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 point goes to two basic concepts. One, I would deny that Democracy, whether home grown or not, is even suitable for the government of most peoples. It has only worked--and then only for a time--historically, among those having a common culture and a very high level of comparative intelligence.

The US was conceived as a constitutional republic with a weak central government, strong states and an explicitly Protestant culture. She has evolved into something 100% different. The Framers repeatedly warned against democracy.

But it is not just that it is impractical. It involves the sort of arrogant assumption that peoples are interchangeable; which while it may be consistent with some Socialist theories, flies in the face of the complex American experience; where the manifest differences in the values of even closely akin peoples is very evident--albeit glossed over by our Socialized educational systems.

An enthusiasm for exporting democracy seems to go hand-in-glove with an enthusiasm for importing every and all kinds of people from around the globe. Pointing out that immigrants from some cultures are more difficult (if not impossible) to assimilate is considered racist.

The Washington/Jefferson foreign policy treated others with respect, not such arrogant presumption. That did not mean we didn't influence others by example. But influencing, by example, is a very different proposition from that advocated by that portion of the Left, reflected in Frum's theories.

The Framers saw America as a "light unto the nations." The American Revolution inspired the various successful revolts against Spanish rule in Latin America. I think that a number of the newly-independent Latin American nations even copied the US Constitution word for word. Well, you know what's happened down there since then.

I keep referring to Frum (David Frum To Haiti Project), because it is Frum who has advocated, via a book and otherwise, that we apply the Clintonian idea of imposing Democracy on Third World peoples, as a constructive idea.)

But let me specifically address your thoughts, and comments:

You seem to be operating from the principle that to "respect" a group of people is to leave their dictator alone, while to "disrespect" a group of people is to take steps to get rid of that dictator. I'm sorry but that's just looney-tunes. You can call opposition to ousting the Hussein regime a lot of things, but "respect for the Iraqian people" is NOT one of them.

I have given the Administration the benefit of every doubt on the Iraq War--I am not one of those attacking the decision to invade Iraq, which was not justified on the implied premise that you suggest by the quoted lines; but on other far more legitimate bases. (Iraq--Tactical Folly, Strategic Madness, does not deal with an attack on the decision to go in, but the argument for a protracted stay, etc..)

But the real crux of where you and I differ is in this:

The advocates of the actions in question would probably not say that the risk is "to experiment with the society of other peoples" but, rather, to alter those societies to render them less threatening to us. There is a difference. You can choose to characterize our motivations however you want, but be prepared for people to call you on your straw-men where applicable.

The idea that you can alter the Societies of others certainly implies an element of disrespect. The idea that you can not only accomplish this, but do so in manner that is not both disrespectful and as an experiment, seems particularly far-fetched.

First of all, Iraq is not a natural nation. It is an Administrative unit, combining a lot of diverse tribal and ethnic groups--of which there are at least three major players, who would unquestionably dominate the smaller players, if they are not too busy killing each other. To gloss over this is foolishness. To gloss over the fact that the Mongols virtually exterminated those Mesopotamian peoples who produced the flowing in Baghdad prior to 1400, is also madness. But let us look, for a moment, at some examples of "Democracy" in action, to see some of the possibilities.

Those who seek to export our values to others, cheered when Democracy replaced the Hohenzollern Monarchy in the Imperial German Federation, after World War I. 15 years later, a Socialist upstart, with a bunch of angry radicals, gained dominance, and ended that Democracy, after first employing it. Did this make Germany less of a threat, than she had been under the benevolent Monarchy? How about the Democracy, which we and Great Britain insisted that the Rhodesians accept? How about the Democracy in Chile, which necessitated General Pinochet's firm response?

The idea that "Democracy" per se, in other countries, is somehow a direct benefit to us, cannot be supported. For any example of a benefit, there are probably two of a detriment. But the real point is that there is virtually no connection--so far as American interests--in how a Government is chosen. What is relevant to our interests, is how a Government acts with reference to our interests.

But the act of forcing diverse people--as in Nigeria, South Africa, the former Congo, Rwanda, Rhodesia or Iraq--to live under a regime where the Government is determined by counting noses--is always a disaster waiting to happen. Democracy requires a degree of homogeniety (common values) and an electorate with a high level of abstract intelligence. If you look at its roots in ancient Athens, you will note that it was limited to the rooted male Athenians. Neither the large free resident non-Athenian ethnic population nor the majority of the total population, who were slaves--enjoyed the suffrage.

