standpoint on u.s. racial politics and the end of chimerica

[larvatus]

Mark Falcoff anticipates U.S. blacks repudiating the validity of elections in the event of Obama’s defeat and questioning the motives of any opposition to any of his programs in the event of his victory, even as the whites vote for him in order to prove that they are not “rednecks” or “low class”, but enlightened and progressive snobs. Meanwhile, Niall Ferguson speculates about the relationship between China and America deteriorating as a result of the 10-fold contraction in U.S. bank balance sheets due to be precipitated by their highly leveraged nature responding to the credit crunch. Two thought-provoking articles from a spunky British orphan vying for adoption by the civil union of The New Republic with The Weekly Standard.

Comments

[tristes-tigres.livejournal.com]

The proverbial same-sex civil union is going to need fresh manpower, too; current members of the crew are jumping ship (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58) in droves (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-14/sorry-dad-i-was-fired). The smart ones are, anyway.

[larvatus.livejournal.com]

There will never be a shortage of neocon commentariat. It’s a Whig mindset, not a Bush fashion.

[tristes-tigres.livejournal.com]

But who did more than Bush Jr. to make it somewhat less fashionable ?

[larvatus.livejournal.com]

But who did more than Putin to bring Borgian politics back into fashion? So what can these concerns contribute to our conversation?

[tristes-tigres.livejournal.com]

What can these concerns contribute to our conversation? Don't know, but it's an excellent point anyway. And this is not the only parallel between the two Great Leaders.

Both came to power through very tainted elections. Both used murky (http://lj.rossia.org/users/tristes_tigres/24250.html?mode=reply) terrorism (http://lj.rossia.org/users/tristes_tigres/18026.html?mode=reply) incidents (http://lj.rossia.org/users/tristes_tigres/18386.html?mode=reply) to cement own power and weaken civil liberties as much as it was feasible. Both are pointed about their Christian devotion.

Most importantly, both share the abiding hatred and contempt for democracy, understood as the principle that the people must have a voice in political decisions.

[larvatus.livejournal.com]

I disagree. Military historian John Lewis Gaddis argues that ending tyranny should once again become an American priority. In keeping with this goal, he identifies the Bush Doctrine with “the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.” In hindsight, this policy is a principled extension of actions taken by the Clinton administration, as witness your favorite testimony, submitted by former communications director for Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott:

As nations throught the region strove to reform their economies, mitigate ethnic tensions, and broaden civil society, Belgrade seemed to delight in continually moving in the opposite direction. It is small wonder NATO and Yugoslavia ended up on a collision course. It was Yugoslavia’s resistance to the broader trends of political and economic reform—not the plight of Kosovar Albanians—than best explains NATO’s war.
—John Norris, Collision Course: NATO, Russia, and Kosovo, Praeger, 2005, p. xxiii

In relation to the goals of economic reform, mitigation of ethnic tensions, and broadening of civil society, the difference between actions in Iraq and Kosovo is only a matter of degree. Its elevation to principle takes place at the point where Gaddis relies upon our Founding Fathers seeing themselves as having seized a beachhead for liberty in a world run by tyrants, in the context of Robert Kagan’s emphasis on their knowledge that the beachhead would have to expand if it was to be secure: “This meant dominating the North American continent, so that liberty could align itself with power. It also meant propagating the first international revolutionary ideology, one that called, in a more distant future, for the overthrow of tyranny throughout the world.”

I am all in favor of this Western Liberationism. By contrast, the Putinist ideology is “sovereign democracy”, a self-conscious borrowing from the Taiwanese attempt to distinguish its national identity in the face of the threat of its absorption, posed by communist mainland China. In other words, Russia defines her nominal compliance with Western civic ideals through contradistinction from their corrosive effect on her national identity, rooted in universal submission to the sovereign. This overt reversal to Eastern Byzantinism originally trademarked by Konstantin Leontyev, leaves America alone to carry the torch of Western revolutionary humanism. I expect the historical place of the Bush Doctrine to be determined accordingly.

[tristes-tigres.livejournal.com]

. Military historian John Lewis Gaddis argues that ending tyranny should once again become an American priority. In keeping with this goal, he identifies the Bush Doctrine with “the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.”

There is no evidence whatsoever, beyond the self-serving declarations of American establishment, that this is, or ever was a goal of the american foreign policy.

The kind of "economic reform" that the Washington favours, which George Soros aptly termed the "market fundamentalism", is bringing the fruits to America that are similar to the fruits it brought everywhere else it has been tried, from Argentina to Russia. Talk about ironic justice.

Incidentally, Putin fully subscribes to this ideology, in keeping with his political roots; he has been brought to the Kremlin by the most prominent American agent of influence (http://books.google.com/books?id=vhpCpVmKVbQC&dq=janine+wedel&hl=ru) - Anatoly Chubais.

[larvatus.livejournal.com]

To echo J.P. Morgan, the market will fluctuate. As for fundamentalism, not with corporate rescue packages bringing nationalization back into fashion.

[tristes-tigres.livejournal.com]

Privatizing profits while socializing the costs has ever been the unspoken main principle of neoliberal economics.

[larvatus.livejournal.com]

Coming short of relevance is a predictable consequence of clipping your illiberal rants from stale screeds.

[tristes-tigres.livejournal.com]

Don't see much left to discuss after you admitted that Clinton and Bush are war criminals, according to the Nurenberg laws.

[larvatus.livejournal.com]

I admitted no such thing.

[tristes-tigres.livejournal.com]

You do it right here:
In relation to the goals of economic reform, mitigation of ethnic tensions, and broadening of civil society, the difference between actions in Iraq and Kosovo is only a matter of degree. Its elevation to principle takes place at the point where Gaddis relies upon our Founding Fathers seeing themselves as having seized a beachhead for liberty in a world run by tyrants, in the context of Robert Kagan’s emphasis on their knowledge that the beachhead would have to expand if it was to be secure: “This meant dominating the North American continent, so that liberty could align itself with power. It also meant propagating the first international revolutionary ideology, one that called, in a more distant future, for the overthrow of tyranny throughout the world.”

The Nuremberg trial established, that to wage war not in self-defense is the supreme war crime. I welcome your abandonment of pretense that attacking Serbia had anything to do with the problems of Kosovo albanians, and everything to do with installing pro-american government and imposing the policies of the Washington consensus. Now the next step for you is to consider, whether it is wise to support war criminals just because they seem to have an upper hand at the present.

[larvatus.livejournal.com]

You are missing the distinction between motives and excuses. It might be impracticable to dedicate all available law enforcement resources to the eradication of paedophilia. But a conscientious constable could opt to lock up a prominent paedophile distinguished from the rest by his atrocious fashion sense, if not his racialist demagoguery. In this way, law enforcement would foster the collateral benefits of suppressing bad taste and promoting good manners.