Two blogs
As you may have seen, Edmund Standing has started a blog, amusingly called ‘I kid you not’ as a compliment to Sarah Palin. Okay not a compliment exactly. Palin has been saying things again, as Edmund notes.
Then there’s the whole down to earth ‘mom next door’ persona. Palin, it should be remembered, proudly announced herself to the Republican National Convention as ‘just your average hockey mom’…So, we have a woman who calls herself ‘average’, thinks some ‘God’ or other gives her career guidance, is completely ignorant of evolutionary biology and the history of the world, and conducts political interviews while cooking moose for her ‘guy’…And this woman wants to become President of the most powerful nation on earth. Sam Harris had it nailed just prior to the election when he rightly noted that average isn’t good enough.
No it damn well isn’t – and one of the many joys of the recent election is that for once (and very very belatedly) that particular bit of nonsense not only didn’t work, it did a great deal to destroy the Republican ticket. It pleased ‘the base’ but it was finally one too many for the undecideds and independents and Republicans with enough nous to walk and chew gum at the same time. It wasn’t only Sam Harris who noted that average isn’t good enough, too – Jon Stewart has noted the same thing on more than one occasion, and John Cleese (yes, really) had a good time noting the same thing on Olbermann a couple of days before the election. Yes really – I was so wound up about the election by that time that I was reduced to watching little bits of Olbermann and Maddow. Anyway Cleese said what I always say, which is that I want somebody who’s so smart I’d be scared to open my mouth in his or her presence. I don’t want average, I want stellar. Average is easy to get, stellar isn’t; let’s go for the rare and the best.
Another excellent blog is Richard Wilson’s ‘Don’t Get Fooled Again’, which is the title of his book, which I’m reading.
Check them both out; tell your friends.
People that you agree with, you will think are smart; people you disagree with, you will think are less smart. That is human nature.
And that is why you will get fooled again and again.
EB, speak of your own human nature.
I have no difficulty observing that Dick Cheney and Karl Rove are very clever men; as was, for example, Lenin. The notion that I must therefore agree with all of them at some level is merely fatuous, or ‘differently clever’, as we say.
Yeah, what Dave said.
EB’s witticism doubtless has some truth (in my case at least), but only some; I can think of exceptions without breaking a sweat.
I hate to sound like resistor (hence no personal attacks!) But given the rampant evil (yes…evil) that the current incarnation of the Shining City on the Hill (i.e., the trillion dollar military machine and its associated networks of commercial avarice and killing) and given that Senator Change is committed to more of the same (Rahm Emmanuel, the Surge brought to Afghanistan) and given the zero percent chance that any of the power-grabbing of the past eight years will even be questioned, let alone rolled back by our Beloved Dear Leader….do we even WANT a smart leader? Given that continuation of the machine is morally questionable, maybe we want more incompetence.
I also agree with EB: Given that Bush accomplished so much of his agenda, and that the far right wing has totally set the agenda for politics in this country, how can you claim that Bush and company are “dumb” or “incompetent.” As Dave notes, they might be vile, but it is preening self delusion to claim they are “stupid.”
‘Given that Bush accomplished so much of his agenda…’
Unless that agenda involved being militarily bogged down in mainland Asia while the economic system collapses, then I doubt if ‘incompetent’ is too preening.
I didn’t say Bush and company are stupid. Actually I didn’t say anyone was stupid, at least not in this post, and I would never say Bush’s company is stupid. But Bush’s much-vaunted folksiness was very much a part of his electoral success, and that’s what I was talking about.
“the zero percent chance that any of the power-grabbing of the past eight years will even be questioned”
What’s that about? How on earth do you know that? Obama taught constitutional law; what makes you think he admires for instance Bush’s use of signing statements?
Don: Record oil company profits. Record defense contractor profits. Enshrinement of the entire “War on Terror” concept (leading to more of the previous), continuation of the long trend though drip…drip….drip politics towards ever more conservative politics. Appointment of conservative and interventionist “Democrats” to the Obama team (to forestall the eternal charge of “weakness”), basic continuation in the Obama team of recent policy direction-in Afghanistan with Pakistan and Iran stuill on the table. Government bailouts for big money sectors of the economy continuing with no oversight or quid pro quo….
A pretty successful record, overall.
Overall, the elite doesn’t really care about “the country” or even “the economy” very much as long as they can continue to enrich themselves. Unlike the robber barons, which actually built something, our current elite basically deals with weaponry and casino gambling, and they have done very very well. remember-a nontrivial chunk he $700 billion is going right into bonuses and huge parties.
‘Appointment of […] interventionist “Democrats” to the Obama team’
I don’t see why you put scare quotes around the word democrats. Since when has isolationism been a left-wing or liberal stance? Did Clinton not intervene in Kosovo? Didn’t we all criticise him for failing to intervene in Rwanda?
What about the International Brigades? Were they neo-conservative cultural imperialists?
Brian, are you sure you hate to sound like ‘resistor’ enough?
“the zero percent chance that any of the power-grabbing of the past eight years will even be questioned”
Well… he still buys totally the “War on Terror” concept. He voted for FISA. The democratic Party has pretty much written off any impeacment, real investigation, etc. I think that’s pretty accurate. After all, these folks are all part of the same class…they attend the same clubs, believe the same things. They are friends. Why would friends attack other friends?
I actually think resistor is right on many issues, even if he is intermperate. He is certainly correct in being skeptical about an Obama adminsitration that includes people like Brezhinski, Rahm Emmanuel (’cause bombing Iran is still on the table), Lawrence Summers and now possibly Hillary Clinton. CHANGEEEEEE. I can just feel the CHANNGGEEEEEE. Yes We Can! indeed.
“I don’t see why you put scare quotes around the word democrats. Since when has isolationism been a left-wing or liberal stance? Did Clinton not intervene in Kosovo? Didn’t we all criticise him for failing to intervene in Rwanda?”
The only reason for the scare quotes is the concept that there are really TWO parties. There is one party divided by modest factional issues but committed to the overall program of the Washington Consensus. I am the last person to claim the Democrats are not, in fact, Savage Mules.
Rwanda, sadly, reflects generations of Western intervention to “civillize the darkies.” Some sources even partly blame the French for the massacre (no links, sorry)
I also saw that Cleese interview and wondered if someone here at seen it. What interested me most was his comment that the British prejudice to chop down people who are too successful or wealthy becomes, in America, a prejudice against people who act as if they have intelligence.
‘The only reason for the scare quotes is the concept that there are really TWO parties. There is one party divided by modest factional issues but committed to the overall program of the Washington Consensus.’
That’s something that’s often said, but I don’t think that’s really very sensible. Just because none of the main parties care about your pet issue that doesn’t mean they are the same. A Nazi could just as well say there is only one party divided my modest factional issues but committed to the overall programme of Jewish World Domination.
‘Rwanda, sadly, reflects generations of Western intervention to “civillize the darkies.” Some sources even partly blame the French for the massacre (no links, sorry)’
So do you think Clinton should have intervened or not?
It seems that in some sections of the left, the response to every problem is to try and figure out how the western imperialist is responsible for it.
Well, Jakob, if the country in question is 20 years out from colonial rule and suffering from ethnic tensions exacerbated or largely created by the colonial policy of preferring one tribe to the other…then blaming “Western Imperialism” isn’t too much of a stretch is it?
As for western intervention in Rwanda-I’m not sure. My initial response is always skepticism because so many interventions make things worse. Can social peace be imposed that easily by outside forces?
The situation in the Congo next door, which may be at least as horrific as Rwanda, has certainly not been helped by years of interventions by various self-interested parties (all supporting various militias and armed bands and proclaiming peace and freedom) and ineffectual U.N. peacekeeper deployments. So…I have no answer. Just skepticism. At best, France should have used their troops. They largely created the mess.
Brian – you have this way of writing as if no one had ever thought of any of this before – and also as if it somehow automatically explains all this easy dismissal. Neither ‘as if’ is accurate.
‘these folks are all part of the same class’ – that’s just meaningless boilerplate. It’s true in some ways and untrue in others, and it’s neither interesting nor helpful in any case. If Obama turns out to be as cheerfully cozy with corporate investors as Clinton did, then I’ll squawk my head off, but I’m not about to shrug and say ‘same class’ merely because he went to Harvard Law. That’s just schewpid. In the ways that count, they’re damn well not the same class.
I would also point out that western intervention and colonialism is almost always justified by fine sounding sentiments. (We need to Christianize the heathen Phillipinos…Even if 200,000 of them have to die for it!) Yet such interventions never seem to result in much long term social peace. And, they often result in a lot of dead bodies and fleeing refugees.
Ophelia: I just look at his history, what he has said, who he is appointing, what they stand for, and what the pundits are saying. I hope to be proved wrong.
How could I be the only person who believes or states these things? And, why not make the same comment about postings that reflect conventional wisdoms (that Obama represents change, for instance)? I merely try to question this.
finally (and I promise this is it. I will remain forevermore silent as we all discuss the imminent rapture brought about by Saint Change) Obama is certainly not, as you note, of the same class background as the current cabal. But…most of the people he surrounds himself, necessarily, are.
