Greg R. Lawson's Blog

A Call to Arms

2009-07-12T21:21:00Z

From First Things Post Modern Conservative blog, a clarion call to defend human nobility from the vast dehumanizing impact of secular humanism:

"And to re-enthrone an “alternative” understanding that for our Founders was so firm that it could remain largely implicit, namely, that a good human existence, a truly humane existence, requires acknowledgement of “sacred limits” (Strauss) to individual self-expression, and therefore some shared horizon that is essentially religious, however general, that is, to re-enthrone “virtue,” this is a philosophical-political project, a kind of regime re-founding that cannot be defended or pursued by the via negativa of resisting federal incursions and praising family farms (which I think I like). We cannot break the compulsive grip of individualization/centralization except by confronting the understanding of the good from which it springs. (This of course does not mean constructing an alternative Pure Theory of the Good.) Lincoln was right about this at least: public opinion is everything, and I see no hope for our country short of a sea change in public opinion. I don’t know just how or even whether such a change is possible, but I am convinced that “all who remain enamored of the genuine greatness of man should unite and do combat” against this compulsive grip of extreme secular liberalism."

We must convince the present generation, and most definitely the future, of what "greatness" is. Otherwise, we will continue a slide into mediocrity and future historians will definitively place America in the same pantheon with other fallen great powers.

The Perils of a Nuclear Free World

2009-07-12T20:58:00Z

It may seem counterintuitive to think that we may actually be better off in a world with nuclear weapons than one without, however, this Wall Street Journal article spawned from interviews with former Secretary of Energy and Defense, James Schlesinger makes a case why this might be so.

Several key points to consider as Schlesinger states,

"The notion that we can abolish nuclear weapons reflects on a combination of American utopianism and American parochialism. . . . It's like the [1929] Kellogg-Briand Pact renouncing war as an instrument of national policy . . . . It's not based upon an understanding of reality...

"If, by some miracle, we were able to eliminate nuclear weapons," he says, "what we would have is a number of countries sitting around with breakout capabilities or rumors of breakout capabilities -- for intimidation purposes. . . . and finally, probably, a number of small clandestine stockpiles." This would make the U.S. more vulnerable...

There's another compelling reason for a strong U.S. deterrent: the U.S. nuclear umbrella, which protects more than 30 allies world-wide. "If we were only protecting the North American continent," he says, "we could do so with far fewer weapons than we have at present in the stockpile." But a principal aim of the U.S. nuclear deterrent is "to provide the necessary reassurance to our allies, both in Asia and in Europe." That includes "our new NATO allies such as Poland and the Baltic States," which, he notes dryly, continue to be concerned about their Russian neighbor. "Indeed, they inform us regularly that they understand the Russians far better than do we."

The congressional commission warned of a coming "tipping point" in proliferation, when more nations might decide to go nuclear if they were to lose confidence in the U.S. deterrent, or in Washington's will to use it. If U.S. allies lose confidence in Washington's ability to protect them, they'll kick off a new nuclear arms race."

Exactly. As I have said for a long time, the genie was long ago released from the bottle and can't be put back in. We can't "unlearn" this. We will never eliminate nuclear weapons even if we, America, go down the path of unilateral disarmament. In fact, it may well incentivize rather than deincentivize other nations from seeking to acquire their own capability.

I disagree with President Obama on the need to negotiate a new START. I think it is misguided and not well conceived strategically. Even though I understand he is not eliminating our entire stockpile, so he obviously is not a completely naive idealist on the issue, the very fact that he wants to eliminate any of our deterrent capability is largely an exercise in futility. It will rattle allies and not matter to the North Koreas and Irans of the world. Consequently, what is the point, other than to make everyone feel better?

Best to learn how to continue to deter old competitors and extend deterrence in such a way that it will have an impact on new adversaries or those that may become such in the future.

On The Post-American Presidency

2009-07-09T21:51:00Z

John Bolton, a scourge to the liberal left, has written a cogent piece that describes the dangers of President Obama and what he terms a "Post American" Presidency.

"Obama is the first post-American President. Central to his worldview is rejecting American exceptionalism and the consequences that flow therefrom. Since an overwhelming majority of the world's population would welcome the demise of American exceptionalism, they are delighted with Obama.

One student interviewed after an Obama town hall meeting during his first presidential trip to Europe said ecstatically, "He sounds like a European." Indeed he does."

