Random Thought About Imperialism

Three and a half years ago, before we got involved in Iraq, The Economist or The Weekly Standard had a cover article entitled "The American Empire." This was not my magazine, and I asked my friend the subscriber what the article was all about, thinking he would reject the idea of American Imperialism. To my surprise, his response was that the article was simply a recognition of the facts: that whether we wanted it or not, America had become an empire, and that we should now act as one.

I believe, whether well founded or not, that the United States is exceptional in the history of the world. Or exceptional in the history of the Western world, at least. In very real ways, when Europeans crossed the Atlantic and established colonies on this continent, they broke with their traditions and culture. They consciously chose to not replicate the European problems on this continent. An example of this is the acceptance of Jews in the United States. Anti-Semitism was a scourge of Europe that was not tranferred to the New World in part because the people who moved here rejected the anti-Semitic tradition.

But it this change in culture was not simply a matter of choice. It was also a matter of necessity, or rather disability. Some aspects of European culture could not have been replicated on this continent simply because it is too disconnected from the European power structures. The Catholic Church would have much less influence in American life in the eastern colonies not just because the English colonists were largely Protestants, but also because the Church was not established here. Lacking that "establishment," colonists were immediately free to follow their conscience in private while maintaining an unfettered and active public life.

So, the United States is a land of hope. Hope that each person will enjoy liberty, hope that self-determination will triumph, and hope that where you are going is not determined by where you came from. In short the U.S. is a chance at a new start.

Naturally, that is not the whole story. When Europeans crossed the Atlantic, they brought slaves, racism, and colonialism in its worst forms. Many of the differences between the U.S. and Europe are very positive, but we cannot overlook our problems. Early Americans were driven to kill and expel American Indians because they believed the Indians were an inferior culture. Slavery was protected in early colonial constitutions, and rationalized by pre-emininent thinkers, such as John Locke, who we still respect today. These ideas and cultural traits, just as our hope, are part of our history. So, in the United States, this land of hope, certain rather unexceptional aspects of European culture were implanted.

Those unexceptional aspects include some political traditions, notably imperialism. The United States has been part of the empires of Spain, France, and England. Imperialism, however, seems directly at odds with what makes the United States exceptional. There is no room for self-determination in a country controlled by an empire. It is nonetheless a form that we understand and can easily replicate.

The question, then, is if we are to be an empire, what kind will we choose to be? Certainly, no two empires are the same. But there is a choice between following the European traditions we have inherited to create empires similar to those common throughout history and following the traditions that are uniquely American to create an empire of national self-determination and personal freedom. And it is still a matter of choice, because regardless of what we have done in the past three and a half years, where this country goes will be determined by our subsequent choices.

For me, the choice is clear.

The next question is what would this sort of empire look like? I do not have a full answer to that yet, and so I will leave it here for now.

BANNED!

From redstate.org. All for calling a guy's arguments cromulent.

http://www.redstate.org/comments/2005/11/8/132151/390/39#39

Wackiness at Redstate.org

Redstate's an interesting site. It's much more civil than other conservative sites I've been to. Which pretty much means that I've gotten in 5 or 6 posts and they haven't banned me yet.

Anyway, check it out, especially this piece they are promulgating which argues that the free market would not have led to segregation and jim crow laws in the south. Yes, it's crazy. No, that doesn't mean what I said in the last paragraph is untrue.

The basic argument? Private transportation companies in the South at the end of the 19th century did not have an economic incentive to segregate the cars, and that we should be wary of government since it was what in fact caused the harm and created segregation. So, it wasn't racism at the bottom of segregation, but government.

The support:

It was politics that segregated the races because the incentives of the political process are different from the incentives of the economic process. Both blacks and whites spent money to ride the buses but, after the disenfranchisement of black voters in the late 19th and early 20th century, only whites counted in the political process.

And no, he doesn't stop to consider why or how blacks were disenfranchised.

Anyway, read the piece. I put up a couple comments there, but you'll have to read it to see them.

Crosspostings at tpmcafe

Me from tpmcafe:

With Miers out, the broadly accepted view is that Bush will nominate an outspoken conservative who has a clear record of supporting right-wing causes. The extreme wing of the Republican party won the battle to have Miers withdrawn, and now Bush must pay up for their support in the elections.

That's fine. The question is what are we going to do about it.

Virtually every conservative I've seen on the news in the past couple days has stated that they want a fight with the Democrats in the Senate--that they want to fight about Roe, about Lawrence, about the 10 Commandments and other social issues.

