Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
Back to Main

March 31, 2006
Compassionate Isolationism

As commentator Groucho pointed out to me, Richard Sale has a good piece on spreading democracy at Patrick Lang’s site.

I would simply like to go on record as having serious objections to the Bush administration’s policy of encouraging and supporting the growth of democratic institutions in the Middle East and around the world.
There is little historical evidence that democracy is the natural state, or the foremost form of political association among human beings. Historially, its origin in terms of time and location is very limited. […] In other words, democracy is hardly a univeral phenomenon.

For a great many of the world’s peoples, personal freedom has been far less of a concern than physical and economic security or material prosperity. Often, to secure these, peoples have looked to more authoriitarian forms of government. […]

The Bush administration’s unthinking advocacy of democracy without fully understanding the cultural and political traiditions where democracy is being attempted seems to be another species of the delusion that we know with certainty what other people want, a self conceit that evades any honest evaluation to determine if our own beliefs, values and habits are relevent to people and institutions very different from ourselves.

I agree in principle with this, but there is a deep missunderstanding of the Bush administration’s definition of democracy. We can tell that from its appreciation of democratic elected leaders in Venezuela, Palestine and Iraq.

Bush spreading democracy is not about elections or free will of the people, but about free markets.

In a speech at the neo-con "Freedom House" on Wednesday Bush said:

I happen to believe free markets eventually yield free societies. One of the most — one of the most pure forms of democracy is the marketplace, […]. That stands in contrast to governments that felt like they could set price and control demand.

The "democratic" label Bush uses, is only a slightly veiled version of robber-baron economics. To the cabal, "democratization" of other countries is a sham of conquering new markets and to gain access to foreign resources. Under Bush’s definition, a government that uses price-fixtures and demand control is not democratic (Medicare anyone?).

But I do not doubt that there are many well meaning folks in the U.S. who are altruistic and do wish for other countries to become democracies. Bush is abusing these people when he utters some word-derivative of "democracy" 45 times during his "Freedom House" gig.

To these folks Sale continues:

The idea that every victim of oppression is at heart a liberal democrat is one of the most persistent of American illusions. It simply won’t die. It has the persistence of bacteria.

America is, at bottom, only a country, not some glorious cause. Like any other country, we have our shameful episodes like the Mexican War, the Spanish American War, the occupation of the Philippines, etc. In other words, there are times when we are are noble, other times where we are greedy and squalid, some times when we are selfless, and others where our avarice is truly shameful.
We have less to offer than we think, and what we need, it seems to be, is to bring into closer alignment our actual capababilities and the obstacles confronting them, and thus produce a more sober menu of ambitions.

Here I agree, though I caution that this argumentation has been, is and can again be abused to actively support tyrannies and dictatorships.

A good moral position can be found between the extremes. Talk to, but do not sell weapons to dictatorships. Offer scholarships to the youth of tyrannies, but deny full honors to the tyrant. Practice compassionate isolationism.

Posted by b on March 31, 2006 at 15:04 UTC | Permalink
Comments

The market is a mechanism, not an ideology. It needs institutions to keep it fair and balanced. When these institutions keep the market functioning in the interests of the entire population, it can indeed be a democratic force.
When the “free” market is allowed to benefit a few individuals or groups at the expense of th majority, it has ceased to have anything to do with democracy.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Mar 31 2006 15:23 utc | 1

The hallmark of parasitic tyrants on both the freemarket [sic] right and the liberated [sic] left is the arrogance of their claim that their self-serving actions represent the will of The People.

Posted by: gylangirl | Mar 31 2006 15:56 utc | 2

Does Wal-Mart not completely embody the Will of the People?
I hate to admit it, but sometimes the People Will some pretty darned disgusting things, the only thing we can do about it is to make sure that everything is clearly and correctly labelled so the people can make clear choices.
We can’t really do much about the choices they make…

Posted by: ralphieboy | Mar 31 2006 16:01 utc | 3

it’s a critical misunderstanding of what they mean by democracy & as long as supposedly educated, well-meaning people cannot comprehend the context of its usage, we’re not likely to be able to move forward. democracy, in washington’s current parlance, means making conditions favorable for economic globalism. – people hardly figure into the calculation. the bush admin is not ‘unthinkingly’ advocating democracy & they will continue their wars w/ little meaningful opposition so long as others mindlessly repeat such naive attributions.
more to say on this later

Posted by: b real | Mar 31 2006 16:16 utc | 4

a good tyrant is hard to find, though some point to Basil II “BULGAROCTONUS” the great hellenic emporer who was generous to his subjects but mean to the bulgars.
it’s more preferable to get rid of all the leaders. replace democracy w/ rhizome.

Posted by: slothrop | Mar 31 2006 16:54 utc | 5

Nietzsche:

[In Russia] the strength to will has for long been stored up and kept in reserve, there the will is waiting menacingly uncertain whether it is a will to deny or a will to affirm in readiness to discharge itself, to borrow one of the physicists’ favourite words. It may need not only wars in India and Asian involvements to relieve Europe of the greatest danger facing it, but also internal eruptions, the explosion of the empire into small fragments, and above all the introduction of the parliamentary imbecility, including the obligation upon everyone to read his newspaper at breakfast. I do not say this, because I desire it: the reverse would be more after my heart I mean such an increase in the Russian threat that Europe would have to resolve to become equally threatening, namely to acquire a single will by means of a new caste dominating all Europe, a protracted terrible will of its own which could set its objectives thousands of years ahead so that the long-drawn-out comedy of its petty states and the divided will of its dynasties and democracies should finally come to an end. The time for petty politics is past: the very next century will bring with it the struggle for mastery over the whole earth the compulsion to grand politics. Beyond Good & Evil p. 208

Heidegger on Nietzsche:

Nietzsche sometimes calls “grand politics.” That sounds like the “grand style.” If we think both as belonging originally together, we secure ourselves against misinterpretations of their essential sense. Neither does the “grand style” want an “aesthetic culture,” nor does the “grand politics” want the exploitative power politics of imperialism. The grand style can be created only by means of the grand politics, and the latter has the most [159] intrinsic law of its will in the grand style. What does Nietzsche say of the grand style? “What makes the grand style: to become master of one’s happiness, as of one’s unhappiness: -” (from plans and ideas for an independent sequel to Zarathustra, during the year 1885; see XII, 415). To be master over one’s happiness! That is the hardest thing. To be master over unhappiness: that can be done, if it has to be. But to be master of one’s happiness….Nietzsche: The Will to Power as Art pp. 158-59

Nietzsche:

