On
This editorial is a weakly constructed farce. The writers claim that:
"Some American economists argue the United States should temporarily run even bigger deficits. Perhaps that would work, but Europe's experience counsels otherwise. Big deficits there led to higher interest rates, reflecting investors' greater fears of default. Default anxieties in turn weaken banks — large holders of government bonds — and, through them, the broader economy. Although the United States hasn't yet suffered this fate, it might."
Europe is a continent comprising roughly 30 countries and 500 million people. Do the facts bear out their criticisms of "Europe?"
The New York Times ran some nice graphics today comparing the states of different countries' bonds. The most generous welfare state in the world, Switzerland, currently has a 1.5% 10-year bond yield and a AAA rating.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/07/28/us/charting-the-american-debt-crisis.html?src=ISMR_HP_LO_MST_FB#panel/how-bond-rates-could-rise
Japan, another very generous welfare state whose citizens have enjoyed the highest life expectancy in the world for the last three decades, has a debt: gdp ratio of 200%, compared to the USA's of 100%. Japan is able to sell its bonds at 1.1% interest, so the markets are not upset by this level of debt in a very wealthy country.
http://politicsandprosperity.wordpress.com/2010/05/10/as-goes-greece/
People claiming knowledge of economics should not make clearly false statements. If one looks at facts instead of rhetoric, the rest of the column can be dismissed as ideological garbage. The writers have a duty not to lie to their readers and distract them with myths that "Governments everywhere are striving to protect the old order because they fear and do not understand the new" in order to push their agenda of cuts in social services.
Politicians' Polices vs. Character Issues and the Role of the Media
Last week there is a particularly slurpilicious article on Esquire about Obama:
http://www.esquire.com/features/thousand-words-on-culture/loving-obama-0811?click=pp
"While Obama's story is ancient, it is also utterly contemporary, perfectly of the moment. His gift — and it is a gift that makes him emblematic — is that he inhabits all these roles without being limited by them. He has managed, miraculously, to remain something of an outsider while being the president of the United States of America, the most inside man in the world. He's African-American, but he's not African-American. He's from Chicago, but he's from Hawaii. One month he's bailing out the banks, the next he's keeping Gitmo open. He pushes health-care reform through with an unimpeachable heave of will then extends the tax cuts. He walks smiling through the newly opened White House garden on his way to announce renewed efforts at oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Meanwhile, his "balanced" approach to the economy has led to a slower recovery than other industrialized nations and the war in Libya has been half-assed at best, which is exactly what war cannot be. For two years, he seemed disingenuous and defensive, pushed into roles that his predecessors had scripted, alternately playing savior then monster. But no more. We can finally see who he is, we can finally understand the reality: In 2011, it is possible to be a levelheaded, warmhearted, cold-blooded killer who can crack a joke and write a book for his daughters. It is possible to be many things at once. And even more miraculous, it is possible for that man to be the president of the United States. Barack Obama is developing into what Hegel called a "world-historical soul," an embodiment of the spirit of the times. He is what we hope we can be.
We love Obama — even those who claim to despise him — because deep in our hearts and all over our lives, we're the same way — both inside and outside our jobs, our races, our cities, our countries, ourselves. With great artists, often the most irritating feature of their work is the source of their talent. Obama's gift is the same as his curse: He's somehow managed to be like the rest of us, only infinitely more so."
Politicians and their friends in the media focus on character issues (Obama "is all of us," Bush is a Texas farm boy, etc.) to distract people from politicians' policies, which are usually very unpopular. It works for both Republicans and Democrats.
"So I am planning to vote for George W. Bush because he is a nice guy. As a nice guy he will attract and retain the loyalty of outstanding administration officials, and together they will promote policies that are smarter and bolder than we ever would expect, just from looking at Bush himself. As a nice man, he will prove remarkably adept at working with Congress, with Democrats, with the media and with all the other different people you need to handle as president. He will set a tone of bonhomie that will grease the machinery of government; things will actually get done in Washington again....
Look at Al Gore. He is a deeply un-nice man. He was an unpopular senator because no one could penetrate his phoniness. Unlike Bush, he has not been able to attract and retain talented staff. Bush has created a smooth-running campaign team. Gore runs through people at an alarming rate, and many (though not all) of the Gore people are un-nice -- ask the reporters who have to cover the campaign."