Obviously, neither that type of Democracy, nor the Swiss version, nor that of the New England Town Meeting, in traditional America, is applicable to the diverse peoples of Iraq.

William Flax

We need to get over the idea that those in the rest of the world, who envy our achievements, have a right to define our terminology. We need also to stop cowering before the "politically correct" folk at home. Understanding that peoples differ is essential both so far as an immigration policy is concerned, but also as to any analysis of the macro statistics, that are always been cited by Leftist advocacy groups, to make this or that point. The Left calls that recognition "racist," because they have no argument--none--against applying reasonable definitions and classifications to people. They seek to intimidate by hissing, rather than engage in reasoned discourse in the pursuit of truth, which is the only approach which can ever hope to contribute to the solution of any problem.

Yes. When the Left struck out in promoting Class Warfare in certain Western Nations, they began to play the race card. The hissing insult, became their stock in trade; race and ethnicity became a metaphor for class. But it is no more evil to be a member of another race, than to have obtained a certain level of material success. It is just plain silly, however, to pretend that either racial identity or material achievement is evil.

When I suggest that Democracy has only worked for a few peoples in the history of man, I was not suggesting that it was either intended for America, or that--outside the New England Town Meeting--it has ever worked here. The present efforts to impose Democracy on America have been closely associated with the breakdown of our Constitutional values, and should certainly be opposed.

William Flax

it is Frum who has advocated, via a book and otherwise, that we apply the Clintonian idea of imposing Democracy on Third World peoples

There you go again with the fallacious "imposing Democracy" construction. Once again: if this ever actually occurs, the only people on whom democracy is "imposed" are the autocrats who previously held power. Not the "peoples" [sic]. "Imposing" democracy on "peoples" [sic] is impossible and downright absurd - like saying that to use the Heimlich maneuver is to "impose breathing" on one who is choking.

....the decision to invade Iraq, which was not justified on the implied premise that you suggest by the quoted lines

What premise do you think I was suggesting was used to "justify" the invasion? I believe you are putting words in my mouth. To my recollection I have not discussed justification or lack thereof here.

The idea that you can alter the Societies of others certainly implies an element of disrespect.

I simply don't agree. Any society "can" alter any other (not necessarily in the way they want, of course - as you'd probably agree, unintended consequences are the rule) given sufficient disparity in relative power (hard and soft); that's just a fact, fuzzy but still every bit as true as saying that a heavier rock will tilt a seesaw as against a lighter rock. I don't see how saying this can entail "disrespect"; it is simply an acknowledgment of reality. "Respect" or lack thereof really has nothing to do with the observation. (Should we pretend there exists no power disparity among societies, out of "respect"?)

Of course, one would expect that all other things being equal, societies will (well, consciously) leave each other alone (in the abstract sense). But even in cases (such as this one) where a society has consciously sought to influence another, what is important is how and why and to what end.

Where "disrespect" may come into play, I suppose, is if the alteration proposed against a given people is for the worse rather than for the better (=disrespect for their lives and rights), and/or is motivated by punitive or hateful reasons (i.e. the alteration Hitler attempted, and to some extent succeeded, in making to European-Jewish society), and/or is done in a nonserious or half-hearted and incomplete manner.

But neither of the first two is the case with our intervention in Iraq (the jury's still out on the third, depending crucially on whether opinions such as yours rule the day). Our effort, whatever else one might say about it, can only be fairly said to be an attempt to improve the extant society of (the lives of people in) Iraq, and the motivation was not because we "hate Iraqian people" or think them intrinsically inferior or subhuman, but simply because we found their rulers to be intolerable. Whom are we "disrespecting" in this equation, apart from those rulers?

I gather that the reason that you call all this "disrespect" is because you consider a verdict of "your rulers are intolerable" to be essentially equivalent to the verdict "you and/or your culture are intolerable in a fundamental way". I believe this is fallacious. Indeed it equates "culture" with "the gang of thugs currently ruling over you and exploiting your lives". IMHO this is far more "disrespectful" of the "peoples" [sic] in question. A decent respect for foreign "peoples" [sic], it seems to me, would entail an acknowledgment that there is actually a difference between a people/their culture, and some gang of killers who terrorizes those people into submission (often with conscious or unwitting external aid - as is the case with Hussein). Failure to distinguish between these two, or insistence that the latter springs naturally from the former and is therefore untouchable and sacrosanct (indeed even somehow desired by those under submission), is the ultimate "disrespect".

It's also ahistorical. To pretend and insist that we act as if that the Hussein regime somehow sprang organically from the soil of Mesopotamia ignores the obvious historical reality that his existence and power and wealth has been buttressed by external powers every step of the way - including but not limited to his enrichment by the UN "oil-for-food"/"fake sanctions which European countries violate" type approach to "containing" him which, I can only assume, is the type of alternative approach you perhaps think constitutes such "respect" for the people of Iraq.

So if what you're saying is that ousting the Hussein regime really constitutes "disrespect" for the Iraqian "peoples" [sic] in your mind, I'd just say you and I operate from quite different definitions of the term "respect", and leave it at that. (If we-must-always-leave-the-dictator-alone is "respect" then I want no part of it.)

First of all, Iraq is not a natural nation.

What's a "natural nation"? Is the U.S.A. a "natural nation"?

It is an Administrative unit, combining a lot of diverse tribal and ethnic groups--of which there are at least three major players, who would unquestionably dominate the smaller players, if they are not too busy killing each other. To gloss over this is foolishness.

Who's "glossing over" this? You are correct here in broad terms, to my knowledge.

To gloss over the fact that the Mongols virtually exterminated those Mesopotamian peoples who produced the flowing in Baghdad prior to 1400, is also madness.

And who's "glossing over" this? Talk about a non sequitur. I guess I just took it for granted that in any given discussion, most of the events of human history can be taken as a given and need not all be explicitly mentioned, listed, tabulated, and agreed upon. No?

Those who seek to export our values to others, cheered when Democracy replaced the Hohenzollern Monarchy in the Imperial German Federation, after World War I. [...]

Let's just stop right there. Who cheered this, exactly? The event in question occurred over 80 years ago. Almost everyone who cheered this event is dead.

And your implication (at least, what I understand to be your implication - perhaps I misinterpret) that anyone who favored our action in Iraq would necessarily have cheered this event, is a fallacious straw-man unsupported by a single thing (except perhaps having the word "democracy" in common in surrounding discussions - which is a shallower connection than you seem to think). Essentially you have taken ultimately negative historical event A, said "those who support B cheered A", and then patted yourself on the back for proving B wrong. Who do you think you're fooling? Would you like two to play this game? All right: "those who agree with you about this issue cheered the Holocaust 50 years ago!" Now obviously this is nastier and more inflammatory in content than yours, but your construction was no less fallacious.

The idea that "Democracy" per se, in other countries, is somehow a direct benefit to us, cannot be supported.

I agree. I am not here arguing that "Democracy per se" is a direct benefit to us in the first place. For the record I am actually quite opposed to "Democracy per se", not only elsewhere but in my own country as well.

But the real point is that there is virtually no connection--so far as American interests--in how a Government is chosen. What is relevant to our interests, is how a Government acts with reference to our interests.

Yet there may be a correlation between the two. But for the record, I agree that we ought not be too fixated on "how a Government is chosen". I posted earlier to you that, at least in my view, "democracy" means (i.e. is shorthand for) far more than merely, One Election.

But the act of forcing diverse people--as in Nigeria, South Africa, the former Congo, Rwanda, Rhodesia or Iraq--to live under a regime where the Government is determined by counting noses

That is not what I would have be done in the first place. Another straw man. The "Palestinian Authority" fits this definition (in a wide sense), and I agree, I would not wish such a Government on anyone.

Obviously, neither that type of Democracy, nor the Swiss version, nor that of the New England Town Meeting, in traditional America, is applicable to the diverse peoples of Iraq.

Ok. We'll see. Best,

I think that we seem to both be suffering from taking one another in senses that neither of us intends. Rather than go through your very long response, point by point--which would involve acknowledging that you have merely stated something in a different form than I, I will limit this to where we really do fail to communicate.

