Chris Navin

November 11, 2009

John Kerry At Newsweek: ‘Beware The Revisionists’

Full article here.

Kerry has some good advice:

“Now we must choose a smart way forward so no one asks whether we’ve made a mistake in staying. The main lesson that Obama must absorb from Vietnam is the necessity to explain our goals in Afghanistan, and to choose clear and realistic strategies to meet them.”

…so we can avoid:

“Let me be clear: more than 58,000 American troops died because they were sent into battle based on false assumptions, flawed goals, and faulty strategies”

It was all flawed?  Here’s what Henry Kissinger also said at Newsweek as well, though I think he was leaning toward more troop involvement:

“For the immediate future, it is essential to avoid another wrenching domestic division and to conduct the inevitable debate with respect for its complexity and the stark choices confronting our country.”

Related On This Site:  From Bloomberg: More Troops To Afghanistan? A Memo From Henry Kissinger To Gerald Ford?From The NY Times Video: ‘A Schoolgirl’s Odyssey’From The WSJ: Graham, Lieberman and McCain “Only Decisive Force Can Prevail In AfghanistanFrom Commonweal: Andrew Bacevich “The War We Can’t Win: Afghanistan And The Limits Of American Power”

Add to Technorati Favorites

November 10, 2009

From CATO: ‘New York Times “Celebrates” The Fall Of The Berlin Wall’

Full post here.

In your ideological discontent with ‘capitalism,’ do you have to get into bed with some of Slavoj Zizek’s ideas…especially on the 20th anniversary of the day the Berlin Wall came down?

Still waiting on the Times to stop the ideological retreat…

Also On This Site:  Adam Kirsch In The New Republic On Slavoj Zizek: The Deadly JesterSlavoj Zizek In The New Republic: Responding To Adam Kirsch

Add to Technorati Favorites

October 24, 2009

From The Christian Science Monitor Via A & L Daily: An Interview With Francis Fukuyama

Full interview here.

So to Robert Kagan, Fukuyama might argue:

“…the pessimism about civilization that we had developed as a result of the terrible 20th century, with its genocides, gulags, and world wars, was actually not the whole picture at all. In fact, there were a lot of positive trends going on in the world, including the spread of democracy where there had been dictatorship. Sam Huntington called this “the third wave.”‘

And (particularly with Russia in mind):

“Clearly, that big surge toward democracy went as far as it could. Now there is a backlash against it in some places. But that doesn’t mean the larger trend is not still toward democracy”

Fukuyama also points out on what he bases much of his thinking; extending Samuel Huntington’s framework:

“Huntington’s argument was that democracy, individualism, and human rights are not universal, but reflections of culture rooted in Western Christendom. While that is true historically, these values have grown beyond their origins.”

And what about China?:

“You cannot solve the problem of the “bad emperor” through moral suasion. And China has had some pretty bad emperors over the centuries. Without procedural accountability, you can never establish real accountability.”

You can teach people to be moral in this argument, and instill moral values, but without levers and counter-levers, we’re only a step away from tyranny.

Related On This Site:  Kagan’s new book “The Return Of History And The End Of Dreams“ seeks to challenge Fukuyama’s thinking…does it succeed?: Obama’s Decision On Missile Defense And A Quote From Robert Kagan’s: ‘The Return Of History And The End Of Dreams’

Stanley Kurtz suggested Fukuyama’s Hegelian influence is too much to bear:  From The Hoover Institution: Stanley Kurtz On Francis Fukuyama and Samuel Huntington

Also:  From The American Interest Online: Francis Fukuyama On Samuel HuntingtonA Few Thoughts On (Absolute) Idealism, Both Religious And Political/Philosophical

Add to Technorati Favorites

October 20, 2009

From Outlook India Via A & L Daily: An Interview With Amartya Sen

Full interview here.

“I am a friend of the Left and my politics has been on the Left, but sometimes it’s difficult to recognise what is Left, what is Right. I am in favour of fighting today’s battles rather than yesterday’s battles. I think this gut anti-Americanism—don’t make it the headline (laughs)—is a problem. It is a minor problem, but one of the reasons why the Left cannot liberate itself from the Cold War. It made sense at some stage to oppose America for various reasons. But I think gut anti-Americanism is certainly pulling the Left back now.”