- David Brooks
http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/08/02/bush_cover/index.html
http://www.esquire.com/features/thousand-words-on-culture/loving-obama-0811?click=pp
"While Obama's story is ancient, it is also utterly contemporary, perfectly of the moment. His gift — and it is a gift that makes him emblematic — is that he inhabits all these roles without being limited by them. He has managed, miraculously, to remain something of an outsider while being the president of the United States of America, the most inside man in the world. He's African-American, but he's not African-American. He's from Chicago, but he's from Hawaii. One month he's bailing out the banks, the next he's keeping Gitmo open. He pushes health-care reform through with an unimpeachable heave of will then extends the tax cuts. He walks smiling through the newly opened White House garden on his way to announce renewed efforts at oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Meanwhile, his "balanced" approach to the economy has led to a slower recovery than other industrialized nations and the war in Libya has been half-assed at best, which is exactly what war cannot be. For two years, he seemed disingenuous and defensive, pushed into roles that his predecessors had scripted, alternately playing savior then monster. But no more. We can finally see who he is, we can finally understand the reality: In 2011, it is possible to be a levelheaded, warmhearted, cold-blooded killer who can crack a joke and write a book for his daughters. It is possible to be many things at once. And even more miraculous, it is possible for that man to be the president of the United States. Barack Obama is developing into what Hegel called a "world-historical soul," an embodiment of the spirit of the times. He is what we hope we can be.
We love Obama — even those who claim to despise him — because deep in our hearts and all over our lives, we're the same way — both inside and outside our jobs, our races, our cities, our countries, ourselves. With great artists, often the most irritating feature of their work is the source of their talent. Obama's gift is the same as his curse: He's somehow managed to be like the rest of us, only infinitely more so."
Politicians and their friends in the media focus on character issues (Obama "is all of us," Bush is a Texas farm boy, etc.) to distract people from politicians' policies, which are usually very unpopular. It works for both Republicans and Democrats.
"So I am planning to vote for George W. Bush because he is a nice guy. As a nice guy he will attract and retain the loyalty of outstanding administration officials, and together they will promote policies that are smarter and bolder than we ever would expect, just from looking at Bush himself. As a nice man, he will prove remarkably adept at working with Congress, with Democrats, with the media and with all the other different people you need to handle as president. He will set a tone of bonhomie that will grease the machinery of government; things will actually get done in Washington again....
Look at Al Gore. He is a deeply un-nice man. He was an unpopular senator because no one could penetrate his phoniness. Unlike Bush, he has not been able to attract and retain talented staff. Bush has created a smooth-running campaign team. Gore runs through people at an alarming rate, and many (though not all) of the Gore people are un-nice -- ask the reporters who have to cover the campaign."
- David Brooks
http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/08/02/bush_cover/index.html
Is Authoritarianism a Necessary Evil?
We're all in agreement that "development" is a good thing. In other words, we all agree that all else being equal, it is better for a nation and its people to be richer rather than poorer. Rich countries are more able to support "human rights," because goods and services that people want will trickle down in richer countries regardless of the structure of the state. Zakaria makes (or cites) this same point, but he retreats from the obvious conclusions and invents a false one, ascribing to poor countries the problems that plague all countries. It is critical to ask how rich countries became so.
The typical answer is given by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Thomas Friedman (2000:102), who argues that the rich countries became so through embracing a form of state capitalism mandating austere property laws, governmental restriction of labor flows, the opening of markets to foreign competition and cuts in social services, policies currently carried out throughout the Third World by the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and World Trade Organization (Peet and Harwick 2009:85-87). The scholarly literature is similar. In his celebrated work The Bottom Billion (2007), Oxford economist Paul Collier calls for expansion of foreign aid (2007:100) and neoliberal-style markets (2007:88), while dismissing the arguably relevant facts that “aid indeed makes a coup more likely” (2007:105) and “the exodus of capital from the [poorest countries] was only phase one of the global integration of the bottom billion. Phase two will be an exodus of educated people” (2007:94). He claims that practitioners of development should resist the temptation to focus on “photogenic social priorities – health and education” (2007:108) in favor of infrastructure projects like roads and ports and, if citizens resist, “military intervention” (2007:124).
These theories are bald neoliberal lies, used to elide history and support the inequitable status quo.
In reality, “almost all recent cases of collapses into anarchy were preceded by heavy World Bank and IMF involvement” (Easterly 2006:67) and every developed country became so through state protection of industry (Chang 2008:15-16; Peet and Harwick 2009:50-51) with the critical support of colonial violence (Chomsky 1999:7-11).
