[bryan king of michigan]

I do not know how long it will take to get oil seriously flowing from Iraq, but the US should be working on it as fast and as furiously as we can right now. I want to see geysers of Iraqi crude in the next six months, at the latest. And if, at that time, Bush doesn't put tremendous, overwhelming pressure on the Saudis to completely reform, I will publicly announce here my belief that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake undertaken by a dishonest president more interested in his personal agenda than in making the world a better place.

Bryan, I don't want to call you out specifically, but I have a couple remarks about this.

This seems to fit perfectly into my definitions of Neo Colonialism. To use political, economic, military and cultural means to establish control/dominance and societal change in another country for political, economic and military rewards. (This is just my working definiton, I can fine tune if necessary).

The best parallel is: Why don't we need to invade Switzerland in order to have the kind of influence we want on the world's money supply? Yet we have to invade Iraq in order to accomplish this mission in the Arab Oil world? This is often viewed as having racist roots.

Your reasons are compelling, but it goes back to the idea about how we can achieve the peace/stability/prosperity we want. Do we simply impose our will and force it, using Iraqi oil as our 'ace in the hole' against Saudi oil? Or do we work out more democratic, peaceable means? I think the latter is the only one that is going to give us the long-term peace, although it may involve 'sharing the wealth'. This disparity of wealth and power is one of the primary reasons for the terrorism we face.

Is it really justifiable of us to practice and promote democracy within our borders while at the same time behaving like a dictator internationally?

I want to answer some of your points, specifically, and some of them more generally:

This seems to fit perfectly into my definitions of Neo Colonialism. To use political, economic, military and cultural means to establish control/dominance and societal change in another country for political, economic and military rewards. (This is just my working definiton, I can fine tune if necessary).

I don’t know whether I have an argument with your use of the term Neo-Colonialism, but I have a problem with the scope of this statement. You seem to be implying that that use of political, economic, military and cultural means to your advantage as a nation is somehow unethical. However, if you rule these out, what other means are there to interact with another country? I have a hard time coming up with something that doesn’t fall into one of these categories, so are you saying that it’s wrong to make choices to your own benefit? Maybe you are, I can’t tell. If so, then I do not share this view. I think all countries are, by necessity, working internationally in their own interests, and to expect otherwise is not reasonable.

The best parallel is: Why don't we need to invade Switzerland in order to have the kind of influence we want on the world's money supply? Yet we have to invade Iraq in order to accomplish this mission in the Arab Oil world? This is often viewed as having racist roots.

To answer the first question: Because, apparently, no one thinks controlling the world’s money supply through the invasion of Switzerland is necessary; and yet, a compelling (to some) case has been made that control of Iraqi oil will, in part, provide necessary strategic advantages in the fight against terrorism. You can bet, however, that if an invasion of Switzerland was viewed as vitally important to this Nation’s security that it would be considered.

But, that’s neither here, nor there, because it’s completely hypothetical. However, I do want to address your second point about racism.

I think you need to understand a few things about the way I view the world to understand my feelings about this. For one thing, I am not a multiculturalist in the academic sense of the word. I do not believe that our many human cultures are somehow pure, sacrosanct, and equally important and deserving of our respect and protection. I believe in a single humanity. A single human race. I do not believe that every nation (or society’s) cultural traditions should necessarily be allowed to continue, unimpeded and unaffected, by the outside world, like museum pieces to be cherished for generations. I don’t believe that about my own culture, and I don’t believe that about other cultures. I think each culture probably has important worthwhile traditions and some that are unproductive, or even harmful. In essence, I do not think it’s automatically wrong to make value judgments about people or cultures.

To give an example from this forum’s recent past, I will use our favorite hunting thread. On that thread, I argued that hunting was part of my cultural tradition and should be respected, but I did that tongue-in-cheek, because I don’t really think that’s a valid argument. Hunting, like other aspects of my cultural tradition, should stand or fall on its own merits. Likewise, some Arab countries are especially harsh and unforgiving toward women. That may be their cultural tradition, but it’s not one that I will ever respect. Furthermore, I hardly think that holding that opinion can count as racist.

But, what I think you’re proposing is that by deeming my culture 'superior,' and imposing its will over another culture, that that is de facto racism. But, I don’t think that’s correct. To me, racism is different. Racism is the prejudicial discrimination toward an individual person or group based on their race. It’s a different thing, entirely, to judge or even discriminate against, a person or group because of their behavior. It’s wrong to judge someone because of who they are, but it’s not wrong to judge someone because of what they do. For instance, faced with a dinner date with a white murderer, it would be wrong of me to say, “I don’t want to have dinner with you, because you’re white.” But, it would not be wrong to say, “I don’t want to have dinner with you, because you’re a murderer.” As long as your decision to discriminate is based objectively on behavior, and not on identity, then it’s not racism in my opinion.

