Blog entries are listed in chronological order

May 2, 2005:  For old entries hit one of the links above or at the bottom of the page to go to the dates in question.  I plan to archive each month's entries and have the current month on the main page.

Another False "turning point":

After the Iraq elections in January many people proclaimed this a 'turning point' -- that now Iraq would have its own government, and the insurgents would become irrelevant.  For awhile attacks did decrease, and people started to think maybe there was light at the end of the tunnel.  However, the recent upsurge in violence shatters that hope.  The elections join a long list of proclaimed turning points: the fall of Baghdad, the deaths of Saddam's sons, Saddam's capture, the naming of an interim government, the assault on Fallujah, etc.   The reality is that the search for a turning point is bound to fail.  Iraqi democracy can only be built through a slow process of overcoming ethnic disputes, developing a democratic political culture (tolerance of diverse opinion, ability to compromise, and not consider the opponents 'evil'), and establishing rule of law.   Americans often have a naive view that democracy is easy to achieve and 'natural,' if only you could get rid of the dictators.  Democracies are very difficult to establish, and usually fragile in their early years.

The mass corruption that I mentioned a few weeks ago is still to me the worst sign for long term stability in Iraq, that must be checked or Iraq is doomed for a long period of instability.  The insurgency is the most obvious and direct concern, of course, and it is unlikely that there is any way to defeat it using current methods.  As Martin Sieff, UPI Senior News analyst, argues, the recent violence shows that the problems will be around for a long time:  http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20050430-105238-9224r

Clearly, the policy in Iraq has been a failure.  The goals have not been achieved.  It was thought that a victory would bring stable democracy to Iraq, pressure Syria and Iran, and allow the US permanent military bases in a friendly Iraq.  After the war Iraq oil production would increase dramatically, undercutting OPEC  and giving us cheap fuel once again.  Optimists might still claim all that is possible somewhere down the line, but the fact that we're there two years later  with continued violence, ethnic tensions rising, sabotage of Iraqi oil facilities, and no end to the insurgency  in sight makes clear that the policy has already failed to achieve its objectives.  I think there is (or at least was) a bit of hubris in Washington.  Reality bites.  

Now the best hope is to figure out how to deal with the realities on the ground and find both a way to disengage (the cost of sticking around is too high in money and life) without creating instability.  And, though they won't admit this publicly, the Bush Administration realizes that Iraq has not gone at all as planned, and I suspect we'll see the US pull out troops in 2006 after the next Iraqi election (assuming the timetable is kept), and the training of more Iraqi troops.  Then it will be up to the Iraqis to try to make things work.  I understand the argument that we can't create instability and just leave, I don't really know of what we could do to bring stability, and suspect our presence at this point may do more harm than good.  Military power can win wars; it can't shape ultimate political outcomes. 

On a related front, I spent $38 to fill my tank with gas today.  The high oil prices that persist may have really negative economic consequences over the next year or so.  I'm not sure people are ready for that.  We live in interesting times!

May 4, 2005:  I enjoy the show Supernanny on ABC.  Having a two year old, I find it helpful to watch her techniques, and it is interesting that the problems with children usually are based on mistakes being made by the parents.  I tuned a bit early on Monday, and saw the end of the show The Bachelor.

A blond who had apparently just been eliminated was going on and on about how she is so disadvantaged by being beautiful.  She compared it to racism, discrimination, maybe even fascism, I don't recall.  She was beautiful, but as I was starting to feel sorry for her having to live with such a horrid condition that brings her so much grief and misunderstanding, I realized that there was a solution!  She could overcome her problems of having people shun her or discriminate against her due to her beauty.

First, she needs a haircut.  A bad one.  Then she has to lose the make up, and instead put something on her skin to dry it out.  Then she has to eat.  All the time.  Just keep eating.  She also can stop bathing, or at least limit her baths to once a week.  She should stop any exercising she does, and wear clothes a few sizes too big.  If she would follow that simple program, she could overcome the discrimination that she believes comes from her beauty.

On the serious side: it's amazing how many people want to blame something else or find an excuse when things go wrong.   Sometimes I think America's problem is that as a nation we've become too whiney and too unwilling to accept individual responsibility for our lives and choices.  Everyone's a victim!   Maybe this poor woman suffering from beauty could use some time with Supernanny. 

