

54 posted on 08/05/2003 12:09:07 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
"The ICC is the law over every nation of the world."

That's incorrect. The ICC is a mere treaty. There is nothing about it that raises it above the status of a "treaty". It is therefore binding only to nations that signed and ratified said treaty, and even then limited in scope and reach to their own sovereign territories.

55 posted on 08/05/2003 12:17:47 PM PDT by Southack (Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
I worry about the economy these days. Never thought I'd say that, but an achilles heel is starting to show there.
56 posted on 08/05/2003 12:20:50 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: dead
MOST EXCELLANT
57 posted on 08/05/2003 12:25:36 PM PDT by y2k_free_radical (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dead
REAL POLITIC IMO
58 posted on 08/05/2003 12:27:47 PM PDT by y2k_free_radical (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Then I suggest you explain that to President Bush. He's busy getting our allies to promise not to take us to the ICC. If you are correct, since we're not signators, then I'm sure he'd be glad to know it.

Technically, you may be correct. In realty I think all you'll get out of that is a warm fuzzy feeling shouting from the rooftops that it isn't fair when we do get taken to task by the ICC.
59 posted on 08/05/2003 12:30:50 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
"Then I suggest you explain that to President Bush. He's busy getting our allies to promise not to take us to the ICC."

Bush is doing precisely the right thing.

When our citizens are inside the sovereign territories of ICC-signee nations, then those particular individuals are subject to the laws of those nations rather than to the laws of the U.S.

What Bush is doing is getting nation after nation to modify their laws to grant U.S. vistors to their lands full ICC immunity, so that little Aunt Mary doesn't get arrested as a tourist in Germany 20 years from now and put on trial for not respecting the rights of the Afghan warlord that she shot down back when she was in the U.S. military.

60 posted on 08/05/2003 12:43:24 PM PDT by Southack (Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Restorer
I agree with you, and I believe that this is the point of Joffe's article, in which there is a lot of truth.

Freedom was mentioned in the article, but not by that word. America, Joffe argues, is not countered in the world because it refuses to conquer other countries in the traditional sense.

Joffe, however, argues without exactly coming out and saying it, that it doesn't matter. America is conquering economically, culturally, militarily, institutionally, and politically - without incurring the expense of conquest that the Soviets or Romans did.

In fact, Joffe writes that this conquest happens at the expense of other countries, and the tribute to Imperial America comes in the form of talent from those conquered. Our ideas, our constitution, our ability to make something of our selves is so seductive that talent comes to us 'unpropelled'.

If anything, Joffe sort of gets tired and fails to finish what was started. The impact of a successful redraw of the Middle East is pretty much glossed over for the most part. Joffe also underappreciates the effect of an American taxpayer waking up to the reality that he is being asked to hand over his coin, and maybe even his job, to make 'the world' a better place.

The US is also in a race with Japan and other petroleum-challenged first world countries: either guarantee a cheap supply of secure oil, or we will successfully move on to an economy based on something other than petroleum. Joffe does mention something about this.

I think this is a pretty ballsy article. Joffe is saying that we already have a one-world government, if something catastrophic doesn't happen in the Iraq. With a loyal, pro-West Iraq, we simply don't need Saudi Arabia or OPEC, or Russia. With ballistic missile defense, there eventually isn't even the remote possibility of nuking us if America simply got out of hand.

Ginsberg came out yesterday and admitted that the SCOTUS was starting to incorporate jurisprudence from outside our shores - do you think that's accidental?

This generation is bearing the cost of prosperity redistribution in the form of exporting manufacturing and back office high tech, to create a global middle class. Another article I read today talks about the flow of manufacturing jobs out of the Mexican maquiladora into China - due to the large gap in wages! Between Mexico and China!



So far, the only thing keeping that taxpayer in the game was the compelling interest of counter-terrorism. That excuse is either going to run out of steam, or they will have to have another 9-11 to keep us all scared enough to play along some more.
61 posted on 08/05/2003 12:47:05 PM PDT by RinaseaofDs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne; RightWhale
This article also ignores numerous very important internal issues that plague the United States. What an enemy can't do from abroad, a nation can do to iteself through ignorance.

