January 17, 2008
Neocons, realists and newspaper columnists
I am always on the look-out for boring headlines - and I found a good one lying around on a desk at the FT today. It is in a newsletter from Moody’s, the ratings agency - "Belgian political uncertainty no threat to ongoing fiscal consolidation".
The whole question of what makes for interesting reading is the subject of this post - which is provoked not by Moody’s, but rather by an outburst from Steve Walt, a Harvard professor. Walt - who has become famous (or infamous) - as the co-author of a critical book on "The Israel Lobby", has written a piece bemoaning the appointment of William Kristol, a prominent neo-con, as a columnist for the "New York Times".
Walt argues that while the neo-cons policy prescriptions have been disastrous (Iraq etc), they continue to be rewarded with prominent newspaper columns. By contrast his own "realist" school of foreign policy analysis has a much better record in the real world. But it has got zero recognition on the op-ed pages.
A realist he writes - "would provide readers with insights that have been largely absent from mainstream discussion for a decade or more. Realism emphasizes that states defend their interests vigorously and that successful diplomacy requires give-and-take; that advancing our own interests often requires us to do business with regimes whose values we find objectionable; that nationalism is a powerful force and most societies resist when outsiders try to tell them how to run their own affairs; that global institutions can be useful tools of statecraft but require great power support to work effectively; and that even well-intentioned democracies sometimes do foolish and cruel things. Most important of all, a realist would emphasize that military force is a blunt and costly instrument whose ultimate effects are unpredictable, and that it should be employed only when vital interests are at stake."
Important ideas - as Walt suggests - so why are there no takers among America’s opinion-page editors? Doubtless, there are all sorts of conspiracy theories about this. (Our friend Pacifist will blame the Zionist, neocon ownership of the media, I would guess). But I have a simple explanation. The neocon world view makes for interesting journalism and the realist one doesn’t.
Neocons tend to deal in big ideas and sweeping trends - the advance of freedom and democracy, for example. This makes for very readable journalism. I was once advised by an editor that the most successful newspaper columns generally only have one idea in them - and the bigger and bolder the idea the better. Mr Kristol’s first column for the New York Times fitted this formula nicely. It was a rollicking read - published just before the New Hampshire primary - which thanked Barack Obama for finishing off the Clinton dynasty and proclaimed confidently - "There will be no Clinton restoration". Oh well, there is always next week.
As for the Realists, they should stop whinging and come to terms with one of the unspoken, unfortunate mottos of journalism - "It doesn’t matter if you are right, just be interesting."
Nothing formulaic is ever really very interesting.
I found the excerpt from Walt much more interesting than Kristol’s glib ideas, though I don’t know if these two examples are representative.
In any case I find American writing almost indigestible; ever since I became acquainted with British writing (my first encounter being Roger Penrose!) I almost cannot bring myself to read anything American. The most reprehensible aspect of contemporary literary American is the way it tries to mirror the spoken dialogue. And why does every single book on any subject whatsoever have to have a subtitle of the template: “Why such and such is so and so”? In short, the perennial pursuit of the least common denominator is the undoing of American culture.
But their universities are the best. Maybe the lack of refinement pays back in innovation and research. Or maybe these two are unrelated.
Posted by: RCS | January 17th, 2008 at 8:33 pm | Report this commenthttp://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7613.html
If the NYT did not have a Republican columnist of caliber it would indeed only confirm that it has a liberal bias. I think Mr. Rosenthal’s point is valid, and controversy does pay, and plenty of the NYT’s content remains pleasantly liberal. People like Kristol abandoned the Democratic party for the GOP because of Barry Goldwater, perhaps it’s time for closet Taft republican ‘liberals’ to leave their partisan stripes behind them and join Ron Paul. The vast majority of Americans are idealists.
RCS, are you at all familiar with American culture? Have you seen HBO’s Deadwood, a TV show running for 3 seasons written in iambic pentameter? Your comments are condescending.
Posted by: felix drost, amsterdam | January 17th, 2008 at 11:54 pm | Report this commentGeorge W. Bush started as a Realist, continued as a Neocon after 911, and ended as a Realist after the Iraq failure…and now with the advise of his father´s advisers things look a little bit better…
Posted by: Enrique | January 18th, 2008 at 12:35 am | Report this commentKristol in NYT”Some Democrats are licking their chops at the prospect of a Huckabee nomination. They shouldn’t be. For one thing, Michael Bloomberg would be tempted to run in the event of an Obama-Huckabee race — and he would most likely take votes primarily from Obama. ”
Oh please!…Kristol shouldn’t be writing because he gets it wrong SOOOOO OFTEN…even for “opinion journalism” which there is way too much of and unfortunately, not enough of objective, analytical and informative journalism, there should be some standards more than that it entertains!…I don’t give a hoot he is a neocon…they are easily identifiable these days and we all have their number….in regard to his silly piece designed to get Hillary as the nominee because Reeps and neocons think she is beatable…..Bloomberg will ONLY run if Hillary is the nominee NOT Obama …he will neve rrun against Obama …Bloomberg will be more than happy to vote for Obama! (sorry William as I said we have you rnumber)…Kristol famously said on FOX there will be no insurgency in Iraq because of Iraq’s huge secular population…it’s a pity Bruce Kovner and Murdock insists on giving him big checks to keep The Weekly Standard afloat which allows him and his crew to springboard to FOX and NYT and occasional WA Post editorial pages, thus allowing neo-con opinion journalism to be the sole representative of the Republican viewpoint…a reason I re-registered from a Republican to an Independent a year ago …one thing for sure, subscriptions to Weekly Standard sure dont keep it afloat…in any event, you once wrote a piece that the problem with neocons is not so much that so many are journalists…you were correct then…and it still holds true now…you may find them entertaining, I find them unhealthy for the Republican Party and the country (US) as a whole…not too mention a disaster for the entire Middle Eastl…if we had less opinion journalism and more investigative journalism we might have rooted out Addington, Abrams, Feith etc… and saved US, GB and the entire Middle East a great deal of grief and chaos. I hope you are going to Davos soon …I don’t think being the US has contributed to many interesting pieces from you of late…you should perhaps consider leaving the US off your Foreign Affairs circuit…further, when you spent that wonderful weekend in the English country manor house you promised us a piece on immigration that I am waiting for…
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | January 18th, 2008 at 12:40 am | Report this commentwoops! should read: in any event, you once wrote a piece that the problem with neocons is that so many are journalists
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | January 18th, 2008 at 12:52 am | Report this commentIt must be said that Mr Walt is correct when he
demands tough minded discourse from the media. It has in fact disappeared. To quote M Parenti: “We are amusing ourselves to death” — literally.
What is the purpose of the “quality ” press if we cannot find out what is going on in the world and what our actions are producing there?
As far as the NYT is concerned I read Frank Rich and Maureen for critiques of US Foreign Policy .
