Reality 1, Neo-cons 0

The Marines have landed, and the situation is not well in hand, nor will it ever be. I am speaking, of course, of Haiti, that boil on the Western Hemisphere's posterior which no plaster can ever cure. In the 18th century, Haiti was so rich, thanks to the sugar trade, that it alone provided two-thirds of the value of France's overseas commerce. Today, Haiti is so poor that the average American dog probably lives better than the average Haitian.

But I forget: just ten years ago, we solved all of Haiti's problems. Applying the neo-cons' prescription for the whole world, we sent in thousands of American troops, overthrew the "undemocratic" Haitian government and installed Haiti's Mr. Chalabi, Monsieur Aristide - the same savior who just departed, with Washington's encouragement, to the universal anthem of the Third World's elite, "I'm Leavin' on a Jet Plane." For some incomprehensible reason, democracy backed by American bayonets failed to turn Haiti into Switzerland. It's probably because we forgot to teach them how to make cuckoo clocks and put holes in cheese.

Haiti is in fact a fair test of the neo-cons' thesis, a thesis we are now putting to further trials in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their core argument is that history and culture simply don't matter. Everyone in the world wants American-style "democratic capitalism," and everyone is also capable of it. To think otherwise is to commit the sin of "historicism."

The argument is absurd on the face of it. History and culture don't matter? Not only do the failed cultures and disastrous histories of most of the world argue the contrary, so does our own history and culture. Democratic capitalism first developed in one place, England, over an historical course that goes back almost a thousand years, to the Magna Carta. America was born as an independent country to guarantee the rights of Englishmen. If England had possessed the culture of, say Mongolia, can anyone with the slightest grasp on reality think we would be what we are today?

While the neo-cons' thesis says nothing about reality, it says a great deal about the neo-cons themselves. First, it tells us that they are ideologues. All ideologies posit that certain things must be true, regardless of any evidence to the contrary. That evidence is to be suppressed, along with the people who insist on pointing to it. Sadly, the neo-cons have been able to do exactly that within the Bush Administration, and the mess in Iraq is the price.

Second, it reveals the nature of the neo-con ideology, which has nothing whatsoever to do with conservatism (as Russell Kirk wrote, conservatism is the negation of ideology). The neo-cons in fact are Jacobins, les ultras of the French Revolution who also tried to export "human rights" (which are very different from the concrete, specific rights of Englishmen) on bayonets. Then, the effort eventually united all of Europe against France. Today, it is uniting the rest of the world against America.

Finally it reveals the neo-cons as fools, lightweights who can dismiss history and culture because they know nothing of history or culture. The first generation of neo-cons were serious intellectuals, Trotskyites but serious Trotskyites. The generation now in power in Washington is made up of poseurs who happen to have the infighting skills of the Sopranos. If you don't believe me, look at Mr. Wolfowitz's book. Or, more precisely, look for Mr. Wolfowitz's book (hint: he never wrote one).

Perhaps it was America's turn to have its foreign policy captured by a gang of ignorant and reckless adventurers. It has happened to others: Russia before the Russo-Japanese War, Japan in the 1930's. The results are seldom happy.

Before we get ourselves into any more neo-con led follies, we should apply their thesis to a simple test: send them to Haiti and see if they can make a go of it, after the U.S. Marines pull out. If they can, I'll put my money in a Haitian bank.

William S. Lind is Director for the Center for Cultural Conservatism for the Free Congress Foundation

[my slave hypothetical] I suppose that you are referring to what happened in Rwanda,

Not at all. It was a pure hypothetical, to try to flesh out your point regarding how democracy can be an "imposition" due to "social structures". (I concede the point, by the way. At the same time, if done well rather than poorly, I don't care, because it will have been an "imposition" only on those who needed imposing upon, e.g. Hussein's "Baathists".)

Certainly that Democracy was imposed upon the Tutsi. Absent that pressure they would never have agreed to be at the Hutu's mercy.

