February 1 - The McCain Delusion
There is a subsection of the American political spectrum that hates McCain. You might think that these people are on the left – after all, McCain has an 82.5 lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union, fought side by side with Ronald Reagan for his reforms, and has a strong conservative legislative record. But the McCain haters are on the right, or and for some reason believe he is not really a conservative. This substratum of American politics has created a particular discourse in which they define themselves as ‘true conservatives,’ and have a closed argument whereby denial of their core beliefs is considered betrayal or “outside the conservative movement” and thus worthy of not only disdain, but ridicule and even hatred.
They have been stoked by bloggers and talk radio who harp on a number of issues, but key to the McCainophobia are: a) global warming; b) McCain-Feingold; and c) immigration. They have not only convinced themselves that they are right on these issues, but have created a kind of discourse that makes it seem irrational and almost evil not to share their positions. They reinforce each other in blogs, on the airwaves, and in closed conventions, creating a sense of community which bolsters their certainty that they have politics right, and every one else is wrong. When confronted, many do not respond with reasoned debate – that requires recognizing the other side might be right and they might be wrong, and that they can learn from the other side. Instead, they simply attack, ridicule and fight their holy war, certain that they know better. If the public disagrees, it’s a media conspiracy. McCain isn’t winning Republican voters on his own, they argue, it’s a media conspiracy because the media ‘likes’ McCain. On almost all issues where the public diverges from their view (Iraq, global warming, etc.) it’s a media conspiracy. This allows them not to confront difficult arguments, they are dismissed with ridicule and a conspiracy theory.
Last year they thought they had McCain defeated because of immigration. They managed to pressure Republicans in Congress to defeat the President’s immigration policy, and then misread this as a massive public uprising on immigration and some even fantasized that this would be the biggest issue of the 2008 campaign. It never was going to be a pivotal issue, and it turns out even within the GOP immigration is trumped by concern about the economy and national security. Plus most Republicans realize that making this an emotional issue like it was in the summer of 2007 would create a backlash likely to hurt the GOP. So these McCain haters are left embracing Romney, who is probably more liberal than McCain, but is willing to say whatever the polls tell him to say. Their hatred of McCain is such that they embrace another candidate by imagining him to be what they want to be. And that is their main problem – they imagine the world is what their closed discourse says it is, even though the evidence does not support their position.
On the left there is a similar tendency by those who would see President Bush as the cause of all that’s wrong in America, and have their own discourse on evil Republicans, Halliburton and . But at least in this election that hasn’t led them to oppose Obama and Clinton despite their connections with big money, and their pragmatism. Perhaps it’s because they simply want the Republicans out, or maybe the extremists on the left are less vocal and powerful than those of the right.
The McCain haters are on a path to marginalizing their take on conservatism. By treating it like a faith one must accept wholeheartedly, they blind themselves to the fact that McCain is with them most of the time, and his pragmatism makes him more effective in a climate where you have to deal with Democrats to get anything done. The dislike of McCain is emotional, not rational.
Don’t get wrong, I’m not endorsing McCain. I doubt very much I’ll vote for him. And I certainly respect those on the right who would vote for a third party candidate closer to their views. But this craziness about him not being conservative or somehow representing some kind of ‘liberal’ takeover of the Republican party is absurd. The man is principled, conservative and honest. I don’t share his views on a wide range of issues – I’m sure the McCain haters probably agree with him on more things than I do – but the way a wing of the Republican party has turned on him is troubling and irrational. We need a healthy debate between different perspectives, not political holy war from either side of the aisle.
February 4 - Kenya and the dilemmas of the African continent
Everyone has heard of the genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan. This now has grown into increased violence in Chad. There, rebels backed by the Sudanese government attempt to topple the Chadian government, which has backed Darfur rebels. Meanwhile in Kenya, the re-election of President Mwai Kibaki in an election so filled with irregularities that it can hardly be called an election, has sparked violence that has killed perhaps 1000 people already. Scenes of machete toting youths filled with hatred of a rival ethnic group brought back visions of Rwanda, and demonstrates the intense problems facing Africa -- problems which keep the resource rich continent in turmoil, violence and poverty.
