2. The Political Crisis

Grim · Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 6:38 pm Post subject:

Americans are too free that they are unable to get what they need. They can have everything so they do not take what is important only what is desired. The vehicle is their symbol and they uphold this symbol on the alter of cheap foreign goods.

The world doesn't like American foreign policy because after 9/11 sympathy was given and often returned with suspicion, or demand that you were either a supporter or opposition. Iran suspended the daily "Death to America" chats and offered condolences only to be listed as a terrorist state. Iran feared they would be Americas next target to face military force, they probably were, now they rightly feel power and freedom in Americans faults as a war, political and economic machine. A failing America weakens other institutions such as the UN but not wholly, just in principal.

The American strategy of war is at best a classical example. The Nazi blitzkrieg with modern artillery. Even then, during the WWII, French underground resistance was a problem much easier dealt with through the suspension of human rights. Something America only secretly and unfavorably can get away with. American lack of intelligence is a huge problem and the greatest national security threat that is rarely talked about. America acted following 9/11 in a manner obviously suggesting that it didn't really know: they relied on poor information and propaganda. It couldn't have acted in any other way. America blaming itself? No f**king way, not a chance in frosty hell, not even in my wildest dreams! Unspeakable crimes? Not really, stories best not told around the children perhaps but undoubtedly the most representative of our classical, modern and post-modern human history. A history slopping around in blood. Can you really see in America a Stalin, a Hitler, a Lenin, a Mao or even a Pinochet etc? I think not: then there is nothing that should be unspeakable about America; but it does make for a convenient metaphor doesn't it. People say that you see more death on TV than by any other manner; however, the telling of this death has been intrinsically altered. The idea that one lost life is somehow important agonizes and holds appeal in that this is how we see ourselves, rugged individuals fighting for our lives (self-gratification, justification, and rationalization). Meanwhile we counter each other in self-inflated subterfuge as the whole planet goes to shit.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7412&news_iv_ctr l=1223

Perhaps the worst would be not to give credit where it is due. The positive America and the mistaken America can be seen as two very separate topics. Positive America following a certain set of characteristics and mistaken America another. And what is America? Is it the soldier pulling the trigger or the missionary from the Bible Belt? Europe must be wallowing in its obscurity right now because nobody bitches about their foreign policy all the time. I guess not getting results reducing AIDS, poverty and hunger is acceptable where supporting hostile politics is not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_of_two_evils_principle

Can the government change the people in ways they are not willing to change? People elect those who will serve their self-interests. Nobody will win saying that they are not going to protect American freedom and safety, or that they will enact legislation which will result in loss of profit for the economy. Unfortunately the way to provide everything is to take from the weak. Bacevich rightly suggests that everything needs reform. Governments reflect the people who reflect what they have been given as children and sold as adults. This advertising is peddled, often surprisingly poorly, by those who want power.

http://www.caregivershome.com/professional/professional.cfm?UID=29

JulianTheApostate · Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 9:23 pm Post subject:

Actually, Bacevich's view of the world is pretty far to the left, at least with regard to foreign policy and military matters. That's not a criticism; my political philosophy is also rather liberal. The main difference between his views and those you read in The Nation is that Bacevich doesn't mention economic factors like corporate power and the broadening gap between rich & poor.

Bacevich's depiction of our political institutions was depressing, but I couldn't argue with any of it. The bounds of mainstream political discourage don't make room for any policies less aggressive than Bill Clinton's. Even after the 2006 elections, the Democratic-majority Congress let the Iraq War continue.

Bacevich made some fascinating points about the ineptitude of the country's military and intelligence organizations, and how Presidents have as a result disregarded the opinions of the Pentagon and the CIA. It's great that JFK learned from the Bay of Pigs debacle, and chose to ignore the recommendation of the Joint Chiefs to invade Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis. However, it was an enormous mistake for the Bush administration to dismiss the generals warning of the immense difficulty of an Iraq War and occupation.

I appreciated the historical arc, going from Forrestal to Nitze to Wolfowitz, explaining the mindset of the so-called Wise Men who have pushed US policy in such a nasty direction. That's a coherent big picture that I hadn't seen before.

