Was it me or did Bill Clinton look drunk the other night?

Sirota argues against a Clinton third term

Bacevich on the Global War on Terror:

President Bush will bequeath to his successor the ultimate self-licking ice cream cone. To defense contractors, lobbyists, think-tankers, ambitious military officers, the hosts of Sunday morning talk shows, and the Douglas Feith-like creatures who maneuver to become players in the ultimate power game, the Global War on Terror is a boon, an enterprise redolent with opportunity and promising to extend decades into the future.

Yet, to a considerable extent, that very enterprise has become a fiction, a gimmicky phrase employed to lend an appearance of cohesion to a panoply of activities that, in reality, are contradictory, counterproductive, or at the very least beside the point. In this sense, the global war on terror relates to terrorism precisely as the war on drugs relates to drug abuse and dependence: declaring a state of permanent "war" sustains the pretense of actually dealing with a serious problem, even as policymakers pay lip-service to the problem's actual sources. The war on drugs is a very expensive fraud. So, too, is the Global War on Terror.

Centre-Right Nation?

Thoughts on Louis Hartz and The Liberal Tradition in America (1955):

Jon Thares Davidann critiques one of my favorite books by one of my favorite authors (Bruce Cumings, Parallax Visions: Making Sense of American-East Asian Relations at the End of the Century. Duke, 1999)

The second issue which is both a strength and weakness of the book is Cumings' reading of history in parts of the world outside of East Asia. He stretches the book into the literature of both American exceptionalism and world history approaches. His argument is informed substantially by his vast knowledge of East Asian history but unfortunately also informed by a more superficial reading of American and world history.

For instance, his discussion of the possibilities of reading the history of American exceptionalism (Toqueville, Hartz) as the history of the influence of the American middle class suffers from a weak grounding in the literature of American history. American historians have been doing battle over class and exceptionalism for some time, and it is clearer than ever now that Americans have had a class structure, not just a dominant middle class as Cumings suggests.

Even more importantly, American arguments for uniqueness were made possible by that most invisible of Americans, the African slave. Edmund S. Morgan argued in American Slavery American Freedom that a commitment to freedom was animated by the assurance of a captive underclass which would not be permitted under any circumstance to participate in politics. Consequently, while some can argue that the predominance of small landholders allowed Americans to bypass the worst European aspects of class inequality and pursue liberalism to a greater extent, race took the place of class as the most powerful dividing line in American history. Cumings misses all of this and ends up endorsing rather than critiquing the exceptionalist arguments of Toqueville and Hartz. And since the study of American exceptionalism can now be linked to a rapidly growing literature on world-wide nationalism, both American and Japanese arguments for uniqueness can be seen within the framework of modern nationalism, in which arguments for exceptionalism are simply the demand of the modern nation for uniqueness in a world of nations. See Prasenjit Duara's work for the most sophisticated analysis of the complex forms nationalism has taken.

(H-Diplo, July, 1999)

Empire: reflections on one of history's most enduring political structures

My teacher's (Gordon Chang) teacher (Arno J Mayer, emeritus professor of history at Princeton University) warns against any premature obituaries for American empire. In his view we have "Two Parties, One Imperial Mission: The US Empire will Survive Bush." In his analysis the Mid East is the fulcrum of world power - and when it comes to US ME policy he sees only continuity and bi-partisan consensus.

Sooner or late we will have to wrestle honestly with this problem of Empire. One thoughtful effort (though perhaps not completely "honest") in this direction is the eminent historical sociologist Charles Maier's recent book Among Empires: American Ascendancy and its Predecessors (Harvard UP: 2006). Maier seeks to define empire, explain why they emerge, and whether the US constitutes such a formation.

He defines empire:

"Empire is a form of political organization in which the social elements which rule in the dominant state - the 'mother country' or the 'metropole' - creates a network of allied elites in regions abroad who accept subordination in international affairs in return for the security of their position in their own administrative unit (the 'colony' or - in spatial terms, the 'periphery')" (p. 7)

Throughout most of the work he seeks to exorcise the ghost of Marx. When seeking to explain empire he attempts to move beyond economic theories of imperialism- toward a more encompassing theory of the psychic and sentimental advantages of power for its own sake - but he definitely gives Hobson, Hilferding, Lenin and Luxemburg their due.