This is a fight they think they can win.

I disagree, and I would like to see the Democrats show that they have the heart to pick up this fight on substance, and to win it.

The truth is that a solid 60% of this country does not want Roe v. Wade to be overturned. http://www.pollingreprt.com/abortion.htm

The confirmation fight of Bush's next nominee, if the nominee is someone who will threaten constitutional rights, will be an opportunity for Democrats to show that they have strong principles--it will be an opportunity to stand up and to rally people to the party.

So, if the right wing wants a fight, we need to provide just that. It's something we can win.

and,

No, it's not beside the point. The point is that the people in this country want the Supreme Court to maintain specific constitutional rights that are under attack by the Republicans.

We have to remember, and remind everyone, that the Senate is not a representative body. It is not designed to reflect the opinion of the majority of the country--it was designed to reflect the majority of the states.

The Senate was originally designed to ensure that states with smaller populations were respected by the national government since regional factionalism was a strong concern of the founders. Two hundred years, a couple amendments (notably the 14th and the 17th), one Civil War, and one Civil Rights movement later, the Senate is acting like a representative body and the national government is the prime protector of civil rights.

Because the national government has taken on a role that wasn't initially assigned it--protecting civil rights--the Senate, with it's reflection of regional opinions rather than national opinions, is poorly situated to judge what the majority of Americans think is best in areas regarding civil rights.

In the 2004 election, in Senate races, Republicans won a total of 39.9 million votes while Democrats won a total of 44 million votes--but the Republicans gained 4 seats at the expense of the Democrats.

The Republican majority in the Senate does not reflect the beliefs of most Americans.

We have to remind everyone of that--having a majority in a governmental body does not make you right.

A little later, and in response to other commenters, I said:

We have to be prepared to lose this confirmation fight.

In the end, despite the whatever fight Democrats may put up, the Republicans may have the votes in the Senate to push Bush's next nominee onto the Court. But we have to make it a referendum on the policies of that nominee in preparation for the 2006 elections.

I personally believe that Roe was correctly decided. And Lawrence and Griswold and Pierce and Skinner and Meyer. Nonetheless, if this nominee gets on the Court, in time, all that may be gone.

Democrats have to be prepared to start winning elections--both nationally and locally--to ensure that even if we lose the Court, we can protect those rights we believe in though legislation.

That's also why the statistic I quoted is not irrelevant. This is a crucial moment for Democrats to stand up, not just because we can protect the Court, but because we can prepare to win the legislatures.

Rep v. Dem

It's not that I don't think the distinction is important. It's that I think the distinction isn't real.

I don't recall exactly what Woodruff laid out in that book, and so I can't address that. Maybe you could do a quick write up since you have the book now?

I think your description of Gym's comment was important though. I obviously didn't understand what he was getting at, but yes, it can be important that our elected government actually makes the decisions we elect them to make. It's cheating the system to continually force it down to the people in referendums.

One more thing on democracy

Spoon, after reading that First Democracy book, why do think the distinction between democracy and republic isn't important?

From a philosophical standpoint, as articulated by Woodruff in First Democracy, it seems the two are very different concepts.

Re: Republic v. Democracy

I think part of what drives the false distinction made in the popular political dialogue between republic and democracy is an attempt by those on the right to denigrate the term "democracy" and hence "Democrats". Consequently, if they can convince people that the United States is a Republic, then people should vote for Republicans.

While I believe that this occurs, I doubt there was ever a Vast right wing memo about talking about things in this way. However, viewing things from the lowest common denominator, I am sure that some folks in the grass roots of the Republican party actually believe this.

Lemme put that differently, uneducated country Republicans here in the fair state of our birth have explicitly told me that. It is important to note that I said "uneducated" not "dumb".

Remember when

we, maybe it was me, maybe you, wrote a post a long while back about how Senate confirmation hearings are one of the major checks an elected branch has on the judiciary, and that judges should be asked specific questions about their legal views and philosophy? Did that happen or was it a phone call? I cannot remember.

Either way, it now appears Michael Kinsley thinks the same thing.

WaPo Op-Ed

I don't want to go with some "outta the mouths of heartland babes, true wisdom spouts forth" type meme, but I do have to say DUH!

News from the Flyovers, making democracy work better, one coastal pundit at a time.

Republic or Democracy?

I saw this over on tpmcafe today:

After all, our own founding fathers fought fiercely against democracy, preferring a liberal republic to avoid the dangers of mob rule.

