June 04, 2007
The only thing we have to fearIssues
This week’s Newsweek cover features a brilliant article by Indian American (and former Neocon) Fareed Zakaria titled, “Beyond Bush.” I wonder out-loud if Zakaria is a “former” Neocon because, reading this article, he sounds downright, dare I say it, “progressive.” Check it:
In the fall of 1982, I arrived in the United States as an 18-year-old student from India. The country was in rough shape. That December unemployment hit 10.8 percent, higher than at any point since World War II. Interest rates hovered around 15 percent. Abroad, the United States was still reeling from Vietnam and Watergate. The Soviet Union was on a roll, expanding its influence from Afghanistan to Angola to Central America. That June, Israel invaded Lebanon, making a tense situation in the Middle East even more volatileToday, by almost all objective measures, the United States sits on top of the world. But the atmosphere in Washington could not be more different from 1982. We have become a nation consumed by fear, worried about terrorists and rogue nations, Muslims and Mexicans, foreign companies and free trade, immigrants and international organizations. The strongest nation in the history of the world, we see ourselves besieged and overwhelmed. While the Bush administration has contributed mightily to this state of affairs, at this point it has reversed itself on many of its most egregious policies—from global warming to North Korea to Iraq…
In a global survey released last week, most countries polled believed that China would act more responsibly in the world than the United States. How does a Leninist dictatorship come across more sympathetically than the oldest constitutional democracy in the world? Some of this is, of course, the burden of being the biggest. But the United States has been the richest and most powerful nation in the world for almost a century, and for much of this period it was respected, admired and occasionally even loved. The problem today is not that America is too strong but that it is seen as too arrogant, uncaring and insensitive. Countries around the world believe that the United States, obsessed with its own notions of terrorism, has stopped listening to the rest of the world. [Link]
Fareed uses the next eight pages to just break this mother down. Any of you who have been watching the so-called primary “debates” thus far will have witnessed that which Zakaria points out next. The Republicans try to scare us and the Democrats try to prove they are as tough as Republicans. Fear, fear, fear:
More troubling than any of Bush’s rhetoric is that of the Republicans who wish to succeed him. “They hate you!” says Rudy Giuliani in his new role as fearmonger in chief, relentlessly reminding audiences of all the nasty people out there. “They don’t want you to be in this college!” he recently warned an audience at Oglethorpe University in Atlanta. “Or you, or you, or you,” he said, reportedly jabbing his finger at students. In the first Republican debate he warned, “We are facing an enemy that is planning all over this world, and it turns out planning inside our country, to come here and kill us.” On the campaign trail, Giuliani plays a man exasperated by the inability of Americans to see the danger staring them in the face. “This is reality, ma’am,” he told a startled woman at Oglethorpe. “You’ve got to clear your head…”The competition to be the tough guy is producing new policy ideas, all right—ones that range from bad to insane. Romney, who bills himself as the smart, worldly manager, recently explained that while “some people have said we ought to close Guantánamo, my view is we ought to double [the size of] Guantánamo.” In fact, Romney should recognize that Guantánamo does not face space constraints. The reason that President Bush wants to close it down—and it is he who has expressed that desire—is that it is an unworkable legal mess with enormous strategic, political and moral costs. In a real war you hold prisoners of war until the end of hostilities. When does that happen in the war on terror? Does Romney propose that the United States keep an ever-growing population of suspects in jail indefinitely without trials as part of a new American system of justice?… [Link]
I remember well this next moment from the first Democratic debate. Obama had it right at first and then turned into a sheep:
In the South Carolina presidential debate, when candidates were asked how they would respond to another terror strike, they promptly vowed to attack, retaliate and blast the hell out of, well, somebody. Barack Obama, the only one to answer differently, quickly realized his political vulnerability and dutifully threatened retaliation as well. After the debate, his opponents leaked furiously that his original response proved he didn’t have the fortitude to be president.In fact, Obama’s initial response was the right one. He said that the first thing he would do was make sure that the emergency response was effective, then ensure we had the best intelligence possible to figure out who had caused the attack, and then move with allies to dismantle the network responsible.
We will never be able to prevent a small group of misfits from planning some terrible act of terror. No matter how far-seeing and competent our intelligence and law-enforcement officials, people will always be able to slip through the cracks in a large, open and diverse country. The real test of American leadership is not whether we can make 100 percent sure we prevent the attack, but rather how we respond to it. [Link]
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not drinking the whole glass of this Kool-aid. It is easy for people like Zakaria to argue a position well, but let’s not forget that he was one of the intellectuals in favor of this “war on terror” in the first place. Like a pool of quicksand this “war” keeps getting worse for us when we place fear above all other emotions in deliberating the future of our country:
The atmosphere of fear and panic we are currently engendering is likely to produce the opposite effect. Were there to be another attack, politicians would fulfill their pledges to strike back, against someone. A retaliatory strike would be appropriate and important—if you could hit the right targets. But what if the culprits were based in Hamburg or Madrid or Trenton? It is far more likely that a future attack will come from countries that are unknowingly and involuntarily sheltering terrorists. Are we going to bomb Britain and Spain because they housed terror cells?
