Bureaucratic Leftism

[B-Man]

The liberals on this forum may not like this column from the NY Post, but I think it makes excellent points. I also have a problem with people who think we should do nothing about Iraq until there is a mushroom cloud over New York or Washington.

===========================
September 24, 2002 --
IN the debate over Iraq, the Democrats and most allied governments are demanding United Nations Security Council endorsement of a military campaign - or they are against it.

This is a strange position. The U.S. government, with an over two-century record of forwarding human rights and defeating tyrants, is to defer to the United Nations? The duly elected leaders of the United States should step aside and let assorted dictators make key decisions affecting American national security?

There is a reason for this strange idea, John Fonte of the Hudson Institute reveals in an eye-opening article in the current issue of Orbis magazine. In recent decades, the "progressivism" rejected by America's democratic institutions - the executive branch, Congress, the courts, state and local governments - has been gaining at the United Nations and other undemocratic international institutions. And many Western elites - even more so in Europe than here - have so internalized this change that they now see the United Nations & Co. as more legitimate on these issue.

This attempted end-run around American democracy, Fonte argues, represents a significant movement, which he dubs "transnational progressivism." I prefer the name "bureaucratic leftism," but whatever one calls it, Fonte establishes that, in the tradition of fascism and communism, this effort constitutes a significant "challenge to liberal democracy."

Fully to absorb its threat requires reading Fonte's article in full. In summary, unable to achieve their goals through the ballot box, law professors, political activists, foundation officers, NGO bureaucrats, corporation executives, and practicing politicians now seek to achieve those goals by denigrating the two central pillars of modern liberal democracy, the individual citizen and the nation-state.

Bureaucratic leftism diminishes the role of the individual in many ways:

* The group over the individual: A person's unique capabilities and outlook have less importance than his membership in the ascriptive groups (racial, ethnic or gender) into which he is born.

* Oppressor vs. victim: The world divides into good and bad groups, with nonwhites, women, immigrants and homosexuals by their very nature in the former category.

* Fairness requires group proportionalism: "Victim" groups should be represented in all facets of life (executives, prisoners) proportionate to their percentage of the population.

* Democracy as power sharing by groups: Democracy ceases to mean majority rule and becomes a matter of dividing the spoils among those ascriptive groups.

* Victims' values rule: Institutions must shed the outlook of the "oppressor" culture and adopt that of the nonwhite, female, immigrant and homosexual victims.

* Out with national narratives and symbols: Traditional notions of history "privilege" the oppressors and must be discarded. In the American case, for example, the conventional emphasis on European settlers is jettisoned in favor of a multicultural "convergence" of three civilizations - Amerindian, West African and European. Then bureaucratic leftism weakens the nation-state:

* Denigration of state sovereignty: States should cede their powers to higher bodies, such as the European Union or the United Nations. In this spirit, Israel's Foreign Minister Shimon Peres has called for a de-emphasis on sovereignty in his region and argued for a Middle Eastern version of the European Union.

* Citizen of the world: Instead of giving ultimate allegiance (defined as who you would die for) to the state, a vague loyalty goes to some form of global membership.

* Immigrant rights prevail: Immigrants should be able to relocate freely, impose their cultures on and offer only ambiguous loyalty to their new countries of residence. Long-established peoples in a region should accept "multiculturalism" with a smile.

Although forwarded by progressives and garbed in post-modern lingo, Fonte shows that bureaucratic leftism represents a throwback to a pre-modern age in Europe when rulers were unelected. Today's bureaucrats effectively fill the role of yesteryear's kings.

Predictably, the left's newest project is having more success in Western countries other than the United States - Canada, France, Israel and New Zealand come to mind. Fonte implies that Americans will end up with the main burden of fending off this ugly system, just as it did fascism and communism - and is now doing with militant Islam.

Only by recognizing bureaucratic leftism for what it is can it be stopped before its malign ideas have a chance to do real damage.

[brad]

true, by trade agreements and such international bureaucracy is in some cases supplanting our republican form of government.

very scary.

when it comes to un, world criminal court, imf, world bank, etc., just say no.

brad

[MMMMMM]

It sickens me and offends my sense of fairness that despotic, totalitarian regimes have any voice at all in the U.N.

The U.N. should be, ideally speaking, a body of nations which are each governed by some form of democratic-style government/republic. All other nations should not be allowed a vote until their own citizens are allowed a vote as well. All other nations should not be recognized as having legitimate governments, and should be dealt with only on a pragmatic basis.

[andyfox]

Isn't one of the reasons President Bush refers to as part of his rationale for an Iraq attack is that Iraq has consistently violated terms of it's agreement with the U.N.? So if the U.N. shouldn't mean anything to us, why does he cite these agreements as a reason for invading Iraq?