Most importantly, he asks some very important questions:

“The issue is to discern what long-term implications for international and domestic society and politics arise if we have in fact become an empire. Do we safeguard or subvert our domestic institutions? Do we make world politics more peaceful or more violent? Do we make it more or less likely that the peoples of poorer nations will share in, or be excluded from, economic development and welfare?”

But when it comes to answering these questions, he chooses to punt. He ultimately avoids "claiming that the United States is or is not an empire," as such claims tend to be “polarizing” (again trying to exorcise the ghost of Marx). He ultimately concludes that despite his masterful reflections on the world history of empire- he can not decide whether the bloodshed associated with raising imperial frontiers is justified by the "order and peace" they bring about.

And what he is most concerned about are the domestic implications of empire: the concentration of power in the hands of the imperial presidency- the tendency towards an authoritarian political culture. But when push comes to shove, he suggests that empire may be a necessary alternative to anarchy- and that there is nothing predetermined about the Empire's corrosive affect on Republican values and institutions- America just might be different: America may be exceptional. Despite his claims to agnosticism, these suggestions betray a deeply conservative spirit and his close association with unapologetic imperial booster Niall Ferguson (they co-teach courses in international history at Harvard).

Boston University prof of History and IR Andrew Bacevich has no patience for this kind of waffling. In his review he writes:

Without meaning to be disrespectful, this is not good enough. The United States has pursued its “duckish” or “duck-like” course for many decades now. The arrangements that Professor Maier describes as an empire of consumption have existed at least since the 1970s. There is no need to speculate on how empire might affect American democracy; there is every need to assess how empire has affected and is affecting our democracy – the evidence continues to accumulate before our eyes.

So come on, Professor Maier, give it to us straight.

Speaking of Bacevich, he wrote the introduction to the 2007 reprint of William Appleman Williams' Empire as a Way of Life (1980). I hope to review Williams soon. But for now, Bacevich's autobiographical comments are worth posting:

"I never had the privilege of meeting Williams. When as a graduate student I was introduced to his work, the encounter was a disconcerting one. During that interval between the fall of Saigon and the Iran hostage crisis when I attended graduate school, history departments still reflected the divisions that had occurred during the prior decade. Ideological barricades remained much in evidence and the pressure to choose sides was great. Seeing myself as a conservative (of sorts) [and as an officer in the US Army, I might add], I instinctively aligned myself with the defenders of orthodoxy. From this perspective, Williams, the self-described radical who flirted with Marxism and appeared oblivious to to the crimes of Stalin and Mao, became something of a personal nemesis.

But over time my understanding of politics evolved so too did my appreciation of Williams... [Bacevich began to realize that] At root, empire as a way of life is an exercise in evasion. Americans look abroad to avoid looking within...

Well, it's time to face the music, curb our profligacy, and start paying our bills. Or as [the Angry Prophet] Jeremiah [Bacevich's name for Williams] wrote back in 1980, "Its time to turn in the credit cards and stop passing the buck onto the next generation."

The jig is up. Let Americans heed the prophet's words - or suffer the consequences."

Bacevich wrote these words one year before he lost his son 1st Lt. Andrew John Bacevich (7/8/1979 - 5/13/07) to the Iraq War. So his own personal tragedy cannot explain his intolerance for the brand of Romanticism that leads Maier to write: "the elections [in Iraq] that took place in January and December 2005 suggested that American aspirations had awakened democratic resonances."

This kind of romanticism underwrites murder and mayhem.

Bacevich on the other hand writes with all of the clear-eyed realism of one who carried a rifle for more than twenty years. For him the blood that flows at the edge of empire is anything but Maier's theoretical abstraction.

Hunt on Maier

Maier responds to his critics.

Vijay Prashad offers a defense of Rashid Khalidi and hopes this "idot wind" passes.