All the rich countries I have studied (I can't speak to Iceland, Norway or Finland) were colonizers or the offshoots of colonizers (N. Zealand, etc.). Although natural resources within the current national boundaries are indeed important (US), imperial countries like England and Japan did not get their wealth because of their access to strategic fishing habitats, but because they stole their capital (human and natural) from other countries, like India and China. (Colonialism was much more brutal in India than it was in China, which explains their current levels of wealth much more than their citizens' abilities to vote). So the options available to the United States - enslave some 15 million people and conquer every land you can through genocide - are not really available to poor countries trying to become rich these days, at least not realistically or to the extent that they were in the past. My point in saying all this is that the development of the rich countries makes the crimes carried out in Uzbekistan look like a summer stroll. Genocide and slavery have led to development, political "democracy" never has yet. Give people in poor countries a right to vote and what can they do (Bolivia is uber-democratic but remains the poorest country in South America)?
This is not the same thing as saying genocide and slavery are necessary for development, nor is it the same thing as saying political participation ("democracy") never helps the masses. S. Korea (and Israel) are very important examples in this respect. S. Korea was dissimilar from the reconstructed European and Japanese powers, because it did not have an educated workforce. In 1960 S. Korea was an extremely poor country, lacking much of a resource base to "develop," but after thirty years, "Korea ’s progress is as if Haiti had turned into Switzerland" (Chang 2008: 12). How did this happen? The domino theory could be given credit for doing some good in this respect. Unlike S. Vietnam, which was mostly destroyed by military excursions to deter "communism," S. Korea was mostly developed through economic clientelism to do so. In other words, it was a showcase for "capitalism," developing an entire country to demonstrate to the world that "freedom" triumphs over "authoritarianism." This should give pause to the claim that there is current "nation building" going on Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else, rather than support of puppet regimes in America's interests, because the United States government actually does know how to develop countries: through state protectionism (tariffs, gov't investment in start-up companies, subsidies, gov't planning of industry, but capitalist [market] control of smaller decision making. Think US economy in 1930s-World War II or now (can you think of an American industry that doesn't benefit from government handouts?). As an aside, FDRoosevelt was probably the most popular president in US history, but he was also the most authoritarian of the 20th century. There was minimal dissent in the country at this time and almost all Americans would have agreed with the logic of your Uzbek friend, although they probably would have used different terms ("freedom," "democracy," "capitalism," etc.) to describe what was happening.). The US-installed strongman in S. Korea, General Chun, kept things in line with brutal force:
"Consider the response when General Chun’s military dictatorship in South Korea crushed the democracy movement in Kwangju in May 1980. Paratroopers ‘carried out three days of barbarity with the zeal of Nazi storm troopers,’ an Asia Watch investigative mission reported, ‘beating, stabbing, and mutilating unarmed civilians, including children, young girls, and aged grandmothers.’ Two thousand people were killed in this rampage, they estimate. The US received two requests for assistance: the citizens committee that had called for democracy requested help in negotiations; General Chun requested the release of 20,000 troops under US command to join the storm troopers. The latter request was honored, and US naval and air units were deployed in a further show of US support. ‘Koreans who had expected help from Carter were dumbfounded,’ Tim Shorrock writes, as ‘the news of direct support from the US was broadcast to the people of Kwangju from helicopters and proclaim throughout the nation in blazing newspaper headlines.’ A few days later Carter sent the head of the Export-Import Bank to Seoul to assure the military junta of US economic support, approving a $600 million loan. As Chun took over the presidency by force, Carter said that while we would prefer democracy, ‘The Koreans are not ready for that, according to their own judgment.’" (Chomsky 1999:99-100).
I would agree with the argument that there are two strands of human rights: political/civic and social/economic (Peck 2011). These would follow a conventional capitalist/American and communist/Soviet breakdown: America has strong freedom of speech, and to a lesser extent assembly and political participation, compared with the Soviet Union, which had strong social/economic rights (in 1989 the poverty rate was 1-2% and there were no millionaires in the country (Klein 2008:231)).
I think that mentioning China as the classic case of authoritarianism falls victim to the mythology of the cold war; the Chinese government is very popular among its people, despite news accounts in this country. The Chinese revolution was actually very democratic, unlike the American revolution, which contained the fruits and seeds of horrendous ethnocide. There has been a lot of violence in China during and since, but far less than in the history of our own country. So I would reject the standard definitions of democracy, authoritarianism and human rights, and instead reach for a broader definition encompassing material rights even more so than political rights. I would reject the dichotomy between authoritarianism and democracy, because the two have many overlapping facets and are not as universally repressive or liberatory as is often fantasized.