Agreed. Um, I do not endorse or condone what happened in Rwanda. (!)

Since it's apparently not clear, at no time in this thread have I advocated anything which would be considered "pure democracy", head-counting democracy, or the like. Once again you seem hung up on the word "democracy", even though I have explained several times now that the way I (and most people, by the way) use it, it's really shorthand for a lot of other stuff (some of that stuff being not at all "democratic" - i.e. judges enforcing bills of rights). I'm sure you find it a convenient straw-man, but "tribe with the most votes gets to slaughter the other tribe", does not qualify to begin with, and it's not what I advocate doing in Iraq or anywhere else.

there are a vast realm of potential reasons why a people would not want to have their affairs decided on a one man, one vote basis

I agree.

We don't even decide much of anything on a one man, one vote basis in this country. Hell, scratch that: we decide absolutely nothing on a one man, one vote basis in this country.

Let us look at the actual subject, here: The failed Clinton Legacy (i.e. imposing Democracy--or as you would apparently prefer, "protecting" or "granting" "Democracy" to the Haitians

I'll just take the liberty to clean this up a little since it's supposed to be my opinion you're characterizing:

-"protecting" "Democracy"? What democracy was there to protect in Haiti? (I know you insist on counting Aristide as "Democracy", because Clinton did, and because that aids your argument - but I don't.) I probably mentioned protecting rights, not "democracy". Yes, sure I'll endorse the idea that protecting Haitians' rights would be (or, would have been) a good thing.

-I wouldn't capitalize the word "Democracy" as you do, because I gather that when you do this you are insisting that "Democracy" connote pure democracy or something pretty darn close to that. For the record, as I have stated or implied several times now, I am firmly opposed to pure democracy.

[interesting background on Haiti deleted]

you would have supported General Cedras

Quite possibly yes. Nothing I have said in this thread can have been construed to imply otherwise. (Remember, the fact that Aristide may have been at one point mathematically legitimate ruler by the rules of pure democracy doesn't count, because I do not condone pure democracy at all, much as you keep trying to beat that straw man)

And I would suggest to your further, that even Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton and David Frum, would have supported General Cedras, had they lived in Haiti. That their penchant for imposing Democracy--yes that is my word, and your dissent is noted--is exercised from safe parlors in America.

Not that I care (because I still don't understand the fascination with Frum), but I wonder why you bring David Frum into that equation. The intervention in Haiti, from the safe parlors of America, was effected by Clinton. And presumably drafting his wife onto that same team is fair.

But what in sam hill does circa 2002-2004 National Review hack columnist David Frum have to do with it? Did Frum support the 1994 intervention in Haiti? Was he even out of college at the time (I'm looking at his columnist headshot right now)? Just wondering.

You seem to have by some sleight of hand imputed the opinion to David Frum of all people, apropos of not very much, that the 1994 Haiti intervention was a good thing. (Hey, correct me if I'm wrong.) Is this, as I suspect, merely because of the word "Democracy", or do you have actual evidence that David Frum supported Aristide, protecting Aristide, re-installing Aristide, or any of the above? I'm sincerely asking. I've just done a few Google searches, I looked at the Amazon summary and some customer reviews of his latest book, and I'm clicking thru his diary, but so far I see nothing whatsoever to indicate Frum's opinion about either Haiti or Aristide, one way or the other.

Is this, like, the world's biggest straw-man you're trying to build? Pretend, sans evidence, Frum supports(ed) Aristide, and then castigate him for doing so? Does reality ever intrude here? What is going on?

But my dragging Frum into this is simply my way of mocking his...

I can see well enough that it's your way of mocking his opinions. What I am questioning is the aptness of your mockery. Did Frum support Aristide or didn't he? I don't know and you don't seem to either. If he didn't, seems to me your chosen method of mockery is rendered rather empty.