Of course, I have commented at length on the problem represented by President Obama in numerous other posts. Bolton essentially recapitulates the core line of argument. I do think President Obama believes America to be like every other nation which makes his views in many ways inescapable. If there is nothing particularly great about America and it just happened to stumble into its present position of global power (or worse malevolently established its position), then there is not really a good reason not to rein it back in to what would be acceptable to other nations.

I freely admit that America is not sinless. Indeed it does have blood on its hands over any number of issues. However, America is a unique country as it is the exemplar of a universal political creed. Anyone can be "American" if they choose to be such. This is not so in China, India, Japan, or any European nation (just ask their immigrant communities).

This is exceptional and makes America a beacon to many. President Obama's universalism, by contrast, equivocates and seeks to become submerged in some globalized stew without mandating assimilation, which is the key to a successful universality. That is a recipe for disaster.

Additionally, his views on negotiation may appear enlightened in contrast to the "cowboy" that preceded him, but when our enemies stand strong, will President Obama retain the stiffness of spine to counter that, even if it gets him criticized by a formerly adulatory media?

Will President Obama recognize American interests and realize them to be the key to true universality, or will he play the European game of espousing universality yet coming up perpetually short?

History, Meaning, Transcendence and Henry Kissinger

2009-07-08T02:41:00Z

I've been thinking a great deal about Henry Kissinger lately. Kissinger is truly a towering figure in the history of American foreign policy and is probably THE embodiement of the foreign policy "establishment." So many future foreign policymakers began their careers under Kissinger and so many Presidents (including the current one) have solicited his advice, that it is imperative to examine his career and his philosophy in detail.

With this in mind, I just completed reading a book that sought to make sense of his philosophy of history and have been listening to reenactments of now declassified transcripts of his conversations with leaders like Brehznev, Mao, and Deng Xiaoping.

A quick primer on his views on contemporary events can be found in this Der Spiegel interview. Several interesting sections below highlight his views about how the intrnational system should operate:

SPIEGEL: The Treaty of Versailles was meant to end all wars. That was the goal of President Woodrow Wilson when he came to Paris. As it turned out, only 20 years later Europe was plunged into an even more devastating world war. Why?

Kissinger: Any international system must have two key elements for it to work. One, it has to have a certain equilibrium of power that makes overthrowing the system difficult and costly. Secondly, it has to have a sense of legitimacy. That means that the majority of the states must believe that the settlement is essentially just. Versailles failed on both grounds. The Versailles meetings excluded the two largest continental powers: Germany and Russia. If one imagines that an international system had to be preserved against a disaffected defector, the possibility of achieving a balance of power within it was inherently weak. Therefore, it lacked both equilibrium and a sense of legitimacy.

SPIEGEL: In Paris we saw the clash of two foreign policy principles: the idealism embodied by Wilson who encountered a kind of realpolitik embodied by the Europeans which was above all based on the law of the strongest. Can you explain the failure of the American approach?

Kissinger: The American view was that peace is the normal condition among states. To ensure lasting peace, an international system must be organized on the basis of domestic institutions everywhere, which reflect the will of the people, and that will of the people is considered always to be against war. Unfortunately, there is no historic evidence that this is true.

SPIEGEL: So in your view, peace is not the normal condition among states?

Kissinger: The preconditions for a lasting peace are much more complex than most people are aware of. It was not an historic truth but an assertion of the view of a country composed of immigrants that had turned their backs on a continent and had absorbed itself for 200 years in its domestic politics...

Kissinger: Cynics treat values as equivalent and instrumental. Statesmen base practical decisions on moral convictions. It is always easy to divide the world into idealists and power-oriented people. The idealists are presumed to be the noble people, and the power-oriented people are the ones that cause all the world's trouble. But I believe more suffering has been caused by prophets than by statesmen. For me, a sensible definition of realpolitik is to say there are objective circumstances without which foreign policy cannot be conducted. To try to deal with the fate of nations without looking at the circumstances with which they have to deal is escapism. The art of good foreign policy is to understand and to take into consideration the values of a society, to realize them at the outer limit of the possible.

I wrote on some of these themes last year after reading Kissinger's doctoral thesis which was turned into a book: A World Restored that focused on the post-Napoleonic balance of power. In this book, now nearly 50 years old, Kissinger hits on the theme of prophets and statesmen as he does in the Der Spiegel interview,

"But the claims of the prophet are sometimes as dissolving as those of the conqueror. For the claims of the prophet are a counsel of perfection, and perfection implies uniformity. Utopias are not achieved except by a process of leveling and dislocation which must erode all patterns of obligation. These are the two great symbols of the attacks on the legitimate order: the Conqueror and the Prophet, the quest for universality and for eternity, for the peace of impotence and the peace of bliss.

