Greg R. Lawson's
Blog
Greg R. Lawson
I was born May 23, 1978 in Hays, Kansas. I guess you could say I was destined to be involved in politics. My first house was on Eisenhower Dr. and I went to school at Roosevelt Elementary. Also, Hays is a mere 20 miles from the hometown of Sens. Bob Dole and Arlen Specter. While Kansas will always be near and dear to my heart, 22 years of living in the Columbus area has made me bleed Scarlett and Grey! I graduated from Worthington Kilbourne High School in 1996 and then proceeded to go to THE Ohio State University and graduated in 2000. It was at this point that my interest in politics began. After watching the early Republican debates I began to pay increasing attention to the issues, especially foreign policy. After graduation I worked at the Ohio Statehouse for a year and then represented home health agencies with the Ohio General Assembly. In 2005 I became a Legislative Liaison for the Ohio Department of Commerce. I currently work for a public relations firm based in Westerville, Ohio called TRIAD Inc. Of course I worked hard in politics at the local and statewide level. My first door to door came knocking for County Commissioner Dewey Stokes and over the years I was the Franklin County Volunteer Coordinator for Bush-Cheney '04 and the assistant to Ken Blackwell's running mate, State Representative Tom Raga, in the 2006 Ohio Governor's race. In 2003 I met my wife Jennette at a St. Patrick's Day celebration in Dublin, Ohio. On June 19, 2004 we married at the Little Turtle Country Club in Westerville. We are the proud parent of Rudy (the Shi Tzu- her baby) and Caesar (the Beagle, my boy)!
Technorati ProfileFresh bloggy goodness from the State of Ohio Blog Alliance:
Syndicate
Greg R. Lawson's Blog
The Collapse of Classical Education
A tremendous article by Victor Davis Hanson that laments the amazing decline of the university. Essentially, classical study is now eclipsed by faddish, postmodernism. It embraces a "therapeutic" way of looking at the world rather than the appropriate lens of tragedy.
Below I pulled several key sections, but one should really read this full article to gain an appreciation for it. In many ways it is like Allan Bloom's Closing of the American Mind (though obviously much shorter and much less detailed). I would hope the warning signs are heeded.
"The decline of a classical core in the university also meant that the tragic view was eclipsed by the therapeutic."
"in the new therapeutic mindset, human nature is not, as Thucydides insisted, fixed, but capable of being altered and “improved” in the university by the requisite money, learning, and proper attitude: early death, personal setback, and social unfairness are not innate to the human condition and sometimes to be borne over the generations with courage in the manner of Oedipus or Antigone, but are rather the result of those with power whose necessary dethronement might guarantee a life without such tragedies. Peace and conflict resolution theory classes, not Thucydides and Herodotus, can teach us more about war, since an improved human nature understands that conflict is not caused by evil intent, honor, pride, or fear, and so checked by vigilance, preparedness, and deterrence. Instead the cause of war is the absence of proper counseling, or of money and empathy that might have otherwise prevented genuine miscommunications and misunderstandings between like parties with similar desires for peace. Xerxes, Pericles, Epaminondas, Agesilaos, Alexander — none of these leaders who went to war quite knew what he was doing, and might have prevented the deaths of thousands had he talked with, rather than over, his adversaries."
"The triumph of the therapeutic and the eclipse of the tragic ensured that students’ expectations soared even as their intellectual and mental abilities to handle inevitable setbacks eroded. The result was a weird marriage in both today’s student and professor of arrogance and ignorance — assurance that bad things either won’t happen or can be easily addressed by identifying the right -ism or -ology, but utter confusion when that never seems quite to be the case."
"In conclusion, we can assess the value of classical learning in the life of the university by illustrating how non-Hellenic are the contemporary university agendas of popular culture, therapy, political correctness, and vocationalism. The Greeks remind us that there are rules to acquiring knowledge not found on the street, that the world is not always a happy place, and that we must prepare for a Hobbesian life that is sometimes solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short, that our allegiance must be to truth, not to the prevailing politics and fads of the days, and that if we can read, write, and think well, we can do anything — and if not, nothing really at all."
