Noncognosco was a political Livejournaler who was deleted circa March-April 2006. These are some writings of his that were picked up off Google Cache. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Reagan's Dangerous Legacy Happy March 11, everyone. Today is the twentieth anniversary of Mikhail Gorbachev's election as First Secretary of the Communist Party of the USSR, so I figured it was as good a time as any to post this. On the 20th anniversary of the rise to power of Mikhail Gorbachev, it is as good time a time as any to reassess the legacy of the 1980's. Stephen F. Cohen, in the February issue of The Nation, has already considered Gorbachev's legacy in the Former Soviet Union. This article is intended to complement his by considering the other half of the Cold War rivalry. In the 1980's, while the Soviet Union was undergoing a widely recognized and much lauded liberalization, an equally profound change was occurring in the United States - one which has gone largely unrecognized and misunderstood in the intervening decades. Even as the Soviet Union became more like America, American was becoming more like the Soviet Union. The reign of the USSR's most reformist leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, in large part coincided with the administration of one of the USA's most conservative leaders, Ronald Reagan. The consequence of this time of drawing together on the Soviet Union are clear: the dissonance between the old ideology and its hard-line supporters and the popular support for new liberal reforms was too great and the resulting centrifuge tore the "evil empire" to pieces. On the other hand, the consequences for the United States are nearly as powerful - and almost entirely unrecognized for what they are. The liberalization of the USSR belongs to history; the fundamentalization of the USA plays a major role in current American politics, particularly its foreign policy, and greatly influences the potential for America's future. Of course, it would be naive to overstate the ideological differences which separated the USA and USSR even to begin with. Both believed strongly in their unique role as a leader of the world, both believed in the inevitable triumph of their reigning ideologies ("democracy" over "totalitarianism" or "socialism" over "imperialism", respectively) and both were pragmatic in justifying to themselves the use of military force in advancing the cause of their ideology. The negative propaganda utilized by both sides was largely the same - and in both cases held a great deal of truth. In the 1980's, however, the Reagan administration significantly stepped up the anti-Soviet rhetoric which had been allowed to die down following the debacle in Vietnam, while at the same time adopting many of the characteristics of the Soviet system of governance. Militarism and largely groundless paranoia were used to justify a massive bloating of the defense budget at the cost both of social programs and of future financial solvency. At the same time, overblown fears based on faulty estimations of the other side's strength were used to stimulate mass patriotism and stifle dissent. Both public and media largely fell in behind the enormously expensive SDI ("Star Wars") defense system. The fact that both the successful tests of that system and the CIA reports on Soviet military strength that were used to justify the buildup were false or even falsified has been largely forgotten or ignored. Another characteristic that the Reaganites picked up on was the blind superiority of ideology to either facts or logic. The kind of ideology-first thinking that had in the Soviet Union led to the disastrous agricultural policy of Lysenkoism (in which both genetics and Darwinian evolution were denounced as anti-socialist by pseudo-scientist Trofim Lysenko, leading to a series of massive crop failures) was now exercised on behalf on an emerging American ideology known as neo-conservatism. Neo-conservatism linked Protestant religious fundamentalism and Truman-style democratic messianism into a complex ideology that proclaimed God had chosen America to lead the rest of the world to democracy by military force. For a neo-conservative ideologist, neither basic facts nor science nor fundamental elements of logic are allowed to take superiority over ideology. This view as regards to science is perhaps best summed up by the words of right-wing demagogue Rush Limbaugh, who is a 1992 book urged his readers: "Do not automatically think you are...unqualified to express an opinion [about scientific issues] merely because you don't have a degree in science." In other words, just because you don't know what you are talking about, that shouldn't stop you from having an opinion. A final attribute that crossed the Cold War divide was the prospect that you could publish blatant untruths in the media and still convince people to trust what they heard over what they could see around them. This idea developed more slowly and was mostly only incipient until the past decade. In all of these regards, President George W. Bush is certainly Reaganesque, and I intend that term in its most pejorative sense. The jingoism, ideological-mindedness, and media distortions that developed in the Reagan era have been picked up and carried to their extremes by the administration of the younger Bush. Indeed, there is a curious parallel between the primary Soviet newspaper Pravda ("truth") and the "fair and balanced" Fox News Network. Unfortunately for those who believe in the future of the American experiment (of the people, by the people, and for the people), those aspects of Soviet thinking which Reagan emulated and which Bush is currently accelerating are those which contributed most concretely to the collapse of the Soviet Union. An ideological commitment to imposing your national model by military force; maintenance of a massive and unnecessary army; neglect of any scientific principles that conflict with your ideology; scorn for international laws, agreements, and institutions; expectation of