DESIDERATA FOR A FUTURE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
It’s about the future, stupid.
Continue to protect and empower the powerless.
The U.S. Federal government is to be controlled, not encouraged to grow more powerful.
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
Hold Back the Feds!
The U.S. federal government is the greatest power in the world today, but this is not our power; it is something that, in a political sense, operates counter to our needs, our legitimate interests, and our desires.
I agree with our new Senator Obama that the federal government can be a force for great benefit, but, as he will see soon enough, it will not be during this administration.
Like it or not, we are the opposition party. I am not suggesting that those of us who work for the U.S. government resign wholesale: many of us perform vital roles in education, defense, social services, etc. that must continue or even be redoubled. All of us should look at the ethical implications of what we do, trying to balance these against the necessity of earning a living. Instead, as a party we should sponsor development of our oversight capabilities, ones that do not rely on control of the branches of government.
The objective is to build a capable and smart political counterforce that will know what must be done differently when we finally regain the national popular mandate.
In the Bushite era, Democratic policies should be flavored with a healthy dose of populism. We should openly express our suspicions about the military-industrial-pharma cabal which controls the national government. I exaggerate here, but I’m expressing the emotion which comes from the heart. Many others feel the same, and many of those are Republicans and Independents today.
We Democrats should express a healthy skepticism—for a change—about bringing about change through the federal government, and we should actively search for other ways to gain success. The day may come, even soon, when we are not shut out from control of the power center as we are today, but this skepticism and openness to other channels should remain part of our creed.
This Zen-like turning away from power on any terms (but not turning our back--never!), is the way to break out of the liberal/conservative box in which we find ourselves. Democrats have every right to reclaim the ideal of restraint of federal powers and to do so in the name of progressive goals. When we do so, we will find surprising gains in support.
I agree with our new Senator Obama that the federal government can be a force for great benefit, but, as he will see soon enough, it will not be during this administration.
Like it or not, we are the opposition party. I am not suggesting that those of us who work for the U.S. government resign wholesale: many of us perform vital roles in education, defense, social services, etc. that must continue or even be redoubled. All of us should look at the ethical implications of what we do, trying to balance these against the necessity of earning a living. Instead, as a party we should sponsor development of our oversight capabilities, ones that do not rely on control of the branches of government.
The objective is to build a capable and smart political counterforce that will know what must be done differently when we finally regain the national popular mandate.
In the Bushite era, Democratic policies should be flavored with a healthy dose of populism. We should openly express our suspicions about the military-industrial-pharma cabal which controls the national government. I exaggerate here, but I’m expressing the emotion which comes from the heart. Many others feel the same, and many of those are Republicans and Independents today.
We Democrats should express a healthy skepticism—for a change—about bringing about change through the federal government, and we should actively search for other ways to gain success. The day may come, even soon, when we are not shut out from control of the power center as we are today, but this skepticism and openness to other channels should remain part of our creed.
This Zen-like turning away from power on any terms (but not turning our back--never!), is the way to break out of the liberal/conservative box in which we find ourselves. Democrats have every right to reclaim the ideal of restraint of federal powers and to do so in the name of progressive goals. When we do so, we will find surprising gains in support.
Protect and Empower the Powerless
As Democrats, we have to protect the interests of our core constituencies, groups that remain relatively distant from the centers of federal power: Blacks, Latinos, women, gays, workers (both unionized and not) and students. Due primarily to the progress made under Democratic leadership, these groups are not totally powerless in today’s America, but they are systematically undermined by the current political power structure.
We have to critically review our economic and infrastructure proposals with these constituencies through systematic grass-roots outreach, in order to build up and continuously refine a “Preservation of Base” set of programs (alternative Federal programs, along with local and state initiatives), combined with the rationale for each, that can be utilized as a potent alternative to any administration proposal. We should not be deterred by those who charge us with creating “class struggle”: the struggle is real for those without power, and the gaps between rich and poor are growing steadily. Undermining the middle class is the final phase of the Bushite project; it has already begun.
Laudably, bigotry has not been their message, but in this case, for once, the economic and social impact of their policies matches their intention: one big Affirmative Action program for the wealthy elite.
Protecting the powerless extends beyond our borders, as well. We must be outspoken when the Bushites fail to live up to their idealistic rhetoric, as they will.
We have to critically review our economic and infrastructure proposals with these constituencies through systematic grass-roots outreach, in order to build up and continuously refine a “Preservation of Base” set of programs (alternative Federal programs, along with local and state initiatives), combined with the rationale for each, that can be utilized as a potent alternative to any administration proposal. We should not be deterred by those who charge us with creating “class struggle”: the struggle is real for those without power, and the gaps between rich and poor are growing steadily. Undermining the middle class is the final phase of the Bushite project; it has already begun.
Laudably, bigotry has not been their message, but in this case, for once, the economic and social impact of their policies matches their intention: one big Affirmative Action program for the wealthy elite.
Protecting the powerless extends beyond our borders, as well. We must be outspoken when the Bushites fail to live up to their idealistic rhetoric, as they will.
"It's about the future, stupid"
We look to the future for our inspiration, they look to the past for theirs. They have the edge in the short run, but we will win in the long run because we put the future first. The Bushites have forfeited any moral basis even to discuss plans for this country’s future with their deficits, endless military adventures, and myopic energy policies. Where their plans were good, as with education, their execution was poor; meanwhile, instances of great execution, as with the military’s invasion of Iraq, have been sandwiched with poor planning. The Medicare prescription legislation and their prescribed changes to Social Security are two more cases in point.
My boomer generation stands for little except selfishness, so here's a selfish argument for us to consider: the time all America has to plan for is when the boomers are old, 2020-2050 (roughly). We have to give our children (or whoever it is who's going to be of a productive age then--immigrants, someone else's children, our grandchildren, etc.) a chance to work their butts off and keep us going then. There’s really not that much chance that, as a generation, we’re saving enough to take care of ourselves on our own resources.
The robust economy we will all need to have built by then is not facilitated by letting lobbyists draft legislation favorable to themselves, by squandering our resources, by subsidizing weak industries, nor by nurturing an underclass through affirmative action for the privileged; it is facilitated by building the infrastructure and fostering the conditions to allow the development of workers and industries capable and ready for fiercely competitive global markets.