"We, in contrast, have lost all sense of proportion and simply use the self-absorbed yardstick of our own times versus all others. Thus Iraq — not the summer of 1864 or December 1950 — is the worst (fill in the blanks) war, blunder, or quagmire in our history or of all time. A flippant campus slur is the most sexist thing ever heard, as if the frontier woman on the Colorado plains without electricity and with eleven sick children never had it as rough. Wounded Knee is tantamount to Okinawa, the loyalty oaths of the 1950s commensurate to the Inquisition. And why not, when the purpose of education now is not to train young minds in a method of disinterested inquiry supported by historical exempla, but to condition them to think in preordained, deductive fashion — in other words, as Sophists rather than Socratics?"
More On Proliferation
Over 40 countries looking at nuclear programs? That is what this article says. Granted, many of these programs may well only be used for their purported purposes of energy as opposed to weaponization. The problem is, which ones will look to divert some plutonium or uranium to less postive purposes.
The non-proliferation regime is dead, some just keep thinking it can be revived...
Keep America Open
An op-ed that ran in the Wall Street Journal drafted by California Governor Arnold Swarzenegger and US Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez. Its pro free trade and I think does an excellent job showcasing the academic (and accurate) positive implications of free trade. The unfortunate thing, however, as I and many have commented before, is that free trade overall is good, but when it harms individuals, it does so in an acute and very painful way.
Americans are sort of aware that they can buy quality goods for cheaper now than at any other time in history. However, when a job is outsourced, it hurts a family directly. The benefits of free trade are hazy, present, but not intense and understandable only when explained in detail. The pain of globalization requires no complex explanations and is intense. The long-term challenges to the global economic system are sure to be serious.
Ironically, if free trade continues to get bogged down, the long term implications won't be positive. Imagine, American manufacturers just closing down due to lack of competiveness. Think of continued inflation of the costs of goods. Then extrapolate to imagine political instability in growing giants like China and India. What unforseen problems will emerge if their economies stop growing and seams that are currently being papered over because of higher living standards blow apart?
We are all wrapped in a web we cannot just disentangle ourselves from. This is good, bad, and ugly, but it is also reality.
Israel 60 Years Later
A good opinion piece from William Kristol on Israel at 60 years. Kristol juxtaposes the 60th birthday of the modern Israel with the event that made that possible- the advent of Adolf Hitler to power. Ironically while Israel celebrates its 60th anniversay, Germany seems to not look too much towards the 75th anniversay of the rise of the Nazis to power in the beleagured Weimar Republic.
Kristol notes the ruminations of Iran's President who calls Israel a "stinking corpse.' Given that Israel is facing supreme challenges in its neigborhood and a homegrown political crisis involving its apparently "challenged" Prime Minister (Ehud Olmert who is in the midst of a bribery scandal), what a time to look at the importance of Israel.
Americans should admire Israel and combat both the overt and latent anti-semitism that still exists in the world. I am constantly struck by the animosity that still exists towards Israel and towards Jewish people by and large. History should not repeat itself. If it does, then it is a pox on our morality.
Another great piece from former CIA Director James Woolsey on the contribution of Judaism to the western world. He makes a fascinating point that the rule of law is derived from Judaism and that this is why western leaders are held accountable (ie, Nixon, Clinton in America) as opposed to allowed unfettered power (ie, Roman emperors and Napoleons).
I think he is on to something here. How important the rule of law is, though even it has its troubles.
On Chinese Nationalism
In the runnup before this year's Olympic Games in Beijing, many effeorts are being undertaken to explain the different "nationalisms" China is displaying. This article is useful in contextualizing China's various nationalisms, both those with xenophobic the cosmopolitan, globalized variant.