But the statesman must remain forever suspicious of these efforts, not because he enjoys the pettiness of manipulation, but because he must be prepared for the worst contingency."

This ongoing concern with the distinctions between "prophets" and "statesmen" is a recurrent theme within Kissinger's corpus of written and spoken work. Why?

Kissinger is different from most major American policymakers because he views the world through a different lens than practically any other leader of his stature (we are talking about the only person to serve as both Secretary of State and National Security Advisor contemporaneously).

Kissinger was Jewish and born in Germany. Indeed, he was deeply scarred by the Holocaust, having lost family members in the concentration camps of the Third Reich. This left Kissinger seemingly cold to providence and faith in the transcendent, at least of a "cosmic" transcendence. These quotes from his undergraduate thesis reinforce this pessimistic strain,

"Life is suffering, birth involves death...

Transitoriness is the fate of existence. No civilization has yet been permanent, no longing completely fulfilled. This is necessity, the fatedness of history, the dilemma of mortality."

Some have argued that the Kissinger that survived the Holocaust and emigrated to America was a doom and gloom "Spenglerian." This view holds that he was desperately attempting to keep America afloat after the debacle in Vietnam in order to stall a general "Decline of the West." While the above quote offers some solace for this view, I believe this has been debunked by any careful reading of Kissinger's cirticisms of Spengler.

Rather, Kissinger's superficially cynical attempts to maximize power seem to be an effort of will and nearly artistic creation. In this sense, he strikes me as a somewhat Romantic German, alomst Nietzschean. He seems to to have found meaning in self transcendence and used the stage of international diplomacy as a canvas. He wanted to be a true architect of a long lasting (though as I am sure he would admit limited) international system. His disdain for "prophets" was his understanding of their innately destructive characteristics. They destroy the existing order in a messianic fervor that leaves no room for stability and the erecting of a structure that can withstand the passage of time beyond that which occurs in the mere blink of an eye.

Evidence that Kissinger appreciated a statesman's ability to find freedom of action within themself, can be found in his undergraduate thesis,

"An analysis if historical phenomena reveals but the inevitability inherent in completed action. Freedom, on the other hand, testifies to an act of self-transcendance which overcomes the inexorability of events by infusing them with its spirituality. The ultimate meaning of histoy- as of life- we can find only within ourselves."

So Kissinger desired to be a statesman to discover meaning in a world where meaning was difficult to find through the ashes of a devastated Europe and in the midst of a contest between two superpowers with the ability to reduce the rest of the world to ashes as well.

I think there is more to transcendence than an act of human will as reflected in creativity. I believe creating a stable world order, one underwritten by power, is a moral act in a grand sense. I believe this is so even if the roads travelled towards this objective are poorly illuminated and murky.

Kissinger offers many lessons, many of which are essential for a nuanced understanding of diplomacy behind the obligatory facades. But I think we must ulimately find transcendence and the meaning to history outside of ourselves, lest we be forever trapped in a historicist prison with no key.

I wonder, is this where Kissinger still finds himself today?

The Sources of Soviet... Er... I Mean Russian Conduct

2009-07-06T23:39:00Z

A good retrospective from Foreign Policy of George Kennan's famous observations regarding Soviet conduct and how, given Russian history, it is also applicable to contemporary issues.

Also, given President Obama'a summitry with Russian President Medvedev and the discussions of a START replacement treaty, this piece by Zbigniew Brzezinski offers interesting reading as well.

The Passing of McNamara

2009-07-06T23:32:00Z

With today's passing of Robert McNamara, a major figure in American foreign policy history exits the stage. My initial thoughts below in the form of a comment on Foreign Policy Watch blog.

"I agree that studying McNamara is also a fascinating study of American foreign policy.

He represents much that is common in the foreign policy elite of his day, and probably any day since the end of WWII.

I still struggle to understand the full implications of the man and his policies. However, I think his guilt overcame his judgement.

Many mistakes were made in Vietnam, but how many of those mistakes were made in the glare of a media using new technology to influence not only domestic public opinion, but the opinion of those we were fighting at the time? Were his miscalculations any greater than a Ulysses S. Grant, a Lincoln, a Washington, or a Winston Churchill?