On another issue: this week, as Iraqi violence continued to escalate, the US military admitted that Iraq was limiting its ability to act elsewhere if need be (not necessarily a bad thing, that will hopefully prevent the White House from being tempted to going to war with Syria, Iran or North Korea -- though clearly those three states must be breathing easier).  Also, the US is apparently back to stage one in Iraq: http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050502-045347-6429r.htm    Two years, and still at stage one...

May 6, 2005: 

I'm actually going to follow the example of Star Wars and offer a prequel: namely, here is what is the new part one, or introduction to the power and governance series.  We're on the verge of major political change in this world; this is an important issue to think about.  Also, happy birthday to Sigmund Freud.

Introduction: Power and Governance

The gap between the rich and the poor is growing constantly, both world wide (between industrialized and developing states) and in the US. In the US the gap narrowed between 1929 and 1969, and has since ballooned into something akin to the robber baron period. With oil prices nearing all time highs, the US involved in a war that looks costly and likely to promote more terrorism, and dangers on the horizon involving global warming and other potential disasters, it is very likely that we are on the verge of some fundamental disruptions in politics, both globally and domestically. I think a lot of people will be taken by surprise; those who now feel invulnerable are going to likely find the tables turned on them. This is all taking place in an era of globalization and technological change that is fundamentally altering the way the world operates. We are at the start of an era of fundamental and profound political transition. This makes the timeless questions of politics more relevant than ever.

How should societies be governed? What is the role of power, of the state, and of individual rights? What does inequality mean, and is it a good or bad thing? What is the proper role of economics? Is human nature good, evil, malleable or immutable?

These questions are all linked, change the answer of one, the answers to the others change as well. These questions have also been asked for a long time. In the West we can look back to Plato and Aristotle who posed the same questions, and whose answers still persuade many (though, to be sure, the two of them had some major disagreements!)

I begin with two ‘biases’ which I’ll assess and develop as this series progresses. On their face they may appear contradictory, especially to those who haven’t really studied politics and/or political thought. One is a bias against the state, centralized power, and bureaucratization. I find centralized state power the most dangerous attribute of modern society, guilty of crimes that have killed hundreds of millions, including genocides, purges, and wars. Power, I believe, corrupts.

My second bias is I believe that Rousseau and Marx were each correct in much of their critique of modern society. Each recognized the dangers of modern capitalism, and Marx was eloquent in his discussion of alienation, both for the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Marx was wrong in his economic determinism, and his 19th century attempt to unify everything under one grand theory simply didn’t work. But much of his critique of capitalism was accurate; in essence, Rousseau and Marx addressed fundamental problems of a modern, materialist, society.

The reason people might think those biases contradictory is that we’ve seen Marx connected to big government. Marxists starting with Lenin used the state and its ability to control people as a means for trying to radically remake the system so it would conform to what Lenin thought communism would create: an end to oppression, alienation, and exploitation, thus allowing humans to become truly free. Instead, it led to the ability of evildoers like Stalin to grab power, and kill 20 million in a purge. Variations on this approach led to genocidal butchery like that of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, or even mass death through governmental incompetence, such as the 30 million who died when Mao tried quick industrialization. Add to that the way that oppressive governance choked the creative spirit of individuals, increasing alienation, and damaging the human soul, and it is clear communism was an evil force in the 20th century.

For awhile, that led people to dismiss Marx. But now that the era of communism is nearly two decades dead (save a few holdouts) most people have moved beyond the old stereotypical belief that Marxism necessarily meant a big, oppressive state. Indeed, with people under 30, calling someone a “commie” is more likely to bring a roll of the eyes than anything else, that’s a movement of the past, part of history. I believe that the big mistake was for Marxists to fall for the temptation of using power – governmental power – to try to alter society ‘from the top.’ That only leads to disaster.

Just as communism was evil, it is evil for people to ignore the suffering and poverty of the third world. It is evil for people to rationalize the use of sweat shops out of some abstract goal of long term economic gain, dismissing the sanctity of the humans involved. Like in communism, in such a mind set humans are like numbers, part of a greater equation with little concern for the humanity of each individual. Neither Marx nor Rousseau would have countenanced big government communism, it denied the concern each had for individual liberation. Their insights were powerful and they remain relevant; the lesson brought by the way people tried to actualize Marx proves that the state and governmental power is not a way to solve the problems they identify.

If a kind of “socialism” is to work, it must be anti-statist, and must eschew governmental power in favor of individual liberty. If it is to work, it must develop over time, within the culture, not through the fist of the state. It must be evolutionary, not revolutionary. It must embrace the ideal of human liberation on the basis of individual empowerment, not governmental control.

Is this possible? I’ll argue yes. Given a belief in the general goodness of human nature (Rousseau’s idea of an instinct for compassion), the ability of humans to behave rationally, and the fact that our natural state is one of freedom and autonomy, I am convinced that someday – perhaps not for tens of thousands of years, when we look back at the current era as the barbaric pre-history of humanity – the state will be replaced by voluntary associations of people, cooperating out of mutual self-interest, based on a desire to live full, joyful lives, rather than to simply accumulate wealth. That, however, is not something I’ll see in my life time, and at this point I’m not about to write some kind idealized description of a perfect society. Instead, this series will deal with the problem of power and governance in the here and now, as we struggle through this barbaric period in the early history of human kind, trying to make baby steps to some kind of better future.

May 9, 2005:  In preparing for the Italy trip seminars (we leave in one week!), I've been fascinated by the Galileo case.    Click here for some notes about the case I'm giving students as a hand out.   Otherwise, with finals week here, grading to do, and final preparations for the Italy trip underway, I suspect I won't be blogging much this week, or at all for the two weeks we're in Italy.  Maybe I'll find time to get one more installment on the power and governance series, I have things percolating in my mind.  All for today.

May 10, 2005:  (part four of the Power and Governance series)

I am convinced that sometime in the future we’ll look back at the era of the state, and the notion of coercive governmental power as a time of barbarism.  The current modern era of which we are so proud will, when placed in historical context, be seen as brutal, irrational, and ignorant.  In that time voluntary associations of humans will cooperate to achieve mutual interest, there will be an inherent understanding that humans are in a way connected, and that which detracts from the dignity of any one life, detracts from all.  The true goodness that we all carry in our hearts, some more deeply buried beneath personal and cultural baggage than others, will prevail, and the true potential of human nature achieved.

None of us will see that day; I’m thinking of thousands of years in the future, not decades.  But I’m convinced it will happen.  The reason I hold this perspective – and the rationale behind much of my argument as it will be developed in this series – is my belief about human nature.  What one believes about human nature goes a long way in determining ones view of politics and governance.

Human nature can be seen as inherently evil/malign, malleable, or benevolent.   Those who see a malign human nature (Machiavelli, Hobbes, Freud, etc.) tend to view humans as beasts, able to reason, but driven primarily by their passions (or for Freud, the ‘id’).  This view of human nature predisposes one to believe a strong, coercive state is necessary in order to maintain order and provide security.  People in fact prefer order and security to freedom, according to this perspective, because freedom will lead to chaos and tumult.  The proper state, then, is one that uses power justly and wisely to maintain an order that protects custom and tradition, and serves to provide for the common welfare.  Democracy is distrusted because it relies on flawed humans to reach collective decisions, and these decisions will more likely be driven by passion than reason. 

Those who see human nature as malleable believe that changing the governmental system will alter the way humans behave in the world.  Thus if you grow up in a competitive capitalist society, which looks at the plight of sweat laborers as simply necessary to develop the world economy, then you will have a competitive nature that does not connect with the suffering of those who are exploited.  Socialists traditionally have argued that if you change the economic system, you’ll change human nature, and create a more cooperative, caring human.  Yet when they have tried to do that with rule from above, the results have been disastrous, and human nature was not improved.