I would wholeheartedly agree. One need only look at 2 critical areas to see the potential for self-destruction: education and personal liberties. Regarding education, we seem to be purposely dumbing ourselves down. It is simply amazing how much our 12th graders don't know about our history, geography or the structure of our government - things that are necessary to make informed decisions (i.e. to vote) regarding foreign affairs. The population is becoming more willing to swallow the leftist/internationalist drivel that says that we should always be restrained in dealing with foreign nations. Second, we have long since begun to dismantle the precious liberties that the Founding Generation fought and bled for. As rightwhale mentioned, the key here is the 2nd Amendment. If it goes down the tubes (de facto, not de jure, as the latter won't occur), then our liberties will be gone in all but name. Abominations like the Patriot Act are bad enough by themselves, but they'd be even worse without 250+ million guns in civilian hands.

I am reminding of the following quote:

At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth in their military chests; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in the trial of a thousand years.

At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we ourselves must be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

Abraham Lincoln, January 27, 1838

62 posted on 08/05/2003 12:50:07 PM PDT by Ancesthntr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
I’m sorry, but I just can’t get all that fired up about the threat to our sovereignty that the ICC represents.

Without an enforcement arm of significant strength, any court is an irrelevant dog and pony show.

I agree that our leadership should have rejected it forcefully, upfront, and immediately. But they didn’t.

So now, the ICC, and the UN, could in theory claim some moral high ground if they “convict” an American leader or soldier, but that’s it. They can’t enforce any sentence, or extradite anyone, or invade our offending nation to force regime change. They could only make a political statement. And hopefully our congress/president would react accordingly and defund the UN.

If you seek to claim that you are a bold conservative leader…

That claim would really be a bit of a stretch, ICC or not.

63 posted on 08/05/2003 12:55:14 PM PDT by dead (Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Thanks for the response. It was a reasonable explanation. Let's just end this by my stating that I hope you are right. Take care.
64 posted on 08/05/2003 12:57:45 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr
Thanks for your comments. Very nice.
65 posted on 08/05/2003 12:59:52 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
I worry about the economy these days. Never thought I'd say that, but an achilles heel is starting to show there.

The economy is always a concern. But the economy will always reflect a considerable complex of factors, and will generally solve its own problems, if Governments and politicians can be kept out of its way.

I found the article here somewhat less than insightful. Certainly the writer makes some valid points, valid in the present context, at the present moment in time--part of that present complex, of course. But while he blithely skips over an acknowledgment of the importance of economic and cultural factors, he does not really look at how these factors develop--not even to the extent of spending any time at all, on such questions as to the flow of wealth with respect to Rome--to or from the Romans. He blithely ignores the Asian reality, at the time of Rome, with no understanding of the complex civilizations that existed at the same time in China & India, etc.. He fails to consider the ethnic factors in each of the great empires. And while he acknowledges our Republican institutions, he does not consider how such institutions fared with respect to Rome, or how changes in the constituency of those wielding power, effected the way that power was wielded, nor how wielding that power effected domestic society.

That the Rumsfeld Defence Department was able to function as well as it did in the recent Iraqi war, is certainly a cause for rejoicing. That does not mean that we should plan other such wars, without very careful thought as to their advisability both militarily and otherwise. That we can put together alliances, when we need them, is certainly an improvement over the entangling alliances that others have advocated; but it is not the same thing as our traditional Foreign Policy. We not only kept control of our own policy; we also showed respect for the differences between peoples. We asked only that we be treated with respect; that they leave us alone in our own ways, and deal with us fairly in all our international dealings, and we accorded them the same courtesies. It was that policy that gained us the respect of most of civilized humanity; and we are in grave danger of wasting that capital of good will.

I would suggest that Mr. Joffre look a little closer at Rome, when she was mostly Roman, Republican and free, in the early days of her Empire; and Rome when she became Cosmopolitan and Authoritarian. I am sure that he would not want to see an American Empire--even the invisible sort that he suggests--made possible at the expense of declaring a Hillary Clinton, "Goddess." But many of you will catch my drift.