Which face shows up most prominently during the Games will have a major impact on the rest of the world's view of the rising Giant of the East. These games represent a real history making moment and could well set the terms of debate for the next quarter century or more of international relations.
Medvedev Sworn In
Now that Vladimir Putin will become Prime Minister after the swearing in today of Dmitry Medvedev as the new President, we will wait to see what happens. This article shows how Putin seems to have consolidated real political power in the Prime Minister's office.
The Devils and the Details
Pretty informative article in the Washington Post regarding when and how to sit down and talk to nasty regimes. It is fairly even handed and does make a legitimate case that you can negotiate with odious regimes with the right mix of incentives and disincentives.
The author used to be the president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Robert Kagan's New Book
I have already linked to several stories by Robert Kagan, an advisor to John McCain, and his new thesis regarding the rise of tensions between the liberal democracies and the resurgent authoritarians (China and Russia most prominently). Here are several items on the book , The Return of History and the End of Dreams, he is soon releasing that goes into more detail on this. Kagan is, in my opinion the most effective "neoconservative" writer out there. I may not always agree with him as his theses tend to be somewhat simplified and the real world will require more complex policymaking than is often suggested by him.
However, he does an important service by creating legitimately debateable frameworks that are provocative and do have substantial elements of truth. In a nutshell, he is more right than wrong. One can debate the fine points (of which there is a multitude), but he seems to point in a direction and that is what is most important when trying to organize our approaches to the world.
Here and here are two reviews that are not all that all that friendly, though not brutal either. The second, however, is the most interesting given that it is expansive in its critique not so much of the new book by itself but the entire process by which political theorists have been trying to impose an understandable order on the world ever since the Berlin Wall fell. To some extent, that's what I have been doing, but I know full well that we don't really know where its all heading.
Here's a good quote:
"If there was a the unipolar moment it has passed. The US will most likely remain the pre-eminent global power for some time yet, but it is already an insufficient one. The multilateral system designed in the middle of the last century no longer fits geopolitical realities. New powers might be accommodated in a reformed system or they might choose to shun it.
Likewise multipolarity could foreshadow a new era of great power competition that might well have seemed familiar to the politicians of 18th century Europe. But the nature of interstate war changed irrevocably with the splitting of the atom.
Most importantly, nothing is pre-ordained. The shape of the (dis)order that eventually emerges from these tumultuous changes will be determined by the decisions and choices of statesmen and women, peoples and governments. As for history, well, it never went away."
As I said in a previous post, no matter how momentarily accurate they may depict events, all theories are truly paradigms in the dark because they can only illuminate for a time... Yet we must try to understand and try to make sense, lest how can anyone attempt to make policy?
Finally, here is an interview Kagan did with Newsweek.
Rearming the World
Great little piece from the Boston Globe that looks at the possibility of a reignited worldwide arms race and the prospects of a "Great Power" War. Combine this with an age of WMD proliferation and one can sense the tumult that is coming. As I said in an earlier post, truly a "New World Disorder."
What is the West?
A useful philosophical exercise in asking what does it mean to be "Western." Given that we all use that word rather casually, it is important to grasp its essence. This author concludes its more of a mindset as opposed to a geographical concept. That it is the need for "creative destruction" and the critiquing capacity the West has shown that defines itself. This is in contrast to other, "non-westerners" who are more tradition bound.
I think this is a good debate. I do not necessarily have the same feelings on this subject as the author, however, if we are to defend "our" values, we must understand what those values really are. Too often "values" is used as an amorphous word that can mean anything to anyone, but there must be an underlying unity, otherwise, would not the whole idea of the "West" have become antiquated generations ago?
Russian Demographic Decline
Good follow up to below piece on Russia. CIA Director Hayden outlines the challenges associated with Russian demograhpic decline. Potentially an ugly picture where resurgent nationalism could be quite the problem.
Israel-Syria Detente?