I take the explanation from the street. I heard one of the common people say, “he knew me right away.”” Then I asked myself: What is it that the common people take for knowledge? What do they want when they want “knowledge”? Nothing more than this: Something strange is to be reduced to something familiar.” And we philosophers-have we really meant more than this when we have spoken of knowledge? What is familiar means what we are used to so that we no longer marvel at it, our everyday,’ some rule in which we are stuck, anything at all in which we feel at home. Look, isn’t our need for knowledge precisely this and man. No one brings along the finest senses of his art to the theater, nor does the artist who works for the theater.”‘ There one is common people, audience, herd, female, pharisee, voting cattle, democrat, neighbor, fellow man;… there even the most personal conscience is vanquished by the leveling magic of the great number; there stupidity has the effect of lasciviousness and contagion; the neighbor reigns, one becomes a mere neighbor.” Gay Science para. 369

Heidegger:

By now we are sufficiently prepared to discern in the “thick black snake” the counterimage of the serpent that winds itself about the eagle’s throat, the eagle in turn soaring in the midday sky and holding effortlessly in the heights. The black snake is drear monotony, ultimately the goallessness and meaninglessness of nihilism. It is nihilism itself. Nihilism has bitten the young shepherd during his sleep and is now firmly entrenched. Only because the shepherd was not vigilant could the power of the snake assert itself, could the snake wriggle its way into the young shepherd’s mouth, incorporating itself in him. When Zarathustra sees the young shepherd lying there, he does the first thing anyone would do. He pulls at the snake, tugs at it, “-in vain!”
The implication is that nihilism cannot be overcome from the outside. We do not overcome it by tearing away at it or shoving it asidewhich is what we do when we replace the Christian God with yet another ideal, such as Reason, Progress, political and economic “Socialism,” or mere Democracy. Try as we might to cast it aside, the black snake attaches itself ever more firmly. Zarathustra thus immediately gives up such rescue operations. “With one cry,” he now relates, “it cried out of me.” What is this it? Zarathustra replies, “All my goodness and my wickedness.” Zarathustra’s complete essence and his entire history precipitate in him and cry out, “Bite! You must bite!” We need not say a great deal more in order to make the meaning of the passage perfectly clear. The black snake of nihilism threatens to incorporate humanity altogether; it must be overcome by those who are themselves inflicted with it and endangered by it. All tugging-all that frantic activity from the outside, all temporary amelioration, all mere repulsion, postponement, and deferment-all this is in vain. Here nothing avails if human beings themselves do not bite into the danger, and not blindly, not just anywhere. We must bite off the head of the [180] black snake, its properly definitive and leading part, which looms at the forefront.Nietzsche: The Eternal Recurrence of the Same pp. 179-80

Posted by: slothrop | Mar 31 2006 17:17 utc | 6

slightly OT:
A two part piece by Mark Perry and Alastair Crooke on “HOW TO LOSE THE ‘WAR ON TERROR'”, that fits a bit into this.
Part 1: Talking with the ‘terrorists’
Part 2: Handing victory to the extremists
from Part 2:

The West’s seeming abhorrence of violence is derived from its deeply rooted belief that political change is possible without it. But defending this proposition requires an extraordinary exercise in historical amnesia.
While we Americans proudly point to the civil-rights movement as an example of how non-violence can successfully enable dispossessed peoples to grab the levers of change, history shows that those same levers were made available as the result of previous, often quite bloody, conflicts – in the case of the civil rights movement a brutal civil war that left 638,000 Americans dead. Nor was America’s civil-rights movement as non-violent as it may seem from this distance: the moderation of Dr Martin Luther King Jr was opposed by a portion of the black American community who vowed that they would change the nation “by any means necessary” and who claimed that “violence is as American as cherry pie”.
Whether we want to admit it or not, history shows that political change is most often the result of political pain: the owners of Montgomery, Alabama’s transit system did not agree to integrate their buses because they suddenly ceased being racists, but because they were going out of business. Nor, once the right to vote was won, was the civil-rights movement ended. The fight for equality has been long and often agonizing, and it is not yet finished.
So too, as America’s most recent actions in Iraq attest, the US policymakers would certainly not reject the proposition that violence (albeit, as President George W Bush continues to attest, “only as a last resort”) is often used to defend US interests or promote US views.
So while we Americans hold to the belief that the ballot box offers the best way to effect change, we must acknowledge that history shows that change is most often painful and usually bloody.

Recommanded reading.

Posted by: b | Mar 31 2006 17:19 utc | 7

Beats me where in the world the black snake’s head is “bitten.”
not in Iraq. that’s for sure.

Posted by: slothrop | Mar 31 2006 17:20 utc | 8

more from b’s link

The failure to differentiate between Hamas leader Khaled Meshal and al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, between Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah and Jordanian extremist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, is the failure to differentiate between those who seek an accommodation with the West and those who work for an unremitting and uncompromising clash. The solution is not simply to begin talking to political Islam – “we don’t want you to talk”, a Hamas leader told us, “we want you to listen” – but rather to begin the necessary process of questioning our own assumptions: that “they” are “all the same”. If we fail to begin this vital work now we will soon see Mecca “burn”. And it won’t stop there.

Posted by: annie | Mar 31 2006 18:02 utc | 9

Regarding Bush’s speech at “Freedom House” there is an interesting relation to “Democracy”:
Bush enters Iran ‘freedom’ debate

Few in the Washington audience on Wednesday realised that Freedom House, an independent institution founded more than 60 years ago by Eleanor Roosevelt, the former first lady, is one of several organisations selected by the State Department to receive funding for clandestine activities inside Iran.
…
Mehrangiz Kar, a prominent Iranian lawyer and human rights activist, has issued an impassioned plea to Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, to drop her funding plans. The money would tarnish Iranian human rights organisations, turn them into businesses, stoke corruption and play into the hands of the security forces, she said.

Posted by: b | Mar 31 2006 18:15 utc | 10

What do they want when they want “knowledge”? Nothing more than this: Something strange is to be reduced to something familiar.
is the transformation for something strange to one of familiarity always a reduction. that which is most familiar we often take for granted, the simplest form is often the most complex to comprehend. sometimes it is the expansion of an idea that leads to familiarity. for example, a pattern in nature may seem complex. when a body of evidence encompasses everything, it becomes familiar.

Posted by: annie | Mar 31 2006 18:28 utc | 11

oops, that was from slothrops Nietzsche quote. not sure where i was going w/that, but i read it directly after b’s link and thinking of the conflict resolutions w/islamic groups, it seems the bushite create mass confusion and chaos ( wrestleing w/the snake?) as a means of perpetuating the situation leading to no viable outcome. of course the masses are confused. so instead of reducing the issue, we need a big picture, a simple form ,an expansion into a commonality all sides , mankind, can embrace.