Greenspan: A "flaw" you say?

Greenspan is shocked to find "flaw" in his "conceptual framework" for interpreting realty (AKA, his neo-liberal ideology).

I suppose this means that's it. We win! One couldn't of a more damning indictment of the ideology underpinning the capitalist system.

Here are exerpts from his testimony before the HEARING OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM;SUBJECT: THE FINANCIAL CRISIS AND THE ROLE OF FEDERAL REGULATORS, RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C., October 23, 2008 Thursday. (From LexisNexis)

WAXMAN: [Y]ou said in your statement that you delivered, the whole intellectual edifice of modern risk management collapsed. You also said, "Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders' equity, myself especially, are in a state of shock and disbelief," end quote.

Now, that sounds to me like you're saying that those who trusted the market to regulate itself, yourself included, made a serious mistake... Well, where do you think you made a mistake, then?

MR. GREENSPAN: I made a mistake in presuming that the self- interest of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such (as that ?) they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms. And it's been my experience, having worked both as a regulator for 18 years and similar quantities in the private sector, especially 10 years at a major international bank, that the loan officers of those institutions knew far more about the risks involved in the people to whom they lent money than I saw even our best regulators at the Fed capable of doing.

So the problem here is, something which looked to be a very solid edifice, and indeed a critical pillar to market competition and free markets, did break down. And I think that, as I said, shocked me.

I still do not fully understand why it happened. And obviously, to the extent that I figure out where it happened and why, I will change my views. And if the facts change, I will change.

WAXMAN: Do you feel that your ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made?

MR. GREENSPAN: Well, remember that what an ideology is, is a conceptual framework with the way people deal with reality. Everyone has one. You have to -- to exist, you need an ideology.
The question is whether it is accurate or not.

And what I'm saying to you is, yes, I've found a flaw. I don't know how significant or permanent it is. But I've been very distressed by that fact.

Palin on the Brian

For the life of him anthropologist Brendan Cooney can't understand the Left's obsession with Sarah Palin. He should have read David Rosen's "The Great Fear: The Sexual Politics of Sarah Palin."

Here's a hint:


















Obviously a bit of PhotoShop here: 1) Palin is much hotter!! as Jason Jones was kind enough to point out last night!), and 2) as a religious fundamentalist Palin would never allow herself to be photographed in a bikini- that is unless the vaunted title of "Ms. Alaska" was on the line.

McCain's strategy of surrounding him self with pagaentists seems to be backfiring. Chris Matthews brought out the neanderthal yesterday to berate lancome rep, turned McCain rep Nancy Pfotenhauer over the fine points of the constitution with regard the powers of the Veep (didn't the Veep used to be the guy that got second place in the election???). Somehow I don't remember Chris grilling George Bush or anyone in his admin about constitutional authority for war making, or with regard to search and seizure laws, etc... In Chris's world, if your a woman and blond- you better know your constitution. If your a stogy old white man, or Michael Steel, hey let's get real, what the constitution but old relic anyway ...

Will the real working class please stand up?

"Joe the (asst.) Plumer" as representative of the American working class... Hmmmn, "Corey D. B. Walker, assistant professor of Africana studies at Brown University and the author of A Noble Fight: African American Freemasons and the Struggle for Democracy in America" begs to differ.

Like rats fleeing a sinking ship, Conservatives bail on the Republican Party as a hopelessly compromised vessel and flock to the Obama band wagon.

What?! Something other than neo-liberal orthodoxy on the Farm?

Something exciting happened on campus and I missed it:

Author Naomi Klein Discusses Bailout, Economy at Stanford

Krugman as an aplogist for global captialism?

Mary Lynn Cramer wonders what Krugman got his Nobel for.

Stiglitz and Krugman on the bailout.

Aziz Huq on US imperial decline.

Mike Davis on the crash of "casino capitalism."

Juan Cole on the insanity of the Drug War.

Stephen Kinzer on the Afghan War.

A Green Deal?

UCB economist Robert B. Reich on the state of the American economy: "The top 1 percent now takes home about 20 percent of total national income. As recently as 1980, it took home 8 percent."

He calls for a massive investment in a public works/ job-creation program on the model of FDRs New Deal. In this vein, Google CEO Eric Schmidt "calls for a bold move into solar and wind power. It would cost $2.7 trillion through 2030. However, Schmidt says it would generate $2.1 trillion in energy savings. It would also create hundreds of thousands of jobs. And help fight global warming."

He points outs out that many of these jobs would be produced in rural areas where unemployment is highest, and would be in sectors like construction and engineering that are hard hit by the current situation. I personally wouldn't mind a high-speed rail link connecting Medocino County with the Bay Area. Why we don't already have a high-speed rail line running from San Diego to Seattle is beyond me.

Now is as good a time as any to re-engineer our energy systems and redistribute wealth and income in America (and globaly), but the brilliant Mike Davis points to three key reasons why the FDR's New Deal model is not relevant to the current situation: this is not your grand pappy's industrial capitalism - financial captialism is a whole new, and even more predatory (and volitile) beast. More on Davis' analysis to follow.

Realignment?

Chalmers Johnson wonders if we might be on the verge of a political realignment similar to those of 1932 and 1968.

Dumb and Dumber: President Barbie and The Great Sage of the Senate

Alexander Cockburn sizes up the VP debate and declares: "A Start is Born!"

"On present trends, the McCain-Palin ticket is doomed, just as the Republican presidential campaign of another Arizonan senator, Barry Goldwater, was crushed by Lyndon Johnson, in 1964. Yet that defeat was the making of Ronald Reagan, who stole every right-wing Republican heart with his speech for Goldwater in the party convention that year. Two years later, Reagan was governor of California. Twelve years later in 1976, he was challenging an incumbent Republican president, Gerald Ford. In 1980 he won the presidency

More than once, last night, I thought Palin must have been watching re-runs of Reagan’s speeches, though decades of deference to Hollywood tycoons made Reagan far more respectful of Wall Street than the Alaskan governor. Her first national political foray may have only a month to run, but on Thursday night she won herself a long-term political future. Populism comes in many different garments. The bailout, voted through this last week by Obama and Biden and the Democrats, showed the party has lost the capability even of deception, even of the pretence that it is the friend of the working people. (And yes, Palin is the only person on the campaign trail from whose lips I have heard the increasingly unfamiliar term “working class”.) Palin has a lot to learn, but in the years ahead, amid the bankruptcy of the liberal left, her strain of populism will have an eager audience."

As for the "Great Sage," Robert Fisk wonders why Biden would assert: "we kicked Hizballah out of Lebanon."

Stephen Zunes is similarly unimpressed with this one from the Great Sage:
"BIDEN: With regard to Iraq, I gave the president the power [in the October 2002 Iraq War Resolution]. I voted for the power because he said he needed it not to go to war but to keep the United States, the UN in line, to keep sanctions on Iraq and not let them be lifted."

Boy, it it wern't for Sen. Biden, who "would keep the UN in line"?

Another pearl wisdom from the String of Biden:
"Here's what the president [Bush] said when we said no. He insisted on elections on the West Bank, when I said, and others said, and Barack Obama said, "Big mistake. Hamas will win. You'll legitimize them." What happened? Hamas won."

Atta boy, Scranton Joe!! somebodody's got to keep the West Bank free of Democracy!

A View from a Front Line in the Drug War

This new movie looks very interesting: Humboldt County. A review to follow... (as soon as I can get to a theater showing it... funny how much trouble movies lacking a talking Chuwawa have with distribution...)

Takes on the end of American Empire

Howard Zinn on the end of American empire.

Robert Reich on Wall Street extortion: "Give us a trillion dollars or we'll masacre your retirement securities!"

Stan Goff offers the Republicans a bit of advice.

Fatemeh Keshavarz on what "Obama could have said."

Mark Engler reviews Kevin Phillips new book Bad Money: Reckless Finance, Failed Politics, and the Crisis of American Capitalism.