(If that's what the intended consequences of the Bushite Social Security proposals are, then let's understand that now because I just don't see it. Instead, it looks like a money-grab with probable short- and long-term unfavorable outcomes for most Americans, and Bush is looking more like a car salesman with a defective product. )
Democrats made solid progress toward regaining the youth vote in 2004. In order to secure a dominant position as the party of today’s youth, and in order to continue to gain a majority share of tomorrow’s youth (the combination of which will prove a successful long-term strategy), we must filter all our policies through the prism of long-term viability.
The Bush administration’s policies threaten to steal vitality from the future and postpone critical progress. We can and must offer clear alternatives on national issues that will counter the course that’s set for the short run.
My boomer generation stands for little except selfishness, so here's a selfish argument for us to consider: the time all America has to plan for is when the boomers are old, 2020-2050 (roughly). We have to give our children (or whoever it is who's going to be of a productive age then--immigrants, someone else's children, our grandchildren, etc.) a chance to work their butts off and keep us going then. There’s really not that much chance that, as a generation, we’re saving enough to take care of ourselves on our own resources.
The robust economy we will all need to have built by then is not facilitated by letting lobbyists draft legislation favorable to themselves, by squandering our resources, by subsidizing weak industries, nor by nurturing an underclass through affirmative action for the privileged; it is facilitated by building the infrastructure and fostering the conditions to allow the development of workers and industries capable and ready for fiercely competitive global markets.
(If that's what the intended consequences of the Bushite Social Security proposals are, then let's understand that now because I just don't see it. Instead, it looks like a money-grab with probable short- and long-term unfavorable outcomes for most Americans, and Bush is looking more like a car salesman with a defective product. )
Democrats made solid progress toward regaining the youth vote in 2004. In order to secure a dominant position as the party of today’s youth, and in order to continue to gain a majority share of tomorrow’s youth (the combination of which will prove a successful long-term strategy), we must filter all our policies through the prism of long-term viability.
The Bush administration’s policies threaten to steal vitality from the future and postpone critical progress. We can and must offer clear alternatives on national issues that will counter the course that’s set for the short run.
Monday, February 07, 2005
Ideas for the Democratic Party (the 31 minute version)
The Democratic National Committee will elect a new chairman on February 12. Along with new leadership, Democrats are challenged to provide meaningful thought leadership at a time when control of the national government has totally been lost. I’d like to propose three ideas to DNC Chairman Howard Dean which I believe can help the party recapture its strength.
DESIDERATA FOR A FUTURE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
It’s about the future, stupid.
Continue to protect and empower the powerless.
The U.S. Federal government is to be controlled, not encouraged to grow more powerful.
Let me elaborate:
First, the future: We look to the future, they look to the past. They have the edge in the short run, but we will win in the long run because we put the future first. The Bushites have forfeited any moral basis to even discuss plans for this country’s future with their deficits, endless military adventures, and myopic energy policies. Where their plans were good, as with education, their execution was poor, and instances of great execution, as with the military’s invasion of Iraq, have been sandwiched with poor planning. The Medicare prescription legislation and their prescribed changes to Social Security are two more cases in point.
My boomer generation stands for little except selfishness, so here's a selfish argument for us to consider: the time all America has to plan for is when the boomers are old, 2020-2050 (roughly). We have to give our children (or whoever it is who's going to be of a productive age then--immigrants, someone else's children, our grandchildren, etc.) a chance to work their butts off and keep us going then. There’s really not that much chance that, as a generation, we’re saving enough to take care of ourselves on our own resources. The robust economy we will all need to have built by then is not facilitated by letting lobbyists draft legislation favorable to themselves, by squandering our resources, by subsidizing weak industries, nor by nurturing an underclass through affirmative action for the privileged; it is facilitated by building the infrastructure and fostering the conditions to produce workers and industries capable and ready for fiercely competitive global markets.
Democrats made solid progress toward regaining the youth vote in 2004. In order to secure a dominant position as the party of today’s youth, and in order to continue to gain a majority share of tomorrow’s youth (the combination of which will prove a successful long-term strategy), we must filter our policies through the prism of long-term viability. The Bush administration’s policies threaten to steal vitality from the future and postpone critical progress. We can and must offer clear alternatives on each national issue that will counter the course that’s set for the short run.
Secondly, we have to protect the interests of our core constituencies, groups that remain relatively distant from the centers of federal power: Blacks, Latinos, women, gays, workers (both unionized and not) and students. Due primarily to the progress made under Democratic leadership, these groups are not totally powerless in today’s America, but they are systematically undermined by the current political power structure. We have to critically review our economic and infrastructure proposals with these constituencies through systematic grass-roots outreach, in order to build up and continuously refine a “Preservation of Base” set of programs (alternative Federal programs, along with local and state initiatives), combined with the rationale for each, that can be utilized as a potent alternative to any administration proposal. We should not be deterred by those who charge us with creating “class struggle”: the struggle is real for those without power, and the gaps between rich and poor are growing steadily under Bushite rule. The undermining of the middle class will be the next phase, already begun.
Protecting the powerless extends beyond our borders, as well. We must be outspoken when the Bushites fail to live up to their idealistic rhetoric, as they will.
Third, an estrangement has already occurred between Democrats and Federal government policies. This will be most difficult for party leaders to accept, but its recognition is the one change that will produce the greatest gains. The U.S. federal government is the greatest power in the world today, but this is not our power; it is something that, in a political sense, operates counter to our needs, our legitimate interests, and our desires. I agree with our new Senator Obama that the federal government can be a force for great benefit, but, as he will see soon enough, it will not be during this administration. Like it or not, we are the opposition party. I am not suggesting that those of us who work for the U.S. government resign wholesale: many of us perform vital roles in education, defense, social services, etc. that must continue or even be redoubled. All of us should look at the ethical implications of what we do, trying to balance these against the necessity of earning a living. Instead, as a party we should sponsor development of our oversight capabilities, ones that do not rely on control of the branches of government. The objective is to build a capable and smart political counterforce that will know what must be done differently when we finally regain the national popular mandate.
In the Bushite era, Democratic policies should be flavored with a healthy dose of populism. We should openly express our suspicions about the military-industrial-pharma cabal which controls the national government. I exaggerate here, but I’m expressing the emotion which comes from the heart. Many others feel the same, and many of those are Republicans and Independents today. We should express a healthy skepticism—for a change—about bringing about change through the federal government and search for other ways to gain success. The day may come, even soon, when we are not shut out from control of the power center as we are today, but this skepticism and openness to other channels should remain part of our creed. This is the way to break out of the liberal/conservative box in which we find ourselves. Democrats have every right to reclaim the ideal of restraint of federal powers and to do so in the name of progressive goals. When we do so, we will find surprising gains in support.