Posted by: annie | Mar 31 2006 18:36 utc | 12

an expansion into a commonality all sides
no. consensus is reification. democracy creates “herdmen.” we don’t need any more “commonality” any more than we need any more “universal rights”

Posted by: slothrop | Mar 31 2006 18:43 utc | 13

btw. the john gray book recommmended by billmon argues against neolib universalism, though gray’s conservatism embraces the universal values of capital. so, he almost gets it right.

Posted by: slothrop | Mar 31 2006 18:45 utc | 14

I should be more specific, annie. per nietzsche, consensus is bad when it obstructs persons from “stamping becoming w/ being”-to assert the will.
consensus/agreement is at the heart of communication. what I think nietzsche adviuses against the creation of myths by way of consensus. that’s what I meant by “reification.”
Gay Science is such a thing of beauty to read at this time, in this time.

Posted by: slothrop | Mar 31 2006 18:54 utc | 15

breal
many many thanks fro phillips books
tennessee williams the ‘kindness of strangers’ has always had a special meaning for me

Posted by: r’giap | Mar 31 2006 19:21 utc | 16

i had to review a description of reification, that’s how illiterate i am. now reification does seem like a reduction to me. but i was referencing the term ‘familiartity’ when relating it to commonality. What is it that the common people take for knowledge? What do they want when they want “knowledge”? . for example. breathing. listening. sharing. understanding. these are all familiarities.when a problem seems so large there doesn’t seem to be any solution a common man, seeking to understand is what they want when they want knowledge. it does not mean they seek any solution that obstructs ones ‘becoming w/being’ nor does it imply a consensus.
perhaps i am a little hung up on the term familiarity. does it not require an expansion of the mind to comprehend our ‘familiartities?’ by assuming we need to reduce an issue to become knowlegeable, to the common man, means we are reducing the common man.
a power seeking to divide people or instill fear first seeks to create the image of the separations between the parties, often to the extreme of demonizing.
i may be taking neitzsches’s statements totally out of context. i don’t agree by any means democracy is a goal.
but i do think every government should address rights of the common man.
there have got to be at least some univeral rights? don’t you think? if not, why not? does is always lead to reification.
ok, when imparting this knowledge to me do you reduce? or expand the concept?

Posted by: annie | Mar 31 2006 19:33 utc | 17

as the critical legal studies movement showed, the discourse on rights must always be disentagled from the ways of life said to comport w/ such rights. liberty, for example, must be understood apart from property, wage contract, etc. otherwise, the notion of the right is guided by the intrinsic inequities of life in a capitalist “democracy.” the basic point here is that “rights” are only needed in a society in which the sdame rights must be systematically denied. I think, if nietzsche is political, this would be part of the ‘grand politics’ critique of “democracy.”

Posted by: slothrop | Mar 31 2006 19:48 utc | 18

put another way: it is naive to think democracy is possible at this moment in america.

Posted by: slothrop | Mar 31 2006 19:50 utc | 19

may asx well also add: at no time has the american constitution created or even desired a “democracy.”

Posted by: slothrop | Mar 31 2006 19:54 utc | 20

@r’giap- cool. glad it made it.

Posted by: b real | Mar 31 2006 20:04 utc | 21

thanks slothrop, i have a few pages open re rhizome, ,Deleuze, am kind of wrapping my head around some concepts but still seek a model. one that allows for the individual to be responsible for his individualism( as opposed to the state providing rights) but still acknowledges certain truths. how else is the world going to fend off the american beast? just yesterday the iraqi gov says hey, we have the right to ask you to go. this is a right many parts of the world would naturally want to establish. we have co oped the authority by saying democracy (which , no we don’t have) is ‘the’ truth. so to have some basis for justice or rights, some truth we as a global body agree apon ,to enable a segment of people to say, we want you out, or freedom from you, to protect themselves from our’ rights’. its a catch 22.
there’s always going to be the god thing. there are always going to be people desiring to follow their religious leaders.
jung

When we think of the unending growth and decay of life and civilizations, we cannot escape the impression of absolute nullity. Yet I have never lost the sense of something that lives and endures beneath the eternal flux.

i can’t help but think some answers lie in identifying what endures.

Posted by: annie | Mar 31 2006 20:32 utc | 22

surely, as it is presently operated, the internet is a rhizome of “multiplicities” of access and control resisting domination. that could all change, no doubt. so to is the present “chaos” of immigration in which the fortuitous and temporary inability of the state to manage the mobility of workers. a similar rhizome exists inside the stateless pynchon-like “zones” of checnya and iraq.
in these examples, the horror is the cause of power’s struggle to destroy “the rhizome.” as I understand nietzsche, one of the many names of power is “democracy.”

Posted by: slothrop | Mar 31 2006 22:36 utc | 23

The US was always a country created to give people self government, yet let business persons do their thing. Remember the articles of conferation still allowed individual states to impose tariffs. So regulation of interstate commerse was a goal of the writers of the US constitution and centalize that aspect. But, this country was in a unique position and time in history and many never thought it would work. Jefferson thought spreading the word was a good idea also, but soon found out it didn’t work. Just look at the French Revolution. How many constitutions has France had before democratic government actually worked. But Bushies democracy as stated in the other post is nothing more than shilling for capitalism. Even our founders never meant for the perversion of the current system
The US at the founding and up until the early 1900s was local. The most effective government to day is the government closest to the people. Local elections in many areas of the US are direct democracy and many town hall meetings of elected officials allow a vote of the citizens on an issuein the meeting. As the local votes in Vermont for Bushies impeachment show direct democracy still exist in some parts. The Federal government honestly, was never supposed to be as central to the US as it is today. Also though, some issues like slavery, civil rights and the safety net had to take place at the highest level.
Anyway, to the Iraq and democracy question, certain points in history
allow breakthroughs in self determination. The Magna carta was a break through, the Greeks and early Romans filled history with examples of what to do, and, what not to do.
So, the bottom line is democratization does not work in my opinion. It needs certains conditions. And Iraq doesn’t have them.

Posted by: jdp | Mar 31 2006 22:44 utc | 24

one more clarification. when I said america has not been interested in democracy, I meant only the concentration of power and its legitimation is more important and obvious in our history than the fantasy of distributed power characterizing ideal democracy. the ideal type is probably direct democracy achieved one could argue in the temporary zones of emppowerment unique to “the rhizome.”

Posted by: slothrop | Mar 31 2006 22:47 utc | 25

“i may be taking Nietzsche’s statements totally out of context. i don’t agree by any means democracy is a goal.
but i do think every government should address rights of the common man.”
Now I would have thought that a more enduring desire could be created by rewording the last bit into “I do believe that the rights of the common man should be addressed by the common man”
Too often we forget that a government is only a mechanism ostensibly designed to deliver men and women the society that will best enable the greatest number of people to achieve self-fulfillment.
Because an effective government will effect change upon society we (people) become too fascinated by the levers, bells and whistles and lose sight of the outcomes that the mechanism was intended to deliver.
That is the critical issue because an effective government has modified the society it is intended to serve ergo the government itself must modify in order to keep to it’s original object of being the mechanism designed to deliver men and women the society that will best enable the greatest number of people to achieve self-fulfillment. Since the society has changed the ways and means to self-fulfillment would have changed.
An example:
It is frequently asserted that the Constitution of the United States is blueprint of the first successful government to enable men and women to achieve self-fulfillment post age of enlightenment.
The drafters of the constitution looked about and saw a world where government was considered to be a head of state, commander in chief and executive body all rolled into one being generally called a king or queen. A concentration of power such as that had evolved into a self-fulfilling cycle of self interest. Effective and fair if governing a relatively small community, where most people still had a way to the ear of rule, as societies became much larger this mechanism became incapable of enabling the greatest number of people to achieve self-fulfillment.
So to the US constitutional framers the simplest and most efficient way of modifying the structure of government to suit a larger enlightened and often educated population was to make that position of executive, CinC and head of State an elected one. France had already tried simply throwing out the king/queen and replacing him/her with a common man and they ended up with Bonaparte who changed the name of the gig to emperor, made it hereditary, and everything went back to the way it had been (yes an over-simplification because many of the Napoleonic mechanisms were effective and enduring and are still utilized throughout Europe and the Hispanic parts of the ‘new world’).
The US also made some changes to the judiciary and legislature which had been separating from the mechanism of the head of state since the Magna Carta and Cromwell’s rule, but the biggest effective change was to deliver the choice of head of state into the hands of the citizenry. Once again an oversimplification because conservatives in the US constitutional process put a couple of levers between the head of State and direct election which later transformed into the electoral college system.
The thing is though that in their eagerness to ensure that no-one could ‘do a Bonaparte’ the constitutional drafters set the mechanism in concrete not just it’s objectives. The concentration of power into the hand’s of the president has enabled the objectives ie man’s self-fulfillment to become skewed to the point of meaninglessness whereas the mechanism which needed to evolve as society evolved has instead become regarded by the power elites as immutable.
Just as the old kings and queens regarded their mechanism as unchangeable to the point where they abuse their power to persuade religious leaders to propagate the ‘divine right of kings’.
We see the same corruption in the current US system of Government where the division of church and state has necessitated replacing religious leaders and priests with the judiciary and lawyers, facilitating the ‘constitutional right of presidents’, an ethos just as corrupt and self-serving as the divine right of kings.
Other later democracies having observed some of the pitfalls of the US system of government have gone to some lengths to separate the Head of State role from the Executive role (eg Britain’s constitutional monarchy) and the Commander in Chief’s role from the Head of State. This has been done either by direct alteration of the mechanism of government or by convention once again the UK (where the failure to deal with this issue legislatively means that executive power in the form of the Prime Minister has been able to suborn the role of CinC from the Head of State, back to the executive, hence UK’s undemocratically decided involvement in the Iraqi invasion).
One could argue that as the first democracy the US is also the oldest and it’s mechanisms the least able to effectively deal with a changed society. Now of course it isn’t that simple, since not all of the later democratic systems of govt were as idealistically proposed or born out of such commitment.
However it is certainly not a good example of a mechanism designed to enable the greatest number of people to achieve self-fulfillment within any society hoping to deliver that outcome in the 21st century rather than the 18th.
We have previously considered on these pages the issue of whether it is the structure, or the length of time a system of government is in place that is the primary factor in causing a corruption of the system of government.
Obviously a blatantly corrupt or flawed system will become corrupted before a more pristine model, but we must concede that as long as more effort is devoted to preserving mechanisms and their processes rather than outcomes it is unlikely people will enjoy and effective and enduring system of government.
Now more or less all mechanisms of government around the world are still making the same error. That is they seek to protect their democratic gains by encasing the mechanism in constitutional concrete, when an evolving society requires that the mechanism of government evolve with it.
So when considering a mechanism that will deliver now and into the future, yet cannot become stultified, or revert previous failed systems, we should be setting outcomes in concrete, not mechanisms.
ps all jitters and jostles in the flow of the above; esp mixed tenses, weird grammar etc are the result of stream of consciousness remaining unedited due to time constraint

Posted by: Anonymous | Mar 31 2006 22:51 utc | 26

one more point about the rhizome-as-democracy thing. so intolerable is the idea of the loss of control over people, that most people choose control. it’s this reflexive need to be controlled, this nihilism, that creates real terror. people are terrified of their autonomy, their will to power. so much so, that any random attack on this power that inhibits the will to power is condemned as “terrorism.”

Posted by: slothrop | Mar 31 2006 23:30 utc | 27

ancillary to this discussion (which i am now just catching up on), there has been an eruption of sorts at dkos this week which started when a new member posted a diary requesting that front pagers show their qualifications. metadiaries have been flowing since with most championing the internet as a rhizome, a place where the simple fact that you post qualifies you to do so. from this endless discussion is developing the strong realization that the internet and we as it denizens are the revolution. there is an organic process of change evolving and we are it. hunter wrote an extremely good diary about this last night. he comes to this place after looking at the failure of the media and what that means to democracy and concludes:

Something is going on here — that much is undeniable, at this point.
A recent ruling has decided, much to the apparent chagrin of many, that citizens do have the right to assemble online as well as off, and even — shock of shocks — discuss and opine on politics there. A series of quite put out people are opining that, in the discovery of a conservative star whose career climb was accomplished by stealing the works of others, the real problem here is the qualifications, or not, of the people doing the discovering. As I write this, there is currently another mini-brouhaha developing over the notion that “real” press figures do not have to credit bloggers at all for stories bloggers first report, under a one of those caveats to journalistic ethics that just recently appeared, scrawled, on the side of the barn while the other animals were sleeping.
All three are, of course, different aspects of the same thing — the perhaps momentary emergence of a populist voice not terribly interested in being preached to any longer, and the alarm of the preachers at the muttering in the pews.
Neither the politicians nor the press are functioning, and it is hardly surprising that the people are looking to fill the required voids themselves, after waiting too long, and being dismissed too often.
We are currently in an era where control of the truth is the battle, and where language itself is under attack. Story after story reminds us that reporting the truth is considered a central act of unpatriotic sabotage, these days, but the implications of that have yet to echo.
We are, as a country, obsessed with notions of leadership, and the stratification of even our discourse into the Enfranchised and the Not. That is unhealthy, but I am not entirely sure I am interested in fighting the notion. There is something to be said for separating the voices out, and attaching motive to each. I am not sure I would draw the lines where I am supposed to draw them, though. I am not sure that those figures, especially, that flit from media to government at parties and in think tanks have the value that they themselves assure us they have.
I don’t know. I am healthily unimpressed with politics, and the media that guides these conversations seems to be quite interested in maintaining their status as guides, but without actually doing the work of leading anywhere. Taking criticism from either is, at best, uninteresting. To be honest, I think there is value, in the current environment, in being our own guides.
I think, in fact, that it is about time.

