by Karen Kwiatkowski
The neoconservative moment in American politics has not passed, and it won’t for some time. It is a fundamental part of our modern American empire, and most people seem to like the idea of being in the upper echelons of a great empire, even if it is an illusion. There is also something utterly and basely human about the whole neoconservative political outlook that tells me we won’t be rid of it easily.
Neoconservatism encourages our natural reluctance to believe that other countries might be populated with mothers and daughters just like us, sons and fathers like our own, caring friends and neighbors who look out for us, and happy children filled with dreams. While advocating democracy and "freedom" for these other people for whom we "care" so much, neoconservatism demands that we simultaneously see them as subordinate to our wishes. We are happy to meet them, subject to our economic and military boot – or else we are happy to meet them in a hell of our own creation.
Neoconservatism – indeed American foreign policy – is unscathed and unthreatened by Democratic success in recent elections. We might have known that any foreign policy that celebrates our natural reluctance to deal with the mote in our own eye before we obsess about the speck in our neighbor’s eye would be secure in populism.
Our sordid tendencies toward rage and bloodlust are fed and nurtured by neoconservative prescriptions in foreign policy. Knowing this, I was still shocked to see Joshua Muravchik’s November 19th opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times.
I was surprised that an essay of such ignorance, such hatred, and such embarrassing lack of credibility was published at all in a major newspaper. I was surprised that Joshua Muravchik has an audience; that he apparently does is frightening.
I get a lot of email from people who seem to enthusiastically hate other people for their ethnicities, their religions and even their politics. They often prescribe solutions for their problems that are entirely about changing or punishing those they hate. Their energies are often spent justifying their hatred and dreaming of ways to get governmental institutions to "enforce" their proud contempt.
My reaction to these emails is to delete them. After all, this type of thinking and acting is wrong, unethical, un-Christian, and evil.
So when I read Joshua explain why we must bomb Iran as soon as possible, I was surprised that the LA Times hadn’t also hit the delete button.
Sure, Muravchik hails from the American Enterprise Institute and we do expect this type of stupidity from the folks who insisted the same thing five years ago regarding Iraq. Yes, the AEI still informs key players in the White House and in Congress. And we do understand the real role of Washington think tanks these days.
But in "Bomb Iran," one wonders what it is really all about. The official neoconservative view, as produced by the AEI and AIPAC too, is that Iran must not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. That they do not have one is irrelevant. They must never ever have a nuclear weapon – under no imaginable government, under no imaginable regional or global arrangement. Islamic countries and bombs are a bad mix, according to neoconservatives.
Please forget that the nice Pakistanis have the bomb, and please forget that we have been told Pakistan nearly succeeded in giving it to the Libyans, just before the Libyans turned into nice people, too.
In "Bomb Iran," Joshua says that we cannot deter Iran’s use of a nuclear weapon – once they have one – by telling Iran that if anything in the whole wide world happens, we will nuke Iran. This, by the way, is Dick Cheney’s foreign policy – we will assume Iran is behind anything bad that happens, and first use of the great American nuclear arsenal against Iran is our present security doctrine.
Joshua worries that if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, "[c]oming on top of North Korea's nuclear test, ... would spell finis to the entire nonproliferation system." Apparently, AEI’s ivory tower is an actual tower made of ivory. A tower with no windows, no internet, no television, no radio, no intelligent life. It was clear to me and a few billion other people back in the 1970s that finis for non-proliferation had already been spelt.
Joshua worries that Iran is an archenemy of the United States and Israel, and he worries that it is led by a messianic leader, and that Tehran seeks regional dominance. If only we could get at that damn mote in our own eye. But alas, we aren’t even looking.
Thus, Joshua – Alfred Prufrock style – recalls Churchill and World War I, and the Cold War, choices not made, actions not taken, the painful anonymity of timidly sitting on ones’ hands. He says if we do not bomb, we will not "forestall" Iran’s regional dominance and its global war, and Ahmadinejad the next Lenin. If we do bomb, Joshua says… well, it would be better. Trust him.
What, indeed, is it really all about?
First, it is about guys like Joshua Muravchik doing their workaday job. Advocating positive solutions to real American security challenges does not earn them a paycheck. Instead, feeding the ongoing Washington and Tel Aviv obsession with whether Israel or Iran will be the regional military and economic hegemon does. Hence, Joshua is just doing his job.