Also, just because some people might be opposed to invading Iraq, this doesn't mean that they think nothing should be done until a mushroom cloud appears over New York or Washington. We didn't invade the USSR in the 1950s and no mushroom clouds appeared over New York of Washington. Not every problem requires war to solve it.

Incidentally, the only mushroom clouds that have appeared over cities in human history were created by the duly elected leaders of the United States.

If we're going to undertake the first preemptive war in our history, we should make a good case for the imminent danger of not undertaking it. Talk of "bureaucratic leftism" or "transnational progressivism" won't cut it.

[brad]

i think youve hit the nail on the head. by attacking the UN bush is binding the conservative 'useful idiots' to him to use as support for a war on iraq.

notice that all this bs is instead of any real rational discussion. bush is even saying that he has a mandate from congress (the same 1991 one his father had) to attack iraq on his own presidential authority.

by the way the latest weekly chapter of www.almartinraw.com (http://www.almartinraw.com) has an interesting insight into why people like scowcroft are against the war. heh.

brad

[brad]

also bush takes US back into UNESCO. so he needs something to balance such a blatant pro-UN move.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,63892,00.html

'
UNESCO's first Director-General Julian Huxley prepared the official document "UNESCO, Its Purpose and Its Philosophy" in 1946. Speaking of a need to transcend traditional religions and political-economic doctrines (e.g. free trade), Huxley declared, "The task before UNESCO ... is to help the emergence of a single world culture, with its own philosophy and background of ideas, and with its own broad purposes." [Emphasis added] He wrote of the "transfer of full sovereignty from separate nations to a world organization."

'
so you can see bush needed to placate the right wing useful idiots with some anti-UN rhetoric to counterbalance his pro-UN policy.

brad

[MMMMMM]

I don't think Iraqi violations of U.N. resolutions are, or even should be, the primary reason for attacking Iraq. Iraqi violations, and U.N. auspices, provide an excuse to gather a coalition...a political course which is more palatable to our allies. I don't think wars to enforce the will of the U.N. are a good precedent to be setting. However, wars to ensure our own safety and/or the safety of our allies are good things when we are faced with growing threats from our enemies. Wars to liberate peoples from tyrannical dictators may also be a good thing...provided we ensure that truly democratic-style governments are set up in the aftermath and that we engage in enough post-war nation-building.

With all that said, I believe we should definitely attack Iraq. The primary pragmatic reason is very simple: to allow an enemy--and in this case a particularly ruthless enemy--to continue arming with WMD would simply be foolish. Since Saddam has clearly shown that he respects NOTHING but brute force, there is only one way to ensure his disarmament.

On a broader note, perhaps we should take a more serious look at the concept of allowing ONLY countries with democratic-style, relatively open governments to possess WMD. In other words, forcing North Korea to disarm their WMD unless they become democratic--and even considering telling China, after we get our missile shield in place, that they may keep their present nukes but that they may not build any more.

Europe foolishly let Hitler continue arming even after they saw what he was all about. The USA let the USSR build nukes. Without USSR nukes, there would have not been a Cold War of nearly the same proportions. Letting tyrants and totalitarian regimes build WMD is foolish, and ultimately tends to prove very costly, both financially and in terms of lives.

[B-Man]

Andy: "Isn't one of the reasons President Bush refers to as part of his rationale for an Iraq attack is that Iraq has consistently violated terms of it's agreement with the U.N.? So if the U.N. shouldn't mean anything to us, why does he cite these agreements as a reason for invading Iraq?"

That may be the reason he gave to the corrupt U.N., but it is not the real reason or the best reason. The best reason is to prevent a corrupt, savage, maniacal dictator, who has used WMD in the past, and who supports terrorism, from gaining nuclear weapons.

Andy: "Incidentally, the only mushroom clouds that have appeared over cities in human history were created by the duly elected leaders of the United States."

Andy, there you go again bringing up past actions by the U.S., in this case from nearly 60 years ago. Lets assume bombing Japan was wrong (I'm not saying that is or is not what I believe, this is just a hypothetical). Does that mean that because the U.S. did something wrong 60 years ago we are estopped from taking actions which would prevent others from committing the same wrong today? Is that the point you were trying to make?

[andyfox]

"Is that the point you were trying to make?"

The point I was trying to make is that lot of countries have weapons of mass destruction. Lots of countries, democratic or despotic, have used them. You brought up the mushroom clouds--I was reminding you that the democratic country that finds it so troubling that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction it the only country that has seen fit to use them. The U.S. has been involved in many wars, police actions, secret interventions, etc., in the last sixty years. One could argue that the U.S. shouldn't be allowed to have weapons of mass destruction.

I agree with M that the appeal to the UN is probably being done for PR reasons only.

[andyfox]

"The USA let the USSR build nukes"

I don't think we "let" them build nukes. Many countries were developing atomic capabilities during the second World War. We felt, for example, we needed to proceed because the Germans were working on it (and indeed they were). The Russians, after the war, undoubtedly felt they needed to proceed because we had the bomb--I would think those feelings derived from both traditional Russian insecurities because of the many times they were invaded from the West, and Communist dogma, especially the virulent strain of it as practiced by Stalin. I'm not sure about this, but I imagine they were working on the bomb during the War too, when they were our ally.

And of course it wasn't long before others developed atomic and nuclear capabilities--Britain, France and then China (I think they were numbers 3,4 and 5).

Recently, didn't Pakistan threaten India, either implicitly or explicitly, with nukes over their seemingly never-ending dispute? Preemptively disarming countries who do things we don't like seems to me a slippery slope. What if China decided to try to disarm Taiwan? Or vice versa? I see very little evidence that countries which treat their own people well carry through with benevolent foreign policies.
Perhaps a stronger, more competent government in Afghanistan wouldn't have let Al Qaeda operate there with impunity as the Taliban did.

Also, I think a case can be made that the most difficult years and times of the Cold War came before the USSR had nukes. It was in the early years, 1945-1948, that times were most tense. Perhaps Stalin was at his most difficult then, perhaps the Truman team was tougher than the Eisenhower team, perhaps there were other factors at work. (And I'm not sure when, exactly, the USSR got atomic and nuclear weapons. It think they got A-bombs in 1948 and nukes in 1956, but I could be off on these years.)

[MMMMMM]

What I mean by "we let them build nukes" is that we did not stop them from so doing when we were the sole nuclear power. We could have done so probably by threatening to nuke their nuke development centers unless they desisted--and might possibly have had to follow through one time. If they had never achieved nuclear parity (or even close to it) they would not have enjoyed the leverage that they did during the Cold War.

Allowing one's avowed archenemies to arm is beyond foolish--it borders on criminal negligence to say the least..

[MMMMMM]

I think here we have to distinguish between totalitarian states and the rest of the relatively free world. Also, whether or not the USA was justified in using atomic weapons against Japan (I still don't know if it was), let's not forget that the USA was ATTACKED. And let's not lose sight of the fact that while the US did some bad things while fighting evil regimes, that it is also impossible to fight 100% clean 100% of the time. Let'salso try to imagine what the world would have been like IF THE BAD GUYS HAD WON. If Nazi Germany or the USSR had come to rule the world...well, one can only imagine that things would be A LOT WORSE now. So let's keep WMD out of the hands of totalitarian tyrants, and not compare what the USA actually did with what the bad guys NEVER GOT A CHANCE TO DO. Just WHY didn't Japan use the A-Bomb on the USA? Because they didn't HAVE it first. What are the odds that they would have ATOMIC-BOMBED Pearl Harbor to START the war if they could have? Pretty damn high, IMO. So before we start comparing apples and oranges, let's keep in mind that if we're going to do that, we have to include a reasonable assessment of what our enemies would have done to us, if they instead of us, had held the upper hand. It's not a pretty picture. Prudence dictates we never allow our enemies the luxury of having that advantage to exploit, no matter how sickened we may be by some of our own past actions. And to keep those past actions in perspective, just look at what certain totalitarian regimes have done to THEIR OWN PEOPLE as an indication of what they would surely do to others given the power and the opportunity to do so.

[brad]

just a small point; the soviets didnt develope the A bomb on their own. it was mostly our work.

brad

[MMMMMM]

Maybe so. Whatever the historical case may be, today allowing tyrants to arm with WMD is beyond foolish, especially when those tyrants have ties and sympathies with terrorist groups which are sworn to attack us. The USSR, China and North Korea are rational enough to be deterred by MAD--not so terrorist organizations and religious fanatics--such as al-Qaeda. Therefore allowing Iraq, Iran, etc. to possess WMD which they can in turn supply to sympathetic terrorist organizations would be, IMO, horrific criminal negligence and a great breach of our national security. Rest assured that if terrorist organizations acquire such weapons they will find means to use them against us and our allies.

[brad]

its in the news britain is selling iran key nuclear weapons components.

[B-Man]

instead of conspiracy theories. Please provide some evidence.

[brad]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2275249.stm

i think i support whar i say. just the bbc, a bunch of wackos.

'British officials have approved the export of key components needed to make nuclear weapons to Iran and other countries known to be developing such weapons. '

[MMMMMM]

It reads to me like the excerpt from your link may explain: "The programme highlights the weaknesses in the UK's new export control system, which was set up to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons."

Anyway, the above, and/or the possibility of officials who may have been somehow bribed to look the other way, seem to me more likely explanations than any conspiracy theories. Not that you said it was due to any conspiracy;-)