27 August 2005
Whose Quiet Majority?
In his commentary on the Wall Street Journal editorial page, dated 26 August, 2005, Daniel Henninger confused opposition to the U.S. war in Iraq with failure to support our soldiers there. This has been a deliberate tactic used by the Bush Administration to portray war dissenters as unpatriotic ingrates.
Members of the volunteer military, the Reserves and the National Guard have enlisted out of their commitment to defending the country’s security, not in order to make it possible for the leaders of our government to upset world security. When their service transforms them into victims of leaders with whose policy they and their loved ones disagree, their dissent is more poignant, not dishonorable. A quiet majority of Americans may be reluctant to challenge its characterization by the political machine behind Bush as a group of cowardly anti-imperialists. It’s in the interest of that machine to keep that majority quiet – the machine can then insinuate false thoughts of shame into the majority’s mind.
In his commentary on the Wall Street Journal editorial page, dated 26 August, 2005, Daniel Henninger confused opposition to the U.S. war in Iraq with failure to support our soldiers there. This has been a deliberate tactic used by the Bush Administration to portray war dissenters as unpatriotic ingrates.
Members of the volunteer military, the Reserves and the National Guard have enlisted out of their commitment to defending the country’s security, not in order to make it possible for the leaders of our government to upset world security. When their service transforms them into victims of leaders with whose policy they and their loved ones disagree, their dissent is more poignant, not dishonorable. A quiet majority of Americans may be reluctant to challenge its characterization by the political machine behind Bush as a group of cowardly anti-imperialists. It’s in the interest of that machine to keep that majority quiet – the machine can then insinuate false thoughts of shame into the majority’s mind.
21 August 2005
Arab World’s Need for Intervention
Michael Young’s OpEd essay in the 19 August 2005 Wall Street Journal makes the point that thinking people in the Arab Middle East should admit their region’s dependence on the intervention of hubristic Western governments for correction of their tendency to bow to dictators. It exposes his French education’s bias in favor of the democratic form of participatory rule, and perhaps it accurately gauges the goals of Arab “intellectuals.”
Young could be an effective shill for Washington’s neocons with “intellectuals” in the U.S., too. As long as America’s taxpayers and, more importantly, its volunteer military are willing to absorb the sacrifice and heartbreak of pursuing a “neocolonialist” foreign policy, this and subsequent administrations will have the freedom to impose a Western concept of order on other cultures, like the Islamic Middle East.
It is presumptuous of Western liberals to act on the basis that liberal democracy is the answer to all of humanity’s problems. Westernized “intellectuals” in the Arab Middle East, indeed, could have done nothing better to advance their agenda than to accept U.S. intervention in Iraq to foster change in the region. But just as Communism won’t be the solution to the striving of the Chinese people for greater control of their personal welfare, liberal democracy has not shown itself to be one successful way to pursue liberty from oppressive government in the World of Islam.
Michael Young’s OpEd essay in the 19 August 2005 Wall Street Journal makes the point that thinking people in the Arab Middle East should admit their region’s dependence on the intervention of hubristic Western governments for correction of their tendency to bow to dictators. It exposes his French education’s bias in favor of the democratic form of participatory rule, and perhaps it accurately gauges the goals of Arab “intellectuals.”
Young could be an effective shill for Washington’s neocons with “intellectuals” in the U.S., too. As long as America’s taxpayers and, more importantly, its volunteer military are willing to absorb the sacrifice and heartbreak of pursuing a “neocolonialist” foreign policy, this and subsequent administrations will have the freedom to impose a Western concept of order on other cultures, like the Islamic Middle East.
It is presumptuous of Western liberals to act on the basis that liberal democracy is the answer to all of humanity’s problems. Westernized “intellectuals” in the Arab Middle East, indeed, could have done nothing better to advance their agenda than to accept U.S. intervention in Iraq to foster change in the region. But just as Communism won’t be the solution to the striving of the Chinese people for greater control of their personal welfare, liberal democracy has not shown itself to be one successful way to pursue liberty from oppressive government in the World of Islam.
16 August 2005
Ignorant Arrogance – An Iraqi Constitution
Hey! It works for us; why not for everyone? That appears to be the Bush administration’s philosophy in Iraq. Maureen Dowd pointed this out about the ignorance of Islam by Bush’s advisors for Middle East policy in her OpEd piece in the August 13, 2005 New York Times. And now the drafters of a new Iraqi constitution are under pressure from the occupying Americans to complete a document that is to be subjected to referendum this October. As Al Franken suggested on August 16, 2005, why don’t they just adopt the U.S. Constitution?