The Britain of the Empire was a Britain sustained, of course, not by Authoritarianism, but by a British spirit, fuelled by a sense of ethnicity--and indeed a species of lovable arrogance. America, thanks to reckless immigration policies, no longer has such a sense of her unique ethnicity. We are not, even now--even without the further trend that Clinton envisioned--able to act with the sort of unity, necessary to long sustain the sort of intrusive policies that Joffre hints at. We could only do so by suppressing dissent, and going truly Roman; and in that process, we would kill that economic goose--if idiotic foreign aid programs, coupled with idiotic extensions of Medicare, etc., had not already done so.

Just some random thoughts.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

66 posted on 08/05/2003 1:01:40 PM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: dead
As far as enforcement goes, my views don't differ from yours much. However, I've seen how our government reacts to WTO decisions. It says jump. Our Congress asks how high. Can it enforce it's decisions. Does it have legions to command?
67 posted on 08/05/2003 1:04:15 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: dead
After Bipolarity: Must Go Down What Comes Up?

Yoda pursues his second career as a political analyst.

68 posted on 08/05/2003 1:06:11 PM PDT by Centurion2000 (We are crushing our enemies, seeing him driven before us and hearing the lamentations of the liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
If we don't agree with the WTO rulings, we could opt out anytime we wanted to. But we don't want to. We would lose out on other trade deals that we see as beneficial.

The ICC, on the other hand, has a lack of carrots to go along with their lack of sticks.

69 posted on 08/05/2003 1:16:35 PM PDT by dead (Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: dead
Thanks dead. There's one more issue on which we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't view the WTO a plus by any stretch of the imagination.
70 posted on 08/05/2003 1:25:04 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: austinTparty
Yeah, I did actually. And your point was...?
71 posted on 08/05/2003 1:28:01 PM PDT by mewzilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
I'm not a big fan of the WTO for a number of reasons. I was just pointing out why we even bother to listen to them. Our politicians (who we elected) believe that the overall deal is positive. (very debatable but that's another issue)

If we chose to, we could walk away from them at any time. The same is true of any international organization we deal with. We agree to abide by their rulings by choice.

72 posted on 08/05/2003 1:29:20 PM PDT by dead (Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: dead
I find this insightful, but I think the author oversimplifies the "Rumsfeld strategy." What the administration is trying to do is not impose US domination but instead bestow a large portion of the power of the UN to a coalition of democratic states of which the US is a very senior member.

I think Europeans (and Canadians and many Austrailians) fail to see this because they have either lost faith in the specialness of liberty or have become hostile to it.

73 posted on 08/05/2003 1:49:46 PM PDT by MattAMiller
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MattAMiller
There's plenty of hope for the Australians.

If you only read their media, they appear more hopeless than France.

But somebody down under elected John Howard, and he's one of the real stalwarts in the ongoing battles.

74 posted on 08/05/2003 6:29:10 PM PDT by dead (Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan
The economy is always a concern. But the economy will always reflect a considerable complex of factors, and will generally solve its own problems, if Governments and politicians can be kept out of its way.

We're working into a whole new kind of economic jam, one we haven't been in since colonial times when the Brit homeland reserved most manufacturing unto itself. The next few years should be very interesting.

A sampling of the materials on the site you linked left me a little uneasy. I don't know if you actually run it or are just recommending a look, but my reactions to it run as follows:

1) Serbia lost, get over it!

2) I'd rather see immigration issues discussed independently of race and culture. I favor shutting down the flood of illegals with whatever it takes. We don't need anything that can be taken as a racist policy to do that. Illegal immigration is already illegal. Immigration aside, we already have a multiracial society and we'll have to go forward from here as a multiracial society. It's a done deal.

75 posted on 08/05/2003 7:00:39 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
What you said. :) Yep. The upside is that I will probably achieve my final exit prior to things getting very nervous again. China needs to get involved in some unfortunate foreign adventure and get its chops licked. Prior to then, it strikes me as akin to Bismark Germany, ie, a place that bears close and nervous watching, with its facist tendencies not being subject to any pyschological check. Most Chinese think the future belongs to them, and they may well be right.
76 posted on 08/05/2003 9:03:24 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: dead
If you only read their media, they appear more hopeless than France.

Same here with the 'States. I sometimes wonder if Al Qaeda's underestimation of the USA was because they got a lot of their info from the "news".

Good article, btw.