i have been observing dkos for the last several months and have discerned a distinct and pervasive off-stage rumble as it has been changing. the population is growing – up to over 82,000 registered members, it has been recently recognized as a political force, and there is constant drumbeat of activism flowing through the progression of diaries. i dare to say that mary shelley would have found it a phenomenon worth studying. as dkos sprawls and its members are the ones driving it, as opposed to the traditional model of leaders, it is beginning to dawn on many that this organic development has become/is becoming something unto itself and we are the ones, each of us who will chart its course, wittingly and unwittingly.
as usual, this is a bit of a ramble, and not directly responsive to b’s post about compassionate isolationism, but it does seem to relate and the rumble i and others perceive at dkos and the internet in general seems to me to have ground shaking potential.

Posted by: conchita | Apr 1 2006 0:02 utc | 28

lie down with a dog and you’ll get fleas, go into dkos and you’ll bump into demopublican whores, even keeping them outta MoA is a pain in the ass.

Posted by: Anonymous | Apr 1 2006 1:10 utc | 29

we should be setting outcomes in concrete
hmmmm , very interesting
i am going nuts here. i’ve just written this long response, my head is so confused i will have to save it and read it later. everything is going in circles. that which we cannot dominate is that which we most fear, the most enduring quality of that least likely to be dominated is probably its mutualism or ability to transform, therefor are the most concrete outcomes
those most able to interact? this is so embarrassing. i’m off to the 9/11 movie, look forward to whatever happens on this thread.
maybe when i get home i’ll post my response to anons post.
maybe not.power to the rhizome!

Posted by: annie | Apr 1 2006 1:23 utc | 30

I want to add two more rhizomic events. 9/11 is one. it showed power is vulnerable, though no justification exists that I know of for commission of these atrocities most especially in the name of this or that religion. the second is the peak oil and end of suburban civilization scenario. this latter occurence would decentralize power whether anyone wants to or not.

Posted by: slothrop | Apr 1 2006 1:43 utc | 31

annie! annie!
It’s just business, and we use quick setting.
And if you got rizomes in the lawn, use a 50/50 Roundup/water tank mix.
Guaranteed scorched earth, death from above, and all that.

Posted by: Vito Corleone | Apr 1 2006 1:45 utc | 32

@b –
Your quote discussing the Civil Rights movement rubbed me the wrong way. Saying that ‘a portion’ of black leaders made statements supporting violence means that violence was at the heart of the Civil Rights movement is exactly the same rhetorical trick that right-wing racists use to say that Islam is a violent religion because a few of its practicioners have been suicide bombers. In fact, it’s even more absurd, because there was a distinct lack of planned violence, even by the leaders who announced that they were prepared to engage it.
This is not to say that violence wasn’t involved in the Civil Rights movement – far from it, violence was at the heart of the movement, even as espoused by Martin Luther King Jr. It just wasn’t the violence of the opressed. The basic tactic of marches and demonstrations was to create situations of potential violence – to demonstrate the overt, violent racism of white southerners to northerners and politicans who might not have believed it.

Posted by: Rowan | Apr 1 2006 2:56 utc | 33

anon @ 8:10 pm
speak for your own damn dog. mine hasn’t had a flea in her life.
being dismissive is one thing, but doing it anonymously is another. cowardly. i fully recognize the drawbacks of dkos, but i also believe in having an open mind and, of late, i do see something significant happening there.
perhaps you are new here? and perhaps you aren’t aware that dkos is where this all started when billmon was a front-pager. hmm, i believe he might have even posted this week crediting and linking to georgia10, a current dkos front pager. if i end up scratching, i’d much rather do it in the company of billmon than anonymous arrogance.

Posted by: conchita | Apr 1 2006 3:13 utc | 34

i’d much rather do it in the company of billmon than anonymous arrogance.
Might be one and the same, you know, Conchita.
Just a theory.
Don’t mean to insult you Anon. think you’re way smarter than the Big B, writing wise.

Posted by: Groucho | Apr 1 2006 3:33 utc | 35

Should have added Anon, in your less than 5 comments.
I can’t imagine what anyone sees in DKos–been there once, and wasn’t impressed.
But to each his own.
And silly comments about other people’s tastes and about dogs and fleas are best left where the hell ever you came from.
We use words like canines and Xenopsylla cheopis here.

Posted by: Groucho | Apr 1 2006 4:03 utc | 36

About DKos, on the good side, maybe whats going on is either a democratic party coup, or better yet the beginnings of another party. There is this thing going on in the left blogs of cross referencing to each other digby, firedog,grenwald,atrios hammering out new language, although so far, mostly deconstruction of the right, maybe whats left — will be a new left?

Posted by: anna missed | Apr 1 2006 4:14 utc | 37

Well, got new polling numbers on B’s post:
LINK

Posted by: Groucho | Apr 1 2006 4:21 utc | 38

This post and commentarial thread are examples of why I feel M of A is the most stimulating stop on my daily blog round. If Bernhard only comes up with one post like this every week or two, with a few guest posts, open threads and news clips thrown in to stir the pot, I see no reason to fear the demise of this most essential forum.
As for Mr. Sale’s discussion of Bush’s attempt to export “democracy,” I think it’s laughable in light of the theocratic/neocon agenda of subverting democracy at every turn, whether at home or abroad. These people are organized criminals who hold nothing but disdain for the “will of the people” — they believe in creating chaos for the purpose of self-enrichment, damn whatever possible consequences there may be. To place the word “democracy” in the same sentence with G. W. Bush is an obscentity and a sick joke.