It is easy to say of course they were because we all know how Vietnam ended and how futile it all seemed with the image of helicopters in Saigon and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. However, how many mistakes by those ennobled greats in the historical pantheon could just as easily have turned towards complete disaster if fate had played just one card differently?

His is not an unambiguous study of failed hubris as is so often trumpeted by those who question American power and its uses. I think, like Iraq today, it is a far more nuanced and complex study.

It deserves much study and much philosophizing in order to take the good, leave the bad, and synthesize lessons that may be useful for future practioners of statescraft."

Indeed, just because McNamara himself was stricken with guilt does not ipso facto delegitimize everything he did, nor does it delegitimize what he attempted to do even if his own attempt turned out to be an abysmal failure.

Its important to maintain that perspective when using history as a guide, even history that appears as settled as the Vietnam War and McNamara's role in it.

The Predicament of Individuality

2009-07-02T21:19:00Z

This interview with James Poulos, whi is a doctoral candidate in political theory at Georgetown University and founding editor of obne of my new favorite blogs, Postmodern Conservative, is the kind of reading all thoughtful conservatives should do. It confronts a very serious dilema that we face- how do we live as individuals in the current modern and "Liberal" with a big "L" (as opposed to a classical liberal of the Burke or even Adam Smith variety).

Several interesting quotes

"The big challenge today, I think, is convincing people—especially younger people—that a life in which political liberty has been readily surrendered in exchange for great cultural or “personal” freedom is not a good life, either individually or socially. The willingness to be carried along to that destination, particularly under the impression that it’s basically inevitable, ought to be something that everyone with anything at all nice to say about NR’s (National Review) editors should unite against...

Conservatives are at great pains to convince themselves and one another that their vision of the good or virtuous life is not a mere lifestyle choice. Conservatives don’t just want to experience happiness or individuality—they want assurances, reliable enough that their souls may rest in them, that their progeny will be able to live, indefinitely, more or less as they do. If there’s no reason to live that way outside idiosyncratic personal choice, they’ll fail to inculcate their way of life, and lifestyle-choosing liberals will turn their children and grandchildren into individuals who could be just anyone."

This piece got me thinking about many different things, not only those specific issues raised by the interview itself.

So what do we "conserve" as "conservatives?" There is much more to this than just being a "fiscal conservative." After all a "fiscal conservative" can be an amazingly selfish and greedy person who does not care about anything outside of their own self-fulfillment.

If being fiscally conservative, however, is married, so to speak, with an overall cultural renewal, then, that fiscal conservatism is no longer a means only to one's self satisfaction, but is a morally responsible position that can allow us to give more to our family, our friends, and our community.

So, we conserve money for a greater good than oneself. But what else? Isn't conservation about saving things that are vitally important to us, possibly even necessary for life itself? Isn't that what the "conservation" movement is all about when it comes to "saving the planet?"

So isn't being "conservative" about saving something that will sustain us, not only materially, but spiritually? Isn't it about maintaining a connection to our roots, our family, and our cultural heritage that has historically shaped, though not determined, what and who we are?

So conservatives must "conserve" more than their individuality, they must conserve those instituions that transcend, otherwise, do we not lose touch with any sense of eternity?

In this respect, I think the "virtuous life" is much more than a mere "lifestyle choice." It is a life that attempts to raise our horizons to something much higher than ourselves, and even higher than mere man. For youth that seek the stimulation of "personal" freedom, conservatives must offer a more comprehensive vision, a vision of greatness, transcendance, and the eternal. These are that which should be "conserved" because they are what give us true inspiration and bring us closer (if not into the direct presence of) Truth.

Faith, family, and community are where these senses of the transcendent reside and those, even more than the fiscal arena, is what we must conserve.

How we do this is another question.

Obama's No Philosopher King

2009-07-02T21:05:00Z

As I read today's Commentary blog, I found this posting offered an excellent way to frame our views of President Obama.

Our "Sophist" in Chief. A good moniker for Preisdent Obama. Indeed, despite his prentensions, I think he is no philosopher, much less a Platonic Philsospher-King. As this blog makes clear, Obama has outsourced his biggest policy initiatives to old-school liberals in Congress. Whether this is intentional or not, what has happened is that old-school policies are moving forward with the patina of "newness" since he bestows his blessing upon them.