As to the ultimate question, "Is authoritarianism a necessary evil?" I think the answer is, we can only hope that someday development and all of our society will proceed without violence, but I think that hope is an impossible goal. Until then, maybe we can do something to mitigate the suffering heretofore inherent to all development.
Bibliography
Chang, Ha-Joon. 2008. Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism. Bloomsbury.
Chomsky, Noam. 1999. Year 501: The Conquest Continues. South End.
Collier, Paul. 2007. The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries Are Failing and What Can Be Done about It. Oxford University.
Easterly, William. 2006. The White Man’s Burden. Penguin.
Friedman, Thomas. 2000. The Lexus and the Olive Tree. Macmillan.
Klein, Naomi. 2008. The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Picador.
Peck, James. 2011. Ideal Illusions: How the US Government Co-opted Human Rights. Metropolitan.
Peet, Richard and Elaine Hartwick. 2009. Theories of Development: Contentions, Arguments, Alternatives. 2nd ed. Guilford.
The typical answer is given by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Thomas Friedman (2000:102), who argues that the rich countries became so through embracing a form of state capitalism mandating austere property laws, governmental restriction of labor flows, the opening of markets to foreign competition and cuts in social services, policies currently carried out throughout the Third World by the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and World Trade Organization (Peet and Harwick 2009:85-87). The scholarly literature is similar. In his celebrated work The Bottom Billion (2007), Oxford economist Paul Collier calls for expansion of foreign aid (2007:100) and neoliberal-style markets (2007:88), while dismissing the arguably relevant facts that “aid indeed makes a coup more likely” (2007:105) and “the exodus of capital from the [poorest countries] was only phase one of the global integration of the bottom billion. Phase two will be an exodus of educated people” (2007:94). He claims that practitioners of development should resist the temptation to focus on “photogenic social priorities – health and education” (2007:108) in favor of infrastructure projects like roads and ports and, if citizens resist, “military intervention” (2007:124).
These theories are bald neoliberal lies, used to elide history and support the inequitable status quo.
In reality, “almost all recent cases of collapses into anarchy were preceded by heavy World Bank and IMF involvement” (Easterly 2006:67) and every developed country became so through state protection of industry (Chang 2008:15-16; Peet and Harwick 2009:50-51) with the critical support of colonial violence (Chomsky 1999:7-11).
All the rich countries I have studied (I can't speak to Iceland, Norway or Finland) were colonizers or the offshoots of colonizers (N. Zealand, etc.). Although natural resources within the current national boundaries are indeed important (US), imperial countries like England and Japan did not get their wealth because of their access to strategic fishing habitats, but because they stole their capital (human and natural) from other countries, like India and China. (Colonialism was much more brutal in India than it was in China, which explains their current levels of wealth much more than their citizens' abilities to vote). So the options available to the United States - enslave some 15 million people and conquer every land you can through genocide - are not really available to poor countries trying to become rich these days, at least not realistically or to the extent that they were in the past. My point in saying all this is that the development of the rich countries makes the crimes carried out in Uzbekistan look like a summer stroll. Genocide and slavery have led to development, political "democracy" never has yet. Give people in poor countries a right to vote and what can they do (Bolivia is uber-democratic but remains the poorest country in South America)?