This piece seems to show that Turkey is playing a significant role as an intermediary (and may help the Turks play a larger regional role). Additionally, there is a lot of chatter on Middle Eastern news sites about the prosepcts of Israeli disengagement from the Golan Heights and its return to Syria (which lost it during the 1967 Six-Day Warand was the site of Syrian offensives during the 1973 Yom Kippur War).
This could dramatically change the Middle East geopolitical map. If Syria and Israel remain at "peace", Hamas will lose a small scale sponsor, Iran will lose an ally (though one of convenience), and America will lose leverage over Syria since it can't rely on coercion from Israel.
Some now speculate that the American release of info regarding North Korea's assistance with a Syrian nuclear reactor (that Israel destroyed last year) may be an effort to forestall peace initiatives as much as it is to put pressure on North Korea. President Bush is denying this and reiterating that the disclosure is meant to be directed at the North Koreans and the Iranians. We'll see.
On American Exceptionalism
This book would appear as if it will be quite the tour du force. Understanding America's perception of itself is not only important for those outside America, but, even more importantly, for those within who all too often have lost the appropriate historical context with which to understand the good, the bad, and the ugly of the American experience.
Too much jingoism can be a danger, too much self loathing is even worse.
Fukuyama on China's "Weakness"
Coming from a different angle than the piece posted below, Francis Fukuyama indicates that while crushing Tibetan dissent may be the purview of a central government, much of China's challenges comes from the central authority's weakness. Namely, that much "tyranny" in China is actuall localized tyranny by local elites as opposed to the technocratic elite in Beijing. In fact, Fukuyama asserts Beijing is "riding a tiger" because it requires blazing economic growth that comes from sometimes brutal local kleptocracies. Consequently, even as it desires to stamp out corruption, its need for the very growth the kleptocrats offer ties its hands.
Fukuyama actually asserts that "State weakness can hurt the cause of liberty. The Polish and Hungarian aristocracies were able to impose their equivalents of the Magna Carta on their monarchs; those countries' central governments, unlike their English counterpart, remained far too weak in subsequent generations to protect the peasantry from the local lords, not to speak of protecting their countries as a whole from outside invasion."
This is seems to be quite an illuminating was to consider China's internal needs. If one considers that the European arrival (followed by the Imperial Japanese) in China led to, in many a Chinese mind, to a century of humiliation, a strong state would be necessary to avoid both the tyrannies of myopic local elites and their petty depredations as well as scavenging "outsiders."
China intensifies war against splittism
While we are all concerned and excited by the prospective rise of China, they do have problems. This article outlines a big one, the threat of "splittism." This could, in the mind of their leadership, lead to multiple provinces and geographic areas seeking to break away from China. Indeed, this is a palpable fear they have and explains their authoritarian tendencies while also showing them to be ardent supporters of the Westphalian state system at the same time the "West" is moving towards eroding such state sovereignity through "humanitarian interventionism."
This is not a triffling difference, but a major one as it highlights two opposed conceptual frameworks. By the way, Russia has similar concerns. These are driving forces behind their authoritarianism, but since so many countries are stuck with similar concerns, their responses to these "internal threats" makes a lot of sense.
Its not too easy to say they are fully wrong. A breaking apart of territory often leads to more war and violence than the methods employed to avoid the break up. So, the dichotomy seen by these nations is stability vs. freedom and centralized authority vs. democratic ideals which is often perceived as chaos. This bears monitoring...
Russian Presidential Change and Demographic Challenges
There will soon be a change in Russia. President Putin will be stepping down on May 7 and replaced by Dmitry Medvedev. However, Putin will now become the Prime Minister. So now we will have to observe along with the new "Kremlinologists" where power resides. Will Medvedev and Putin really share? Will Medvedev seek to strike out on his own? Will Putin still pull all important strings? I suspect its closer to the latter, but would not be surprised to see Medvedev be less pliable than initially thought. At any rate, Russia is in for an interesting time.