I don’t know if France exasperated the problems in Rwanda or not. I was merely pointing out a tactic which is frequently used to evade serious questions. In this case it was used to avoid admitting the fact that intervention would probably have been a good thing.
You seem to have shifted your stance significantly. Your earlier posts suggested that you think interventionism is bad and that those who support it do so due to some ethical defect. Now you seem to be saying that it is just a mistake because it is rarely effective.
“I would also point out that western intervention and colonialism is almost always justified by fine sounding sentiments. (We need to Christianize the heathen Phillipinos)”
That certainly doesn’t sound like a fine sentiment to me!
I am sure you will respond by pointing out that people thought it was a fine sentiment at the time, and that we may be similarly mistaken in thinking that genocide is wrong, but that is a road which leads to extreme moral relativism.
As far as Obama goes, I don’t expect him to turn the clock back to the 1920’s when the US pursued a policy of isolationism. However, unlike Brian, I think that’s a good thing.
It is a good idea to continue fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, and to eventually defeat them. Nobody wants to see the return of their horrific rule.
It is also a good idea to pursue Bin Laden into Pakistan if necessary. Decapitating Al Qaeda is worth a little diplomatic controversy. State sovereignty is a completely ridiculous concept which seems to have been elevated to the level of religious dogma by those who once dismissed it a bourgeois nationalism.
Hmmm. Not sure I am shifting my response that dramatically. My response is pretty much severe skepticism about interventionism. Thus, since almost all interventions arguably create more chaos and death, THAT is where the moral problem lies. Thre are also issues of sovereignty and colonialism that one can throw in, as well as general nonviolence and nonintereference.
As for Rwanda-the assumption is that intervention would have worked. How much? How many troops? How long an occupation and what would have happened? Who will benefit from this occupation? I don’t know. I would worry that it might well have made things worse over the long term. And, why just stop in rwanda? Why is there no cry to send western troops into Congo right now? Why no cries over the humanitarian crisis caused by the Ethiopian intervention in Somalia? Where and when do the itne4rventions stop? Who decides?
You really think that is our goal in Afghanstan and Pakistan? Sorry to be skeptical.
Since Ophelia is concerned I write like I believe my skepticism is new or unique, I’ll quote a classic for you:
“It’s not a matter of whether the war (on terror) is not real or if it is. Victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won. It is meant to be continuous…The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects. And its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or East Asia but to keep the very structure of society intact.” George Orwell
The Taliban are horrible. So are many of the governments we prop up and send weapons and money to. It is not 1920s isolationism to question this. You dismiss nationalism, but yet seem seem eager to countenance anything, any wedding party, any torture victim, any loss of diplomatic face…that supports your own (our own) nationalism.
“that Obama represents change, for instance”
Who’s said that? That’s just more boilerplate. He does of course represent some kinds of change, but that’s too obvious to bother saying.
The people around him; true; like a lot of people I’m hoping he won’t just hire more alumni of Lehman Brothers.
The questions about Rwanda, though, are again a little too obvious. They are in fact probably why there was no intervention. But what did happen in Rwanda is not exactly a feather in the cap of non-intervention.
It’s a damn good question why DR Congo gets so little attention. 5 million people, most of them civilians, have been slaughtered there in the last few years. I certainly don’t think the US should charge in on its own – but if a big UN force could end the fighting – that would be a good thing.
Oh, please, Brian – you think the (secret, US) goal in Afghanistan is continuous war as a way for the ruling group to wage war on its own subjects? Give me a break.
You’re being a little disingenuous, now, Ophelia. Change was the rhetorical focus of his campaign. And many people seem to buy into it (not saying you personally, but). When he picks the same ol’ crowd, full of Savage Mules (War Democrats) and business types…I just react.
I promise! No more!
I am not! I know what was the rhetorical focus of his campaign, but I can admire him and be damn glad he was elected without endorsing the rhetoric of the campaign. Believe it or not I haven’t been marching up and down shouting ‘Yes we can’ for the past week! Derrrrrr.
Maybe I misunderstood you what you were saying.
I took you to be espousing the typical cliché about evil western imperialists rather than the more pragmatic view that interventions, while well intentioned, are counter-productive.
I disagree with your point about sovereignty, non-interference, and non-violence.
I don’t think states have any right to sovereignty or to be free of interference in their internal affairs. Those are principles which were devised during the religious conflicts of 17th Century Europe so that monarchs could rule their subjects as they pleased. They shouldn’t have any relevance to the modern world.