This is not the same thing as saying genocide and slavery are necessary for development, nor is it the same thing as saying political participation ("democracy") never helps the masses. S. Korea (and Israel) are very important examples in this respect. S. Korea was dissimilar from the reconstructed European and Japanese powers, because it did not have an educated workforce. In 1960 S. Korea was an extremely poor country, lacking much of a resource base to "develop," but after thirty years, "Korea ’s progress is as if Haiti had turned into Switzerland" (Chang 2008: 12). How did this happen? The domino theory could be given credit for doing some good in this respect. Unlike S. Vietnam, which was mostly destroyed by military excursions to deter "communism," S. Korea was mostly developed through economic clientelism to do so. In other words, it was a showcase for "capitalism," developing an entire country to demonstrate to the world that "freedom" triumphs over "authoritarianism." This should give pause to the claim that there is current "nation building" going on Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else, rather than support of puppet regimes in America's interests, because the United States government actually does know how to develop countries: through state protectionism (tariffs, gov't investment in start-up companies, subsidies, gov't planning of industry, but capitalist [market] control of smaller decision making. Think US economy in 1930s-World War II or now (can you think of an American industry that doesn't benefit from government handouts?). As an aside, FDRoosevelt was probably the most popular president in US history, but he was also the most authoritarian of the 20th century. There was minimal dissent in the country at this time and almost all Americans would have agreed with the logic of your Uzbek friend, although they probably would have used different terms ("freedom," "democracy," "capitalism," etc.) to describe what was happening.). The US-installed strongman in S. Korea, General Chun, kept things in line with brutal force:
"Consider the response when General Chun’s military dictatorship in South Korea crushed the democracy movement in Kwangju in May 1980. Paratroopers ‘carried out three days of barbarity with the zeal of Nazi storm troopers,’ an Asia Watch investigative mission reported, ‘beating, stabbing, and mutilating unarmed civilians, including children, young girls, and aged grandmothers.’ Two thousand people were killed in this rampage, they estimate. The US received two requests for assistance: the citizens committee that had called for democracy requested help in negotiations; General Chun requested the release of 20,000 troops under US command to join the storm troopers. The latter request was honored, and US naval and air units were deployed in a further show of US support. ‘Koreans who had expected help from Carter were dumbfounded,’ Tim Shorrock writes, as ‘the news of direct support from the US was broadcast to the people of Kwangju from helicopters and proclaim throughout the nation in blazing newspaper headlines.’ A few days later Carter sent the head of the Export-Import Bank to Seoul to assure the military junta of US economic support, approving a $600 million loan. As Chun took over the presidency by force, Carter said that while we would prefer democracy, ‘The Koreans are not ready for that, according to their own judgment.’" (Chomsky 1999:99-100).
I would agree with the argument that there are two strands of human rights: political/civic and social/economic (Peck 2011). These would follow a conventional capitalist/American and communist/Soviet breakdown: America has strong freedom of speech, and to a lesser extent assembly and political participation, compared with the Soviet Union, which had strong social/economic rights (in 1989 the poverty rate was 1-2% and there were no millionaires in the country (Klein 2008:231)).
I think that mentioning China as the classic case of authoritarianism falls victim to the mythology of the cold war; the Chinese government is very popular among its people, despite news accounts in this country. The Chinese revolution was actually very democratic, unlike the American revolution, which contained the fruits and seeds of horrendous ethnocide. There has been a lot of violence in China during and since, but far less than in the history of our own country. So I would reject the standard definitions of democracy, authoritarianism and human rights, and instead reach for a broader definition encompassing material rights even more so than political rights. I would reject the dichotomy between authoritarianism and democracy, because the two have many overlapping facets and are not as universally repressive or liberatory as is often fantasized.
As to the ultimate question, "Is authoritarianism a necessary evil?" I think the answer is, we can only hope that someday development and all of our society will proceed without violence, but I think that hope is an impossible goal. Until then, maybe we can do something to mitigate the suffering heretofore inherent to all development.
Bibliography
Chang, Ha-Joon. 2008. Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism. Bloomsbury.
Chomsky, Noam. 1999. Year 501: The Conquest Continues. South End.
Collier, Paul. 2007. The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries Are Failing and What Can Be Done about It. Oxford University.
Easterly, William. 2006. The White Man’s Burden. Penguin.
Friedman, Thomas. 2000. The Lexus and the Olive Tree. Macmillan.
Klein, Naomi. 2008. The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Picador.
Peck, James. 2011. Ideal Illusions: How the US Government Co-opted Human Rights. Metropolitan.
Peet, Richard and Elaine Hartwick. 2009. Theories of Development: Contentions, Arguments, Alternatives. 2nd ed. Guilford.
Our American Lexicon
4th of July observation on political discourse:
"Patriotism" = support American violence; hate services to children, sick, poor, etc.
"Anti-Americanism" = hate American violence; support services to children, sick, poor, etc.
"Patriotism" = support American violence; hate services to children, sick, poor, etc.
"Anti-Americanism" = hate American violence; support services to children, sick, poor, etc.
9/11 and the Iraq War
As Goering put it,
“Naturally the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the le...aders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
The jingoist response is more interesting for the mindset it reveals. Even the merest suggestion that there could have been a peaceful settlement where bin Laden was turned over to the US for trial if evidence was provided of his guilt is dismissed because it "avoids justice entirely, and leaves his Taliban protectors untouched and as powerful as ever," and then equated, almost literally, with appeasement of Hitler.