Meanwhile, it appears pro-natal policies by Russia is resulting in a dramatic increase in births. This is important given Russia's demograqphic decline over the last decade. However, as this article notes, the pro birth trend appears to be limited and will not eliminate an overall downward trajectory for the population. This raises an intriguing question about Russia's long-term power. With China continuing to grow to the East (thought they too have future demographic challenges that cannot be ignored), can Russia defend its eastern front? Of course, they won't be invaded by a militant China, but they could be overwhelmed by immigration and the need for labor in resource rich areas. This could change their complexion as much, and probably, far more than any immigration to the United States.
Present at the Destruction- the Growing New World Disorder
Harry Truman's Secretary of State, Dean Acheson's autobiography was entitled "Present at the Creation." This was an appropriate title as he was indeed one of the architects of the post World War II international order. That order survived many challenges, most obviously the Cold War and its offshoots such as the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Arms Race. After the end of the Soviet Union, it seemed that some modifications to this order could perpetuate it for as long into the future as imaginable. This was really the crux of George Bush Sr.'s "New World Order", Francis Fukuyama's "End of History", and even Bill Clinton's "Bridge to the 21st Century." Those post World War II institutions were anachronistic, but only slightly so. It was perceived that they could be preserved and indeed enhanced under strong American leadership. This now seems to clearly not be the situation we are seeing.
As so many articles I have been posting lately illustrate, things are changing rapidly and negatively. It seems we are witnesses to a truly historical time. To be blunt, we are seeing the end of the post World War II consensus and the rise of what could be considered a "New World Disorder." The entire framework for international relations is fraying from top to bottom as power diffuses and threats metastasize.
All of the post World War II institutions are struggling:
the UN seems chronically unable to reform itself into anything more than a talking shop that occassionally can offer peacekeepers and perform some health care services, but cannot address the biggest issues of the day because of institutional malaise, corruption, and great power rivalry;
the "Third World" is battling with fervent intensity the strictures of the IMF and the World Bank, the two titans of Bretton Woods;
NATO is expanding to the point where it no longer is able to really define its mission and can't even adequately address a serious problem of resurgent Taliban activity in Afghanistan (its President was nearly assassinated just yesterday);
Amidst these fraying institutions, America is more unpopular than at any time in recent history. A seemingly legitimate alternative to the "West" is being articulated by powers such as China and Russia, and the Europeans are ever more insular as they try to finally achieve the promise of the European Union.
Beyond this, other signs of instability are rampant. Oil demand is soon to begin outstripping supply, not because we are "out of oil" but because the oil producing nations are not investing in adequate infrastructure at the same time as global demand is raised immensely due to China and India's economic growth. Conflict over resources is very possible because we do not yet have a legitimate alternative to oil that can be implemented on the scale necessary to move us to a post-petroleum order.
Transnational entities from al-Qaeda to Greenpeace to McDonald's are eroding state sovereignity as the powerful and elite in different nations have more in common with each other than their fellow countrymen. Yet, at the same time, backlash against globalization threatens to imbue the politics of isolationism with new urgency that may be impossible to avoid.
What this all appears to add up to is the return of global multipolarity, if not nonpolarity (as Richard Haas argues- see below). Order is dissolving. Yes, there are countless rules relative to international commerce that tie us all together through the WTO, but the latest round of trade talks (Doha Round) are dead. The new wave of economic treaties are all bilateral, which by definition cannot be institutional. What will this mean over time? Trade wars? We are already seeing the beginning of that in our relations with China. So even when we embrace some something resembling "order" it is more illusory than we care to admit.
More worrisome than all mentioned up to this point, is what Charles Krauthammer argues (see below), namely that the non proliferation regime is dead. North Korea put it on life support and Iran is driving the final daggar in its heart. What will the "post non-proliferation" era look like? How safe will the world be when 25-30 states have nuclear weapons? What about chemical and biological weapons? If the nuclear non-proliferation regime dies, how long before other vastly destructive weapons also proliferate en masse?