How can we assume that a written outline of rights and rules of behavior will satisfy the longing of a diverse and long-repressed population for a way to assure its general welfare? What signal is there in the culture of the region that orderly government will ensue from the writing of a document by an elected group of representatives? That procedure may be required in order to reassure an “enlightened” society like the U.S. that the government it leaves behind after its intervention will act according to its expectations. However, where is the basis in history for believing that a constitution created by mortals will be the foundation of stable order in the Islamic Middle East?
Imposing Western-style rule of law in Iraq will require great political and budgetary cost. It will certainly cause a domino effect throughout the “Greater Middle East;” but it won’t be the one the neo-cons predicted. It could end whatever United States influence remains in other Arab nations.
Hey! It works for us; why not for everyone? That appears to be the Bush administration’s philosophy in Iraq. Maureen Dowd pointed this out about the ignorance of Islam by Bush’s advisors for Middle East policy in her OpEd piece in the August 13, 2005 New York Times. And now the drafters of a new Iraqi constitution are under pressure from the occupying Americans to complete a document that is to be subjected to referendum this October. As Al Franken suggested on August 16, 2005, why don’t they just adopt the U.S. Constitution?
How can we assume that a written outline of rights and rules of behavior will satisfy the longing of a diverse and long-repressed population for a way to assure its general welfare? What signal is there in the culture of the region that orderly government will ensue from the writing of a document by an elected group of representatives? That procedure may be required in order to reassure an “enlightened” society like the U.S. that the government it leaves behind after its intervention will act according to its expectations. However, where is the basis in history for believing that a constitution created by mortals will be the foundation of stable order in the Islamic Middle East?
Imposing Western-style rule of law in Iraq will require great political and budgetary cost. It will certainly cause a domino effect throughout the “Greater Middle East;” but it won’t be the one the neo-cons predicted. It could end whatever United States influence remains in other Arab nations.
04 August 2005
Mercantilist Municipalities Use Eminent Domain
The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision sanctioning the use of eminent domain by municipalities for economic development seems to resurrect mercantilism as a legitimate government strategy. Democratic republican systems have long made it one of their central goals to facilitate entrepreneurship by individuals and corporations, but not to the exclusion of the personal pursuit of liberty and happiness.
Now, our constitution has been interpreted to mean that special interests in control of local governments have the right to use those institutions to promote a financial return on investment by real estate and commercial developers. It was once thought to be the preeminent right of the sovereign, under the principles of mercantilism, to manipulate the economic tools of government, like the exchange rate and customs regulations, in ways that would increase the wealth in its treasury. When sovereignty became the possession of the republic, it became the objective of eminent domain to raise the welfare of the republic’s citizens.
The Supreme Court has apparently declared that the special interests in control of local governments have the right to use eminent domain to improve the effectiveness of that control for achieving private economic goals at the expense of the public’s general welfare. Special interests have increased their ability to use their resources to manipulate government authority.
The historic transformation of government from sovereign monarchies to sovereign republics is being hijacked by the power of special economic interests. The Supreme Court has become their spokesman. If we are to protect that transformation, the use of eminent domain must be reserved directly to the public, and not to its influence-prone government.
The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision sanctioning the use of eminent domain by municipalities for economic development seems to resurrect mercantilism as a legitimate government strategy. Democratic republican systems have long made it one of their central goals to facilitate entrepreneurship by individuals and corporations, but not to the exclusion of the personal pursuit of liberty and happiness.
Now, our constitution has been interpreted to mean that special interests in control of local governments have the right to use those institutions to promote a financial return on investment by real estate and commercial developers. It was once thought to be the preeminent right of the sovereign, under the principles of mercantilism, to manipulate the economic tools of government, like the exchange rate and customs regulations, in ways that would increase the wealth in its treasury. When sovereignty became the possession of the republic, it became the objective of eminent domain to raise the welfare of the republic’s citizens.
The Supreme Court has apparently declared that the special interests in control of local governments have the right to use eminent domain to improve the effectiveness of that control for achieving private economic goals at the expense of the public’s general welfare. Special interests have increased their ability to use their resources to manipulate government authority.
The historic transformation of government from sovereign monarchies to sovereign republics is being hijacked by the power of special economic interests. The Supreme Court has become their spokesman. If we are to protect that transformation, the use of eminent domain must be reserved directly to the public, and not to its influence-prone government.