Of course, that’s the Indian left.  It seems that if you think deeply enough, you think through a lot of party ideas.  Yet, those ideas run deep in your own mind and childhood, and maybe you never stop really stop wrestling with them.

If you’re more familiar with Sen’s work, feel free to comment.

Also On This Site: Certainly the work he and Martha Nussbaum did is to better the quality of life in India, and create more economic opportunity there, but is there also global left-leaning international platform being built too…are these the best ideas to understand the range of American political and philosophical traditions?:  Amartya Sen In The New York Review Of Books: Capitalism Beyond The Crisis

Can you maintain the virtues of religion without the church…?:  From The City Journal: Roger Scruton On “Forgiveness And Irony”…Are we going soft and “European”… do we need to protect our religious idealism enshrined in the Constitution….with the social sciences?…Charles Murray Lecture At AEI: The Happiness Of People

Add to Technorati Favorites

September 24, 2009

Obama’s Decision On Missile Defense And A Quote From Robert Kagan’s: ‘The Return Of History And The End Of Dreams’

Book here.

Obama has pulled out of the missile defense program in Eastern Europe, and some are calling this a capitulation to Russia. Here’s a quote from Robert Kagan that perhaps could clarify that position a little better:

“That is the primary motive behind Russia’s opposition to American missile defense programs in Poland and the Czech Republic.  It is not only that Russians fear the proposed sites may someday threaten their nuclear strike capacity:  Putin has suggested placing the sites in Italy, Turkey, or France instead.  He wants to turn Poland and other eastern members of NATO into a strategic neutral zone.”

Because, as Kagan argues, we’re not living anymore in the heady days after the fall of communism and a coming liberal international order (See Francis Fukuyama’s The End Of History).  We’re living in a world where Russia is playing old-style, nation-state power politics to regain its former scope, complete with a lot of strong-arming its former satellites and shutting off access to its resources when it sees fit.  

Kagan broadens the picture further:   China and India are gaining national strength (though still fragile) and their governments’ and peoples’ conception of their own identity will change accordingly.  They will want more resources, to have more control over their own waters and trade routes, and have larger and larger spheres of influence.   Matters of national pride and identity (Taiwan) are not to be taken lightly.  They will push nations into potential conflicts, shifting alliances, and a scene more closely resembling 18th and 19th century European states and geo-politics.

Philosophically, Kagan clearly has doubts about the Enlightenment roots of the popular vision of  liberal international order (with roots in Kantian “perpetual peace” and Hegelian dialectical progress…).  However, he argues that there is a future, and there are moral obligations that (I would imagine individuals have in it), and that democracies have to one another to shape that world going forward (as we progress through our collective will?).  

It’s definitely worth a read for its keen eye on the international scene and its challenge to a liberal internationalism. 

———————–

So,  as for the missile-defense program…was it an appeasement to Putin…do you trust Obama’s vision for the world and America’s place in it…is he positioning us well between our own interests and our own moral obligations?

Addition:  A reader links to this piece and argues that this is Obama trying to forge common interest with Russia, which may bear fruit.

Another Addition:  Juan Cole argues how shrewd a move this is here.  Obama is rounding up Kagan’s autocracies (Russia, at least) as well as the democracies (France, at least) and putting the full heat on Iran.

Yet Another Addition:  It’s looking like Russia’s not on board with Iranian sanctions.

See Also On This Site:  From The American Interest Online: Francis Fukuyama On Samuel Huntington…From The Chronicle Of Higher Ed: Russian Forum…Dick Cheney Travels To Georgia: Is the U.S. Allied With Georgia?

Add to Technorati Favorites

September 23, 2009

From The Atlantic Wire: Obama’s Speech To The UN

Full post here (pre-speech)

Afterwards here.

The criticism from the right will continue:  Obama is not much of a leader, trying to be all things to all people.    The U.N. is simply a world stage for him to do this.  Later on, behind closed doors, political realities will force him to make deals and decisions within his own party, against the interests of many Americans (and people on the right), as well as most other countries at some point.

Also, it will be interesting to watch how the Russian-Iranian-Venezuelan allignment plays out.  The leaders of each of these countries and their people have a strong anti-American pool of sentiment to draw upon, as they set up policy and diplomacy (and nuclear programs) against us, exploiting our over-reach and any mis-steps to solidify their own power.

Also On This Site:  Do we have to rationally pursue most of our interests outside the U.N.?: From Bloggingheads: Robert Kagan Discusses The U.N. Security CouncilBarack Obama President Elect: A Few Hopes From An Independent

Add to Technorati Favorites

August 4, 2009

From Bloomberg: More Troops To Afghanistan? A Memo From Henry Kissinger To Gerald Ford?

From Bloomberg today:

President Barack Obama and top U.S. military commanders are under pressure from senators and civilian advisers to double the size of Afghan security forces, a commitment that would cost billions of dollars.”

and this would be potentially added to an existing pledge:

“…to fast-track the buildup of combined Afghan security forces to 134,000 Army personnel and 96,800 police — 230,800 in all — by 2011, according to U.S. Central Command. The Defense Department has requested $7.5 billion for fiscal year 2010 to fund the expansion.”

Apart from the facile Afghan/Vietnam comparison which I’m already guilty of by having written this, here’s a short memo from Henry Kissinger to President Ford in 1975 about lessons of the Vietnam War:

“One clear lesson that can be drawn, however, is the importance of absolute honesty and objectivity in all reporting, within and from the Government as well as from the press.”

Elusive objectivity…I could do with honesty and focusing on our reasons…

One arguable difference:

We are not using military force to protect our political and economic interests in Afghanistan against the advancing threat of an adversarial state and its ideology (I suppose there existed a real fear was that we would eventually threatened at home), but rather against a stateless ideology, with roots in Islam (the theology is debatable) and though pursued by a few, I suspect is tolerated by many in the Muslim world who aren’t necessarily happy with the scope of American influence there.

It still doesn’t seem like a a situation any sitting U.S. president could allow politically (an Al-Qaeda training camp that produces another attack, and so we are protecting our interests), but it also seems that with the tribal nature of much of Afghan society, the lack of education and infrastructure, we are also committing to a lot of “nation-building.”

Insterestingly, Kissinger, like anyone with a foreign policy interest, longed for consistency on our end, to have met more of our commitments in Vietnam, and perhaps to have maintained what he thought were our moral aims there.  But alas, this is politics.

A notable similarity:

Perhaps many people are supporting the war because they support Obama, just as Kennedy inherited Vietnam and many supported Kennedy, not necessarily the war…

Just a few thoughts.  Feel free to highlight my ignorance and/or share your knowledge.

Also On This Site:  From CSIS-Anthony Cordesman On “The Afghanistan Campaign: Can We Win?” Dexter Filkins Book On Afghanistan And Iraq: “The Forever War”

What are our moral obligations to the Afghan people?:  From Bloggingheads: Andrew Bacevich And Heather Hurlburt Discuss Afghanistan And Pakistan

Are we still living in Huntington’s shadow?: From The Atlantic: Samuel Huntington’s Death And Life’s Work

Addition:  And a quote from that Atlantic piece:

“Although the professional soldier accepts the reality of never-ending and limited conflict, “the liberal tendency,” Huntington explained, is “to absolutize and dichotomize war and peace.” Liberals will most readily support a war if they can turn it into a crusade for advancing humanistic ideals. That is why, he wrote, liberals seek to reduce the defense budget even as they periodically demand an adventurous foreign policy.

Add to Technorati Favorites

July 19, 2009

A Few Thoughts On Isaiah Berlin’s “Two Concepts Of Liberty”

Full text found here.

I wanted to focus a little on how Berlin discusses Kant’s influence, and how it may affect liberalism and classical liberalism, especially in the Anglo-American tradition.  

Positive liberty for Berlin involves action, and what one must do to protect his/her own freedom, in part, from one’s own self and the passions.  Yet, also, like the hard-hearted Stoics in ancient Rome or the Christian or Buddhist aesthetic, positive liberty can involve what one must do to withdraw from the world around one’s self, and the injustices of a tyrant or the tyranny of the many.  Philosophers and deep thinkers are often doing this, building structures in the shadows which live long after them.

