Frank's Musings

EU Trade Rift

The European Union leaders’ summit in Brussels has exposed the continent’s division between predominantly industrial market-oriented economies led by Britain and largely agricultural economies headed by France. Reconciliation of the two types of political systems will have to be achieved if the EU hopes to act as a single force in world affairs, including the Doha Trade Talks Round.

The U.S. contended with a similar rivalry between its component states in the early 19th Century, resolution of which only resulted from a brutal Civil War. The subsidies that overburden the budget of the EU and embitter less developed nations had their counterpart in southern America’s institution of slavery.

Armed force, of course, will not be used to resist a break in Europe’s progress towards closer integration. However, satisfying certain states’ compulsion for international fairness will not be allowed to come at the expense of balancing the domestic interests of the continent’s protectionist states. Whether or not a compromise of these competing goals can be found will indicate the future for a unified Europe.

Don’t Believe that Neocon Idealists Were Hoodwinked

One has to distinguish between cynical manipulators of world events and neoconservative idealists who really believe that liberal democracy is the end of history. Neocons certainly took advantage of the events of September 11, 2001 to pursue their dream of political reform in the Middle East by promoting the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The election brokers behind the Bush Administration were quick to make neocon arguments central to their strategy for retaining executive power in Washington.

The democracy idealized by the neoconservative true believers became shorthand in the language of Bush’s political operatives for a system of government in which powerful interest groups manage the agenda. After all, it is their resources that have come to dominate election outcomes and resulting policies.

Do neoconservative theorists willingly allow their ideas to be co-opted by power brokers, or have they been fooled into justifying wrongful policies like the invasion of Iraq? Does the neocons’ hope of achieving a utopian objective mask the undesirable methods their manipulators use to maintain control? Do they dismiss international aggression as collateral damage that cannot be avoided? Or do neoconservatives think of themselves as realists who cannot envision remaking the world without state-sponsored violence?

Clumsy Stem Cell Analogy

Analogizing the destruction of embryonic stem cells for the purpose of medical therapy with the use of Jewish concentration camp prisoners for medical experimentation because both were intended for ultimate elimination anyway is a clumsy comparison. Can one really not distinguish a blastocyst from a conscious human being?

Was Iraq an Outlaw Regime?

Has the Iraq war contributed to the fight of civilization against outlaw regimes that support and harbor terrorists? That is the justification one might glean from President Bush’s address on 6 October 2005. The Saddam regime was an outlaw for invading Iran and Kuwait, practicing genocide, and ignoring U.N. WMD inspection mandates. It was an outlaw for aiding and abetting Hezbollah in its terrorist resistance to the occupation of Palestine by Israel. But, you must identify Hezbollah with Islamic radical groups such as Al Qaeda, because of their common use of terrorism as a tactic, in order to label the Saddam regime as a supporter of Islamic radicals.

Islamic radicals have targeted liberal democrats around the world enemies of their salvation. Organizations such as Hezbollah have targeted political goals – defeating the state of Israel’s suppression of the Palestinian political aspirations. They both use terrorism as their major tactic. Islamic radicals have even used sympathy with resistance to Israel as an argument to win Arab support. However, it is important to distinguish between these two movements. One is a violent political liberation action group. The other is a violent network of nihilist, transcendent and anarchist cells.

Terrorism has been used by hopelessly suppressed populations to overturn their rulers since time immemorial. The U.S. has become the object of political terrorism because of its intervention in Iraq. Defeating those terrorists in Iraq will do nothing to end Islamic radicalism. Moreover, it will do nothing to end the use of terrorism for political ends, such as Palestinian resistance to Israel. The latter has to be resolved on its own terms, in cooperation with the acknowledged leaders of Palestine. It will only be an accident if the U.S. invasion of Iraq results in the establishment of a Western-style participatory government there that permits a face-saving withdrawal of occupation forces. Should that happen, political terrorism in Iraq will disappear. All the same, the U.S. and its allies will continue to have a long battle ahead of them against radical Islam.

Religion and the Supreme Court

The selection of a Justice based on personal friendship with the President was anticipated by our founding fathers and a remedy was built into the Constitution. Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers #76 that congressional confirmation was needed for the purpose of preventing this cronyism.

Although pundits and analysts have long observed the denominations of Court members, these have not been considered a determinant of any opinions. Moreover, prejudgment of issues expected to come before the Court is considered off limits in confirmation hearings.

It is not clear that President Bush went as far as Dr. Dobson, the evangelical Christian leader, in soliciting support for the Supreme Court appointment of Ms. Harriet Miers by appealing to other members of her faith. Nevertheless, it is incumbent on the Senate Judiciary Committee to question her closely regarding her reliance on religious beliefs as a guide for interpreting the Constitution.

Debra Burlingame and the Freedom Center

Why does Ms. Burlingame, as reported by Tunku Varadarajan in the 1 -2 October 2005 Wall Street Journal, label the International Freedom Center a “liberal” response to September 11? The Freedom Center’s management and proponents may have included moderate Republicans and Democrats. What could one expect in New York? She correctly excoriates their distortion of the meaning of the Ground Zero site into a symbol of political liberty. In doing so, they have only fallen prey to persuasion by the Bush Administration in its attempt to use the September 11 tragedy to solidify its control of Washington.

The Bush Administration was masterful in laying guilt for the tragedy of September 11 on opponents to “Freedom.” It garnered easy identification with the ideals of the voting public, valuable for election victories in the next few years. This strategy diverted attention from the real cause of that and other terrorist attacks – Islamic radicalism. The Bush team preferred to have suppressors of freedom as its enemy. Singling out radical Islamists comes too close to other religious extremists, including Christian fundamentalists who make up Bush’s largest constituency.

A more fitting and relevant theme for a museum at the WTC site would be rationalism rather than freedom. This is a more difficult and intellectually demanding argument to make. Violence and destruction have been brought on us by religious zealotry throughout history. It is the true political lesson to be learned at the WTC site. Not surprisingly, no politician, liberal or conservative, will ever have the courage or patience to champion that message.