The other likely effect of another terror attack would be an increase in the restrictions on movement, privacy and civil liberties that have already imposed huge economic, political and moral costs on America. The process of screening passengers at airports, which costs nearly $5 billion a year, gets more cumbersome every year as new potential “risks” are discovered. The visa system, which has already become restrictive and forbidding, will get more so every time one thug is let in. [Link]
In the meantime, rather than simply be angry at current policies, we can all start asking ourselves and our candidates what we want to do next. Do we want a future where we prosecute children or a future where we are admired in the world again? As this house of cards folds I hope we all challenge our candidates into acting with vision instead of out of fear Most importantly, let’s start to get more involved in this election cycle. I have been mostly sitting on the sidelines because I thought it was way to early to be paying attention to this circus. It isn’t too early to start educating ourselves on the issues though.
abhi on June 4, 2007 11:47 PM in Issues, News · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
For me, personally, the jury is still out on Mr. Zakaria. He seems to be better at ingratiating himself to the right people (i.e. the people in power) than offering any revealing insight. Even after reading his book - The Future of Freedom: Illeberal Democracy at Home and Abroad - I remain unconvinced of the amazing powers of analysis attributed to him by many in Western media. He's obviously very knowledgeable and a great student of history, politics and the issues facing the United States but I find the conclusions he draws from that knowledge to be rather prosaic at times. However, I haven't completely dismissed him as a journalist/commentator and it will be interesting to see what he makes of 'America in the world' now that he has shed his neocon skin.
thanks abhi. interesting article. although i agree with a lot of what zakaria says, i don't think that america can re-gain the same sort of legitimacy that it had in parts of the previous century, if only because the nation-state isn't as prominent a factor as it was in the past. yeah, in the past we could manipulate china vs. russia but the rules of the game are different now.
i'm not saying this in a "the nation-state is dead!", overly academic sort of way...the nation-state will matter, of course, but diplomacy and negotiation will also have to be coupled with intelligence and strategy in a more compatible, less isolating way.
another issue is the politics of speech - the current "war on terror" era was really born during the bush administration, and all future acts of terror will be compared against 9/11, etc. all of the rhetoric and lexicon we use for responding to terror was born with bush, and it will be interesting to see how a new leader (esp. a dem) will be able to manipulate and play with that almost deep-seated rhetoric that we're all used to and stay legitimate and strong.
i mean, the next leader up will have a heavy burden but there will also be room for a lot of creative spinning...b/c it's all spinning :) but god forbid there is another major attack post november 2008, it's a very real thing and people will remember bush...they'll say, "hey, at least he acted." people have selective memories. how do you feed nuance to a nation that has been fed almost nothing but black and white for eight years?
Excellent post--thanks Abhi. At the risk of veering too far off topic (F. Zakaria), wanted to second your call and reinforce that it is not too early for us to get involved in this election cycle. If anything, we are 8 years too late.
Would you mind expounding a bit more specifically if possible, please? To be honest, I am not that well-versed on Zakaria. I do remember being shocked by his comments (neocon in tone) roughly a year or so after 9/11 on This Week (I believe that was it). In fact, I remember thinking he might be more akin to the desi version of John Yoo. Now, from this current piece, he seems to be singing closer to Krugman and crew. As Abhi alludes, is it a real change of heart or just one to please the populace?
Or we could use the Clinton response to terror (1993 WTC, 1996 Khobar Towers, 1998 African Embassies, 2000 USS Cole): None.
I think Fareed was alwasy moderate. But there is rising trend in the neo-con, conservative, and republican pundits, writers, etc. of distancing themselves from Bush. You will see it more and more, and the rising meme is that Bush was never "really" all that conservative. It's CYA time.
He voted against the war before he voted for it.
He is building weapons of mass destruction ... but... occupying Iraq, even if we could do it, does not seem a good idea in this climate (October 2001) [link]
Done right, an invasion would be the single best path to reform the Arab world.If we assume the war will be half as expensive as the gulf war--250,000 troops rather than 500,000--it will run around $35 billion. Extrapolating from the Balkan example, reconstruction efforts will probably total $15 billion to $20 billion for the first three years, after which Iraq's oil revenues would pay for its own nation-building (August 2002) [link]
Poor Ron Paul. Michigan GOP wants to kick him out of the debates and now the leading democratic candidate forgets his existence and consistent Iraq voting record. He should have never opened his mouth against Fed's money supply growth and stealth inflation.
Fareed Zakaria was never a neocon, even if he overlapped a lot with those folks. He supported the idea of democratizing the Middle East but always voiced concerns about the methods the US was using, and represented, for me, the good intentions of the neocon project (though for him it was always theoretical, he didn't concern himself much with the 'how') even if I didn't always agree with him. Is it a change of heart? Well probably rather like people like Michael O'Hanlon and other Dems who believed in the justness of the cause, as it were, but were ambivalent about the method (or perhaps their mistake was to think that it could have been done right, could have worked).
The trouble I have with Zakaria and his illiberal democracy spiel is that while it's valid on a theoretical and academic basis to say that you need liberal norms and a rule of law and so on before democracy can really work, it's very easy to use that argument to say that many countries and cultures aren't "ready" for democracy yet, and condemn them to the eternal vicious cycle of no democratic institutions = no chance to develop democratic norms and procedures.
I think you need to factor colonialism/post-colonialism/neocolonialism (i.e. "the Industrial Revolution/The Boom Years/Globalization") into your analysis.
I've never understood Jon Stewart's admiration of Zakaria, or the general respect for him. I guess he's the right color in the right place at the right time, but I haven't seen him say stuff that's particularly insightful. Just the usual "They hate us there", "Iran is dangerous right now, but we need to be diplomatic with them" and so on.
Rahul - fair enough, but that's true of most foreign policy "experts," innit? He made his name as editor of Foreign Affairs and has written some stuff that's quasi-academic, and hobnobbed with the foreign policy elite, and I'm sure the skin colour and Muslim name didn't hurt for the Bushies either.
Look at Fouad Ajami now, he hasn't really written anything decent after his first book, but he's got the right connections and plays the part of the resident conservative Arab intellectual/professor well. He's not stupid, and has as much to offer as the next "expert," but yes, unlike more narrowly focused academics and think-tankers, these generalist FP experts are always going to spout generalities.
Yes, I guess most people prefer easily consumed soundbytes as compared to in-depth analysis.
Oh, I definitely don't think he's stupid, that distinction is reserved for the Ramesh Ponnurus, Bill Kristols, and Fred Barnes (although he is probably not the most egregious of the bunch) of the world.
OT, the media here just depresses me, where were all the people who are now writing books about failures in Iraq in 2004 and 2005? Especially, people like Rajiv Chandrasekaran who has this scathing expose on "Imperial Life in the Emerald City" and was actually Baghdad bureau chief of the WP during the early stages of the war. Sheep, all of them!
All we know about fair-weather Fareed now is all we need to know: five years of incubation and his balls are only starting to mature.
Two of 'em here: Reconstructing Iraq: Insights, Challenges, and Missions for Military Forces in a Post-Conflict Scenario (February 2003)
Fareed, play-by-play.
Fareed's trying to catch the departing ship!
Ship in sight, he jogs to the dock! He has no chance at this pace!
The ship is gathering momentum! Fareed picks up the pace!
He's sprinting faster, faster, wind at his back!
He's running out of real estate!
He has no chance, he's not fast enough, he has to leap!
Fareed leaps in desperation!
He makes it! He makes it!
Unbelievable! Fareed Zakaria is dangling on the stern with one outstretched arm! A spectacular jump sees Fareed aboard HMS Bush is a Fucking Imbecile!
Abhi: Good post, if I may say so. It's about time we "Sepians" get involved in US Politics at real grassroot levels. Winning spelling bees or winning few rolls on American TV and Hollywood Movies, or churning out doctors/engineers - like they say - ain't gonna cut it. The recent debates - both on the Left and Right - are mere 30 seconds sound bites, lacking real issues and "Beef". I came to this country in the summer of Love - 1967. I do agree with Farid that during Sixties and Seventies USA enjoyed the so-called moral authority. USA lectured the world - and it seemed most people around the world at least listened - if not agreed with what we were saying. These days no one - I repeat no one takes USA and Bush's clown seriously. Reminds me of the naked Fakir - Mahatma's words - something of the sort - "Be the change you want to see in others". It is fun to watch Farid on some Sunday morning putting the likes of George Will in their proper place.
It is fun to watch Farid on some Sunday morning putting the likes of George Will in their proper place
I love the sniping between Fareed and George Will.
I think this is a very well written article. The part about the Republican fear mongering is especially true. Giuliani has gone insane.
What happen to the Reagan like Republican optimism.
happened*
Yo Dad...wow...u really are old enough to be my dad, uncle.
PidUSA: Hey this Friday I will turn 9 x 7. But who's counting? It's mind over the matter, and if you don't mind it does'nt matter!! Always stay young at heart -------- Yo Dad (not to be confused with YODA).
Great post, Abhi.
Yo Dad, I agree with you but would like to add two points. First, South Asians are definitely getting involved in politics at the grass roots levels. I know as many hill staffers, non-profit advocacy folks, and political volunteers as I do doctors/engineers/etc. In Maryland especially, it is clear that the South Asian community is garnering an increasing amount of political weight. Second, I don't think anyone can underestimate the cultural influence of seeing a person of color on TV, or as a successful author, or in a movie. It means the community is starting to be accepted into the mainstream culture. To that end, I believe we need to encourage more desi participation in the arts, not less.
Sriraam: I never said we need to diminish Desi participation in arts and/or sciences. What's gonna "Cut in" is some political clout. Shakespeares and Newtons are fine - what we need is few King Henry(s). Stay in shape!!
Well, from the very beginning Zakaria hedged against his support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Brilliant as I think he is, he showed a real lack of conviction once things went awry - at least other supporters like Hitchens stuck to their convictions. As such he belongs to rank of the other liberal hawk opportunists like Michael Ignatieff who backtracked on his support for the war when he ran for the leadership fo the Liberal Party in Canada. Zakaria is now considered a great critic of the war, but I wonder if this ambiguity will count against his chances of serving in a future administration.
Are we going to bomb Britain and Spain because they housed terror cells?
Public approval was easily secured when countries under the gun weren't the favourite holiday destinations.
OT, the media here just depresses me, where were all the people who are now writing books about failures in Iraq in 2004 and 2005?
Exactly. Wrapped themselves in the flag like any patriotic citizen.
OTOH, fear mongering and patriotic chest beating are unique to the US.
Let me get this straight, which one of you did not support the 'war on terror' after seeing those burning towers? Its easy to criticize the US govt's policy regarding this, but remember right now there have been atleast 4-5 attacks foiled by US and british Intelligence. If one of these attacks have been successful we would have been cursing the govt for not being aggressive enough. Don't get me wrong i do not consider the Iraq fiasco as a war on terror. But sending the taliban and al-qaeda to their sought after nightclub in heaven was the correct step post 9-11. These added measures by the US government have let us fly safely. The war on terror was the right step, it just lost direction.
Whats wrong with changing his opinion about war, most Americans did the same. I'd rather have people flip flop than be stubborn and "stick to the plan". In case of Iraq there is not even a post war plan. I think Fareed Zakaria is critical about the way Iraq was handled after the invasion.
Very interesting post Abhi. And like someone mentioned it's refreshing to see political posts here now and then - the politics in SA don't matter as much so far from desh and the politics here don't have as much of a brown flavor and so we don't see as many political discussions here.
Also, looks like we are discussing more about Mr Zakharia's change of heart but does it really matter as long as what he says does. Well irrespective of where he parked his car in Washington previously or even now, I think he is making some very very relevant points. Of note are the points
So while Giuliani is Mr 'I Carry A Gun In Every Pocket I Have' (though with Sarkozy ruling the French vinyards now, we may see a new era of NeoCon French-American cooperation distant from the current days of no love if Giuliani does win), McCain who was a moderate has also sold out to the might is right republican bandwagon.
Need we say more about this sorry state of affairs. Poor Obama was one person talking sense and now he has to go the McCain way and be more marketable. The Democrats have an identity crises and they don't know what to do about it. And seriously, in this pro neocon America of today, do a Black man and a woman have a chance of winning? A few months back I attended an Obama rally and frankly I would have liked to see a lot more white people than there were.
Kesh, you mean it got subverted into this Iraq adventure by the administration?
What has worked is all the effort into law enforcement and intel-gathering across the world. The beat-down the Taleban got was worthy too. Actions we took to cut of funding have also been effective. After 9/11, I felt our actions in Afghanistan were justified. Bush lost me when we went into Afghanistan instead of escalating our engagement with Pakistan to finish the job in Afghanistan.
How anyone can say that we are living in fear is beyond me. Terrorist only escalated when the western world did nothing. In the 90's alone we had the first World Trade Center bombing, the Embassy bombings, the Khobar Towers bombing, and the USS Cole bombing. The lack of response to all this only convinced terrorists that they could get away with 9/11. Since 9/11 we've had the nightclub bombings in Bali, the train bombings in Spain, and the 7//7 bombings in England. And just recently terrorists plots were foiled at Fort Dix and JFK. The people of the United States are not afraid, they are perplexed that on the one hand we wage war on the terrorists and on the other hand we give them full rights and protections at Guantanomo with access to US criminal courts. They are perplexed at the sometimes schizophrenic actions of their government.
I think many of you just haven't read Zakaria. He was never a Neocon. He's basically a liberal hawk, who thinks US foreign policy can -- and has been -- a force for good in the world. But he's always been critical of the Neocons and the Bushies. Read his cover story, "The Arrogant Empire: Why America Scares the World," which was written the week of (actually just before) the war in Iraq began. It's a devastating critique of the Bush administration. Also an earlier piece in The New Yorker, "Our Way," which is similarly critical of Bush's unilateralism. If you've just started reading him and have a snapshot from one moment, that's not a fair way to evaluate someone's views.
"at least other supporters like Hitchens stuck to their convictions"
What a ridiculous statement. As Keynes declared: 'When the facts change, I change my mind.'
People stop tearing Zakaria apart for his flip-flop. We are all works in progress and Zakaria is just being truthful about his disilluionment. I was a Bush supporter and I still like the man. I supported the war in Iraq and still do just like Hitchens. I just hate, I really hate Bush's surrogates on talk radio, Faux News, right-wing blogs and most people in his party. And fuck the conservative base. The immigration debate has me disgusted with the middle America I have so staunchly defended before including on this site.
Al Gore recently reminded us that more than 50 % of Americans still believe that Iraq/Saddam was behind 9/11. I am shocked by the ignorance. I was never one of those people. I knew Saddam was a secular non-islamist but I had known for long that he was very brutal and that the majority Shiites had long been oppressed. I wanted him to go and for democracy to take hold in the Middle East. Over the years I had grown frustrated with diplomacy in international affairs which in the few cases it did yield fruits, was slow and painful for the oppressed to endure. Besides when it came to the Middle East Bush's war on ' false stability ' really resonated with me. I have now no doubt that many people on the right who support the war do so for very different reasons - one of which is to relish Muslim decimation. I just can't believe that a literate country like America has ignorant bastards like O'Reilly, Malkin, Dobbs commanding the loyalty of millions.
'next time he won't beat me!, next time he won't beat me!' Troskyist that Hitchens is, he is incapable of admitting he was wrong.
ignorant bastards like O'Reilly,Malkin,Dobbs
Every now and then I always see some one take a shot at Lou Dobbs on this website. Last time I checked Lou Dobbs is no fan of Bush, as many misinformed people think he is.
I would love it if Lou Dobbs ran as a 3rd party canidate for President.
I would love it if Lou Dobbs ran as a 3rd party canidate for President.
He is a crazed xenophobe.
Probably not xenophobic--for example of a true xenophobe, look at Tom Tancredo and his doomsday predictions of "other cultures" despoiling the pristine, 'western,' culture we enjoy today--but definitely a wacked out protectionist with no conception of how unstoppable the market forces are that created his much-hated outsourcing of blue-collar jobs overseas.
muralimannered: I prefer the term "nativist" to describe people like Dobbs. Feel free to prepend the adjective "ignorant" to that appellation.
I guess it wrong for Lou Dobbs to worry about the middle class of America. And god forbid anybody speak out against people who break the immigrant laws of the United States
I am a newbie here.
It is a very well written article. I thought Zakaria's 'Future of freedom:Illiberal democracy at home and abroad" was muddle headed(except for the very pertinent point on oil rich saudi arabia, venezuela and nigeria being tough nuts to crack in terms of democratic representation mainly because of the availability of oil) and have not been impressed by his appearances on TV talk shows.
However, once in a while, he comes up with very well enunicated arguments like this one on J curve and its applicability to india and china(http://www.slate.com/id/2150811/).
His program is xenophobic. I am not sure about the crazy part though.
Whats wrong with changing his opinion about war
Oh no, he didn't change his mind about the war. A guy as smart as Zakaria knew form the very beginning that this war had the potential of going wrong. So he hedged his bet by saying "yes I support the idea of an interventionist war, but I don't like the way this one is being run."
One of the key criticisms of the anit-war movement was that this war was not being fought for the purported purposes of "spreading freedom". It was being waged for a number of other reasons such as further entrenching American hegemony in the Middle East, securing access to oil reserves, paying back political supporters and so on. So for anyone who was looking at this from this perspective, it was clear form the very start that the Iraqi people and the false objective or "spreading freedom" was the last in the list of priorities (if ever on it).
I'm sure that Zakaria saw this from the very beginning, but rather than criticize he sat on the fence. If you're shooting for a possible future NSA or Sec. of State position you can't look soft on war - so he lacked the backbone to say that this was the wrong way to proceed - he's saying this now, but (if need be) he can always claim to have been the supporter of the war. His support and/or criticisms lack teeth - they smack of politics rather than bold conviction.
Disillusioned - we're on different sides of the fence here, but I have to say that yours is one of the most well thought out statements I've read on this war recently.
Last time I checked Lou Dobbs is no fan of Bush, as many misinformed people think he is.
Dobbs might not be a fan of Bush, but he's also not a fan of a) Mexicans and b) reality. Seeing as he likes to falsely accuse Mexicans of bringing leprosy into the USA.
Abhi,
Thanks for this post, I think this is a vital issue for our country today. One of the points that stood out to me is the notion that we are becoming engulfed by a culture of fear and that this fear can be quite dangerous. I'm looking forward to reading the whole article.
~SDM
I don't see what's particularly wrong with Dobbs, most Americans share his views on Mexican immigration. Does a simple geographical accident mean every Mexican has the right to become a US citizen? I don't think the US should have an open border with India or China, anymore than I do with Mexico.
I've always felt that Fareed Zakaria fits between the liberal and neorealist schools of international affairs. He's relatively consistent as a "middle of the road-er" who believes in the inherent superiority of "liberal democracy." I think the reason we see folks who are relatively in the center, like Zakaria, appear to be more and more left is because the administration consistently aligns with a political agenda that has pulled further and further to the right. Our sense of perspective has just shifted tremendously. At the end of the day, most of the U.S. is in the middle. I honestly wonder, if it weren't for Bush's fear-mongering, if the majority of the country would have put up with his antics for the same lengthy period of time.
The best analogy I've heard for Bush's policies is that it's like an iron fist closing around sand. Grains are tiny, they are going to slip through your fingers. I get the impression that Zakaria is echoing something similar and asks when we will stop selling our souls to support an incredibly immoral and ineffective security strategy.
Both venkat and Vikram have said this, and both of you are completely ignoring the egregious things Clinton did while in office. His reaction was not, as you posit, "nonexistent." While he may not have sent troops to overthrow Iraq, the heaviest bombing of the country (prior to the Gulf War Part 2) happened under Clinton's presidency with his support. Millions of children in Iraq died because of the U.S.'s sanctions, adopted under Clinton and promoted by then Secretary of State, Madeleine Allbright. Please don't think that because he did trumpet things on television every day that his administration was not responsible for troop escalation in Saudi Arabia, or for strategic foreign aid allocations (or sanctions), or for less overt military reprisal.Kesh, not all of us were eager to hang up our principles re: civil liberties and war after 9/11. While you may have felt that way, your reactions re: the "war on terror" were not necessarily echoed in all the crannies of the U.S.
clueless, it is not about Lou Dobbs "sticking up for immigration law and the middle class." He does neither. He mostly spews a lot of venom, and the worst of it is almost always unsubstantiated or misrepresented. His program IS xenophobic, and his vision of "America" is not a vision that includes the generations of people who have lived here who do not conform to that vision. He's polemical - that's how he bolsters his ratings. Hey, hate sells.
It's also not a geographical accident that Mexico shares a border with us, and it would be silly to pretend that there isn't a history of colonization that plays both ways. Hello Manifest Destiny? The U.S. has a love/hate relationship with Mexico and has had a historically crappy immigration policy with respect to its Southern Border. Peter Andreas has a great book (Border Games...) that speaks to the historically Janus-like policies of the U.S. around Mexican immigration.
What's wrong with Dobbs is that he relies on racist arguments (and fears) to justify his anti-Mexican sentiments. Further, these arguments are almost ALWAYS devoid of any factual evidence; he relies on stereotypes and misconceptions about Mexicans and Mexican immigrants to whip up fear-mongering by either misrepresenting or completely fabricating information. Most of what comes out of his mouth is a pack of lies. Given that he's broadcast on a "news station," I personally think there ought to be a little bit more integrity (or at least factual evidence?) in his rantings.
Except that A. Most Americans agree with him, and B. His wife is Mexican American.
Oh, I'm going to open myself for so much bashing here, but I have to say it...part of the reason why I moved to the Libertarian party was because of the whole posturing between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. I don't delude myself into thinking there isn't the same BS posturing in the LP, but at least I've removed myself from the larger posturing. I get frustrated because I really am what could be called a Goldwater Republican, and I couldn't stand the party that emerged under the auspices of Delay, Hastert, and the neo-cons...so I jumped ship.
That said, I predicted that once the Democrats got power in Congress that not much would change in regards to the PATRIOT Act, Gitmo, etc because the Democrats would live in fear of being cast as weak, so the status quo would remain. It's one prediction I wish hadn't come true.
Whether or not people agree has nothing to do with whether or not what he says is correct or true. Further, having a Mexican American wife also doesn't mean that his criticism is any less vitriolic or inaccurate. What is this, the "I have a black friend" defense?
Except that A. Most Americans agree with him,
So what? Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't make it right. Or was the Earth flat until the sixteenth century?
and B. His wife is Mexican American.
Again so what? Strom Thurmond had a black mistress and daughter, but he was still one of the most odious racists in modern American politics.
One other note I'd love to put here is that for those of you who haven't read it, should now: "It Can't Happen Here" by Sinclair Lewis. It's a book about a potential American descent into fascism.
Here's an article that talks about the book. The book is about the rise of a down-home simple-talking Southerner who becomes a President. He does this by attacking the liberal media, intellectuals, and the like, while collecting large contributions from businesses. Once President he appoints his friends to office and puts lawyers no one knows into the Supreme Court, and rails against other countries, exploiting American's existential fears, including immigration.
Mind you, the book was written in 1935, but the parallels to today are just chilling.
Some good news for the people who don't get CNN. Lou Dobbs will now do some reports for the The Early Show on CBS.
In response to Yo Dad #15, you're absolutely right when you say that noone takes the US seriously anymore. The US has lost its credibility as a 'real' power, one that at one point seemed to be a balancing force in the world. I now live in Europe and I experience everyday the real disappointment Europeans have in the US. They are let down by the hero that didn't live up what he was supposed to. I don't think this is necessarily bad in the global sense, may be this will give room for less of a pyramid structure. I think what astounds most people out here is how the politicians pander to the lowest common denominator, with only ballots in their eyes, not a real vision of what would better the country. It's really depressing how the media circus can sidestep all that's important and even once-respected newspapers can become mere vehicles of propaganda. What's important, as Yo Dad points out, is participation, involvement at the grass-roots level. Discussion, real discussion about important issues, to get the voice heard. We can learn from the past.
In response to Ardy #27: Please, even Zarkosy seems left of the Democrats ! Even more so with Bernard Koushner as Foreign Affairs minister.
The quality of leaders in American politics is pathetic. They talk like 7th graders with loads of hyperbole, If you compare them with British politicians, you would know the difference.
I watched Democratic debate on CNN and I couldn't stop myself from laughing out loud.
if you read audacity of hope, or BO's speech at the chicago council of global affairs, it seems zakaria's just re-hashing obama.
you're right indianguy. Bush has given us more laughs, if you ignore the horror he has caused, than anybody.
E. Howard Hunt recently released a tape of father, Howard Hunt, confessing during his last days, to involvement with the presidential assassination of 1963. One of the major conspirators was LBJ (1963-1968), a crafty and ruthless Texan (the worse kind). In spite of powerful evidence to support what the dying Hunt reveals, mainstream media has treated this story like a red-headed step-child. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13893143/the_last_confessions_of_e_howard_hunt
Reason: nobody wants the U.S. to be seen as using the methods of just another banana republic. Many of the actors are still alive, or else their intellectual descendants are still alive. And Eisenhower warned: beware the military industrial complex. An economy that depends on weapon making will depend on war.
British Politicians have a skill of saying “we F**ked up” in no less then 20,000 words, in the hope they baffle you, especially this labour government. All hail the kings of spin.
Question, how much does the war on terror play on people’s mind when voting?
Of the dems John Edward as a white man statistically has the best chance of being President vs Hilary or Obama- ( i wish it were not true)- so should'nt we be paying more attention to his stand? ( always assuming the Dems win the White house ,of course)
Like it or not, this is the man who will most likely be the next President of the United States.
Hearts are hardening across much of white America. They are yearning for just such a hard-nosed leader. Giuliani will bring in a good chunk of the white ethnic vote from the North-East and the Midwest: italians, irish, poles etc. who may normally vote democratic. The red state evangelicals are already in his pocket, despite his lapsed catholicism, his liberal social stance on gays and abortion, his less than exemplary personal life etc. They are hoping that he will do to the muslim threat what they credit Reagan for doing to the Soviet threat: destroy it completely.
@Camille:
Iraq during Clinton's time Iraq was not a battle front on the "War on Terror". The post Gulf War I plan was to "contain" Saddam. The Clinton administrations bunglings in dealing with Bin Laden who was well known by then to be the foremost terrorist heading a jihad against the US was a separate chapter:
And if Clinton and his advisors are so proud of their record in fighting terrorism, why is his National Security advisor Sandy Berger indicted on charges of destroying documents relating to the Clinton Administration's record on terrorism, 5 years after leaving the White House:
The best anti-terror strategy Clinton (and Berger) could come up with was lobbing a few badly aimed Cruise missiles at Afghanistan after the African embassy bombings when Clinton had his brains caught in his zipper during the Lewinsky incident. The Clinton Administration's 8 years in office was book ended by the first WTC bombing (Feb 1993) and the USS Cole (Oct 2000). In almost 8 years of attacks what cohesive and better plan did they come up with ?
my cardinal rules of being a politician are..
1. Don't look like a fool
2. Make fool of others (others being voters)
Tony Blair and his labour party are really good at following these rules. But in case of Bush and his Republican party..they fool people, while looking like fools.
There is nothing very insightful or original in Zakaria's article. It is just the sort of wishy washy nonsense many americans are getting tired of. Written by a colored man with an alien face and a muslim name, who immigrated from an impoverished country americans tend to be contemptuous of, it can only harden their hearts further. Who do you think they will trust, an immigrant muslim who says:
or one of their own heroes, Giuliani, who confirms their worst fears:
There have been a number of planned terrorist attacks by domestic muslims that have been thwarted, including the recent one targeting JFK Airport. There have also been a number of individual acts of terror by american muslims that have resulted in american deaths. Which makes Zakaria look like a dangerous liar to paranoid americans; and makes Giuliani look like the man of the hour.
The language and semiotics surrounding the entire "terror" issue are what I find most fascinating (and disturbing). The constant references to "war" on terror, or "the conflict" in Iraq--those situations carry far more weight when they're not posited as (for example, in the case of Iraq), an "invasion" or "attack" (which really, it kind of is). I remember arguing with a fuck-buddy of all people, in bed one night, that while democracy is certainly an admirable goal (in an abstract notion, and quite frankly, I still have my own issues with the "one size fits all" approach that people seem to take), it can't be imposed by the invasion of another country, or by force. There are regions and parts of the world (including my own) that simply aren't ready for democracy, and what they need are benevolent despots. My favourite take on the whole democracy thing comes from that virtuoso of literature, Terry Pratchett, who describes the "Tyrant" of a fictional country as having brought about the sort of democracy that is "one man, one vote. He was the man, he was the vote".
I don't mean to threadjack but I have a question for the political people on here. Did anyone see the faith politics special that was on CNN yesterday? I notice that one of the politicians was talking about how the US is not a cristian nation and that it is multireligous. He then went on to list certain religions but he left out hinduism. And this is not the first time a politician has done this. I remember watching another special on MTV with a politician who listed religions and again left out hindhuism. Why do they do this? And it was weird yesterday because he mentioned judaism, islam, then he said and if you are.. (like he was about to say hindhuism but before he finished the sentence he changed the subject -- and that made it even more insulting!) Why do they do this? I think hindhuism is not getting the respect it deserves politically.
and I am pissed off that atheism never get mentioned, unless as a pejorative!
Actually, I am not sure why you are so pissed off. I was watching Color Splash with David Bromstad on HGTV and he wore a tee-shirt with Durga or Lakshmi on it - and guess what, I bet more people watched him than the segment you did. Get over it.
Prema stop referring to Americans as an vague 'they.'
shhh. we athiests are a secret cabal that controls US foreign policy with our neocon (strauss, bloom, wolfowitz) agenda. not to metion the world bank and imf and 3/4 of the major investment houses. we use religion to sedate the masses although marx almost blew our cover. sometimes we appear to be religious, as machiavelli suggested, in order to gain the goodwill of the people. this is the last i'll speak of this.
i forgot, we control the fed reserve too. since that is only quasi governmental, allen used to get a little uppity and brag about his athieism--not to mention, objectivism--in public. me? i think its better to keep a low profile lest the savages get restless or figure out there is no god and we'll no loinger be able to control them.
we all know which way intersts rate are going in advance too.
Nope, that's the Freemasons.
Well, this is very common here because the religions that are top of mind are the Abrahamic religions of the book.
but do we have pboc,boj and ecb under control?
Camille,Yes but the enemy has no concept of civil liberties. Are you saying the talib and al-qaeda did not get the treatment it deserved? You ever think that the reason you and I can spend an evening at the mall or go to any public place in safety is because a U.S agent obtain information about a possible plot from a fanatic?
The destruction of the taliban so fast surprised even them as they always envisioned repeating their success with the soviet army, but america's technology proved otherwise. Where the US fucked was up was stationing troops in the area, It should have just left! What America is trying to repeat here is its success with Japan post WW II, but atleast the Japanese were a civilized enemy. Here you're dealing with rabid animals.
I really don't believe Giuliani will be able to pull in enough folks to get by. Famous last words, perhaps? :) Seriously, every time that man opens his mouth in public he removes all doubt of how incredibly asinine he is. But also, he's going to have a real hard time playing the "family values" card given his own infamy over his relationships.
Vikram, I hear you. My point in bringing up Clinton's love of cruise missiles was not to say he was an amazing visionary in containing terror threats, it was to counter the assertion that Clinton did NOTHING. For all the people in countries who suffered because of his administration's ridiculous foreign policy, his "nothing" certainly did a great deal of harm.
Sin, amen!
Sadaiyyapan, it's because (in my opinion) American consciousness around religion has only gotten "big enough" to acknowledge "religions of the Book" -- i.e., Christianity, Judaism, Islam.
Kesh, we're not going to agree on the rationale or the tactics of this spectacle called the "war on terror." I firmly believe that a country does not move towards "freedom" or "security" by undermining the foundations of its ethical philosophy and values. I don't believe in pandering to the lowest common denominator, and I feel this entire PR campaign around the "war" has been exactly that. What goes today? Civil liberties, because "they" don't have them? Then what? Citizenship? What next? Should we then sanitize or cull people who we think are "scary"? I know that sounds alarmist, but honestly, we are not that many steps away from buying into a fascist society. I'm just glad that the American public has finally come around to agreeing that this "war" has been a shit show.
Well. you demonstrate a far greater confidence about the American voter than is merited by his/her performance in 2004.
Unfortunately, it is not for the moral reasons, but because of the cost to America, in terms of lives and money. Which is why I don't see myself cheering for the politicians who call for the war to end either. Because, somehow political discourse about the basic immoral choices that have been made - Guantanamo, wire tapping, needless and mindless killing of Iraqi civilians, torture, Abu Ghraib... (the list is long and depressing, and you can probably add in the rest) - does not seem to be important or necessary in the current climate. What is more important is proving some sort of loyalty to the flag and keeping Hispanics out.
What kind of Jean-Sartre-meets-Anais-Nin Paris in the 50s life do you lead?
The US did this after supporting the Mujahadeen against the Soviets, the country was basically left in shambles until the Taliban found it as a nice nesting place to grow their organisation, and those who felt betrayed by the US (for example UBL) turned their gaze on them, or at least found an enemy that's an easy sell to the silent majority.
I watched yesterday's "Republican" debate. I think that is the advantage of being a "mono-religious" society. (eventhough the different denominations of Christianity are called as different religions). that helps Mitt Romney to claim , I believe in what you all believe. :-)
I can't imagine a similar scenario in India. America is more like Pakistan in this sense where Nawaz Sharif / Imran / Benazir / Musharaaf can make similar claims.
I think this is a "fair analysis".
No way. Giuliani does not have a chance in hell of getting elected as President. I would be shocked if he even wins the primary, regardless of what the polls are saying this far out. In fact, were I a betting man and had to choose which mayor or New York would make it further in this election cycle I would put all my money on Bloomberg. He's already set aside $1 Billion (with a "b") of his ~$5 Billion private fortune for an independent candidacy. Unlike Giuliani and the rest of the fear mongers Bloomberg takes a different attitude:
What will finally make this election interesting is when the serious third party candidates announce. Hagel also falls into this boat as does (potentially) Al Gore.
I agree. There's far too much noise right now in the Iowa futures market to make meaningful states. The Dems looks much more like a two-horse race. Although, I'd love for Al Gore to throw his hat in the ring. It breaks my heart that he's the best president we've never had (at least on ability, who knows if he can execute).
Thats not how the men who founded the American Republic and wrote its secular Constitution saw it. Most of the prominent ones amongst them would not pass the belief test that the Republicans (and even the Democrats implicitly) require today. The Constitution they wrote says that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States".
The opinion polls consistently reveal that over 25% of americans believe in reincarnation, which is a belief associated with the eastern not the abrahamic religions. Another 10% or so are non-spiritual/atheist/agnostic. Thats more than a third of americans who are non-believers in christianity. Who represents them?
And if you examine further you will find that the proportion of non-believers is significantly higher among the most educated and the most productive americans: scientists, self-made billionaires etc. More than 90% of the members of the American Academy of Sciences are non-believers for example. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are atheists. Steve Jobs and Larry Ellison (of Oracle) are buddhists. And so on.
circus in jungle (#40), I meant to say "fear mongering and patriotic chest beating are NOT unique to the US". Late night blogging.
Think again. According to this article from The American Conservative Giuliani has the evangelicals, neocons and even the media behind him:
http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_06_04/article2.html
"Support for former New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani among the Religious Right and particularly among evangelicals is a surprising development in American political culture."
"For a while it seemed that Giuliani’s social positions—which are generally garden-variety leftist on abortion, gay marriage, and amnesty for illegal immigrants—plus his publicized dalliances, two failed marriages, and the attacks on his lack of paternal sense of responsibility made by his son would end the Religious Right’s love affair with the candidate. But this has not been the case."