Grim · Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 3:18 pm Post subject:

Yes, and what really strikes my is how beholden the nation has become in its own hindsight. Never have the people in power become so recitent and self-interested in the same paradigm. Everyone knows what the problem is now that it is too late, and it is not like recent history has shown anything less than a crystal clear warning. Those who say the situation isn't as bad as it seems are the same people who created this mess, had the greatest benefits, and now stand with the most to lose. Bush, Greenspan, and that $700 billion government banker guy, can't apologize because it would make everything they have said and done forefit, it would prove that they are incompetent and would force them to face up to their actions in a way that is much to real for their comfort.

It must be of top importance not to give in to the idea of the exceptional America that is somehow unlike what history has shown us as the political and soical norms for those in power. It is easy to acknowledge the statement that those in power are trapt and aggressive by their own facination with status, without realizing that we are the ones with the power.

When you feel that Bacevich is "left" do you mean that liberals are realistic. I would argue that there is no "left" or right to the American situation as presented by Bacevich, only reality and delusion, trial and error. The domination of the right with fundamentalist Americanism as a key to popular support is mirrored by the lefts natural role in the government structure as opposition. There is nothing inherent about being a liberal that would have prevented Afghanistan and Iraq. That said the role of Bush & Co. is insidious, these are the ones who absolutly must not be seen as exceptional!

The greatest emotional contract I feel towards Obama is the real chance that he will take meaningful steps to bring those responsible for true evil, toture and terrorism to justice (Bush, Dick, Rummy). Even though he has not promised as much I feel that he is least likely to grant an undue executive pardon as has been the norm. Bush may yet try to pardon himself. Bacevich bring this point up where those with responsibility are seen as immune to responsibility to their actions. This is a must change! It is as though the system is structure so promotion is given until the person reaches a level where they are incompetent and can progress no further. So you have a system full of progressive incompetents.

ginof · Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 6:53 pm Post subject:

ginof · Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 6:57 pm Post subject: Grim links to Ayn Rand

funny that you should do that.

You don't really mention her writings in your post, but if you look at all the recent corporate bailouts, it's looking like 'Atlas Shrugged' to me.

I'm not blaming this all on Bush, but (excluding the last 6 months), the pattern has been there particularly in the last 10 years. The last couple of months have been a hockey stick that is absolutely unbelievable. I'm sure that Ayn is spinning in her grave.

JulianTheApostate · Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 3:04 am Post subject:

DWill · Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 9:58 am Post subject:

Dissident Heart · Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 12:21 pm Post subject:

JulianTheApostate · Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 11:22 pm Post subject:

Robert Tulip · Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 3:28 pm Post subject:

DWill · Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 7:08 pm Post subject:

I don't know, Robert. The terms conservative and liberal are indeed confusing. They seemed to have traded places over time, with liberals formerly in favor of free market, laissez faire economics and conservatives less gung ho about the accelerated change that unbridled capitalism would bring. Bacevich does call us back to origins to a great extent (even though he tells us there was a worm in our apple from the start). That is the sense in which I find him conservative. A free-market kind of modern conservative? I didn't hear him talk about this in the book. Touting the free market might conflict just a bit with his thesis that proifligacy got us into the mess we're in. Profligacy could have been enabled by the free market, which seemed to be functioning just wonderfully to keep our supply coming.

Dissident Heart · Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 1:05 am Post subject:

Chomsky's conservatism challenges tyranny in all its forms: especially as it takes shape in the workplace and corporate boardroom.

DWill · Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 9:58 pm Post subject:

Reinhold Niebuhr appears to be a very quotable writer. Of course, Bacevich sprinkles his insights throughout the book. One I especially like. on p. 122: ""the whole drama of history is enacted on a frame of meaning too large for human comprehension or management." The truth of the statement should be a prerequisite for election to high office, Bacevich says. The opposite belief constitutes a large part of the hubris whose bad effects we're now seeing. I would also add that snap characterizations of of history, of which we're all probably guilty, are always suspect, for the reason Niebuhr states.