I always wonder what distance people think they are getting out of statements like this. How often to you hear people saying, "The US isn't a democracy--it's a republic!" What can they possibly mean and what difference can it make?

Both conservatives and liberals perpetuate the concept, but I think they use it for different purposes.

Liberals seem to use it to condemn the founders for not being progressive enough.

Conservatives use it to deny the value of popular self-government, i.e. that we shouldn't trust common people because the were excluded at the founding.

I am not a political theorist, but I challenge anyone to describe a relevant difference between republics and democracies.

Let me take a quick survey of the problem:

From Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law:

re·pub·lic:
1 : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president; also : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
2 : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law; also : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government


de·moc·ra·cy
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government

These are fair enough definitions. So, what's the difference?

If we take the first definition of republic as providing the most important distinction, then virtually every nation in the world is a republic--including all those European democracies we admire so much. France, Germany, Canada, South Africa--none of these countries have monarchs.

So, what's the distinction between the second definition of a republic and the second part of the first definition of a democracy?

Supreme power residing in citizens and not "the people"?

This can't be that dispositive. Again, it would apply to every "democratic" nation in the world: I know of no nation that allows non-citizens to vote in elections. There are flexible conceptions of citizenship, however. It is true that citizens of Australia can vote in UK elections when they reside in the UK, but that right to vote is granted in the broader concept of Commonwealth citizenship which Australians hold.

Elected representatives and officers?

The definiton of democracy allows for elected representatives. Elected officers may be a sufficient distinction, but again, most modern "democracies" have elected officers: In France, the president has the ability to select the Prime Minister, and the executive departments can make laws independent of the legislature. Why wouldn't France then be considered a republic?

It is clear to me that there is no substance to the distinction between a republic and a democracy. We should stop trying to force something between the ideas.

Reece

Two Months

It has been almost two months.

Probably should get back to blogging.

I know we have had some good conversations since then, but didn't blog them.

As I get more and more less busy (that is a great lawyer like sentence), I will try to throw more stuff up.

Bork Quote

The Bork quote got me thinking.

Specifically, it seems the quote belies the radical agenda of the religious right because if there is nothing "the people" can do about a supreme court ruling, beyond amendment of the constitution, then it seems as if Bork is admitting that his beliefs don't have the political support for amendment. In a 50 percent plus 1 democracy, where ideas must be widely held to gain the necessary support, failing to get such support means the idea isn't widely held.

The only conclusion? That Bork and his friends are all in a minority of people who want such interferences with liberty like criminalizing homosexuality.

Food for thought.

Also, where is that cross blogged items we discussed.

Here comes the Idiot Train! Woot, Woot!

Justice Sunday the Second took place this past weekend. Choice quotes from the Washington Post's coverage:

Rejected Supreme Court nominee Robert H. Bork warned that the high court has defined homosexuality as "a constitutional right . . . and once homosexuality is defined as a constitutional right, there is nothing the states can do about it, nothing the people can do about it."

Good thing this guy didn't get on the Supreme Court. He apparently has forgotten about the amendment process.

Speakers compared the civil rights movement of the 1960s to demands now by Christian groups for restoration of traditional morality. "It's time we move to the front of the bus and that we take command of the wheel," said William A. Donohue, president of the Catholic League

I'm sure Rosa Parks would appreciate this allusion.

Harry R. Jackson Jr., senior pastor at Hope Christian Church in College Park, Md., said the "Christian community is experiencing a new unity around the moral values that we share because of common faith." Jackson, who is black, said that appointing judges who will strictly interpret the Constitution is advantageous to blacks. "If justice matters to anybody in America, it matters to minorities and to people who have historically been at the bottom of the barrel" who will not have "to deal with a maverick judge changing the law at the last minute."

He has apparently never heard of Dred Scott. Dred Scott is one of the most beautiful pieces of strict constructionism ever written. In that decision, the Court went out of its way to determine the original meaning of the term "citizen" as it is used in the Constitution and found that the framers never intended "citizen" to ever mean "black person," even if that person was not a slave. Whoops!

--Reece

(Sorry for the pseudonym below, but I am now writing for a second blog here at blogspot and wanted to keep this one on the down low.)

The long plateau

Part of the problem is that the idea that the United States would explicitly use military force for natural resource gain goes against the grain of American history (outside of the conquering and colonization of the american west) and the international legal regime that we put into place at the end of the Second World War. The influence of the United States in ending colonialism cannot be ignored. Our actions in the Suez Crisis in 1956 forcing the British to withdraw from trying to forcibly protect the Suez Canal is an example (i recognize the lack of subject/verb agreemen in this sentence, plural subject to singular verb) of the type of actions we took against our own allies to prevent continued colonialism. Fighting a war for oil would require overcoming such a tradition.