I am not suggesting that one Society can not impose its will in certain areas on another. In that sense, conquerors certainly alter other societies. Whether they should try to alter those aspects of another society, which reflect the personalities of the population, however, is entirely an other question. No where did I suggest that Saddam was something that sprang naturally from the Iraqi persona. On the contrary, I would deny that there is such a thing. Saddam was an evil Socialist despot. I have no sympathy for his regime. That is entirely another issue.

But for us to try to impose Westminster forms on the multi-national creature that is Iraq is the sheerest foolishness. You need only look at the British experiment in trying to Anglicize the Irish--who are much more similar to the British than the Kurds are to some of their southern Iraqi neighbors--to understand what happens, after the conquerors finally go home.

That you do not see the possibility that Democracy is being imposed, in some instances, I think is because you are ignoring the fact that peoples have different social structures, which function in ways that are not consistent with universal suffrage. To level a society, and make everyone, whether a "chief or indian" have the same political clout, is not the inherently fair idea that some would suggest. (Note, I will not impute that idea to you.)

The reason Democracy does not usually work in the Third World is the same reason that the Third World is not as advanced as the First. The same aptitudes that make people able to act responsibly politically, enable people to progress in other ways.

However, even peoples as bright and independent spirited as the early Americans, can certainly appreciate the limitations and disadvantages of "Democracy." Hence they chose a Republic. We did not have anything even close to universal male suffrage until the age of Jackson, 52 years after the Revolution.

William Flax

Whether they should try to alter those aspects of another society, which reflect the personalities of the population, however, is entirely an other question.

Yes, it is. It is a question that we in the U.S.A. (not by a huge majority but by a majority) have decided in the affirmative, regarding Iraq.

No where did I suggest that Saddam was something that sprang naturally from the Iraqi persona.

Good. Then to argue for ousting Saddam can entail no "disrespect" for that persona, as we both agree that there is no essential link between the two.

But for us to try to impose Westminster forms on the multi-national creature that is Iraq is the sheerest foolishness.

I understand that to be your opinion and happen not to agree with it. (At least if my educated guess about the meaning of "Westminster forms" is close enough. A Google search was not very helpful.) Anything else?

You need only look at the British experiment in trying to Anglicize the Irish--who are much more similar to the British than the Kurds are to some of their southern Iraqi neighbors--to understand what happens, after the conquerors finally go home.

Nobody is trying to "Anglicize" the Iraqians. (I hope.)

That you do not see the possibility that Democracy is being imposed, in some instances, I think is because you are ignoring the fact that peoples have different social structures, which function in ways that are not consistent with universal suffrage.

If people have slaves, and their tradition is that slaves have no say in matters, and then I allow for those slaves to vote on something - then I'm "imposing democracy". That kind of thing? Yes, I can see that.

But, in this hypothetical, we are "imposing democracy" on whom? The slave?

I agree. Some supposed members of the Right (even on the FR) will call anyone who recognizes the differences between peoples racist. The Left doesn't even believe in assimilation -- they prefer "multiculturalism." Neither can argue -- they can only name call and hope to intimidate.

There has always been a high degree of social mobility in America (many well-to-do elderly today were born poor) so class warfare never went as far here as it did in other countries (where it often become a literal class war). This may change because of the massive offshoring of middle class jobs, but that's another story. So they successfully turned to whipping up racial, ethnic and religious hostilities. In fact, to cultural Marxists, Whites are not supposed to possess a sense of racial identity. That's racist.

Human beings are by nature tribal and tribes are by nature territorial and competitive. People (and animals) instinctively prefer those they consider their own kind. One of the reasons democracy will work better in a homogenous society is because the population senses that it is really one big family of common blood, history, language, religion, culture, etc. Divisions will be regional or economic. This is true to some degree in the US -- the Republicans and the Democrats do tend to appeal to different racial, ethnic and religious groups. In third world countries, different tribes will literally have their own political parties. Arguably, monarchy is preferable in a heterogenous society because loyalty may be directed towards a person rather than a particular ethnic group or country.

It's also vital that voters make rational and just decisions -- the vicious, ignorant and just plain stupid are easy prey for demagogues. At one time in the US, self-government meant informed citizens making rational decisions -- now it means voters seeking to legally pick the contents of their neighbors' pockets or else trying to protect themselves from those who seek to pick the contents of their pockets. Otherwise, the government, the courts, and the bureaucracy ignore the wishes of the people on the overall direction of the country (e.g., on immigration).