Posted by: Michael Hawkins | Apr 1 2006 4:35 utc | 39

We’ve established already that the Will of the People does not enter into their definition of the term “democracy”. For this reason, I am only heartened by Bush’s dismal poll numbers insofar as it shows that other people are finally catching on. The “democracy” this administration wants to export is corporate rapaciousness (call it “free markets” if you want; that term is every bit as great a misnomer as the term “reality television”).

Posted by: Monolycus | Apr 1 2006 4:42 utc | 40

groucho,
i am not a big dkos fan, actually fled from there eons ago because of the drivel, diary police, etc. however, i wrote about it and linked to hunter’s diary because there is a seaswell of change there, and as anna missed mentioned the other liberal blogs. what is happening is organic, has yet to be defined or define itself. i find myself spending more time there lately than i ever would expect and i am not disappointed. most importantly, i see waht anna missed sees = either a splintering off from the democratic party or a seizing control of it. even some of the diehard dems have discussed abandoning ship. but more importantly to me, i see action happening there and more frequent explorations of how to organize effectively. something is happening and people, like hunter, are grasping that reality. days like today – feingold left hanging at the censure hearings – have disillusioned and enraged and as a result more people are becoming engaged. i also find it remarkable how quickly fdl and glenn greenwald have grown. that combined with the fact that there are now well over 80,000 registered kos members tells me that there is a growing “demand”. people are looking for someplace to come together to learn and the next step will be to make change. people are perhaps finally waking up to the fact that they are being had by this administration and it is up to them to do something about it.
yes, anon is correct, there are still demopublicans a dkos, but they are fewer and fewer. i reacted to the comment because i thought it was petty and elitist and not necessarily as accurate as it might have been at one point in time. i am less interested in reading their diaries than i am in observing and being a part of the seachange.

Posted by: conchita | Apr 1 2006 5:05 utc | 41

i don’t hang out much at kos but i do notice there is a shift in the dialogue, a seachange is a good word for it. not only at kos but across the spectrum of the left blogisphere, which can only be good. i also notice it from the local listserve i read, the quantitive shift in the lack of trust for the dem party. there is a choice it seems. overrun or take over the party, or leave it.it is a structure in place and i think people are digusted enough to watch it sink if its not going to transform into a party worth our while.there seems to be very little appetite for the party in it’s present form. hunter is an example of someone whose voice is always worth my time, i love it when he gets a good rant going. but i have to admit, i am always weary of the lincoln infiltrated posters there. they come out in droves sometimes, beating you back.
as for my post, i’m checking it tomorrow. some of the points i made, and discarded are already mentioned on the thread, like the joke of free market. i am forever searching for the desirable outcomes (set in concrete)
more later.nothing on the web is better than the discourse here. thanks again b.

Posted by: annie | Apr 1 2006 8:01 utc | 42

we can do about it is to make sure that everything is clearly and correctly labelled so the people can make clear choices.
We can’t really do much about the choices they make…
—
First of all who are WE in this case? Second it simply is not true that people make their choices on their own and without influence of the authorities helped with a lot of propaganda…west same as east…

Posted by: vbo | Apr 1 2006 9:14 utc | 43

vbo,
I think that governments overstep their bounds of authority when they try to keep people from making choices, even if they turn out to be stupid and self-destructive.
For that, governemnts are being negligent when they do not ensure that people are being provided with enough information to make choices, no matter how stupid or self-destructive.
And if people chose not to inform themselves and let themselves be blinded by propaganda and disinformation, then that is their own stupid, self-destructive choice.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Apr 1 2006 12:18 utc | 44

Does compassionate isolationism stand a chance in a global world?
Where the WTO is watching and – to pick one example out of a very large hat I have by my side – will soon prevent India from maufacturing generic retro-viral syrup which can be administered (after payment, of course) to children in Africa?
Where people like me buy a kilo of asparagus for 10 dollars, 5 of which went for packing and transport, 95% of the energy to produce the products came from fossil fuels, and the Mexicans who made them don’t earn enough to buy medecine or pens?
Where, in effect, the powerful and rich have found new ways to control and exploit others, ways that are impenetrable and remain invisible to many?
Beating a tired drum (ralphie made a similar point at the top of the thread.)
I like the notion though. It need developing. I’ll think about it while making the Hollandaise sauce. It might turn out that compassion and isolationism are antithetical.

Posted by: Noisette | Apr 1 2006 15:43 utc | 45

Just finished Fitts last series at Narconews. The bottom line is the forces against the people are three pronged. 1. There is jsut to much money in the drug trade to stop it. The war on drugs os token and the courts and prison system is to much of an industry to stop it. 2. Sucking on the governments teet is just to lucrative to downsize the Federal government, us citizens are paying blood money. 3. The Wall Street and investment banking people are sucking the lifes blood from the US. The system will fall if we stop the flow to Wall Street. Start investing locally.

Posted by: jdp | Apr 1 2006 16:04 utc | 46

And if people chose not to inform themselves and let themselves be blinded by propaganda and disinformation, then that is their own stupid, self-destructive choice.
perhaps this is because
we (people) become too fascinated by the levers, bells and whistles and lose sight of the outcomes that the mechanism was intended to deliver.
chalking this up to “their own stupid, self-destructive choice. ” is assigning blame, understandably there is bitterness, but let’s not forget the fascination at the root of cause for this loss of site. granted a little stupidity in the mix doesn’t help, but i don’t think the people anticipated hoax being played upon them. the ruse has escalated to the point where its doom seems inevitable
There is jsut to much money in the drug trade to stop it. The war on drugs os token and the courts and prison system is to much of an industry to stop it. 2. Sucking on the governments teet is just to lucrative to downsize the Federal government, us citizens are paying blood money. 3. The Wall Street and investment banking people are sucking the lifes blood from the US. The system will fall if we stop the flow to Wall Street.
ergo
the government itself must modify in order to keep to it’s original object of being the mechanism designed to deliver men and women the society that will best enable the greatest number of people to achieve self-fulfillment.
it seems clear what we are face w/here, is the overwhelming inevitability ,of changing the mechanism. a dire responsibility. and it does seem the system, seemingly in concrete w/its electoral college, diebold, infiltration of the elities and fundies(and i do mean infiltration) has been hijacked in a way the common man never anticipated, because it just can’t happen here! we are america, the best the world has to offer! by using the mechanism already in place to install thru deception a cabal.
more and more of the citizenry have there eyes open and watch events unfold yet there is almost a paralyzation, a stunned response for we have had so much faith in our structure, the idea of an abandonment is almost unthinkable.
what better distraction than a war, a national goal of reforming regimes worldwide when our own is the one that requires upheaval.
perhaps the answer here is for the most agile amongst us, the most able to endure thru mutability,or adaptability, or transformation, will be the most valued members of our society.