In Foreign Affaires the Cristian Science Monitor is much better than the NYT. So are the Guardian and the FT.
Finally, one cannot evade one of the basic tenets of Aristotle’s “Politics” : Without a well informed electorate Democracy is weak or simply electoral.
Posted by: Max Papadopoulos | January 18th, 2008 at 3:42 am | Report this commentEven though I am a lifelong New Yorker, I don’t read the New York Times regularly any more. The Washington Post does a far better job of keeping its finger on the pulse of this country. The Times has had a curious compulsion to give space to the most reactionary columnists it can find to kowtow to ever since it hired Nixon apologist William Safire right after the Watergate scandal.
Therefore, I don’t mind if William Kristol’s column appears in the Times, perhaps America’s most overrated paper, as long as it doesn’t show up one day in the pages of the FT.
Posted by: semakweli | January 18th, 2008 at 4:51 am | Report this commentRCS, on the contrary I very much value the depth of American journalism over the British variety, which is itself far above anything the continentals can offer. In the US they take the time to really go into issues, sometimes spending months researching a topic. For example in yesterday’s WSJE there was a fascinating piece entitled “the lost archive”, about how photographic records of the earliest copies of the Koran, supposedly lost in WWII, were in actual fact hidden away, and are now being re-examined in Germany in a project on the development of Islam’s holy book. This type of journalism is rarely found in the UK papers. I also think it would be fair to say that UK journalists are on the whole more aggressive and this is in some regards good as it allows them to cut through the waffle and spin, but in general it is not helpful, for example when presenters talk over their guests and start from the presumption that politicians and businessmen are lying.
Lisa-Helene - I think you have hit precisely on the biggest issue at the heart of media today: the place of opinion led journalism. Too often we see opinion placed at the centre of supposed news reports. The place of opinion is firmly on the opinion pages. The Independent (a failing left wing UK “viewspaper”) is a key culprit in the increasing trend of selling opinion as news. Fox is a right wing example. However even organisations as formerly august as the BBC are not beyond criticism on this point, and some would argue they should firmly be in the firing line on a regular basis.
The race to be first with the news, at least in the UK, leads journalists to lead with their prejudices. Facts only rarely get a look in. Calling elections incorrectly, reporting the perpetrators and numbers of victims of terrorist attacks (rarely corrected) and economic figures / forecasts (Nicholas Taleb is essential reading on this latter) are some of the areas where facts only rarely get a look in. But the issue is that the more that facts are left out, the less valued the news is. This creates a vicious circle, which not only degrades the value of the media, but encourages politicians, businessmen and anyone else with a need to get their message out, to sink to the lowest common denominator. For those who start at this point - propagandists of all hues for example - this is an ideal situation. For the rest of society, it is a fundamental problem.
The key question here is lack of accountability in the media. If the incentives were there for journalists to be correct, instead of first or most controversial, then we would benefit from a more reliable media. Naming and shaming might be one way of dong this. Another might be a register of journalists’ interests - like the Register of Members’ Interests for UK members of Parliament.
In any case, whatever Kristol writes, at least people are clear that it is his opinion, nothing more, nothing less. So love him or loath him (as most correspondents at this page seem to do), you can’t argue with Kristol being in the right section of the paper, alongside his polar opposite, Maureen Dowd.
Gideon, perhaps you might like to consider opinion masquerading as news in a future post?
Posted by: AYC | January 18th, 2008 at 10:00 am | Report this commentGideon - that’s a nice demolition job of William Kristol’s first column. It’s always entertaining when columnists attack each other.
But aren’t you being a bit harsh on your loyal devotee Pacifist? Painting him as one who would “blame the Zionist… media” makes him sound like the cryptonazi weirdos who appear in Louis Theroux documentaries. In fact, Pacifist’s posts on your blog are even-tempered and reasonable.
If Pacifist is an anti-Zionist, I’m sure he is one of the intelligent, fair-minded kind (the type who also want Tibet run by the Dalai Lama rather than the authorities in Beijing), and not the sinister kind who collect World War Two memorabilia and have an obsession with racial purity.
Posted by: M | January 18th, 2008 at 10:31 am | Report this commentI read this posting last night and was again disappointed. Firstly, how widely acceptd is this premise that the world divides between Realists (note the upper-case ‘R’ in Mr Rachman’s post) and (lower-case) neocons? Let us hope that the “neocons” are a passing, if costly fancy. I also think it will be healthy if Fascists and other illiberals are deprived of a place to hide. We know they are very much playing their games under dodgy, if elegant labels.
Secondly, a newspaper need not be Le Monde Diplomatique in order to offer balanced coverage of increasingly important international affairs. I disagree with posters here who feel the FT is still a journal of record in this area. In fact, it has lost a lot of credibility and depth. Coverage of the US “election” campaign is disproportionate, and seems to play on the neocon tenant that the US remains and should be dominant. Economics seem to be reshaping this assumption for many, and US tax policy or persistent racism/sexism hardly seem critical to how the world will manages the disputes that this paper is failing to analyse. (Perhaps the UK is the 52nd State. And I’m prepared to concede that France is lining up to be a feisty and demanding 53rd. Again, salty markets are testing Atlantic glue.)
GR quotes: “It doesn’t matter if you are right, just be interesting.” One likes to the think that the FT is making a serious effort at getting it right. In international affairs, it is hardly scratching the surface of most of the globes hot spots these days–at least not in analysis. Perhaps the FT’s neocon turn is evidenced in a virtual absence of coverage of Israel.
In simple economics, I pay €1,20 for my morning café. My €3,20 FT is read in the same time required to consume my coffee. So, I’ve stopped buying the FT and content myself with two cups and €1,50 Le Figaro.
Thusfar, my attention to and participation in this blog in 2008 has also diminished markedly. That may be a sign that my productivity is on the rise. Hope so.
Posted by: WCM | January 18th, 2008 at 12:09 pm | Report this commentWhat’s the secret of successful news columns? “Simplify and then exaggerate” (I didn’t say that, Daniel Finkelstein did.)
A column–I think the NYT’s generally are about 750 words–is not the same as an article in Foreign Affairs or a special focus article in The Economist–which btw has become very neo-conservative in its old age.
That said, the neoconservative ascendancy did immeasurable harm to the interests of the US. The advent of blogs and reader online forums meant outsiders were exposed to inflammatory rhetoric that played well to nationalist sentiment in the US but had disastrous results for America elsewhere.
An example: there was an outbreak of anti-Semitic acts in European cities in 2002 and 2003 and Wm Safire (and others too numerous to mention including Larry Summers, then president of Harvard) accused *all* Europeans of anti-Semitism. While this went down well with American readers, Europeans knew full well the attacks were the result of actions of their disaffected Muslim minorities, the same anarchists who would bomb Madrid in 2004 and the London Underground in 2005. The charge was manifestly false, but, unlike other times, knowledge of it was not confined to American readers. Juan in Madrid, Jean in France and Nicola in London read it too. It had to be a factor in the plummeting European regard of America which we saw during those years and which has yet to recover.
And if neocon rhetoric had that result in Europe, which really isn’t very important in the American scheme of things, how do you suppose it played amongs Muslims in the ME and elsewhered? Just look at some of the Pew Attitude Surveys. A collapse of American soft power that should make its friends weep.
No, the neocons were incredibly harmful to the image of America and the view that “well they were just journalists” cannot excuse the damage they caused.
Posted by: MaryCunningham | January 18th, 2008 at 2:46 pm | Report this commentInteresting Journalism??? Interesting Lies???
Posted by: dilbert dogbert | January 18th, 2008 at 3:16 pm | Report this commentIs this your new definition of Journalism. Is this Newspeak?
Dear Mr. Rachman,
I know you have and abundance of that dry sense of humour that the Brits are famous for but, surely, you are stretching the limits of humour by your descriptions of NeoCons!
Are you really serious when you say “NeoCons tend to deal in big ideas and sweeping trends, -the advance of freedom and democracy for example.”
Should we judge NeoCons by their fine words or by their actions?:-
Did they, or did they not tell lies to cause the war against Iraq?
Have they, or have they not, defended illegality and torture?
Are they, or are they not, telling the same lies to start further wars against other nations?
NeoCons have one central idea and everything else is a ruse to cover up their actual motives. That central idea is to use the American military and economic might to advance the Zionist project in the Middle East and destroy any resistance to that project. Clearly, they worked out that Israel cannot do it on its own and have managed to mobilise the might of the US to do Zionists’ bidding.
This is why the Israeli Chief Rabbi was moved to thank Bush for “war against Iraq”.
See this article from Jerusalem Post:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1198517338408&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
Quote
“I want to thank you for your support of Israel and in particular for waging a war against Iraq,” Metzger told Bush, according to the chief rabbi’s spokesman.
Bush reportedly answered that the chief rabbi’s words “warmed his heart.”
Unquote
NeoCons are not any kind of new ideology. They are simply a re-branding of rightwing Likudnik Zionism.
What I say is not an attack on Jews, as all Jews are clearly not rightwing Zionists (From Noam Chomsky to Gideon Rachman and all shades of Jewish opinion in between). These are, for example, a group of prominent British Jews with a very peaceful message:
http://www.ijv.org.uk/ please read their wonderful declaration: http://jewishvoices.squarespace.com/declaration-2/
Conversely, it is true that not all NeoCons are Jewish but you have to ask yourself whether all supporters of the Civil rights movements were black. (People can be co-opted into any project for various reasons be they social, financial, emotional or intellectual.)
Indeed, NeoCons, are Realists and Nationalists, except that the nation that most of them owe their allegiance to is Israel and not the USA.
All the best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | January 18th, 2008 at 3:19 pm | Report this commentDear WCM,
If the UK is the 52nd state, which is the 51st?
Interesting, this myth, previously I’ve heard it declared by ignorant Israelis (many frustrating attempts trying to uproot it). It seems 50 is too round a number to be believed, though of course it is round only because we have ten fingers.
Posted by: RCS | January 18th, 2008 at 4:18 pm | Report this commentP, if you condemn Neocons for allegedly supporting “torture” and “illegality”, surely you will condemn Iran, as Amnesty International has done, for continuing the barbaric practice of stoning people to death? According to a recent report they released, there are 11 people sentenced to be buried to their waist (chest for women, obviously) and then have rocks thrown at their heads.
Apparently your legal code states that “the stones are deliberately chosen to be large enough to cause pain, but not so large as to kill the victim immediately”. I have read reports that it takes up to 20 minutes for the victim to die.
Available here:
http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-31400120080115
Are columnists in Iran free to write on this topic? Or do they have their papers shut down? Not sure you’ve much room to criticise anyone else, friend.
Posted by: AYC | January 18th, 2008 at 4:49 pm | Report this commentDear P,
Just read your post and, it seems to me, kind of contradicts M’s defence of your previous postings. Although you apologetically claim you are not attacking Jews per se, the undertones are unmistakable: you viscerally conflate NeoCons with Zionism and then NeoCons with Jews. The suggestion is that a certain group of Jews, disguising their true motives under the invented NeoCon ideology, hijacked the superpower’s military might in order to further the aims of Zionism and the State of Israel. Truly a modern-day Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
In light of this I have to agree with Mary Cunningham: Europe’s disenchanted Muslim minorities have indeed hijacked the old continent’s anti-Semitism in order to further the aims of Islamic nationalism.
Posted by: RCS | January 18th, 2008 at 4:58 pm | Report this commentDear AYC,
I fully agree that the practises you mention in Iran are barbaric and that all kinds of freedom are breached in Iran. This is why I oppose the actions of the Iranian government.
However, at the same time, I oppose sanctions and military intervention against Iran because, as we saw in Iraq, this will cause massive suffering to the Iranians and will not make life better.
People of Iran have kicked out other tyrants and will get rid of this lot too. They do not need crocodile tears by any NeoCons.
Dear RCS,
Aren’t you tired of being tiresome?!
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | January 18th, 2008 at 5:27 pm | Report this commentSorry, but Walt and “Pacifist” are right on this one Gideon.
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/
Posted by: David Seaton | January 18th, 2008 at 5:46 pm | Report this commentDear AYC,
I hope that your recent post is not implying that because the Iranians continue the barbaric practice of stoning people to death, Israel is justified in all its actions for example refusing to let in basic humanitarian supplies in the latest of a series of curbs to a population that has already been totally impoverished as a result of Israel policies . To many of us readers that value objectivity this constant debate about whose action is the most reprehensible as some sort of justification for equally reprehensible action is really quite depressing.
Posted by: flori | January 18th, 2008 at 5:49 pm | Report this commentFlori,
You try and take the moral high ground with one sentence and yet fatally undermine your own sanctimonious argument with the very next. I do not see why scurrilous accusations and the types of slurs we have seen regularly on this blog should go unchallenged. Like yours in fact.
My understanding of this column is that it was about the media - per my previous post - not about Jewish conspiracies to take over the world.
FYI, Israel is perfectly entitled to defend Sderot and environs from the thousands of missiles launched by Hamas & co., in the same way any other country is entitled to do, whatever you, and the other apologists for terrorism who post here, believe.
Posted by: AYC | January 18th, 2008 at 7:16 pm | Report this commentP,
Come tell us what you think is behind Mottaki’s resignation…and what will happen in elections in March? …Larijani (Iran’s next President I hope) is running? Correct? P,please tell us what you think is going on …pretty please! make my visit here to GR’s blog worthwhle today!
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | January 18th, 2008 at 7:56 pm | Report this commentP “NeoCons are not any kind of new ideology. They are simply a re-branding of rightwing Likudnik Zionism”
well when it comes to Israel they are actually closer to Herut….Herut was a purer strain of Jabostinsky… …Likud is watered down Jabostinsky, although BiBi sounds like a good old style Herutnik, but he has spent his entire life, the middle son trying to get his Abba’s attention and to do so that is how he MUST sound …it’s interesting to think what would Israel/ Palestine look like today if Haim Arlosoroff had not been murdered and Yigal Allon had not died so young…I think there is a real possibility we would not be subjected to the neo-cons making disasterous policies in the Middle East, if Arlosoroff had been Israeli’s first PM, if Allon had replaced Peres influence on teh Labour party…instead here we are today faced with current example in Gaza and the West Bank neo-con chaos left behind by Bush and his sidekicks Hadley and Abrams…
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | January 18th, 2008 at 8:22 pm | Report this commentGideon,
You are oh so wrong in your assessment of Realism. Realism concerns itself with exciting issues and makes bold and fascinating claims about the international system–the paramountcy of power, the importance of military posturing, deterrence, just to name a few. Guys like Mearshiemer and Walt argue that the int’l system fundamentally constructs a confrontational and unstable world, where conflict is always just around the corner. How can you say issues surrounding war, conflict, great power “tragedy”, and POWER are not sexy? They are amply sexy Mr. Rachman.
The neo-cons are a blustery and ethically verbose bunch. Their position is formulaic, hardly an indication of interesting stuff. Whether it be Kristol, or Podhoretz, or Wolfowitz, you can place a sure bet that its going to be some blabbering nonsense about fear, terror, crusading, and God.
Consider yourself reprimanded for such foolish comments!!
Posted by: Crusko | January 18th, 2008 at 8:31 pm | Report this commentP, AYC and all the other letters:
C’mon folks, it is not so hard. After he was elected (?) in 2000 President Cheney outsourced American energy policy to his buddies in the oil business. After 9/11 he outsourced ME policy to his buddies at PNAC (Project for the New American Century). The PNAC buddies were all Zionist, to be sure, but that is because in 1997 rightwingers like them were the only ones concerned about a ‘resurgent’ (according to them) Iraq.
Speaking of neocons, I notice Robert Kagan will be here to answer questions on Russia. Given his less that sterling performance on the Middle East, why should we give much credence to his Russian story? Just wondering.
Posted by: MaryCunningham | January 18th, 2008 at 8:49 pm | Report this comment.
as for the popular appeal of thoughtful journalism
What T.V. rating would a WWF wrestling match get versus a foreign policy debate ?
The neo-cons are just that ….a con
The U.S. fell for this duplicity with all of the main medias eagerly pushing the manufactured consent.
.
Posted by: jeannick | January 18th, 2008 at 10:00 pm | Report this commentAccording to the article:
“Walt argues that while the neo-cons policy prescriptions have been disastrous (Iraq etc), they continue to be rewarded with prominent newspaper columns. By contrast his own “realist” school of foreign policy analysis has a much better record in the real world. But it has got zero recognition on the op-ed pages.”
Boohoohoo! Lightweights, W&M!
Political realism believes that:
“International relations are amenable of objective study.”
“Further, state behavior is rational-or can be best approximated by rational decision-making.
The most important factor in determining what happens in international relations is the distribution of power.”
“Ethical considerations are usually discounted. Universal moral values are difficult to define and unachievable without both survival and power.” From the website “Virtual War College.”
The above is a brief summary of three of H. J. Morgenthau’s six principles of political realism.
Kissinger and Michiavelli are two well known proponents of political realism. And while there is some good that can be said for it, it did allow the subjugation and oppression through brute military force of millions of people behind the Iron Curtain in exchange for detente and peaceful coexistence under the guise of containment. I believe that many W. Europeans are partial to political realism because for so many years they were allowed to prosper in peace without ever having to confront the fact that while they were prospering their Eastern European neighbors were enslaved.
Posted by: zqll | January 19th, 2008 at 3:11 am | Report this commentHad it not been for the “idealist” President Ronald Reagan who upset the realist applecart in Europe, the USSR, like China, would still be in existence as would its vassal populations.
So too today, many W. Europeans and many Americans are willing to give free rein (within their sphere of influence, of course) to Islamic theocrats and their rabid followers in exchange for a cheap peace bought on the back of others.
Apologies. Despite my dismay, i have yet to leave this room.
A good thread has taken form on the back of a very poor; piece. Perhaps, this is as it sometimes should be. Nonetheless, this is still an FT blog.
Mary Cunningham’s comments on President Cheney and outsourced ME policy to the oilcos are wrong. When Bush came to power (as opposed being “elected”), he introduced Cheney as CEO to his Chairman of the Board role. They have thus redefined the US presidency, and US voters should be looking at how the candidates intend to go forward with the Consitutionally weak VP office.
Oilcos have never been on the neocon page in terms of Israeli interests. Read the transcript of the meeting between John Connally and Coastal’s Oscar Wyatt and Saddam Hussein in December 1990 (exceprt from a recent US court transcript printed in the December 2007 Harper’s). Also, look at the stories of BP and Royal Dutch/Shell, particularly the latter’s ongoing and friendly discussions with the current Iranian regime on restoring its long-seized reserves.
Sadly, too many of the weaknesses in the current policies forced upon the US and the EU are attributed to those trying to impose opportunistic Israeli interests (not those of free-thinking Jews or Israeli citizens). Others are resulting from a lack of imagination on how to end the less-than-enlightened rule of regional potentates and on how to set a background that will allow Islam to move away from the strangleholds of incompetent mullahs and advance.
This paper’s embrace of people like Christopher Hitchens and Robert Kagan (as a poster noted) should be challenged. It is one thing to print there opinions, but their positioning is insufficiently offset. It seems clear that idealogical turfing at the FT is putting the paper at risk.
Ditto in defence of Pacifist.
Posted by: WCM | January 19th, 2008 at 12:42 pm | Report this commentThat Neocon-just-being-more-interesting theory could be right, just maybe, unless their “journalism” weren’t a mere propaganda.
Posted by: hoji | January 19th, 2008 at 12:52 pm | Report this commentHaving delusional Neocons on every column and tv-channel just tells everything about the weltanschauung and low standards of the US mainstream media. No more, no less.
WMC,
Reread my comment: I wrote policy in America was outsourced to the relevant lobby: energy to the oil companies, ME foreign policy to the neocons and, I guess, the Israel lobby.
Although I didn’t add it I would say likewise gun policy to the National Rifle Association, health to the managed healthcare industry &tc. &tc.
Policy as befits plutocrats turning what was a democracy into a plutocratic state. This IMO is responsible for a lot of the animosity towards the Clintons as they now seem part of the Washington establishment.
I also mentioned the coming appearance of Robert Kagan next week, no doubt followed by other neocons.
Posted by: MaryCunningham | January 19th, 2008 at 2:54 pm | Report this commentThe constellation that FT steers by is classical liberalism, the principles of classical liberalism such as individual liberties and free trade are the lifeblood of the entrepreneurial and management classes that read the FT, its audience is not unlike that of the Economist. Columnists and journalists such as Kagan and Hitchens endorse these values and so it makes sense for them to contribute.
Neoconservatives are almost exclusively classical liberals, they strongly believe in freedom, democracy and capitalism and that these are closely related; freedom imples the right to determine ones own political and socioeconomic course, it implies democracy and capitalism. The neocons are libertarians who, in contrast to people such as Taft republicans and Ron Paul, believe the international order requires a military dominance of liberal democracies in order to further liberalism, maintain the international order and to inhibit the influence of illiberal dictatorships and rogue groups. Religious conservatism is not an ingredient of neoconservatism but these groups are part of the current dominant coalition in the Republican party and so it may appear that neoconservatives are religiously conservative as well but they typically are not. In the same vein most Jewish political groups in the US are both liberal and advocate a strong US foreign policy, since the latter is what stopped the Nazi’s, and Jews worldwide who still remember Shoah look to the US to maintain the international order and provide freedom, also for minorities.
Posted by: felix drost, amsterdam | January 19th, 2008 at 3:31 pm | Report this commentWell, Felix you could have fooled me. And here I thought the neoconservative elders were ex-Trotskyites and the junior ex-liberals.
They certainly do not resemble traditional American conservatism with its stress on individual liberties, suspicion of excessive executive powers and dislike of militarism and foreign war.
In contrast the neos compare every political problem to stopping Hitler, never contemplated a ME military action against [choose one or all] Iran/Syria/Lebanon/Iraq/Yeman they didn’t like, and glory in their own might and military power.
In their zeal to spread ‘democracy’ (they get to define democracy) they resemble none so much as the Jacobins, whose historical fate btw they might acquaint themselves with. Even Robespierre it seems had more insight: “nobody likes armed missionaries.”
Posted by: MaryCunningham | January 19th, 2008 at 5:26 pm | Report this commentcorrection: I said mid-term elections when I meant reelection.
Posted by: barmakid | January 20th, 2008 at 1:45 am | Report this commentOnly a Brit would participate in his country’s destruction, and expect other “civilized” countries to do so as well. Grow a new set of balls.
Posted by: Franky | January 20th, 2008 at 2:06 am | Report this commentI hope the upcoming elections in Iran will result in some positive changes for the Iranian people. And I hope things have changed there since the last election.
A website called World Audit.org ranks countries on certain standards such as “Democracy”, “Political Rights,” “Civil Liberties,” “Press Freedom,” and “Corruption.”
On the Democracy standard (how democratic is Iran) Iran is at 138 out of 150 countries, with 150 being the worst in the world.
On Political Rights on a range of 1-7, (Lower scores are preferable) Iran scores a 6. On Civil Liberties on a range of 1-7, Iran scores a 6. On Press Freedom Iran is at 138 out of 150 countries with 150 being the worst.
On Corruption out of 145 Iran scores at 103, with 145 being the worst.
I wonder if Sean Penn is going to cover this next election in Iran. He likes to do journalistic stuff.
Posted by: zqll | January 20th, 2008 at 4:03 am | Report this commentSomebody mentioned Roger Penrose! That must be Sir Roger Penrose! I love him! My favorite Penrose book is “Techniques of Differential Topology in Relativity.” Probably because it is the first one I read of his. Its Old-school Penrose!
Posted by: zqll | January 20th, 2008 at 4:48 am | Report this commentI was kinda disappointed with his “Spinors and Space-Time” series. I was expecting a trilogy but he only put out two volumes. “Spinors and Space-Time: Volume 2, Spinor and Twistor Methods in Space-Time Geometry” was a little better but it left lot of strings hanging.
And I too hate subtitles.
Roger can sometimes be so guilty of that.
For example his “Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness” or “The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics.” C’mon Roger! Geez! In his later edition he left the subtitle out of “The Emperor. . . ”
Thank goodness!
Thanks P! and Barmakid! very interesting….
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | January 20th, 2008 at 6:04 am | Report this commentDear zqll,
Well done!
Posted by: RCS | January 20th, 2008 at 8:39 am | Report this commentAs the US is unlikely to show maturity in its utterances over the next few weeks, and Israel has gone so wrong in its handling of Gaza with the prospect now of a rise in bad news from there, Ahmadinezad can be expected to muster his support, play on continued disenchantment and unease, and put economic issues to the back.
The US-Israel partnership seems quite deliberate in supporting Ahmadinezad–their Dr Evil. He is essential to the public support they need to advance their game. Larijani is their nightmare.
The disgraceful play by the Office of the Secretary of Defense and, apparently, the White House and State, on the non-event in the Straits of Hormuz on 6 January demonstrates just how dirty and menacing Washington can be these days. That bit of noise certainly gave Ahmadinezad a nice boost.
What Saudi’s King Abdullah is thinking now on Iran is the one piece of this story that is not clear at the moment. He provided Ahmadinezad with quite a dignified visit and photo ops; Bush went home with reports that he had been on his knees asking for money from a rich uncle and then a sword-bearing picture that made him look daft. Abdullah held his arm, not his hand. One can be certain that the King has a close eye eye on Iran’s elections. What is his influence?
Posted by: WCM | January 20th, 2008 at 10:37 am | Report this commentPacifist and barmakid– Good input. If Larijani is the Supreme Leader’s man, and Ahmadinezad wins, what changes should one look for in Iran in future?
Returning to the thread’s original idea, just how are neocon journalists giving us a more interesting story on Iran than these two posters? Neocons–and I add Clinton’s Jamie Rubin (husband to the CNN diva) to the list of featured FT writers–do not want to move away from late-1979 images of Iran that excite the passions of AYC and RCS.
Posted by: WCM | January 20th, 2008 at 11:05 am | Report this commentsalam Barmakid,
A couple of points:
- Ahmadinejad has alienated the IRGC’s top brass who wanted Qalibaf anyway.
- The elections in Iran are not really democratic because of the process of pre-selection that disqualifies so many candidates from standing for presidency or parliament, including candidates with impeccable revolutionary and religious credentials. However, they are not rigged in the sense of stuffing the ballot boxes. Once the candidates are approved, they are allowed to fight on. Khatami’s election (first time) was a surprise as was Ahmadinejad’s emergence when he was meant to be behind Rafsanjani, Moein and Qalibaf.
At the same time, I disagree that Iran is so down the list of democracy as the surveys menioned by zqll suggest.
I think Khamenei would try and weaken Ahmadinejad as it would be easier to dominate a weakened and re-elected Ahmadinejad than a Qalibaf with a new mandate.
To WCM,
I don’t think King Abdullah’s opinions have any bearing on the Iranian elections. However, it is being increasingly realised that Iran needs good international relations, especially regionally.
Best wishes,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | January 20th, 2008 at 11:10 am | Report this commentTo WCM, P
Consider Bhadrakumar’s piece on www.atimes.com:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JA16Ak02.html
The Persians went to the Gulf States several times in the last few months exactly for this purpose: to shore up their diplomatic position. If the declarations of Saud “Saudi Arabia will not be a basis for an attack on Persia” mean anything they seem to have accomplished their purpose. Furthermore there was this week the little noticed trip of Tsipi Livni on Thursday to Moscow whose purpose was to turn the Russians against the Persians. It failed.
Posted by: Max Papadopoulos | January 20th, 2008 at 6:47 pm | Report this commentGideon Rachman: it’s a good joke, your retailing this ‘don’t be right, just be interesting’ mantra as you highlight a high profile instance of a flame-throwing polemicist getting things spectacularly wrong. I’m a fan of the FT Comment page, and the Times’ hiring of Kristol threw into sharp relief for me the contrast between that op-ed page and the FT’s. Rachman, Wolf and Munchau in particular write ‘fact-based’ columns of a kind rarely seen in U.S. (or, I gather, other Brit) newspapers. In honor of the contrast, I’ve instituted the Wolf Munch Rock Award, granted to “an observer of world news and trends whose writings exhibit deep (if understated) expertise, fact- and evidence-based exposition, wide-angle perspective on large-scale trends, and theses based more on observation and analysis than ideology.” First winners: Rachman, Wolf and Munchau. More at http://xpostfactoid.blogspot.com/2007/12/wolf-munch-rock-award_29.html
Posted by: Asp | January 20th, 2008 at 7:04 pm | Report this commentJust 2 quick questions to Mr. Rachman (whose names are Hwbrew),
1) What exactly Israel provides the US? It got plenty “allies” in the Middle East that not only provide the US with oil, but also with Military Bases, something Israel always refused. Let’s not also forget the spy cases of Israel on the US.
2) Since when the lie about the Weapons of Mass Disappearance (oops, Destruction) became a war on promoting democracy? You mean like Saudi Arabia which still have slavery? How about the Gulf states (the same)? How about Pakistan?
I guess having the facts and truth as part of “journalism” (what an oximoron) in the US is what makes for a good and selling story. I guess it shows what the American public is like: an IGNORANT herd of SHEEPLE.
Ezra
Posted by: Ezra | January 20th, 2008 at 8:26 pm | Report this commentI meant to say in the previous comment, LACK OF facts and truth.
Posted by: Ezra | January 20th, 2008 at 8:34 pm | Report this commentSalam Pacifist,
Yes, the pre-selection process is an unfortunate one, and in that sense it is undemocratic. But the process is grounded in constitutional law and decisions are not made as whimsically and arbitrarily as they would appear. Though I am not defending the process, it can be compared to regulatory measures used in other democratic countries for much of the same reasons.
And you make a politically astute observation when you say,
“I think Khamenei would try and weaken Ahmadinejad as it would be easier to dominate a weakened and re-elected Ahmadinejad than a Qalibaf with a new mandate.”
WCM, thank you for the kind words. This sort of infighting amongst the centers of power in the Islamic Republic has gone on since the revolution and gained new life after the death of Khomeini and the appointment of the current Supreme Leader.
So I would say you shouldn’t expect any substantial changes with the election of any president or the reshuffling of dimplomatic posts. The biggest change will come when Khameniei dies or abdicates his position due to illness.
The system of the Vilayet-e-Faqih (Rule by the Jurisprudent) has been discredited and is not rationally defensible; not just to westerners, but to Iranian religious scholars and power-players as well. It only continues because of the Supreme Leader’s power and the institutions that buttress that power. The system is indeed a structural time bomb that will implode sooner or later.
To Gideon: I would really like to know why my first post on this thread was deleted!? I didn’t say anything that would mandate such action, did I? I’m upset and curious to know why it was deleted.
Posted by: barmakid | January 20th, 2008 at 10:12 pm | Report this commentQuite interesting to read all the Euro opinion here. Just so you know, “Neocon” in the USA has taken on an utterly transformed meaning in the last decade. The original Neocons were anti-Communist hawks who broke with the Democratic Party in the 1950’s. Those Neocons were joined in the late 1960’s by a second wave of Democratic Party exiles who rejected the social and moral upheaval of that period. JFK’s invasion of Cuba and his military commitment to Vietnam were strongly influenced by Neocon thinking. Only in the late 1990’s did Neocon become a term that implies hawkish and devious support for Israel by Jewish bureaucrats and intellectuals. Shockingly, Europe seems completely unaware that the most powerful support for Israel in the USA comes from mainstream Republican Party Conservatives (”Paleocons”) and Republican Party Christian Conservatives. American Jews consistently vote 80%-85% for the Democratic Party, which has forced concession after concession on Israel.
Posted by: Steve - USA | January 21st, 2008 at 8:30 am | Report this commentDear Max,
Thanks for the link to Asia Times. I am a regular visitor myself and I think the Middle East coverage is quite excellent, especially that it is written by people with connections to the region.
Admittedly the FT, on the topic of Iran and her regional neighbours has a different take:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/80b6711c-c0b0-11dc-b0b7-0000779fd2ac.html
Dear WMC,
What barmakid says about the infighting amongst the centres of power is correct. One should always bear in mind that the revolution was brought about by a coalition of interests. Some of those (like the MKO and the unreformed communists) were chased out or destroyed after the success of the revolution but many of the other forces have now coalesced into competing unofficial parties and groupings wihthin the system.
These differences actually cover a broad spectrum of opinion. Taking the economy as an example, some want to run the economy on socialist lines and are committed to re-distribution of wealth (and land ownership, in particular) . Many of these are former communists that have now grown beards and pray 5 times a day but still have most of their old ideas. At the other extreme, you have those who want a no holds barred open market economy with foreign involvement and investment in most sectors (Mr. Rafsanjani belongs to this group). In the middle are the members of national bourgeoisie (traditional allies of the mullahs) who want a capitalist economy but with heavy emphasis on domestic companies and support for industrialisation. Within each faction, you have different shades of opinion but what is important to realise that all of these are accommodated WITHIN the system, so we are not talking about people who count as opposition, but people who are (or have been at various times since the revolution) MP’s, ministers, heads of industries, senoor civil servants and prominent clerics.
The different ideas are not restricted to the economy but extend to many differences of opinion, among the system’s INSiDERS, over foreign and domestic policy.