Secondly, the free-market ideology that pervades this country would have to be overcome. Talk about a major governmental intervention in economic life, nothing really could be bigger than conquering a country for the sake of forcing its oil sales to the United States. That type of mercantilist monopoly would have to be sold over the prevailing free market ideology. The simple rhetorical response to arguments for such a policy is we should let the market decide, and find ways to work within the marketplace.

I realize that is somewhat incomplete of answers, but I am busy with something else at the moment and will return to the topic later.

Also,

Dionne's piece was basically a rundown of what the Administration is doing wrong, and why Bush's poll numbers might remain low regardless of whatever he does to try to boost them.
It was interesting, but didn't contribute much overall.

Quick review

The article about torture is right on:

On the floor of the Senate, before everyone left on vacation, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., sounded the administration line: There is no need for this legislation because we are not dealing with prisoners of war but "terrorists."

John McCain stood up and responded that the debate was not "about who they are. It's about who we are." We are Americans, the senator said, and we hold ourselves to a higher standard than those who slaughter the innocent in Iraq or Afghanistan, or in London or on 9/11 here at home.

I think you got the oil article for the most part. I would ask you to respond to one issue: He is in part talking about a long plateau and slow decline in the availability of oil. It is possible that under those conditions, the cost of military action to secure more oil would not have the same costs you envision. Any response to that?

Religious Right ruining the country. I think she does a good job of describing the problem, but doesn't suggest any method of making it better. We still have to beat them to get them out of office.

I didn't read the Dionne piece either. So, I'll wait for your reaction to that.

Several problems with the Oil article

First, i generally like the article, but here is one glaring problem (I am sure I will have others):

The author contends that we will see more violent conflict for oil as supplies dwindle, and that WW2 and the Gulf War were both significantly about the "pursuit of foreign oil."

I will deal with these points in succession, first the likelihood of future conflict, then the point about WW2, and finally the Gulf War.

The first point is most important, because it underlies other points the author makes about potential future conflicts in the Middle East regarding oil, or more explicitly predictions of conflicts between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. It needs to be stated very loudly and very clearly for all the anti-petroleum types who are given to wild fantasy about the evilness of oil companies.

NOTHING about the end of a natural resource INHERENTLY leads to conflict.

As I do all too often, I look to history. What great wars for forests did England fight when most of the forests were cut down early in English industrialization? Oh, wait, they didn't, they just started using coal.
What about the great wars that the United States fought as the Whaling industry went under? Oh wait, we were in the Civil War at the time, and we just started using petroleum. Dang.

The supposition that military conflict inherently will result from the end of the oil based economies is faulty because the supposition fails to account for the costliness of military action in light of alternatives. The entire post World War 2 international legal regime is designed to reduce cross border conflict, especially amongst the great powers of the world, by providing a set of norms to which countries can aspire and by providing legitimating language and standards for those instances in which war is necessary. This international legal regime is supported by too many stakeholders in the international system for the regime to be flaunted because of a decline in natural resources. The point: there is one cost not accounted for by "end of oil conflict" types.
Another cost is the simple opportunity costs of spending money on military action versus investing that money in renewable and nuclear sources of energy. Policy makers are smart enough, or at least we must trust them to be smart enough, and help them to be smart enough by organizing and lobbying, to realize that a 100 billion for a military adventure in the Mid-East to secure oil supplies (I don't believe this to be occurring right now, I am using this as an example) forgoes spending that 100 billion on development of bio-diesel hybrid automobiles, and the return on investment of a bio-diesel hybrid automobiles is much higher than another war.
So far we have costs of conflict for oil as 1) damage to an international legal regime we basically founded after the First world war, and actively supported since the end of the second; 2) the lost opportunity, and associated costs thereof, of investing in war instead of other sources of power; 3) The lack of return on investment posed by investing in war instead of renewables.

These costs greatly outweigh the benefits of simply securing more oil, especially in light of the fact that it is possible to transition to a post-oil economy instead of simply trying to prolong the oil economy at greater and greater costs. So the argument right now should be that we begin preparing ourselves for the transition to the post oil economy, which will be cheaper than attempting to prolong the oil economy. Its economics, its capitalism, it works (mostly).

