Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

Shaun Barrett · 2005-02-08 07:54:40

CC:-

.. but it must be said that some good is being accomplished and this will not be looked on as unfavorably as is fashionable at the moment. 10, 15 years down the line we'll be hearing a very different story unless something goes dramatically wrong.

My thoughts exactly.
I was reading a newspaper account of recent events in the Middle East and things are looking up:-
Afghanistan has had a successful election, in which women were able to participate - three years ago, they couldn't do anything .. they were non-persons, one of the most oppressed groups on earth.
The Palestinians have had a successful election for the first time in 9 years and there is a real prospect for an end to the bloodshed with Israel, brokered by Egypt.
The Iraqi people have turned out in large numbers and have had a stunningly successful election, too, against all the odds. Many of the liberal-left denied that the Iraqi election was feasible due to the violence, or because the Iraqis wouldn't understand what was being offered to them, or because they would reject democracy in protest at the Coalition's presence. The Iraqis have shown enormous courage and have shown the world they know perfectly well what democracy is all about and that they want it.
Lebanon is due for an election soon and the new atmosphere of democracy in the region may well see the election put an end to Syrian imperialism in that country, if the Opposition wins.

It feels like the whole mood in the Middle East is changing; and for the better, too. Here's a quote from the article I was reading, it comes from someone who's probably more in touch with reality in the Middle East than Juan Cole:-

Jordan's King Abdullah put it best: "People are waking up. [Arab] leaders understand that they have to push reform forward, and I don't think there is any looking back."

This fits in well with the about-face by Libya's Gadaffi, who renounced terrorism in the wake of the liberation of Iraq.

It looks increasingly likely to me that President Bush, together with Tony Blair, John Howard, and others, will be feted by history as the leaders who turned things around in the Middle East by acting rather than daydreaming.
I remember the socialist demonstrations in the streets when President Reagan was staring down the Soviet Empire. There were pictures portraying Reagan embracing Thatcher, a la 'Gone With The Wind', with the caption:- "She offered to follow him to the end of the Earth; he offered to arrange it." (Very funny, actually! )
Reagan's show of strength, against all the caterwauling of the eternally pessimistic, hand-wringing, liberal-left, brought down the Soviets and ended the Cold War. And Reagan will be remembered for that forever.

We could be seeing another American Presidential legend in the making. Stranger things have happened.

BWhite · 2005-02-08 10:50:02

In the long run Iraq may very well turn out well, despite the bungled operation, in large measure because of the patience and wisdom of Ayatollah Sistani.

Iran may turn out well also, with the pro-democracy anti-radical-Islamic factions becoming dominant =IF= we have the good sense NOT to invade or bomb them.

And, if President Bush proves to have the good sense to allow facts to modify the apparent trajectory set by the "Project for a New American Century" people then perhaps we will not be totally FUBAR-ed come 2008.

BWhite · 2005-02-08 11:10:33

The Iraqi people have turned out in large numbers and have had a stunningly successful election, too, against all the odds. Many of the liberal-left denied that the Iraqi election was feasible due to the violence, or because the Iraqis wouldn't understand what was being offered to them, or because they would reject democracy in protest at the Coalition's presence. The Iraqis have shown enormous courage and have shown the world they know perfectly well what democracy is all about and that they want it.

Elections are good. Sistani wanted these same elections over a year ago. Bush embraced elections only as a fall back plan after the original plan(s) faltered.

And our horse in that electoral race - - Allawi - - is finishing a distant 3rd.

It looks increasingly likely to me that President Bush, together with Tony Blair, John Howard, and others, will be feted by history as the leaders who turned things around in the Middle East by acting rather than daydreaming.

Kool-Aid, Kool-Aid tastes great, wish I had some, can't wait.

Reagan's show of strength, against all the caterwauling of the eternally pessimistic, hand-wringing, liberal-left, brought down the Soviets and ended the Cold War. And Reagan will be remembered for that forever.

Ah, I see you have taken the class Myth-Making 101. Gorbachev ended up being a decent man, unwilling to shoot his own people to stay in power. He deserves a huge amount of the credit.

A Soviet armored blitz of western Europe was doomed to failure since the fallout from any use of tactical nukes would have drifted right back over Russia and the Ukraine due to the prevailing winds. Afghanistan did help bleed the Soviets white, in large part because we paid to train and equip the men who later founded al Qaeda.

Also, Reagan had the good sense to allow taxes to rise during the later years he was in office to slow the exploding deficit. Bush will not do that and by 2008 the US budget deficit will be horrifically large.

But you Righties can go ahead fight the sterotyped liberals all you want because today that is like fighting WW1 in 1940 - - that war is the last war.

= = =

Here is the fallacy of drawing an anlogy betwwen the end of the Cold War and our War on Terror - - Islam is NOT like the Soviet Union. Not matter how firmly Condi Rice believes it to be true.

A free and democratic Iran and Iraq will be proudly Islamic, and hopefully not terrorist. But absolutely not puppets of the US. Sunni Iraqis - - at a minimum - - will remember the devastation of Fallajuh far more than they remember the elections.

And while we fight Islam, the EU, China, India and Russia are racing ahead full speed to better position themselves for the next great global conflict.

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-08 11:36:20

Elections are good. Sistani wanted these same elections over a year ago. Bush embraced elections only as a fall back plan after the original plan(s) faltered.

Elections were always part of the original plan, the problem is that we've made bad calls on who we expected to win them. Chalabi was a mistake. Allawi was acceptable for the role he served but not a long-term viable option.

Kool-Aid, Kool-Aid tastes great, wish I had some, can't wait.

Time will tell. I suspect that in the end the outcome will be less rosy than the neo-cons would like yet much better than the Left proclaims. On balance, it will be better. Progress will have been made and posterity will largely vindicate those responsible, even while holding them to their errors.

And if not, I'll bring the Coupll-Aid.

Ah, I see you have taken the class Myth-Making 101. Gorbachev ended up being a decent man, unwilling to shoot his own people to stay in power. He deserves a huge amount of the credit.

Which ignores why the collapse occured in the first place. Sure, Gorbachev wasn't Stalin but he was a Soviet Communist trying his damndest to save that system. Reagan brought it down, Gorbachev just had the sense to know it was over and keep the suffering to a minimum.

But you Righties can go ahead fight the sterotyped liberals all you want because today that is like fighting WW1 in 1940 - - that war is the last war.

I assume you're equally disdainful of the Lefties who keep fighting Vietnam. :;):

But on a more general level, you always enter a war ready to fight the last one, what else can one do? Go in with what you know and adapt as needed.

Always in motion is the future.

And while we fight Islam, the EU, China, India and Russia are racing ahead full speed to better position themselves for the next great global conflict.

What exactly is your indictment and what solution do you propose? We have to fight fundie Islam, we've ignored it too long and it's come back to bite us. We also must better position ourselves to remain dominant. Both are hard and both must be done together. We all know that ideally fighting on two fronts (politically as well as militarily) is to be avoided. But more often than not, you have to. Adversaries rarely arrive single-file and wait their turn. Dealing with Russia, China, India etc cannot be accomplished by turning away from our other entanglements.

But then Americans have become a fickle, lazy people and perhaps a clear and present danger of being subordinate to China will awaken them. We can do amazing things when we're inspired or pissed off.

BWhite · 2005-02-08 12:24:09

Cobra, to tie our two threads together, the one where we agree completely and the one where we may disagree completely

let me say this.

The United States is the most successful, most powerful, most generous, most moral, most just (albeit very, very far from perfect justice) nation-state to have existed in the history of humanity. Cool, but we accomplish all this just in time to begin to witness the decline of the nation-state as the pre-eminent unit of human political organization.

(Edit: And as we seek empire we begin to throw all this away! - Our current neo-con cabal are not comprised of the same people and are not the same American boys who liberated Normandy from Hitler in 1944.)

Today, the American Republic risks morphing into an American Empire with certain analogies to Rome of 2000 years ago, when the Republic was transformed by the Ceasars. Except unlike Rome, the rest of the world - - the EU, Russia, China, Islam, India and South America - - are not too keen on accepting full spectrum US global domination as envisioned by the Project for the Next American Century people. (Edit: And containment of US power is increasingly the best explanation for the actions of those other nations.)

My opinion is that if we want our values to engulf the world - - those values found in the Declaration of Independence, the Constituion of 1787 and the great speeches of Lincoln - - we must accept that we cannot accomplish that through the economic and military ascendancy of the American nation-state or by building an American empire.

We cannot dictate to the world, for we will lose. But I believe we can persude the world if we refrain from things like Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. The Nike jungle goes "Be Like Mike" - - we can persuade the world to imitate us - - and if we torture, they will torture. If we rule by the sword and the JDAM, they will seek to rule by the sword and the Galileo guided JDAM.

We can engage in genuine dialouge with Europe, and India and China on key questions. Europe is our best logical partner yet we fear Europe because they are choosing a modestly more socialist trajectory. But to prevail, Western Civilization must have a large enough tent to accomodate BOTH an American view of private property rights and a European view of private property rights.

Bush, IMHO, lacks the grand global vision to see more than a few years ahead or to acknowledge that the era of the nation-state may be drawing to a close.

The modern nation-state was created at Westphalia less than 500 years ago. The modern nation-state cannot extend out into space, altouigh space settlement can be useful to various nation-states during the wind down period.

Civilizations, as Samuel Huntington decribes, are the new most relevant political unit:

Western;
Islamic;
Sinic (China);
Orthodox Christian;
Hindu;
South American;
African.

Japanese and Buddhist are less populous players.

Western Civilization is undergoing a division (US & Europe) largely over how we perceive God. If the US permits a division of the EU and the US into two new civilizations (Greater Canada and Jesusland?) we weaken our standing with respect to the others.

But can Jerry Falwell and Dr. Dobson support a government that is friendly to God-less gay loving Frenchies?

= = =

We are fighting fundie Islam nearly single handedly. Why? Okay, Italy is with Bush but is New York with Bush as firmly as Italy?

We are fighting fundie Islam because we cannot escape our oil addiction. Why did God put our oil under their sand?

And because of Israel. Note that Condi Rice is now saying the US will pressure BOTH sides, something Bush rejected in his first term. Why? We need to re-build bridges with Europe.

And I say - - Good! Its about time. But those bridges are very badly ruined at this point. But its a start.

= = =

Saddam being gone is good. Period.

But to remove Saddam and claim the right to re-write Iraqi patent laws to mandate the use of Monsanto seed, or to deny re-building contracts to the French and Russians is not spreading democracy, its building empire.

And that will undermine our ability to spread our values as the era of the nation-state draws to a close.

Edited By BWhite on 1107888136

BWhite · 2005-02-08 12:33:40

As for re-fighting Vietnam, had we proposed removing Saddam using the Kosovo & Bosnia model and renounced the right to re-write the laws of Iraq as Paul Bremer deemed best (along with various related corollary thoughts) I believe our international support would have been much, much stronger and I personally would have supported regime change.

Sistani's marsh Arabs and the Kurds should have been liberated from Saddam back in 1990-1991. The Kurds were murdered by poison gas BEFORE the first Gulf War and Bush 41 did not think that sufficient cause to remove Saddam.

And if any currently state-less people deserve a nation, it is the Kurds.

Edited By BWhite on 1107887680

BWhite · 2005-02-08 12:49:37

What exactly is your indictment and what solution do you propose? We have to fight fundie Islam, we've ignored it too long and it's come back to bite us. We also must better position ourselves to remain dominant. Both are hard and both must be done together. We all know that ideally fighting on two fronts (politically as well as militarily) is to be avoided. But more often than not, you have to. Adversaries rarely arrive single-file and wait their turn. Dealing with Russia, China, India etc cannot be accomplished by turning away from our other entanglements.
But then Americans have become a fickle, lazy people and perhaps a clear and present danger of being subordinate to China will awaken them. We can do amazing things when we're inspired or pissed off.

Finding adequate global resources is the biggest challenge.

=IF= we can find a way to show the rest of the world we are serious about every human being having the material resources to live a healthy engaged meaningful life =THEN= we can persuade the others to follow our lead.

= = =

Where do we differ with Europe on issues of political philosophy?

(1) How we envision God; and

(2) The meta-physics of private property. The Europeans desire a slightly lower standard of living, a 35 hour work week and 5 weeks of paid vacation. This scares the hell out of work-a-holic Americans.

Honest dialouge on (1) & (2) is a good place to start.

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-08 13:07:12

Cobra, to tie our two threads together, the one where we agree completely and the one where we may disagree completely

Well, not completely as I'll hopefully be able to illustrate.

My opinion is that if we want our values to engulf the world - - those values found in the Declaration of Independence, the Constituion of 1787 and the great speeches of Lincoln - - we must accept that we cannot accomplish that through the economic and military ascendancy of the American nation-state or by building an American empire.

Subtle disagreement. We can't as we are currently inclined. It most certainly can be done and we can probably do it, but we have to change. Peacefully spreading our values, our cultural foundation around the world is the ideal outcome. That culture losing dominance and those values becoming subservient to less admirable systems is the worst outcome. The middle ground is a degradation or "Romanization" of that culture that is foisted upon others through military and economic force. Not my preferred option, but it's not the worst outcome by any stretch.

Ideally I'd support trying it your way but preparing quietly for full-on empire building if it doesn't work.

Roman with reservations.

We cannot dictate to the world, for we will lose. But I believe we can persude the world if we refrain from things like Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. The Nike jungle goes "Be Like Mike" - - we can persuade the world to imitate us - - and if we torture, they will torture. If we rule by the sword and the JDAM, they will seek to rule by the sword and the Galileo guided JDAM.

Abu Ghraib and Gitmo aren't the same situation. Abu Ghraib is a clear case of illegal prisoner abuse. Gitmo is the outcome of fighting an enemy with no legal status. You can't treat them as criminals becasue they aren't, they're enemy combatants at war with us. But they aren't strictly speaking POW's either as they have no uniform and no state. They could be legally treated as unlawful comabatants in which case we can do almost whatever we want with them, but not being inclined toward mass executions we treat them essentially as Prisoners of War. But to the other points:

They would seek to rule by the sword and JDAM regardless and always have. It just doesn't show as much because our swords and JDAMs are better and we have more of them.

These things can't lead to the world we desire on their own, but they are among the many tools we have to choose from. You don't always use a hammer, but sometimes a nail needs driving.

We can engage in genuine dialouge with Europe, and India and China on key questions. Europe is our best logical partner yet we fear Europe because they are choosing a modestly more socialist trajectory. But to prevail, Western Civilization must have a large enough tent to accomodate BOTH an American view of private property rights and a European view of private property rights.

I agree overall.

Western Civilization is undergoing a division (US & Europe) largely over how we perceive God.

I don't entirely accept this premise. God is only one of the elements splitting Europe and America. Further, it isn't even so much a split between Europe and America but Left and Right within Europe and America. Two increasingly different world views struggling for dominance. There are values other than the religious variety in play.

We are fighting fundie Islam because we cannot escape our oil addiction. Why did God put our oil under their sand?

That's certainly why we care about the outcome, otherwise what happens there wouldn't matter much either way.

On some level it's the direct result of decolonization, the West may have been better served keeping the heavier hand of previous times, but as we came to act more in line with our ideals such things had to pass. Unfortunate that the expansion of our values has created cracks that could lead to their collapse.

But that discussion is a quagmire in itself.

As for re-fighting Vietnam, had we proposed removing Saddam using the Kosovo & Bosnia model...

A: It's not applicable since Iraq would take far more force.
B: It didn't work all that well. We still have troops there, there have been widespread complaints of corruption and against the UN on site, no real stability has been achieved except that maintained by the presence of foreign troops.

That's enough for now.

BWhite · 2005-02-08 14:49:12

An amazon.com review of Rifkin's http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ … 0]European Dream:

Edward P. Trimnell "edwardtrimnell.com" (Cincinnati, OH USA) - See all my reviews

Anyone who has been watching the news for the past year knows that Americans and Europeans have different opinions on foreign policy. This book attempts to explain why. I did not finish the European Dream with a burning desire to move to Europe; but I did finish it with a better understanding of the differing worldviews of Europeans and Americans.
Rifkin notes that Americans are more individualistic than Europeans. We prefer self-reliance over collective projects and group decision-making. The Europeans, perhaps because of their recent history and close proximity to each other, place their faith in communal efforts. The Europeans also have a different attitude toward property rights. According to Rifkin, the Europeans care more about access to something rather than ownership rights to it. And on the Continent, it's all about togetherness. To a European, security is about being "embedded" in one's community, not about having the wealth and power to be free from the meddling of others.
Europe is a far more secular place than the United States. I had a general sense of this before reading the book, but the statistics that Rifkin cites in this area are illuminating. Whether a person is religious or not, everyone can agree that a belief in God (or lack thereof) is bound to affect one's attitudes on more temporal matters.
Overall, Rifkin is a fan of the European way of doing things. (This is, perhaps, obvious from the title.) However, the information is presented in a way that allows the reader to draw his or her own conclusions.
For example, Rifkin claims that Europeans are motivated by communal interests and globalist aspirations, versus the narrower, more profit-centered self-interest that drives most Americans. But Rifkin also points out that Europeans are less interested in their careers than Americans, preferring to spend more time on what Rifkin calls "deep play." This might mean that the Europeans are simply more laid back than Americans, but it might also indicate that the highly taxed, quasi-socialist economies of Europe foster offer fewer incentives for individual achievement. If your country's economic system is focused on redistribution of wealth rather than rewarding individual efforts, then why bother?
Rifkin also acknowledges that Europeans are so often able to play the good cop in international conflicts because the United States will always be there to play the bad cop. *He unsparingly details the abysmal performance of the European military forces in recent conflicts such as Kosovo.*
The European Dream should be read with a critical eye, but it is a good source of information for anyone who has been puzzled by the recent transatlantic squabbles.

= = = = =

For better or worse, in the coming global wars between civilization, the Europeans are our most logical allies. Finding middle ground on the cultural and economic issues that divide us strikes me as simple good common sense.

= = =

In a world with 6 billion people and 300 million Americans - - and having political tradition based on "one person = one vote" - - we are "outnumbered" 20 to 1. Okay, maybe 19 3/4 to 1 if we count our Brit and Aussie allies.

Our power is far more fragile than the American triumphalists appear to believe.

Edited By BWhite on 1107895788

clark · 2005-02-08 15:17:43

For better or worse, in the coming global wars between civilization, the Europeans are our most logical allies. Finding middle ground on the cultural and economic issues that divide us strikes me as simple good common sense.

'ey vato, you need to reconceptualize a future Emerica, eh ese. It ain't gunna be so gringo white, ya know.

The Bush man gets it, but he's still a gringo, and I still can't join his country club. Odale.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-02-08 19:42:56

I think too many people have an idealized view of Europeans, that they're a more mature, community-spirited, and sophisticated kind of people.
Actually, they're just like other human beings in America and Australia and elsewhere. If they're presently more communal and cooperative among themselves, it's purely circumstantial and probably fuelled by the still extant reverberations of two massive wars last century, plus the threat of a Soviet invasion for most of the latter half of that century.

Bill's notion that Europe is somehow a unified bloc probably stems from reading books and articles like the one he quoted, in which Rifkin speaks of Europeans as though they're all from the one country.
I believe the reality is quite different. Europe is still very much a collection of individual nation-states, however much the E.U., as an organization, tries to unify them by such means as a common currency, etc. It's possible that the E.U.'s efforts, particularly via monetary homogenization, could eventually bring about a more profound unification, but I have my doubts.

My view is that history hasn't stopped; at least not yet. It was probably true, after ancient Rome had existed, expanded, and prospered for several centuries, that the people of the time assumed the status quo was a permanent thing. The days of localized tribal warfare were over, civilization had arrived, and the Pax Romana that protected that civilization would endure indefinitely. Europe had learned from its barbaric history and found a better way.
Little did they realise that world events would shortly carry Europe back down into the barbarity she thought she'd left forever, and keep it there for a thousand years. History hadn't stopped at all; it had only paused, very temporarily. But, if you'd suggested such a possibility in the time of Hadrian, for example, you'd have been laughed out of the Forum.

European unity is shaky, in my view. Countries like France, Italy, Germany, and perhaps particularly Britain, are still very much paddling their own canoes and looking after their own interests. As long as individual countries vote for individual leaders to meet their own individual aspirations, that will inevitably continue.
There are antagonistic political forces at work inside individual European countries and inside Europe as a whole. As well as the socialist groups which exist in large numbers, there is a growing groundswell of fascist interests. In fact, even in Russia recently, a large number of parliamentary members voted to have Jewish organizations outlawed within Russia because Jews were alleged to have obtained state property by illicit means (or accusations to that effect).
CC is quite right that it's politically naive to see Europe as opposing America. The situation is nowhere near as black-and-white as that and I'm surprised that Bill, who is always so careful to point out the dangers of assuming that degree of polarization, should fall into the trap he's constantly warning others about.

The countries of the E.U. are always squabbling and disagreeing about almost everything, which makes them ineffectual when decisive and visionary action is called for.
The parallels with the U.N., another example of institutionalized self-interest and corruption, are inescapable.
While it would be lovely to imagine a world of peace and justice, presided over by a U.N. made up of wise altruistic leaders, whose primary concerns are human dignity and the welfare of all, to believe that is happening now, or likely to happen soon, is just further conspicuous naivety. The same applies to Europe.
Not that the U.S., as a single entity, is immune to all the same diseases I've just mentioned. Corruption is part of politics everywhere, on all sides.

But, when it comes to positive action in the world, countries like Australia and America, to name just two, are in a position to 'do' rather than 'discuss'. As an example, when the recent tsunami devastated south-east Asian countries, Australia and America were first on the scene with real, practical, there-on-the-ground aid. They didn't need to call a committee meeting in Brussels or a U.N. summit meeting in New York to decide what to do.
America, of course, being not only an independent nation state but also the current economic and military top-dog, is in an especially advantageous position to act when action is required.
Bill:-

Cool, but we accomplish all this just in time to begin to witness the decline of the nation-state as the pre-eminent unit of human political organization.

Bill, you state this with such authority, as though it is self-evidently true. Yet everything we see in the world today contradicts that notion. The only political entities able to act decisively appear to be those not made up of ill-fitting components, constantly chafing against one another.
You yourself draw attention to the entities you see as challenging U.S. supremacy. With the exception of the E.U. (whose unity is very much open to debate), they're all nation states like India, Russia, and China.

The nation state is certainly not dead and I doubt it's even on the decline. In fact, there are good grounds to argue that the era of conglomerates of nations will prove short-lived and not become the universal panacea, the new utopia, that many imagine.

Just a few more thoughts.

[P.S. I believe Kool-Aid is some kind of sweet drink, though I've never seen it or tasted it. Am I right in thinking Bill was 'singing' some kind of advertising jingle for the stuff?
If so, I don't have any idea why that happened, although I guess it was somehow meant to trivialize something I said. Can anyone tell me what was going on with that? I honestly haven't a clue. Thanks. :up: ]

BWhite · 2005-02-08 20:01:49

Bill, you state this with such authority, as though it is self-evidently true. Yet everything we see in the world today contradicts that notion. The only political entities able to act decisively appear to be those not made up of ill-fitting components, constantly chafing against one another.

Economics will rule.

Economic value is increasingly coming to include intangible assets - - patents, trademarks, copyright and the like. These assets ONLY have value to the extent they are legally protected. If I can freely copy the Nike swoosh and apply it to Bill's shoes, the swoosh has little market value.

If Nike can sue the bejabbers out of anyone who forges the Nike swoosh, that trademark is worth many many billion dollars.

ONE legal system that spans the entire globe and which applies to every human being, everywhere, will maximize the value of every corporations intangible assets.

Over time, the divisions between nation-states will increasingly dissolve as the economic interests of giant corporations supercede the interests of individual nations.

= = =

This is but a small aspect of what we call globalization.

Numerous corporations already have more annual revenue than all except a small handful of nation-states.

The US spends more on military defense than all the rest of the world combined. This is (a) not long sustainable since the US economy will not exceed that of the economy of the rest of the world combined; and (b) if America is a sui generis instance then we have one hyper-power and everyone else - - which means the traditional nation-state system has already ended.

Edited By BWhite on 1107916748

Palomar · 2005-02-08 20:46:07

[P.S. I believe Kool-Aid is some kind of sweet drink, though I've never seen it or tasted it.

*Hi Shaun: I was a bit surprised to read this. Yes, it's a powdered soft drink which comes in a variety of fruit flavors. Generally it's sold in non-sweetened packets (large or small) and also small plastic cannisters, so of course sugar or sugar substitute must be added with the water. Lately (past 10 years or so) NutraSweet and now Splenda (--? not exactly sure on the latter) are added to some of the mixes to create a diet soft drink.

As you may expect, it has no carbonation.

It was an advertising jingle, yes -- I hadn't thought of it in years.

Have you had Tang? It's somewhat similar.

'Night all.

--Cindy

Shaun Barrett · 2005-02-09 02:04:07

Thanks for confirming at least some of what I thought about the 'Kool-Aid' thing, Cindy.
The other implications, I can work out for myself!

[::Edit::
No, I've neither seen nor tasted 'Tang'. The only reference I have to 'Tang' is with regard to the space program in the 60s and all I know is it's some kind of orange-flavoured drink(?).]

Shaun Barrett · 2005-02-09 02:06:23

Bill:-

Economics will rule.

I think that's what the Romans thought. :laugh:

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-09 06:47:36

Starting with the trivial things, the Kool-Aid reference is I suppose one of those little American culture things that doesn't translate well. Back in the '70's this kook Jim Jones led a cult down to South America to set up a religious utopia. Needless to say, it didn't work out, and the entire group committed suicide by drinking poisoned Kool-Aid.

"Drinking the Kool-Aid" can now be used to describe blind adherence to any self-destructive idea, hence Bill's reference.

As for all this talk of the end of nation-states, it strikes me as another example of "fighting the last war". We have a UN, we have the EU, yet sovereign nations remain the driving force. Turning to another view, as Bill points out we have a lone "hyper-power" which could mean the traditional nation-state era is over. If you compare it to the 19th and 20th centuries perhaps, but go back to the Roman Empire and it seems fairly close. One big rich uber-power and... everyone else. But that comparison doesn't really work beyond that point.

One could say we have something entirely new, combining aspects of those previous "systems" but not entirely fitting within their constraints. But what if China keeps growing and becomes a super-power? 20th century balances all over again. Cold War II, still better dead than red. Though it's questionable whether the red is a Mao placard or a Coca-Cola sign.

Ah, maybe that's it. A semi-homogenized global culture undermines the traditional nation-state, the lines between "peoples" become blurred. But no, plenty of nation-states exist that share cultures with no clamoring for unification.

I've got it. History just happens, not in neat little columns for easy indexing but in broad strokes. Could it be we're overanalyzing?

That's enough for a post that started with Kool-Aid.

BWhite · 2005-02-09 09:54:09

Starting with the trivial things, the Kool-Aid reference is I suppose one of those little American culture things that doesn't translate well. Back in the '70's this kook Jim Jones led a cult down to South America to set up a religious utopia. Needless to say, it didn't work out, and the entire group committed suicide by drinking poisoned Kool-Aid.
"Drinking the Kool-Aid" can now be used to describe blind adherence to any self-destructive idea, hence Bill's reference.

Exactly!

A hero worship Bush-idolatry that wants to add the man to Mount Rushmore. The religious right is spending many many millions of dollars portraying Bush as being personally chosen by God as "His" emissary. All rather cult-like.

As for all this talk of the end of nation-states, it strikes me as another example of "fighting the last war". We have a UN, we have the EU, yet sovereign nations remain the driving force. Turning to another view, as Bill points out we have a lone "hyper-power" which could mean the traditional nation-state era is over. If you compare it to the 19th and 20th centuries perhaps, but go back to the Roman Empire and it seems fairly close. One big rich uber-power and... everyone else. But that comparison doesn't really work beyond that point.

Genuine American global dominance would seem to openly signify the end of the traditional nation-state system. The Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war under which "We" (meaning the US alone) can lawfully attack any sovereign nation, at any time, if we deem ourselves threatened appears to me to be a blatant repudiation of the the prior system of nation-states. Combine that with the actual power to do such with little immediate risk of meaningful retaliation and that situation appears radically new.

Be it a "good thing" or a "bad thing" - - it certainly is a "different thing" :;):

and whether there are significant long term negative consequences to asserting such a right of pre-emption gets at the heart of my concerns.

= = =

Perhaps the EU will crash and burn. If so, the remaining smaller nation-states of Europe will be relegated to geo-political irrelevance. If Europe desires to remain (or rise to be) on par with the US, China and India it MUST make the EU work.

Population and size of economy are the reasons.

= = =

There appear to be three potential or wannabe hyper-powers along with the US which already is a hyper-power: China, India and Europe.

What allows each entity to retain internal cohesion? What is unique about each entity or potential entity?

Does the traditional term "nation-state" well describe the bonds that unite into a single political entity those people living in the US, China, India and perhaps the EU?

Edited By BWhite on 1107964844

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-09 10:09:08

There appear to be three potential or wannabe hyper-powers along with the US which already is a hyper-power: China, India and Europe.
What allows each entity to retain internal cohesion? What is unique about each entity or potential entity?

In the cases of India and China it's largely that they're "a people" respectively. India has fragmented, what's left is largely unified by language and culture. China is a bit more complex but the general idea still applies, though with some notable exceptions.

As for Europe, I'm not convinced there is cohesion. The EU is an artificial entity trying to create a nation in the absence of common language and common culture. In time it may work but they've got a long way to go.

Each of the three cases deserves a lengthy discussion of its own, but I'm tired and lazy today so that's all I've got on it at the moment. :sleep:

Palomar · 2005-02-09 10:10:53

*Aw, forget it. Comments edited out.

So many astronomy findings out there, I'm wasting my time here.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-09 10:19:07

*Aw, forget it. Comments edited out.
So many astronomy findings out there, I'm wasting my time here.

Looking at the stars while the world burns. :;):

You might be on to something, but then I've already got this torch going... :hm:

clark · 2005-02-09 10:20:04

Perhaps it would be best not to do a complete comparison based on US culture/language...

There have been many nations and super powers that have got along fine without a common language or a common culture.

In my mind, it would seem that a confluence of interests would be the over riding factor that would determine cohesision.

A lone hyper power provides many others with a shared interest.

As Bill is fond of pointing out, aliens from space would unite all of humanity- in the absence of them, any "other" will do.

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-09 10:28:08

In my mind, it would seem that a confluence of interests would be the over riding factor that would determine cohesision.

Short-term and directed solely at that interest. Not solid grounds for a nation, an allieance perhaps but not a nation-state.

As Bill is fond of pointing out, aliens from space would unite all of humanity- in the absence of them, any "other" will do.

Would they though? If they blatantly made clear an attempt to destroy us for its own sake perhaps, but if they just burst onto the scene as another player, a very powerful one but still in the same game?

Even the closest of allies maneuver for advantage over each other, even friends get stabbed in the back from time to time.

The EU may be setting itself up in opposition to us, but every member of the EU has its own interests which it pits against the others.

Palomar · 2005-02-09 10:30:58

*Aw, forget it. Comments edited out.
So many astronomy findings out there, I'm wasting my time here.
Looking at the stars while the world burns. :;):
You might be on to something, but then I've already got this torch going... :hm:

*Nah, not really. It just seems certain aspects of this thread are getting banal and pointless.

We're just a small group of people who -- by now, I should think -- are already overly aware of others' political viewpoints and preferences.

There is also some unfairness, i.e. attempting to portray people in a certain light which I (who have followed many of these threads) don't see evidence of. I also think the characterization that if you don't completely 100% entirely hate a politican's guts it "must" mean you are a hero-worshiping idolator of said politician is frankly silly.

I will give you and Shaun Barrett credit: You both have occasionally been castigated (and misunderstood, whether genuinely or deliberately) for your political views, yet I've never once seen either of you refuse to speak/interact with others who disagree with you; you've both remained consistently friendly and open to everyone.

I can't say that for some of your opponents.

--Cindy

clark · 2005-02-09 10:33:47

Yet isn't it those very same short term interests that give rise to a greater shared interest by which individual states put aside some of their own desires for the common good? Ultimetly, and eventually, this acts as the seed for a common heritage and culture to develop- such as America's rise from seperate states to fight British rule. The same can be said for the American experience of the Civil War, with individual states finally bowing to the federal rule.

The EU is in the process of developing a stronger and more coherent centralized authority, and balancing against US supremacy (ala Chirac) is their clarion call to speed up efforts.

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-09 11:06:01

Cindy:

*Nah, not really. It just seems certain aspects of this thread are getting banal and pointless.

I don't know about banal, but it's always been pointless. It's not as though we have voters to convince or any real authority to enact what we propose. Just endless, fruitless sparring.

But then what's the point of sparring but to practice for a real fight? ???

Coupll-Aid anyone?

Clark:

Yet isn't it those very same short term interests that give rise to a greater shared interest by which individual states put aside some of their own desires for the common good? Ultimetly, and eventually, this acts as the seed for a common heritage and culture to develop- such as America's rise from seperate states to fight British rule. The same can be said for the American experience of the Civil War, with individual states finally bowing to the federal rule.

Certainly, but takes a long time. To quote myself from a few posts up: "As for Europe, I'm not convinced there is cohesion. The EU is an artificial entity trying to create a nation in the absence of common language and common culture. In time it may work but they've got a long way to go.
"

It isn't going to happen next year or a decade from now, but it may well happen in time. Or not, who can say?

Whatever the case, it will take more than some European leaders trying to balance the US. Something else has to happen, external pressure can't be faked indefinately and current US policy just isn't going to provide enough pressure for enough time.

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1107968776

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#201 2005-02-08 07:54:40

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#202 2005-02-08 10:50:02

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#203 2005-02-08 11:10:33

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#204 2005-02-08 11:36:20

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#205 2005-02-08 12:24:09

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#206 2005-02-08 12:33:40

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#207 2005-02-08 12:49:37

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#208 2005-02-08 13:07:12

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#209 2005-02-08 14:49:12

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#210 2005-02-08 15:17:43

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#211 2005-02-08 19:42:56

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#212 2005-02-08 20:01:49

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#213 2005-02-08 20:46:07

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#214 2005-02-09 02:04:07

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#215 2005-02-09 02:06:23

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#216 2005-02-09 06:47:36

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#217 2005-02-09 09:54:09

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#218 2005-02-09 10:09:08

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#219 2005-02-09 10:10:53

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#220 2005-02-09 10:19:07

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#221 2005-02-09 10:20:04

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#222 2005-02-09 10:28:08

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#223 2005-02-09 10:30:58

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#224 2005-02-09 10:33:47

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#225 2005-02-09 11:06:01

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

Board footer