"A number of Giuliani’s fans in the Fourth Estate, such as Cal Thomas, Richard Brookhiser, and the editorial writers for the neoconservative New York Post, have revealed some of the reasons for the Religious Right’s attachment. Religious Protestants have come to view the issues that Giuliani has emphasized, “national security” and “fighting terror,” as more crucial than those family issues they stressed in the past."
"When a Republican friend announced that the Democratic media have already arranged for Hillary’s coronation, my wife’s annoyed response was “that’s all nonsense. They hate Hillary. It’s Rudy they love.” I would have to agree. On television, Hillary is made to look inept and shrewish. Rudy, by contrast, comes across as bold, decisive, and virile. And this may have to do with how the candidates are presented at least as much as with what they say. Whatever sexual and family baggage is attached to Rudy is not something that the media has recently chosen to highlight. One exasperated right-of-center columnist, Cliff Kincaid, has complained, “Fox news has already crowned Giuliani” even before the primaries have begun."
"And the Religious Right is leading the parade. To some extent it reflects the views of the American conservative media, which is almost without exception dominated by neoconservative spokespersons. Giuliani is well-liked in this group because of his strong identification with the Israeli hard right and because he tried to throw Yassir Arafat, then head of the PLO, out of New York City. He has also zealously endorsed the war in Iraq, an undertaking in which the neoconservatives have a deep and obvious investment."
"it must be stressed that the issue that has come to trump all other evangelical concerns is fighting the war on terror......From the evangelical perspective, this confrontation with terror is so intertwined with other issues that it serves as a kind of shorthand. Israel, Zionism, and the glorification of American democracy as a world model are all at least implicit in the evangelical conception of the struggle against terror—one that Giuliani is imagined to be able to lead better than any other presidential contender."
"Evangelicals believe in exactly the kind of war that the Bush administration has described in its idealistic moments. It is also the one that Giuliani, as the protector of our “security” and the denier of “moral equivalency,” represents more than any other presidential candidate."
"Now that powerful segment of the American electorate has concluded that this social liberal from New York will continue a missionizing venture that they understand as an extension of Wilson’s “war to end all wars” and “make the world safe for democracy.” Giuliani’s evangelical supporters do not view him in the same way the liberal media does—that is, as a social liberal who will push his party leftward. Given the erosion of the evangelical consensus on once hardcore moral issues, a tendency that religious sociologist Mark Shibley has studied in depth, Giuliani’s stands on abortion or gay marriage may matter less and less to many evangelical voters. Like Mike Gerson, these Republicans are focused on foreign-policy goals—and they seem to have found their candidate in the maritally challenged former mayor."
No way. Giuliani does not have a chance in hell of getting elected as President. I would be shocked if he even wins the primary, regardless of what the polls are saying this far out.
Abhi: I wont rule Giuliani out. Super Tuesday next year, will hold Alabama (48), Arizona (53), Arkansas (34), California (173), Delaware (18), Georgia (72), Illinois (70), Michigan (61), Missouri (58), New Jersey (52), New Mexico (32), New York (101), North Dakota (26), Oklahoma (42), Tennessee (55), Utah (36), West Virginia.
If Giuliani can come out swinging in the blue states especially in the big ones like California and New York/New Jersey while the rest of the candidates split up the other states, Giuliani might come out on top. He's already planning on sitting out Iowa, which is a smart move probably because the Iowa caucus voters are true believers (Pat Roberton beat Bush here!) Florida has also moved up its primary to January though its a closed primary so the Jewish Democrats who tend to like him wont be able to vote for him. I think if Giuliani can finish in the top 2 in New Hampshire and Florida, he will have enough momentum to sweep CA/NY/NJ while split the moderate vote with McCain in other states. That might be enough for Giuliani to get the nomination.
I think the surprising support for Giuliani among the religious rights says more about the religious right than about Giuliani, i.e. Ralph Reed and his ilk are just as hypocritical as anyone else playing the political game.
Also, does anyone think that all this talk is almost obscenely early, considering we're only in June of 2007? By the time the actual primaries roll around, the electorate (the part of it that's paying any attention) will be completely jaded by this whole process.
Never misunderestimate the power and attractiveness of manichaean paranoia. Even if it foams at the mouth instead of jumbling diction.
On the other hand those lightning strikes when Giuliani was asked about his support for abortion rights in the last debate may give second thoughts to some superstitious christians :)
He is the least overtly christian of all the candidates and if it is exposed that he is a closet pagan or something then the evangelical support will evaporate.
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usrudy065244085jun06,0,2608954.story?coll=ny-uspolitics-headlines
"Alone among the top-tier candidates for president, Rudolph Giuliani is refusing to discuss whether and how often he goes to church - a stance that could complicate his efforts to win over religious conservatives at the heart of the Republican base, political analysts said.
In a survey of presidential candidates in both parties, Giuliani, a Catholic, was the only one to refuse to say how often he attended services, and he also declined to name a church of which he is a member.
"The mayor's personal relationship with God is private and between him and God," the campaign wrote in reply to the survey, according to The Associated Press, which polled the candidates."
"Giuliani's religious beliefs already have become an issue in the campaign. The ex-mayor gave the same answer after comments by Pope Benedict XVI suggested that Catholic politicians who support abortion rights - such as Giuliani - had broken their bonds with the church and might no longer be eligible to receive Holy Communion.
Then this week, a Catholic bishop in Rhode Island ripped Giuliani's abortion rights stance, calling it hypocritical and comparing him to Pontius Pilate, who turned over Jesus Christ to be crucified."
Then this week, a Catholic bishop in Rhode Island ripped Giuliani's abortion rights stance, calling it hypocritical and comparing him to Pontius Pilate, who turned over Jesus Christ to be crucified.
Wow, these fundamentalists are tireless. Reading the articles posted above, I get the feeling the only way Giuliani can sell himself effectively is by milking his tough guy credentials. At least he's standing up to the church.
Ponniyin Selvan