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 Jester…Slavoj Zizek In The New Republic: Responding To Adam Kirsch
“Nothing matters to Capitol Hill so much as apportioning responsibilities and the power that goes with them.”
It’s nice to have a little government skepticism, combined with economic insight:
“Too many US households and financial institutions got too deeply in debt.”
“…-one surely ought to look hard at the tax policies that actively encourage indebtedness.”
Also On This Site: From Althouse: Ann Althouse And Dayo Olopade Discuss Health Insurance…Crook would perhaps like to see some version of the bill passed:From Clive Crook: Is Health Care Reform On Track?…From The New Yorker: Atul Gawande On Health Care-”The Cost Conundrum”
A good article to get a sense of what’s going on in Afghanistan for our combat troops; how the war looks from someone embedded with NATO forces on the ground.
“Michael Yon is a former Green Beret, native of Winter Haven, Fl. who has been reporting from Iraq and Afghanistan since December 2004. No other reporter has spent as much time with combat troops in these two wars.”
Also On This Site: Dexter Filkins Book On Afghanistan And Iraq: “The Forever War”…Sarah Chayes On Afghanistan In The Boston Review: Days Of Lies And Roses
Full video here. Anthony Cordesman and some thoughtful journalists have a discussion.
Matthew Hoh’s resignation here.
Stanley McChrystal’s original report here.
Still looking for alternative strategies beyond graceful exit (potentially without meeting our security goals) or further troop commitment that would meet the Afghan people and protect our interests (and our moral commitment to the Afghans but only through our military)…your thoughts and comments are welcome.
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 Afghanistan…From Commonweal: Andrew Bacevich “The War We Can’t Win: Afghanistan And The Limits Of American Power”
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 Huntington…A Few Thoughts On (Absolute) Idealism, Both Religious And Political/Philosophical
Journalism, of course, is going through some major changes, and Shafer puts his finger one of the main problems on the rising influence of nonprofit journalism:
“Nonprofit outlets almost always measure their success in terms of influence, not audience, because their customers are the donors who’ve donated cash to influence politics, promote justice, or otherwise build a better world.”
Slate, of course, is for profit, and its idealism at least must meet the demands of the market:
“To borrow a tidy phrase from the business world, donors to nonprofits seek not payouts from their investment but psychic income.”
As Shafer points out, such idealism comes with costs (the Christian Science Monitor is nonprofit for example…and provides good reporting but may still want something from you, despite its depth).
Even NPR isn’t excluded, as Shafer quotes James Ledbetter:
“[NPR's] quirky mission statement stabs at the coarseness of modern American life; it reads almost as if it were written by a team of existential psychologists. NPR pledged it would “serve the individual: it will promote personal growth; it will regard the individual differences among men with respect and joy rather than with derision and hate; it will celebrate the human experience as infinitely varied rather than vacuous and banal; it will encourage a sense of active, constructive participation rather than apathetic helplessness.“
What was that again?
It’s not that NPR doesn’t provide quality coverage (and the most popular argument being ‘better than the the mindless inanity on the rest of the radio’) but it’s simply that such idealism comes with other costs. As Shafer’s argument goes, perhaps as in a bureuacracy, under such ideals and vague language huddle all sorts of people protected from the demands of the market…which regular newspapers had to deal with in the past before many of them also became overtly ideological and also had to deal with the internet.
Personally, I get worried when I listen to NPR and hear the moral good too easily confused with politics, or an artist’s actual achievement confused with social programs that will be promoted on the taxpayer’s dime…and whose efficacy is questionable.
When was the last time you saw a for-profit company not showing a public face of moral concern for some cause anyways?
Remember The Maine! The good old days…by malik2moon
“The prevailing strategy in Afghanistan is based on the classic anti-insurrection doctrine: to build a central government, commit it to the improvement of the lives of its people, and then protect the population until that government’s own forces are able, with our training, to take over.”
But despite our efforts (we have been misallocating resources…largely due to the Iraq War ), the central government we helped to build is mired in corruption. And I suspect it isn’t just the Karzai government that’s corrupt, but the corruption is due to other more fundamental issues which our military may not be able to address. The basic levels of national identity, economic and educational development as well as infrastructure (the ring road?) may not have been met to build a functioning government for which the worst Afghans can lay down their weapons (or be forced to by an Afghan military)
Kissinger finishes with:
“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.”
But our domestic political divisions include a reasonable debate about whether or not the broader goals (a viable Afghan government, or something holding Afghanistan together beyond the Taliban’s version of Islam) can be reached by the military (and those who likely have the best understanding of what’s going on on the ground).
It’s still stark…and can any sitting U.S. president allow the chance of Al-Qaeda (and even Bin Laden) to come back…?
Addition: Pakistani troops take action in South Waziristan.
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 Afghanistan…From Commonweal: Andrew Bacevich “The War We Can’t Win: Afghanistan And The Limits Of American Power”
“The outcome of the Afghan struggle is ultimately going to be determined not by our unilateral actions or geopolitical moves, but by whom the Afghan people wind up supporting, even reluctantly. Vietnam—Lesson One.”
Well, our unilateral actions and geopolitical moves will affect the outcome…but as Rufus Phillips argues, maybe not as much, and in the ways, we think. There are those who bristle at any Vietnam comparison, because too many abuse it for their own reasons.
Also On This Site: From The NY Times Video: ‘A Schoolgirl’s Odyssey’…From The WSJ: Graham, Lieberman and McCain “Only Decisive Force Can Prevail In Afghanistan’…From John Richardson at Esquire: Six Signs That Afghanistan Could Be Another Vietnam…From Commonweal: Andrew Bacevich “The War We Can’t Win: Afghanistan And The Limits Of American Power”
Bagwhati is a professor at Columbia, and claims Americans need to regain social mobility against the tide of current populists (on the left), thriving during the recession:
“Capitalism works best when those who do not succeed, and are buffeted by the vicissitudes of life, still believe in success—believe that those who do succeed put their wealth to good use, and do not merely engage in self-indulgence. Remember that the Calvinists and the Jains of Gujerat accumulated wealth but spent it not on themselves but on promoting social good.”
So we need moral lights (religious), or at least moral sacrifice on the part of those who are successful. But, do you get into bed with organized religion politically as a practical matter? How closely? What about where individualism, religious idealism, and politics meet?
Bagwhati does have to adjust to the current political landscape a bit as well:
“We have to respond by improving education and by relieving anxiety through reforms that make health care part of a basic provision for the poor. These reforms strengthen capitalism. Without them, the economic populists will enjoy a success that they do not deserve.”
Politically, it’s very difficult to go against some form of health-care bill, and rising costs are a problem. Do you have to beat the public option’s supporters at their own game?
Also On This Site: Amartya Sen In The New York Review Of Books: Capitalism Beyond The Crisis…A Few Thoughts On Robert Nozick’s “Anarchy, State and Utopia”…Martha Nussbaum In Dissent–Violence On The Left: Nandigram And The Communists Of West Bengal
“Many U.S. policymakers, defense officials, and prominent opinion leaders still tend to lump al Qaeda (a loose, transnational jihadist network responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks) together with the Taliban (an indigenous Pashtun-dominated movement with no shadowy global mission).”
Another argument against a surge, and a troop increase. I can’t say I trust the Republicans who are pushing for troop increase to know exactly what’s going on, and to not have politics play a part. Still waiting on the White House…and still a very difficult situation.
Also On This Site: From The Washington Post: Andrew Bacevich ‘Let’s Beat the Extremists Like We Beat the Soviets’…From Foreign Policy: ‘Evaluating Progress In Afghanistan-Pakistan’…From The WSJ: Graham, Lieberman and McCain “Only Decisive Force Can Prevail In Afghanistan’…
Anthony Cordesman At CSIS: Resourcing For Defeat
chr1