Michael Brendan Dougherty has a smart article in the new issue of The American Conservative about the post-election “whither conservatism” talk that has been roiling the Right. The one thing that doesn’t seem to be receiving much of the ballyhooed conservative re-thinking, Dougherty points out, is the Iraq war, and foreign policy more generally.
Category: War & Peace
-
The new Cold War?
Robert Scheer worries that the old Cold War hawks advising Obama will lead to a ratcheting up of tensions with Russia.
Share this:
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Print (Opens in new window) Print
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
-
Violence and hermeneutics
Marvin reflects on the place of texts in the Bible that seem to implicate God in violence, with a little help from St. Augustine.
I’m not sure God insists that we be pacifists; I’m even less sure that God is a pacifist (as Marvin acknowledges and Miroslav Volf argues). But there are still passages in the Bible that show God in a pretty nasty light, even by “just war” standards.
Share this:
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Print (Opens in new window) Print
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
-
Why I won’t vote third party
Looks like Ron Paul, whom some of his supporters hoped would make a third-party run for president, is urging people who are sick of war, assaults on civil liberties, and, er, the Fed to vote for a third party–any third party!
I appreciate the arguments that the two major parties and their candidates are either too close in policy or fall unacceptably short on certain key issues. Indeed, I’ve made some myself (see the previous post, in fact). I personally find Obama’s backpedaling on FISA and his disinclination to challenge head-on the Bush/GOP paradigm for foreign policy the most troubling. It’s also clear to me that Obama just doesn’t share my views on, say, the scope of U.S. interventionism.
Nevertheless, I’m not going to vote third-party, even though I live in about the safest “state” in the Union. For one thing, none of the third-party candidates particularly appeal to me: Ralph Nader, much as I like him, seems to have passed his sell-by date; Bob Barr, the Libertarian, while staking out good positions in some areas, is still, after all, a Libertarian, and I’m not; Chuck Baldwin appears to be a bit of a far-right xenophobe; and Cynthia McKinney is, well, Cynthia McKinney.*
I think third-party advocates, while often correct in pointing out that the major parties are actually quite similar in significant areas (e.g. the “Washington consensus” on everything from foreign intervention to broadly neoliberal economic policies), often understate the dramatic difference that seemingly “minor” policy differences can make for people’s lives.
For instance, in the broad sweep of things, there may not be much difference philosophically between a neoconservative and a liberal internationalist, but it sure as shootin’ makes a difference whether or not we, say, go to war with Iran (for us and the Iranians). And means matter too; even if Obama and McCain both want to meddle excessively in the rest of the world, it matters a great deal which one is more likely to resort to military force to do it. And Obama is clearly the more dovish candidate. Just saying “They’re all interventionists!” papers over real differences with significant, real-world consequences. (And I haven’t even mentioned domestic policy, environmental policy, etc.)
At the end of the day, I’m just not neutral (or even particularly ambivalent or conflicted) in this election. I want Barack Obama to win, and I want John McCain (and, more broadly, the GOP) to lose. I feel like it would be dishonest for me to root so heartily for one side while trying to float above the fray.
—————————————————————-
*I would be interested in a viable Green Party (I voted Green in 2004), but the actually existing U.S. Green Party seems more like a dumping ground for every far-left pet cause under the sun than a party with a coherent philosophy and stance focusing on environmental issues, like European Greens tend to be.Share this:
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Print (Opens in new window) Print
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
-
On the radio: Greenwald and Yglesias
Very interesting discussion between Salon’s Glenn Greenwald and uber-blogger Matt Yglesias on the press’s coverage of the campaign.
But one of the most important points comes out toward the end where Greenwald and Yglesias both agree that the Obama campaign has, disappointingly, shifted gears since the primary, where Obama seemed to welcome a debate with the GOP on foreign policy first principles. Now the Dems are blurring the differences, as highlighted by the Russia/Georgia situation. Sarah Palin, being relatively untutored, stated in her ABC interview the plain implication of admitting Georgia and other nations from Russia’s “near abroad” into NATO: that we would be committing to going to war with Russia to defend those countries. This is plainly crazy and horrific, but Obama/Biden has essentially the same view. The difference is that they, being professional Washington pols, don’t come right out and say that this is the implication of admitting Georgia, et al. to NATO membership.
Greenwald further makes the important point that, in a supposed democracy, this kind of stuff should be laid out clearly so people can see the implications of the policies their leaders are proposing. As always, I fear that in trying to be a pale imitation of GOP bellicosity rather than staking out a genuinely different position, the Dems will get rolled.
Share this:
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Print (Opens in new window) Print
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
-
Bacevich on “Democracy Now!”
Starts at about 33 minutes into this stream (thanks, Elliot!).
To the extent that I still think of myself as a conservative, it’s in the Bacevich-Reinhold Niebuhr mold. Bacevich gets at what I take to be the heart of this conservatism in the interview: it’s the recognition that world exists prior to us and doesn’t conform to our ideas or wishes. Ironically, conservatives used to lambaste progressives for allegedly wanting to remake the world according to some abstract, utopian scheme. But contemporary U.S. conservatism seems to have embraced a similarly magical worldview (or what Matthew Yglesias has called the “Green Lantern” theory of politics) where sheer willpower is sufficient to make the world the way we want it to be.
Not coincidentally, Bacevich has just written the introduction for a new edition of Niebuhr’s The Irony of American History. Of course, Niebuhr was in many ways a man of the left, which leaves open the possibility that a broadly “conservative” worldview–one that emphasizes human sinfulness and finitude, unintended consequences, and the need for limits–might lead to what we would consider progressive policy prescriptions, something which I think has a lot of truth in it.
