PNAC

[MMMMMM]

Hi Kurto,

I should have qualified my remark by saying "some" Leftists. Of course it is not true of all Leftists, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
I should have qualified my remark by saying "some" Leftists. Of course it is not true of all Leftists, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt any 'leftist' out there wants the US to be weak. I think you are misrepresenting their views.

I don't think anyone thinks that way. I just reread it again when replying to Wacki and thought it seemed more ridiculous when I reread it.

This fits thematically into the "the left hate the US" propaganda. It's dishonest, unconstructive and just builds partisan rancor.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't think anyone thinks that way. I just reread it again when replying to Wacki and thought it seemed more ridiculous when I reread it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think the hardcore left feels that way either. However, if they did feel that way, much of their foreign policy wouldn't change.

[MMMMMM]

I am sure that some on the Left want the U.S. to be less powerful and less dominant (Cyrus and Chris Alger, for example [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img])

A familiar refrain I have heard from the Left, is that the U.S. is too powerful and hegemonistic. I've encountered this view both within the U.S and from Europeans Lefties. For the U.S. to be less powerful it must become weaker (or relatively weaker). Sort of a basic inverse relationship, there;-)

I'm not trying to cast aspersions; just remarking on what I've noticed. And, once again, it certainly isn't true of all those on the Left. But I do think it is a fairly familiar refrain.

Also, I'm not saying that even those those Leftists who want the U.S. to be weaker or to be reined in, want the U.S. to do badly (although there are a smaller number who do want exactly that)--just to be less strong, less influential, less powerful, less of a force to be reckoned with.

Take that crackpot faux-Indian professor, Ward Churchill. He wants the U.S. to not only be less powerful, but to be attacked and humiliated "as often as necessary" (or something pretty much along those lines). Granted he is an extreme example but I offer him as Exhibit "A" just to demonstrate that there are indeed some Leftists who wish for things contrary to what you might expect (since you said you don't think anyone thinks that way).

Also, I'm not mentioning this to be divisive, but rather, it's part of my take on why so many on the Left oppose the PNAC and (puzzlingly to me) seem to view it as something evil. I could be wrong, but these are some of my guesses and some of my observations. Granted it definitely doesn't apply to everybody on the Left.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
I expect better from him.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have not been around long enough. It takes a 71 IQ -- or a large dose of ex-lax -- to put out the crap he regularly does.
[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
Freedom...capitalism...a good Constitution...voting...building up of infrastructure, development...these are the things that will eventually bring hope and progress to the troubled parts of the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. And it is also the case that many lefties are prone to silly knee jerk reactions.

But three more things are true, which makes everything very complicated.

1) If the history of failed "development" initiatives and ideas has taught us anything, it is to be very, very wary of any school of thought that proposes that "all good things go together" - that democracy, economic development, freedom, etc are mutually complementary and if we could just get the rest of the world on this benign track, all would be good. In fact, it is unclear how and whether these things support each other. Scholars have looked for a long time for a connection between democracy and economic growth, sometimes positing a negative relationship and sometimes a positive one. But the only convincing thing that has ever emerged is the idea that if a democratic country reaches a certin level of wealth, it is very unlikely to revert to authoritarianism. No other relationship has ever been convincingly demonstrated.

2) That there is also very little historical evidence of democracies being successfully "created" by outside powers. While this doesn't mean we shouldn't try to support democracy, having an intelligent policy means acknowledging the severe limitations that history seems to teach us about. Without some kind of embedded political institutions and a history of at least half steps toward democracy, it is unfortunately very unlikely a democracy will just spring up. Look at the former communist world. Those countries in eastern europe that had some history of democratic governance have managed to stabilize democratic regimes (the EU has helped tremendously too). But those in Central Asia and the Caucases have just become authoritarian fiefdoms with democratic trappings.

3) It is also time to start calling a spade a spade when it comes to the international economy. First, the system is basically rigged against developing countries and this generates a tremendous amount of ill will and frustration on their part. Lefty reactions against globalization are stupid, but so is naive righty support of American trade policy. Second, the unfortunate reality is that world economic growth has been very sluggish over the last twenty years. Some Harvard economist does some math, scratches out a model and declares that Capital+Human Capital+Technological Innovation-Transaction Costs is the magic formula. But let's get real. That is just some scribbling on a piece of paper. Sit back for a second and think about what an unbelievable stretch it is to think that you could accurately model a global social-economic system. Impossible? No. But we should be skeptical about any proposed authoritative "answers" to the problems of the world. And we should weigh everything against the empirical evidence, which is that very little seems to be working these days when it comes to inducing growth in most places (with the exception of China and America during the 90s boom - two places which teach very contradictory lessons about the "right" answers!).

[ACPlayer]

Good post.

You do risk being labelled an America hating liberal though. Even though it really is a very conservative principle you articulate -- and I agree with.

[andyfox]

It's not the use of American power that I object to, it's how it is used. I don't wish to see America weaker; I wish to see it wiser.

The problem I have with the PNAC and its ilk mostly revolves around its manichean worldview: there's very little middle ground, only black and white. They define the human condition as a choice between good and evil and believe that the true measure of political character is found in the willingness of the good (namely, themselves) to confront evil. Their hero, of course, is therefore Ronald Reagan, who saw things in black and white for all of his life.

Since the world involves issues of good and evil, they have no problem with making the fundamental determinant of the relationship between states one of military power and the willingness to use it. This combines with their primary focus on the Middle East and global Islam as the principal theater for American overseas interests to make it inevitable that trouble will ensue.