The Kikuyu tribe, of which the President is a member, has just over 20% of the population, but controls a disproportionately large share of land and wealth. There are about forty other tribes in Kenya, most bitter about the hold the Kikuyu have on wealth and power. The dominant opponents of the Kikuyu are the Kalenjin and Luo tribes. The opposition is led by a Luo named Raila Odinga. And it is ethnicity that drives the political rivalry. They aren't debating policy, how to develop, what their approach to globalization should be or how to end poverty. Rather, it's a fight about how what they have gets divided, driven by deep resentments that have lingered for decades, making it all but impossible to move forward. Moderates, like Melitus Mugabe Were, who argued against participation in the violence, get ignored or gunned down, as Were was last week.
Kenya's economy is reeling, the police no longer control the country, and ethnic hatred is growing. South African negotiator, Cyril Ramaphosa, who negotiated the end of Apartheid in South Africa, was supposed to come and moderate the dispute. President Kibaki rejected him, claiminig he didn't have their trust, even as tens of thousands of Kikuyu flee from Kalenjin violence in parts of the country.
Kenya has been a stable state since independence, and in 2002 the elections were seen as fair and legitimate. Most people were optimistic that Kenya was on the path to a better future. To be sure, if this violence can be quelled they may still go along that path, but the way these ethnic differences thrust themselves onto the scene are a reminder that while the West sees politics as leaders and ideals, in Africa it's about ethnicity. While the West views government as a way to improve the state of a country, with officials serving the public, to be removed if found corrupt, in Africa too often government is the path to money and power for ones' own self and ethnic group. Corruption is ubiquitous, and in many cases it wouldn't take much to unleash violence. In places with a lot of wealth at stake -- oil rich Nigeria, diamond rich Sierra Leone -- violence has been common. But throughout the continent regional ethnic or civil wars have devastated country after country. Chad and Kenya happen to be in the news today.
Should the world do anything? After all, people tried to justify attacking Iraq based on Saddam's treatment of his own people. But that of course was a fiction, the real reason involves oil and fear of instability in that region. Almost all foreign policy interventions are based on geostrategic considerations. Realists focus on national interest and global stability, so-called neo-conservatives want to use force to reshape the system to spread American values and influence, and traditional American liberals try to build global cooperation. But virtually no one is keen on helping the Africans, look at what happen when things went bad in Somalia.
Most of the problems in Africa today are rooted in colonialism. Without colonialism you'd have had natural political and economic development, and not the warped borders and power structures put in place by the European masters. So, theoretically, the Europeans should have the most responsibility, and that includes us. It includes us because we are the descendents of European colonizers, just as those living in Europe are -- we are part of the culture that conquered the world and did these vicious acts of social savagery. In the US look at the plight of native tribes here, many wiped out and cultures destroyed. In Africa the Europeans didn't wipe out or marginalize the entire native population, but left the continent devastated. But let's get real. Neither the Europeans nor the Americans are going to risk lives in large numbers to help Africa. Indeed, our wars of choice in Iraq and Afghanistan have left militaries across Europe and the US stretched to the extreme. The violence, however, should not be ignored.
Moreover, since it was European intervention that started this problem, I doubt it would solve it. Sending troops to break up ethnic hostility often does more harm than good -- look at Bosnia, Kosovo or Iraq these days. What we can do is work with stable African states who are making progress fighting corruption and modernizing to try to have the capacity to go in, stop the worst violence, and work to build a stronger future. That should be a real commitment of billions of dollars from Europe and the US. And, given corruption problems, it should be administered by the wealthy states in a kind of Marshall Plan manner. Not only would this be moral and try to give hope to millions of people living in very difficult conditions, but it could set Africa up for a boom that would stimulate the world economy and create new opportunities. Otherwise this will come back to haunt us, whether in the rise of a violent anti-western movement, or increasing population movements to Europe and elsewhere.
Yet too many of us don't even notice the violence, or think about Africans as having an existence with the same value as our own. So it appears that nothing will be done. This is a problem for the African peoples to solve, building cooperation between states and tribes, and working to develop legal and political structures that function. If we don't help and try to play a positive role, then we may end up seeing them choose a solution that the West does not at all like.
February 6 - Misplaced Priorities
Right now the United States public and political class is fixated on Iraq as the major foreign policy problem. "I'm going to end this misbegotten war in Iraq" is the biggest applause line for Democrats; John McCain's GOP success is largely attributed to his advocating a "surge" strategy even before President Bush chose it. And, to be sure, given that the chaos in Iraq has helped Iran move towards regional power status in the Mideast, Iraq is important. Not only that, but American prestige and President Bush's legacy is on the line.
But before the invasion of Iraq very few al qaeda members were there, and Iraq did not represent a real threat to the US. It was not a terrorist haven, and in fact its military was so weak that the only way to make it seem a threat was to dream up fanciful scenarios of Saddam giving his arch enemy - religious extremists - his best weapons. Not only that, but there was no real evidence he had such weapons, that was a fantasy too. Still, getting rid of Saddam and replacing him with a pro-American government was seen as central to a reshaping of the Mideast that would allow it to move from its authoritarian, repressive systems of government, which breed extremism, to something modern and hopefully democratic. That hasn't worked out; they underestimated the scope of the task.
Yet, in so doing, it also seems to have been forgotten what started this all in the first place. On 9-11-01 airplanes flown by al qaeda trained operatives attacked the Pentagon and World Trade Center, damaging the former and causing the collapse of the latter. Another plane bound to attack the White House failed. The terrorist organization al qaeda was based in Afghanistan, given aid and comfort by the Sunni extremist Taliban, who had taken control of Afghanistan with the support and help of the Pakistani secret police in the chaos that ensued after the Soviet Union left the region. The threat came from an unstable Afghanistan, and the extremists it allowed to operate there. We were told that once the Taliban was gone, this time we'd take the time and effort to assure that the new Afghanistan would be stable -- it would not be neglected like it was after 1991.
Alas, it has been. NATO troops there, as I've discussed in many blogs over the last two years, are losing ground to the Taliban, and are unable to secure the country. The central government led by President Karzai, chosen and supported by the US, controls little outside of Kabul. War lords or the taliban control much of the country, and the Taliban's reach is widening. Opium production is at record levels, as Afghanistan finances the building of militias and taliban forces, leaving the people as fearful as ever of violence, and making it difficult to earn a living. This is precisely the ground on which al qaeda can reconstitute itself. Sure, al qaeda also sends Saudis and Syrians into Iraq to make havoc for the US, but that war is for them simply an effort to keep us distracted, and assure that they can rebuild their terror infrastructure in Afghanistan. Now it will be more hidden -- they'll be more careful -- but they also know that given the cost of Iraq and the state of the US economy, there is little we can do to counter their efforts. In Canada and Europe, NATO countries with forces in Afghanistan are becoming increasingly sour on the idea of expanding their efforts. They doubt the mission will succeed, and their publics are sick of that war.
As the US economy hits a very weak patch, with the dollar declining and oil prices remaining high, this creates a real opportunity for al qaeda. Moreover, one reason al qaeda and the Taliban was defeated was that Pakistani President Musharraf decided to back the US in 2001, thinking that would benefit Pakistan more. For awhile it did, but over time opposition to his policies grew, and with the US bogged down in Iraq, benefits of being loyal to the US lessened. American Generals and politicians lectured Musharraf that the had to do more, not realizing there was nothing more he could do to try to get al qaeda out of Pakistani border regions. Now, as Pakistan is in turmoil and Musharraf weakened, he has no reason to do anything for the US, and it is likely that the Pakistani secret service is even aiding the Taliban's rise. Al qaeda can regroup and plan with minimal risk.
So as we focus on Iraq, plots and training may be taking place in Afghanistan that could hit the US economy much harder than 9-11, at a far more vulnerable time. If so, people will look back and scratch their heads and wonder why it is we picked a fight in Iraq when the job in Afghanistan was no where near complete. People will wonder why nobody was even talking about Afghanistan and the Taliban's increasing strength during the 2008 election. The Iraq war may have given al qaeda the break it needed to reconstitute itself, and it may have given the Taliban another shot at controlling Afghanistan. Yet no one seems to notice or care.
February 7: American Political Battles
Given the fact we're dealing with two apparently intractable wars and a looming recession or perhaps intense proportions, it's not surprising -- indeed it's heartening -- to see the two political parties in internal battles about their identity moving forward. Yet who is right? What do we draw from these battles?
First, on the Democratic side it appears at first glance less about issues than about personalities. The Clinton machine angered the Democratic establishment by using their harsh tactics against a fellow Democrat, and in so doing alienated the black community as well. A lot of Democrats, concerned by the power within the party exercised by the Clintons, have turned to Obama as the inspirational leader that can take the party in a new direction. Obama is backed by people like Ted Kennedy and Tom Daschle, and there is a kind of civil war going on over leadership of the party. Yet it is in many ways a quiet civil war. They've kept negative attacks to a minimum after the reaction to President Clinton's attempts to discredit Obama -- it's clear voters will punish those who muddy the scene. Democrats are like people trying to choose between buying a Porsche or a Corvette -- either one is great, but which is better? They want to have that "greater of two goods" choice rather than a "lesser of two evils" choice.