The reason I frame the argument this way is because I think it goes to the essential kernel of disagreement between myself and many on the left. Leftist thinkers, especially academic leftists, have been greatly influenced by post-modern literary theory and transnational progressivism. Both of which have core assumptions that I completely disagree with, and which I will tackle a little later in this response.

Your reasons are compelling, but it goes back to the idea about how we can achieve the peace/stability/prosperity we want. Do we simply impose our will and force it, using Iraqi oil as our 'ace in the hole' against Saudi oil? Or do we work out more democratic, peaceable means? I think the latter is the only one that is going to give us the long-term peace, although it may involve 'sharing the wealth'.

It may not be obvious to you, but the vast majority of those people who have supported the invasion of Iraq, including myself, do not support the simple imposition of our will by force. On the contrary, I believe most of us consider force a last resort. You also suggest that, instead of force, we work out more democratic, peaceable means, and that’s a value that I share with you, but I think we probably have some disagreement about the extent to which that’s possible. I think the 12 years of diplomatic stalemate with Saddam that we endured between the two gulf wars is emblematic of the kind of power (or lack thereof) that diplomacy has on the world stage. Even in the face of harsh economic sanctions, Saddam was never weakened. Even during the diplomatic endgame, Saddam only began making ‘diplomatic’ concessions because he was at gunpoint.

And, I would invite you to describe what these democratic, peaceable means you prefer would look like. I don’t know if you did this intentionally, but from your first statement, you’ve already ruled out cultural, economic and political pressures as Neo-Colonial, so I’m not sure what kind of diplomacy you have in mind. It seems like all you’ve left available is ‘asking nicely,’ and I’m not willing to put all my eggs in that basket.

I have written here many times that I do not believe anything resembling ‘international law’ really exists, or can exist, and that I do not believe ‘democracy’ between nations is possible, either. Sovereign entities, whether it’s a Western secular democracy, an Islamic medieval theocracy, or a military dictatorship, strive always to work in their own interests. Any semblance of cooperation, self-effacement or sacrifice is always, always, always done because there is a belief that it will result in self-benefit of some kind. I believe individuals work this way, too, although I know some of you do not share this belief.

This disparity of wealth and power is one of the primary reasons for the terrorism we face.

That may be true, but it’s also necessary. I’m not saying it’s necessary for the United States to be richer than everyone else, because it’s not. I’m saying that even in a ‘perfect’ world, we will never have perfect results. I am an American and I believe in Western Secular Capitalism in its purest form, which means that everyone should have an equal opportunity, and I am committed to working toward that (I know we’re not yet there). However, this also means that I do not believe that everyone should experience an equal result. We all have different skills, abilities and motivations and should be rewarded accordingly. Thus, I do not believe that disparities in wealth and power are automatically bad.

Terrorism has to be stopped by means short of complete world upheaval, and that’s the only way to eliminate disparities of wealth and power. As I said, I do not think disparities of wealth and power are wrong, in the first place. I think they are a natural and necessary result of equal opportunity, and I think they will always be around. And, this is where I make a complete, fundamental break with post-modernist and trans-national progressivist ideaology.

This is an important school of thought, shared by many on this board, maybe even you, that I believe to be the biggest threat to the United States that there is. It’s a far bigger threat than Islamic fundamentalism has ever been, or ever will be. It forms what I believe to be the core of the international leftist movement, and lies at the heart of the international opposition to the war. But, I’m getting ahead of myself, and I have to explain a few things.

The basic idea of the American experiment is that the individual citizen is the foundation of the state, that all power resides with the collective citizenry, and that they grant to the government limited power to govern. Our system relies on citizens having as much access to information as possible, on them feeling free to discuss all issues with each other, and with them feeling free to tell their elected representatives what they think without fear of persecution and with a reasonable basis to expect that they can influence the course of events, and that this same degree of participation and influence be spread as widely as possible. That's why I feel so strongly about the First Amendment; it is the core of what we as Americans are. Knowledge is power, and the First Amendment sanctifies the broadest possible access to information for every citizen. However, these are not values shared by transnational progressives or post-modernists.

In fact, these American ideals are in direct opposition to transnationalism, and this explains why seemingly diverse and disparate political groups have all coalesced since 9-11 in opposition to the United States’ efforts to respond to the terrorist threat. In my opinion, it forms a political center around which many different (I’m going to call them ‘leftist’) groups can revolve, such as the anti-globalist movement, the "sustainable development" movement, those who support the International Criminal Court, much of the forces supporting "multiculturalism" in liberal academia, the apparent hypocrisy of international human rights organizations who are eager to condemn the US while ignoring much worse abuse by third world nations, as well as such profound decisions as the formation of the European Union.

In my opinion, all of these ideas demonstrate clearly elitist elements that are fundamentally undemocratic and demonstrably contemptuous of the opinions of the ‘common man.’ I also think that it ties in with the entire idea that nations should have high taxes, central control and heavy social spending. These things don't seem to be related, but they all express the same fundamental political philosophy.

There are a few important tenants to this philosophy that I’ll try to lay out. I can explain them more thoroughly later if you’re interested.

· Groups are what matter, not individuals.
· The goal of ‘fairness’ is equality of result, not equality of opportunity.
· Being a victim is politically significant.
· Assimilation is unethical.
· An ideal democracy is a coalition where political power is allocated among groups in proportion to their numbers.
· National identity is evil.

I disagree, fundamentally, with every single one of these statements. I find them to be fundamentally un-American and un-democratic. And, for people who believe in them, there truly is a growing international governance, a growing international law, and they truly think it's binding, or that it should be. I believe that it isn’t, and that it cannot be.

And, without being too insulting (I hope) to members of this board who share this outlook, it is a work-in-progress being created by the intellectual elite to describe how they think the world should be run, and they believe its foundation of legitimacy is its morality and in the positive results it will bring. It has no mandate from the people of the world because it doesn't need one, because the people of the world don't know what's good for them. It must be created because it's the right thing to do; we must be bound by it because refusing to be bound by it is evil and selfish. It should go without saying that I do not support this. The aspect of all this that I find the most offensive, and quite frankly the most terrifying, is that it truly is based on antidemocratic principles, on the idea of an informed elite running things, on the idea that the common cannot and should not be permitted to decide for themselves what they do or how their nation should be run, except in unimportant ways. This is MY view, of course, and I’m not being charitable. I’ll leave it to someone else to defend their ideas, if they want to.

I have some very, very strong feelings about these ideas and their potential effects that I’ll be happy to share if a discussion develops, but suffice to say, I believe this movement is inherently harmful and should be opposed at every level.

Is it really justifiable of us to practice and promote democracy within our borders while at the same time behaving like a dictator internationally?

Well, I’ve already touched on this. But, Ill add:

I do not believe that anyone should grant rights to those who do not respect them, because it’s counterproductive. For example, as signers of the Geneva Convention, the United States should operate stringently by its guidelines in its contact with other signatory nations. And, importantly, only with signatory nations. We should not encourage non-compliance and non-membership in this important treaty by granting equal treatment to those nations that aren’t participating. It weakens the treaty. Those actions say to others, that, “it’s okay if you don’t treat us with the respect due, according to this treaty, because you’ll be protected by it, anyway.” Another example would be union membership at your workplace. If, for example, you take a job that normally is represented by a labor union, but you don’t wish to be a member, you have that right. However, you still have to have dues withdrawn from your paycheck (which go someplace other than the union), because you enjoy at least some of the fruits of the union’s efforts. It would be the height of foolishness for unions to allow non-members to take advantage of benefits the union fought for without ‘paying the price.’ Because, it weakens the union. There is no incentive to participate if you get the same reward without the same sacrifice.

This is why I don’t believe that the US should overly concern itself with acting ‘democratically’ abroad, even though it’s vital that we act that way at home. It cheapens our domestic democracy by pretending that the larger world is also a democracy, when it plainly isn’t. And, there is no way for the wider world to ever become a democracy without a complete surrender of sovereignty by every nation to a higher authority, and I don’t think that’s possible. At least not anytime soon, and I hope never.

One last caveat: I am not a political philosopher and this is not an academic paper. I do not claim that these ideas are unique to me, or that I conceived of them myself. I just do a lot of reading on these subjects and I’m piecing this together in response to the criticisms you raised. I’m not going to source and cite every sentence, but I can point out some interesting articles for anyone who asks. Just please be aware that there is a huge about of information, readily available on the Internet, about these issues if you decide you want to learn more.

[redwire]

I have failed.

[Just Bruce]

I have failed.

Good.

Excellent post Bryan.

[BillCheatham]

I appreciate the response. Mine will take some time as well, but I'm hoping within 24 hours.

[53 Esquire]

That was so GOOD. I need to go smoke a cigarette.

[Just Bruce]

That was so GOOD. I need to go smoke a cigarette.

Yeah, his best post since the explanation for war in Iraq.

[redwire]

bkom's post is scary.

[Just Bruce]

bkom's post is scary.

I'll read it before bedtime so I don't have nightmare's about your dream world red.

[BillCheatham]

ya'll can just hold your horses and get ready for the fat, cuban you're gonna wanna smoke after your read my response!

[Just Bruce]

ya'll can just hold your horses and get ready for the fat, cuban you're gonna wanna smoke after your read my response!

If it's as thoughtful, detailed, organized and informative as Bryan's, bring it on. Nothing like an intelligent debate.

Except for you red. though intelligent, detailed and passionate your posts may be, your ideas are so foreign to me that they may as well be written in your native tongue.

[Teenage Diplomat]

What an excellent post. If there's such a thing as "post of the year" then bkom should be nominated for that.

[JoeZap]

Ahhhhhhhhhh, how beautiful. A thought-provoking, intelligent, well-written post which is drawing interest in a well-written and thoughtful response. I get it. A political forum, not a 'fight club'. How nice. I see, this is how is should be. No name-calling, mentions of anyone else's sexual organs, rantings or snippy little mindless quips. As others have done before me, I could note who has posted on this thread and who hasn't....but I know the thoughtful in here all have eyes....and minds, and therefor can figure things out for themselves.