Secondly, it is about the Washington establishmentarian desire to lay the psychological-linguistic groundwork for what is going to happen soon – and for those with connections in this White House, to come out on the "right" side early and often. "Bomb Iran" becomes legitimate to say, and thus to think and do, even as the Muravchik arguments, and those of a hundred others in key media outlets, remain illegitimate, illogical, and empty.
And lastly, it is practically important, as four American carrier battle groups in the Persian Gulf patiently await the 2006 rendition of a Tonkin incident, as the Air Force and Navy polishes those target lists, as the Army and Marines send more troops into the region. We hear that more troops are going to Iraq because of its complete political and security breakdown, but the Pentagon knows our troops cannot save Iraq, and if they enter into the fray, they will be killed. Instead, it seems more likely that these troops will stay on the major U.S. bases in central and southern Iraq, and elsewhere in the region, until needed for the next big thing. The news that more American troops may be required in Afghanistan also fits nicely with what must be done. As Cheney visited our men in Saudi Arabia this past weekend, and as the Secretary of State sees our man in Jordan, it’s all on track.
Telling us this is the only reason the LA Times would publish the type of racist, evil, Armageddonite hogwash as found in "Bomb Iran!" Consider yourself told.
November 27, 2006
Karen Kwiatkowski, Ph.D. [send her mail], a retired USAF lieutenant colonel, has written on defense issues with a libertarian perspective for MilitaryWeek.com, hosted the call-in radio show American Forum, and blogs occasionally for Huffingtonpost.com and Liberty and Power. Archives of her American Forum radio program can be accessed here and here. To receive automatic announcements of new articles, click here. A version of this article originally appeared on MilitaryWeek.com.
Copyright © 2006 Karen Kwiatkowski
http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski167.html
Showing posts with label populism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label populism. Show all posts
Monday, November 27, 2006
Friday, November 24, 2006
Is economic populism on the rise in the Democratic Party?
Populism
Fanfare for the common man
Nov 23rd 2006 WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist
AS THE embers of this month's mid-term elections are raked over, a new conventional wisdom is emerging in Washington, DC. The outcome was not just about Iraq, corruption and voters' frustration with George Bush. It also marked the return of a phenomenon that has long hovered offstage in American politics: economic populism.
Frustrated by stagnant wages and rising health costs and fearful that their jobs will be sent to China, anxious voters, particularly in the industrial heartland, sent a new brand of Democrat to Congress: one who may believe in God and guns but who is wary of big business and even more dubious about free trade. The rise of these “Lou Dobbs Democrats” (a reference to a globophobic blowhard on CNN) could spell significant changes in American economic policy.
The new populists are certainly noisy. In an article entitled “Class Struggle” in the Wall Street Journal, Jim Webb, the incoming Democratic senator from Virginia, recently railed against “incestuous corporate boards” and the “hubris” of America's elites. Congress has wobbled on trade even before the newcomers actually arrive in January. A supposedly uncontroversial bill to approve permanent normal trading relations with Vietnam failed to gain enough votes for passage before Mr Bush's trip to Hanoi last week. And even the Democratic Party's centrist presidential hopefuls are joining the fray. Barack Obama, for instance, formally jumped on the Wal-Mart-bashing bandwagon last week (see article).
So is America headed for a bout of protectionist class warfare? History might suggest not. After all, recent politicians have often flirted with populist themes of the sort William Jennings Bryan (pictured above) once promoted, from Ross Perot's rants against the “giant sucking sound” of jobs lost to Mexico in 1992 to John Kerry's attacks on “Benedict Arnold” firms in 2004, without much actually happening.
Yet this year seems different. Not only are the new Democratic lawmakers distinctly more protectionist than the politicians they replaced, but their trade-scepticism was important to voters. An analysis of voters in 50 competitive districts by Stanley Greenberg, a pollster, showed that Republicans' support of trade was one of the main factors that put off swing voters. Almost 70% of voters want the government to “protect jobs and ensure that trade is fair” rather than promote free trade.
Go beyond the protectionism, however, and Americans are less convinced by populist politics. In Mr Greenberg's polls voters preferred limited government and low taxes over a government that creates conditions “so that many can prosper, not just a few”. Douglas Schoen, another Democratic pollster, finds scant support for economic redistribution. Even amongst poorer Americans, large majorities prefer policies that boost economic growth to those that redistribute wealth.
This combination of scepticism about trade without any great enthusiasm for class warfare is awkward for the party's internal politics. Left-wing Democrats have long bashed both trade and business, while the Clintonite centrists have embraced both. The contours of Democratic populism will depend on how both factions now react.
The spotlight is on Congress, where the party's left is likely to shout loudest, but achieve less. Oil and drug companies will be hauled in front of congressional committees. But laws will probably focus less on bashing businesses Democrats don't like than boosting ones they do. The talk may be about a windfall tax on oil companies, but the action will be on boosting subsidies for alternative fuels. The focus on tax policy, too, will be more on helping the middle class than punishing the wealthy. Though many Democrats want to roll back Mr Bush's tax cuts for the rich, the party's energy, at least initially, will be on fixing the alternative minimum tax.
On trade, the congressional leadership is less rabid than many of the new arrivals. Charles Rangel, the top trade man in the House, supported the Vietnam deal. He also wants to extend a package of expiring trade laws, including a textile provision that helps Haiti and other preferences for the poorest countries. He may get those done. But the new protectionists, and their union paymasters, will stymie much else. Free-trade agreements with Colombia and Peru (see article) will go nowhere unless Mr Bush agrees to renegotiate their labour and environmental components.
In the short term America's populist mood may bring little more than a stalemate on trade. Look ahead, however, and the risks multiply. For one thing, the economy is slowing. The White House this week reduced its growth forecast for 2007 to 2.9%, and that may prove optimistic. The jostling for the Democratic presidential nomination could well coincide with sluggish growth, increasing the appeal both of business-bashing and protectionism.
There are plenty of ideas to counter this, mostly clustered around assuaging American workers' financial insecurity. Jacob Hacker, a political scientist at Yale University, argues that Americans' incomes have grown more volatile (see chart) while the country's social contract has frayed, particularly as firms retreat from providing pension and health benefits.
Virtually every centrist Democratic policy-wonk now brandishes ideas about how to rebuild America's social contract as a prerequisite for shoring up support for globalisation. One goal is more protection against sudden income loss, whether by revamping the system of unemployment benefits or introducing broader wage insurance—in effect a government subsidy for those who are forced into lower-paying jobs. A second pillar focuses on making health insurance more portable as well expanding the number of people covered. Democratic wonks differ in the ambition of their ideas, but they all think their party needs to offer an alternative to Mr Bush's consumer-driven model of health care in 2008. Another set of proposals focuses on ways to encourage people to provide for their old age. Around half of Americans in their late 50s have virtually no retirement savings.
Many of these centrist ideas have promise even if some, such as wage insurance, sound better in theory than in practice. But this agenda, however ill formed, is clearly preferable to protectionism and Wal-Mart bashing. The big uncertainty for the Democratic Party is whether the centrist platform can be built in time, and whether the presidential candidates have the sense to stand on it.
Graphic:
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8326299
Fanfare for the common man
Nov 23rd 2006 WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist
AS THE embers of this month's mid-term elections are raked over, a new conventional wisdom is emerging in Washington, DC. The outcome was not just about Iraq, corruption and voters' frustration with George Bush. It also marked the return of a phenomenon that has long hovered offstage in American politics: economic populism.
Frustrated by stagnant wages and rising health costs and fearful that their jobs will be sent to China, anxious voters, particularly in the industrial heartland, sent a new brand of Democrat to Congress: one who may believe in God and guns but who is wary of big business and even more dubious about free trade. The rise of these “Lou Dobbs Democrats” (a reference to a globophobic blowhard on CNN) could spell significant changes in American economic policy.
The new populists are certainly noisy. In an article entitled “Class Struggle” in the Wall Street Journal, Jim Webb, the incoming Democratic senator from Virginia, recently railed against “incestuous corporate boards” and the “hubris” of America's elites. Congress has wobbled on trade even before the newcomers actually arrive in January. A supposedly uncontroversial bill to approve permanent normal trading relations with Vietnam failed to gain enough votes for passage before Mr Bush's trip to Hanoi last week. And even the Democratic Party's centrist presidential hopefuls are joining the fray. Barack Obama, for instance, formally jumped on the Wal-Mart-bashing bandwagon last week (see article).