Those of us who see human nature as good, the reason for atrocious behavior is not some kind of fatal flaw in our nature, but, absent actual mental disease, a disconnect between our true nature, and our ability to live according to it.  This disconnect is caused in part by culture, in part by the nature of human interactions (e.g., alienation, psychological reactions to coercion, self-doubt, low self-esteem, fear, etc.).  Quite often, the state, in trying to maintain order, is part of the problem.  Coercion, corruption, and being a victim of arbitrary power dulls ones’ ability to sense what is true to ones’ heart.  This causes people to replace empathy with abstraction, dehumanizing others and not recognizing the inherent connectedness of humankind.

Whenever one travels, even in lands of ‘enemies’ of ones’ country, there is almost always hospitality and friendship from normal folk (though perhaps not from people caught up in some abstract political cause, something which causes one to caricature and abstract the other into some kind of enemy image).  When students read, for instance, of the suffering of Loung Ung as a young girl in her book First They Killed My Father, they are almost all driven to a mix of shock and sadness, identifying with her suffering as real and important.  Not just a statistic, but a life like their own, whose suffering is just as tragic as is one suffered such a fate themselves.

That, I am absolutely convinced (though obviously this issue will have to be better developed) is the true potential of human nature.  Our hearts recognize our common bond, an inherent ethical truth that is natural and just.  Our heads find ways to rationalize around this, aided by ideologies, fears, and claims to power.  And given all of the confusion, abstraction and ‘dehumanization’ in our cultures today, it’s not surprising humanity is living so far away from our true nature.  That won’t be fixed overnight, but the kind of systemic and radical change the world is going through creates opportunities to, at the very least, try to move a step or two closer.

May 11, 2005:  For another view on human nature than the one I gave yesterday, consider Machiavelli.  Those who look at the continuing, and likely to continue for a long, long time, violence in Iraq, Machiavelli's view would seem verified.  The question comes about: when we see violence and immorality, are we seeing humans acting according to their base nature, or are we seeing people who are in denial of their nature?  I think the latter, and will continue that soon (I hope to get one more entry in the power and governance series written before heading off to Italia), but the answer isn't clear -- it's one of those issues that has been and will continue to be debated in philosophy for a long time.  I don't see neuroscience or psychology giving us any definitive answers any time soon either.  All for today...too much to do!

May 13, 2005:  Discover has an interesting cover story this month (their website still has last month's magazine as current -- presumably they'll update it soon: http://www.discover.com) on Roger Penrose's new book The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe.  If you've read my "Spirit and Belief" series, you know I'm fascinated by modern physics.  Penrose has an interesting theory about quantum physics that uses gravity to try to overcome some of the paradoxes that currently are solved by such things as the Copenhagen interpretation or the Many Worlds theory.  For him, gravity, usually overlooked when dealing with subatomic particles since the force is so small, may be very important, and might be what forces one quantum probability to ultimately be actualized.   As a non-physicist I was thinking up ideas such as the possibility that due to our four dimensional frame of reference things existing in other dimensional states may appear to us to have apparently contradictory properties (a particle and a wave) or be in multiple places at once.  Penrose obviously has a better understanding of the problem -- though I don't know when I'll get time to try to read his 1100 page book, which will require taking time to try to figure out a lot of math!

One reason this interests me is that understanding reality is my focus -- both in politics and reality as a whole.  While some people focus on philosophy alone (hard to do since philosophy always rests on some assumptions that come from outside), others on science alone, and others on religious belief, it is self-evident to me that understanding reality requires uniting those.  Furthermore, politics -- human interactions and relations -- cannot be understood separate from questions about the nature of humanity and indeed this world.  I have no expectation that I'll figure this out -- the journey is what matters, trying to get a bit closer to understanding the world and myself.   Trying to think about all this and figure life out makes living more joyful and interesting.  I can't imagine just being worried about things like money, politics, and what the neighbors are doing.

But in the world of politics, it is getting really depressing in Iraq.  What we are seeing now with the intensified killing and assassinations is what looks very much like the start of a civil war.  At the very least, this is the type of thing that can become a full fledged civil war if not checked:  http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-woiraq0512,0,4630319.story?coll=ny-top-headlines

ITALIA!  I will be in Italy until the end of the month, so my May 13th entry is likely the last one for a few weeks.  I hope everyone enjoys the spring, and please check back in early June if you want to read more of my thoughts on things.