This idea of limiting the power of the federal government means strengthening the power of states and localities to go their ways, but also strengthening international organizations (though we want them to be more democratic). Here’s a great idea, long overdue, but one that must wait until the post-Bushite era: the U.S. should lead a movement to reform the U.N. Charter and bring it forward from its genesis during the postwar period (that’s post-WWII). But, in the meantime, there’s plenty of opportunities for improvements in areas other than the legislation and execution of the federal laws. Examples could include initiatives within individual states; opportunities for restoration of civic community, and for supporting non-governmental organizations with local, national, and international scope.
If we wish to end tyranny in the world, then we must begin by building greater democracy at home. One component of the Democratic agenda that is entirely suitable for full cooperation with the national Republican majority is electoral reform. Everyone should be able to vote anytime in October, on the Internet at home or in an Internet café with the appropriate security and encryption. Or, if you prefer, you can stand in line Election Day. And let us finally rid ourselves of the Electoral College--hopefully, the Republicans will work with us, understanding the argument that (with the 0.5% Ohio Solution being discovered in time) they could have lost the 2004 Presidential election, while drubbing the Democrats unmercifully in so much of the country and drawing 51% of the popular vote. The fact that the 2004 elections went "smoothly"—-voters scooting uneasily through a No-Man's Land patrolled by lawyers from both sides--doesn't mean things are OK. We are spending too much money for the quality of this process. America needs more democracy: Along with better means of informing the people, we should advocate such items as direct democracy, arising from citizens’ petitions; Democratic primary elections open to all; democratic elections for the majority of DNC members; and statehood for D.C. and Puerto Rico.
We must be zealous in the drive for integrity in public affairs, and vocal in demonstrating how the Bushites have attacked transparency and allowed and encouraged abuses of power. But we must be equally vocal about the protection of our liberties, and our privacy--even the privacy of public figures. We must be brave, defending the rights of expression for unpopular, even antisocial points of view. At the same time, we must add focus in our secondary education on the key civic skills of developing individuals’ ethical and practical capabilities, so we can eventually stop trying to legislate morality--as though the American people will always remain children.
Is Washington our enemy? No, we are Americans. We send our tribunes to Washington to keep an eye on the Red Revenuers and control their excesses at public expense, not because we want our turn at the cranes to build monuments to ourselves. Washington already has plenty of impressive monuments, ones that could last for thousands of years, as the ancient Romans had--If we are wise. To continue a bit in historical terms, we have to be more the party of Jefferson and Jackson, in the best sense: We have to restore the sense of adventure to America. And the greatest adventure we could possibly have is that of world leadership. America has now a brief window in history in which we can uniquely and positively affect the course of human civilization. With the disastrous outcome of the 2004 elections, we will be four years closer in simple terms of the calendar to the time our window of opportunity will close, but much more so in terms of the unintended long-term effects of Bushite policies.
DESIDERATA FOR A FUTURE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
It’s about the future, stupid.
Protect and empower the powerless.
The U.S. Federal government is to be controlled, not encouraged to grow more powerful.
DESIDERATA FOR A FUTURE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
It’s about the future, stupid.
Continue to protect and empower the powerless.
The U.S. Federal government is to be controlled, not encouraged to grow more powerful.
Let me elaborate:
First, the future: We look to the future, they look to the past. They have the edge in the short run, but we will win in the long run because we put the future first. The Bushites have forfeited any moral basis to even discuss plans for this country’s future with their deficits, endless military adventures, and myopic energy policies. Where their plans were good, as with education, their execution was poor, and instances of great execution, as with the military’s invasion of Iraq, have been sandwiched with poor planning. The Medicare prescription legislation and their prescribed changes to Social Security are two more cases in point.
My boomer generation stands for little except selfishness, so here's a selfish argument for us to consider: the time all America has to plan for is when the boomers are old, 2020-2050 (roughly). We have to give our children (or whoever it is who's going to be of a productive age then--immigrants, someone else's children, our grandchildren, etc.) a chance to work their butts off and keep us going then. There’s really not that much chance that, as a generation, we’re saving enough to take care of ourselves on our own resources. The robust economy we will all need to have built by then is not facilitated by letting lobbyists draft legislation favorable to themselves, by squandering our resources, by subsidizing weak industries, nor by nurturing an underclass through affirmative action for the privileged; it is facilitated by building the infrastructure and fostering the conditions to produce workers and industries capable and ready for fiercely competitive global markets.
Democrats made solid progress toward regaining the youth vote in 2004. In order to secure a dominant position as the party of today’s youth, and in order to continue to gain a majority share of tomorrow’s youth (the combination of which will prove a successful long-term strategy), we must filter our policies through the prism of long-term viability. The Bush administration’s policies threaten to steal vitality from the future and postpone critical progress. We can and must offer clear alternatives on each national issue that will counter the course that’s set for the short run.
Secondly, we have to protect the interests of our core constituencies, groups that remain relatively distant from the centers of federal power: Blacks, Latinos, women, gays, workers (both unionized and not) and students. Due primarily to the progress made under Democratic leadership, these groups are not totally powerless in today’s America, but they are systematically undermined by the current political power structure. We have to critically review our economic and infrastructure proposals with these constituencies through systematic grass-roots outreach, in order to build up and continuously refine a “Preservation of Base” set of programs (alternative Federal programs, along with local and state initiatives), combined with the rationale for each, that can be utilized as a potent alternative to any administration proposal. We should not be deterred by those who charge us with creating “class struggle”: the struggle is real for those without power, and the gaps between rich and poor are growing steadily under Bushite rule. The undermining of the middle class will be the next phase, already begun.
Protecting the powerless extends beyond our borders, as well. We must be outspoken when the Bushites fail to live up to their idealistic rhetoric, as they will.
Third, an estrangement has already occurred between Democrats and Federal government policies. This will be most difficult for party leaders to accept, but its recognition is the one change that will produce the greatest gains. The U.S. federal government is the greatest power in the world today, but this is not our power; it is something that, in a political sense, operates counter to our needs, our legitimate interests, and our desires. I agree with our new Senator Obama that the federal government can be a force for great benefit, but, as he will see soon enough, it will not be during this administration. Like it or not, we are the opposition party. I am not suggesting that those of us who work for the U.S. government resign wholesale: many of us perform vital roles in education, defense, social services, etc. that must continue or even be redoubled. All of us should look at the ethical implications of what we do, trying to balance these against the necessity of earning a living. Instead, as a party we should sponsor development of our oversight capabilities, ones that do not rely on control of the branches of government. The objective is to build a capable and smart political counterforce that will know what must be done differently when we finally regain the national popular mandate.
In the Bushite era, Democratic policies should be flavored with a healthy dose of populism. We should openly express our suspicions about the military-industrial-pharma cabal which controls the national government. I exaggerate here, but I’m expressing the emotion which comes from the heart. Many others feel the same, and many of those are Republicans and Independents today. We should express a healthy skepticism—for a change—about bringing about change through the federal government and search for other ways to gain success. The day may come, even soon, when we are not shut out from control of the power center as we are today, but this skepticism and openness to other channels should remain part of our creed. This is the way to break out of the liberal/conservative box in which we find ourselves. Democrats have every right to reclaim the ideal of restraint of federal powers and to do so in the name of progressive goals. When we do so, we will find surprising gains in support.
This idea of limiting the power of the federal government means strengthening the power of states and localities to go their ways, but also strengthening international organizations (though we want them to be more democratic). Here’s a great idea, long overdue, but one that must wait until the post-Bushite era: the U.S. should lead a movement to reform the U.N. Charter and bring it forward from its genesis during the postwar period (that’s post-WWII). But, in the meantime, there’s plenty of opportunities for improvements in areas other than the legislation and execution of the federal laws. Examples could include initiatives within individual states; opportunities for restoration of civic community, and for supporting non-governmental organizations with local, national, and international scope.
If we wish to end tyranny in the world, then we must begin by building greater democracy at home. One component of the Democratic agenda that is entirely suitable for full cooperation with the national Republican majority is electoral reform. Everyone should be able to vote anytime in October, on the Internet at home or in an Internet café with the appropriate security and encryption. Or, if you prefer, you can stand in line Election Day. And let us finally rid ourselves of the Electoral College--hopefully, the Republicans will work with us, understanding the argument that (with the 0.5% Ohio Solution being discovered in time) they could have lost the 2004 Presidential election, while drubbing the Democrats unmercifully in so much of the country and drawing 51% of the popular vote. The fact that the 2004 elections went "smoothly"—-voters scooting uneasily through a No-Man's Land patrolled by lawyers from both sides--doesn't mean things are OK. We are spending too much money for the quality of this process. America needs more democracy: Along with better means of informing the people, we should advocate such items as direct democracy, arising from citizens’ petitions; Democratic primary elections open to all; democratic elections for the majority of DNC members; and statehood for D.C. and Puerto Rico.
We must be zealous in the drive for integrity in public affairs, and vocal in demonstrating how the Bushites have attacked transparency and allowed and encouraged abuses of power. But we must be equally vocal about the protection of our liberties, and our privacy--even the privacy of public figures. We must be brave, defending the rights of expression for unpopular, even antisocial points of view. At the same time, we must add focus in our secondary education on the key civic skills of developing individuals’ ethical and practical capabilities, so we can eventually stop trying to legislate morality--as though the American people will always remain children.
Is Washington our enemy? No, we are Americans. We send our tribunes to Washington to keep an eye on the Red Revenuers and control their excesses at public expense, not because we want our turn at the cranes to build monuments to ourselves. Washington already has plenty of impressive monuments, ones that could last for thousands of years, as the ancient Romans had--If we are wise. To continue a bit in historical terms, we have to be more the party of Jefferson and Jackson, in the best sense: We have to restore the sense of adventure to America. And the greatest adventure we could possibly have is that of world leadership. America has now a brief window in history in which we can uniquely and positively affect the course of human civilization. With the disastrous outcome of the 2004 elections, we will be four years closer in simple terms of the calendar to the time our window of opportunity will close, but much more so in terms of the unintended long-term effects of Bushite policies.
DESIDERATA FOR A FUTURE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
It’s about the future, stupid.
Protect and empower the powerless.
The U.S. Federal government is to be controlled, not encouraged to grow more powerful.
Thursday, February 03, 2005
Revenge and Insecurity, or "Kill Arik, Vol. 2"
(originally published 3/04?)
Apart from the construction of Sharon’s Wall, the element of historic importance for the future in today’s Israeli-Palestinian impasse is Israel’s extraordinary public adoption of assassination as a public policy.
As a covert tactic, of course, it is older than prostitution, but few governments in modern times have embraced the concept of extra-judicial revenge beyond their borders so openly, fearlessly and shamelessly. Especially ones that are democratically elected, have a sure grip on their domestic power, and are widely recognized. The reason for the reticence of most sovereign states’ governments about their dirty deeds, it is clear, is pragmatic: it’s a slippery slope that is dangerous for the governmental leaders themselves. To give an analogous historical example, the one thing all kings of the modern era opposed was regicide: It was bad for the whole regal industry.
I don’t want to get into Kennedy assassination-speculation here, but I will acknowledge the theory that Oswald was somehow put up to it by Castro, in revenge for (covert) assassination attempts against him credited to the CIA. You see how the game normally works from this example: the target is hit, or not, a slightly deranged hitman is taken down, but no one is the wiser, and the trail is cold well before it reaches the citadels of national power.
US policy has been, and remains, not to officially sponsor assassination. OK, so sometimes when apprehending a suspect, particularly outside the country, the evildoer might get offed, particularly if he/she resists arrest. (Personally, I could see the point of making an exception, now and then, as long as we recognize it’s revenge we’re after and the provocation is particularly extreme: I wouldn’t mind it so much if we announced that, as a matter of policy, when we pin down Osama, we’re going to bring in the flamethrowers and throw a barbecue. But no, it’s better not to go there, and it’s not really necessary under those circumstances, anyway.) We tried the “decapitation” strike against Saddam—with a complicated rationale that it wasn’t just an assassination attempt (?)—but when we actually got our paws on him in his rathole, we didn’t just slake our bloodlust.
Not that we’re really better than Dirty Harry; it’s more the admission of impotence in the policy of overt assassination—we don’t have confidence in our ability to bring ‘em to justice, so let’s just make sure they get theirs while we have the chance. That last bit seems to be the Israeli rationale. The hits on Hamas’ leaders are frankly called “retaliation”—a/k/a revenge—certainly not much point in terms of somehow intimidating or silencing the Palestinian intifada.
As with Sharon’s Wall, the Israeli leadership is working from the principle of “fait accompli”: they do it because they can. The best they could hope for, I’d argue, is to decimate the terrorists’ leadership. The isolated cells which would remain would continue to try acts of terror, but somehow by being decentralized Hamas’ terror campaign would be less effective.
Which raises the question, effective at what? Both the Palestinian terrorists’ suicide attacks, and the retaliations from Israel, strike me as being non-strategic. I'm reminded of Mafia Gangland war, Hatfield and McCoy, or the Arkansas feud so brilliantly satirized by Mark Twain in Huckleberry Finn—I’d call both sides atavistic, mindless, and bloody-minded. Unless, of course, Israel’s Cabinet has laid down a form of challenge, which Hamas hasn’t quite picked up. “Come and get us, if you can!”
Well, what do you say, unnamed Hamas leader (at least a little sense there in remaining anonymous)? Can you beat the #1 security infrastructure in the world? The challenge to you: don’t waste another martyr, if not for the cause of “justified” direct revenge against Sharon and/or the Cabinet members who’ve authorized your leaders’ slayings. The world will not challenge your right to revenge, if you can do it. I daresay the news reporting industry will gain plenty of grist for the mill in that case. What good does it do to waste more innocents? Not to mention the religious unacceptability...
Speaking of misguided revenge, what other explanation is there for America invading Iraq, really? (Our bad?-damn!)....
In all seriousness, though, in the case of the Israeli assassination campaign, I think our country's public stance is appropriate: we understand your emotional impulses, but try to consider the consequences of your actions. This counsel is especially relevant in the case of easily-targeted possible objective Arafat (who, in his--what, "murderous lust?"--Sharon wants to include on the hit list he's submitted; you know, the one he prepared in order to demonstrate the quality of his restraint. To me, this one looks awfully like a mercy killing, or like executing Saddam in his rathole).
I, for one, am suspicious of our government's private communications to the Israeli leadership and wondering what quid of ours may be pro quo. (That is, after all, the usual game.) And would I support offering it for that.
And with this guy on our side, with his track record, and with the guy on the other side, and his track record, I just say, "No. No deal."
Apart from the construction of Sharon’s Wall, the element of historic importance for the future in today’s Israeli-Palestinian impasse is Israel’s extraordinary public adoption of assassination as a public policy.
As a covert tactic, of course, it is older than prostitution, but few governments in modern times have embraced the concept of extra-judicial revenge beyond their borders so openly, fearlessly and shamelessly. Especially ones that are democratically elected, have a sure grip on their domestic power, and are widely recognized. The reason for the reticence of most sovereign states’ governments about their dirty deeds, it is clear, is pragmatic: it’s a slippery slope that is dangerous for the governmental leaders themselves. To give an analogous historical example, the one thing all kings of the modern era opposed was regicide: It was bad for the whole regal industry.
I don’t want to get into Kennedy assassination-speculation here, but I will acknowledge the theory that Oswald was somehow put up to it by Castro, in revenge for (covert) assassination attempts against him credited to the CIA. You see how the game normally works from this example: the target is hit, or not, a slightly deranged hitman is taken down, but no one is the wiser, and the trail is cold well before it reaches the citadels of national power.
US policy has been, and remains, not to officially sponsor assassination. OK, so sometimes when apprehending a suspect, particularly outside the country, the evildoer might get offed, particularly if he/she resists arrest. (Personally, I could see the point of making an exception, now and then, as long as we recognize it’s revenge we’re after and the provocation is particularly extreme: I wouldn’t mind it so much if we announced that, as a matter of policy, when we pin down Osama, we’re going to bring in the flamethrowers and throw a barbecue. But no, it’s better not to go there, and it’s not really necessary under those circumstances, anyway.) We tried the “decapitation” strike against Saddam—with a complicated rationale that it wasn’t just an assassination attempt (?)—but when we actually got our paws on him in his rathole, we didn’t just slake our bloodlust.
Not that we’re really better than Dirty Harry; it’s more the admission of impotence in the policy of overt assassination—we don’t have confidence in our ability to bring ‘em to justice, so let’s just make sure they get theirs while we have the chance. That last bit seems to be the Israeli rationale. The hits on Hamas’ leaders are frankly called “retaliation”—a/k/a revenge—certainly not much point in terms of somehow intimidating or silencing the Palestinian intifada.
As with Sharon’s Wall, the Israeli leadership is working from the principle of “fait accompli”: they do it because they can. The best they could hope for, I’d argue, is to decimate the terrorists’ leadership. The isolated cells which would remain would continue to try acts of terror, but somehow by being decentralized Hamas’ terror campaign would be less effective.
Which raises the question, effective at what? Both the Palestinian terrorists’ suicide attacks, and the retaliations from Israel, strike me as being non-strategic. I'm reminded of Mafia Gangland war, Hatfield and McCoy, or the Arkansas feud so brilliantly satirized by Mark Twain in Huckleberry Finn—I’d call both sides atavistic, mindless, and bloody-minded. Unless, of course, Israel’s Cabinet has laid down a form of challenge, which Hamas hasn’t quite picked up. “Come and get us, if you can!”
Well, what do you say, unnamed Hamas leader (at least a little sense there in remaining anonymous)? Can you beat the #1 security infrastructure in the world? The challenge to you: don’t waste another martyr, if not for the cause of “justified” direct revenge against Sharon and/or the Cabinet members who’ve authorized your leaders’ slayings. The world will not challenge your right to revenge, if you can do it. I daresay the news reporting industry will gain plenty of grist for the mill in that case. What good does it do to waste more innocents? Not to mention the religious unacceptability...
Speaking of misguided revenge, what other explanation is there for America invading Iraq, really? (Our bad?-damn!)....
In all seriousness, though, in the case of the Israeli assassination campaign, I think our country's public stance is appropriate: we understand your emotional impulses, but try to consider the consequences of your actions. This counsel is especially relevant in the case of easily-targeted possible objective Arafat (who, in his--what, "murderous lust?"--Sharon wants to include on the hit list he's submitted; you know, the one he prepared in order to demonstrate the quality of his restraint. To me, this one looks awfully like a mercy killing, or like executing Saddam in his rathole).
I, for one, am suspicious of our government's private communications to the Israeli leadership and wondering what quid of ours may be pro quo. (That is, after all, the usual game.) And would I support offering it for that.
And with this guy on our side, with his track record, and with the guy on the other side, and his track record, I just say, "No. No deal."
The WORSP that Could Happen
We have all had ten-plus years since the end of the Cold War to get used to the idea that the US is the World’s Only Remaining Superpower—the WORSP. It’s a concept for which the political science textbooks, with their demarcation between bipolar and multipolar systems, barely prepared us.
This “monopolar” world we’re in—first, of all, is it really that way, or do we just see it that way? Secondly, are there precedents for it in history? If so, how did those prior “End of History” worlds evolve to the next level? Evolve they did; contrary to what you youngsters may think, things haven’t always been this way.
To help us to assess superpotency, we will lean upon that favorite crutch, a homemade index. In honor of the website where this was first posted (and in honor of one of my favorite childhood games of battling superpowers), we will call it “eRISQ”, for “eRaider Index of Superpower-ness Quotient.”
eRISQ starts from the premise that a superpower is not measured by bread alone, or sword alone, but demonstrates its potency as a multi-dimensional combination of political, cultural, military, and economic strength. These dimensions are not independent of each other—economic influence over other societies tends to bring cultural and political influence, for example—but some powers do show tendencies to favor one dimension over the other. A true global power would be strong in all categories, and at least influential, if not dominant, everywhere.
The next thing we have to get straight is that this rating system is purely amoral—power is the only object here. Cultural influence is cultural influence; it doesn’t matter whether the culture is highbrow, lowbrow, or nobrow (ie Baywatch). Military strength is the ability to defeat everybody else’s armies, navies, or whatever; political strength is the ability to impose your nation’s will on those other governments. The two are not necessarily the same (I have to thank eRaider co-founder Aaron Brown for reminding me of the distinction, through an ancient posting on the Global Affairs board which made indirect reference to the oft-forgotten War of 1812 invasion of Washington). Defining economic power is trickier; let’s call it the extent to which the nation controls global trade, thereby influencing the basis of local economies.
How do you rate in your neighborhood, Mr. Rogers?
The categories, then, are political/cultural/military/economic, weighted equally. Dominance means the form is directly transferred from the more powerful country to the dominated one; influence means what goes on in the influential country shows up, modified, in the influenced one. Ranking is 1-6 in each category, based on the extent of impact beyond the borders of the rated society.
Just to make it interesting, we take each category rating, subtract it from the maximum possible (6), and square that result (to penalize the one-sided superpowers as compared to the ones with balanced effects across categories). We sum the category results and divide by four. Why four? Whyfore, indeed… we promised a quotient, didn’t we?
Because we’re subtracting the rating from the maximum possible, a lower number indicates a greater superpower. Does God get a 0 (maximum in all categories)? Let’s not discuss that one now, but hopefully you get the idea. A country which rated 5 in each category (dominating most, influencing the rest) would get 1.00, while one which rated a 2 in each category (dominating very few, influencing some; in other words, a minor regional player) would get (six minus two, squared, times four, divided by four) an eRISQ of 16.The rating could be applied on a regional basis, to see which nation rates as a superpower in its part of the world. One could even rate the various states of the US to see which one dominates, but the military part of the rating system doesn’t work so well.
“Streetsmart” people could compare their neighbors’ eRISQ ratings to their own as they walk by to determine whether it’s safe to spit on the sidewalk (though that rating tends to be basically a “military” one, from what I’ve seen). By the way, the best example of an all-around neighborhood superpower I can think of was the title character of the movie Superfly, who induced people to dress weirdly (and you better believe nobody messed with him).
A final point of definition: in terms of cultural and political power, all parts of the world count; however, in military or economic terms, only the parts of the world that really have some significance in global terms are important. Whether or not Japan exerts its military or trading influence on Cameroon doesn’t effect Japan’s status as a superpower, but if it were a real global power its influence would be felt, even there, on the local politics and culture.
Getting (finally) to cases
Let’s start with Japan, a real lopsided contender (all hook, no jab). In the political/cultural/military/economic categories (your mnemonic: “PC-me, please”), Japan gets 2-4-1-4, respectively, which earns it an eRISQ of 12.25.
China’s influence is mostly regional, earning it a balanced 3-3-3-3, or an eRISQ of 9.0. It is perhaps unfair that China doesn’t get much credit for coercing all its own people, as compared to a less populous nation, but, again, this is about power, not justice; besides, what self-respecting superpower can’t control those within its own borders?
Now, the US. We propose that the US gets a 4-5-6-5, for an eRISQ of 1.5. Its cultural dominance reaches to the farthest points of the world, though some (principally Islamic societies) resist, so it gets a 5. Militarily, there’s not much doubt about its superiority to any other armed forces; though some nations could resist an invasion (and Russia could still assure mutual destruction), we shall round up to a 6. Politically, America is relatively weak compared to the influence it exerts in the other dimensions; a fair number of nations have demonstrated they can go against US will and get away with it; few, though, go so far as to totally ignore it. Economically, everybody trades with the US (or wants to), and the trade deficit does not indicate a lack of economic potentcy.
To see how the mighty have fallen, let’s start with Britain. The UK still has strong, wide-ranging cultural influence—three little items called football (in most countries), its versions of rock’n’roll (Spice Girls, Oasis), and the English language help get it a ‘4’ in the culture category. Otherwise, it’s just a regional power militarily and economically, and not even a strong political influence on all of Europe (forget about the Commonwealth), earning a 2 politically: a 2-4-3-3, or an eRISQ of 9.5—just below China’s current rating. At its peak in the early 20th century, though, the UK sported an eRISQ of 2.5 on 4-4-5-5 ratings—not far from today’s rating for the “World’s Only Remaining Superpower”.
Russia today, though it has fallen fast, is not totally chopped liver: a 3-2-4-1 set of ratings earns it a 13.5 eRISQ, a little below Japan’s. At its geopolitical peak (Khrushchev’s time) the Soviet Union would’ve gotten a 4-4-5-3, or 4.5 (and that’s being generous on the economic measure—outside of Eastern Europe and Cuba, which it dominated economically, there weren’t any areas where it was very influential). As a superpower, it was a bit thin, historically speaking.
No soy marinero, soy “El Capitan”
The biggest fall that I can find anywhere, the Yosemite of cliff diving, has to be Spain’s. Its peak was in the mid-1500s, when it had toppled the two greatest empires of pre-Columbian America (the Aztecs and the Incas) and had gold running out of its huazu (could that be an Incan term originally?). On the big-time playing fields of Europe, its forces were all over, Spain making a run in those days at trying to reinstate the Holy Roman Empire with its own monarch as emperor. The Spanish were even messing around in places like the East Indies, China, Japan, and the Philippines. Culturally, apart from the language and religious imperialism in the New World, in that period Spain had a golden age of poetry and painting, Don Quixote, and Spanish revenge drama (Shakespeare’s formal inspiration for his more bloody tragedies). So, before the Spanish departure from the heights, they would’ve rated 5-5-5-5 in my book, an eRISQ of 1.0. There’s none rated higher, ever, that I can identify. (Ancient Rome, around 300 AD, might’ve been its equal.)After losing the top spot (basically to the French and English, who kicked it back and forth for nearly 300 years), the Spanish kept falling and falling. After the Dutch sent them packing the next century, they were basically finished as a superpower. By the time Napoleon made the country one of his favorite battlefields, Spain didn’t even rate too highly as a regional power. Anyway, just within Europe Spain’s a 3-3-1-3, an eRISQ of 13 (but rising); we won’t embarrass the country by rating it on the global level.
Hertz is to US as Avis is to….?
Spain’s history gives your first hint of what happens to a monopole: hit-and-run tactics—think of piracy’s heyday on the Spanish Main, which was the I-95 of its day on the Atlantic Ocean for Spanish ships loaded with gold, instead of today’s handgun runners—then someone knocks you off your pedestal. Spain didn’t have very long on top by itself, either; just under 100 years elapsed from the climactic victory over the Moors in Granada until the big upset of the Armada off England’s shores.
So, who’s the Chief Contenda?
We’ve covered most of the usual suspects; in Europe, compared to the UK’s 2-4-3-3 (9.5) we have France’s 2-4-2-2 (13.0) or Germany’s 3-3-1-3 (13.0): on their own, middle-level powers. But what about the combined power of Euroland? The countries sharing the continental currency, once they add the UK (look for it to occur around 2003) and build a military force of their own (believe it or not, it’s happening), could earn a respectable 3-4-3-4 rating, or an eRISQ of 6.5. Not quite up to the Soviet Union’s old level, but a cut above the rest. We shall see; Japan could address its weak areas—political and military influence beyond its shores—and rise up to the top rank. Otherwise, the ratings suggest that it’s a pretty close race for Number Two between China and the UK, but a long gap from them to ol’ Number One.
News Flash: US Body Language Getting More WORSP All the Time
America’s behavior on the world stage is beginning to show some signs of recognition of that status. Anytime you hear about the US being “indispensable,” or special rules that apply only for the US, that’s WORSP at work. Not entirely a bad thing; after all, it is the reality. America has always had a sense of being unique, with its aspirations noble and idealistic. This state of affairs, alone on Mount Everest, may not last for long, but history will know that “Kilroy was here.” Apart from the World War II graffiti, there’s a flag or two on the moon to make that point, and the nation was not even the WORSP then.
Here’s a quick guide to whether an American spokesperson, politician, diplomat, journalist, etc. is living up to the responsibilities of the nation’s “special status”: when the rules, which apply uniquely to the US, mean America doesn’t have to do something, they’re not being used properly. A few examples will suffice: paying its UN dues, participating in peacekeeping, ratifying or living up to a treaty its representatives agreed to, stopping nuclear proliferation, protecting intellectual property, sharing encryption technology. Some of those tasks are tough to do—the last two are basically self-contradictory—but you knew the job was dangerous when you took it, America. If it were easy to be a superpower, you’d have every two-bit nation bidding for the glory. In other words, in the global arena, the US should be doing everything the other nations have to do, and then doing something more that only the US can do.
(orig. 2000?: eraider.com)
This “monopolar” world we’re in—first, of all, is it really that way, or do we just see it that way? Secondly, are there precedents for it in history? If so, how did those prior “End of History” worlds evolve to the next level? Evolve they did; contrary to what you youngsters may think, things haven’t always been this way.
To help us to assess superpotency, we will lean upon that favorite crutch, a homemade index. In honor of the website where this was first posted (and in honor of one of my favorite childhood games of battling superpowers), we will call it “eRISQ”, for “eRaider Index of Superpower-ness Quotient.”
eRISQ starts from the premise that a superpower is not measured by bread alone, or sword alone, but demonstrates its potency as a multi-dimensional combination of political, cultural, military, and economic strength. These dimensions are not independent of each other—economic influence over other societies tends to bring cultural and political influence, for example—but some powers do show tendencies to favor one dimension over the other. A true global power would be strong in all categories, and at least influential, if not dominant, everywhere.
The next thing we have to get straight is that this rating system is purely amoral—power is the only object here. Cultural influence is cultural influence; it doesn’t matter whether the culture is highbrow, lowbrow, or nobrow (ie Baywatch). Military strength is the ability to defeat everybody else’s armies, navies, or whatever; political strength is the ability to impose your nation’s will on those other governments. The two are not necessarily the same (I have to thank eRaider co-founder Aaron Brown for reminding me of the distinction, through an ancient posting on the Global Affairs board which made indirect reference to the oft-forgotten War of 1812 invasion of Washington). Defining economic power is trickier; let’s call it the extent to which the nation controls global trade, thereby influencing the basis of local economies.
How do you rate in your neighborhood, Mr. Rogers?
The categories, then, are political/cultural/military/economic, weighted equally. Dominance means the form is directly transferred from the more powerful country to the dominated one; influence means what goes on in the influential country shows up, modified, in the influenced one. Ranking is 1-6 in each category, based on the extent of impact beyond the borders of the rated society.
Just to make it interesting, we take each category rating, subtract it from the maximum possible (6), and square that result (to penalize the one-sided superpowers as compared to the ones with balanced effects across categories). We sum the category results and divide by four. Why four? Whyfore, indeed… we promised a quotient, didn’t we?
Because we’re subtracting the rating from the maximum possible, a lower number indicates a greater superpower. Does God get a 0 (maximum in all categories)? Let’s not discuss that one now, but hopefully you get the idea. A country which rated 5 in each category (dominating most, influencing the rest) would get 1.00, while one which rated a 2 in each category (dominating very few, influencing some; in other words, a minor regional player) would get (six minus two, squared, times four, divided by four) an eRISQ of 16.The rating could be applied on a regional basis, to see which nation rates as a superpower in its part of the world. One could even rate the various states of the US to see which one dominates, but the military part of the rating system doesn’t work so well.
“Streetsmart” people could compare their neighbors’ eRISQ ratings to their own as they walk by to determine whether it’s safe to spit on the sidewalk (though that rating tends to be basically a “military” one, from what I’ve seen). By the way, the best example of an all-around neighborhood superpower I can think of was the title character of the movie Superfly, who induced people to dress weirdly (and you better believe nobody messed with him).