77 posted on 08/05/2003 9:16:55 PM PDT by P.O.E.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Torie
The upside is that I will probably achieve my final exit prior to things getting very nervous again.

Let me see if I can get them to hurry...


78 posted on 08/05/2003 11:04:38 PM PDT by Sabertooth (Dump Davis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
A sampling of the materials on the site you linked left me a little uneasy. I don't know if you actually run it or are just recommending a look, but my reactions to it run as follows:

Not only run it; but write all articles except for those attributed to other authors: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James A. Reed, H.L. Mencken, Edgar Allan Poe, etc..

1) Serbia lost, get over it!

While I respect the Serbian people, as a racial or ethnic group, there is nothing on my site that could be considered a lament over the misfortunes of the Serbs in recent decades. Doubtless you are referring to my essay, American Foreign Policy At The Crossroads, which does indeed deal with the war on Serbia, but from an American perspective, not a Serbian perspective. The immediate subject is the Clinton/Blair attack on Serbia as part of an effort to convert NATO into the equivalent of the Fabian Socialist dream of an "Atlantic Union." The subject is really Clinton, and his deliberate sabotaging of traditional American values, not the plight of the Serbs, per se.

2) I'd rather see immigration issues discussed independently of race and culture. I favor shutting down the flood of illegals with whatever it takes. We don't need anything that can be taken as a racist policy to do that. Illegal immigration is already illegal. Immigration aside, we already have a multiracial society and we'll have to go forward from here as a multiracial society. It's a done deal.

The Leftwing idea that everything they have accomplished is a done deal, and the only issue is how far we will let them push the envelope in the immediate future, is historic nonsense--the equivalent to the Marxist notion that History is driven by Dialectical Materialism. It just is not so.

But rather than take up bandwith, I will simply offer a link to my essay to which you appear to be referring:

An American Immigration Policy.

Of course, to completely ignore the ethnic characteristics and cultural values of those whom you are considering admitting to your body politic is madness. But I will let the essay speak for itself.

William Flax

79 posted on 08/06/2003 10:34:48 AM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan
I gave some of your articles a quick read (it's late, i'm tired but can't sleep)

I read the article on race and the one on immigration on your website. Taking both of those into account, you seem to be advocating selective immigration based on superior racial attributes and the ability to easily blend into the existing culture.

Also, while reading your article on race, it kept reminding me of some groups that hold complete disdain at the intermingling (genetically and culturally) of races.

I could be wrong on assuming this is what you believe. Can you restate your position on these issues for me?
80 posted on 08/09/2003 11:45:30 PM PDT by Johnbalaya
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: dead
nice to read something that goes well with my coffee
81 posted on 08/09/2003 11:49:49 PM PDT by Johnbalaya
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dead
This comes off more like a college junior's poli sci essay, especially with coining words and prhases that try to make it look more sophsiticated than it is.

For example, he can "Uuber-Gulliver" all he wants, but its pretty clear the writer isn't very familiar with the works of Swift. If he was he could have developed that theme much better - instead, he clearly just wanted to say 'giant' and that's the giant he chose to sound sophisticated.

It just looks like amateur hour.
82 posted on 08/09/2003 11:58:48 PM PDT by HitmanLV (I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dead
http://www.aicgs.org/about/board/joffe.shtml

Dr. Josef Joffe is publisher-editor of the German weekly Die Zeit and contributing editor of Time (Intl.). Previously he was columnist/editorial page editor of Süddeutsche Zeitung (1985-2000).

His essays and reviews have appeared in: New York Review of Books, Times Literary Supplement, Commentary, New York Times Magazine, New Republic, Weekly Standard, Prospect (London). Regular contributor to all the major U.S. and British quality dailies and frequent commentator on U.S., British and German TV/radio.

His second career has been in academia. The Payne Distinguished Lecturer at Stanford in 1999/2000, he was Visiting Professor of Government at Harvard in 1990/91, with which he remains affiliated through the Olin Institute for Strategic Studies. In 1998, he was a visiting lecturer at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School. While a researcher at the Carnegie Endowment and Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington (1982-84), he was Professorial Lecturer at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. He has taught at the University of Munich and the Salzburg Seminar and lectured widely in universities and research centers around the world.