This is not to say that Mr. Frum is not mockable in other areas, by other methods. (I know and care very little about Frum.) Just that building some kind of "Frum supports Democracy therefore he supports Aristide" straw man and then knocking it down (if that's what you're doing - it's still not clear to me) seems rather silly, when, as far as I can tell, for all you know Frum was opposed to the Aristide intervention. (Again: let me know if you have reason to believe otherwise.)

[Frum's] outrageous proposal--the one that Pat Buchanan debunked a week or so ago--

How does one go about "debunking" a proposal? Assertions can be debunked (here's one: "we never landed on the Moon"). But "proposals" can not. (For example, here's a proposal: "We should send a manned mission to Mars." Please, go ahead, "debunk" that *proposal* if you can, I dare you! :)

to have America involved in trying to change the culture of a large swathe of the Asian world.

I hate to break it to you but America is going to change, and has been changing, the culture of a large swathe of the Asian (and Middle Eastern, and all other parts of the) world, whether we consciously try to or not.

To speak about something actually relevant to (so-called) "neo-con" ideas, one of the ways we affected, say, Iraq quite a bit over the past 30 years or so was that we aided Hussein a bit in his efforts against the Persians and in general considered him something of a bulwark against communism (if I recall these (D) talking-points correctly). More recently, like in the past 10+ years, we'd been blockading his country, which even if it had the effect of reducing his ability to build an arsenal somewhat, simultaneously placed the Iraqian people in a sort of hostage situation under him (cementing his power over them), and created a black market (in both materiel and diplomatic capital) from which Hussein personally and certain Europeans in general seemed to have busied themselves profiting. So "not affecting Iraq"/"not changing Iraq" was never even an option on the table, that cow had already left the barn.

Obviuosly if meddling does not work very well, a short distance off shore, it is not likely to work much better on the other side of the earth.

Seems to me it depends on what that "meddling" consists of, how it is done, who's doing it, what its goals are, what the people being "meddled" are like, and so forth. I'm not sure that geographical distance is even the primary factor in all these equations. For example it seems clear that (for a number of complicated reasons) our "meddling" in say Japan or South Korea has been more successful than our "meddling" in Haiti, even though the former is more distant geographically than is the latter.

So a nice lesson to draw from the Haiti exercise might just be: Something is wrong with the way we "meddled" in Haiti. (Duh.)

This says nothing whatsoever about things proposed by either Mr. Frum in particular (as far as you and I know) or "neo-cons" in general because the intervention in Haiti was not a "neo-con" thing in the first place. Just because some people advocating that exercise uttered the word "democracy" in some of their speeches doesn't make it a "neo-con" thing. This is the essential conceit of the article, and it is pure unadulterated nonsense.

It seems to me that what you are trying to do is to make a distinction without a real difference. The idea of meddling in other cultures, is the basic subject. It is the difference between insufferable arrogance and leading by example.

No Frum does not identify with Clinton. Clinton meddled in Haiti to level Haitian society in the name of "Democracy." Frum and some others, including some who still have influence with the Administration, would meddle on the other side of the world, to level Arab and Aryan cultures, also in the name of "Democracy." This is most certainly not the traditional American policy; nor does it invoke traditional American values. I suggest, however, that the differences between Clinton and Frum are more those of personality and background than ideology.

Now you also confuse cases where we won a war, after being attacked, with our aggressively meddling in an other culture. However, Japan is a very interesting case, which actually demonstrates more precisely what is wrong with the Frum approach to the Near and Middle Easts--even if one does not care about the multi-faceted moral issues involved in the outrageous Frum proposal. The Near and Middle Easts generally have populations with a deeper skill level--in terms of running complex political entities--than does the population of Haiti; but the gap between most of those nations and Japan is immense.

Japan has quite possibly the highest average IQ level among the major powers in the world. She also has a basically homogenious population--a people who share a common heritage, culture, and common loyalties. What MacArthur accomplished in Japan, was not in the least analogous to what Frum and others are proposing. MacArthur popularized Japanese politics with the full cooperation of the defeated Emperor, who was not only the political leader of the conquered people, but their spiritual leader as well. If the Japanese experience is analogous to anything, it would be the shifts that took place from time to time in Mideval Europe, when one feudal Lord, whose feudal over-lord was conquered by an invading Prince, transferred his fealty in the face of the new reality; with the Blessing of a Church common to both.