A final point of definition: in terms of cultural and political power, all parts of the world count; however, in military or economic terms, only the parts of the world that really have some significance in global terms are important. Whether or not Japan exerts its military or trading influence on Cameroon doesn’t effect Japan’s status as a superpower, but if it were a real global power its influence would be felt, even there, on the local politics and culture.
Getting (finally) to cases
Let’s start with Japan, a real lopsided contender (all hook, no jab). In the political/cultural/military/economic categories (your mnemonic: “PC-me, please”), Japan gets 2-4-1-4, respectively, which earns it an eRISQ of 12.25.
China’s influence is mostly regional, earning it a balanced 3-3-3-3, or an eRISQ of 9.0. It is perhaps unfair that China doesn’t get much credit for coercing all its own people, as compared to a less populous nation, but, again, this is about power, not justice; besides, what self-respecting superpower can’t control those within its own borders?
Now, the US. We propose that the US gets a 4-5-6-5, for an eRISQ of 1.5. Its cultural dominance reaches to the farthest points of the world, though some (principally Islamic societies) resist, so it gets a 5. Militarily, there’s not much doubt about its superiority to any other armed forces; though some nations could resist an invasion (and Russia could still assure mutual destruction), we shall round up to a 6. Politically, America is relatively weak compared to the influence it exerts in the other dimensions; a fair number of nations have demonstrated they can go against US will and get away with it; few, though, go so far as to totally ignore it. Economically, everybody trades with the US (or wants to), and the trade deficit does not indicate a lack of economic potentcy.
To see how the mighty have fallen, let’s start with Britain. The UK still has strong, wide-ranging cultural influence—three little items called football (in most countries), its versions of rock’n’roll (Spice Girls, Oasis), and the English language help get it a ‘4’ in the culture category. Otherwise, it’s just a regional power militarily and economically, and not even a strong political influence on all of Europe (forget about the Commonwealth), earning a 2 politically: a 2-4-3-3, or an eRISQ of 9.5—just below China’s current rating. At its peak in the early 20th century, though, the UK sported an eRISQ of 2.5 on 4-4-5-5 ratings—not far from today’s rating for the “World’s Only Remaining Superpower”.
Russia today, though it has fallen fast, is not totally chopped liver: a 3-2-4-1 set of ratings earns it a 13.5 eRISQ, a little below Japan’s. At its geopolitical peak (Khrushchev’s time) the Soviet Union would’ve gotten a 4-4-5-3, or 4.5 (and that’s being generous on the economic measure—outside of Eastern Europe and Cuba, which it dominated economically, there weren’t any areas where it was very influential). As a superpower, it was a bit thin, historically speaking.
No soy marinero, soy “El Capitan”
The biggest fall that I can find anywhere, the Yosemite of cliff diving, has to be Spain’s. Its peak was in the mid-1500s, when it had toppled the two greatest empires of pre-Columbian America (the Aztecs and the Incas) and had gold running out of its huazu (could that be an Incan term originally?). On the big-time playing fields of Europe, its forces were all over, Spain making a run in those days at trying to reinstate the Holy Roman Empire with its own monarch as emperor. The Spanish were even messing around in places like the East Indies, China, Japan, and the Philippines. Culturally, apart from the language and religious imperialism in the New World, in that period Spain had a golden age of poetry and painting, Don Quixote, and Spanish revenge drama (Shakespeare’s formal inspiration for his more bloody tragedies). So, before the Spanish departure from the heights, they would’ve rated 5-5-5-5 in my book, an eRISQ of 1.0. There’s none rated higher, ever, that I can identify. (Ancient Rome, around 300 AD, might’ve been its equal.)After losing the top spot (basically to the French and English, who kicked it back and forth for nearly 300 years), the Spanish kept falling and falling. After the Dutch sent them packing the next century, they were basically finished as a superpower. By the time Napoleon made the country one of his favorite battlefields, Spain didn’t even rate too highly as a regional power. Anyway, just within Europe Spain’s a 3-3-1-3, an eRISQ of 13 (but rising); we won’t embarrass the country by rating it on the global level.
Hertz is to US as Avis is to….?
Spain’s history gives your first hint of what happens to a monopole: hit-and-run tactics—think of piracy’s heyday on the Spanish Main, which was the I-95 of its day on the Atlantic Ocean for Spanish ships loaded with gold, instead of today’s handgun runners—then someone knocks you off your pedestal. Spain didn’t have very long on top by itself, either; just under 100 years elapsed from the climactic victory over the Moors in Granada until the big upset of the Armada off England’s shores.
So, who’s the Chief Contenda?
We’ve covered most of the usual suspects; in Europe, compared to the UK’s 2-4-3-3 (9.5) we have France’s 2-4-2-2 (13.0) or Germany’s 3-3-1-3 (13.0): on their own, middle-level powers. But what about the combined power of Euroland? The countries sharing the continental currency, once they add the UK (look for it to occur around 2003) and build a military force of their own (believe it or not, it’s happening), could earn a respectable 3-4-3-4 rating, or an eRISQ of 6.5. Not quite up to the Soviet Union’s old level, but a cut above the rest. We shall see; Japan could address its weak areas—political and military influence beyond its shores—and rise up to the top rank. Otherwise, the ratings suggest that it’s a pretty close race for Number Two between China and the UK, but a long gap from them to ol’ Number One.
News Flash: US Body Language Getting More WORSP All the Time
America’s behavior on the world stage is beginning to show some signs of recognition of that status. Anytime you hear about the US being “indispensable,” or special rules that apply only for the US, that’s WORSP at work. Not entirely a bad thing; after all, it is the reality. America has always had a sense of being unique, with its aspirations noble and idealistic. This state of affairs, alone on Mount Everest, may not last for long, but history will know that “Kilroy was here.” Apart from the World War II graffiti, there’s a flag or two on the moon to make that point, and the nation was not even the WORSP then.
Here’s a quick guide to whether an American spokesperson, politician, diplomat, journalist, etc. is living up to the responsibilities of the nation’s “special status”: when the rules, which apply uniquely to the US, mean America doesn’t have to do something, they’re not being used properly. A few examples will suffice: paying its UN dues, participating in peacekeeping, ratifying or living up to a treaty its representatives agreed to, stopping nuclear proliferation, protecting intellectual property, sharing encryption technology. Some of those tasks are tough to do—the last two are basically self-contradictory—but you knew the job was dangerous when you took it, America. If it were easy to be a superpower, you’d have every two-bit nation bidding for the glory. In other words, in the global arena, the US should be doing everything the other nations have to do, and then doing something more that only the US can do.
(orig. 2000?: eraider.com)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