His scholarly work has appeared in many books and in journals such as Foreign Affairs, The National Interest, International Security and Foreign Policy as well as professional journals in Germany, Britain and France. He is the author of The Limited Partnership: Europe, the United States and the Burdens of Alliance and co-author of Eroding Empire: Western Relations With Eastern Europe. Most recent book: The Future of International Politics: The Great Powers (1998).

Boards: American Academy in Berlin, International University Bremen, European College of Liberal Arts, Berlin, Leo Baeck Institute, New York, European Advisory Board, Hypovereinsbank München. Editorial Boards: The National Interest, Washington and Prospect (London). Trustee: Atlantik-Brücke, Berlin, Deutsches Museum (Munich), Alfred-Herrhausen-Gesellschaft (Deutsche Bank), Frankfurt. Member: Trilateral Commission, American Council on Germany, Intl. Institute for Strategic Studies, Harvard Club of Munich. Honors: Theodor Wolff Prize and Ludwig Börne Prize (Journalism/Essays/ Literature, Germany), Federal Order of Merit (Germany).

Raised in Berlin, he was educated at Swarthmore College (B.A.), the College of Europe, Johns Hopkins (M.A.), and Harvard (Ph.D.). Married to Dr. Christine Brinck Joffe, two daughters.

Address: Die Zeit, Speersort 1, 20095 Hamburg, Germany. Voice: +4940-3280-584, Fax: 3280-596, email: joffe@zeit.de.

 

83 posted on 08/11/2003 11:31:28 AM PDT by Tolik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Johnbalaya
I gave some of your articles a quick read ...

I read the article on race and the one on immigration on your website. Taking both of those into account, you seem to be advocating selective immigration based on superior racial attributes and the ability to easily blend into the existing culture.

My reason for posting links to more extensive essays, is to avoid having to summarize complex subjects, however I will respond briefly to your comments here. I have a number of articles that deal with racial questions, or issues in which racial questions may be involved; so I am not sure which one you are referring to. However, there is nothing in any article on any subject, at my web site, which would conflict with the immigration views stated in Immigration & The American Future.

My position is that immigration should be sharply limited, both in general and along the lines of selectivity for compatibility to the ongoing cultural dynamic of the American mainstream. I am not sure just what you mean by "superior racial attributes." That terminology has emotional rather than analytic attributes. Although there are senses in which it could be taken that are analytic, it is more likely to mislead than enlighten in terms of current social dialogs.

Believing that we should admit people who are most compatible with the culture we are trying to preserve, is common sense. The subjective evaluation of the relative worth of different cultures, races or ethnicities, has little if anything to do with such a policy. Frankly, an objective analysis would have to admit that some immigrants from quite different cultures, developed by other racial or sub-racial groups, have superior aptitudes in some very important areas of human development, to those of the average American. That does not make them more suitable as immigrants--although any immigration policy will make some exceptions for persons who fill particular needs, within reasonably determined bounds. The problem only emerges, when large numbers are admitted, who do not share the value system on which American institutions are based.

The other subject to which you refer--different groups attitudes on intermingling of races--is hardly something to be addressed in a few paragraphs of a response on a thread such as this. Obviously, anyone addressing such a subject would have to consider the immense array of ways that different people interact, and that could hardly be handled in a brief essay.

On the other hand, your injection into such query, the term "disdain"--implying that the motivation for questioning the advisability of this or that species of interaction is in contempt for the interaction, rather than a rational analysis of its dynamics--is really to invite someone to beg the actual questions involved.

Human history is far more complex than your or my personal preferences. The idea of interpreting the interaction of peoples, classes and ideologies, solely from the notion of a particular social bias, has been pushed by the great collectivist movement of the Left, but Conservatives should try to avoid the same mindset. After all, we start out with the idea that truth itself is the primary virtue--as George Washington stated, "honesty is always the best policy"--and as such "disdain" is not a proper motivation, for starting discussions of social dynamics. (I do not mean to imply that one may not come to feel disdain for an argument or policy that is not supportable in reason; but it is "reason," not disdain, where analysis must begin.)

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

84 posted on 08/11/2003 2:21:53 PM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-84 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson