Preident Obama is extending an arm of friendship toward Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez at the Summit of the Americas. The two have discussed resuming diplomatic relations which were severed last September by the Bush administration. Chavez was even nice enough to offer Obama a book. It's title: Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent. The author, Uruguayan journalist Eduardo Galeano, blames countries like the US for exploitng Latin America. Obama said that the book was "a nice gesture." This is akin to if Khruschev offered Kennedy a copy of Das Kapital at the Vienna Conference and Kennedy referred to it as a "nice gesture." I would humbly suggest to writers such as Galeano that the notoriously corrupt and irresponsible governments (such as Chavez's) that have misruled Latin America for over two centuries are the real exploiters. Obama claims that his warm exchanges with Chavez are part of his campaign to "reach out to" America's enemies (the assumption being that it is the fault of America that they are our enemies). I would like to point out to Mr. Obama that Chavez has currently undermined the democratic process in Venezuela by changing the constitution, albeit by plebecite, so that he can become president for life. Chavez has also accused a Venezuelan opposition leader of trumped up charges of fraud. Economists also believe that Chavez may be driving his country toward fiscal ruining. He has relied on socialist programs to gain much support from the populace but with oil prices at $40 a barrel and the Venezuelan state-owned oil company PDVSA running what is believed to be severe defecits by some, Chavez could be cooking a recipe for ruin. Former CIA Director Michael Hayden has said: "Here's a case where I would watch for behavior, not for rhetoric, and the behavior of President Chavez over the past years has been downright horrendous -- both internationally and with regard to what he's done internally inside Venezuela,"
So why is Obama courting this would socialist dictator? Apart from the fact that Chavez and Obama's fiscal and economic policies are alike in many aspects, it would be good to remember Venezuela has lots of oil. In Obama's justification for friendly relations with Venezuela he noted that "they [Venezuela] own Citgo, the oil company." When Bush removed a horrendous dictator in Iraq there were cries of "blood for oil" yet similar denunciations are not made when Obama gets cozy with a man that has undermined the democratic process in his country and is well on the way of becoming a dictator himself.
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Friday, April 3, 2009
Some Historical Fallacies
Today I sat in my economics class at college and had a hard time controlling the outburst that was building within in. It is the last day before Easter break, and as many of the students had skipped class to catch early flights back to their homes our professors decided to give a lecture on the economics of war. However, in the process, my libertarian professor proceeded to put forth some serious historical fallacies. Since I have to wait several hours to be picked up before heading home, and my roommate is taking the xbox, I have decided to empty my anger at the class by correcting his mistakes. Now, don’t get me wrong, my economics professor is a really nice guy. But he, like the other libertarian economists at my school, have a very poor understanding of history because their view of history is filled with libertarian bias. They try to universalize an ideology that works well with economics but not elsewhere.
He tried to make the case (correctly) that wars do no benefit economically for a country. Wars, he said, are started only because the ruling elite see an opportunity to expand their power. First I would like to point out that this libertarian economics professor is, ironically, making a Marxist argument. A Marxist view of history teaches that wars are fought for the benefit of the ruling capitalist elite for their economical or political benefit. History is driven not by ideals or ideology but for material gain. The problem with this view of history is that it was destroyed in the First World War. Socialists and capitalist alike enthusiastically clamored for war and there were celebrations in the streets of London and Berlin when war finally broke out on August 1, 1914. World War I was fought primarily over nationalist sentiment that had reached a boiling point in the 1910s with a volatile diplomatic environment as countries practice realpolitik to advance their national interest. Wars do not benefit monetarily, but, like other costly transactions, a decision is made that the material costs of the war outweigh the national interest or ideological victories that might be won. Wars, in short, are not fought for material gain, which is a point lost on many libertarians and leftists to this day.