But I do not want to dignify Frum by even going into all of this. (This could get out of hand, very easily, because there are characteristics peculiar to each land on earth, which will effect what governmental forms might be suitable for their peoples. Obviously, those forms need to be sorted out within the confines of their own societies.) The reason that I pick on Frum rather than one of those others, whom you and the writer of the lead article refer to as "neo-cons," is because he is a Canadian ex-patriate. It is outrageous that he, his patriotism hardly demonstrated, would dare suggest sending young Americans to their deaths in pursuit of a half-baked theory. (I also suspect that Frum, rather than Perle, did most of the keyboard work on their book.)

But I think we are just about alone, now, on this thread. So perhaps we should resume this on another. I am sure that there will be opportunities, soon enough.

Cheers!

William Flax

No Frum does not identify with Clinton [on Haiti]

Ok then bringing him into this discussion is therefore inapt.

Clinton meddled in Haiti to level Haitian society in the name of "Democracy." Frum and some others, including some who still have influence with the Administration, would meddle on the other side of the world, to level Arab and Aryan cultures, also in the name of "Democracy."

So we've established that the verbal utterances of people surrounding the two situations have the word "democracy" in common. That's far less of a commonality than you seem to think.

I suggest, however, that the differences between Clinton and Frum are more those of personality and background than ideology.

If you say so. Still don't know why you care about Frum so much. This is David Frum, right? Baby-faced guy who writes for "National Review Online" and wrote some hagiography of Bush a couple years back? I mean seriously, who cares about this guy. Guy's a damn columnist, if that. Aren't there any bigger fish to fry? Who's next, Richard Roeper?

Now you also confuse cases where we won a war, after being attacked, with our aggressively meddling in an other culture. [Japan and South Korea, vs. Haiti]

I didn't "confuse" them. I am well aware that each of the two participants in the two analogies "Japan and Haiti" and "South Korea and Haiti" can be distinguished from each other in a number of ways, thank you very much. What I did was mention them as both cases where we "meddled". Because you are here complaining abstractly about "meddling" as such. You did not seem to differentiate amongst different types of "meddling"; all your earlier statements seemed to indicate that to you all "meddling" is equally bad. So, whatever their differences, Japan and Haiti (and likewise, South Korea and Haiti - by the way in the South Korea situation we were not "attacked") are both situations in which we "meddled" in something, and may thus be compared and contrasted as such. If I am not taking note of any important differences between the two, it's only because you gave no prior indication that such differences could be operative in your view.

Now I guess you're saying otherwise...? Well *good*, then you admit that not all "meddling" is created equal, that some can be more successful than others, etc., and that this does not necessarily depend all that much on geographical distance. Hey, that was precisely my point! I'm glad we now agree :)

... the gap between most of those nations and Japan is immense. Japan has quite possibly the highest average IQ level among the major powers in the world. She also has a basically homogenious population-- [...]

You're implying that the success in Japan was dependent on their IQ level + homogeneity, that in "most of those nations" in the Middle East the IQ level is lower (and seems clear even to me that homogeneity is lower), and thus success in the Middle East will be more difficult than in Japan.

Ok. I'll take your word for it and defer to your apparent expertise regarding the IQ of the average Iraqian. We'll see what happens. But this consideration, correct or not, is not an argument against anything. "B will be more difficult than A" does not in and of itself mean that B can't be done, just that it's (drumroll) more difficult than A.

The reason that I pick on Frum rather than one of those others, whom you and the writer of the lead article refer to as "neo-cons,"

Just FYI, I don't really refer to them as "neo-cons". I am borrowing the author's term, you will notice I put it in quotes. Honestly I have never really been clear just what the heck a "neo-con" is and have never quite been able to pin down a definition of the term. (At one point I had come up with about four names of people who were ironclad "neo-cons"....) The very reason I jumped in this thread, of course, was to ridicule the windmill-tilting involved in spinning all these puerile yarns about the dreaded "neo-cons"....