I should mention, however, that after Kant, it is no longer possible to prove the existence of God, so a transcendent being is replaced with what one must do to exercise the use of one’s own reason, and presumably, discover reality, or the phenomenal reality one can discover beyond Kant’s complex metaphysical framework. 

Negative liberty for Berlin, on the other hand,  is freedom from coercion, much like the Lockean ideas of Life and Liberty.  

“I am usually said to be free to the degree to which no man or body of men interferes with my activity.”

It is what many here in the West often mean by freedom.  This kind of freedom, when you think about it, is a kind of rarity, even in Europe, as this past century was a bloody one:

“Over a hundred years ago, the German poet Heine warned the French not to underestimate the power of ideas: philosophical concepts nurtured in the stillness of a philosopher’s study could destroy a civilization.  He spoke of Kant’s Critique Of Pure Reason as the sword with which German deism had been decapitated, and described the works of Rousseau as the blood-stained weapon which, in the hands of Robespierre, had destroyed the old regime; and prophesied that the Romantic faith of Fichte and Schelling would one day be turned, with terrible effect, by their fanatical German followers, against the liberal culture of the West.

“…The facts have not wholly belied this prediction…”

Personally, I thought Nietzsche thought he had found the solution to Kant’s statement of the problem:  the uberman, or someone who will creatively, and through a supreme act of the will, make new values for mankind now that God is dead.  As Berlin points out, this is strangely similar to what one imagines a tyrant might think gazing out at those over whom he rules. 

It’s probably too obvious to identify Kant merely as “German,” and thus alien to a kind of liberalism we (and yes the French, the French Republic is still going strong) enjoy. 

Berlin sees the potential for dangerous perfectionism in Kant perhaps, but especially what came after Kant’s thought, and identifies it largely as a form “positive” liberty, and also identifies some of the political/philosophical consequences, one obvious path being through Hegel, Schelling and Fichte:

“Let me state them (sic, the premises) once more:  first, that all men have one true purpose, and one-only, that of rational self-direction; second, that the ends of all rational beings must of necessity fit into a single universal, harmonious pattern, which some men may be able to discern more clearly than others; third, that all conflict, and consequently all tragedy, is due solely to the clash of reason with the irrational or the insufficiently rational-the immature and undeveloped elements in life, whether individual or communal…finally, that when all men have been made rational, they will obey the rational laws of their own natures, which are one and the same in them all, and so be at once wholly law-abiding and wholly free.”

Such thinkers tried to implement and systematize Kant’s thought  into something that became and still becomes an eventual threat to negative liberty.  Reason eventually became and becomes used like a blunt instrument for the actors in such systems. It granted license to the creation of institutions who in a sense, “know better” than individuals what is best for them.  This, of course, has given way to monstrous totalitariansim, corruption, and the horrors of Stalinist Russia, Mao’s China etc.  Some would argue a kind of Kantian prosthetic Christian moralism has dominated.

Yet, as for the tension between positive and negative liberty, Berlin makes an argument similar to the one which Karl Popper made (as Austria and the Continent descended into a second world war):  freedom and equality are in constant tension, and not necessarily compatible with one another,which is an idea which we in America can witness in our politics daily: 

“Everything is what it is:  liberty is liberty, not equality or justice or fairness or culture, or human happiness or a quiet conscience.  If liberty of myself or my class or my nation depends on the misery of a number of other human beings, the system which promotes this is unjust and immoral.  but if I curtail or lose my freedom in order to lessen the shame of such inequality, and do not thereby materially increase the individual liberty of others, an absolute loss of liberty occurs.”

Out of this, Berlin thought that his defense of classical liberalism, (John Rawls was a friend of his), which has come to be called value pluralism, is his most important work:

“Pluralism, with the measure of negative liberty that it entails, seems to me a truer and more human ideal than the goals of those who seek in the great disciplined, authoritarian structures, the ideal of positive self-mastery by classes, or peoples, or the whole of mankind.  It is truer, because it does, at least, recognise that human goals are many, not all of them commensurable, and in perpetual rivalry with each other.”