On the same page, Bacevich convicts us, the American people, more than any other party as responsible for the nation's woes. We have "allowed our democracy to be hijacked." He could have added, "while we weren't looking." We've refined our entertainments to such a degree that we have no time to pay attention. I recall that Charles DeGaulle despaired that getting the French people to sacrifice seemed an impossiblity, faced with 200 different types of cheeses. We have a similar situtaion, not with cheese, but with our 500 channels of TV.

Grim · Posted: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:41 pm Post subject:

Ah, ye olde political debate! Bow

A defining point of liberalism includes that:

"Liberals define liberalism itself as 'freedom', so they rarely think consent is required for the imposition of a liberal society. In fact, most would say it can not be imposed, inherently. After the Cold War this belief has acquired a geostrategic significance: many western liberal-democrats now believe, that a war to impose a liberal-democratic society is inherently just. This belief influences interventionist policy, but as yet no war for the sole purpose of liberalization has been fought."

This goes against what I would previously defined a liberal as, I always assumed that to be a liberal was to accept things as they are and to move forwards to a more accepting social order for the benefit of all people. But it is true that liberals also as a matter of definition would believe that:

"Liberalism is therefore inherently hostile to competing non-liberal societies - which it sees not simply as different, but as wrong. In the last 10 years, Islamic society has replaced the Communist state, as the perceived 'opposite' to a liberal society."

These technical points-of-facts seem to run contrary to what Bacevich and Chomsky's message continually delivers potentially meaning that neither is truly a liberal. However, does Bacevich, a former army official, ever debate the necessity of war under appropriate situations, or of protecting American freedoms? Not directly he talks rather about his great concern that the notion of exceptional America responsibility/legitimacy to act out of turn with the rest of the world has gone beyond the limits of the system by which it was created, especially considering the results and consequences. A liberal would feel that any action is necessary to spread the democratic form of freedom and realize the ideological ends of the system.

When he talks of "the crisis of profligacy," he never actually denies that the people had the rights do do as they wish all along, rather that the results of their blinded and unleashed inhibitions should have been rationally moderated. Again I feel that the liberal would advocate freedom for the members of his ideological group at any cost to the outsiders.

He talks about limits of power, and the undesired consequences of the exceptional American questioning the necessity of it for equivalent American freedoms, saying that exceptionalism is false and dangerous in the sense that it is woefully misguided.

"...neoconservative hearts certainly beat a little faster, as they undoubtably did when he went on to declare the United States to devote itself to 'ending tyranny in our world.' Yet Bush was simply putting his own gloss on a time-honoured conviction ascribing to the United States a uniqueness of character and purpose." (Limits of Power pg 18 )

Where I think that the liberal would see that the motivation for action as an acceptable extension of liberal-democratic ideology would find outrage only in the apparent lack of competency during execution of this expression: the interactive system of Americanism.

Finally, and most importantly in my view, he shows concern that as a result of recent American history the people have lost a measure of their freedoms, where in fact the defense of the required yet unintended loss of necessary freedom is what I see as a motivating rational behind his entire book. The end of American Exceptionalism ie The end of American Freedom as we Enjoy it. I believe that this is technically a conservative arguement: that the loss of certain freedoms currently taken for granted will be a necessary yet acceptable result of the current atmosphere.

"Liberals believe that the form of society should be the outcome of processes. These processes should be interactive and involve all members of society. The market is an example, probably the best example, of what liberals mean by process. Liberals are generally hostile to any 'interference with process'. Specifically, liberals claim that the distribution of wealth as a result of the market is, in itself, just. Liberals reject the idea of redistribution of wealth as a goal in itself."

"Liberals therefore reject any design or plan for society - religious, utopian, or ethical. Liberals feel that society and state should not have fixed goals, but that 'process should determine outcome'. This anti-utopianism became increasingly important in liberal philosophy, in reaction to the Communist centrally-planned economies: it anticipated the extreme deregulation-ism of later neoliberalism."

To respond quickly to another comment it is to my imperfect understanding that market liberalism is typified by the free-market rather than conservatism which would favour regulations.

All quotes except the one from Limits of Power lifted from:

http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/neoliberalism.html

I am sure there are many holes in this reasoning so please flame away I am interested in where this goes. Unless it is off topic.


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	ADVERTISE	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CHAT	CONTACT