Consequently, he comes off far more like an extremely gifted politician, than any sort of grand statesman or philosopher of the future.

I still believe President Obama is formidable, but perhaps not as formidable as I had feared.

Catching a Tiger With Robert Kaplan

2009-07-02T20:51:00Z

The title of this post might be a bit over the top, but I couldn't resist. It was a big day for fans of the Atlantic Monthly columnist, world traveller extraordinaire , and now member of the prestigious Pentagon think tank, the Defense Policy Board, Robert D. Kaplan.

I recall having asked him a question recently through the Foreign Affairs website that focused on his coverstory a couple of months back. It was an excellent experience and his response was thoughtful.

Kaplan is always a provocative writer who has travelled many of the globe's hot spots from the Balkans and Central Asia to the Middle East.

His recent post in the Atlantic on the recent end to the Sri Lankan insurgency by the Tamil Tigers, is a fascinating read. He clearly outlines how to win a counterinsurgency campaign, though not without extreme bloodshed.

However, what really caught my eye was his interview over at the Michael Totten blog (a fellow world traveller and reporter).

This interview is a virtual tour du force of geopolitics. It zeroes in on the Sri Lanka campaign, but also takes in Russia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and, of course China.

It are the comments on China that are most interesting. He articulates just how cold-blooded the Chinese version of "realism" really is, especially how they gave arms to Sri Lanka as well as diplomatic cover at the United Nations while the government of that country crushed the Tamil Tiger insurgency irrespective of civilian casualties and the brutal shut down of journalistic dissent. In return for all this, China gets a deep water port in a strategically vital area where they can house some of their expanding blue water navy.

While I do not necessarily agree with everything Kaplan writes, these conversations are important. They force American policymakers and strategists to examine what the world will look like after our focus on Iraq and Afghanistan shifts to what is becoming the most critical area on the planet, East Asia.

Obama and the Global Power Vacuum

2009-06-30T02:30:00Z

This Spengler piece that argues that President Obama's desire to retrench American power in the wake of the "misdeeds" of the Bush Administration will cause a vacuum to materialize and numerous new dangers.

In large measure, I think this is true on a wide variety of fronts. America IS the grand stabilizer. Even its misdeeds are relatively benign in comparison to most outcomes. Obviously in this context, "relative" can become a loaded term as outcomes are often not "good" in the sense we might prefer and often are in an absolute sense "bad."

All that said, to look at America as the fountainhead of evil imperialism is an extremely misguided view. As Spengler asserts,

"Obama's continuing obsession with America's supposed misdeeds - deplorable but necessary actions in time of war - is consistent with his determination to erode America's influence in the most troubled parts of the world. By removing America as a referee, he will provoke more violence than the United States ever did. We are entering a very, very dangerous period as a result."

President Obama wants to remake America to be more fair and more just, yet by piling on the debt, creating larger government bureaucracy that will only lead to sclerosis and a required retrenching from global affairs, he will create a world far more unjust. This won't be a world of enlightened cooperation, it will be a world where Hobbesian rules gain influence and fill the global power vacuum left by the self imposed limitation of a self interested, self absorbed, and deeply confused former superpower.

I'm all for "realism", but realism is intended to preserve one's capital for later expenditure. Does President Obama see where things must move rather than where he thinks they should move to be "just?"

Renewal at home, strength abroad. That is the burden history places on America today. President Bush did not live up to that burden in the final analysis. I do not think President Obama will either. So prepare yourself for the sucking sound of global power disappearing into a neo-Middle Ages of instability, chaos, and violence.

As with any moment in time, the future is not yet written, we have choices to make. Will we as Americans make the right ones?

The Struggle in Iran

2009-06-30T00:16:00Z

Despite America's recent distraction with death of Michael Jackson, important events continue in the Middle East. America is looking to draw troops down from major Iraqi cities and, of course, the aftermath of the fraudulent Iranian election continues to play out. Unfortunately for the Iranian people, the color of the revolution is no longer gree, but red, blood red.

However, as I have said before, and as this Stratfor piece also continues to assert, the reality behind the images is that an internal power struggle was the key issue in Iran. The imagery of protests and even the violence, while heart rending, are in many ways a sideshow in relation to the core issues being settled in this spasm of power grabbing. Below is a key excerpt.

