With the storybook ending of the Cold War that led to the disintegration of the U.S.S.R., the United States has thus far not fulfilled its potential as a unipolar world leader. Unwilling at first to be the world's policeman, it has failed to take heed of the complexity of the world beyond its borders. President Bush is more akin to a swashbuckling cowboy from a John Wayne Western movie than an eloquent, sage-like statesmen. Then again, it is these very average Joe-like qualities that made him such a likable character in the first place.
Fortunately, the current sentiment is that a growing majority of Americans have finally discovered that it takes more than an average Joe to steer America through complex domestic issues and the intricacies of international diplomacy and geopolitics. Unilateralism will most likely officially die when president Bush leaves the office, not only because it is ineffective and damaging to America, but also because America lacks the strength to pursue such an aggressive strategy.
Iraq has become America's 21st Century Vietnam and, instead of Communism, the presidency has branded terrorism as the enemy. Terrorism is not an enemy in itself; it is merely a means of aggressive, destructive diplomacy employed by those factions who lack conventional means to get what they want. What Bush really means, but dares not say in those words, is that his real enemies are various Nationalistic and Islamic fundamentalist groupings. Groups that oppose any Western (American) influence whatsoever.
The Iraq war seems more like a failed crusade, spearheaded by a political brigade of neo-cons who are politically just as backward as the enemy they are fighting. What the Holy land was for the crusaders in medieval times, is what Iraq today has become for America: a draining confrontation between East and West. Even worse is that American troops now find themselves in the crossfire of a civil war, with Iran in a perfect position to damage and pressure America without breaking a sweat.
Hopefully America will be wise enough not to elect another "average Joe," but a president with the qualities of a great statesman. In all likelihood this will be either the first female or the first African-American President of the nation, which in itself provides an interesting new development.
Fortunately, the current sentiment is that a growing majority of Americans have finally discovered that it takes more than an average Joe to steer America through complex domestic issues and the intricacies of international diplomacy and geopolitics. Unilateralism will most likely officially die when president Bush leaves the office, not only because it is ineffective and damaging to America, but also because America lacks the strength to pursue such an aggressive strategy.
Iraq has become America's 21st Century Vietnam and, instead of Communism, the presidency has branded terrorism as the enemy. Terrorism is not an enemy in itself; it is merely a means of aggressive, destructive diplomacy employed by those factions who lack conventional means to get what they want. What Bush really means, but dares not say in those words, is that his real enemies are various Nationalistic and Islamic fundamentalist groupings. Groups that oppose any Western (American) influence whatsoever.
The Iraq war seems more like a failed crusade, spearheaded by a political brigade of neo-cons who are politically just as backward as the enemy they are fighting. What the Holy land was for the crusaders in medieval times, is what Iraq today has become for America: a draining confrontation between East and West. Even worse is that American troops now find themselves in the crossfire of a civil war, with Iran in a perfect position to damage and pressure America without breaking a sweat.
Hopefully America will be wise enough not to elect another "average Joe," but a president with the qualities of a great statesman. In all likelihood this will be either the first female or the first African-American President of the nation, which in itself provides an interesting new development.
11 comments:
All true except the American people electing a woman or African American. I just do not see that happening. The republicans are rejoicing over Hillary and Obama being the front runners because this will ultimately seal the victory for the republicans again.
I understand and agree with most of this, but I have no clue how you associate the problem, or think it can be fixed, with women or african americans. Are you defining an "average joe" as a white man? If so, this article is completely rediculous. Being a good president has nothing to do with race or gender.
In response to: Wesley Gant
Human capacity ( or incapacity) is not defined by race or gender. As such "average joe" is also not attributed to gender or race. It is in fact irrespective of race, gender etc.
Average Joe merely implies that the next President needs above average qualities to steer America successfully through tough domestic and international challenges. That is the essence of the article.
In what sense are these alleged "neo-cons" to which you refer as politically backward as the enemy they fight?
Ben Ami,
I would agree that they are politically backwards for a number of reasons. Most obvious is the fact that both groups rely on an preset, ideologically defined vision of the world, in which actions, events and consequences are viewed through a distorted lense - reality is made to fit the predetermined ideological vision, be it Islamic fundamentalist or Christian neoconservative. At the same time, both groups actively attempt to dehumanise and delegitimise 'The Other', in the sense that one is either 'with us or against us', 'infidel or believer', 'good or evil'. Finally, both pursue a policies that, following from this rational, legitimise the use of violence, torture, human rights abuses and terrorism (because The Other is rendered less then human).