If you really think about it, it seems all indicators are pointing down, think of the phrases being bandied about trying to describe this new shape to global politics: "nonpolarity", "post nonproliferation era", "the post American era." None of that sounds positive, they all seem to have the common denominator of implicitly recognizing a chaotic situation emerging. Indeed, chaos is becoming more the norm than at any other time in the last 60 years, ironically, since the end of World War II.
A new era beckons and we are all present for it, whatever it is. We are Present at the Destruction of the old order and, perhaps, also at the Creation of a new one. At least let us hope for a new one. The world has historically survived the rise and fall of empires like Rome and the various Dynasties of China. But never before has there been such destructive capacity available amidst the ruins of such previous orders. That this is now so seems to mandate the necessity of stability. More than in previous epochs, we can't go through a period of anarchy and expect the outcome to be innocuous. The stakes are much too high.
Liberalism Begets Illiberalism
A provocative article whose thesis is that our domestic Liberalism (not the left wing, political variety) inevitably leads to Illiberal actions abroad. Essentially, this is because our belief in democracy and "Democratic Peace Theory" (see Immanuel Kant's "Perpetual Peace") forces us to change those nations that are not sufficiently similar to us. Paradoxically, this leads us to employ overwrought actions abroad in an effort to accomplish what is our perception of the "Good."
The author succinctly states that what we actually need is "Lockeanism at home and Machiavellianism abroad." This would be a reflection and an appreciation for the differences in the world. In this, he is not a left wing liberal who believes in pacifism, but a hard headed Realist that is willing to do what is necessary to preserve his country.
While the call to Realism is not especially unique in these post- Iraq days, the notion that it is our inherent Liberal tendencies that lead us this way is less common and is certainly worth contemplation.
Sadness of Jimmy Carter
Great piece from French intellectual Bernard-Henry Levy. He laments former President Carter's loss of touch with morality on his tour of Syria and discussions with Hamas. I agree whole heartedly. I don't doubt Carter's sincerity regarding peace in the Middle East. But as he proved when President (with the exception of the Camp David Accords), his complete naivity of the brutal realities in the world, makes him susceptible to empty moralizing that sounds wonderful, but is easily exploited by the ruthless and the unyielding. His trip was a disgrace and his anti-Israel line is also troubling.
Israel is far from perfect and has committed numerous acts that are very harsh. However, it is easy for intellectuals to be critical when they are not the ones being targeted for annihilation. Compared to how a Russia, a China, and probably even America would handle a similar situation, Israel has been restrained in its response to terrorism for years. The media amps every mistake and the international community criticizes them at every turn (much like President Carter), yet I don't see the Israelis committing suicide bombings.
I know all the theorizing about how such acts are born out of "desperation" and are embraced by the "weak" when confronting the jack booted evil of Zionist expansion, but at the end of the day, these acts are explicitly targeting civilians. I do not believe the Israelis have ever explicitly targeted civilians (though this is not to deny civilian casualties). This is a distinctive moral point, though often lost amid the self righteousness of so many intellectuals.
I can support a Palestinian state, in the long run it is clearly the right thing to do. I do not support the end of Israel. Until the extreme elements within the Palestinian movement can be reconciled with the real prospect of peace, however, they will not be successful in obtaining their nation and they will only incentivize a bunker mentality amongst the Israelis that will perpetuate the violence. Someone must break the cycle, whether right or wrong, the only ones who can do it are the Palestinians. For their sake as much or more than for Israel, they need to do this or nothing will change.
President Carter, unfortunately, doesn't believe this and offers a fig leaf to the elements that are responsible for the destruction of Palestinian society. His moralizing obscures his defense of what is indefensible and the irony is, he appears to have absolutely no clue.