They analyze issues in absolute moral categories. They alone hold the moral high ground and argue that disagreement with them is tantamount to defeatism. [See William Bennett, Why We Fight; Moral Clarity and the War on Terorism.]

They focus on the fact that the United States is the only superpower, seeing the use of military force as the first, not the last option of foreign policy. [See Robert Kagan, Of Paradise and Power: American and Europe in the New World Order.]

They thus disdain conventional diplomatic agencies such as the State Department and conventional country-specific, realist, and practical analysis. They are hostile towards non-military multilateral institutions and antagonistic towards international treaties and agreements. They are fortified by international criticism, believing that its confirms American virtue. We know best, we'll go it alone if we have to.

All this leads to a natural confrontation with the Muslim world, with America's allies and friends, with the United Nations, with deficit hawks who urge fiscal restraint, and with other Americans who might disagree with them and their objectives or tactics. [See Robert Bork, "Civil Liberties after 9/11".] They're always angry, seeing anyone to the left of them as somehow unAmerican.

Thus they always call the Middle East peace process the "peace process," with the obligatory quotation marks, those favoring negotiation chastized as "peacemongers." "Good relations" is a term of suspicion, "deterrence" or "containment" or "dialogue" positively treasonous.

The one thing they disagree about with their hero Reagan is in their pessimistic view of human nature and society. They see the world as a Hobbesian one of conspiracy and struggle where perpetual military competition for supremacy is the normal state of affairs and moderation is unadvisable and virtually impossible, where trust is elusive at best, and where adversaries must be preemptively crushed lest they crush you first.

And of course, domestically, they see America on the Road to Perdition, thus all the talk about values from the emptiest barrels which, as ever, rattle the loudest (e.g., William Bennet, the "Morality Czar").

It will all lead to disaster. It's the same hubris and arrogance the liberals had in the early 1960s, the feeling that we know what's best for everyone at all times in all places, and it will lead down the same road, where the light at the end of the tunnel will likely be an oncoming train. There is no hint of the traditional conservative virtues of balance or caution nor of the detailed academic work of conservatives highlighting the difficulties inherent in transplanting democracy.

The best example of what all this leads to came on September 15, 2001 when Mr. Wolfowitz presented the argument that the United States shoud attack not Afghanistan but rather Saddam Hussein. He advocated not pursuit of al-Qaeda but a "broad and sustained campaign" that would involed "removing" and "ending states." His ideological soulmate James Woolsey said that Iraq should be the target "no matter who should be responsible" for 9/11. And Richard Perle linked Iraq to 9/11 on 9/12.

The PNAC wants an America "fully engaged and never apologetic." [Kaplan and Kristol, The War over Iraq] The first thing they should apologize is the lack of planning for post-war Iraq. "Stuff happens" [Rumsfeld] is not good enough.

[wacki]

That was a well thought out and written argument andyfox. It will probably take me a couple of days to read those referenced articles (busy with work) but I will get back to you when I'm done. Thankyou for your input.

[MMMMMM]

Fine post, Andy; here are a few quick thoughts:

Just because the PNAC authors might have the foundation of a Manichean world view, does not mean that they haven't drawn the approximately correct conclusions regarding world powers and struggles.

Just because they might have some hubris or arrogance, does not mean their strategy is fatally flawed.

Just because they see the world in terms of good and evil, does not mean that certain systems are not worse than others--specifically "worse" are communism, theocracy, Islamism, and fascism--and any combination of the above. So, even if you don't believe in "good" and "evil", you probably do believe in "better" and "worse"--and there really isn't much practical difference between the two sets of terms when you compare the first set to the second set. In this world we constantly must try to choose betwen "better" and "worse"--if "good" and "evil" offends your philosophical sense of decorum somehow, try using the other set of terms;-)

Islamism {politicized Islam), communism, and fascism are all inherently rigid in the ideological sense. They also have an expansionist philosophical theme which is actually conquest-oriented. If we do nothing they will attempt to overcome us. It is because the relatively free West is strong, that the West has not been conquered by one or more of these totalitarian ideologies.

Those ideologies, and the political systems married to them, are NOT acceptable to humans wishing to live a relatively free life, nor for those who wish not to see others oppressed or enslaved. Such systems are inherently incompatible with liberty and human rights. So I don't buy the argument that "it may be OK for them", or the multiculturalist view, that all cultures are equally OK and valid. Cultural aspects which promote fascism or lack of human rights are NOT OK. The Saudi government and Wahhabi culture, with its fascistic state religion and its oppression of women and non-Muslims, is NOT OK.

Yes, the PNAC may be a bit overly aggressive or assertive in its approach (I haven't browsed it since quite some time, so I can't say for sure).

Yes, there are some dangers in and of hubris.

[ QUOTE ]
The one thing they disagree about with their hero Reagan is in their pessimistic view of human nature and society. They see the world as a Hobbesian one of conspiracy and struggle where perpetual military competition for supremacy is the normal state of affairs and moderation is unadvisable and virtually impossible, where trust is elusive at best, and where adversaries must be preemptively crushed lest they crush you first.

[/ QUOTE ]

I lean towards the optimistic view of human nature on a personal level and in small groups. The larger the group, however, the worse it generally gets. I believe that on the state level, the view you ascribe to PNAC authors is mostly correct and is borne out by bloody history throughout the ages. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the enemy must always be crushed first; but pre-emption, when practical against a serious, dangerous and determined foe, is simply a wise strategy.

If dictatorships and theocracies can be replaced with democracies, all of humanity will win. I realize that's a big IF.