I always enjoy reading your posts. There is so much to learn and think about afterwards.

We are in substantial agreement on all points.

I am replying, basically, to take up your point about one of the negative possible consequences of outsourcing middle-class jobs. While I am a Jeffersonian on trade--almost a Calhounian--this current practice is borderline insane. Why? Because it completely ignores the concept of a true community.

In America we have many communities, both separate and concentric. (An example of concentric communities would be the traditional Caucasian and Negro communities of the old South--and in many Northern locations as well). Booker T. Washington captured the essence of this in his famous address at the Atlanta Exposition, in 1895--the one where he said that in all things that were purely social, we could be as separate as the fingers; yet one as the hand, where the common interest was involved.

This is the same concept, stated with an earthy symbolism not previously captured by anyone so clearly, which made possible the Federal Union. On all matters that relate to the social and cultural values on which the different States differ, they are as independent as the fingers, yet one as the hand, where the common American interests are concerned. (I believe Webster, Clay and Calhoun could have all agreed on the aptness of Booker T. Washington's metaphor, in this broader context.)

This same reality--for it is a reality, without which there would be endless chaos and conflict, even as the Left has sought--is also involved in traditional labor management differences; urban/rural divisions; and in many others.

What outsourcing is doing, however, is making American Corporations increasingly dependent upon persons who do not share any real community of interest. The only common thread is the job; and when a labor/management conflict eventually occurs, as it will, despite all the connivance of the Corporate bureaucracies involved, the potential chaos is something to contemplate--not to mention what happens if we get in a major war.

By the way, have you ever considered whether the general ignorance of geography, virtually endemic in American public school graduates, reflects a similar conceptual disability as that which the Left is able to exploit in making people--White Americans, today, at least--ashamed to identify with their lines of descent? (I am not really suggesting a genetic cause. I do not think the problem genetic at all. Both, I think, reflect an educational system that for various reasons, is no longer willing or able to focus those in their formative years on concrete reality--as opposed to the delusional wish lists of certain theorists.)

Just throwing out a few thoughts, stimulated by your response to my previous post.

Thanks for your kind comments.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

I suppose that you are referring to what happened in Rwanda, where the West pushed the former Belgian Protectorate to embrace one-man one vote "Democracy," and the Hutu Government inflamed the mob to go on a genocidal massacre of their former Tutsi masters. Certainly that Democracy was imposed upon the Tutsi. Absent that pressure they would never have agreed to be at the Hutu's mercy.

But one does not have to cite that extreme an example of the cruelty of imposing an alien system on peoples. Even where you do not have a wide disparity in tribal numbers or previous achievements, 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; where the results would be almost as cruel as that visited upon the Tutsi.

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).

The Haitians are not divided as were the Tutsi and Hutu, but they are hardly a uniform people with one set of common values, and understanding. Far, far from it. In Haiti you have a relatively small intelligent--by First World Standards--cultured and educated class. These people travel in other lands, view other cultures, and seek understanding of what is important, just as do educated Americans. They believe in private property, family values, and in many of those things which are also important to Americans and Europeans. You have also, a huge lower class, probably with an average I.Q. below what enables one to even grasp the purposes of a modern Government, or to appreciate checks and balances, such as we take for granted. If Aristide had not come along to manipulate this potential mob, someone else surely would have.

And Aristide not only manipulated this mob, as someone else would have otherwise, he made sure of his control by having his Marxist thugs visit horrible death upon anyone bright enough within the social milieu that he was exploiting, to challenge the rest of the mob, with any other message. If it had not been Aristide, it would have been another poisoned by the Marxist cant of egalitarianism.

Now, I would suggest to you, that if you had been down there, when General Cedras, and other intelligent and educated Haitians, had risen up against the egalitarian demagogue, to preserve the decent aspects of Haitian society and the rights of the minority, who understood those things that we take for granted, you would have supported General Cedras. We could not have been enjoying our little discussion, here--not in safety--under Aristide. 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. It would lose all of its appeal on the ground.

William Flax [Once again, proposing that we send David Frum To Haiti]

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.