Secondly he put forth the libertarian myth that the American entry into World War I, and thus breaking the “sacred” advice of our founding fathers, had terrible consequences on the rest of twentieth century history. He stated that the American intervention inadvertently caused the rise of the USSR because the approach of the “yanks” caused the Germans to send V.I. Lenin back to Russia to foment revolution and end the Eastern Front. First I would like to point out that the Kadets and the Mensheviks had already thrown the tsar in March before the US entered into the war in April. Second, the Germans did not need any motivation to send Lenin to Russia to collapse the Russian state later in April. The war was already costing the Germans millions of lives and the German population was living in perpetual starvation by the time 1917 came and any chance to exploit the political stability in Russia would be seized by the German General Staff. Contrary to what my professor said the Germans were not “holding their own” in the war, but rather needed an immediate end to the conflict, even if the US had not entered the war.
Whether the US had gotten involved in World War I or not Lenin would have made his way back to Russia and launched the October Revolution. Even if the Germans had considered the risk of sending Lenin to Russia outweighed ending the war (unlikely given the state of Germany in the spring of 1917) can it honestly be believed that Lenin would not have made his way back to the Russia to take part in the “inevitable unfolding of history?” The consequences of the US entering the war actually benefitted the European situation by decisively ending the war. By 1917 the populace that had embraced war in 1914 was now shocked by the affects of total war and growing angry with appalling poverty and starvation that the war had caused. Socialists and communists had been steadily growing louder and more radical. Earlier in 1917 the French army mutinied and refused to continue fighting until it the mutiny was crushed. If the senseless slaughter that the Europeans were unable to extricate themselves from continued longer, it was likely that disillusionment with the war may have caused a socialist revolution across Europe. Such a revolution almost occurred in Germany in 1919.
Thirdly my professor claimed that the US also, by winning the war for the Allies, paved the way for Hitler and the Third Reich. I will not deny that Versailles was a major contributor to the rise of Nazism, but history is not inevitable. The Germans had fourteen years to choose their course and unwisely, for a variety of reason including Versailles, chose National Socialism in 1933. But this is not to say that the Germans could not have chose otherwise or that Hitler was inevitable given Versailles. The Americans under Wilson actually presented a peace plan (the Fourteen Points) that would have staved off the effects that a punitive peace had on Germany, but David Lloyd George and Georges Clemenceau reneged on their agreement to the Fourteen Points in the spring of 1919.
These stories are merely the propaganda of libertarians who want to equate deviating from the Jeffersonian model with mortal sin. The advice of Washington in 1798 not to become involved abroad was given in a historical context that has long since passed. Strictly adhering to foreign policy advice made in the 1790s simply was not prudent in the 20th century and remains so in the 21st. Contrary to libertarian rhetoric a proactive government is not a heinous sin. It was precisely the isolationism of the US during the 20s and 30s that facilitated the rise of Hitler in the 1930s. Hitler was able to make his territorial claims on Europe because he knew that the US would not intervene. While the US should not entangle itself in needless foreign interventions, a proactive US foreign policy can be quite beneficial both to Americans and the world. As a Christian, I think that that what Paul says concerning government is true: “for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.” (Romans 13:4)
He tried to make the case (correctly) that wars do no benefit economically for a country. Wars, he said, are started only because the ruling elite see an opportunity to expand their power. First I would like to point out that this libertarian economics professor is, ironically, making a Marxist argument. A Marxist view of history teaches that wars are fought for the benefit of the ruling capitalist elite for their economical or political benefit. History is driven not by ideals or ideology but for material gain. The problem with this view of history is that it was destroyed in the First World War. Socialists and capitalist alike enthusiastically clamored for war and there were celebrations in the streets of London and Berlin when war finally broke out on August 1, 1914. World War I was fought primarily over nationalist sentiment that had reached a boiling point in the 1910s with a volatile diplomatic environment as countries practice realpolitik to advance their national interest. Wars do not benefit monetarily, but, like other costly transactions, a decision is made that the material costs of the war outweigh the national interest or ideological victories that might be won. Wars, in short, are not fought for material gain, which is a point lost on many libertarians and leftists to this day.
Secondly he put forth the libertarian myth that the American entry into World War I, and thus breaking the “sacred” advice of our founding fathers, had terrible consequences on the rest of twentieth century history. He stated that the American intervention inadvertently caused the rise of the USSR because the approach of the “yanks” caused the Germans to send V.I. Lenin back to Russia to foment revolution and end the Eastern Front. First I would like to point out that the Kadets and the Mensheviks had already thrown the tsar in March before the US entered into the war in April. Second, the Germans did not need any motivation to send Lenin to Russia to collapse the Russian state later in April. The war was already costing the Germans millions of lives and the German population was living in perpetual starvation by the time 1917 came and any chance to exploit the political stability in Russia would be seized by the German General Staff. Contrary to what my professor said the Germans were not “holding their own” in the war, but rather needed an immediate end to the conflict, even if the US had not entered the war.
Whether the US had gotten involved in World War I or not Lenin would have made his way back to Russia and launched the October Revolution. Even if the Germans had considered the risk of sending Lenin to Russia outweighed ending the war (unlikely given the state of Germany in the spring of 1917) can it honestly be believed that Lenin would not have made his way back to the Russia to take part in the “inevitable unfolding of history?” The consequences of the US entering the war actually benefitted the European situation by decisively ending the war. By 1917 the populace that had embraced war in 1914 was now shocked by the affects of total war and growing angry with appalling poverty and starvation that the war had caused. Socialists and communists had been steadily growing louder and more radical. Earlier in 1917 the French army mutinied and refused to continue fighting until it the mutiny was crushed. If the senseless slaughter that the Europeans were unable to extricate themselves from continued longer, it was likely that disillusionment with the war may have caused a socialist revolution across Europe. Such a revolution almost occurred in Germany in 1919.
Thirdly my professor claimed that the US also, by winning the war for the Allies, paved the way for Hitler and the Third Reich. I will not deny that Versailles was a major contributor to the rise of Nazism, but history is not inevitable. The Germans had fourteen years to choose their course and unwisely, for a variety of reason including Versailles, chose National Socialism in 1933. But this is not to say that the Germans could not have chose otherwise or that Hitler was inevitable given Versailles. The Americans under Wilson actually presented a peace plan (the Fourteen Points) that would have staved off the effects that a punitive peace had on Germany, but David Lloyd George and Georges Clemenceau reneged on their agreement to the Fourteen Points in the spring of 1919.
These stories are merely the propaganda of libertarians who want to equate deviating from the Jeffersonian model with mortal sin. The advice of Washington in 1798 not to become involved abroad was given in a historical context that has long since passed. Strictly adhering to foreign policy advice made in the 1790s simply was not prudent in the 20th century and remains so in the 21st. Contrary to libertarian rhetoric a proactive government is not a heinous sin. It was precisely the isolationism of the US during the 20s and 30s that facilitated the rise of Hitler in the 1930s. Hitler was able to make his territorial claims on Europe because he knew that the US would not intervene. While the US should not entangle itself in needless foreign interventions, a proactive US foreign policy can be quite beneficial both to Americans and the world. As a Christian, I think that that what Paul says concerning government is true: “for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.” (Romans 13:4)
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Saving Conservatism
It is no secret that the last two elections have gone badly for conservatives. Over the last four years Republicans have lost both houses of Congress and the White House to democrats. It has been a reversal of the situation in the early 2000s when Republicans won the White House in 2000 with George W. Bush and the Senate in the 2002 Congressional elections. How long with this stinging defeat last for conservatives? It is impossible to tell. Although some talk radio hosts like to think that the recent elections have not been a referendum on conservatives, it is hard to see what else this has been that reaction of disillusionment on the part of many Americans to what they see as the failings of conservatism. How long the American public holds this view depends on how conservatives react to the current political environment. I will suggest several things that might not solve all the problems facing conservatism today, but are critical to putting conservatism back on track.