Share this:
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Print (Opens in new window) Print
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
-
The “empire of consumption” and Obamanomics
John Wiener interviews Andrew Bacevich on our “empire of consumption” and the limits of Obama:
But he’s not one of those radicals who argue there is no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. “I call myself an Obama-con, Bacevich says, “a conservative who will vote for Obama – because of the Iraq war. He has vowed that he will end the war and withdraw US combat forces. If he does that, it will render a verdict on the Iraq war: that it was a mistake and a failure. That verdict might open up the possibility for a debate about the fundamentals of US foreign policy. If McCain gets elected, the chances of us having that debate are close to zero.”
Interestingly for a self-identified conservative, Bacevich cites Jimmy Carter as the one president in living memory who really understood the predicament we face: an unsustainable way of life that drives our quest for military hegemony.
At the risk of being overly optimistic, though (not usually my problem), I have read some things recently that suggest that Obama may grasp the need for for a major shift in our economic life. This interesting piece on his economic philosophy, for instance, ends on this note:
Shortly after I boarded Obama’s campaign plane this month, one of his press aides warned me that the conversation might not last long. She explained that he was exhausted from two days of campaigning in Florida and might decide to nap as soon as he got on the plane. But a few minutes later he summoned me to the plane’s first-class section, evidently choosing an economics discussion over a DVD of “Mad Men,” which was sitting on his side table. His eyes were tired, and he looked a good deal older than he had only four years ago, on the night that he became famous at the 2004 Democratic convention. But we ended up talking for an hour. After I returned to my seat, the press aide walked back to tell me that Obama had more to say.
“Two things,” he said, as we were standing outside the first-class bathroom. “One, just because I think it really captures where I was going with the whole issue of balancing market sensibilities with moral sentiment. One of my favorite quotes is — you know that famous Robert F. Kennedy quote about the measure of our G.D.P.?”
I didn’t, I said.
“Well, I’ll send it to you, because it’s one of the most beautiful of his speeches,” Obama said.
In it, Kennedy argues that a country’s health can’t be measured simply by its economic output. That output, he said, “counts special locks for our doors and the jails for those who break them” but not “the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play.”
The second point Obama wanted to make was about sustainability. The current concerns about the state of the planet, he said, required something of a paradigm shift for economics. If we don’t make serious changes soon, probably in the next 10 or 15 years, we may find that it’s too late.
Both of these points, I realized later, were close cousins of two of the weaker arguments that liberals have made in recent decades. Liberals have at times dismissed the enormous benefits that come with prosperity. And for decades some liberals have been wrongly predicting that economic growth was sure to leave the world without enough food or enough oil or enough something. Obama acknowledged as much, saying that technology had thus far always overcome any concerns about sustainability and that Kennedy’s notion had to be tempered with an appreciation of prosperity.
What’s new about the current moment, however, is that both of these arguments are actually starting to look relevant. Based on the collective wisdom of scientists, global warming really does seem to be different from any previous environmental crisis. For the first time on record, meanwhile, economic growth has not translated into better living standards for most Americans. These are two enormous challenges that are part of the legacy of the Reagan Age. They will be waiting for the next president, whether he is Obama or McCain, and they’ll probably be around for another couple of presidents too.
Obama hit these themes pretty hard in his acceptance speech, but whether as president he would really be interested in using his clout to mobilize the country behind this kind of paradigm shift, and what that would look like, are, of course, big questions.
Share this:
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Print (Opens in new window) Print
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
-
Consumerism, simplicity, and sin
If Andrew Bacevich is right that our consumptive habits are the cause, not only of resource depletion and environmental degradation, but of our far-flung military adventurism, then the unpleasant conclusion seems to be that we need to start consuming less.
Here’s an article (via Book Forum) about, among other things, a professor in Western Pennsylvania (just down the road from where I went to college at a less prestigious state school) who’s urging people to do just that. And he doesn’t mean just greenwashing our consumerism with “eco-friendly” products. He ties it in to an actual downshifting toward a simpler lifestyle and making it possible for people to choose less work in exchange for more free time.
Having just re-read Reinhold Niebuhr’s Children of Light and Children of Darkness, I’m feeling a bit pessimistic about our ability to tame our appetites. Niebuhr points out that, unlike non-human animals, our appetites are virtually unlimited because of our ability to transcend our immediate experience. We don’t just want to be physically sated; we want prestige, power, and in some cases to dominate others. Niebuhr argues that it’s precisely because of our “spiritual” nature that we’re capable of great evil.
The task of politics, Niebuhr thinks, is not to remake human nature, but to channel our self-aggrandizing impulses into socially beneficial directions. It may be that hard realities–energy and food prices, climate change, resource wars–will force us to change our behavior in ways that idealism alone can’t.
At the same time, Niebuhr, who was so right on original sin, tended to give short shrift to redemption. The New Testament, by contrast, portrays a community of people who have been empowered to live differently–not grasping at worldly prestige and security because their worth and being are “hid with Christ.” Can our churches become communities like that? Places where people are fed with the bread of life and so don’t need to fill themselves with the world’s junk food?
Share this:
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Print (Opens in new window) Print
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
-
Bacevich on Moyers
Via Andrew Sullivan, here’s a great interview on Bill Moyers’ Journal with Andrew Bacevich on our foreign policy and what is, in his view, its underlying cause: our demand for an undending, fossil-fuel-dependent supply of consumer goods and our inability to practice self-restraint.
Bacevich’s new book, The Limits of Power, looks like a worthy sequel to his The New American Militarism.
Share this:
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Print (Opens in new window) Print
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
-
“Creeping militarization”
Tom Engelhardt offers some evidence.
Share this:
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Print (Opens in new window) Print
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky