PART 1 in the series: Islam and the West

This series will be done bit by bit, maybe one out of every five or ten posts. For more info about the purpose of the series see “Islam and the West’ under “pages” at http://scotterb.wordpress.com

We are in a period of global crisis and transition, one which challenges the West in ways previously unimagined. Whether the challenge comes from Islamic extremism, the dynamics of globalization, climate change or economic dangers, it’s unlikely we’ll emerge from this without having undergone a real cultural transformation. It is impossible to understand and comprehend what that means if one does not have a clear sense of what is meant by The West or Western Civilization.

The term “the West” is bandied around a lot, often in criticisms of the West as a source of militarism, greed, and materialism. Indeed, in academia the West is often distrusted as a hegemonic cultural force, silencing voices and ideas from other cultures and societies. This has led to less emphasis on people learning the history of western culture, and therefore not really understanding who they are, why they think as they do, and why the world around them functions the way it does. Therefore, such people can’t really comprehend the transitions taking place and understanding the threats and potentials. Moreover, this actually works against understanding and dealing with other cultures because by not seeing the West as a culture built over time, people assume our way is the ‘natural way’ and other cultures are strange, primitive, or irrational. I think that kind of error in thinking is one reason so many supported the war in Iraq, believing Iraqis would welcome us and ‘naturally’ adopt western institutions and attitudes.

To begin, my own bias: despite justifiable criticism of actions undertaken by Europeans and Americans, and despite the consumerism and materialism of the modern West, I am a product of that culture, and I believe in basic western values. I disagree with those who want to ignore or discredit the West. There is much to be proud of. Yet it is a culture, with no more claim to being “right” or the “best” culture than any other culture. We need to ditch the notion that somehow the West is superior or represents an inevitable line of progress. Thus I’m not a proponent of uncritical celebration of the West as it is – one of the attributes of this culture is the ability to use critiques to force improvements and solve problems. A line from the song Cut to the Chase by the band “Rush” captures the essence:

“It’s the motor of the western world
Spinning off to every extreme
Pure as a lovers’ desire
Evil as a murderer’s dream”

The first question is When did the West begin? That could be the focus of numerous historical debates, but here’s my succinct answer: the West began with the Roman Republic, and took its basic form when the Roman Empire united Greek philosophical thought and Hebrew religious traditions in its embrace of Christianity. Law and governmental structure in the Roman Empire had distinct western attributes, such as separation of power and checks and balances (Montesquieu, credited with suggesting checks and balances, had been looking back at the Roman Republic). As the Republic expanded in power and militarism, these political institutions failed, creating corruption and ultimately a collapse of the Republic in favor of Empire (is there a lesson for us there?).

At this time a pivotal figure in the development of western culture came on the scene: A Roman citizen and a Jew named Paul. Palestine had been conquered by the Romans, and the Jews were in religious crisis. Conquest by the Babylonians earlier had eradicated the many different religions of the region, where each tribe or people had their own God. The Hebrews had originally been polytheists (the God of Israel was but one of many Gods), but over time it developed into monotheism. By the time of the first century there were competing voices trying to define what it meant to worship the Hebrew God. One of many of these voices was a pacifist spiritual teacher named Jesus, who apparently went village to village exchanging what we might call ‘faith healing’ for food, and teaching a doctrine of humility and submission. He emerged as a threat to the Jewish authorities who convinced the Romans to crucify him. They expected the story to end there – and it might have, if not for Paul.

Early Christian sects had diverse views on a wide range of subjects, many of which would shock modern Christians. But one debate was especially intense. Should converts to Christianity first become Jewish? After all, God made a covenant with Israel, and if Jesus was the messiah for the God of Israel, wouldn’t gentile converts need to first convert to Judaism in order to lay claim to that covenant? This would mean, of course, following Jewish customs, dietary laws, and more painfully, circumcision for males. Paul, considered a leader in the early Christian church, was asked to decide this issue. If he had said they had to become Jews first, the Christian sect may have died out. Instead, he decided that people were ‘justified through faith’ (looking back to the story of Abraham) and the old Jewish laws, holidays and traditions need not apply. This had two consequences. First, Jews were less drawn to the Christian faith, as it now seemed to be abandoning basic Jewish traditions. Soon it was a sect of primarily gentiles. Second, Christianity to become a hot religion in the Roman Empire. Women especially converted as it gave them a higher status than traditional Roman life. And though there were persecutions, for the most part Christians were tolerated. Finally, as the Roman Empire started to collapse, the Emperor Constantine made Christianity a legal religion, and it soon became the religion of the Roman Empire.

As the collapse of the Empire continued, Christians found themselves divided. They had been pacifists, and one of the reasons they were finally embraced by the Empire was that the Empire wanted Christians to fight to defend Rome from the barbarians. But their faith was other worldly – they should be in this world, not of it. Turn the other cheek. Stay pure and holy in this world, suffering what may come, knowing that this is a test to see if you have faith to enter paradise. Should they abandon that and take up arms? But if they don’t, and the Empire perishes, won’t Christianity be wiped out by barbarians with no such teachings or faith?

The answer would come from Augustine, which I’ll discuss in a later blog entry, but note that the dilemma facing early Christians is not dissimilar to that we’re facing in the secular West today. On the one hand you have moral values which argue for treating others ethically, on the other you have fear of the consequences of acting morally in the real, material world.

Paul’s decision has had far reaching implications. Even today our secular culture is a kind of secularized Christianity, as western values – even secular and atheist values – have been strongly influenced by the impact of Christianity on our culture. Second, though Rome would be destroyed, the West would not. The Christian church would retain enough power to keep Roman ideas and traditions alive, even through the so-called dark ages. Thus one can’t understand the West without understanding the teachings and history of the Christian church. (Personal note: I am not a Christian, in case anyone is wondering).

The vicious reaction by the White House to former Press Secretary Scott McClellan’s book What Happened seems a bit overblown. Nothing coming out suggests anything we don’t already know — that the Iraq war was sold to the American public through propaganda, President Bush actually believed a lot of the spin, Cheney was forming policy behind the scenes, and domestic initiatives were taken with an eye on the electoral calendar. This isn’t anything previous histories of the White House haven’t put forth.

So why the visceral reaction? I suspect it’s because an insider has put forth damning evidence that the war was sold through propaganda and spin. President Bush is having an awkward exit from the seat of power. With approval ratings down at historic lows, Iraq continuing as an unpopular and apparently unwinnable war, problems and tensions increasing with Iran, and oil prices skyrocketing, Americans are virtually united that the country is going in the wrong direction. As a lame duck President Bush can do nothing to turn around his reputation, he is leaving office as a failure.

His one hope was that history would vindicate him. He cited President Truman as an example. Truman was disliked because he made a horrendous error in the Korean war, choosing to try to conquer North Korea after quickly liberating the South. That led to three years of needless death and destruction, only to get back in 1953 to where they could have been in 1950. I don’t know anyone who doesn’t think that was a major error by the Truman administration — what Irving Janis called a “fiasco,” since they should have known that the Chinese were likely to get involved, but groupthink clouded their judgment. Truman is remembered fondly by many because he was a straight talker and made momentous decisions at the start of the Cold War. Bush’s supporters hope that the Iraq mistakes will be forgiven once this is seen as a long term ‘war on terror’ with Islamic extremists the equivalent of the Soviet Communists as the enemy. The hope is that Bush will be seen as a visionary, despite tactical errors in reaction to an unprecedented terror attack.

McClellan’s revelations — and those likely to come in future memoirs — make it unlikely history can vindicate Bush. Besides the fact I think the analogy with Truman is flawed since the problems in the Mideast are much different and more complex, the idea that Iraq was sold by an administration focused on propaganda and deceit casts a long shadow over any legacy the Bush Administration will have. Rather than leaving office unpopular but clinging to a claim that he was a straight shooter who did what he thought best, with the hope of history judging him more kindly, he’ll leave as an unpopular President whose own insiders admit based decisions on deception and political calculations. The President looks either weak or dishonest, depending on how one interprets the evidence.

The other furor that seems overblown is the continuing effort of the Clinton campaign to win the nomination and seat the delegations from Florida and Michigan. Given that she signed a pledge not to compaign in those states and agreed with the decision that they could not move up their primary, it appears a very cynical move to change her tune only when it became clear this was her one chance to remain credible in the nomination flight. Even then, the math doesn’t add up. At the same time Bill Clinton lashes out at the media, Hillary Clinton peppers superdelegates with a letter full of spin and propaganda, including false claims about what the polls say. Her decision to go easier on Obama seems less one of conviction than recognition that going negative against him would only push the party away. She wants them to suddenly decide she’s the better candidate and choose her over Obama.

Last week I argued Hillary should stay in the race until South Dakota and Montana votes (I grew up in South Dakota, I love the fact it’s getting so much attention now), she brought a lot of energy to the race and I think she’s helped Obama. She deserves respect, and should be allowed to end her run with dignity. The actions of the campaign, however, are not one of a candidate who is planning to give in, but one who still thinks she can win. For its part the Obama campaign has been very generous in not stressing the reasons why Clinton may be unelectable, and has confidently moved into general election mode. So why does she continue to fight?

I think the awkward exits of both President Bush and Senator Clinton (and her husband) are based on a mix of political pride, and a kind of intoxication with power. Clinton is analogous to an active alcoholic who is sitting near a drink locked in a glass case. Told that she can’t have the drink, she can’t resist, it’s right there, almost close enough to touch. The temptation is break the glass and do whatever she can to enjoy the feel of power rushing to her vains. I think both Hillary and Bill look at the White House, the power and connections that they enjoyed for eight years, and believed strongly they would regain, and can’t accept that it’s going to be denied. Addiction clouds ones’ judgment. A return to power is so close!

President Bush has the power. He sits in the Oval Office, he gets the intelligence reports, he knows that despite being a lame duck, he is the President of the US. Thus the idea that he made serious errors, that he may have failed at one of the most important jobs in the world, is something he cannot allow himself to take seriously. Like the drunk who makes excuses for having a drink, noting it’s stress or “I can quit anytime,” he clings to a view that he did make the right decisions, and time will vindicate him.

This also explains why those close to the “power addicts” are so angered by those who try to bring them back to reality. Bill Richardson is a “judas” to James Carville, McClellan is dismissed as disgruntled and accused of betrayal. A deeper lesson here is that power not only corrupts, but is addictive, clouds judgment, and those who have or have had it have a hard time giving it up. President Bush knows that his exit is programmed, and there’s nothing he can do about it. McClellan’s book helps make it a difficult and awkward exit. Hillary and Bill apparently still think she can break the glass and find a way to grab the cup of power for one more gulp. That desire clouds their judgments, and risks making what should be a graceful and proud exit to one as difficult and awkward as the President’s.

The actress Sharon Stone said recently, in a rhetorical question, that the Chinese earthquakes could be “karma” for China’s crackdown on Tibetan demonstrators. People should be nice to each other, she noted, and the Chinese were not being nice to the Tibetans. Now, normally I’d just file this under “silly things celebrities say” and not note it. It’s like blaming gays for Katrina, America’s ‘moral decay’ for 9-11, or saying that God sent Adolf Hitler as a “hunter” to persecute the Jews and push towards creation an Israeli state. But this one is interesting on a couple of levels; first, karma is an interesting concept; and second, her statement illustrates a fundamental fallacy in our thinking about the world, our ability to abstract individuals into groups.

Consider: the Chinese government orders a crack down on Tibet from Chinese troops. Then an earthquake hits China, killing, making homeless and creating orphans out of hundreds of thousands of people who had nothing to do with the decisions on Tibet. Most of these people were ordinary Chinese trying to create a better life for themselves. Why would they pay in karmic terms for the deeds of the government and the Chinese soldiers? Add to that the awkward fact that the earthquake by all reports has created a benefit for the government. People stopped talking about Tibet, and suddenly sympathy for China is immense. China has loosened restrictions covering reporters, and in a very cynical way some Chinese officials could be pleased that this happened, it changed the conversation completely. In a weird way, this hurt the Tibetan protesters, whose story now is yesterday’s news.

This error of collectivism, treating individuals as part of some kind of whole mass, and then rationalizing what happens to them by blaming the larger whole is, indeed, a major cause of atrocities and war. Look at Americans who attack “Islam” or “Muslims.” An Indian man in a turban was attacked shortly after 9-11. “They” attacked us, everyone who is part of “them” is guilty. And, of course, any American who has traveled recently finds that Americans are often insulted for the acts of the US government. Rwandan Hutus justified exterminating Tutsis, the Nazis killed Jews, gays, and gypsies, and in Bosnia Serb and Muslim slavs killed each other, considering the other to be more animal than human. Stone’s comment is typical of an error made across the political spectrum, rationalizing violence against many because of the acts of a few because of ethnicity, religion, or the country of their citizenship. That error is so common and widespread in our thinking that we’ve ceased to recognize it, and it shows in our political debates.

So what about Karma? I’ve always found it a compelling concept, the notion that in some spiritual sense our actions in the world have consequences. Or, being a philosophical (as opposed to political) idealist, our thoughts and ideas all have consequences. Is that possible? If so, it certainly would not be some crude “do something bad or think something bad and you’ll experience something bad.” I doubt very much that fantasizing about using a James Bond like missile to blast a car that just cut you off will cause some tragedy to befall you! In most cases, consequences are probably instant and subjective; you let little things bother you, and you’ll be in a bad mood and maybe not accomplish as much or miss out on opportunities. Bad moods tend not to be pleasant. Anger and irritation hurt oneself more than others.

If there is such a thing as karma which transcends material reality and connects destinies in a kind of synchronous relationship, it’s probably built around mutual learning more than punishment and reward. As anyone with kids knows, sometimes punishment is necessary for learning, and rewards are often useful as a response for good behavior. But what if there are connections between us, what if we aren’t just discrete individuals but connected not within separate ethnic or religious groups, but as humanity? For Karma to be real, that would have to be the case (and indeed those religions who embrace a notion of karma have at base an underlying sense of unity, often even involving what we consider inanimate objects). If that were the case, then you’d have two kinds of karma, a kind of personal karma where conditions in your life exist to foster your own growth and learning (again, not in a crude punishment and reward manner), and a second, more universal kind of karma to which Stone so awkwardly alluded. In that, world dramas might be played out in ways to try to break whole societies and cultures out of counter productive beliefs and values. Suffering would not be punishment of an individual, but an individual’s contribution to some greater lesson.

If that were the case, then in a weird way, Stone’s comments could be salvaged. It wouldn’t be that China was being punished, but some people in China (or Burma) engaged in tremendous sacrifice to try to shock their societies and cultures to change. And, before you throw Candide at me and lump me in with Pangloss, note I’m just speculating, and if one were to go this route, that wouldn’t lead to a Panglossian “all things happen for the best” conclusion. Instead, the key would be how we respond when we see and experience things like that — do we reach out to help, do we question how we have a society where people can suffer so? Do we learn? Of course Karma, like concepts such as heaven, hell, the devil, a hidden Imam, a choosen people of God, etc., may be a bunch of bunk. I am skeptical of all these concepts. Yet their existence and persistence suggests to me that while they may not be literally true, concepts classified and organized into religions in the past might contain kernels of truth we can speculate about, using reason while understanding the limits of reason. So consider this post playful speculation. And now I’m going to go listen to an old John Lennon song.

When things were especially violent a few weeks ago, the anti-war side of the political spectrum complained that the media was ignoring Iraq, playing more attention to the political horse race at home. Now, when things seem a bit calmer, the pro-war side claims that the media is ignoring ‘success’ in Iraq because it doesn’t fit their narrative. The truth, of course, is that the country is suffering from Iraq fatigue, and absent some kind of breakthrough, the conventional wisdom remains that the war was a bad idea, but we’re still not sure how to bring this to closure.

So what is one to make of headlines out of Iraq? Just scanning today, there remains stories of corruption (latest: $15 billion of US aid unaccounted for), civilian deaths are mounting (today a story on how the US is increasing the use of air power, something the US also did in the latter days of the Vietnam war, thus bringing more civilians and children in danger), the cease fires in Basra and Sadr City remain tense, and the government is not undertaking any serious effort to disarm or disable the Mahdi army, and US ire increasingly is on Iran, who as noted last week really is coming out of this ahead. Interestingly as Barak Obama is criticized for being willing to negotiate with enemies, Israel has started serious negotiations with Syria looking to deal with the problems in Lebanon and with the Palestinians. Perhaps it would be easiest to whittle it down into some ‘myths’ and ‘realities’:

Myths

1. Any claim that the Iraq war can be a success is false. That ship has sailed. Even if Iraq became stable tomorrow, by any policy metric this policy has failed to achieve it’s goals, and the costs have been enormous. And, of course, nobody expects it to end any time soon, let alone tomorrow. So if you here the word “success” used to describe US actions in Iraq, success has been defined so far down so far – moved the goalposts, so to speak – that it’s meaningless. The real goal now: find a way out of this that minimizes the costs and creates the possibility of stability.

2. Recent actions in Basra and Sadr city show that the Iraqi army is “standing up.” That is also a myth. This has been cosmetic, Iraqi forces have had intense help from the US, and have undertaken limited operations. Moreover in Basra most of the fighting was down by the Badr brigade (a militia with heavy Iranian backing), incorporated into the Iraqi army, but not truly integrated. Iraq’s fighting force is improving very, very slowly – and still infiltrated by Iran, the Mahdi army, different militias, and still subject to infighting and sectarian differences.

3. The Iraqi government is increasing its ability to govern. That’s another myth. The reality is that the Kurds are essentially self-governing, Sunni tribes run the Sunni regions, and Shi’ite power is divided, with the government effectively controlling only parts of Shi’ite Iraq. Power is fragmented.

Realities

1. There does seem to be improvement in oil revenues due to high oil prices and more effective efforts to stop sabotage – though sabotage is on going.

2. While it’s easy to distrust the Bush Administration, they are right that Iran is doing all it can to undercut American efforts in Iraq. Moreover, there isn’t a lot the US can do about it, which has complicated the exist strategy. We could leave Iraq relatively stable now, but Iran would be the power broker.

3. Corruption is immense, and that alone makes a stable democracy unlikely any time soon. Unless corruption is brought under control, power will continue to be sought so that one can benefit ones’ own clan or sectarian group. This will undercut any efforts the US makes to create what we’d consider a viable democracy, and make it easier for outside forces to play various factions off against each other.

4. Al qaeda in Iraq is weak. The “surge” was effective against al qaeda, but al qaeda was never a major problem in Iraq. When Senator McCain said leaving Iraq would allow al qaeda to take over, he was demonstrating a real lack of understanding of the situation (or a cynical belief that since Americans don’t pay attention to the details, they’d just believe him). And this leads to:

5. The war in Iraq is not about terrorism, but about regional stability and oil. The US really doesn’t fear that leaving Iraq will help terrorists, and the rhetoric that they will be “inspired” or “energized” by the US leaving is just silly – our being there helps them by giving them photos and stories of dead Muslims. But there is a fear that a more powerful Iran would create the danger of a regional Sunni-Shi’ite or Persian-Arab conflict (probably that would be averted) or, more likely, that the powers in the region will be more willing than ever to make China and the growing Asian companies top customers, risking oil shortages in the West.

Taking these myths and truths into account, it’s hard to see how the US can really find a way out of Iraq without either simply “declaring victory and leaving,” which is a real option, or working on regional arrangements which require intense negotiations with all parties, especially Iran. In terms of our national interest, the latter is more viable than the former. Finally, it’s unlikely that Iraq will splash itself on the news often in the coming months. Iraq is unlikely to explode into complete anarchy again, but is even more unlikely to become a stable effective government. Expect more of the same.

Last semester I taught Syriana as a first year seminar for perhaps the last time. In that course I use the film Syriana, a 2004 political drama, as the basis for a college course for incoming freshmen, designed for an interdisciplinary look at real world problems. The movie is now four years old, though as a vehicle to teach about Islam, American foreign policy, mideast politics, the CIA, and the oil industry it’s a great take off point. However, in just the three short years since I started teaching it, the scenarios discussed as ‘future possibilities’ — oil over $100 a barrel, OPEC unable to increase production, possible stagflation and world recession — look ominously closer to reality. President Bush, sounding as if he could have jumped out of the film, warned OPEC leaders last week that they were running out of oil and needed to modernize their economies.

Today the federal reserve predicts a slowing economy, rising unemployment and rising inflation. Analysts talk about $200 a barrel oil prices, gas at $12 a gallon as ‘an inevitability,’ and oil shortages within five years. The predictions made by geologists arguing that we were reaching a peak in oil production, which would lead to devastating economic consequences seem to be coming true. This is precisely how they predicted it would begin; oil today reached $134 a barrel.

Yet there remains a kind of ‘oil denial’ out there, an unwillingness to really confront the problem. That denial was on parade in Congress today, when oil executives were accused of price gouging and somehow stifling market competition. Many in Congress, including Senator Clinton, have argued that OPEC should be brought to court for anti-trust violations, since it is a cartel. I’m not sure how they could do that, but even if they could the argument that they are colluding to increase prices rings hallow. Most OPEC states are producing at capacity now. Only Saudi Arabia supposedly has excess production capacity, and even that is very limited. Moreover, the idea that the US somehow has the right to tell states with a non-renewable resource that they must exploit that resource as fast as possible to keep prices down makes no sense. In any event, given how low prices were just a decade ago, when OPEC was unable to work together to keep prices even above $20 a barrel, can one really believe that somehow they are responsible for a price over $130 a barrel?!

Others think that the solution is more drilling, opening up all of Alaska, and most of the offshore regions to oil exploration. This no doubt would increase domestic supplies and probably will be done as it becomes apparent that we need all the oil we can to stay economically afloat while we transition to new forms of energy. It is not a solution, however, it won’t bring back cheap oil. The economic consequences of high energy costs will ripple through the system; we may find ourselves in a crisis of the sort that happens once a century, rivaling the great depression (if not surpassing it), and perhaps initiating a new kind of series of wars.

Too sensationalist? That would have been my reaction if this had happened three years ago, before I started teaching Syriana and researching issues around the oil industry. The first time I taught it I had the class read parts of Matthew Simmon’s Twilight in the Desert. A geology professor, Tom Eastler, happened to have that classroom for the class after mine and noticed the book. “Oh, Matt Simmon’s book,” he said. I found out he knew Matthew Simmons and his work, and with the help of Dr. Eastler I got a quick education on the various sources and arguments around peak oil theory. At the time, I thought the predictions seemed a bit far fetched. Oil might be over $100 a barrel by 2009? OPEC would refuse to increase production citing a belief the price wasn’t sustainable, when in fact they couldn’t increase production? The world economy drifting into recession, the threat of more wars in the Mideast? Yet things are unfolding much like the predictions made by these scholars — and things will get far worse than this if they are right.

That’s what makes oil denial so frustrating. We may be on the verge of a true crisis that could threaten the foundation of our society. Yet we try to deny the problem is there. Blame the oil companies! Blame OPEC! Blame the government for not allowing more domestic oil exploration! Like global warming denial, oil crisis denial is based on a mix of wishful thinking and complacency about the future. Because we’ve had 60 years of stability and prosperity, most people think that we’re immune to the kind of crises that brought down past powers and hit every other great society in the history of the planet. And, while it’s possible that peak oil theorists are wrong and that this is a bubble based on a weak dollar and commodity speculation, it’s also possible that this is a start of a great oil crisis, one whose end may be decades away.

What a primary season for the Democrats! Obama has been the front runner since February, but has been unable to put away Hillary Clinton who somehow redefined herself as a working class plain Jane fighter, rather than liberal sophisticate of the White House years. Donning a southern accent she found her home right where one would least expect her to be popular: in the rural conservative section of the Democratic party. Her message shamelessly shifted form to fit the audience, whether talking about her joy in shooting guns to feeling the Holy Spirit inside her. No one knows if they can believe her, but that’s the political game and she played it well.

Yet ironically her underdog status has prevented the media and Obama from really digging in at her weaknesses. The idea that she’s more electable than Obama is questionable. Hillary Clinton is not trusted by most Americans, she is still a figure that brings out the ire of conservative voters – ones who might otherwise not vote for McCain – and there is that nagging question about corruption. The Clintons made a lot of money in the eight years since Bill left office, and have a lot of inside connections. Putting them back in the White House doesn’t mean a fresh face ready to change and clean shop, but an old couple of faces, used to and comfortable with power. These issues would surely rise up if Clinton were the nominee. And even the historic position of being the first female President would be called into question – she’s where she is because of her husband. Without Bill, there would be no Hillary candidacy. She’s not self-made like Condoleezza Rice, she’s there due to family, more like Benazir Bhutto or Indira Ghandi. That doesn’t mean she’s not competent, and it certainly can’t be compared to southern Governors whose wives run more to keep the husband in power, but it would be another question mark. Her experience can also be questioned – she’s mostly been a spouse of a leader, not a leader.

Yet Obama clearly has weaknesses that Hillary has helped bring to the fore, and actually that’s a good thing for him. Better to have Reverend Wright and his problem with working class Democrats made clear now so he can develop strategies to counter that, then rise up as a surprise in September or October. Michael Dukakis, for instance, didn’t know his weaknesses until it was too late; he didn’t have a Hillary Clinton to put him through his paces in the primary season. Moreover, there is no way Obama would have campaigned and organized as hard as he did the last few months without her. He introduced himself to voters across the country, advertised, raised money, and developed GOTV organizations at a level that will serve him well in November. Assuming Clinton and Obama can patch things up and unify the party, her organizational strength, while not as strong as his, will also provide an asset. This could make a real difference in swing states, where a slight change in voting turn out can alter the race. Finally, Obama will bring out minority voters in districts that are usually Republican because minorities vote in such low numbers. This could re-shape Congress.

Clinton is right to continue the fight through June 3^rd. I grew up in South Dakota, it would be an insult to South Dakota and Montana to end it now, and not let Clinton supporters in each state have their chance to voice their opinion. The angry tempers on each side are due to the emotion of the fight, but fundamentally the candidates are both strong. With McCain making gaffes on foreign policy (recently he didn’t seem to realize that Ahmadinejad is not the most powerful man in Iran, he has mixed up Shi’ite and Sunni, and doesn’t seem to understand that al qaeda is an enemy of both Hezbollah and Iran), it appears perhaps McCain is a bit lazy – he’s not really learning the details, but running a campaign based on themes and slogans. In the debates that could come back to haunt him, and undercut his effort to put foreign policy first. Foreign policy usually doesn’t win election campaigns anyway, and on domestic policy the Democrats seem to have a clear advantage.

Perhaps the reason why Clinton fought so hard is that she knows that whoever wins this nomination has a superb chance against McCain, and therefore it isn’t necessary to prematurely put on a united front. Given that this has kept the Democrats, the democratic message, and the candidates in the headlines, with McCain more likely to get on the news with some misstatement, the gnashing of teeth by Democrats over the length of this process is misplaced. And, as the “appeasement” flap this week showed, President Bush will probably give Obama ample opportunities to engage the President, thereby at least subliminally making it seem like it’s as much Obama vs. Bush as Obama vs. McCain. In all, this has been an historic battle for the Democrats, and one that has benefited their party far more than it’s hurt it, even if political junkies, prone to the emotion of the moment, don’t get it. They will come November.

The Jerusalem Post reports that President Bush, upset by the growing power of Hezbollah and Iranian influence in Iraq, plans to attack the cause rather than the symptom: Iran. Secretary Rice supposedly is standing in the way of this at this time. I can imagine the Pentagon probably has doubts as well.

It’s hard to imagine a more dangerous policy to undertake late in a President’s term. To attack Iran would be to risk a wider and dangerous war, with potentially devastating effects on American efforts in Iraq, and the price and supply of oil. Traditionally Presidents don’t undertake such consequential policies in an election year, especially when the President is lame duck. It could be that this is disinformation, designed to scare the Iranian regime into more conciliatory policies. On the other hand, an unpopular President may feel he has nothing left to lose, and doesn’t want to hand policy over to a Democrat who he thinks will “appease” the terrorists.

I believe an attack on Iran would risk not only another foreign policy fiasco like Iraq, but potentially the downfall of the United States as a major world power.

One can see the temptation to attack Iran. Many in the Bush administration remain in denial about Iraq, believing that they would be succeeding if not for the meddling of Iran. Yet if the shoe was on the other foot, the US would be doing the same thing the Iranians are doing. Clearly, the US invasion of Iraq created a danger for Iran, and it’s in their interest to try to assure influence over the future Iraqi state, and curtail American influence. That they have been effective, despite our massive military and economic presence, surprises and irks the administration, to put it mildly. Moreover, if President Bush believes what he told Arab leaders last week - that they are running out of oil and need to modernize their economies - the Iraq war looks a bit more rational. If oil is running low, and demand increasing, American dominance in a region with large reserves could be seen as an effort to prevent economic crisis in the coming years. That’s too Machiavellian to admit to the public, but makes more sense than the kind of rationale given in 2002 and 2003. If only Iran stands in the way of success in Iraq and close relations with top oil suppliers in the years to come as oil runs ever more scarce, why not invade?

The moral argument is obvious, but carries less weight with those who fancy themselves analysts of foreign affairs. War kills. It devastates cultures, destroys childhoods, creates orphans, widows and widowers, and often leaves damage that does not go away for generations. American soldiers also suffer; despite efforts to maintain silence, news grows of high suicide rates, divorce rates, and mental instability in returning veterans. These men and women have been changed by having to engage in and witness violent acts, as have the Iraqi civilians. It cuts at the soul. In real moral terms, do we have the right to do that just to get cheaper oil, or to put our regime of preference in place in Iraq?

Of course, the administration may believe they can do this on the cheap, a few shots at Iran and it will subdue them. On the contrary, they may respond by shutting the straights of Hormuz, or igniting a full scale Shi’ite insurgency in Iraq. The escalation could spiral into a full war, and the US would be hard pressed to win it without resorting to nuclear weapons, given conditions on the ground in the region. The result would certainly be a massive increase in oil prices, unrest growing as Hezbollah would no doubt increase their activity, with covert Iranian support, and the world could spiral into a depression and the equivalent of a world war.

I believe the failure in Iraq has taught the administration some hard lessons about how the world works and the limits of American power. They have certainly had better diplomacy in the past few years as in the first Bush term. Therefore I strongly suspect this is just saber rattling and efforts to put pressure on the Iranian regime to change policies. Iran does not want a war either, it would devastate their regime. A game of chicken, with high stakes, if you will. Yet even the possibility that a lame duck President with nothing left to lose could order something that could have such devastating consequences is very scary indeed.

It occurs to me that with all the continuing discussion of the Bush charge of appeasement against a variety of Democrats, especially Carter and Obama (see the post from May 16), most people really don’t know what appeasement was. They think it was an attempt to give Hitler whatever he wanted so that he wouldn’t go to war. The lesson, therefore, is that appeasement leads to war. The reality is more complex, and the lessons not quite so simple as the President would have us believe.

After World War I the victors met at the palace of Versailles, the very place where the unified German Reich was proclaimed in 1871 after the Franco-Prussian war, to hammer out a peace agreement. American President Woodrow Wilson wanted to base it on his 14 points, which included ‘no war guilt, no reparations, and self-determination.’ To Wilson, a Democratic Germany shouldn’t pay the price of the decisions of their old leaders, and indeed, he blamed the European system of power politics for the war. Wilson came off as preachy and arrogant to leaders David Lloyd George of Great Britain, and Georges Clemenceau of France. They rejected his ‘idealism,’ and argued that the only way to stop another war was to make Germans pay a price so high that there would be no way Germany could start another war. They had to admit war guilt, pay heavy reparations, lose chunks of territory, and keep their military at only 100,000. Wilson could not prevent this, and the Treaty of Versailles was extremely harsh (though to be fair, if the Germans had won, they’d have done similar things — witness the terms of Brest-Litovsk which ended their war against Russia). At one point Clemenceau took Wilson into a room of women who had been raped by German soldiers to make his case that the Germans had to pay a steep price.

When a staff economist at the treaty proceedings, John Meynard Keynes, wrote in 1924 that the treaty would so devastate Germany that another war was likely as Germany would have to rebel against its provisions, he was laughed at. Yet the treaty helped bring about the rise of radical nationalist movements in Germany, including the Nazis. It, along with inept German policies, led to a hyper inflation in 1923 that created mass poverty in Germany. In essence, the treaty assured that the public would hate the post-war order, demand change, and distrust their new democratic institutions. When the depression hit, Hitler rode the wave of discontent to power, promising to bring pride back to Germany.

In Great Britain the conservatives realized Keynes had been right. The treaty had been so harsh that it caused the rise and success of German fascism. Many also thought that it wasn’t so bad that a strong fascist Germany was a bulwark protecting Europe from Bolshevism. When Neville Chamberlain became Prime Minister, he and the conservative party (with Churchill dissenting) embraced appeasement as a policy, meaning they would appease the legitimate interests of Germany. Legitimate meant essentially that they’d undo the wrong and unequal treatment of Germany at Versailles, and try to make Germany an equal player in the system, hoping this would stop German resentment of the terms of the peace. With any other leader but Hitler this would have worked.

Hitler claimed to be a Bismarck. Bismarck started two wars to unify Germany, then worked to keep a stable Europe after that. Hitler said he only would fight if it was necessary to give Germany equal rights in the system. Chamberlain didn’t believe that. He expected war. But he wanted to make sure there wasn’t a rush to war, and his military said they wouldn’t be ready until 1943. Appeasement might work, but it also would buy time. The big event — the Munich agreement that gave Germany the Sudeutenland — was in line with Wilson’s principles. The Sudeuten folk were overwhelmingly Germany, and technically it wasn’t given to Germany but the people were allowed to vote to either be in Germany or in Czechoslovakia. Overwhelmingly, they chose the former. Alas, most of the Czech defenses, built by France, were in that part of Czechoslovakia, and thus handed over to the Nazis.

So what does all this mean? Consider: Appeasement was not meant to give Hitler everything he wanted, but rather to undo a harsh treaty that punished Germany and sowed the seeds of war. The Munich agreement followed the ideal of self-determination. Moreover, in private Chamberlain prepared for war, and even expected it. He hoped he could avert it — and after the countries of Europe rushed too quickly to war in 1914, he didn’t want to make that same mistake. It wasn’t clear in the 1930s just how evil Hitler’s plans were; Hitler talked like a Bismarck. One lesson to take from this: those with extremist rhetoric are often not as dangerous as those who pretend to be reasonable. Another is that bullying and trying to hold another country down will often create the kind of problem you wanted to avoid in the first place. And once the damage is done, it’s hard to undo. Finally, the lessons of history are often misunderstood. Chamberlain learned the lessons of 1914, but they were not applicable in 1938. History is a poor guide if you use glib and very general comparisons.

Appeasement was a policy which was rational, and definitely not meant to give Hitler whatever he wanted, or buy him off to prevent war. Rather the goal of the policy to undue the horrible terms of the Treaty of Versailles. It failed because Hitler had already used the treaty and economic depression to take power, and he wanted war no matter what. No policy would have worked with him except challenging him very early in his rule — but in a world decimated by World War I, that was never an option. Moreover, appeasement was never just “talking.” There was never a doubt that the Europeans would talk with Hitler. Appeasement was defined by the policy choices made.

Fast forward to the Mideast in 2008. There are real dangers. We don’t know the intent of Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas. We can debate as to how we should interact with them — and of course there are always back channel communications, even now. But to evoke a term from British foreign policy in the 1930s, redefined to seem like something it wasn’t, is a misapplication of history. Misapplying history leads to the opposite of learning lessons from history: using false history to try to promote a political argument. At best that’s unpersuasive. At worst, it could lead to another fiasco.

In California the state supreme court overturned a ban on gay marriage, essentially making the largest state in America the second state allowing same-sex marriage. This is probably the start of something that, in the course of the next generation, will move from being seen as bizarre or dangerous to common place and normal. In fact, the change taking place (visible especially when talking to young people across the political spectrum) is similar to changes in rights to women or blacks earlier this century. In a generation or two people will be wondering why had there been so much bigotry?

Yet for many people, this is a horrendous decision, threatening the cultural values that hold our society together. Do they have a point? Is this a threat to the family and family values?

On the one hand, the idea this threatens the family seems on its face absurd. The idea that the ability of a gay couple to marry will cause families to suddenly fall apart is clearly ridiculous. No father or mother is going to say, “well, gee, gays can marry now so maybe I should leave my spouse and try being gay for awhile.” How many young couples will choose not to have a family, or treat their family differently because the gay couple down the street now can be legally wed? Indeed, why should the sex and love lives of other people make a difference to anyone? Sure, hardly anyone would want to see people of any sexual orientation engage in intimate acts in public, but allowing already gay, devoted couples to marry hardly alters what the public experiences. This corresponds to my generally libertarian principles: what other people choose and do is their business, and who am I to judge it? I wouldn’t want to be forced to live a life having to deny my basic desires, why on earth would I want to do that to others? For all these reasons, I’ve always thought not allowing gays to marry is a sign of ridiculous backwardness on the part of society, busybodies who somehow think it’s their business to control the love lives of others.

Yet, one has to be fair. The argument against gay marriage is more complex, and has its roots in traditional conservatism. Traditional conservatives were distrustful of anything that threatened the customs and norms of society. It is probably best represented by people like Edmund Burke, who argued, correctly, that the French revolution was going to go bad because society is not held together by laws and governments, but by tradition and culture. The French revolution dismissed religion, tradition, and French customs in favor of rule by pure reason. Soon society fragmented, and it was only a military dictator like Napoleon who put it back together.

Traditional conservatives (as opposed to the usual US right) also are skeptical of a capitalism that values Madonna over Mozart, allows stores to open on Sunday mornings instead of preserving traditional family worship time, and sees people as moving away from the kinds of behaviors, manners, and social norms that defined a more stable and “normal” past. The argument is that allowing gay marriage is part of a general decay of social norms and values which will ultimately fragment society and foster a nihilistic sense of entitlement by individuals to be able to do their own thing, regardless of the cost to society. Gay marriage is not wrong because there is anything wrong with being gay, they would argue. It’s wrong because it sacrifices traditional social norms at the alter of individual freedom/license. It is symbolic of a decline in our social cohesion.

That argument has its strengths, but ultimately I think it fails because it doesn’t appreciate that the modern West has replaced old ‘traditional values’ with a new set of cultural norms. These norms are not “anything goes,” and in fact many of those who most stridently support gay marriage also volunteer and are active in a variety of community building activities. The culture of the “West” is defined not by traditional moral values, but rather values which come less from traditional religious practices, and more from principles of liberty and mutual respect. It’s a pragmatic view of ethics (philosophical pragmatism). This has a lot in common with the ‘cognitive empathy’ discussed yesterday. People no longer focus on things that are different, with a desire to demand conformity to a particular moral code or set of practices. Rather, diverse practices and moral beliefs can co-exist, much like different ethnic groups can co-exist, as long as they act towards each other in ways that are not unjust or disrespectful. In that sense, this is simply a further evolution of the culture of US and the West. And, unlike the French revolution, it’s not a sudden overthrow of all that is traditional, it’s happening slowly, with a new generation showing very different moral ideals than the generation before. That is a kind of natural cultural change, not destabilizing, but in fact helping build a stronger community. Not that there won’t be political and social arguments and battles over the way our world is changing. Such is progress.

Depending on who you read, oil prices are either in the stratosphere because of commodity speculation and the weak dollar, or else oil prices are becoming permanently high due to steadily increasing demand alongside production stagnation. One also reads that the US should drill more in Alaska wherever possible on shore and off shore to increase domestic supplies, and that failure to do this has created this problem. Trying to figure out the future of the oil market, even for the purposes of whether one should lock in a fuel oil price of $4.20 a gallon or so now, or gamble on the future, is tough. So what do we know?

1. There is commodity speculation and the dollar is weak. This suggests that the price could be inflated. It doesn’t mean it is inflated; speculation occurs in part because investors expect it to make money. As we’ve seen in the recent property and stock market bubbles, that often fails spectacularly. But it succeeds quite a bit too. And if it is inflated, it’s hard to know how much. Back in the 90s anyone looking at valuations of stocks knew that the market was overpriced. The property bubble was being proclaimed ready to pop for a full two years before it actually did. Here, we don’t know.

2. Demand is increasing rapidly, production has not been increasing. Saudi production has been decreasingly slightly for two years, and in general production has leveled off world wide. This plus increasing demand clearly explains a lot of what’s happening. Beyond that, most OPEC states are producing at capacity, suggesting that there may not be a lot of excess production capacity available. Only Saudi Arabia is thought to really be able to add a lot of oil to the market, but we know little about the real condition of Saudi oil reserves. Iraq could put a lot of oil on the market, but it would take stability and a lot of investment — both of which are years, maybe decades away.

3. Saudi Arabia has shifted policy away from being clearly pro-American (increasing production when prices rise, pressuring other OPEC states to be more friendly to American concerns) to one unafraid to counter the US, both on oil and on issues like Iraq or their relationship with Iran. This signals a weaker US hand in the region and less influence on oil prices, thanks in large part to the fiasco in Iraq.

4. Even if we drilled in Alaska wherever we could, and went into extensive off shore drilling operations, it’s unlikely we’d really change the basic situation. There simply is not enough oil there to alter world production capacities, and we’d use it up quickly (indeed, perhaps the smartest thing about not drilling more in Alaska now is that when we get around to drilling there, oil will be really valuable). There could be a surprise find that would shock the market, but from what I’ve read, geologists think that’s unlikely. Still, in the trade off between economics and the environment, we may be nearing a point when the economic necessity of buying time to transition to alternates makes environmental sacrifices worth the cost. This isn’t a clear, objective point in the process, but rather a political one.

5. Domestic oil goes on to the international market, so we are misguided if we focus too much on domestic production. If we produce more here, we’d still pay world market prices, and while we’d buy less on the world market, that would open up that oil to be purchased by others. It would increase supply, but given the cost and time of bringing new facilities on line, probably not by enough to fundamentally change the market.

6. The Mideast remains in turmoil. Al qaeda is as strong as pre-2001, according to the CIA, the war on terror has so far had limited success. Iran is an emerging powerhouse, but the US is threatening it. The centerpiece of all this is Israel, and with recent actions by Hamas and Hezbollah, it’s likely the area will remain hot. If it nonetheless remains peaceful, the risk premium in the price is likely to remain large. If things get worse, then the price could spike significantly.

7. If prices get high enough there will be a deep world recession, one that could spiral down into depression. The good news on that is that this will then ease pressure on oil prices and moderate them, perhaps significantly. It will also reduce fossil fuel emissions and their impact on global warming. But those are thin silver linings and an otherwise dark cloud.

Taking all of this into account, its seems rational to conclude that high oil prices are here to stay. Never again are we likely to see $.89 or even $1.89 gas. But there could be considerable fluctuation in prices, and a drop of price by $30 - $50 a barrel is conceivable, especially if the dollar strengthens. But $200 a barrel oil within two years, a recent prediction by some analysts, is just as likely. So I’d say take this seriously. Take into account when you purchase a car or decide whether or not to have a long commute to work. Be prepared to find alternate ways to heat your home, perhaps start a garden — high oil prices mean expensive food too. This isn’t Y2K, this is something based on how markets function, and the fact that oil is a non-renewable resource, one that has given us a century of the cheapest energy one could imagine. We’ve built our culture around it (something I thought about while watching Cars, the Disney movie, with my five year old the other day). I doubt this will lead to a complete breakdown of society, however. But we need to start thinking about the choices we need to make in order to be able to deal with the oil uncertainties that drive our economy and our politics.

Now that it is clear that, barring a disaster, Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee in November, a lot of people are pressuring Clinton to leave the race. I think Senator Obama should address that issue head on. He should widely publicize in advance a major speech about his view of the race so far. Here’s what he should say.

“Fellow Democrats, at this point in the race it looks like the finish line is in sight, we have a full head of steam, and there is a lot of optimism for this coming November. However, we need not be premature, and we should not forget why we have done so well.

This election season, we have added an unbelievable amount of volunteers and small donors, energized and ready to make a difference this November. This would not be the case if we did not have two candidates in a close contest. Because this contest has gone so long, we raised more money than anticipated for the primary season, and have organized and canvased parts of the country that otherwise might have gone ignored until October. We have a volunteer base that is huge, as does Senator Clinton. This contest between my friend, Senator Clinton and myself has been good for the party in ways that we will only really understand after November. I thank her immensely for being such a formidable opponent.

Now we are done to the final six states. Six states with voters who have strong preferences, some for me, some for her. It would be unfair to the voters to deny them the chance to have their say in a meaningful way, like those voters from Iowa to Indiana. Therefore, I urge Senator Clinton to stay in the race, and call on my supporters to avoid putting any pressure on her to quit, or make any accusation that she is damaging the party. She is not. I think it is important we both run a positive campaign in the final weeks to help bring the party together, and I plan to do so. Also, let’s not dwell on the faux pas of a long, gruelling campaign. I’ve said some things I’ve regretted, so has Senator Clinton. But she is a Democrat dedicated to ending racism and helping all Americans achieve a better world. She is my friend, and I respect her.

So please, let’s move forward in this historic contest. Let’s see it to the finish, let’s not make accusations or harbor bitterness to the ‘other side.’ We need to win in November. We have so many new volunteers and are better organized than any time in the past, in large part because of how this contest has been fought. It has been an historic contest on many levels, and we are set to win a huge victory across the board in November, no matter who is the nominee. So while I appreciate that many want this to be over, let’s be patient and fight these last fights and let the voters have their say. Senator Clinton should stay in the race, it is good for the party. We should remember that we will be fighting together for a common goal in November. Thank you.”