If we took the supposed right to sovereignty seriously there would be unpleasant consequences. The white population of South Africa repeatedly voted in favour of apartheid, but we wouldn’t want to say they had the right to racial sovereignty. We also wouldn’t want to say that SA had the right to non-interference in it’s internal affairs. So why should we respect these principles in other circumstances when we have already decided that they don’t apply when push comes to shove?
There is also the consideration that rights are owed to individuals, and not to things like ideas or nations.
Non-violence is also a poor basis on which to oppose interventionism. There are times when violence is justified. It is better to fight back than to capitulate to tyranny.
“You really think that is our goal in Afghanstan and Pakistan? Sorry to be skeptical.”
You make it sound like I’m hopelessly naive for not subscribing to your conspiracy theory.
“You dismiss nationalism, but yet seem seem eager to countenance anything, any wedding party, any torture victim, any loss of diplomatic face…that supports your own (our own) nationalism.”
I support intervention is cases like Rwanda (and DR Congo) from an international perspective. I don’t see where you get the idea that this is a form of nationalism. If it is you should be able to tell me which nation I have an ideological commitment to.
I’m not sure where you got the idea that’d be happy to tolerate torture from either.
Internationlist*
Well…I do sorta kinda espouse the cliche because a lot of it is true, so…:)
As for the rest of your post? Where does it start? Where does it stop? Given that the United States cannot intervene in every country where tyranny exists (that is ridiculous), there has to be a rationale for picking and choosing. Oh my golly gee…how convenient…the places we send the bombers into are typically the same places our business elites and corporations want to control! Who’d a thunk it!
Besides, given in your world view (taken to a logical, if exagerated extreme) that nation states have no rights and effectively no status, how can the “United States” (in quotation marks because it is apprantly a mythical creation) claim any “right” to intervene in other countries? Effectively, there is no “United States.” Furthermore, how can said mythical creation demand tax dollars from me to support “its” wars, anyway?
What is the degree of tyranny that warrants intervention? There are horrors in half the world. Is it our duty to correct them all? If there an “our” in your world view that can even do the correcting? Heck, there are people dying due to bad health care and lack of affordable housing in the United States. According to interventionists, the streets of DC are more dangerous than Iraq! Hey ho! Let’s have the EU send troops in to stop the tyranny of the AMA!
Your world view posits utter anarchy. If nation states have no inhernet status, then the concept of “terrorism” is meaningless. What an amorphous nonstate actor does has equal value to what a superpower or a confederation of nations does.
be back on Monday. I got tired of paying Comcast for internet at home.
No..Oh…one more thing…I do not believe that you or anyone are especially naive. Who am I? Expressing disagreement with someone’s position is not an ad hominem attack, but may reflect an unfortunate authorial tone exacerbated by the fact I am typing this during working hours and thus am expected to be busted at any moment.
Brian, nobody is talking about US intervention (not here anyway). And this knowing wink-wink about our business elites and corporations wanting to control places – what places? Somalia? Haiti? Kosovo? Afghanistan? Pu-leeze.
You shouldn’t take my advocacy of interventionism as an endorsement of the Bush administration’s foreign policies. At the same time there are people who would construct conspiracy theories about corporate interests no matter where interventions occurred.
As for when an intervention is justified, I would say that that it is justified when it is likely to improve the situation for people who live the country in question and there is no better alternative. Obviously it is not possible to prevent every injustice so it is best to pick those cases where intervention can make the most difference.
You are right that I don’t think states have any right exist, but I’m not sure how your other points really follow from that. States don’t need a right to intervene to make it justified. It is sufficient to note that they don’t have any obligation that forbids intervention.
Terrorism is a crime again individuals, and they certainly do have rights so it is not “meaningless.” Terrorism is something which can be carried out by states or by non-state entities so it’s existence doesn’t depend on the existence of state sovereignty.
The logical consequence of abandoning the idea of sovereignty is not the advocacy of anarchy – any political scientist will tell you that our current approach to international relations is a form of anarchy – it is advocacy of international governance. In the same way that the opposite of “state-rights” in the US is more power to the federal government.
Brian the trillion dollar military machine insures that the good guys get to make the rules? I am glad president elect Obama seems to get that and is hiring like minded people who I hope will not cut one cent from that budget.
Also the guy hasnt even been sworn in yet and you are castigating him that hardly seems fair?
I castigate him only based on who he is surrounding himself with.
As for the trillion dollar military…I’m sure the Chinese and you Euros love buying our icnreasingly worthless bonds and dollars. We have what, a 300 million deficit this year alone? (Or had it risen to $500 million under our fiscally responsible Grand Old Party, I forget) Remember-we can’t afford national health care because we have to gallop around the world “liberating” everyone-whether they want to be liberated or not.