Bryan, a great thought-provoking read. Bill, I eagerly await your response in this political forum. Isn't it nice when words have meaning?

[freeholdnj]

I have BKOMs post all printed out and ready to read on my lunch hour, er... lunch hour and 1/2 ?

anyway, i agree that its great to see intelligent, thoughtful debate happening here. i will attempt to contribute to it.

[53 Esquire]

Still waiting.

[BillCheatham]

Its 9:50 EST. It'll be posted within the hour *huff puff*

[BillCheatham]

I'm still bitter for missing Pittsburgh.

[BillCheatham]

Okay, here is my response. This is not necessarily definitive but hopefully addresses the points Bryan brings up and represents where I’m coming from. I minimized quoting, hopefully its apparent which parts of Bryan’s post I’m referencing. This should get the discussion moving and I can clarify later, if necessary. (Some of the quotes are from my original message, hope its clear which are which).

Quote

This seems to fit perfectly into my definitions of Neo Colonialism. To use political, economic, military and cultural means to establish control/dominance and societal change in another country for political, economic and military rewards. (This is just my working definiton, I can fine tune if necessary).

Quote

I don’t know whether I have an argument with your use of the term Neo-Colonialism, but I have a problem with the scope of this statement. You seem to be implying that that use of political, economic, military and cultural means to your advantage as a nation is somehow unethical. However, if you rule these out, what other means are there to interact with another country? I have a hard time coming up with something that doesn’t fall into one of these categories, so are you saying that it’s wrong to make choices to your own benefit? Maybe you are, I can’t tell. If so, then I do not share this view. I think all countries are, by necessity, working internationally in their own interests, and to expect otherwise is not reasonable.

The way I see Neo Colonialism is basically—“new colonialism, same as the old colonialism” (Pete Townshend… well sorta). The difference is that the new form is colonialism by remote control, if you will. Colonialism from a distance. In the days of the Olde British Empire, colonialism meant invading another country, establishing a government that was out-in-the-open a subsidiary of the host country. Today, that objective is met more through puppet governments and business exploitation of a bad situation. Call it free trade, call it the U.N., call it the World Bank, call it whatever you want, but the same essential realities of colonialism are present: One nation keeping another country under its heel, extracting wealth and other resouces, disabling the “colony” so that it does not have equal opportunity. Would you like examples of how that is played out? I have a great article on that.

The relationship is essentially parasitic—goods and services are intended to be depleted from the colony to benefit the host country, if it happens to aid the colony fine, if not, so what (although in all actually, colonialism is designed to disable the colony—to limits its power and ability to fight off the host country’s influence).

You say that you expect all countries to work toward their own interests. I would argue that the best long term strategy is when the people of this world realize that what is in their best interests is often also in the best interests of their neighbors. Sometimes that means sharing the wealth and power of this world, but it’s a small price to pay for avoiding wars, empire toppling, etc. In other words, my narrow, low-vision self interest says I should get what I can before someone else does. My enlighted sense of higher purpose wants me to improve the quality of life for me and others. Their health and well being is contigent on my health and well being. I am not happy unless they are happy. This isn’t just feel good idealogy (although I don’t see what’s wrong with feeling good), it has very real manifestations. What could we accomplish in the USA if 50% of our engineers were not working on defense contracts? How many diseases could be cured, how much more life affirming technology could we have? Two nations working together can do much more than two nations working against the other. Nobody wins, unless everybody wins.

I can push this a lot farther if you agree that our international practices are essentially “colonial.” Its important that we learn from history and not repeat the mistakes we find there. History is very clear as to what it does with colonial empires. All empires that rise, also fall. The bigger they are, the harder they fall. Every empire that has worked to exploit and oppress people (because they can) has ended up falling when the people of that oppressed group rise up. All uprisings aren’t successful, but given time they eventually break though. The growth cycle of an empire is a pretty predictable pattern. I would also argue that empires rise and fall now at a much faster rate than before. Mathematically, it’s a standard exponential curve (like the growth of a bacterial colony, for instance). The Egyptians were in power a few thousand years. The Romans at least a millenium. The Islamic era less than that. The European colonial powers a couple hundred years each. The Soviet Union just 70 years. The USA? We are already showing signs of decline that are consistent with these other examples.