The Republicans are fighting a very public civil war, as talk show hosts like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh do all they can to attack, criticize and even lie about John McCain. In blogs McCain is vilified, and though his record is overwhelming conservative, he gets called leftist, and some claim he's no different than the Democrats. The GOP's three wings are in conflict, and it's a bit weird. The religious right, or evangelical movement, has shifted away from the kind of harsh rhetoric of Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell, and embraced a more positive and light approach. Mike Huckabee is, quite frankly, likable and doesn't come off as judgmental or strident. Yet he has amassed considerable support, and has the power of the evangelical movement on his side. Mitt Romney represents the liberal/libertarian wing of the party, but he's playing politics by shifting his rhetoric to fit the emotional conservative wing, and hence has their support. That wing is a group that clings to emotional issues like immigration, global warming, McCain-Feingold and compromises with the Democrats and sees any who go against their views on those issues as fundamentally flawed. Emotion keeps listeners, so talk radio is at the forefront of this. Emotion brings in blog readers, so blogs also are pushing this. It's a minority (though I think those who are part of it think their numbers are greater than they are), and very dangerous for the GOP.
So what about McCain? He's a maverick conservative pragmatist, who starts from principle and then works to create compromise and get things done. That is the anti-thesis of the emotion driven demonization of liberals and view of conservatism as a "movement" of uncompromising principle. So of course they'll hate him, they live off partisan fervor. McCain and Huckabee simply won't play the game Romney will: shift positions to satisfy them in order to win the election. The result is a public and bitter fight.
My view in the short term and long term. Short term: The Democrats are better off if the Clintons are pushed aside. They are yesterday not tomorrow, and there is a lot of negative feelings about their tactics and strategy. The Republicans are better off if the emotion driven conservatives are pushed aside. You govern by compromise and pragmatism, not by rigid ideology. There is something contrary to the conservative tradition about having a strict line that you must abide by in order to get support -- the GOP cannot survive if it demands a kind of ideological purity. Huckabee is good news for the GOP because they've been hurt by the way evangelicals are seen by people in the center; he makes them seem a bit less scary to secular folk. Republicans need to have McCain unify the party.
Long term: part of the confusion is that neither party really has come to grips with the reality we face. As noted yesterday, all this talk about the 'surge' in Iraq ignores the problems of Afghanistan -- which are more threatening to our national interest -- and in fact ignores that there is little political progress in Iraq. Our economy is in dire straights. Yet "more government programs" from the Democrats doesn't seem to offer much of a solution (how will we pay for them?), while the GOP has lacked feasible ideas in recent years, with the Bush Administration engaged mostly in problem solving and coping with the unexpected disaster in Iraq.
Herein lies the hope: McCain as a maverick and Obama as an inspirational newcomer each has the capacity to break with old thinking and find a way to redefine American politics and come up with a creative way to deal with the issues we face. There is a kind of political crisis taking place, the old way of thinking about politics doesn't work, but we're not sure how else to approach the issues. Both parties are stuck in 20th century thinking about taxes, sovereignty, government programs and coalitions. This is a new era, and we need new ideas. The notions of "left" and "right" or "conservative vs. liberal" are obsolete. It is now a test of our political process to see if we can adapt to these changes and generate the new kind of thinking needed to deal with the future.
February 8 - NATO and Afghanistan
On the 6th I wrote about Afghanistan, and how the collapse of the NATO effort is far more important to US security than the conflict in Iraq, even though it is getting very little attention. Now Defense Secretary Robert Gates has publicly complained that NATO allies are not willing to actually "fight and die" in the conflict against insurgents. While there has been criticism of his comments, he's essentially correct -- there is little stomach in the alliance for continued conflict in Afghanistan if it means there will be dead NATO troops.
It's easy to criticize the Europeans on this. The US is seeing hundreds die a month in Iraq, shouldn't they do their part and fight in Afghanistan? Unfortunately for the Americans, President Bush poisoned the foreign policy picture back in his first term, and while his shift towards a gentler and more compromising diplomacy has won over most European leaders, the public in Europe remains very cynical about American foreign policy and the mideast conflicts.
Americans seem in denial about this. Some simply dismiss Europe -- they don't matter, they're a bunch of wimps, etc. Yet obviously in Afghanistan they do matter, the US needs the Europeans to do more of the actual fighting. Others look at the elections of Merkel and Sarkozy in Germany and France and, seeing that these two are generally thought of as pro-American, assume their election shows that Europeans have forgiven the US for its policies of five years ago. That's a bit of egocentrism on the part of Americans -- those elections were not about America, but about domestic political conditions, in particular economics. And while the tone is different from Sarkozy and Merkel, their actions continue to be to press forward with economic deals involving Russia, China and in some cases even Iran. They'll say nice things about the US, but go their own policy way.
For average Europeans, Afghanistan is a mess because of the US . First, when NATO invoked article 5 back in 2001, the US rejected a NATO response, insisting that the response be American (though NATO countries could volunteer forces to help). The US did not want to be limited by the need for consensus on strategic and tactical matters in the war like they had been in Kosovo. But to many Europeans this meant that Afghanistan was would remain primarily the responsibility of the US. And, when the US invaded Iraq in 2003, European opinion was massively opposed to the venture, with up to 80% opposing in almost every country. For many Europeans the US is to be blamed for not finishing the job in Afghanistan, and they don't want to have their people die because the US moved from Afghanistan to Iraq pre-maturely, before the peace had been secured. Others, of course, doubt if they even can win in Afghanistan. And they may be right, especially since it's virtually inconceivable that the Europeans will provide a significantly larger portion of the fighting forces.
Pakistan, moreover, has rejected American requests for a joint effort against al qaeda in the tribal regions along the Afghan border. There are even hints of a cease fire in the region. If so, this suggests that the Pakistanis have decided to shift away from their pro-American position, betting that the US isn't able to deliver much in return for help they give, and isn't able to punish them much if they stall. The result is that the victory we thought we achieved in 2001 has been brought into question. I noted Wednesday that this is far more dangerous than Iraq, it gives al qaeda places to train and plot against the US. Al qaeda in Iraq are simply Arabs recruited to keep the US tied down there while the core of the organization continues its efforts to get the West out of the region.
It was always too optimistic to believe Afghanistan would become a stable modern democracy. But it was absurdly delusional to think that we could shift emphasis away in 2002 and it was just a matter of mopping up and starting reconstruction. It appears that seven years into the so-called war on terror, al qaeda took a hit, but has survived and is recovering. The US, however, has been weakened and the limits of its military to truly shape results brought out into the open. The good news is that the extremists who want this kind of war are a small minority; most of the Muslim world wants peace. The bad news is that in this day and age that small minority can use terror tactics and the vulnerability of the western economy to do considerable harm -- and if anything their position is improving.
February 11 - The Long Goodbye
Defense Secretary Robert Gates, long adamant that the US military needed to draw down forces in Iraq quickly, has now backed off of that. While the surge has already seen a decline from the high of around 180,000 troops to about 160,000, the plan was to have 2009 be a year in which large number of troops would come home. With stories of how multiple deployments are destroying marriages and the mental health of soldiers, there is a real fear that the strain on the military by continued US presence will do fundamental damage to America's defense capacity.
Yet now Secretary Gates doubts that the number will be below 130,000 by the end of the year, essentially meaning we'll be at pre-surge levels, with no sense yet of what Iraqi security will be like as the withdraw progresses. Indeed, the current 'pause' in removing troops is to assess the impact of troop withdrawals in response to real fears from the military that violence will grow. Already we've seen a spike in early 2008, threatening to reverse the optimism many had at the end of 2007.
What's up? Well, the 'peace with honor moment' hasn't materialized. The violence was reduced, but political developments to create a fundamentally changed and stabilized Iraq have not. I noted this on my blog on January 30th (Surge Failure). The surge succeeded in draining US military strength and creating a short term decrease in Iraqi violence, but there is a real sense that Shi'ite militias and Sunni tribes, already running much of the show on the ground thanks to the relative impotence of the central government, could battle each other again once the US presence is reduced. Al qaeda has been reported "severely weakened" for months now, yet like all terror organizations, it needs only to survive and manage to stir things up now and then to remain relevant.
This will have an impact on the Presidential election. If troops aren't returning home en masse, or worse, if violence is growing and the surge regarded as ultimately having failed, then the Democrats have a strong shot at both the White House and even expanding its control of Congress. McCain is currently not being hurt much by his Iraq stance since decreased violence and promises of a draw down of forces have made it less of a hot button issue. But that could all go south quickly, and Gates' hesitance to decrease force levels as rapidly as planned is evidence that the military knows it. Right now the odds are decent that the GOP might take back the White House, depending on how the campaign unfolds, but make Iraq a real issue and all that could change.
In Vietnam Richard Nixon used massive air power to try to compensate for lower force levels, but in a world where damage is on the cable networks within hours, such a strategy in Iraq's populated districts is dangerous. Moreover, Nixon's strategy did little to help the South Vietnamese government, and in fact helped push Cambodia into the hands of the Communists. It's a high risk strategy, with consequences one can't know in advance. In the past I've argued (as did the Iraq Study Group report) that the US need to actively engage Iraq's neighbors in creating regional stability -- that's in everyone's interest. So far the cost of that strategy -- reduction in American clout and presence -- has been too high a price for the administration to pay. So for now we're stuck, with President Bush apparently ready to leave the hard decisions to his successor.
Meanwhile, public opinion on Iraq has solidified, even if the economy has taken center stage in the mind of voters. Very few people think the war has been worth it, President Bush's approval is at record lows. The anger and passion of the opposition has declined, replaced by a conventional wisdom that this was a big mistake and the President is either too stubborn or not competent enough to fix it. The surge was a gamble, and it doesn't look now like there was a plan B. So I guess the approach now is to wait and see what happens, and hope that the Iraqis are tired enough of the violence to, if not create a stable government, at least stop killing each other. And the hope of the public is that a new President, whether hawkish like McCain or dovish like the Democratic contenders, has a way to gracefully exit a quagmire.
February 12 - Fearing Sharia?
When the Archbishop of Canterbury shocked Brits by saying that Sharia law might be used for Muslims in Great Britain -- why not have different laws for different groups in society -- a new wave of fear that in the West would sacrifice its values in the name of either PC multiculturalism or fear of Islamic revenge. The specter of Europeans simply giving in to Islam, with Mosques replacing cathedrals and veils replacing topless beaches is portrayed as the threat of Islam finally doing what it couldn't do a few centuries ago: conquer Europe. Rather than soldiers, it will be immigrants doing the dirty work. And Europe, already de-Christianized at least in terms of the actual beliefs of the public, will simply give in to avoid violence. Evidence for this view is given in the forms of numerous examples of decisions or statements from European officials, or from controversies like that over Dutch cartoons about Muhammad published a few years ago.
There is a threat of cultural transformation, but I think it's the Islamic fundamentalists who need to worry. For all the examples given of silly PC decisions or statements made by clerics or politicians, the reality is that the West has proven over and over that freedom and material prosperity have an allure that cause people to give up their traditions and religious beliefs to partake. Christianity survived enlightenment materialism primarily by moving from being a faith that was supposed to define all aspects of life and politics to one that filled a spiritual niche. In Europe the church going population is down to one in five, even in Italy back in the 70s the Catholic population ignored the Church and voted overwhelmingly to legalize abortion. Few people really take their religious principles into the business, political and social world -- love your enemy, be kind to those who hurt you, turn the other cheek, the meek will inherit the earth...well, those are fine slogans for Sunday morning, but not in the boardroom or on the campaign trail!
I think western secular materialism will ultimately have a similar effect on Islam. To be sure, Islam is more like Judaism in that it is a praxis oriented rather than faith oriented religion. This suggests that the European countries can and should do everything possible to help Muslims follow the practices and traditions of their faith -- allow time for prayer, make Ramadan easier to celebrate as a community, make exceptions to rules that allow the peaceful practice of various rituals. This is done for Jews as well, and shows a respect for another faith that conveys a powerful message. I'm convinced, however, that all of the compromises made for Muslims by the west will be more than offset by compromises made within the Islamic community as a response to being in the modern, secular west. Indeed, despite pockets of fundamentalism, European and American Muslims are the most modern and secular Muslims in the world, and as their population grows, they can have a positive impact on the post-Ottoman cultures that still haven't emerged from authoritarianism and corruption.
It's easy to fear something unknown, and immigration -- whether Muslims to Europe or Mexicans to the US -- always creates a sense of concern as people see the face of the land they know change. Yet over-reacting can help the fundamentalists by making Muslims fell that they are unwelcome and treated as strange and different. Rather than integrate, they will separate, and the extremists will have more luck convincing the youth that they need to reject western ideals. The challenge for Europeans is not to somehow fight against the Islamic influence, but actually accept it and accommodate it as much as possible, trusting in the values of individual freedom, market economies and democracy to convince young Muslims that the old traditions are out of date, and can be joined with western society in the same way the Christian church made its compromises.
Yet, perhaps there is also something the West can learn from the Islamic critique of western thought. We are overly materialist and secular, we seem to distrust any idea of spirit or sentiment. That is a weakness in our culture, it skews us to think that all that matters are observable, measurable entities and hypotheses we can test. The world for us is material and rational, anything else is superstition and fuzzy. Yet ethics, meaning, the reason for existence, and our motivation in life comes as much from the heart as from the head, and there is no rational reason to deny the possibility that nature may be spiritual as well as material. If embracing the West means denying the possibility of having a soul and accepting the mysteries of the 'other side of reality,' then Muslims (and Christians) are right to distrust and critique such a move. Perhaps as a way to strengthen the West and make it easier for different faiths to co-exist we need to think critically ourselves about our faith in reason and materialism. Because when you get right down to it, secular faith is still faith.
February 13 - Off to Italy!
No blog entries until my return from Italy on February 26. This is the third Italy travel course co-taught by myself, Steve Pane (Music), Sarah Maline (Art History) and Luann Yetter (Literature). The trip visits Venice, Florence, and Rome, with day trips possible to places like Pompeii, Bologna, Siena, Pisa and Cortona. Along the way students learn about the politics, history, art, music and literature of Italy from four faculty members, creating an interdisciplinary exploration of one of the most fascinating countries in Europe. If you're not one of the 37 students participating, the next opportunity is likely May 2009!
February 26 - Of Snow and Civilization
On the last day in Rome, after ten days of sunshine and warm weather, we walked back from an awesome dinner past the Pantheon, Trevi fountain, numerous outdoor restaurants and gelateria (having a last gelato outside) before heading back to the hotel and knowing that today it would be back to the snow and cold of Maine. And it looks like a snow storm should hit later today, welcoming us back. Still, this trip was not only fantastic in terms of weather, students, and food, but also each time we teach this course we develop further the academic ideas that drive us: to see connections between disciplines and reflect on the issues that face us as humans trying to create meaning in the world.
An interesting theme that kept coming up with the importance of Christianity to the culture of the West. Everywhere you go, you see an aspect of the impact of the Church on our thought. Whether it's looking at the churches in Trastrevere -- Santa Maria in Trastrevere, one of the earliest Christian churches, or St. Cecilia, both with columns taken from other pagan temples, to the awe of St. Peter's basilica (and recognition that it was funded very much through indulgence sales, which sparked the reformation), it becomes really obvious how much of who we are was shaped by the Church. Moreover, I am convinced now more than ever that Rome was the birthplace of the West. While Greek thought was borrowed by the Romans, it was only in Rome that they meshed it with Roman legal norms (including a move towards individual rights, separation of powers, etc.) and Hebrew religious traditions to create that culture artifact we know as "the West."
In San Marco in Venice we could consider the radical music of Monteverdi, who helped create the baroque era, alongside the Florentines who invented opera at about the same time. One of the inventors of opera was Vincenzo Galilei, whose son Galileo Galilei would revolutionize science a generation later. The connections between politics, music, art and literature were obvious, from the humanism in Caravaggio's work, the realism in Boccaccio's writing or even Dante's religious imagery. The world awakened in a particular way, and reason developed with particular assumptions and values, a western rationalism, a western notion of reason that often saw itself as outside of culture and seeing reality in its objective truth. Unfortunately that notion still persists, people are so much a part of their culture that they find it hard to look at it as something other than the natural 'way things should be.'