I certainly agree that spending "years planning th emurder [sic] of hundreds in Africa and Yemen" and further plotting "the murder of thousands of innocents," then carrying out one or both of these plans, is criminal. I am wondering, would apply the same standards to your own government that you do to bin Laden?
There were other criminal actions over the past decade we could rightly condemn, for example, the invasion of Iraq, which left more than 650,000 dead, according to the most recent academic estimate ("Mortality after the 2003 Invasion of Iraq: A Cross-Sectional Cluster Sample Survey" http://www.sciencedirect.c_udi=B6T1B-4M3J0V5-1&_user=86449&_coverDate=10%2F27%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor&view=c&_acct=C000006858&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=86449&md5=8f6b401771c343c7c9e632f45566420a&searchtype=a ). The study is only eight pages long and worth reading.
Considering the Iraq War has been a tragedy far worse than 9/11, do you also think that it would be appeasement for Muqtada al-Sadr to negotiate a peace treaty with the United States, as, in your view, it was for the United States to negotiate with the Taliban? Do you think that "the murder of thousands of innocents" is wrong when your government does it, or only when bin Laden does it? If the architect of the Iraq War, Bush, was offered over for trial to Iraq, would you reject this offer because it "avoids justice entirely, and leaves his [American] protectors untouched and as powerful as ever?"
I am wondering if "pro-American patriots" are an apologist for state violence, as long as the favored nation carries it out, or if you object to "the murder of thousands of innocents" because it is wrong. If you only object to bin Laden's criminal actions, and not to the American government's, I am hoping you could tell me why.
If you can't, then, how would they define "justice?"
“Naturally the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the le...aders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
The jingoist response is more interesting for the mindset it reveals. Even the merest suggestion that there could have been a peaceful settlement where bin Laden was turned over to the US for trial if evidence was provided of his guilt is dismissed because it "avoids justice entirely, and leaves his Taliban protectors untouched and as powerful as ever," and then equated, almost literally, with appeasement of Hitler.
I certainly agree that spending "years planning th emurder [sic] of hundreds in Africa and Yemen" and further plotting "the murder of thousands of innocents," then carrying out one or both of these plans, is criminal. I am wondering, would apply the same standards to your own government that you do to bin Laden?
There were other criminal actions over the past decade we could rightly condemn, for example, the invasion of Iraq, which left more than 650,000 dead, according to the most recent academic estimate ("Mortality after the 2003 Invasion of Iraq: A Cross-Sectional Cluster Sample Survey" http://www.sciencedirect.c
Considering the Iraq War has been a tragedy far worse than 9/11, do you also think that it would be appeasement for Muqtada al-Sadr to negotiate a peace treaty with the United States, as, in your view, it was for the United States to negotiate with the Taliban? Do you think that "the murder of thousands of innocents" is wrong when your government does it, or only when bin Laden does it? If the architect of the Iraq War, Bush, was offered over for trial to Iraq, would you reject this offer because it "avoids justice entirely, and leaves his [American] protectors untouched and as powerful as ever?"
I am wondering if "pro-American patriots" are an apologist for state violence, as long as the favored nation carries it out, or if you object to "the murder of thousands of innocents" because it is wrong. If you only object to bin Laden's criminal actions, and not to the American government's, I am hoping you could tell me why.
If you can't, then, how would they define "justice?"
On Patriotism and Violence
It is natural to look back and ask questions when major events come to an end. In this case, we can ask, "Has anything ended?"
Bin Laden's threats and attacks were supposedly the impetus for ...this series of murderous wars. But his death has produced not the slightest change in course. In other words, our government is saying, "OK folks, sorry for lying to you for ten years, it wasn't really about bin Laden, we still need to keep hundreds of thousands of soldiers and mercenaries stationed in virtually every country in the world, wiretap anyone we want and spend trillions while cutting money for children's health insurance." The existence of a demon is only pseudo-real. In other words, bin Laden, Saddam, the Russians, Qaddafi, and others to follow are primarily tools to instill fear (for example, that Ho Chi Minh, etc., will sail over on a raft and destroy your family or the country) and thus, unquestioning obedience, regardless of their actual threat.
When we pay attention to the facts instead of rhetoric we see that our government has two foreign policies: one, whose purpose is to steal through the threat or use of violence, and the other, whose purpose is to produce lies and self-justifications for domestic consumption. In short, that bin Laden's death changes nothing about our foreign policy proves that it was all a pack of lies.