Posted by: annie | Apr 1 2006 16:47 utc | 47

Declaration of Independence Under Review

(AP ) Washington DC: Key provisions of the U.S. Declaration of Independence are currently under review by the Bush administration, according to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
“We are studying the document with an open mind and absolute respect for the authors’ intent.” he announced today in a morning press conference. “Let me assure you that this President considers the Declaration of Independence to be the very bedrock of American democracy. However, given the seriousness of the threats facing our nation today, it would be a forfeiture of our duty not to reconsider some of its more outmoded provisions.”
Originally written and signed into law on July 4th, 1776, the Declaration of Independence has long been considered an untouchable “third rail” of American politics. According to Gonzales though, “9/11 changed all that…”
“Although we have no problems whatsoever with the ‘Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness’ clauses of the Declaration, certain sections of the document reflect a decidely pre-9/11 mindset, and it is those we intend to change.”
Of particular concern to the administration are these passages from the second paragraph:
“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.”
This, according to Gonzalez and reaffirmed by President Bush in a statement by spokesman Scott McClellan, is “nothing more than an invitation to anarchy” and “Just the sort of thing the terrorists would like us to do…”
Administration officials were emphatic to point out that the most important provisions of the Declaration, those pertaining to the United States remaining a seperate and sovereign entity from the British Crown, would remain in force. “However,” Gonzales pointed out, “It remains both the right and the duty of the Commander-and-Chief to be able to unilaterally relinquish national sovereignity back to the monarchy at any time he might desire to do so.”

Posted by: annie | Apr 1 2006 17:03 utc | 48

annie,
It’s that pesky bit in the constitution about the “right to petition for the redress of grievances” that really throws a monkey wrench into the machinations of the executive branch.
After all, if we have to publicly state the sort of grievances being perpetrated against the aggrieved (who are usually terrorists anyways) then we are divulging information that could aid and abet a terrorist attack.
noisie,
Can we be compassionate islationists? Yes. By levelling the playing field. Not in the globalist sense of removing all government restriction and interference to trade, but by making sure that any country that imports goods to the US either maintains similar standards of environmental & worker protection or antes up the difference in the form of import tariffs.
Otherwise, we are punishing ourselves for maintaining any kind of environmental or labor standards and rewarding others who ignore them.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Apr 1 2006 17:17 utc | 49

Yes annie, the system has become to entrenched and I am having a hard time seeing anything that would change it.
After reading Fitts, I am rethinking my commitment to the Federal governement doing good for the people. Maybe all the money needs taken away. Maybe we should do as Norquest says and starve the beast. Nahhh. What am I thinking. It can do good if the right people control.
I do know we must get power closer to the people. I work in local government and we do great things all the time. The biggest problem is capital. Angel investers and banks want a sure thing and astronomical returns. A local investment group or mutual fund satisfied with 2-5% return is whats needed. But people expect so much, lokking only to tomorrow rather than the long term.
Just ranting. Although, thanks to malooga for turning me on to this new source of info.

Posted by: jdp | Apr 1 2006 18:02 utc | 50

by making sure that any country that imports goods to the US either maintains similar standards of environmental & worker protection or antes up the difference in the form of import tariffs.
Otherwise, we are punishing ourselves for maintaining any kind of environmental or labor standards and rewarding others who ignore them.
I am thinking about this a lot, but it is a bit of hypocrit to demand some outlandish environment regulation that makes sense in some countires to India. “Why don´t you protect these fishes?” “We don´t have them!”
We are now challenging Brazil to protect it´s rainforest because ours were used by our ancestors to develop the western societies. Is this fair?
Besides that, protectionists, companies and unions, would just love this tool as they could slip nearly any restricting demand into that. Would this also demand the same wages for workers? GDP related? PPP related?
I would settle for such a scheme, if it is restricted to very few very basic issues. The custom should be a maximum of 50% of any difference. The thing must be easy to challenge.
If not, this will fire back by creating local monopols that have no inducement to better their productivity but are demanding high local prices.

Posted by: b | Apr 1 2006 18:25 utc | 51

b,
it’s not just a matter of protecting fishes: it means that if we import chemicals from a plant in India that spews waste at a rate that is not allowed in the USA, or exposes workers to dangers that are prohibited in the USA, they should either pay an import tariff or take steps to fix it. One would hope they would come to chose the latter.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Apr 1 2006 18:39 utc | 52

we are punishing ourselves for maintaining any kind of environmental or labor standards and rewarding others who ignore them.
one of the challenges that face the populace that was virtually non existent when the framers were framing was the threat of mass extintion. thats why the the idea of ‘outcomes set in concrete’ or the society that will best enable the greatest number of people to achieve self-fulfillment. becomes more a matter of physical survival than liberty, if our environment is so screwed science, water, temperature, migration, all trump consumerism, luxury takes on new meaning. this seemingly futuristic concern is creeping up right around the corner. 20 years? our image of terrorists are going to be those denying the most people the least of resources they need to survive.

Posted by: annie | Apr 1 2006 18:44 utc | 53

b, I believe we need to make each other richer. Raising wages raises education and standards. In the US people after WWII went to college on the GI bill. This awackened the public with more education and more ability to organize. What your see is a dumbing down in the US, and taking advantage of foriegn labor. Pitting the foriegn labor against a propagandized and dumber US public allows corps to push for more lax standards in labor standards, environment, and regulations. This si the old kennard that to much regulation is costing jobs. You name the angle, coprations have it covered.
Only real wage growth worldwide will change things, the only way to do that is fight the system, the only way I see to fight the system is to act locally. When communities start pulling out of the larger economy, things will change. Call it protectionism, but over the long run its our only recourse.
Look at the book Crashing the gates by kos and jerome. Its the inside the beltway mentality, the centralization of party control that crippled the dems, isolated and enriched consultants.
You get the drift?

Posted by: jdp | Apr 1 2006 18:52 utc | 54

jdp, i agree that we do need to act locally. however, i also think that we must think globally. for example, while i also agree with bernhard that there is something not quite right about asking brazilians to protect their rainforest when we did not, we all need to think about the consequences of our actions on our immediate neighbors and the world as a whole because our resources are not infinite. if we do not change how we are living and we do not educate others we are doomed.
along the lines of noisette’s example of asparagus, i have been learning more about the slow food movement. it turns out that i have been living this way instinctively – buying as much of my food as possible at the local farmers’ market – but i am not the norm. rather than my twice weekly jaunt with the dog to the farmer’s market, most americans get in the car and head to the supermarket to load up on process foods for the coming week/s. the slow food concept has a lot to offer because it looks at the issues of energy consumption to ship, support of the local economy, improved quality of food, engagement on an intimate level with the processes involved in growing and making food. and it has a global effect – we are not supporting corporate food megalopolies whose objective is profit margins at the expense of the world’s natural resources, the workers, and quality of product. and when you can’t buy locally, there is always fairtrade. if anyone wants to give slow food a look, erika lesser, the executive director of the slow food organization in new york, offers a good and quick intro that you can listen to while you cook. i was also pleasantly surprised recently to learn that prince charles is a big supporter of slow food.
ralphieboy, maybe the labeling can step beyond ingredients to include a breakdown of the resources used, particularly how much energy consumed, and the distribution of income from sale of the item. i wonder if then people would think twice.