I mention the above because it is important for non-Iranians to understand that whilst the Islamic republic of Iran is by no means a Western-style democracy, it is by no means a monolith either and a diversity of opinions and lively debates exist in the way that was never allowed under the Shah (or Saddam in Iraq). As such, the Iranian polity is a living, evolving organism that many, including me, believe (hope) will result in a pluralistic system of governance that provides honest, efficient and representative rule for Iranians whilst being consistent with the mores of the Iranians society. (Compare and contrast with Iran’ pre-1979 constitution that was based on a modified translation of the Belgian constitution!! No, I am not joking…..- “Amazingly”, it failed).
Dear Barmakid,
I hope you do continue to post and not worry about occasional “censorship” that is not done by Mr. Rachman personally but by the online editors (or as we say in Farsi, baademjaan dour-e Ghaab chin!).
Best regards to you all,
P
Mr. Khamenei tries to maintain his own position, and the stability of the system, by ensuring a balance between the competing groupings (or perhaps ensuting that they are all off balance!!). The trouble, as I perceive it, is that Ahmadinejad is a loose cannon and cannot be depended upon as a factor to ensure the sability of the system.
Posted by: Pacifist | January 21st, 2008 at 2:36 pm | Report this commentIn fact, some insiders openly worry that his extremism will prove disastrous and many point out the sanctions against Iran as example of something that Ahmadinejad’s excesses have brought upon the country.
Before the staff see the need for edits and delete, allow me to fix a few typos and resubmit:
Very informative post from both of you. I would’ve thought that Ahmadinezad will use a victory to assert a more revolutionary agenda than would be on offer from the conservatives (e.g., Larijani) or wished for by Khameini. The list and turnout are key.
I recall reading how the Belgian constitution had been used. MacArthur threw out months of consitutional committee work in an evening and wrote the contemporary Japanese constitution in the course of working through the night. The next morning, he then presented a cut-and-paste of the Magna Carta, Bundeswhatever, and Napoleonic code–together with the US Bill of Rights–to the Emperor and the Diet. It is deemed to be one of the best.
Watching the US today, one has reason to hope they will undertake some reform. Lewis Lapham’s piece in Harper’s this month raises good questions about the quality of its democracy.
Posted by: WCM | January 21st, 2008 at 3:07 pm | Report this commentThe reason the pre-1979 constitution failed: the translation was lousy.
Dear Barmakid,
Do not worry about the censorship. What is important to realise is that the FT is a living, evolving organism…
Posted by: RCS | January 21st, 2008 at 3:09 pm | Report this commentYou know, I just noticed that the original post I responded to, posted by you Pacifist, was also deleted. I am not so much upset as I am curious to know why? Was it because we spoke of a potential assassination? That’s all I could conjure up as a reason for censorship.
Posted by: barmakid | January 21st, 2008 at 10:44 pm | Report this commentSteve - USA,
Concessions? For example…?
Posted by: CPD | January 22nd, 2008 at 2:53 am | Report this commentDear Steve: You are in error concerning your reading on Neocons. For a truly emblematic position of the “paleos” consider this article written by Buchanan way back in March 2003:
http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html
It is one of my reference papers.
Concerning the “Armageddonites” who constitute a
Posted by: Max Papadopoulos | January 22nd, 2008 at 5:00 am | Report this commentpart of the base of the republican party one can only say that they part of the problem, rather than a solution to the pathology of the american politics
Salam Barmakid,
You may well be right. I guess mine would have been deleted because of the reference to assassination being potentially libellou). Yours discounted the possibility so it wasn’t defaming anybody…anyhow, it is their web site and they delete if they want to…still miles better than the Guardian’s “Comment is Free” which should be renamed “Comments are Deleted”!
Khoda Neghdaar,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | January 22nd, 2008 at 10:00 am | Report this commentSalam Barmakid,
You may well be right. I guess mine would have been deleted because of the reference to assassination being potentially libellou). Yours discounted the possibility so it wasn’t defaming anybody…anyhow, it is their web site and they delete if they want to…still miles better than the Guardian’s “Comment is Free” which should be renamed “Comments are Deleted”!
Khoda Neghdaar,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | January 22nd, 2008 at 10:00 am | Report this commentIf someone could provide the minimum number of defining characteristics that determine democracy and freedom, then we can have a basis for discussing democracy and freedom. Until a uniform definition is available it is difficult to discuss these ideals realistically.
Posted by: Varo Dharmarajah | January 22nd, 2008 at 10:04 am | Report this commentSteve,
I find your post troubling. What is really shocking is the willful ignorance of the US populace when it comes to foreign affairs that they influence yet do not understand. The US Christian supporters of Israel you mention apparently base their position on a literal reading of the Bible. Such pre-Enlightment beliefs would be merely pathetic if they were not connected to the armaments of a superpower.
As for US Jews, their electoral behavior is not significant due to small numbers. I think the argument is that, by their dominance of media and policy channels, they manipulate the ignorant masses of US non-Jews for the benefit of Israel. I have no idea if this is true, but surely it is red herring? The problem is the combination of ignorance and power - the outcome is always malign, regardless of proximate causes.
Posted by: IR | January 22nd, 2008 at 2:03 pm | Report this commentDear IR,
Please expand on how the malign American Jews succeed in manipulating tens of millions of people in a free and open society. Does Abraham Lincoln’s dictum that ‘you can fool some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time’ no longer hold?
Since you’re not sure if what you say is true, I urge you to think through before committing keyboard to screen with such racist slurs.
Posted by: RCS | January 22nd, 2008 at 2:59 pm | Report this commentrcs, is the bbc racist to report this?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1270038.stm
Posted by: beebeesee | January 22nd, 2008 at 4:36 pm | Report this commentDear beebeesee,
Are you implying that the racist remarks of the idiotic rabbi Yosef (who has become something of a laughing stock in Israel for his periodic inanities) justify any form of racist slurs directed at American Jews? Or Jews in general?
Let’s tighten up the logic.
Posted by: RCS | January 22nd, 2008 at 5:19 pm | Report this commentDear RCS,
Please check an English dictionary for the phrase ‘red herring’ and perhaps you will understand my post better.
Posted by: CDP | January 22nd, 2008 at 5:53 pm | Report this commentSorry to jump in RCS as your question is not directed at me but if any Muslim or Christian of that seniority had said those things about Jews, would we ever hear the end of it.
I had never heard of the guy but,in the link posted, he is described as the sprital leader of one of the governing parties that currently holds 4 cabinet posts in Israel.
He says this about Arabs:
“You must send missiles to them and annihilate them.”
You hear the above my dear RCS and you whine about Ahmadinejad?!
Then there is Avigdor Lieberman your depuy prime minister (presumanly not a joke job) whose appointment is described by the Haaretz as “The choice of the most unrestrained and irresponsible man around for this job constitutes a strategic threat in its own right,”. Others compare him with the unspeakable:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9923
I think you Israelis would have more credibilty if you agreed that there are some very dangerous animals at the top of your society too.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | January 22nd, 2008 at 6:01 pm | Report this commentDear CDP (IR),
Thanks for the English lesson. I have to admit I sometimes find myself struggling, however mostly with the grammar. So is it, or is it not a “red herring”? You seem to leave that hanging in limbo, and therefore I do not retract.
Posted by: RCS | January 22nd, 2008 at 6:10 pm | Report this commentDear P,
You surprise me — I thought you were much more informed on Israeli politics. In fact, Lieberman is no longer in the cabinet.
As for the rabbi, If you haven’t noticed the pattern yet, then I’ll spell it out: the Israeli religious establishment is rotten to the core and inundated with various maverick types who wield no influence whatsoever on Israeli society in general. They do not even hold the respect of ultra-religious Jews, since these do not accept the authority of the Chief Rabbinate.
Posted by: RCS | January 22nd, 2008 at 6:21 pm | Report this commentDear RCS,
My question ’surely it is a red herring?’ is rhetorical. The exact point (in response to Steve US)is that US Jews’ influence or lack thereof is endlessly discussed but not relevant to the real problem, which is the shocking combination of US ignorance and power.
Posted by: CDP | January 22nd, 2008 at 6:31 pm | Report this commentAll these letters! Alphabet soup.
Now let’s see: to IR and CPD (same):
Re: American ignorance combined with power.
I would say American power is not what it seems. Their economic power is waning. The currency has halved against the Euro in eight years, US cumulative debt is massive, and we’ve just seen the transfer of swathes of American financial institutions pass into foreign hands. Americans seem to depend only on military power, and, as we’ve seen in Iraq, not all political situations are solvable by bombs, invasions and uninvited occupacy.
In the ME, at least, the US lacks legitimacy, a legitimacy which only can be bestowed not by the Israelis (probably another univited occupier), or the US’s current ME ‘allies’, a moveable feast, but by the nations of the region acting in regional concert.
Now, ignorance. The American elite is extremely well educated. The problem imho is that in the absence of popular sentiment, and American popular sentiment is mostly concerned with economic issues, policy is outsourced to the relevant lobby. In the case of the ME this is the Israel lobby, and it tends to get its way in most things: best example are the bills passed by the US legislature affirming 100% support of Israel, passing with a 400 to 0 majority! Had to be written by AIPAC. When did pols ever agree that much on anything?
Posted by: MaryCunningham | January 22nd, 2008 at 7:22 pm | Report this commentDear “CPD” and “Max” and “IR.” Thanks for your comments. “CPD” - as to the Democratic Party forcing concessions on Israel, two things instantly come to mind. In sharp contast to the Republicans, the Democrats kept continuous pressure on Israel from 1992-2000 to dismantle or halt expansion of the Settlements. Also in sharp contrast to Republicans, Democrats continuously pressured Israel to accept the execrable Arafat as a “peace partner.” Democrat Bill Clinton made Arafat the most frequent White House visitor in American history. “Max” - sorry for my choice of the word “Paleocon.” Yes, that word does have a specific meaning in political journals. In recent years, however, “Paleocon” has become a popular shorthand term used by many USA conservatives. It is an antidote to the word “Neocon.” Neocon is now universally used by the American Left to describe George Bush. The Bush domestic agenda - immigration, massive spending, et al - has demoralized most secular conservatives, and we use the word “Paleocon” to distinguish ourselves from the center-left “Neocon” Bush. But, please note, the “new” Paleocons are hawkish on foreign affairs and defense, and we remain strongly supportive of free trade and free enterprise. Buchanan, in contrast, is essentially an isolationist. He has always been an anti-business populist, and he has always been anti-free trade. Buchannan is a “CNN Republican.” He is brought on to “balance” news reports because he can always be counted on to say ugly and vicious things about other Republicans. “IR” - I agree that Jews are a small part of the Demo Party. My point, however, is that in America the greatest support for Israel is found in the Republican Party. Logically, if pro-Israel Jews do control the media and think tanks, they would guide their fellow Jews to vote for Republicans, wouldn’t they? By the way, the Jewish vote in the American northeast is decisive in electing many Demo Senators and Congressmen. One last point. Support for Israel in the Republican Party is overwhelmingly secular. It is a foreign policy impulse that can be traced directly to the Cold War. We see Israel as a pro-western democracy beset on all sides by fanatical Muslims. We think of it in the same terms we used to apply to South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, and post-war Europe. Please think of the Democratic and Republican Parties as “Parliament By Other Means.” You guys hold proportional elections, and then compromise with minor parties to form a government. In America, we have few minor parties, and they are quickly subsumed into the major parties. America has “winner take all” elections. We compromise BEFORE our elections. When you try to single out individual groups or individual viewpoints as representative of an entire Party, well, it just sounds silly to my ears. Thanks again for all your comments.
Posted by: Steve - USA | January 22nd, 2008 at 8:21 pm | Report this commentThank you, RCS.
Although I had never hear of Penrose until you mentioned him here I have always been interested in physics (although I understand maybe about 10 percent of what I read on the subject) since I was a kid reading sci-fi magazines, short stories and novels. It seems to me that the science of physics offers unlimited potential for the continuation of human progress, and it seems that we are just starting to barely scratch the surface.
I did notice in looking up Penrose that he has worked closely with Stephen Hawking (who I am familiar with). I bought Hawking’s “A Brief History of Time” and was only able to get through the first two chapters before I got lost and just put it away for some other time. I am expecting to get smarter as I age, I guess. I still haven’t understood the Schrodinger’s Cat thought experiment.
Anyway, I just found out that there is an illustrated version of “A Brief History of Time.” I think I’ll try that.
PS “A Brief History of Time” has been called “one of the least read best sellers of all times.” I believe that.
Posted by: zqll | January 26th, 2008 at 11:25 pm | Report this commentDear zqll,
Although Hawking is a great physicist and a heroic figure, I’m not sure he’s the best popular expositor. ‘Hyperspace’ by Michio Kaku is a very readable and inspiring book, my first choice for the interested lay reader. As for the great Penrose, the best primer to his ideas is: ‘The Large, the Small and the Human Mind’, published by Cambridge.
Posted by: RCS | January 27th, 2008 at 7:14 am | Report this commentThank you for your comments, RCS. I will look for “Hyperspace.”
And for sure brother Penrose’s book “The Large, the Small and the Human Mind.”
Hard to keep up with all the fast and furious developments in Physics nowadays.
Harder still for us laymen.
Thanks again!
Hmmm, “The Large, the Small and the Human Mind.”
Posted by: zqll | January 27th, 2008 at 10:28 pm | Report this commentI feel I fit in there somewhere.
[…] ? Simply because their views are a much livelier journalistic matter than the realists’ opinions. > see the article of Gideon Rachman, chief foreign affairs columnist at the Financial Times summary [visionary]AFP banning the use of Wikipedia Agence France Presse has banned its […]
Posted by: monday note | April 10th, 2008 at 11:51 pm | Report this comment