Maybe we have come to learn one thing from 9/11: when we saw pictures of Americans running from burning towers, we now know how others feel when we see pictures of them running from American bombs.
Bin Laden's threats and attacks were supposedly the impetus for ...this series of murderous wars. But his death has produced not the slightest change in course. In other words, our government is saying, "OK folks, sorry for lying to you for ten years, it wasn't really about bin Laden, we still need to keep hundreds of thousands of soldiers and mercenaries stationed in virtually every country in the world, wiretap anyone we want and spend trillions while cutting money for children's health insurance." The existence of a demon is only pseudo-real. In other words, bin Laden, Saddam, the Russians, Qaddafi, and others to follow are primarily tools to instill fear (for example, that Ho Chi Minh, etc., will sail over on a raft and destroy your family or the country) and thus, unquestioning obedience, regardless of their actual threat.
When we pay attention to the facts instead of rhetoric we see that our government has two foreign policies: one, whose purpose is to steal through the threat or use of violence, and the other, whose purpose is to produce lies and self-justifications for domestic consumption. In short, that bin Laden's death changes nothing about our foreign policy proves that it was all a pack of lies.
Maybe we have come to learn one thing from 9/11: when we saw pictures of Americans running from burning towers, we now know how others feel when we see pictures of them running from American bombs.
Response to an American jingoist
We have gotten far off the original topic and now you're just spewing lies and straw men, exactly as I expected you to do when confronted with the simple facts sur...rounding the issues you're trying to speak about.
Even if we accepted your lies, the fact that anybody or country does some good things does not excuse their murderous crimes any more than bin Laden's crimes could be excused because he supposedly fought for freedom in Afghanistan. This is a tautology. I've mentioned it in earlier posts but apparently you disagree.
What you're saying is exactly like Teddy Rooselvelt, who argued that
“The expansion of the peoples of white, or European, blood during the past four centuries. . . has been fraught with lasting benefit to most of the peoples already dwelling in the lands over which the expansion took place.”
Lie#1: "eradication of the Native Americans, an event which occurred before there was even such a thing as the United States."
The genocide of the Native Americans was certainly not complete before 1776. At that time, the British settlers were confined principally to the east, as you undoubtedly learned about in elementary school. The rest of the continent was still left to "eradicate," as you phrase it.
Nor was there any equivocation amongst the earlier presidents that genocide was taking place.
Jefferson wrote that
"However our present interests may restrain us within our own limits, it is impossible not to look forward to distant times, when our rapid multiplication will expand itself beyond those limits and cover the whole northern, if not the southern, continent, with a people speaking the same language, governed in similar forms and by similar laws; nor can we contemplate with satisfaction either blot or mixture on that surface. Spain, France, and Portugal hold possessions on the southern continent, as to which I am not well enough informed to say how far they might meet our views. But either there or in the northern continent, should the constituted authorities of Virginia fix their attention, of preference, I will have the dispositions of those powers sounded in the first instance. The West Indies offer a more probable and practicable retreat for them. Inhabited already by a people of their own race and color, climates congenial with their natural constitution, insulated from the other descriptions of men; nature seems to have formed these islands to become the receptacle of the blacks transplanted into this hemisphere."
Washington wrote that
“I am very clear in my opinion that policy and
economy point very strongly to the expediency of being upon
good terms with the Indians, and the propriety of purchasing
their lands in preference to attempting to drive them by force
of arms out of their Country; which . . . is like driving the wild
Beasts of ye forest . . . when the gradual extension of our
settlements will as certainly cause the savage, as the wolf, to
retire; both being beasts of prey, tho’ they differ in shape.”
John Quincy Adams felt sorry for
“that hapless race of native Americans, which we are exterminating with such merciless and perfidous cruelty, among the heinous sins of this nation, for which I believe God will one day bring to judgement.”
Lie #2: The US brought down the Soviet Union.
There is no evidence of this. The primary forces causing the Soviet collapse were internal.
Lie #3: The US "stopped ethnic cleansing in the Balkans."
Actually, you've got the history backwards. The worst ethnic cleansing was precipitated by the US bombing and happened AFTER the US war, not before.
Lie #4: The US "spared thousands of lives in Rwanda."
There was no intervention here, so this seems to be made up out of thin air.
Lie #5: The US "saved thousands of lives wiht [sic] our actions in the war on terror."