blind obedience from your allies; unchecked deficit spending; and the stifling of well-meaning dissent: these are all hallmarks of the Soviet Union and they serve to weaken our country as much as theirs. The collapse of the Soviet Union was a complex business, but there are several key factors that clearly played a role. One was the inability of the Soviet economy to continue to support the lavish expenditures necessary to maintain the massive Soviet army. Years of fiscal mismanagement and deficit spending had depleted the Soviet budget, and the committment to maintain the various dependencies of the Soviet empire (the non-Russian republics of the USSR, Eastern Europe, Cuba, Vietnam, the war in Afghanistan) prevented any investment in industrial or post-industrial growth. Another factor was the degree to which ideology had become integrated with every aspect of the Soviet system, including economy, government, and media. This made it nearly impossible for the necessary large-scale changes to be implemented. The fact that the official media was well known to write almost nothing with any truth to it added to the dissonance that many Soviet citizens felt between their government and the real world. The government's perceieved need to respond to patriotic dissent with repression and violence soon made it clear that the only possible way to make the changes to the economy that were needed was through a complete destruction of the Soviet system. Economy, politics, media, empire and ideology were so closely intertwined that it was impossible to change anything without changing everything. If, in the long run, we wish to avoid following the Soviet Union's footsteps into the sepulcher of failed regimes, we need a return to logic, science, military realism, political plurality, and sound fiscal management in government. It is bad enough to act like the Soviet Union; we must not end up like them as well. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Eurovision 2005 I dont usually have opinions about popular music other than my blanket opinion that I dislike it. I stopped listening to the radio about 3 years ago and I have not once been tempted to go back. Nevertheless, on Saturday I went along with a crowd of my fellow students to a local bar to watch the final round of the Eurovision Song Contest. I suppose that since the thing was on Saturday and anyone who really cares already knows the results, this review is obsolete. But to say that would be to ignore the fact that nobody really cared what I had to say on Saturday, and something useless when timely is no more useless when its obsolete. The Eurovision Contest is not nearly so much about music as it is about geopolitics. Every country in Europe votes for their top ten choices of the 24 competitors and every country votes for its neighbors regardless of their blatant lack of musical talent. It was in many cases so obvious that the votes could be predicted without even having watched the performances. Belarus gave its highest score to Russia, Iceland to Norway, Poland to Ukraine, Greece to Cyprus and so on (no country was allowed to vote for itself). Some votes on the other hand were more surprising: Turkey voted for Greece despite the longstanding tensions between them. A number of Old Europe countries with large Turkish minorities, such as Germany, France and the Netherlands, gave high votes to Turkey. Despite the current high level of diplomatic tension, Latvia and Russia supported each other. Estonia was in the best position as Switzerland, in their good mercenary spirit, hired an Estonian band to play for them and therefore Estonia could, and did, vote for itself. You can see the entire scoreboard here. If the contest were really about singing ability, the singer from Malta would have won hands down. A very large woman, she simply walked up to the mic, delivered a great vocal performance of a drab and uninspired song, and walked away. No dancing, no flashing lights, no backup singers and no drums. Drums by the way were apparently the theme of the evening's performances as nearly every group had some sort of enormous drum and the others carried sticks. I don't know what that was about. If the contest were about rockin', only two of the contestants would even have been allowed on stage. The band from Norway dealt up a fascinating and near-perfect imitation of every band in the 80's. It was like a hideous amalgamation of KISS, Guns N' Roses, Black Sabbath and Poison. It was a completely accurate and entirely useless skill, like a man who can carve a working typewriter out of balsa wood by hand. If these guys had been around 20 years ago they would have been rich, today they are just amusing. But they did rock more than 22 of what are supposed to be the best bands in Europe. Anyway the point here is that if I (or any reasonable person) were allowed to choose, the winner would easily be the band from Moldova Zdob Si Zdub who rocked me all kinds of ways. Their show was such a blatant contrast to the bland pop and rock-pop being showcased that the group with whom I watched the contest repeatedly yelled at the screen to bring back Moldova during the acts that followed. The website that sells their albums appears to be down at the moment, but if it ever comes back up I intend to buy the latest one. They may not have won, but I would be willing to bet they will gain a lot more listeners than any of the other groups. If I had to round out a top five, I suppose I would grudgingly include Israel and Denmark. Like everyone else, they were bland and unmemorable pop but, unlike many of their competitors, I could imagine listening to their songs on some sort of easy-listening station and not being actively annoyed. Tolerable. OK, so the actual winner was Greece, and it may help you to understand their act when I say that after the winner was revealed everyone in the bar stood around saying, "Which one was Greece again?" Their song was a non-entity but they have a lot of poorer neighbors who are angling toward Greek support for their various EU bids. Geopolitics. But it is interesting that this comes so soon after the Greek Olympics last year and the Greek victory in the European Cup. This third major Greek victory guarantees yet more tourism for the country when they host Eurovision next year. I think that is all I have to say about this topic. Tomorrow I will go back to Estonian-Russian border issues and mocking Republicans. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Populism vs Democracy After some consideration, I have come up with an interesting way of looking at the difference between the left and right in America. The left believes in populism above democracy, while the right supports democracy above populism. Before you jump on me, let me explain what I mean. In theory, everybody in the world wants to have a more democratic government and they are merely being prevented from this by the oppression of the power elite. If this were true, it would make everything much simpler in things like the "march of democracy" or whatever else Bush is calling his foreign policy this week. But as it happens, this isn't really the way things work. There are many countries out there where people wholeheartedly approve of non-democratic systems of government. For a variety of reasons, democracy simply doesn't cut it for many people. What happens when there is a conflict between popular will and democratic government? The right-wing response is that all people really want democracy, and if they think they don't want it it is only because they have been decieved by those in power, or they don't have enough experience with it yet or whatever. Their answer, which by the way has a long history going back to Napoleon, is to impose a democratic government against the popular will. This is the case currently in, for instance, Iraq, where the current government is opposed by a significant portion of the population but is being held in power by force of American arms. Sometimes, as for instance in Germany and Japan after WWII, and to a lesser extent The Philippines after the Spanish-American War, this has actually worked fairly well. In other cases, as for instance most of Central America or Vietnam, unpopular American-backed regimes have eventually been overrun by oppressive populist goverments that then went on to do terrible things. The left-wing response is to support the choice of the population even if they tend to favor forms of government other than democracy. The left is more inclined to believe that the people are always right, even if their choice is what Americans might consider oppression. This happened several times during the Cold War, with liberals supporting popular regimes whether or not they were America-friendly. This drew the ire of Republicans, who considered it "giving away" various regions to Communism, but in the long run probably did more good than harm, as for instance in Nicaragua where the Sandinista government that Reagan spent so much time and money combatting on the basis that they were autocratic eventually gave up power voluntarily after losing fair elections. The outcome of each approach is eventually different in each case and depends on the enormous number of factors that make up history, but in general it seems that imposing governments from outside, even democratic governments, is a good way to turn the native population automatically against the government and lead them to seek any alternative. Even though the newly formed Iraqi government is in many ways more democratic than the government of the United States, it seems likely that the way in which it was imposed and supported by American occupation troops will spell its eventual demise if and when American forces finally leave the country. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rambling discussion For some background to what I am going to talk about today, see yesterday's entry or read about it in the Times. There are a lot of issues here but the basic question is Russia's unwillingness to come to terms with the brutality of its past. In 1939, all three Baltic states signed agreements with the USSR allowing Soviet forces to be stationed in their countries in order to defend them against Nazi Germany. The Soviet Union pledged itself to protect the independence and national sovereignty of the Baltics. Once the Soviet Union had more troops in the three countries than the size of their respective national armies, the duly elected governments of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were replaced through fixed elections in which only the Communist Party was allowed to run and results were blatantly falsified in many regions. The governmenst which took power following this election then immediately voted to request that they be incorporated into the USSR. So, both sides are to some extent justified: the states really were forcibly incorporated into the USSR, but the original Soviet troops were invited in by legitimate governments. There is a more troubling issue when it comes to relations with the Nazis. In 1941-45, the three Baltic states were occupied by the forces of Nazi Germany. A large number of locals actively collaberated with the Nazis, seeing them as protection against the aggression of the Soviet Union. So long as you weren't a Jew, it was much better to be under Nazi rule than Soviet rule. In celebration of those who fought for the independence of Estonia, last year a small town in the south of the country built a statue of an Estonian in a Nazi uniform. Therefore, when the Estonian President refuses to go to a ceremony in Moscow to celebrate the defeat of Nazism, you can see how this might be misinterpreted by certain Russians. But, as I said, the basic problem is Russia glorification of the past. While Americans are certain that we won WWII, Russians are just as certain that it was they who won The Great Patriotic War (as they call it). Their experience in WWII was great suffering and what they see as an unprovoked attack by the Germans. Afterward, Stalin claimed that it was necessary to have a network of buffer states in the case of yet another German attack. Thus the (militant) establishment of friendly governments in Eastern Europe. Many Russians even today don't see what was wrong with this idea. In fact, in a 2002 survey that asked "Who was the greatest person of all times and nations?" Stalin was ranked number 4, after Peter the Great, Lenin, and Pushkin. Many Russians consider him a great leader who rescued the country from invasion rather than a brutal dictator responsible for the deaths of millions. Russia, just like Japan and to a lesser extent like Germany, has yet to really come to terms with its past crimes. They desire to simply move on, but for a nation like Estonia that lost a third of its population, or a nation like Chechnya that was deported in its entirety, moving on is not just that simple. President Putin has complained that Russia can't be expected to apologize constantly, to which the Latvian president responded, "Once would be enough." Sorry that isn't very coherent and does really come to any conclusions. Oh well, what to you want for free, a rubber biscuit? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ More on "Neos" - plus the problems with American foreign policy As noted yesterday, very few people are willing or able to define exactly who or what a "neoconservative" is. This serves the interests of those who criticize them by allowing them to set up a "straw man" scenario where they criticize without specifying what they are lashing out against, while for those who defend them, a neocon who makes a bad prediction can easily be written off as "not really one of us." So for everyone it tends to be beneficial to leave the terms a bit vague. An example of the latter type of obfuscation is Jeane Kirkpatrick, the neocon Ambassador to the UN in the first years of the Reagan administration (an early John Bolton you might say). She came up with a formula (the Kirkpatrick Doctrine) to explain why the United States, a democracy that had its origin in a revolution, was supporting right-wing dictatorships against revolutionaries. Her argument, that right-wing or "traditional" autocrats are more inclined toward democratization than left-wing "totalitarian" rulers, has subsequently been proven false in the Phillipines, Nicaragua, and Poland among others. The neocons had an easy solution to being proven wrong: they simply declared that Kirkpatrick was not a neocon, had never been a neocon, and therefore didn't represent their views. As long as there is no clear understanding of what neocons stand for or who is a neocon, this sort of "damage control" will always be readily available. Anyway, I want to speak about U.S. foreign policy in general. I know this is pretty much my theme almost all the time, but bear with me today because I think I've gotten ahold of something big. After due reflection and a week of reading pretty much nothing but American foreign policy, I have come to the conclusion that Americans always plan ahead on the assumption that things aren't going to change. That is, when we plan ahead at all. In fact, Americans are famous for making up both foreign and military policy as we go along, with no clear plan or purpose. But even what plans we do make are based on the fundamental assumption that things will stay roughly the same forever. This was true in WWII when nobody really planned for how to relate to the USSR after the war was over, it was true during the Cold War when nobody really thought about what to do if the USSR fell apart, and its still true now. I was struck when I read this "Cold War Debated" book by how much I often disagreed with both sides of a number of debates. Then I realized that throughout the entire book, in which some 20 different topics were hotly debated, nobody even so much as suggested that one day the struggle might be over. As far as everyone was concerned the Cold War was going to last forever. This goes for Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Communists, what have you. Keep in mind, this book was published in 1988. I'm not sure what to make of this monsterous blind spot, but it is clearly still with us. Ask a policy maker, or even the average American on the street, "What will we do after the terrorists have been defeated?" and see what they say. A blank look is about the best you're likely to get. So I am going to be an iconoclast a minute and try out a theoretical situation that I don't think anyone else has ever tried before. What do we do if, let's say a year from now (or even 5 years if that makes the realists happy), all the major Islamic fundamentalist terror organizations unite under the umbrella of Al Qaeda and issue a joint statement saying that after some reflection they have decided that their real enemy is oppressive secular regimes in Muslim countries and that the United States really isn't to blame at all. Or they say that if the United States stops supporting oppressive secular rulers in Muslim countries they will resolve their differences with us and work toward local regime change. "Terrorism" of course is a tactic and will never really disappear any more than than "communism" will really disappear. But it wouldn't pose any real danger to America anymore. Then what? What do we do when we don't have an enemy to define ourselves against? Do we continue to search for new enemies, or do we finally attempt to come up with a self-identity that has something to do with what we are instead of what we're against? Each time we try to orient our entire worldview on being against something, it inevitably leads us to sacrifice our core values to win the fight and ends us with an America victorious but morally without direction. Just as we allied with the Soviet Union against the Nazis and upheld undemocratic regimes in our fight against Communism, we now turn our backs on torture and autocracy in our "War on Terror". For each victory, we become further divorced from those ideals that once made us unique in the world. A little more long-range planning and an understanding that this too will pass and that we will need to figure out a way to move on after our next victory would help keep us free from the blatant hypocrisies to which we have subjected ourselves in the past century. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Comparisons This idea has been building slowly in my mind for some time, but the recent offensive of the Focus on the Family lot against "activist judges" has clarified my thinking greatly. What Osama bin Laden believes: -Secular government is bad and religion should be incorporated into the state. -Law should only be interpreted by religious leaders. -Social policies should be dictated by religious principles even if that results in the deaths of innocent people. -Atheists are wrong and need to be converted. -American society is corrupt, decadent, and oversexualized. -People of other faiths pose a danger to him and his followers. -There is a need to act militarily to protect the faith from armed enemies. -In war, civilian casualities are sad but sometimes inevitable. -The lives of the people of God are more important than the lives on the enemy. -People who die fighting for God will go to heaven. -Jews are responsible for many of the world's problems. -Jesus was a great prophet and a very wise man but not divine because there is only one God and He cannot be divided. What (for instance) Jerry Falwell believes: -Secular government is bad and religion should be incorporated into the state. -Law should only be interpreted by religious leaders. -Social policies should be dictated by religious principles even if that results in the deaths of innocent people. -Atheists are wrong and need to be converted. -American society is corrupt, decadent, and oversexualized. -People of other faiths pose a danger to him and his followers. -There is a need to act militarily to protect the faith from armed enemies. -In war, civilian casualities are sad but sometimes inevitable. -The lives of the people of God are more important than the lives on the enemy. -People who die fighting for God will go to heaven. -Jews are responsible for many of the world's problems. -Jesus was the divine Son of God. Maybe its just me, but it looks like these guys have a lot more in common than otherwise. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Asia OK so let's talk about the things that are happening in Asia right now. I see a number of major issues. 1) China-India. The world's two biggest (in population) countries have been taking great steps toward greater economic cooperation lately. Trade is mutually beneficial, as India produces mostly raw materials and high-tech products like software and pharmecuticals while China produces mass quantities of manufactured goods. At the same time, both are large and swiftly growing markets for energy and their cooperation in purchasing may allow them to play the market to their mutual advantage. It's not only producers that can organize cartels, consumers if they are big enough can also push the market around. Which brings me to another point. 2) Oil and gas. Central Asia and Russia have them, China, India, Japan and the US want them. There is potentially the making of another round of the Great Game, with the regional powers and the US all jockeying to get contracts on Turkmen, Kazakh and Iranian oil. The US has already unveiled a plan to reorganize its world balance of military forces, placing more troops in Central and South Asia and ensuring the flow of oil from newly constructed pipelines. If the Central Asian countries in particular play things right they could potentially end up like the ultra-wealthy oil states: Kuwait, Bahrain and UAE in the Persian Gulf and Brunei in Southeast Asia. 3) China-Russia. Although this is a bit shrouded in silence, rumor is that China and Russia are currently negotiating on a mutual assistance pact/military alliance called the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Given their mutual paranoia about American aggression this is a logical step, and such an alliance might give China the confidence to act decisively in ending the eternal standoff concerning Taiwan. We would see Chinese expansionism and Russia moving increasingly away from Europe and european values. 4) China-Japan. The relationship between China and Japan is becoming scarily antithetical. Japan has recently approved textbooks that completely ignore the atrocities committed by Japanese soldiers in China during WWII. In response there have been a number of large violent demonstrations against Japanese-owned businesses in China. Diplomatic relations are straining and it may take some time to repair them. 5) North Korea. Facing a signficant realignment of the power structure in Asia, the multilateral talks encouraging North Korea to dismantle its nuclear weapons program have been put on the back burner. As always, when North Korea gets ignored you can expect it to do something big and erratic to get everyone to pay attention again. Overall, my thoughts: The balance of power, militarily and economically, which has been prevalent in Asia almost since the end of WWII is shifting in a number of different ways. China is growing closer to India and Russia, while Japan is becoming increasingly isolated from its neighbors and closer to the United States. All the parties are beginning to line themselves up for coming negotiations on the immense oil wealth sitting under Central Asia. Meanwhile the old tensions over North Korea and Taiwan have not diminshed and may resurface in a big way as countries with new allies (China) decide to push their luck in seeking a resolution. I don't think any major wars are going to break out, but as always one shouldn't exclude the possibility. The worst thing that could possibly happen right now is a war over Taiwan, in which Japan and the United States would take one side, China and possibly Russia would take the other, Europe, India and South Korea would have to decide where they stand and in any case you would have nuclear weapons on both sides.