The American Conservative

What we have now is not a robust executive but a reckless one. At times like this, it’s apparent that Cheney and Bush want more power not because they need it to protect the nation, but because they want more power. Another paradox: In their conduct of the war on terror, they expect our trust, but they can’t be bothered to earn it. ~Steve Chapman

Via Antiwar.

The idea that this election was going to be a milestone on the road to genuine democracy in Iraq never made much sense, and in view of the results it makes even less. Iraq is on a path to full-scale civil war, and the election, instead of papering over ethnic and religious divisions, has only underscored them. The insurgency, instead of being tamped down, now has a new grievance to rally its forces around and make new recruits: allegations of massive election fraud. The Iranians, for their part, have consolidated and even extended their growing influence, virtually ensuring, through the victory of Tehran-backed parties like SCIRI and Da’wa, that “democratic” Iraq will soon be an “Islamic republic.” No wonder the Iranians are now crowing that the elections were a victory for “Khomeini-ism.” Thanks to the US invasion, and the subsequent triumph of SCIRI, Da’wa, and the more radical Sadrists, Iran is now effectively in control of the Iraqi government. ~Justin Raimondo

In other words, what Jimmy Carter’s passive, incompetent foreign policy did for Iran George Bush’s hyperactive, incompetent foreign policy will do for the entire region. It is somehow fitting that the fraudulent Iraqi democracy has appeared on the scene roughly one year after the rise of the fraud-ridden Ukrainian democracy of Yushchenko. It appears that the world’s need for eunomia and a regular dose of anti-democratic common sense is greater than ever.

Judging by the union’s vocal opposition to the war, the problem, if anything, appears to be the reverse: What is “good for the Jews” seems to concern the organization less than what is good for American liberalism. A premature withdrawal from Iraq would be devastating to the cause of the Jewish state. That observation does not reflect the motives for having gone to war, but simply the outcome of abandoning a fellow democracy without condition and regardless of consequence–and the obvious consequence would be Iraq’s transformation into a den of terror. None of this seems to have made an impression on the reform Jewish organization. ~Lawrence Kaplan, OpinionJournal.com

Mr. Kaplan’s article performs what seems at first to be a clever sleight of hand. He tries at one and the same time to dismiss the charge that invading Iraq had anything to do with Israel (that would be silly, of course!) while castigating the antiwar Union for Reform Judaism for being insufficiently pro-Israel and inadequately committed to the welfare of the Jewish people on account of its call for withdrawal from Iraq. Following him so far?

The usual pro-war canards are trotted out: most Jews oppose the war (true, but fantastically irrelevant) and Israeli officials would have preferred that we attack Iran (as if the most vocal proponents of the Iraq invasion believed something else–Iraq was, in the memorable phrase of Mr. Wolfowitz, “doable”). Yes, most Jews oppose the war, but then most Jews are not neocons (and no one I know of has ever claimed any different, just as no serious war opponent has ever used the term neocon as slang for Jew as the neocons themselves accuse us of doing).

However, many (if not most) of the most prominent ‘intellectual’ neocons, when the term is very specifically defined, are Jewish. More broadly, neoconservatism as the ideology of ‘muscular’ use of military force to advance American “ideals” and expand American hegemony, er, leadership (Max Boot’s Hard Wilsonianism) has all-too-extensive support among evangelicals and security-state Republicans. But the fact that neoconservatism has metastasised in the body politic and spread to new tissue does not make its original cancerous cells any less dangerous. Besides Sharon’s conviction, attested before the invasion, that removing Hussein would be a great boon to Israel, there is also reason to believe that Sharon’s government cooperated seriously with key policymakers at the Office of Special Plans (OSP) in the cooking and control of intelligence information, so even the label “Sharon’s war” is not so terribly far-fetched. The only danger of calling it this would be to underestimate the desire in some circles in this country to have this war, regardless of what Sharon or anyone else in Israel might have wanted.
Read More…

The Republican Party now presents itself as the party of Hard Wilsonianism, which is no more plausible than the original Soft Wilsonianism, which balkanized Central Europe with dire consequences. No one has ever thought Wilsonianism to be conservative, ignoring as it does the intractability of culture and people’s high valuation of a modus vivendi. Wilsonianism derives from Locke and Rousseau in their belief in the fundamental goodness of mankind and hence in a convergence of interests.

George W. Bush has firmly situated himself in this tradition, as in his 2003 pronouncement, “The human heart desires the same good things everywhere on earth.” Welcome to Iraq. Whereas realism counsels great prudence in complex cultural situations, Wilsonianism rushes optimistically ahead. Not every country is Denmark. The fighting in Iraq has gone on for more than two years, and the ultimate result of “democratization” in that fractured nation remains very much in doubt, as does the long-range influence of the Iraq invasion on conditions in the Middle East as a whole. In general, Wilsonianism is a snare and a delusion as a guide to policy, and far from conservative. ~Jeffrey Hart, OpinionJournal.com

It is with a certain satisfaction that I see OpinionJournal.com conclude its pretentious series on American Conservatism with the veteran Mr. Hart’s article, which ridicules more than half the things their other contributors have endorsed. Since the series was a not-so-subtle retort to the founding of The American Conservative (bringing us such rubbish as Max Boot’s What the Heck is a ‘Neocon’?), it is fitting that the series concluded with an article endorsing more of TAC’s positions than it did those of the WSJ editorial board. It is truly surprising to see such dissidence from the well-known party line allowed on the WSJ’s op-ed pages–it is noteworthy for its rarity.

There is some genuine satisfaction in seeing an old hand of the “movement” belittle the idols of the new generation and all but disown the Iraq war (or at least the ideological underpinnings of it) that has become the defining event of the “conservative” political hegemony of the past five years. As the Hansons of the world ignore reality and grip even more tightly onto the failed policy of invading Iraq as a transformative event and fundamentally prudent course, even bizarrely invoking the Korean War (yes, the Korean War!) as an encouraging precedent for “staying the course” in Iraq, Mr. Hart reminds us of what real “mainstream” conservative thought used to look like before the darkness fell.

The thought of the U.S. fighting a Thirty Years War or engaging in something akin to the Peloponnesian War (which lasted 27 years) is unthinkable. These were wars fought by aristocrats, not democrats, who want chiefly to get on with their pleasurable lives. A miserably difficult war against a fanatical enemy with no conclusion in obvious sight has nothing to do with pleasure. A hard sell, this war, and Tocqueville would have bet the chateau against the American people finally buying it. For once it would be nice to see him proved hopelessly wrong. ~Joseph Epstein, OpinionJournal.com

When I first read Mr. Epstein’s article in the print edition, I thought it was one of those unconvincing, throwaway op-eds the WSJ occasionally commissions to appear intellectual and “serious.” (“Seriousness” is something the WSJ desperately values and completely misunderstands.) But it was worse than that–Mr. Epstein had very nearly made a more or less consistent argument (though not one with which I would agree) and then wrecked it right at the end. More on Tocqueville in a moment.

What was it he said at the end? The Peloponnesian War was fought by aristocrats and not by democrats? If we are speaking of high-status, wealthy elites forming the leadership of Athenian politics, this statement would be partly true, but it was assuredly those same ‘aristocrats’ who convinced the democratic mass to support the war and defend Athens’ arche and the democratic Assembly again that authorised the fateful, disastrous Sicilian expedition of 415-13. It was the “tyrant city” Athens, the democracy, whose hegemony provoked what we call by the cacophonous word of “blowback”–it was not as if the war was exactly thrust on some poor, unsuspecting, pacific polis. It was the premiere democrat, Perikles, who enunciated the superiority of democratic values that would–in his estimation–cause Athens to prevail in war. Though it suffered an oligarchic coup in 411 (and the oligarchs justified their seizure of power in terms of being able to better preserve Athenian hegemony and win the war), Athens’ military supremacy at sea was based on democratic manpower in the fleet.

Citing the Peloponnesian War was a uniquely bad choice to make his point. Athenian democracy failed that test of war, but it was because of the regime’s folly and its weaknesses in land warfare. There is nothing special in democracy that encourages a love of tranquility or peace–this is the hallmark of perhaps bourgeois liberalism or perhaps of an intellectual conservative agrarian if it is the mark of any such tendencies.

Democracy, for good and ill, inculcates a sense of common political identity with more or less unknown people who also lay claim to the mantle of citizen and encourages a sense of solidarity or, God help us, fraternity with fellow citizens. This sense of solidarity makes modern democracies surprisingly stalwart and vehement in war, provided that there is a real sense of grievance or a goal of national aggrandisement at stake, and furthermore makes them very resistant to the idea of negotiation or settlement. The idea of “unconditional surrender” was immoral and lunatic, but it was a very democratic idea and it was no contradiction that FDR was the one who employed it first as a full-blown policy.