There is absolutely no evidence for this. NONE. The war in Iraq has killed hundreds of thousands of people, perhaps more than a million, in addition to the thousands of civilians in Afghanistan. I think it is the most elementary moral point to state that killing innocent people is wrong even when the leaders say it is right. It is wrong to kill innocent people when the Soviets do it, when the British do it, when the Americans do it, when bin Laden does it, when a serial killer does it, or even if Mother Teresa did it.
Straw man #1: Of course the United States stopped the Holocaust, though not as successfully as Stalin. I never said anything differently. A typical tactic of those who support unlimited state violence is to pretend those who object are somehow supporting Hitler, or bin Laden, or whoever. This is a clear fabrication.
The rest of your post that isn't transparent falsity is just devoted to repeating patriotic slogans.
Even if we accepted your lies, the fact that anybody or country does some good things does not excuse their murderous crimes any more than bin Laden's crimes could be excused because he supposedly fought for freedom in Afghanistan. This is a tautology. I've mentioned it in earlier posts but apparently you disagree.
What you're saying is exactly like Teddy Rooselvelt, who argued that
“The expansion of the peoples of white, or European, blood during the past four centuries. . . has been fraught with lasting benefit to most of the peoples already dwelling in the lands over which the expansion took place.”
Lie#1: "eradication of the Native Americans, an event which occurred before there was even such a thing as the United States."
The genocide of the Native Americans was certainly not complete before 1776. At that time, the British settlers were confined principally to the east, as you undoubtedly learned about in elementary school. The rest of the continent was still left to "eradicate," as you phrase it.
Nor was there any equivocation amongst the earlier presidents that genocide was taking place.
Jefferson wrote that
"However our present interests may restrain us within our own limits, it is impossible not to look forward to distant times, when our rapid multiplication will expand itself beyond those limits and cover the whole northern, if not the southern, continent, with a people speaking the same language, governed in similar forms and by similar laws; nor can we contemplate with satisfaction either blot or mixture on that surface. Spain, France, and Portugal hold possessions on the southern continent, as to which I am not well enough informed to say how far they might meet our views. But either there or in the northern continent, should the constituted authorities of Virginia fix their attention, of preference, I will have the dispositions of those powers sounded in the first instance. The West Indies offer a more probable and practicable retreat for them. Inhabited already by a people of their own race and color, climates congenial with their natural constitution, insulated from the other descriptions of men; nature seems to have formed these islands to become the receptacle of the blacks transplanted into this hemisphere."
Washington wrote that
“I am very clear in my opinion that policy and
economy point very strongly to the expediency of being upon
good terms with the Indians, and the propriety of purchasing
their lands in preference to attempting to drive them by force
of arms out of their Country; which . . . is like driving the wild
Beasts of ye forest . . . when the gradual extension of our
settlements will as certainly cause the savage, as the wolf, to
retire; both being beasts of prey, tho’ they differ in shape.”
John Quincy Adams felt sorry for
“that hapless race of native Americans, which we are exterminating with such merciless and perfidous cruelty, among the heinous sins of this nation, for which I believe God will one day bring to judgement.”
Lie #2: The US brought down the Soviet Union.
There is no evidence of this. The primary forces causing the Soviet collapse were internal.
Lie #3: The US "stopped ethnic cleansing in the Balkans."
Actually, you've got the history backwards. The worst ethnic cleansing was precipitated by the US bombing and happened AFTER the US war, not before.
Lie #4: The US "spared thousands of lives in Rwanda."
There was no intervention here, so this seems to be made up out of thin air.
Lie #5: The US "saved thousands of lives wiht [sic] our actions in the war on terror."
There is absolutely no evidence for this. NONE. The war in Iraq has killed hundreds of thousands of people, perhaps more than a million, in addition to the thousands of civilians in Afghanistan. I think it is the most elementary moral point to state that killing innocent people is wrong even when the leaders say it is right. It is wrong to kill innocent people when the Soviets do it, when the British do it, when the Americans do it, when bin Laden does it, when a serial killer does it, or even if Mother Teresa did it.
Straw man #1: Of course the United States stopped the Holocaust, though not as successfully as Stalin. I never said anything differently. A typical tactic of those who support unlimited state violence is to pretend those who object are somehow supporting Hitler, or bin Laden, or whoever. This is a clear fabrication.
The rest of your post that isn't transparent falsity is just devoted to repeating patriotic slogans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)