Each of us held a number of seminars, the poli-sci ones that stood out to me were about Machiavelli (held at Santa Croce in Florence) and Aquinas (at Piazza Michelangelo overlooking Florence -- maybe next year we'll be able to do it in Napoli), and how now after three of these courses it becomes easier to integrate these thinkers and their political impact with the entire culture, drawing lessons for today and seeing our heritage as something continuous and present, not just something that happened in the past but is now forgotten. The Italy of today certainly offered its experiences - Vespas zooming through traffic, unbelievable gelato, three hour dinners with a focus on flavor and quality rather than quantity (you can eat an appetizer, first course pasta, second course meat dish, dessert, and wine and not feel overly full), and a life that has a lot more walking, socializing, and openness than the norm in the always hurried US. One comment by students was that they could never see the Olive Garden as an Italian restaurant any more -- it's an American restaurant serving an Americanized version of Italian food in an American manner. But more important than all that, I felt I was also walking through history, but in a way that is connected to the present.
The renaissance, the Roman Republic and Empire, the Venetian middle class relatively independent of Rome for centuries, the impact of Napoleon, the changes in art and music, the sometimes tense sometimes rewarding interactions with the Islamic world, the writings of Dante, the architecture of Brunelleschi in Florence, the splendor of Michelangelo's David, the Medici palaces, the impressive awe of Vatican City and Castell Sant'Angelo...it's not just the past there for us to gawk at and take pictures of. It is a part of what we are and how we think, and someday our buildings and our present will be someone else's past to explore and contemplate -- and a part of who we are will be there in that future as well. Our existence is not limited to simply this point in space time on which we currently focus.
Alas, there is a pile of work to do, lots of snow coming, and no gelato in site. I also need to catch up on the news! Ciao!
February 28 - The approaching storm
Those who live in the north know what it's like when major snow storms appear. First you see "snow" in the ten day forecast, and people are abuzz that it could be "a foot or more." Much of the time, the snow fails to materialize, going south or north, or simply lacking the punch people thought it might have. Sometimes bad storms come when just 'snow showers' were predicted. Then when the snow starts, there is that time when it's not clear how bad it will be. You can still drive anywhere, the cover is light, and sometimes it ends without the expected punch (those are the days students get disappointed that the hoped for snow day didn't take place), sometimes heavy snow comes and you have to ride out the storm, getting ready to shovel, clear the driveway, and dig out.
Right now, we're in that period where the metaphorical snow is starting to grow heavier in the US economy, and it appears that this storm will not be one of those predicted ones that fails to materialize, and may in fact be far stronger than people had predicted. Signs point to a real recession, and a strong risk of stagflation -- a recession accompanied by inflation, which yields what pundits in the 1970s called the 'misery index' (inflation + unemployment). The dollar continues to sink as well, hitting record lows, with a real possibility that it will be two dollars to one Euro by the end of the year.
Having just been with students in Italy, I was struck by how different the experience of being an American in Europe now is. In the past, even when the dollar was in a weak phase, one could still find reasonable prices. Now, our status of a declining power is accentuated by the difficulty in affording even the basics. An average meal at a restaurant costs $60, though if you get a sandwich and coke from a street vendor you can get by for usually about $6. The cost of things in Euros is actually close to the cost in American dollars, something that costs $10 here is usually around 10 - 15 Euro there. But when you take into account the exchange rate, the cost rises dramatically.
The declining dollar also impacts oil prices, which rise faster as the dollar weakens. And, with our declining manufacturing sector and our reliance on imported goods, this won't lead to a sudden spike in economic activity and increasing exports. Indeed, if oil prices stay up and stagflation is real, we could get into a downward spiral with no clear way out. Given the protectionist rhetoric of some of the Presidential candidates, there is also a danger that our policies will undercut any benefits a very cheap dollar might bring. Moreover, if it becomes clear that the dollar continues to lose value, foreign reserves will shift to other currencies, and American stocks will be less lucrative. Coming at a time when baby boomers are starting to retire, this could lead to ongoing weaknesses in the stock market, as retirement savings end up being much smaller than anticipated.
The US will have to rethink its policies. Staying in Iraq may simply be something we can't sustain. Major health care reforms may be too expensive. State and local governments will be forced to make painful cuts in all areas, including education, healthcare, and basic human services. The temptation will be to raise taxes, but that would further slow the economy. There will be no easy answers, no magic bullet. Just as it is when the storm is raging, all one can do is hope that the damage is minimal.
The on coming economic storm has been predicted for a few years now. Most people dismissed those predictions the same way one can dismiss a long range weather prediction, and many believed that we'd get buy with minimal damage. But now as the economic data grows increasingly negative, often much worse than official expectations, the storm seems to be here. I have an ominous feeling that we may never be the same again, this storm may alter the economic landscape in ways that will be beyond repair.