“We” all more or less instinctively have identified with the people attacked on 9/11, even though they may have lived and worked in places completely foreign to our own experiences, and the more casualties “our” armed forces suffer in war the less likely “we” are to seek an end to war short of victory, provided that the war seems to have an intelligible purpose. Democracy is irrational, but it is not completely insane–even democrats must have more or less tangible goals for their wars that serve their interests. But note the very language Americans use about the army–an institution for which few if any Founders had any romantic illusions. Americans refer to soldiers as “our troops”: this underscores how deep the collectivist idea of fraternite has sunk into our consciousness. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn recognised this about us sixty years ago when he wrote Black Banners: in a conversation between a German aristocrat and an American airman (whose plane had been shot down), the airman reflexively retreated into the shell of “we” and “us,” while the aristocrat repeatedly insisted that he speak for himself.
Read More…

For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given: and the government shall be upon His shoulder: and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon His Kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this. ~Isaiah 9:6-7

Ecce adest de quo prophete cecinerunt dicentes:

Puer natus est nobis,
Quem virgo Maria genuit,
et Filius datus est nobis,
nomen eius Emmanuel vocabitur,
cuius imperium super humerum eius,
et vocabitur nomen eius magni consilii angelus.

Rex lumen de lumine, eia! regnat in iusticia.
Cantate, eia! de Virginis fecundia. ~Versus Ante Officium, Winchester Troper (10th cent.)

To all our Orthodox brethren celebrating the Nativity of our Lord on the New Calendar and all non-Orthodox celebrating the birth of the Saviour, I send joyful greetings and wish all a merry Christmas!

Christ is Born! Glorify Him!
Christos razhdaetsya! Slavite!
Christos gennatai! Doxasate!

“Intelligent design” cannot be mentioned in biology classes in a Pennsylvania public school district, a federal judge said Tuesday, ruling in one of the biggest courtroom clashes on evolution since the 1925 Scopes trial. ~CNN

Let me say straightaway that the judge’s ruling here was ludicrous. This is not because ID has scientific merit (it does not–it is not natural science), but because this is yet another example of the mystical “wall of separation” being invoked to drive religion out of schools. It is doubtful that biology class is the best place to discuss theology (which is the realm in which ID properly belongs), but if the school board in Dover wanted to have a theology class I would be the first to champion the right of public schools to instruct their students in theology. It is a matter of Western cultural education and literacy, even if it were nothing more than that.

The sad thing is that ID theorists have handed the secularists an incredibly easy target and allowed them to score a quick victory to establish yet another anti-religious precedent. It should not be the business of the judiciary to declare what is taught or not taught in biology classrooms one way or another. It is not in accordance with the Constitution to claim that any aspect of religion being taught in school constitutes “establishment” or that the federal First Amendment would have anything to say about local school districts establishing religion in their classrooms if there were, in fact, an “establishment” of religion.

Because Darwin’s theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. ~Statement of Dover Area School Board

Theory. This is a much-maligned, often poorly-used word. It is odd that theory should have become something of a dirty word in the vocabulary of religious Americans in the context of discussing evolution, since theory is an admirable term taken from the Greek for vision and contemplation and has connected traditions of philosophical and theological contemplation. In scientific language theory has a more specific meaning, where it refers to a general explanation that has been substantiated by evidence or a statement about patterns in nature that has been demonstrated to be reliably true through repeated processes of verification. To say that there are “inexplicable gaps” in the original theory (which, it should be noted, ID theorists do not reject entirely) would be like saying that there are “inexplicable gaps” in Newtonian physics because it does not or cannot account for things (such as the movement of subatomic particles) that it did not try to account for. That theories are constantly revised does not make theoretical knowledge less certain or less reliable than the “factual”–there is, or should be, the awareness that no theory ever has the final word, but that it is the best word available to us to date. Indeed, without theoretical frameworks to structure it, factual “knowledge” is often just a jumble of unrelated information. What ID proposes to do is to say, “The theory of evolution has not, as of yet, accounted for all of the complexities of biological phenomena, and therefore we declare it simply insufficient and propose to fill in the ‘gaps’ with a non-empirical, non-scientific explanation.”

I do feel a twinge of pain each time I hear a well-meaning critic of the theory of evolution say something as silly as, “It’s a theory, not a fact!” There are two problems with this: one is the bizarre deprecation of the ability to account for diverse phenomena according to general principles (men do not live by abstractions, but surely abstract thought in and of itself is an aid to understanding), which is as desirable in philosophy as it is in science, and the other is the misguided worship of the factual. Fact as modern men mean it is not Truth, and is very often the enemy of Truth. The common phrase “cold, hard facts” suggests something of why this is so–a fact is something dead, limited and, so to speak, impermeable, so that it admits of no participation, no life-giving quality, no inspiration. (Thus I also cringe a little when I read C.S. Lewis speak of the Incarnation as the Myth becoming the Fact.)

I do not have Prof. Lukacs’ Historical Consciousness handy as I write this, but his discussion of the modern emergence of Fact as the criterion of truth, or rather of accuracy, is a very important one, and in it he explains the problems with the preoccupation with facts far better than I would be able to do. Suffice it to say that I think it is fair to say that a philosophically-minded person would probably desire theoretical, scientific knowledge over sensory evidence, Doxa and Fact.

Darwin did not account for everything when he developed his theory, and over a century later scientists have not accounted for everything (nor would we expect the highly complex systems in the natural world to yield itself completely to our inquiry so quickly), but they have also not found much of anything (as I understand) to reject his basic formulation even if they have found any number of problems with some of his speciifc claims. The scientific method does not require any one man to create an exhaustive systematic synthesis that explains all things without any “gaps.” It is not a much of a real criticism of any scientific theory to say that it does not take account of everything, that it is “gaps,” or else we would ultimately have to belittle every theory that does not rise to the level of Unified Field Theory.

Science requires men to continue testing and revising theories as they find new evidence until a better, more comprehensive explanation can be offered. When ID theorists can seriously offer that explanation, then we can try to get them into science classes, but to do this they would have to begin doing science. Fundamentally, ID is not a better explanation, but an assertion that is supposed to fill the “gaps”: if no other explanation for some highly complex development is apparent, credit the Designer.

It is precisely because genuine science is not dogmatic, in which Darwinian theory is some sort of creed to be confessed, that dogmatic materialist scientists who use evolution as their cudgel to beat Christianity are bad scientists–they have already erroneously reached their final conclusions about God, the universe and everything, even when proper science admits no absolutely final conclusions.

Bandow has admitted that he took thousands of dollars from indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff to write columns favorable to his clients. He resigned from the Cato Institute yesterday and apologized for his “lapse of judgment.” ~Editor and Publisher

I haven’t too much to add, except that it is a pity that Mr. Bandow apparently thought a few thousands of dollars were worth more than his integrity. Whatever the merits of so-called drug reimportation from Canada, this sort of shoddy deal will give proponents of free trade a cheap and easy victory when they have already had far too many. It is doubly unfortunate that Mr. Bandow’s connection to Abramoff also led him to endorse one of the better modern swindles, the Indian gaming casino.

Hat tips to Stephan Kinsella at LRC Blog and Andrew Sullivan.

Bandow isn’t the only think-tanker to have received payments from Abramoff for writing articles. Peter Ferrara, a senior policy adviser at the conservative Institute for Policy Innovation, says he, too, took money from Abramoff to write op-ed pieces boosting the lobbyist’s clients. “I do that all the time,” Ferrara says. “I’ve done that in the past, and I’ll do it in the future.”

Ferrara, who has been an influential conservative voice on Social Security reform, among other issues, says he doesn’t see a conflict of interest in taking undisclosed money to write op-ed pieces because his columns never violated his ideological principles.

“It’s a matter of general support,” Ferrara says. “These are my views, and if you want to support them, then that’s good.” But he adds that at some point over the years, Abramoff stopped working with him: “Jack lost interest in me and felt he had other writers who were writing in more prominent publications,” Ferrara says. ~BusinessWeek Online

My previous remarks about Mr. Peter Ferrara were based on apparently incomplete and misleading reporting in Businessweek Online’s article and subsequent reports quoting that article. According to the statements released by Mr. Ferrara and Mr. Giovanetti of the Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI), and distinct from the admissions made by Mr. Bandow, Mr. Ferrara apparently did not take money for writing op-eds favourable to Mr. Abramoff’s clients in the strictly quid pro quo way that Mr. Bandow has acknowledged doing.

However, Mr. Ferrara’s financial involvement with Mr. Abramoff in the form of occasional “contributions” given after the fact is hardly thoroughly reassuring, and the fact that Mr. Ferrara did not alter his views in the process hardly makes his practise a ringing endorsement for ethical op-ed writing. The fact remains that he received undisclosed payments as a result of writing things with which Mr. Ambramoff agreed, and it does not require a “naive purity standard” to see the potentially corrupting influences in the practise. The lack of disclosure is itself an ethical breach, and a cynic might see such “contributions,” when coming from someone like Mr. Abramoff, as encouraging bribes in another form. It is worth noting that The Manchester Union-Leader and The Washington Times viewed these “contributions” as being questionable enough that they have suspended Mr. Ferrara’s columns.