The best way to save our ass (and to protect our children and grandchildren) is to push for a true New World Order—a true world democracy. America is blinded by its current wealth and power and does not see the value in this. Why give up power now when we have so much? We don’t even know how bad these wars we wage truly hurt, but ask the French and the Germans who have a living memory of war on their own soil. Ask the people in the third world who know what its like living under the heel of another nation. Being on top, it seems like the whole system works just fine! King of the Hill seems like a great and fair game when you’re king, but when you’re not you see another side to it. But colonial practices are still wrong for two reasons: First off, because our practices are inhumane and oppressive. Its not hard to cite examples of this. One example: We have been working hard to destabilize Latin America since at least the early 80s, putting down every democratic uprising in favor of near-fascist regimes. Hundreds of thousands of people lost their lives to disappearances, tortue and general slaughter. If anyone wants any more examples, I can provide. I don’t want wealth at that expense. Second, because in the long run we can’t and just plain won’t maintain our current wealth and power. Better to see the writing on the wall and set up the new regime at our leisure than to be just toppled and at the mercy of the next world power. When our empire crimbles and China/Japan/India whoever start grinding us under their hills, are you still going to cite ‘survivial of the fittest’ as the ideal way for humans to function? I’m making the point that being an aggressive empire is not the best way to provide for your people LONG TERM.

You see, I’m all for capitalism, but only when its “fair play.” In an ideal world, we’d all have equal opportunity but that’s not the case. That’s why we have things like anti-trust laws—because people go too far with their power that they end up disabling others. There is a direct correlation between how much opportunity one has and how “successful” they end up being. Sure, there are exceptions but obviously an exception proves the rule. I am quite convinced that the wealth and power of the US is primarily due to disabling others. Preventing them from having the same opportunities we have. So in my mind, I cannot separate the have’s/have not’s with those who have opportunity / those who don’t. They are usually directly related to each other. Perhaps I should have chosen my words more carefully, because I agree that equal opportunity does not mean equal result. In theory, anyway. In practice, I think the two will TEND to equal out.

Going back to your statements on the necessity (or should I say inevitability) of using politicial, economic and military leverage. I think you are making the assumption (a false one) that the primary and only reliable means of ‘getting what we want’ in the world is to leverage what resources we have in competition with others who are doing the same. Let me draw a parallel. The government of the Soviet Union could not understand how to maintain stability and relative “peace” in its own country without strongarming the population, by whatever means necessary in some cases. Even if some people got abused along the way, it was for the overall good of the nation, they probably thought. They probably didn’t really believe that Americans have the kinds of freedoms we have. (Now don’t get me wrong, there are some (myself included) who will argue that the American population is often strongarmed, brainwashed and in other ways manipulated into submission, but just for the sake of discussion let’s pretend we’re as free as we say we are, because regardless of it all I still think we are pretty darned free.) The genius of American society rests in the paradox that the less you control the population, the tighter the national bond is going to be! Brilliant. People won’t want to leave or corrupt the system because its so good. We have the freedom to go anywhere yet we choose to say where we are. We don’t need armed guards on our border keeping us in! No sense wasting resources on controlling a population that doesn’t need it and actually works better without it. I have not seen a good reason yet why we can’t practice that internationally as well as nationally. Its more of a work-in-progress, sure, but still a worthwhile thing to shoot for.

In much the same way, we can and should encourage democracy elsewhere in the world. Not by forcing it, because that's not democracy. But treating others democratically and letting it take root by our example. We don’t need to put down every questionable rebellion in every country in order to keep the deck stacked exactly like we want it. We don’t have to protect America by destabilizing other parts of the world. In other words, if we are so damned good no one would want to screw us. With our current Homeland Security scam and foreign wars, we will end up like the Soviets—attempting to control everything, actually controlling nothing (in the long run, at least).

The only true defense against terrorism is to melt away anti-US sentiment. No other method can work. The Romans fell to terrorism. The Brits were kicked out of every country they conquered due to terrorism. No empire has yet found a military solution to terrorism that works long term. Short term, yes-- you can squash uprisings. Long term? Hasn't been done yet.

Quote

The best parallel is: Why don't we need to invade Switzerland in order to have the kind of influence we want on the world's money supply? Yet we have to invade Iraq in order to accomplish this mission in the Arab Oil world? This is often viewed as having racist roots.

Quote

To answer the first question: Because, apparently, no one thinks controlling the world’s money supply through the invasion of Switzerland is necessary; and yet, a compelling (to some) case has been made that control of Iraqi oil will, in part, provide necessary strategic advantages in the fight against terrorism. You can bet, however, that if an invasion of Switzerland was viewed as vitally important to this Nation’s security that it would be considered.

The point of the Switzerland example is that that is the kind of relationship we need to be building. Relationships are a two-way street, so you can argue that the Swiss are more cooperative and fair than the Iraqis have been, but then you may fall into a chicken/egg discussion and someone could point out that the Swiss are more cooperative and fair because of how they are treated in the first place. This is not what I want to argue since I don’t know the particular history of this, just pointing out that other options are available.

Your section about multiculturalism was a fine thing to read, but it struck me as outside of the discussion. It does not address the issue as to whether our treatment of the Middle East is tainted with racism or not. You mostly talked about the differences between racism and multiculturalism. Stepping back and observing from a distance, it seems there is an obvious difference in treatment that falls on cultural lines, ie Americans work together with the Swiss over money but fight like hell with the Arabs over oil (just one oversimplified example for the sake of discussion). That doesn’t mean the problems are due to culture, but the correlation is there and no intelligent person should easily discredit the possibility of racism without more research. If you would like, we can probe the American psyche and see what we can find. Its harder to prove racism, but by comparing double standards you can often make a good case one way or another. MLK Jr. believed that America’s involvement in Vietnam was fundamentally an expression of racism. That we have a general disgust for people who look, act, talk and live differently than the white status quo, so we made Vietnam a focal point of that energy. A place to let it all out. Others have made a parallel with the US vs. Iraq/Afghanistan.

I don’t have much to say about your views on multiculturalism. The problem most people have with this term is that most people make the either/or fallacy—that either everything is culturally relative or not. To me, multiculturalism is a useful tool. I believe—like you do—that there are universal truths as to what is right or wrong. Regardless of how much longevity a culture has, if members of that culture are not able to achieve self-actualization because of cultural roadblocks, I’d say that that is wrong—even if the group is strong and viable. However, if your culture dictates that you should burp in full voice after every meal, and if another demands a more controlled release, I’d be willing to say what is right or wrong is relative to the culture its practiced in (unless someone holds the burp in and pops an intestine, but that would be more of the burper’s fault for not doing it right than the fault of the cultural standard). We should all agree that neither is really morally right or wrong, its just given a different level of politeness in each of the two cultures. I see no reason why an outsider shouldn’t respect this tradition while visiting another country. Its just plain relative.

The problem most people have is they make judgements on the pro’s and con’s of another culture before taking the time to explore and get to know it. To the untrained eye, the practices in other countries obviously appear idiotic, stupid, inhumane, whatever. And they may be. However, many of these judgements are made out of a misunderstanding or pure prejudice, and we need to flesh out this ignorance and animosity and see what’ s underneath it. Bottom line is: before we write off the practices of another culture, we should take the time and pains necessary to walk in the shoes of that culture. The bullheaded approach common to Europeans of the Colonial Era and Americans of today is illustrated by the practice of ‘Christianizing the world at gunpoint’. Instead of taking advantage at the wonderful opportunity to experience a new point of view, we regarded it as something that needed to be shut down as quickly as possible.

Quote

And, I would invite you to describe what these democratic, peaceable means you prefer would look like. I don’t know if you did this intentionally, but from your first statement, you’ve already ruled out cultural, economic and political pressures as Neo-Colonial, so I’m not sure what kind of diplomacy you have in mind. It seems like all you’ve left available is ‘asking nicely,’ and I’m not willing to put all my eggs in that basket.

This is a more difficult question to answer, and one in which I’m not sure I’m prepared. First off, I hope I have better explained Neo Colonialism above. It’s a systemic, parasitic relationship without an official in-house government, unlike Wendy’s Old Fashioned Colonialism. Second, things like boycotts are certainly manipulative, and I have some moral questions about that which I have not settled. I still tend to favor such actions simply because they are non-violent and are a good tool of the grassroots level of the population which often has few other "weapons" to use.

I am willing to concede that war may be necessary in some cases. However, there is usually plenty a country can do before a war to make sure it never happens. We may get to a point where we are boxed into a postiuon where war is the only option, but what did we do to get there? I can make the easy and obvious statement that if our government would quit supporting, arming, training and helping to network loose wires, openly anti-US, near fascist dictators around the world, we may find that there are fewer and fewer enemies we need to go to war with. I've posted this 1,000 times--Noriega, Saddam and Osama bin Laden are pure creations of US direct foreign policy, by our short-sighted government.

Again, what would this diplomacy look like? Its hard to say. I just get frustrated when people claim "diplomacy has failed" when it doesn't look like it was ever attempted. It should take the simple form of encouraging dialogue and relationship between two countries on every level--from politicians talking to student exchange programs to free press to travel and tourism. When there is a conflict, there is usually plenty of time to air out grievances and try to work out compromises before any fighting starts. Its not really that hard. Its not different than any psychologist trying to teach a dysfunctional family how to communicate and deal with problems. The arab world complained a lot about US policy way before 9/11, but their complaints fell on deaf ears.

Let's assume there are non-military means to deal with Iraq or Saudi Arabia. Your statements (I believe) fall to the false assumption that without using leverage by force (whether militarily or otherside) we must be doing something impotent like “asking nicely.” No middle ground. Well, there is a middle ground. I’m sure you would never advocate sending soliders off to war without proper training and equipment (and a clear mission), I certainly would not send diplomats and non-violent conflict negotiators into the field without equal training. However, we rarely have diplomats with such training and few few schools that teach it. To settle a fight by non-violent means can often take as much training as learning how to fight violently. The end result is often better, though—not only is neither side physically hurt, but through non-violent resolution of a conflict there is more of an opportunity that the conflict could turn into a growth experience rather than just bare bones survival. I think this works on the interpersonal level equally as well as on the nation-to-nation level. In the end, I wouldn’t send General Powell to negotiate a peaceful resolution. I’d put my money on someone like Gandhi. You send a general in, its not too surprising he comes back saying “war is inevitible.” Its his background, that’s what he knows.