The first problem with conservatism today is its repugnant populism. Beginning in the 1980s as many socially conservative blue-collar workers became disillusioned with the liberal social agenda of the Democrats, Republics were quick to reach out to this demographic to extend the conservative base. However, this outreach has caused a numbing down of intellectual conservatism in the party’s platform. Demagogues in the form of talk radio have hijacked the conservative movement by appealing to the “common sense” of the “common man.” Solutions are often put forth bluntly, with slanderous rhetoric that angrily attacks opposition. In this case, conservatism has become more reactionary than conservative. It conjures up in the historic memory of the common man this idea of classic Americana that has viciously been assaulted by liberals and needs to be restored. Typically this type of reactionary conservatism uses this ideal and mythical model of Americana instead of reasoning as the basis for party platform and tends to extremely inflexible in its beliefs. In a streak of anti-intellectualism, liberals are put forth as elitists that need to be countered, not with equal intellectual fire-power, but with the common sense of the common man. It offers over simplistic answers to complex questions. This switch has drastically isolated the educated class, especially college students who abhor conservative’s tactless rhetoric and lack of interest in engaging with the intelligentsia. Conservatives have continually failed to sway this demographic because of their inability to present intellectual appeal. Academia is often demonized. While it is true that academia is usually contrary to conservative ideals, what it needs is to be transformed by conservative ideals rather than blow apart by them. Rational discussion, opposed to bumper sticker ideology, is key.
Secondly conservatives had over-relied on social conservatism. Both Republicans and President Bush heavily relied on conservative evangelicals for their core basis of support during the last eight years. The fear among social conservatives that turning against Bush and Republicans, despite some egregious violations of other conservative values such as limited government and fiscal conservatism, would surrender society to the social liberal agenda. In short Bush was able to maintain popularity among conservatism throughout his term by appealing to social conservatism all the while undergoing massive government expansion, increasing the national deficit, and committing some foreign policy blunders. Now I by no means mean to bash Bush here. Liberals have done that enough, but certainly I feel that Bush betrayed some serious conservative ideals, perhaps unintentionally, by relying too heavily on social conservative support. Unfortunately the advances of social conservatism by governmental means are rather limited outside sanctity of life legislation and proposing a marriage-protection article to the Constitution. Pushing a social conservative agenda also isolates non-social conservatives who, nonetheless, could cooperate with conservatives on other projects (e.g. fiscal responsibility). In short, social conservatism is best resigned to grass-roots movements because pushing a social conservative agenda in big government can cause resentment and end up being counterproductive.
Finally conservatives need to rebuild their moral capital. Many Americans felt betrayed by conservatives’ fiscal irresponsibility to the point that they perceived little difference between Republicans and Democrats on the issue. Also, the angry rhetoric coming out of talk radio (such as Rush Limbaugh’s tactless statement that he hopes that President Obama fails) does more harm that it does good. Conservatives need to return to core values such as discipline, fiscal conservatism, and constitutionalism. Many social conservative’s worries could be better addressed by appointing conservative judges who do not legislate from the bench. Conservatives need to rein in spending and only then will they be able to criticize Obama’s Keynesian economic policies without appearing hypocritical. In short, conservatives need to regain the moral high ground that they have lost from out-of-control spending, rushing into war in 2003 with faulty intelligence, and angry rhetoric from talk radio. While it might be tempting to lash out at Obama, conservatives need to criticize Obama with the respective his office deserves, a respect that liberals did not accord to Bush during his presidency. Only by doing this will conservatives regain the moral high ground in the minds of the American people.
In short conservatives need to rebuild their political movement based on dispassionate politics, discipline, fiscal conservatism, ethical responsibility and guardianship of traditional government practices. The Republican Party needs to de-emphasize its populist appeal and reach out intellectually to college students and young professionals. It must be smart, flexible, disciplined, and kind. Placing its eggs in the basket of populism is a poor investment because the social conservative, blue-collar demographic is rapidly decreasing in favor of a more idealistic and college-educated professional. All of this begins with building a firm intellectual basis, which, by necessity, must be more flexible. Conservatives must prioritize their agenda and cooperate with others, even liberals, in order to achieve aspects of it. Conservatives must cease to be seen as reactionary and instead as actually conservative; i.e. preserving long-standing values while being flexible with change and figuring out how to intelligently apply traditional values with new challenges.
The first problem with conservatism today is its repugnant populism. Beginning in the 1980s as many socially conservative blue-collar workers became disillusioned with the liberal social agenda of the Democrats, Republics were quick to reach out to this demographic to extend the conservative base. However, this outreach has caused a numbing down of intellectual conservatism in the party’s platform. Demagogues in the form of talk radio have hijacked the conservative movement by appealing to the “common sense” of the “common man.” Solutions are often put forth bluntly, with slanderous rhetoric that angrily attacks opposition. In this case, conservatism has become more reactionary than conservative. It conjures up in the historic memory of the common man this idea of classic Americana that has viciously been assaulted by liberals and needs to be restored. Typically this type of reactionary conservatism uses this ideal and mythical model of Americana instead of reasoning as the basis for party platform and tends to extremely inflexible in its beliefs. In a streak of anti-intellectualism, liberals are put forth as elitists that need to be countered, not with equal intellectual fire-power, but with the common sense of the common man. It offers over simplistic answers to complex questions. This switch has drastically isolated the educated class, especially college students who abhor conservative’s tactless rhetoric and lack of interest in engaging with the intelligentsia. Conservatives have continually failed to sway this demographic because of their inability to present intellectual appeal. Academia is often demonized. While it is true that academia is usually contrary to conservative ideals, what it needs is to be transformed by conservative ideals rather than blow apart by them. Rational discussion, opposed to bumper sticker ideology, is key.
Secondly conservatives had over-relied on social conservatism. Both Republicans and President Bush heavily relied on conservative evangelicals for their core basis of support during the last eight years. The fear among social conservatives that turning against Bush and Republicans, despite some egregious violations of other conservative values such as limited government and fiscal conservatism, would surrender society to the social liberal agenda. In short Bush was able to maintain popularity among conservatism throughout his term by appealing to social conservatism all the while undergoing massive government expansion, increasing the national deficit, and committing some foreign policy blunders. Now I by no means mean to bash Bush here. Liberals have done that enough, but certainly I feel that Bush betrayed some serious conservative ideals, perhaps unintentionally, by relying too heavily on social conservative support. Unfortunately the advances of social conservatism by governmental means are rather limited outside sanctity of life legislation and proposing a marriage-protection article to the Constitution. Pushing a social conservative agenda also isolates non-social conservatives who, nonetheless, could cooperate with conservatives on other projects (e.g. fiscal responsibility). In short, social conservatism is best resigned to grass-roots movements because pushing a social conservative agenda in big government can cause resentment and end up being counterproductive.
Finally conservatives need to rebuild their moral capital. Many Americans felt betrayed by conservatives’ fiscal irresponsibility to the point that they perceived little difference between Republicans and Democrats on the issue. Also, the angry rhetoric coming out of talk radio (such as Rush Limbaugh’s tactless statement that he hopes that President Obama fails) does more harm that it does good. Conservatives need to return to core values such as discipline, fiscal conservatism, and constitutionalism. Many social conservative’s worries could be better addressed by appointing conservative judges who do not legislate from the bench. Conservatives need to rein in spending and only then will they be able to criticize Obama’s Keynesian economic policies without appearing hypocritical. In short, conservatives need to regain the moral high ground that they have lost from out-of-control spending, rushing into war in 2003 with faulty intelligence, and angry rhetoric from talk radio. While it might be tempting to lash out at Obama, conservatives need to criticize Obama with the respective his office deserves, a respect that liberals did not accord to Bush during his presidency. Only by doing this will conservatives regain the moral high ground in the minds of the American people.
In short conservatives need to rebuild their political movement based on dispassionate politics, discipline, fiscal conservatism, ethical responsibility and guardianship of traditional government practices. The Republican Party needs to de-emphasize its populist appeal and reach out intellectually to college students and young professionals. It must be smart, flexible, disciplined, and kind. Placing its eggs in the basket of populism is a poor investment because the social conservative, blue-collar demographic is rapidly decreasing in favor of a more idealistic and college-educated professional. All of this begins with building a firm intellectual basis, which, by necessity, must be more flexible. Conservatives must prioritize their agenda and cooperate with others, even liberals, in order to achieve aspects of it. Conservatives must cease to be seen as reactionary and instead as actually conservative; i.e. preserving long-standing values while being flexible with change and figuring out how to intelligently apply traditional values with new challenges.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)