Posted by: conchita | Apr 1 2006 20:17 utc | 55

conchita,
we live in Germany on the edge of asparagus country. The stuff is harvested locally, but most of the work is done by Polish laborers who have come hundreds of miles by bus…
The German government has made efforts to get unemployed Germans to take work harvesting asparagus or picking grapes, even by offering wage subsidies, but many of the German farmers and vintners prefer Polish workers who don’t complain or call in sick after a week.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Apr 1 2006 20:38 utc | 56

ralphieboy, so affluence is the achilles heel of society? the stupid american i am does not fully understand how this works in the eu. the polish workers work legally, yes? can they also live legally in germany? or is this more like a guest worker program? i am surprised the government does not regulate it more when it is costing the country money.
a part of me wants to say at least the polish workers take the bus rather than drive their own suv’s to get to asparagus country. but i imagine you will tell us that the asparagus and grapes get trucked someplace else for processing by cheap labor and then shipped back to local stores to be sold. that is how it would be done here.
as for the farmers’ market in new york, yes, many of the laborers are migrants, and i have never asked, but i get the sense that the vendors work alongside them, both in the fields and at the concessions in the city. again, i don’t know what the pay scale is, but i hope the fact i see the same faces year after year means that there is more humanity than in the scenario noisette painted. there is a whole foods 5 blocks from where i live, but i prefer to walk the additional 10 blocks to the farmers’ market to support a local farmer who will gladly talk with me about gardening tips, recipes, the impact of the season’s weather, etc. it makes for a healthier dynamic than building whole foods’ stock value.

Posted by: conchita | Apr 2 2006 0:10 utc | 57

conchita,
now that Poland is art of the eu, they can all come over legally. Usually in a minibus or van. There is still a large black market, the Hanauer Landstrasse in Frankfurt looks like downtown LA in the mornings, with clusters of illegals lining up to get hired as cash-in-hand day laborers.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Apr 2 2006 7:04 utc | 58

One other aspect: there are truly a lot of jobs here that Gerans “just won’t do”. These are the jobs that involve travelling around or living on site, such as harvesting, working with fairground attractions or market stands.
Eastern Europeans who come over for the season are happy to take temporary jobs, especially as they usually provide free food and lodging, allowing them to save enough money to help tide them over the rest of the year.
Locals who have homes are not willing to leave them to go live in a trailer or barracks for months on end.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Apr 2 2006 14:53 utc | 59

groucho –
annie explained why anon may have been billmon. friday was a bad day for me and anon’s humour was lost on me. my apologies to all for being so reactionary. i hope someone at least thought it was ridiculous enough to be humourous.

Posted by: conchita | Apr 2 2006 21:18 utc | 60

ralphieboy –
thanks for filling in the blanks. a lot of the locals in my new york neighborhood would probably gladly live in a trailer for months on end rather than in a shelter or on a ventilation grid. i don’t know how these people survive year after year.

Posted by: conchita | Apr 2 2006 21:21 utc | 61

Well Conchita,
I think we could let a few real reactionaries in to this here bell jar, on H1S student visas or something.
Probably invigorate the place a bit.
Make it more “representative” ie valuable if B decides to sell.

Posted by: Groucho | Apr 2 2006 23:57 utc | 62

conchita,
it’s back-breaking grunt work in most cases, with little prospect of promotion. But it allows schoolteachers to come over and double their annual income for six weeks’ work in the summer holidays.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Apr 3 2006 12:48 utc | 63

Everyone,
First, a disclaimer: I have not had the time to read your comments, thus this a merely a reply to the original post. And for a quick and telling intro I’ll simply quote the NYT (April 2, by Juan Forero):
“A recent United Nations study of Peruvian opinions found that 73.5 percent of respondents believed that the country needed an authoritarian government.”
It has been alleged by many that Russians “want democracy,” but Putin effectively proves many wrong. The net balance of popular opinion, sad as it is, seems to be on the side of a stronger government in that very large, diverse and often dubious nation-state. This, however, is a democratic choice that the Russian people make.
Similarly, the Americans choose “what they want” every couple of years. Yet, this choice has often been one that appointed men whom “the people” hoped to contain to domestic politics. Natural desire for any populace? Yes. It is also a want that historically has molded men who sought to be world leaders into isolationists.
Peruvians — much like the Russians and the Americans — seek what they deem will be best for their individual livelihoods. That is a very normal consequence of DOMESTIC politics. Additionally, it is a manifestation of many INDIVIDUALS abstaining from thinking of foreign affairs. The reason poor countries often have authoritarian governments is, for the large part indeed, due to to the endemic poverty, which is inherently tied to diminished security (of persons, but thus also of his nation). Compassionate isolationism is basically mildly different from interventionist politics. Both are abstentions from world politics. Unless pacifism is possible, “compassion” becomes an abstention from killing murderers. Similarly, war, just like a comfy peace, is generally an evolved version of hopeful ignorance. Peace works best and less money should be spent on war. But intervention — political economic AND military — has been an historic means by which powerful nations coerced others to join their camp and simulaneously to be afraid (see: not secure) of their prowess. Likewise, they have compelled their neighbors to take on better domestic politics, albeit in the the eye of the beholder.
Military interventions have been a disgrace when they were misguided by short-term thinking. When military interventions aren’t happening that only means two things. Either the world is safe and happy and no people are in need of a well-behaved army’s (and police’s!) protection brought on by some good samaritan statesmen; or the powerful nations have become too hopeful. If the former is true, Dharfur should not be happening. If the latter were false, “compassionate isolationism” would not seek to escape all problems that go-it-alone policies precipitate. Hopeful leadership would not be synonymous with ignorant optimism. Ignorance and comfort are esoteric. When exercised en masse, ignorance leads to isolation — and isolation effectively becomes unilateral.

Posted by: Sasha Murshteyn | Apr 5 2006 17:04 utc | 64

Back to Main