Albright and Brzezinski Paint a Picture of What a Democratic Foreign Policy Will Look Like
A useful review of two books by Democratic foreign policy elites. Madeline Albright was President Clinton's Secretary of State during his second term and Zbigniew Brezinski was President Carter's National Security Advisor. I largely agree with the negative critique offered by this review (in candor, I have only read the Brzezinski book and not the Albright one).
Essentially, both policymakers want America to "rebuild" its reservoir of global goodwill by being more deferential to global public opinion. They also indicate that Democrats really do see the terrorism threat post September 11 as hyped.
While I think it is clearly the case that President Bush's diplomacy has often been ham handed, especially in the first term, how can anyone say we haven't been deferential when it comes to negotiating with North Korea or the Europeans regarding Iran? Bush's second term bears remarkable similarities to the very policies Albright and Brzezinski seem to promote and to be explicit, this diplomacy has been an abject failure just as much as the previous policy of "isolating" rogue regimes like North Korea and Iran. Iran is going to soon be nuclear and North Korea has grown (albeit by a small number) its nuclear arsenal. Yet we have been nothing if not "multilateral" since the inception of Bush's second term.
Perhaps, as I have argued elsewhere, "democratization" is a bad policy to have at the core of our international efforts. However, that is not really at the core of the pressing issues related to North Korea and Iran.
In large measure, Democrats seem to think that if we are "nice enough" and "listen enough" the world will appreciate us again. We will regain our moral high ground.
The truth is they won't. States listen when they share interests. When those interests diverge, policy differences are inevitable. You might be able to soften some impacts by utilizing tact and finesse, but all the tact in the world can't change underlying strategic realities. To assume otherwise is almost as naive as they accuse President Bush of being by embracing "gun boat democratization." A velvet glove on an iron fist is better than just an iron fist, but a velvet glove with no fist is much worse.
Debate on Free Trade
An interesting debate on the benefits vs. the costs of free trade. While I largely support freee trade and believe that overall it has been good for Americans (it is only because of free trade that consumer goods have remained as cheap as they have and, thus allowed Americans to stretch their dollars). However, as opponents of free trade point out, there are clearly "losers" in this system. Free trade does appear to equalize the wages of unskilled labor, which for Americans does not mean a trend up, but a trend down. This leads to fear and backlash because arguing in favor of the "winners" is much more abstract and difficult to see than those who are clearly suffering.
This is a crude way of framing the debate, I admit, however, the point is, sometime, we will have to find a way to help those who do lose out because of free trade. A failure to do so, even if the actions are do not fall within the doctrinaire free market libertarianism many conservatives support, will mean a drastic reaction against. This could kill off free trade which would leave everyone worse off as old "winners" become "losers" and the old "losers" fall even further. Pragmatism is called for, anyone who espouses unadulterated ideological responses from either side is going to leave us worse off. A rational center must be found to at least sustain, and hopefully, build upon our gains.
Is Democracy Winning?
An interesting exchange between Robert Kagan and Robert Cooper as to whether democracy is winning. Given Kagan's reputation as a neoconservative, it is interesting that he is the one who is speaking in more Kissingerian, balance of power terms. That said, I do believe Kagan is more right in this argument that the Fukuyamaesque "End of History" is over and we have reentered a quasi- Hobbesian state of international relations.
Oil Prices to Double?
A Canadian study estimates that gas prices will double by 2012. While doom and gloom scenarios run rampant at tumultuous times like these, one must wonder how much supply can be increased given the overwhelming demand for gas coming from Asia. The post-oil energy future may be well be coming.
China and the West
This story is rundown from a conference hosted by the Foreign Policy Research Institute. It is a very solid historical survey of recent Chinese history going back to the 19th Century. It certainly helps to put into context much of China's perceptions regarding the West. This context is essential in terms of really understanding where the current Chinese Leadership is coming from, especially during an election season in the US where "China Bashing" is popular.
