A NeoCon(servative)ic View of the State of the World

This is an excerpt from an article which can be found at

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1072326001961

Quote:

In his reading, Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus. Perhaps a better opposition is that of the shareholder and the stakeholder. America is a shareholder society. Some 50% of Americans actually own stock in publicly traded companies, either directly or via mutual funds. More broadly, Americans favor individual rights and individual initiative over communal rights and collective entitlements. Pay to Play is a quintessentially American slogan: so are “put up or shut up,” “show me the money,” and “lead, follow, or get out of the way.”

The term “stakeholder” is a European buzzword: It refers to those people whose lives are fundamentally affected by some enterprise, even if they don’t have actual “ownership” in that enterprise. For example: the woman who lives downstream from the tannery; or the assembly line worker whose job is threatened by low-cost labor overseas. Neither is likely to be represented at the annual shareholders’ meeting. Yet both, according to one theory of justice, deserve to have their voices heard.

These differences have deep philosophical roots – Locke on the one side, Rousseau on the other. Economically, it’s a case of free markets versus “social markets,” of efficiency versus consensus. Politically as well as diplomatically, it’s the difference between being results-oriented and being process-oriented.

At the most fundamental level, however, the difference is this: In today’s world, Americans are the actors, and Europeans – indeed, everyone else – are the acted-upon. In 2003, the truly serious question Europe raised was whether the former should, by dint of their overwhelming power, have the effective right to dictate to the latter the kind of world in which they all must live. In other words, the question wasn’t a substantive or moral one, as in, “who’s right?” but a procedural and democratic one, as in “who decides?”

Being and nothingness

“The world is what it is,” wrote VS Naipaul. “Men who are nothing, who allow themselves to become nothing, have no place in it.”

In a year when Europe was obsessed with the question of legitimacy, America was obsessed with a quest for survival. Terrorists, Bush has said consistently since the attacks of September 11, would not hesitate to detonate a nuclear bomb in Manhattan or Los Angeles if they had one. Preventing exactly that is what his presidency is about.

Thus America’s quintessentially Lockean retort to Europe: Self-preservation is a nation’s first and most inescapable priority. If this requires flouting the polite norms of international practice, so be it. “At some point we may be the only ones left,” said Bush on the eve of war, as the so-called Coalition of the Willing whittled down to two. “That’s okay with me. We are America.”

But beyond the assertion of sovereign prerogative, there was also a thinly veiled message of contempt. America has not achieved world mastery without foresight and sacrifice; it is not a Saudi Arabia, which owes its wealth to the happy accident of its location. Similarly, the countries of Europe had not joined the ranks of the “acted upon” because they were the blameless victims of other people’s devices. Rather, they had lost their place through their indulgence of reckless ideologies, their economic mismanagement, their willingness to let Washington bear the burdens of their defense.

In 2003, Europeans woke up to the unpleasant fact that opposition to Washington, far from creating “multipolarity,” consigned them to geopolitical irrelevance. To this rude awakening, the Bush administration has not been particularly solicitous; it capped the year by excluding Germany and France from business opportunities in Iraq. “You no play’a da game, you no make’a da rules,” said Earl Butts, Richard Nixon’s secretary of agriculture, in reference to some papal pronouncement on birth control. It perfectly captures Bush’s view of Europe.

Unquote

And the Great Debate is?

Yeah, what’s your damn point? I’m tired of these vague generalizations about conservatives/liberals, Americans/Europeans, wtf-ever.

Next time, how about making it interesting with some stats? Fifty percent of Europeans think this way. The Germans think this but the Poles think that.

Generalizations are have their use, but at least make them good/interesting/useful ones.

So your point is that Bush is an asshole?

I agree.

Yes. But only when considered as an existential fact.

My sense is that Europeans and Americans tend to view the world very differently because they’ve drawn very different lessons from history.

To put it very simplistically (perhaps too simplistically), Europeans have learned and internalized a valid series of lessons from World War 1, while Americans have learned and internalized a very DIFFERENT set of valid lessons from World War 2.

NOBODY in Europe wanted the nightmare that was the First World War. If the Austrians had known what would come of it, they’d have said “Screw the Balkans, let the bastards have their lousy independence. They’ll kill each other, and it serves them right.” If the tsar had known what was to happen, he’d never have bothered supporting the Serbs. If the Germans, French or British had known what was in store, they’d have said, “Forget our alliances.” NOBODY wanted or expected what happened.
But everybody was armed to the teeth, everybody was suspicious of and hostile toward everyone else… and so, one localized conflict led to a bloodbath involving almost all of Europe, and much of the rest of the world.

And that’s what Europeans today remember. When they look at international conflicts, they’re inclined to be cautious. “War is unpredictbale, and uncontrollable. A small conflict can lead to a greater one. We have to be reasonable, thoughtful, deliberate. We have to be sure that the use fo force won’t have disastrous consequences down the road.”

Americans, on the other hand, remember World War 2. Above all, they remember Munich and (especially) Pearl Harbor.

And what are the lessons of Munich and Viet Nam? That your enemy may be TALKING sweetly and reasonably, that your enemy may SAY he wants peace, but you’re crazy to put much trust in anything he says. If you grant even seemingly reasonable concessions to your enemy, he won’t respect you- he’ll think you’re weak and afraid, and he’ll either make more outrageous demands or he’ll take action on his own, confident that you won’t have the will to stop him. And if you’re fool enough to listen to an enemy talking about peace, you’re liable to get caught with your pants down, as the U.S. did at Pearl Harbor.

Europe looked at Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and said, “Sure, he’s a bad guy- but attacking him could have unforeseen consequences that could lead a to a disastrous larger war bewteen the West and the Islamic world. Sure, it would be nice to squash a thug like Hussein, but it just isn’t worth the possible results.” That’s the lesson of World War 1.

Americans looked at Hussein and said, “Deal with him now, or he’ll be more dangerous later.” That’s the lesson of World War 2.

France and Germany were right, by the way. Hussein was not a threat. Bush was a liar. We should have listened to Chiraq.

“Americans looked at Hussein and said, “Deal with him now, or he’ll be more dangerous later.” That’s the lesson of World War 2”
Yeah that’s a very good historical comparison. If Bush hadn’t stopped him, Hussein and his mighty armies would clearly have cut a swathe of destruction and conquest across the whole Middle East!! Thank God he didn’t listen to those Europeans and dealt with the mighty menace in time !!!

As for the quote in the OP it’s the kind of gaseous effort that’s not worth commenting on because it really has nothing to say. It’s just an airing of foolish assertions unsupported by any kind of analysis or evidence.

However I will note my amusement at the reference to the “world mastery” of the US. Right now the US is barely managing to keep control of just the Sunni triangle of Iraq. Clearly it is very far from creating a stable, democratic government in the country. It hasn’t been able to get North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons. It has failed to stop Pakistan from proliferating nuclear technology to Iran and North Korea. It has failed to create a stable government in Afghanistan. If this is world mastery, I am the emperor of Antarctica

France and Germany were right, by the way. Hussein was not a threat. Bush was a liar. We should have listened to Chiraq.

If only France and Germany had made that case, huh? Instead, everyone was pretty much in agreement about what kind of threat Iraq posed. THe differences were over what to do about it.

Cyberpundit, America has a reputation for success. When we say we are going to do something, the world knows to bet on us doing it. That is why those who think we are bent on world domination fear us so. Becuase they think we can pull it off.

What’s a Neo-Con?

Ask 10 people, get 12 different answers.

My view is that a neocon is a conservative domestically, a Wilsonian liberal in foreign policy.

Traditionally, neo-Cons were former socialists (for the most part) who switched to conservativism, largely in reaction to the “anti-Americanism” of the New Left, and the counter-culture. Neoconservatives tended to be really hardline in foreign policy, and really anti-communist. Domestically, they tended to be a lot more sympathetic to social welfare programs than traditional conservatives and libertarians (while still being strong believers in the free market, and opposed to large welfare programs), and tended to be pro-civil rights (a lot of neo-cons were involved in the civil rights movement in the 50’s and 60’s) But generally, neo-cons have focused on foreign affairs, saying it’s America’s job to spread American values of modern liberal democracy to the world, and to take an aggressive stance against threats to liberal democracy.

“Cyberpundit, America has a reputation for success.”
I think the US reputation at the present is more of short-term success at a narrow, military level combined with political failure in the long run. Afghanistan and Iraq are classic examples and seen in that way by most discerning observers.

Astorian - excellent post.

No, the difference was whether the US had proven Hussein to be a credible threat to the US. They had not. The UN needed to see some real evidence that Hussein had the abilty to hurt the US in order to authorize Bush’s cowboy games. No such evidence was forthcoming and no such threat ever existed.

Europe was right that Bush had failed to prove that Iraq was an imminent threat.

It didn’t matter that Hussein was a bad guy. That’s not a good enough reason. Bush is a bad guy too, and far more of a threat to world peace than Huseein ever was but that’s not a good enough reason for anyone else to invade the US.

NeoConservatism by I. Kristol, NeoCon Godfather

"[/SIZE] "Qadgop the Mercotan - “And the Great Debate is?” "

  • the right of Democracy/ies to self-defense;
  • the duty of same to spread its gospel;
  • the Hobesian view of “the human state of nature and the pact - between themselves expressed in a created State to escape the mentioned state of nature” vs Star Treck view of “do not interfere w another culture”;
  • the war Islam declared on the West;
  • the practical and logical NeoCon view of the world and of the society;
    and many more…

Aeschines - can you, pls, be civilized, pls?
- generalizations – I think the article is very specific,
maybe you should read it again

Who’s saying otherwise? The same applies to non-democracies as well, btw.

“Gospel?”

“Duty to spread…?”

What the hell do you mean by “Gospel” and what the hell do you mean by “spread it” and what the hell do you mean by “duty?” :confused:

The “Prime Directive” which the US has already agreed to is that no aggressive acts shall be committed against the sovereignty of any other nation except in self-defense. This “pact” was ratified by Congress and therefore represents the will of the people within this democracy.

Here’s where you lose any semblance of credibility. No such war has ever been declared and we are not at war with Islam. End of debate.

[Douglas Adams] Ah…this much be some obscure use of the words “practical and logical” which I am entirely unfamiliar with. [/Douglas Adams]

My Cynic friend, the debate will not end just b/c you say so. This way of debating is childish and ridiculous, you understand that, right? If you’re not able to conduct a civilized debate, then, step aside and let others do it as it should be done.
Ridiculing and using words as you see fit, don’t make it any more correct.
Practical and logical is as practical and logical as it can be in this context no matter what DA says.
Islam declared war on the West and you are invited to debate on it. The fact that you fail to see things for what they are, don’t make them any more different.
The right of NonDems to self-defense is the right of the bullies to continue doing so. The right of Dems to self-defense is the right of the “good guys” to continue peacefully to live as good guys.

Try to be as objective as possible and not so dogmatic and non-approving only b/c someone doesn’t express your opinions. We may not agree, but we’ll have a great time, here, debating friendly and in a civilized manner. Looking forward to a great debate.

Please provide support for the assertion that “Islam declared war on the west” and we can have a civilized debate. Simply making imflammatory assertions is hardly a starting point for a rational discussion.

On second thought, why don’t we take this to the pit.