So is America headed for a bout of protectionist class warfare? History might suggest not. After all, recent politicians have often flirted with populist themes of the sort William Jennings Bryan (pictured above) once promoted, from Ross Perot's rants against the “giant sucking sound” of jobs lost to Mexico in 1992 to John Kerry's attacks on “Benedict Arnold” firms in 2004, without much actually happening.
Yet this year seems different. Not only are the new Democratic lawmakers distinctly more protectionist than the politicians they replaced, but their trade-scepticism was important to voters. An analysis of voters in 50 competitive districts by Stanley Greenberg, a pollster, showed that Republicans' support of trade was one of the main factors that put off swing voters. Almost 70% of voters want the government to “protect jobs and ensure that trade is fair” rather than promote free trade.
Go beyond the protectionism, however, and Americans are less convinced by populist politics. In Mr Greenberg's polls voters preferred limited government and low taxes over a government that creates conditions “so that many can prosper, not just a few”. Douglas Schoen, another Democratic pollster, finds scant support for economic redistribution. Even amongst poorer Americans, large majorities prefer policies that boost economic growth to those that redistribute wealth.
This combination of scepticism about trade without any great enthusiasm for class warfare is awkward for the party's internal politics. Left-wing Democrats have long bashed both trade and business, while the Clintonite centrists have embraced both. The contours of Democratic populism will depend on how both factions now react.
The spotlight is on Congress, where the party's left is likely to shout loudest, but achieve less. Oil and drug companies will be hauled in front of congressional committees. But laws will probably focus less on bashing businesses Democrats don't like than boosting ones they do. The talk may be about a windfall tax on oil companies, but the action will be on boosting subsidies for alternative fuels. The focus on tax policy, too, will be more on helping the middle class than punishing the wealthy. Though many Democrats want to roll back Mr Bush's tax cuts for the rich, the party's energy, at least initially, will be on fixing the alternative minimum tax.
On trade, the congressional leadership is less rabid than many of the new arrivals. Charles Rangel, the top trade man in the House, supported the Vietnam deal. He also wants to extend a package of expiring trade laws, including a textile provision that helps Haiti and other preferences for the poorest countries. He may get those done. But the new protectionists, and their union paymasters, will stymie much else. Free-trade agreements with Colombia and Peru (see article) will go nowhere unless Mr Bush agrees to renegotiate their labour and environmental components.
In the short term America's populist mood may bring little more than a stalemate on trade. Look ahead, however, and the risks multiply. For one thing, the economy is slowing. The White House this week reduced its growth forecast for 2007 to 2.9%, and that may prove optimistic. The jostling for the Democratic presidential nomination could well coincide with sluggish growth, increasing the appeal both of business-bashing and protectionism.
There are plenty of ideas to counter this, mostly clustered around assuaging American workers' financial insecurity. Jacob Hacker, a political scientist at Yale University, argues that Americans' incomes have grown more volatile (see chart) while the country's social contract has frayed, particularly as firms retreat from providing pension and health benefits.
Virtually every centrist Democratic policy-wonk now brandishes ideas about how to rebuild America's social contract as a prerequisite for shoring up support for globalisation. One goal is more protection against sudden income loss, whether by revamping the system of unemployment benefits or introducing broader wage insurance—in effect a government subsidy for those who are forced into lower-paying jobs. A second pillar focuses on making health insurance more portable as well expanding the number of people covered. Democratic wonks differ in the ambition of their ideas, but they all think their party needs to offer an alternative to Mr Bush's consumer-driven model of health care in 2008. Another set of proposals focuses on ways to encourage people to provide for their old age. Around half of Americans in their late 50s have virtually no retirement savings.
Many of these centrist ideas have promise even if some, such as wage insurance, sound better in theory than in practice. But this agenda, however ill formed, is clearly preferable to protectionism and Wal-Mart bashing. The big uncertainty for the Democratic Party is whether the centrist platform can be built in time, and whether the presidential candidates have the sense to stand on it.
Graphic:
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8326299
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)