A Russian…a romantic…an idealist…a Kantian…A Classical Liberal…An Historian Of ideas…coming to terms with Western liberalism?  providing an effective defense of it?  

Your thoughts and comments are welcome.

Addition:  As a tool to help understand some very complex thinking and broad periods of time, it seems quite useful.  It also seems pretty dualistic. another addition (not the philosophical definition).

See Also On This Site:  Positive and negative rights are also a part of Leo Strauss’ thinking (persona non-grata nowadays), and Strauss thought you were deluded if your were going to study politics from afar, as a “science.”  There has been much dispute about this:  From YouTube: Leo Strauss On The Meno-More On The Fact/Value Distinction?

Kant is a major influence on libertarians, from Ayn Rand to Robert Nozick:  A Few Thoughts On Robert Nozick’s “Anarchy, State and Utopia”…Link To An Ayn Rand Paper: The Objectivist Attack On Kant

A Modern Liberal, somewhat Aristotelian and classical?:  From The Harvard Educational Review-A Review Of Martha Nussbaum’s ‘Cultivating Humanity: A Classical Defense of Reform in Liberal Education.’…Repost: Martha Nussbaum Channels Roger Williams In The New Republic: The First Founder

Samuel Huntington was quite humble, and often wise, about what political philosophy could do:  From Prospect: Eric Kaufmann On ‘The Meaning Of Huntington’

Isaiah Berlin by pbear6150

by pbear6150

Add to Technorati Favorites

May 12, 2009

From YouTube: Roger Scruton On Religious Freedom, Islam & Atheism

A few key arguments Scruton makes:

1.  The drive to expunge religion from public life in America is, in some cases, being pursued with a zeal that is not un-religious.  It is a largely unreasonable interpretation of the no-establishment clause.

I would even suggest that the argument allows that if such secularists are successful, they could open the door to government bloat (after all, welfare is given out for moral and moralistic reasons) if the church were gotten out of the way.    

Against this,  I think many reasonable people would say that they just want to keep religion out of politics for the sake of both, and that they’re not attacking religion per se, but merely adhering to a reasonable interpretation of the no-establishment clause.  Scruton is casting light on the zealots here.  Religious belief however, especially Christian belief in the U.S., really isn’t going anywhere.

2.  Scruton also argues that under the banner of secular multiculturalism, the extremely intolerant views of some Muslims, and the religious idealism of most Muslims (and all true religious believers) has found too free a home in Britain.  For Scruton, the development of secular society and the rule of law is perhaps a uniquely Christian phenomenon (he makes the argument here).   The Christian doctrines that laid such groundwork are conveniently bashed while Muslims pour in from societies without such rule of law and a pretty frightening idealism (how much of this is due to being an immigrant is worth examining).  

One criticism I’d have against this view is that it’s uniquely British.   The tension between the British left (with more embedded socialist and Marxist groups) and the Church of England’s once dominant influence is arguably the kind of set-up the framers of the Constitution wanted to avoid here in America.   Obviously, socialism and Marxism came later and the argument would need to be further developed, but in returning to the doctrines of the church, strengthening Christian faith and submitting the individual will to the church are we finding the best way forward?

Philosophically, how do you justify the existence of God?

See Also On This SiteFrom The City Journal: Roger Scruton On “Forgiveness And Irony”/Roger Scruton In The American Spectator: The New Humanism/Repost: Martha Nussbaum Channels Roger Williams In The New Republic: The First Founder

Add to Technorati Favorites

May 4, 2009

From Strange Maps: Russia To U.S.-You’re Breaking Up (Too)

Filed under: Communism, Media, Public Debate — chr1 @ 7:06 pm
Tags: , ,

Full post here.

Apparently, Igor Panarin has been predicting the collapse of the U.S. for some time.  He’s likely tapping into the ghosts of the past, a pretty chaotic Russian present, and a strong vein of anti-American sentiment.

You’d think he’d at least recognize Mexico’s claims to the desert southwest in his visions of the U.S. cast to China, Mexico, Canada and the E.U.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.