Quote

I have written here many times that I do not believe anything resembling ‘international law’ really exists, or can exist, and that I do not believe ‘democracy’ between nations is possible, either. Sovereign entities, whether it’s a Western secular democracy, an Islamic medieval theocracy, or a military dictatorship, strive always to work in their own interests. Any semblance of cooperation, self-effacement or sacrifice is always, always, always done because there is a belief that it will result in self-benefit of some kind. I believe individuals work this way, too, although I know some of you do not share this belief.

This first part of this is clearly unfounded. Most of today’s “nations” are nothing more than amalgams of once-warring groups. If you look at the current map of Europe it will tell you little about the reality of the nations present. Germany didn’t even coalece unitl the late 1800s. Germany is made up of several different groups that have some ties in their ethnic and linguistic past, although in some cases I’m sure that’s a stretch (like it is in Spain). Movements to promote a national language and standardized schoolbooks on history are nothing more than an attempt to make a bunch of different people feel like they have more in common than they actually do. “Germany” is not a naturally occurring entity, it was partially a forced relationship due to the fact that bascially everyone else in Europe was coming together to form nations so they felt they had to do it, too. Germans today may feel somewhat unified and have a national identity, but that was partially due to a massive national-identity campaign to foster that feeling. In fact, this process of tribes/dukedoms/fiefdoms coming together to form nation-states was one of the fundamental political experiments of the milddle ages, and led us to the era of nations today. To us, it seems natural and obvious that “germanic peoples” should feel unified, but that was not always the case. At one time, the Prussians felt no reason to have anything to do with the Bavarians. They probably never thought the “nation” concept could even work. Now we know it does and it seems matter-of-fact.

IN OTHER WORDS, if it happened on that scale in the Middle Ages, I see no reason why nations cannot get together to form these kinds of continental nations, or world committees or united nations (note the lower case) or whatever it will be. We really don’t know what its going to look like in the future. Take a look at Europe right now and you just might possibly see the future. World democracy is not only possible, it is already beginning to happen. It needs to happen. It’s the next logical experiment in political philosophy. You may not be able to imagine it now, but like I wrote above, no one in the middle ages could have imaged those crazy warring groups could ever get together to run a whole nation together. Advances in political philosophy (as well as technology) made it happen.

In reponse to the latter part of that paragraph, groups coming together to form nations coming together to form united nations may have everything to do with self interest, but so what? Its not something we do just because, its something we do because its in our best interests and wonderfully enough, its in our neighbors' best interests, too! That's what an alliance is. It doesn't matter to me if you are talking about individuals forming a state, or states coming together. The difference is that an alliance is symbiotic while a colonial model is parasitic.

Quote

This disparity of wealth and power is one of the primary reasons for the terrorism we face.
Thus, I do not believe that disparities in wealth and power are automatically bad.
Terrorism has to be stopped by means short of complete world upheaval, and that’s the only way to eliminate disparities of wealth and power.

What are you trying to say here? Terrorism is responsible for disparities in wealth and power??? (that's right, _3_ question marks!) Chicken or egg? Terrorism almost always begins because there is ALREADY a disparity. It may end up creating more disparity, or tipping the scales the other way, but terrorism doesn’t just begin on a level playing field. In any case, you are being inconsistent because right above you wrote that “disparities in wealth and power are not automatically bad”, then immediately after you talk about eliminating those disparities. Is this a contradiction or a question of nuance?

Quote

As I said, I do not think disparities of wealth and power are wrong, in the first place. I think they are a natural and necessary result of equal opportunity, and I think they will always be around. And, this is where I make a complete, fundamental break with post-modernist and trans-national progressivist ideaology.

This may be true, if something resembling equal opportunity ever got a chance to play itself out. However, I think most disparities in wealthy and power are actually directly linked to disparities in opportunity. Even if there was a level playing field today and one group overshot the other in a fair match, they would set up unequal opportunities for the next generation. So we're back to the uneven playing field.

I’d like to see your definitions for post-moderninist and trans-national progressivist. How do these people not share the value of the 1st amendment? That is a train of thought I do not follow in your post, but it seems fundamental to your argument. How by protesting our invasion of Iraq are they being hipocrtical?

You condemn these “leftist movements” as “fundamentally undemocratic and demonstrably contemptous of the opinions of the ‘common man.’” However, your entire system is based around the USA’s right to invade Iraq for oil leverage essentially does nothing more than create an elitist movement itself! The US has this right just because it is powerful enough to get it? That seems to be what you’re arguing, and if that’s the case there I see no reason why there is anything wrong with any other group winning power and creating a ruling elite. Why not the "liberal elitists" (just for the sake of argument)? You clearly state that there is no reason why the US should behave democratically in the international community, yet you berate these “liberal elitists” for the same thing! Your philosphy, as I read it, basically boils down to “might makes right” so therefore you can argue that majority is right, since the majority are often the most powerful. Yet you claim the liberal elitists have a false notion of majority rule. So again, you are clearly in line with the very tenents you say you oppose.