It is outrageous that he, his patriotism hardly demonstrated, would dare suggest sending young Americans to their deaths in pursuit of a half-baked theory.

Frum can't state an opinion cuz he's Canadian. Got it

anything else?

Best,

Frum can certainly state an opinion. But when that opinion is one which would launch his adopted country on an aggressive tangent, his background is a fair subject for inquiry. There is an offensive hubris involved in moving somewhere, seeking to be accepted, and then trying to suggest that the neighborhood change its long-standing ideas to suit yours, when you are the "new neighbor"--the new kid on the block.

The rest of your post is simply a rehash of what we have already discussed, save for your Korean comment. The argument between us is whether America should be trying to change other people's cultures. The fact that we cannot do so off our shores, is certainly a reason for not trying to do so on the other side of the globe, but the real argument between us is over whether we should be trying to do so in the first place.

As to Korea. Korea had been ruled by Japan from 1910 until 1945. We went in Korea as liberators, and did have a hand in helping them establish their Capitalist independence in 1945 (that is in South Korea); while the USSR, unfortunately, set up a puppet state in North Korea. In that case, I would agree with your possibly implied, though not stated, premise that it would have been far better to have had America rather than Russia meddling in Korean affairs. But, I think that if you look at our meddling in the South, it was not in conflict with traditional Korean values. (If it were in any particular, I would be critical of that aspect.)

If your reference to Richard Roeper was intended to be a reference to Richard Roper, my fictional MIT Professor, you truly do amaze me; as I have never provided any link to that work, at Free Republic. (I am not familiar with a Richard Roeper, the way you have spelled it, if that refers to another.)

William Flax

The argument between us is whether America should be trying to change other people's cultures.

Actually, no it's not. At least, you may think that's what we're arguing, but I don't think it's even arguable to begin with. America is changing other peoples' cultures whether we/you like it or not, the only question is how. An argument over "whether we should" is as futile as an argument over whether the Earth "should" orbit the Sun.

The fact that we cannot do so off our shores, is certainly a reason for not trying to do so on the other side of the globe,

Only if "distance" or perhaps "proximity to our shores" is the main operative variable in ultimate success or failure. Which is not only far from clear but actually seems not to be true at all. Clearly other variables dominate, as you have demonstrated by all your endless theorizing about why Japan and S. Korea worked out ok. Observe that "distance from the U.S." does not figure anywhere in your theories.

the real argument between us is over whether we should be trying to do so in the first place.

Again: whether we "try" or not, it's going to happen.

[interesting S.Korea history deleted]

I think that if you look at our meddling in the South, it was not in conflict with traditional Korean values.

That's nice. So sometimes "meddling" is ok and does work out more or less ok; not all "meddling" is created equal. That was basically my point. I'm glad you finally agree.

If your reference to Richard Roeper was intended to be a reference to Richard Roper, my fictional MIT Professor,

Heh. No, just a coincidence. I was trying to illustrate the triviality and paranoia involved in fretting over David Frum of all people, painting a guy who writes for "National Review Online" as some kind of gray cardinal, somehow as influential as Henry Kissinger, George Soros, and the Pope all rolled into one. To that end I tossed around in my head for some other columnist to try to show you the absurdity of worrying/conspiracy-theorizing about columnists' philosophies, biographies, etc. Richard Roeper is the name I happened to come up with; he writes pedestrian columns for the Chicago Sun-Times, and he co-hosts a movie review show with Roger Ebert (filling the chair which used to be held by Gene Siskel). It's not even a particularly apt analogy. Perhaps I should have just said "Jonah Goldberg"...

Anyway, rest assured I had no idea that you had a "fictional MIT professor". I must say I am curious, of course ;-) Best,

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.