CWU Prof. Matt Manweller has a guest op-ed in today's Seattle Times: "Liberty: A capital idea".
The column is adapted from Manweller's talk at last month's Mainstream Republican conference Iraq War panel, the video of which is at TVW, here
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 10, 2007 10:47 AM | Email ThisI find interesting the recent switch on the concept of nation building, policing, and democracy promotion. During the Clinton years the right wwould often attack Clinton for promoting those things, but now they almost unconditionally embrace them. The left often the proponent of such things, now wholly rejects them.
Personally I think they have there place, but must be done at the right time and in the right way. For example it is much easier to stop genocide and restore stability, like in Kosovo then to build democracy's for pretty much the reason the article outlines. Putting up the institutions of democracy is easy, hell every county pretty much has them. What is harder is the elusive democratic mindset that is critical for success.
I was not and am not against the war in Iraq because of some hippy anti-war vibe, but because I did not and do feel that the mission is possible given the realistic constraints on action. What we did weakened us and destabilized Iraq, while the goals may have been good, as my conservative friends like to say, good intentions aren't enough. Whether it is welfare or foreign policy we need to match good intentions with positive results.
For example I would guess that most people here would agree with the general proposition that it is good to help the less fortunate. However I would guess that most would also reject a government program to tax the rich 10% and give it in cash to the poor. The goal is good, but the means are bad. Same with Iraq.
Posted by: Giffy on June 10, 2007 01:55 PMWow. Any way we can have that phrase tatooed on David Mathews' forehead?
Posted by: Rey Smith on June 10, 2007 01:56 PM"Neocons" tends to be a code word for Jews, as in "Jews that want to control the world". It is a noxious term that no Republican should so flippantly toss around as does the this guy.
Ask the Iraqis if they are better off than they were before the war. Yes, they want us out, but they want the Islamofascists out first. They understand what is happening. Too bad the liberal wing of the Republican party doesn't.
Posted by: janet s on June 10, 2007 09:29 PMI did not intend to demonize the neocons at all. Sorry if that is how you interpreted it. I actually believe the neocons have it mostly correct. I just feel that spreading capitalism will accomplish their goals more effectively than spreading democracy.
I also believe the Iraqis are better off because the neocons pushed so hard. We agree on that.
However, you are one of the first to ever describe me as from the "liberal wing of the party." My friends will get a kick out of that!
Matt Manweller
Posted by: Matt Manweller on June 10, 2007 09:34 PMWhere in the world did you get that from?
Posted by: Mike H on June 10, 2007 09:35 PMI personally think that the neoconservatives have things right. I admire the way they were able to influence politics in the administration to stop appeasing the radicals in the mid east.
Matt, I agree that democracy is not a panacea. But the neocons never said it was. I'm not sure why you accuse them of preferring democracy over capitalism. The plan was to have freedom as a natural deterrent to fanaticism. If you look at Iraq, they are not only exercising their right to vote, but also their right to speech, religion, association and private property. The private sector has been revitalized. There was never an either/or.
The left goes out of its way to blame all the ills of Iraq on the "neocons." I just wonder why we need to join in on the attack.
Really? I see little evidence of that. See, for example, James Mann's The China Fantasy, which skewers the convenient fiction that China is evolving toward a liberal society (what he calls "the Soothing Scenario." While I don't disagree with Manweller's argument generally, I don't think it's at all supported by the example of Russia and China.
Posted by: Jack on June 10, 2007 10:42 PMChile is a much freer nation than its neighbors because Pinochet did not have as a goal to control what people believed. On the other hand, Castro and Hugo Chavez need complete obeiance. No disagreement of thought is allowed. Eastern European countries had the same track record. Those that did not have not doctrinaire communists, but just petty dictators, have been moved to the modern Western world much more quickly.
Given this thesis, Russia has a better chance of being a liberal democracy in ten years than does China. Putin doesn't care what citizens believe, as long as they aren't Islamists. He just wants to have total power over the economy. China, on the other hand, tolerates no break from the party line.
Posted by: janet s on June 10, 2007 10:54 PMNot so the rest of the world. All the more reason that every American schoolkid should learn more about George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin than they do about 50 Cent or Britney Spears.
My wife, who was not born in this country, took a self-hating American to task out at Long Beach on the 4th of July last year. The lady, upon finding out my wife was not from here, starting apologizing and saying how messed up America is. Imagine her surprise when my wife, a child of the Soviet era in Kyrgyzstan (whose parent's life savings were wiped out by Yeltsin and the collapse) jumped right down her throat telling her off! In Kyrgyzstan, the government exists to steal from the people and voicing the wrong opinion may still get you killed (although now it will probably only get your paper shut down, or your tv station closed, or your house burned down, or you beat up, or your family threatened). How a candidate, any candidate anywhere in the world, wins with 97% of the vote I'll never know.
I've lived in several different countries and visited several more and the US is undoubtedly the greatest and freest of nations no matter what anyone may think. All those crap talking liberals should be forced to live in the UAE where you can get caned for being intoxicated publicated and faiths other than the state favored religion have to request special decrees for certain plots of land to be declared for them to build houses of worship upon. Forget the UAE, let's send them to Iran, or Saudi Arabia, or... Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, the UK (where the queen can tap your phone calls without your knowledge), or anywhere else. There is no freer nation on this earth than the United States of America. This freedom is what has allowed us to become great.
Posted by: Aaron on June 11, 2007 05:53 AMFree countries fall into tyranny and great counties crumble not because of fate, but because they get lazy and complacent. I'll take someone who is too critical anyday over someone who thinks beating a third world country is a job well done. Some proverb of a turtle and a hare comes to mind...
And Janet, neocon is not a code word for Jews. There are many prominent Jews in neocon think tanks, because, well, there are many prominent Jews in lots of academic pursuits. No conspiracy just the fact that Jewish culture tends to lead people to such things. Look at the names of many of this century’s most influential physicists.
That being said to say that one cannot criticize neo-conservatism without being anti-Semitic is silly and nonsensical. By that logic you couldn't criticize Nazism without being anti-German or affirmative action without being anti-black. Let’s leave the silliness at home and focus on the efficacy and rationality of a position.
Almost all of 'em are gone.
Posted by: Mainstream? on June 11, 2007 11:24 AMIf you read the essay, Matt mentions neocons a couple of times, but they certainly were not the focus of his essay. But he makes the comment that they were wrong, and that is what the paper highlights.
That is the danger of using the term. It is used by the left to drive a wedge in the Republican party. I'm sorry that Matt played right into their hands.
Posted by: janet s on June 11, 2007 12:26 PM