Stu, I am not convinced the neo-cons are looking through a distorted lense in regards to pointing out that the Islamic nations and individuals are evil. It is apparent that they are evil toward the US and our policies. We did not start this fight but will eventually end it. How so many forget September 11th.
Stu,
While the neoconservative movement has a strong ideology to which they may at times try to subject their interpretation of events, this is no different from any ideological movement. Socialists, liberals, regualr conservatives, indeed everyone with as much as a roughly defined ideology does the same. This does not make them of necessity equivalent to the Islamists.
The problem with the Islamists is not that they are idological, but that their ideology is anathema to anything resembling mainstream western values. This does not apply to the neoconservatives, who, I might add, are not religiously informed. They base themselves largely on the work of Leo strauss, a classicist, not a Christian. If anything, they are pagan 'philosophes', not Christian radicals. And nothing they espouse is comparable to that of the Islamists in its heinousness.
I think you are conflating some elements of rightwing xenophobia against Islam in general with neoconservatism, which is in no way more objectionable than liberalism as defined by the left today. Indeed, it sees itself as restoring liberalism to its Platonic, Aristotelian, and Millsian roots, with a dash of Hobbes thrown in for good measure. There is no dehumanisation of the other involved, on the contrary, the neoconservatives assert the innate value of every human being.
Best,
Ben Ami
Hi Brandon, Ben Ami
Thanks for your comments (do read my latest article for the Weekend Economist too please!)
Brandon, I'm afraid that I must take issue with your statement that 'Islamic nations and individuals are evil.' In a single sentence, you are damning a billion people world wide from dozens of countries and hundreds of different cultures.
And this, I'm afraid, is exactly why I think both sides are politically backwards. Would such a statement be acceptable if the word 'Islamic' was changed to 'Jewish' or 'black'?
Ben Ami, I agree that all ideological movements have, by definition, certain world views - everyone constellation of symbology and value with which to make sense of reality.
I'm mildly familiar with the work of Strauss, and what I think is most pertinent in this instance is his insistence that for a society to be coherent, it requires cultural myths to bond it together - whether is is of the lost great Islamic Caliphate, or of the noble American Manifest Destiny to lead and defend the world. Bin Laden believes he must spread Islam to the world, the Neocons want to "export democracy," and spread its ideals of government, economics, and culture abroad.
It is the singular nature of these myths, there essential exclusionary nature and totality, that make them so politically backward. They allow no space, no compromise, and therefore, block diplomacy, rendering violence the only option. Indeed, in "The Case for American Empire", written for the conservative Weekly Standard, Neocon Max Boot argued that "The most realistic response to terrorism is for America to embrace its imperial role." Empire is, fundmentally, dehumanising because it is based on subjegation, domination and hegemony.
Need we look any further the comments by such disgusting examples of humanity as Anne Coulter? 'I believe our motto should be after 9/11: Jihad monkey talks tough; jihad monkey takes the consequences.'
Thanks for the reply, Stu.
I accept your argument that the neoconservative desire to spread democracy may not always be the most desirable policy, in fact, sometimes it is probably counterproductive. Nonetheless, I would be much happier with someone forcing me into a democratic system than with someone trying to impose Islamic government upon me. The former is essentially what all westerners aspire to, even if we disagree about how universal democracy should be relaized, whereas the latter is a nightmare scenario in which non-Muslims are subjected to the rule of Islam, women are made into chattel, homosexuals murdered, thieves seperated from their hands, and more along those lines. the two are not comparable in the extent to which they are desirable, and so I object to people who consider them equivalent. One is noble an progressive even if arguably misguided, the other barbarous and backward and wholly lacking in redemptive qualities.
To conclude, I am not sure Anne Coulter styles herself a neoconservative; if she does, she is certainly not one of their leading lights. Be that as it may, it is important to distinguish between necons and general rightwingers, two groups that are too easily conflated.
first I do like the story and I understand the core question it tries to assert.
I must say i do not really follow the discussion between Ben Ami and Stu. Is it really necessary to have such a semantic debate?
I also notice that these author likes (of article) likes to refer to history. (21st century vietnam...failed crusade with bush as pope leo?)
the article does perhaps oversimplify the culprits who hide behind ideology... actually maybe they are nothing more than political oppertunists and we just like to put them into ideological categories. in my personal opinon Bush is puppet man anyway. Question in future will there for be: is next president a puppet master...or will he be another puppet...
i think these are more interesting question than academic discussion on one's interpretation of different ideologies
Post a Comment