"The key to understanding the situation in Iran is realizing that the past weeks have seen not an uprising against the regime, but a struggle within the regime. Ahmadinejad is not part of the establishment, but rather has been struggling against it, accusing it of having betrayed the principles of the Islamic Revolution. The post-election unrest in Iran therefore was not a matter of a repressive regime suppressing liberals (as in Prague in 1989), but a struggle between two Islamist factions that are each committed to the regime, but opposed to each other.

The demonstrators certainly included Western-style liberalizing elements, but they also included adherents of senior clerics who wanted to block Ahmadinejad’s re-election. And while Ahmadinejad undoubtedly committed electoral fraud to bulk up his numbers, his ability to commit unlimited fraud was blocked, because very powerful people looking for a chance to bring him down were arrayed against him.

The situation is even more complex because it is not simply a fight between Ahmadinejad and the clerics, but also a fight among the clerical elite regarding perks and privileges — and Ahmadinejad is himself being used within this infighting. The Iranian president’s populism suits the interests of clerics who oppose Rafsanjani; Ahmadinejad is their battering ram. But as Ahmadinejad increases his power, he could turn on his patrons very quickly. In short, the political situation in Iran is extremely volatile, just not for the reason that the media portrayed."

What this means for the region as a whole is raised in this quote:

"The question for the rest of the world is simple: Does it matter who wins this fight? We would argue that the policy differences between Ahmadinejad and Rafsanjani are minimal and probably would not affect Iran’s foreign relations. This fight simply isn’t about foreign policy.

Rafsanjani has frequently been held up in the West as a pragmatist who opposes Ahmadinejad’s radicalism. Rafsanjani certainly opposes Ahmadinejad and is happy to portray the Iranian president as harmful to Iran, but it is hard to imagine significant shifts in foreign policy if Rafsanjani’s faction came out on top. Khamenei has approved Iran’s foreign policy under Ahmadinejad, and Khamenei works to maintain broad consensus on policies. Ahmadinejad’s policies were vetted by Khamenei and the system that Rafsanjani is part of. It is possible that Rafsanjani secretly harbors different views, but if he does, anyone predicting what these might be is guessing."

So now, how do we negotiate?

Is Obama's Honeymoon Over?

2009-06-30T00:09:00Z

A rather amusing piece from Foreign Policy on the 10 reasons why its apparent now that President Obama's Honeymoon with America is over and he is sliding into a much more typical place for a politician to reside in the national consciousness.

I think overall this is a pretty good assessment of where Obama stands, but I also do not underestimate the power of the media to want to continue "guaranteeing" his success. However, recent poll numbers undeniably are showing that the halo effect is beginning to wear off and people are looking less at the celebrity and allure of Obama the myth and are looking at how his policies will directly impact their lives. The jury is out, and he may well win many more battles, but he can no longer be sanguine either. The hard part of governing is now beginning for him.

A Follow Up on the Rule of Reason

2009-06-29T23:51:00Z

Another strong meditation at First Thing's Postmodern Conservative regarding reason. I commented before that "reason" is a means as opposed to an end and, in a nutshell, I believe that continues to be true. Reason is indeed quite necessary to function in the natural world around us, however, it offers no glimpse into the transendant. That is its perennial limit and an important one to keep in mind when phrases like "let reason decide" get thrown around in debate.

"The existential-ethical questions as to who I am and what I am to do are inseparable at once from the political question who we are and from the theoretical or “ontological” question of the way things are."

None of those questions are answered by "reason."

Ciceronian Conservatism and the Rise of Caesarism

2009-06-25T02:58:00Z

From the Postmodern Conservative blog at First Things:

"Cicero’s implicit warning was to watch what could become of the Republic. In thinking through Cicero as an inspiration for conservatism, what it means for an orator to serve ethically begins with the setting of an example. Cato’s prosecution was something like a “systematic philosophy” and a rigid, purified ethic to the demands of “reason.” By contrast, Cicero retorts that the Roman people inhabit a different, more comfortable ethical world where duties are understood in relation to a realistic assessment of occasions and situations. Such is a political ethic conveyed through tradition and connected to a living culture. Thus traditions are living and a means for change is a means for conservation. The means for change, however, are “Ciceronian” in the resistance of turning idealism to formula and ideology and in the long-lived embodiment of sentiment. Causes of public decay were directly related to a decline of moral virtue. Cicero was not principally concerned in his rhetorical writings with the ethical formation of the private individual. He was concerned with a civic ideal whose dynamic was reflective of the republican constitution."

Cicero is arguably the most famous orator in all of western civilization's history. This particular blog outlines an interesting case that Cicero's "conservatism" in the wake of the calamities befalling the Roman Republic in his lifetime could prove an inexact, yet useful example of what we could aspire to now in our own trying times.

Cicero trumpted the Roman Republic and tactfully criticized both radicalism and rigidity. In the case cited here, Cicero actually is on the opposite side of Cato. Indeed, Cicero was not for rigidity as exemplified by the aristocratic and anti-democratic Cato, but he was equally disillusioned by the rabble rousing demagoguery of Julius Caesar and Mark Anthony (who was a contestent along with Octavian to be the political heir of Caesar). As we all well know, his criticisms of Anthony led to his untimely demise.

Ulitimately, Cicero was a supporter of flexibility within the context of traditional bonds. Not content to sit still and remain tethered to outmoded ways of living, he also was wary of radical breaks with tradition that could cause permanent rupture within a society.

I am not so sure Cicero was quite as Burkean as this blog almost alludes to implicitly. However, if so, he, like Burke can be a model for responsible conservatism in an age that needs tradition once more to avoid cultural decay.

Make no mistake if moral virtue declines, public decay is inevitable and so is Caesarism. Cicero's fight to preserve the Roman Republic was ultimately a failure. Julius Caesar ended the Republic due to its inability to withstand internal political cleavages and respond realistically to the challenges it faced. Caesar's adopted son (and biological nephew) Octavian would cement that end by becoming Augustus and heralding the Roman Empire. The Empire was built on the foundations of a republic that lost its way, lost its voice, and lost its freedom not due so much to the machinations of political opportunists, but because it became a culture incapable of self government due to a loss of virtue. Julius Caesar and Augustus merely completed what was already a fait accompli.

Cicero's failure was Rome's failure. At that point it had nowhere to go but into the hands of skillful leaders that understood the imperatives of power and were unwilling to watch Rome completely dissolve.

That final dissolution would have to wait nearly half a millenia, but the seeds were sown long before.

I am not suggesting that our time is an exact analogy to this ancient history, too many have made that facile case. However, it does serve as both an inspiration and a warning on what fates can befall a decayed culture.

A Comment on Sanford and the GOP

2009-06-25T02:48:00Z

I'd like to stay away from discussing the farce now known as South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, however I can't. The bizarre revelations of his mysterious excursion to Argentina to meet his "lady friend" is not only a tragedy for him and his family, but it really gums up the ability of the Republican party to get back on track. This is especially so after the revelation just about a week ago regarding Nevada's Senator John Ensign, another Republican who couldn't remain faithful.

The Republican party is finally finding some traction on the deficit issue and even the health care debate. However, the GOP can't seem to stop having leading figures shoot themselves in the foot. this means that while the party wants to focus on issues, the media is able to shift the focus onto the foibles of foolish politicos. This is especially a problem for the party of "family values."

It is pretty hard to run on those values when leading lights disregard them in such a flagrant manner.

Hopefully, the Party can move forward and embrace a new agenda, much liek the agenda I referred to in a previous post.

Simple Policy, Complex Politics

2009-06-25T02:38:00Z

This blog posting from Keith Hennessey is excellent in pointing out the long-term demographic challenges the United States faces with Social Security and Medicare. It cogently asserts that part of the growth in health and social spending is due to pure demographics.

"The rapid growth of per capita health spending in the U.S. is a critical policy problem that needs to be addressed. It is not, however, the primary driver of our federal budget problems over the next 30-40 years. The aging of the population is. Policy changes need to address both pressures to prevent an eventual fiscal meltdown. We must not ignore demographics."

Of course, the answer to this apparent policy conundrum is rather simple from a pure policy perspective: raise retirement and modify current benefits. Of course some would add tax increases into the policy option mix, but given the deleterious effects that would have on the economy I don't think the time is right to discuss that.

The sad fact is, this policy really is simple, it does not require a rocket scientist to recognize the fiscal oblivion waiting to hit us. However, no politician (or aspiring politician) could ever run on that platform, the politics is too complex and bad. The legitimate policy options to resolve this are automatically removed from serious consideration because no one really wants to face this issue square on.

This won't change in the near term, but somewhere, sometime something is going to have to give.

A Primer on Inter-War Foreign Policy

2009-06-22T22:43:00Z

From the blog Foreign Policy Watch, this blog outlines the history of inter-war foreign policy and counters claims made by Matthew Yglesias that it was only the Great Depression that led to the rise of fascism and Nazism in Europe.