Authors second point: WW2 was primarily driven by the pursuit of foreign oil.
Well, this point is just asinine. If you are after foreign oil, you don't invade Poland, then Denmark, Norway, and France. Now you might be saying to yourself, but WMD Norway has oil, hah! you are wrong!. Yes Norway has some oil, but that oil in Norway wasn't the main goal of the Nazi invasion there. (I could be wrong about that sweet sweet Norwegian crude, I just figured they had some off the North Sea) Furthermore, the Russian invasion didn't turn into an oil grab until after the rest of the offensives failed to knock the Russians out of the war. Basically, Hitler wasn't after the oil of the world.

Finally the Gulf War point:
I should have done this throughout the whole post, but whatever. Occam's Razor folks. "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything" Was the Gulf war about pursuit of foreign oil or about protecting the legal regime I already discussed? It is possible for the answer to be both, but the langauge of the policy makers at the time indicate that the legal regime point had a little more weight. The response that "Of course they wouldn't say we were fighting for oil" is silly. At some point, for politics to function, you have to take seriously what people are saying. It is untenable to claim that politicians always lie because we as the people and ultimate holders of power in this country would be unable to decide how to allocate political power if there was a complete dearth of truth in the policy making process. Was protecting Saudi Oil Fields a significant component of the deployment of the Rapid Deployment Force to Saudi Arabia in August 1990? Yes, but that does not require that therefore the whole operation was about oil. Other factors played a role at least as significant as the oil factor, and the oil factor alone would not have been enough to push this country to war.

That is all I got on that.

Here are a bunch of interesting articles and op-eds

One on anti-torture legislation: LINK

The Twilight of Petroleum or the next 30 to 40 years of our lives

One about how the Religious right is ruining this country: LINK

Finally, some tripe from E.J. Dionne: LINK

I haven't read the last one by Dionne, so it might be good, but my general East-coast/washington bias prevents me from praising it outright.

So, what's going on?

Man, slow news summer.

What did we talk about on the phone?

Was that our discussion regarding a constitutional amendment outlawing the property tax?

I thought I put that up here, but I couldn't find it.

Either way, we should propose such an amendment.

Don't got much else on that, but we should find away to discuss other elements of liberal proposals for taxes, and what they might be.

Nothing wrong with tax reform

We've talked about this on the phone a bit, but in principle, there is nothing wrong with tax reform . . . if it is done right. I don't have any grand ideas on how to do it right, but tax laws could use some simplification or other improvement.

Of course, any change has to be revenue neutral or revenue positive--closing loopholes, getting rid of unnecessary deductions, etc.

I actually think this is a liberal idea, and not one the conservatives should control. Once again, however, the Democrats have to think of something other than oppose-Bush-at-all-costs. That's their challenge. We'll see if they can do it.

Whether there is an appetite for it in the general public is another matter. On one hand I want to say that all the Repubs need to do is to convince people that their taxes are too high and they'll get their tax cuts. On the other hand, I kind of think that tax reform won't get any traction unless there is an obvious need like restructuring around (new) govermental programs.

Back Door Defeat of Roberts?

It is stories like this one here: LINK
(Pulled from Huffington Post, I wonder if Arianna needs a man, 'cause I ain't busy.....)

that make me think that some parts of the Democrats and the Left are hoping to defeat Roberts by making conservatives think that Roberts is another Souter. While the prospect of the president having to fight off a Conservative challenge to his Authoritah would be hilarious, especially in light of the damage it would do to his reputation in the sense that internal GOP fights are always nasty and not good for their party, do WE as leftists really want the president to withdraw this guy and nominate someone more like what the far right really wants?

I don't think we do, so I don't know if this is a good strategy, inasmuch as it is a strategy at all. It is possible that Conservatives are so worried about this nominee, that they are 1) more worried that the Left and Democrats, and 2) they are already gearing up to fight the president on this one.

If that is true, we may be in for a more interesting fall than I expected. While I am convinced that Tax Reform is going to be the next big White House push, it is possible that its roll out will be delayed until after the nomination fight. The reasoning behind such a delay is that I am almost positive that the Tax Reform push is going to be timed for the elections next year. It is also possible that the rumored troop withdrawls from Iraq could be used in both election capacity and to sell tax reform, in the sense that the GOP might claim, "the war is over so we don't need as many taxes anymore", as if we somehow collectively sacrificed for this war. Push come to shove though I don't think there is any appetite for tax reform in this country, and despite Bush's best efforts, I don't see any major bill getting passed. Of course, it all depends on whether or not the national Democrats stand up to Bush on the Tax reform bill when it comes up.