North Korea Helped Syria With Nuclear Reactor
US intelligence is now releasing a video that sheds some light on the murkiness surrounding the Israeli destruction of a complex in Syria last year. For months there has been speculation as to just what Israel had destroyed with most of the speculation being that it was a nuclear reactor being built with assistance from North Korean technicians. Now, given the move to a new agreement with North Korea on its own program, it appears the US government is trying to air out all of what it knows about North Korea's extracurricular activities. Officials are making clear the complex was not for power generation, but could produce plutonium for weaponization.
I suspect we are doing this to pressure the North Koreans into moving forward with new agreements we have been negotiating. President Bush would like to secure a deal before exiting the White House and he seems to be trying to box Kim jong-Il into a bit of corner by saying cut a deal now, it'll never get easier than what we are offering at the moment. Given the regime's past actions, I remain skeptical they will adhere to any deal. However, given that the only alternative to "permanently" end the North Korean program would be military action (that would be far messier than anything we have seen in Iraq), at the moment, this may be the best we're going to get.
Hedge Funds Increasing Hunger?
An article from Der Spiegel that outlines how hedge funds making bets on various agricultural commodities is helping make the current food crisis worse. While acknowledging various factors such as increasing demand due to rising living standards in Asian giants like China and India, the western world's increasing use of biofuels, and drought in producing areas, the article makes a compelling case that hedge funds looking for profit are exacerbating the problem by bidding up the price of food stuffs. This clearly raises major questions. It also will make it harder foor poorer nations around the world to buy into the concept of globalization. Don't be surprised to see regulation come on this issue sometime in the next couple of years.
On Meaninglessness
This intriguing article looks at the philosophical impact of Nietzsche, Freud, and Richard Rorty on the modern world. In particular, the article examines how each confronted the "problem of meaninglessness." None believed in God or even in any form of transcendence. Nietzsche saw this as an opportunity for the liberation of the strong, Freud assumed we all would continue to have an innate need for meaning even if we couldn't find it, and Rorty was rather blase about the whole question.
It seems to me that nihilism is the curse at the heart of modernity, for nihilism is a belief in nothingness which imparts on people no hope for truth. This leads to relativism and a lack of any objectivity because everything becomes subjective. No one can be a true nihilist and not go insane. Nietzsche came the closest I can think of in attempting this feat by attempting to overcome nihilism by imparting meaning only to the immanent. Given that he broke down and died in a semi catatonic state should make one wonder whether this is possible. As Nietzsche prophetically said (and Nietzsche was undoubtedly a prophet of amazing, if misguided insight), "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
In a world of meaninglessness, monsters are all that is there staring at one from the abyss.
MAD at the Soldiers of Reason?
Given the recent post on a "post non-proliferation era" I thought this book review on a work looking at the history of the RAND Corporation was interesting. For it is within RAND that much of our nuclear doctrine was first promulgated. Clearly, the reviewer (and I suspect the author of the book) take a dim view of RAND and the theories it espoused (Mutually Assured Destruction or MAD). What they fail to realize is that in a world where "trust" is next to impossible to have, what choices did we have? Could there have been a "peaceful" alternative or is there something about human nature that made the world of MAD inescapable once nuclear weapons were finally created? That is the fundamental question that still must be asked today. This is not a technical question, rather, it is both existential and oh so very human.
Al-Qaeda vs. Iran?
News accounts are showing that a recently released audio tape from al-Qaeda #2 Ayman al-Zawahiri includes aggressive language against Iran. It appears as-Zawahiri is finally attempting to expoit the growing Sunni-Shiite divide. This could be very important. In the past, it has seemed there was what almost seemed a tactical relationship between Iran and al-Qaeda. While there was no clear evidence of joint operations, there was no obvious acrimony from bin Laden or Zawahiri. That this is happening now raises interesting questions.
Father of History
Herodotus, the Father of History, as named by Cicero wrote what many consider the first great western history.