Clearly, the Great Depression played a role in the rise of Hitler. However, the author at Foreign Policy Watch argues persuasively that the status quo that was being defended during the years between 1918 and 1939 were inherently destabilizing and did not reflect the distribution of power in the international system. That Hitler and Imperial Japan wanted to overthrow the status quo could be expected and would at some point in time have likely ocurred in some form even without the Depression greasing the skids for radicalism.

I think simple answers are hard to come by when examining this period of history. There are a myriad of factors that influenced events and only in retrospect do they seem obvious. I think pure luck played a role as well. Hitler was a unique individual who was probably more successful (even if in a demonic way) than any other leader at that time would have been irrespective of the Depression and an unsustainable international status quo.

At any rate, it is always a useful excersize to look back and consider what happened from several vantage points. We'll never stand at an archimedean point where we can be completely objective, so multiple vantage points offers us the next best (if flawed) option.

The Responsibility of Reason

2009-06-22T22:34:00Z

An extremely thought-provoking piece from one of the blogs at First Things.

The ruminations in the piece ask a very pertinent question for today, namely "what is reason's responsibility?"

Given that a vastly secularized world has enthroned "reason" as the ultimate arbiter of competing claims to justice (or less charitably as a "moderator of prejudice"), how is "reason" to act in this capacity?

If reason is a tool, then what is the end it is employed to bring about? The below section, I believe, shines a spotlight on this most uncomfortable of questions for those who believe that reason alone can be moral.

"What Leo Strauss had already understood in 1941, having worked through his own “German nihilist” (that is fascist or proto-fascist) temptation, is that if reason is to survive as a moderator of prejudices, it must befriend the honorable prejudices or approximate truths of non-intellectuals who are ready to stand for something. And (as too many Straussians fail to see), to accomplish this political function the philosopher must respect the provenance of goods essential to the order of his own soul that “simple reason” cannot create ex nihilo."

Reason cannot create except within a framework that has already been, at some level, predetermined by something external to the process of "reason" itself. This is its inherent limitation.

A New Iranian Revolution?

2009-06-22T22:09:00Z

With all of the news continuing to pour out of Iran, it is a futile task to try to stay on top of the "latest news." It also seems futile to attempt to place the last week of protests within any historical context given that the outcome is murky as are the motivations of so many key players in the drama.

Of course, the video of the young woman, "Neda" has amped the emotion of the moment as has domestic politics in the United States where President Obama has come under increasing pressure to respond forcefully in favor of the protestors.

With the nuclear issue and proliferation more generally very much hanging in the balance on the Iran question, the nature of the regime that emerges from this turmoil will be key.

That said, several good articles have outlined the situation well. First, Fareed Zakaria essentially says the revolutionary regime in Tehran is now completely delegitimized. Even if it maintains power (as he sees as likely), the rickety edifice of the regime's theocracy will not continue to function under the illusion that it speaks with the wisdom of the Imam. It will now be a regime of brute force.

Meanwhile, Stratfor downplays that this is really a revolution and casts the events as a struggle amongst the Iranian elite. The clerics backed Mousavi because he would make it harder to isolate the regime and would protect their perrogatives, while others supported Ahmadinejad because of his criticisms of the cleric's excesses and "betrayal of the revolution."

Whether Mousavi or Ahmadinejad won mattered more to the internal elites of Iran than to the West because there was no substantive difference between them on policies of interest to the West and particularly the United States.

As for the protestors, Stratfor questions whether they really represent all that much of the population and notes their apparent "western" appearance vs. the more traditional population which still is a majority.

Personally, I think Iran is unstable now less because of any desire to "westernize" and more because of internal power games. The visually stunning images and video of protests is reminiscient of protests during our own Vietnam era (as I have alluded to before). It represents a minority, even if it is a vocal and technologically skilled minority.

Iran may change some, but not in any way that are beneficial for the United States. I simply do not think this is a revolution and the "legitimacy" Zakaria asserts has been blown by Supreme Leader Khameini may be highly overrated. Brute force works when employed against a group that is isolated.

International Relations Theory and Fatherhood

2009-06-22T22:05:00Z

When I found this article the other day, I almost couldn't believe it. An international relations scholar actually using concepts from the discipline to outline how to deal with children. Given my pending fatherhood, I thought that I couldn't find a better guide!