In fairness to IPI, whatever involvement Mr. Ferrara has had with Mr. Abramoff, none of Mr. Ferrara work for them had anything to do with Mr. Abramoff or, it seems, with anyone else and IPI categorically opposes “pay for play” op-eds. It should be said that Mr. Giovanetti did himself no favours with the phrase “naive purity standard,” which could have easily appeared to mark indifference to unethical conduct thanks to the misleading way BusinessWeek cast those quotes.

And the amazing thing in Iraq, as a part of a broader strategy to help what I call lay the foundation of peace: democracies don’t war; democracies are peaceful countries.

And what you’re seeing now is a historic moment, because I believe democracies will spread. I believe when people get the taste for freedom or see a neighbor with a taste for freedom, they will demand the same thing, because I believe in the universality of freedom. I believe everybody has the desire to be free.

I recognize some don’t believe that. That was — basically condemned some to tyranny. I strongly believe that deep in everybody’s soul is the desire to live in liberty, and if given a chance, they will choose that path.

And it’s not easy to do that. The other day I gave a speech and talked about how our road to our Constitution — which got amended shortly after it was approved — pretty bumpy. We tried the Articles of Confederation; it didn’t work. There was a lot of, kind of, civil unrest.

But nevertheless, deep in the soul are a desire to live in liberty. People have got the patience and the steadfastness to achieve that objective. And that is what we’re seeing in Iraq. ~President George W. Bush, December 19, 2005

There are a few things we know about modern democracy: it is not inherently more peaceful than other regimes (it is, all things considered, one of the more brutal and destructive and has facilitated modern mass warfare), it is perfectly capable of starting wars, it is more than capable of warring against other democracies, it is an exceedingly rare and brief form of government that has enjoyed less than two generations’ existence in countries outside of Europe and North America, and its institutions have hardly ever “spread” to a nation that has not been previously colonised and/or conquered by a people with representative institutions and democratic traditions. Yet it has never been directly and successfully exported by force of arms, even though colonised nations may imitate the models of the colonialists once the latter have departed. (Since we purport not to be colonialists, and supposedly have no intention of remaining for the decades that would be required to inculcate the political habits required, Iraq’s chances of success here are not much improved.) Modern democracy constitutes the form of government in roughly a bare majority of the world’s nations today for an apparent lack of credible alternatives, but such uniform direction in the political development of so many nations will not be sustained in the rest of this century. It is sobering to consider that no actual indigenous revolutionary movement of the last 80 years anywhere in the world has espoused a desire for democracy, liberal or otherwise, that was not heavily coloured by socialist or communist doctrines. If democracy is going to spread in the world, it will be Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales who are its prophets and pioneers and its expansion will be most unwelcome to the West.
Read More…

“From our perspective, we don’t see much as far as gains,” said Marine Cpl. Bradley Warren, the first to question Cheney in a round-table discussion with about 30 military members. “We’re looking at small-picture stuff, not many gains. I was wondering what it looks like from the big side of the mountain – how Iraq’s looking.”

Cheney replied that remarkable progress has been made in the last year and a half.

“I think when we look back from 10 years hence, we’ll see that the year ’05 was in fact a watershed year here in Iraq,” the vice president said. “We’re getting the job done. It’s hard to tell that from watching the news. But I guess we don’t pay that much attention to the news.”

Another Marine, Cpl. R.P. Zapella, asked, “Sir, what are the benefits of doing all this work to get Iraq on its feet?”

Cheney said the result could be a democratically elected Iraq that is unified, capable of defending itself and no longer a base for terrorists or a threat to its neighbors. “We believe all that’s possible,” he said. ~Forbes

This article was noteworthy when it revealed that, for all the usual bluster and nonsense that Republican radio puts out about what the soldiers “on the ground” are seeing in the way of some vague progress, the soldiers in Iraq seem to be relying on the promise of progress on a macro level. At the same time, I think it is fair to say that most professional policy analysts and observers who see little meaningful progress on the macro level are holding out what little hope they have that small successes “on the ground” will accomplish what Mr. Bush’s “strategery” has so far failed to do. This suggests that there is little desirable taking place in Iraq, whether viewed in terms of geopolitics, Iraq’s domestic politics or “on the ground” from the soldiers’ perspective, unless, of course, having an election is supposed to be something truly significant. As I have already argued this week, democracy in Iraq is fundamentally undesirable even if it is successful and is, at best, irrelevant to achieving whatever concrete American objectives that may exist in the Near East.