Even further, “Groups are what matter, not individuals.” However you seem to hold true that its right and proper for the US acting as a group to secure more power / wealth for itself at the expense of other individuals or groups. You claim that national identiy is not evil, right? Again, is this a question of degree? I don't think national identity is evil, although I tend to value my status as a human being higher than my status as an American. Sure, I have loyalty to America--its my home, just like I'd be more upset if my family got hurt than a total stranger. Nevertheless, national identity is not a universal truth by any means, mostly an artificial construct created at one time for the benefit of political alliance, and it can be undone just as easily. Its not important, in the grand scheme of things. In fact, your very statements seem to back this up. For instance, you claim that you don't necessarily have a problem with assimiliation on a cultural level. Obviously, in a case of assimilation national identity would either change completely or at least be modified to some extent, depending on which side you are on. So which is it: National identity or assimilation? At least show me the nuance that helps you balance these two views because they seem contradictory to me.

Again, I'd like to hear more details as to the dangers of this "liberal elite" because I didn't understand where you were going with that.

I mean, Bush's invasion of Iraq was one of the most elitist actions I've seen in a while. If the purpose of going to Iraq was to secure oil fields to leverage against the Saudis, I sure wasn't informed about this. Bush just knew better? He couldn't really tell us the truth for the war? Where is the madate? He did exactly--and I mean exactly and to a tee--the very things you are so upset about the "liberal elitists" doing. I have that section quoted below if you care to reference it.

Quote

... it is a work-in-progress being created by the intellectual elite to describe how they think the world should be run, and they believe its foundation of legitimacy is its morality and in the positive results it will bring. It has no mandate from the people of the world because it doesn't need one, because the people of the world don't know what's good for them. It must be created because it's the right thing to do; we must be bound by it because refusing to be bound by it is evil and selfish. It should go without saying that I do not support this. The aspect of all this that I find the most offensive, and quite frankly the most terrifying, is that it truly is based on antidemocratic principles, on the idea of an informed elite running things, on the idea that the common cannot and should not be permitted to decide for themselves what they do or how their nation should be run, except in unimportant ways.

Quote

Is it really justifiable of us to practice and promote democracy within our borders while at the same time behaving like a dictator internationally?

I do not believe that anyone should grant rights to those who do not respect them, because it’s counterproductive.

How so? Again, what is the point of having a standard if you let another person or group dictate your actions? We believe in democracy. These other people don’t. So therefore we don’t treat them with the same respect we believe democracy brings? We're not talking about club rules, we're talking about "certain inalienable human rights"! For no other reason, treating others democratically seems to be the best way to benignly influence other groups to behave that way. They will see how they are treated, they see the example, they enjoy its benefits, then they adopt the practices.

Your assestion that you shouldn’t doll out the benefits those who don’t join the union would be a fine analogy if we were talking about unions. The way I see your logic, “if you’re in the union, you’re entitled to all benefits of a member. If you’re not, you have no rights whatsoever.” OK fine, participants get full benefits. What rights do non-particpants have? No human rights or respect for the sovereignty of those nations? So Iraq violated Kuwait’s sovereignty. Does that mean we get to violate Iraq’s? That’s a moral dilemma I have a problem with. I parallel it to the death penalty—we don’t believe in killing, but if a citizen kills another person then we have the right to kill the killer, even though we don’t believe in killing. Some people have no problem with that. I do. I don’t want to turn this into a discussion of the dealth penalty, but I’m trying to make comparison. I’m not even sure we can claim Iraq, for instance, has no “club” rights due to its U.N. status. Sure, it broke some U.N. rules but then again, so did we.

I hope this can get the discussion going. I hope I addressed what was relevant in your post without too many tangents.

[BillCheatham]

shit!

[BillCheatham]

I couldn't think straight, I was blinded.... I was blinded....

[bill horton]

I've been reading Bryan's great posts for a while now. When Bryan's arguments come from a position contrary to my own, his arguments usually either win me over or do the best job around here of getting me to see his point of view. I've seen his arguments stalemated a couple of times--some debates with PRR come to mind. But this is the first time I've seen his arguments close to checkmated, IMHO.

Bill, that was even better than I could have reasonably expected. Just fabulous. Now go get some sleep and get ready for rebuttal!

Two important premises:

What can be done on an individual scale can be done on a greater scale (group, national, planetary, universal).

The best policy is to act in ways that we wish others to act, regardless of whether others choose our way when we want them to.

Of course, it is our humanity itself, with all its flaws (pride, greed, jealousy, you know the rest) that is in conflict against the workability of any world view--Bryan's, BillCheatham's, or anyone else's.

I think Bryan and Bill should have their own TV show together. An hour-long point-counterpoint format. Of course, the ratings would suck because only intellectual elitists and those who just enjoy reasonable debate the way it should be conducted would watch it. Bravo to the both of you!!

[53 Esquire]

bump - one of the top five posts in FC history.