Yet another post I don't have to write. Darn... er.. Yippee.
The "active" vision is entirely what the left is concerned about, they have become consumed with conserving the status quo, and Wolfowitz and Bolton are anything but "conservative" in that way.
It's a new form of conservatism, or a rebirth of an old one. Either way, we do see a split in our ranks. The "realpolitic" crowd like DeBorshgrave and Buchanan are fortunately in the minority for now.
But yes, in so many ways the left is the ideology of the status quo; social security, international organizations, the welfare state, on and on. They're on their way to irrelivancy.
Fred Barnes has given his perspective on the reasons behind the President's appointments of Mr. Wolfowitz, Mr. Bolton and also that of Karen Hughes:
--Anyone shocked by the nominations of Messrs. Wolfowitz and Bolton doesn't understand the president's approach to multilateral organizations. The conventional idea is that these organizations are wonderful, though perhaps flawed and infused with too much anti-American sentiment. And the chief task of U.S. representatives is to get along amicably, not buck the system and cause problems. This idea is popular in the press, the State Department bureaucracy and diplomatic circles, and with foreign-policy "experts." But not with Mr. Bush.
The president's idea is simple: No more Mr. Nice Guy. He believes international organizations have failed largely and must be challenged and reformed.--
AND
--The nominations of Messrs. Bolton and Wolfowitz produced shock and awe around the world. Ms. Hughes's didn't. But what's significant is that all three have agendas that reflect the president's own worldview. Or, put more precisely, their agendas stem from Mr. Bush's shake-up-the-world view.--
Exactly. Imagine, the president actually appoints people who reflect his views! Shocking.
The days of "go-along-get-along" are over. It's time for some much needed changes.
Democrats and liberals think that a secretary/ambassador should represent their department/country/institution to the president. Of course, they've got it exactly backwards. It drives them nuts to see a president who actually thinkgs that the appointees should carry his ideas and agenda to their department.
Tom, you make some good points about the UN's failings. Whatever I think of the man, I hope John Bolton does give the organisation a kick in the ass; with any luck it may be a catalyst for the UN to raise it's game (it surely needs to). Unfortunately, though, I suspect his intent is to diminish the UN and has more to do with appealing to the anti-UN brigade at home than it does with helping the UN to improve. See, all nations ARE united by the lump of rock that we all have to share (I'm not quite sure what drugs you have to take not to be aware of this). The UN is where those nations try to work together and however imperfect it is, it's the only game in town.
As for Wolfowitz it could go either way. He's an idealist, he believes passionately in the power of democracy and free markets. The world could certainly do with some more democracy so more power to his elbow there. He could force recipients of the World Bank's largesse to have elections and then use the UN to monitor their freedom and fairness. On the other hand he shows an alarming capacity to ignore facts when they get in the way of his ideology (how else do you explain his embarassing advocacy of Chalabi?). The history of free markets is patchy to say the least, both the US and Japan got rich on the back of selective protectionism; that option is not available to most developing countries today. If you want to see what happens when a population does not have market value then try the Irish "famine" (there was no famine) of the 19th century. In a similar scenario, I wonder would Wolfie be prepared to let a few hard facts get in the way of his beloved ideologies? He'll need a few of those handy terms for death (you know- "structural adjustment" "collateral damage") to get that scale of suffering off his conscience.
Either that or blame the the failure of the UN support agencies.
The UN is the only game in town if you accept it as such. It's long past time for us to form alternatives (I've written many long posts on this on my personal blog, so no time to rehash it all here on this one).
Unfortunately you're probably right in that given current political realities we will continue to stay in the UN. We'll just have to have a difference of opinion of what Bolton will do - and only time will prove one of us right.
Whistlin Bob wrote: If you want to see what happens when a population does not have market value then try the Irish "famine" (there was no famine) of the 19th century. In a similar scenario, I wonder would Wolfie be prepared to let a few hard facts get in the way of his beloved ideologies? He'll need a few of those handy terms for death (you know- "structural adjustment" "collateral damage") to get that scale of suffering off his conscience.
How did Paul Wolfowitz, not Great Britain, become responsible for the Irish famine? And let's remember that Great Britain was not a liberal democracy at that time either.
Tom,
I agree with the tone of what you and Mark Steyn wrote.
Relying too much on the United Nations is a bad idea for several reasons:
(1) International organizations don't have any power of their own. The power they have is leased to them by its member nations. The United Nations, being an international organization, is no different.
(2) The United Nations contains nations ruled by leaders who are in power, not due to having won a free and fair election, but by having murdered and imprisoned all of their opponents while the rest of the population cowers in fear. Thus, it shouldn't be surprising when the United Nations is incapble or unwilling to advance human rights.
Bob wrote: "If you want to see what happens when a population does not have market value then try the Irish "famine" (there was no famine) of the 19th century."
That's funny, when I was in Ireland I went to a museum entirely dedicated to the famine. Guess they were just imagining things.
As for the "history of free markets beiing patchy at best"; good heavens where to start? Need I point out that compared to socialism free markets have done infinitely better at providing for the people? The idea that "selective protectionism" is responsible for the US or Japan's success is as myopic as when Lenin said that the West were successful only because they exploited their colonies (they would have been economically successful colonies or not).
Bob is on track when he says that Wolfowitz should "... force recipients of the World Bank's largesse to have elections and then use the UN to monitor their freedom and fairness."
Dead right.
OK- I should have explained the relevance of the Irish famine reference.
In the nineteenth century Ireland was a net exporter of food with high levels of agricultural production. Food was exported to England where greater profit was available; many of the peasants involved in this production subsisted on potatoes grown on their own plots. When the potato blight hit this subsistence was lost, however the peasantry could not compete financially with the markets in England and so the exports continued. Hence, despite there being sufficient food production for the needs of the nation, it continued to be exported because of the British government's devotion to the ideology of free trade.
The Irish died in massive numbers because The British government thought that sticking to the laws of the market would be better for them in the long term.
Although old, I quoted this example because I thought the history of it was familiar to most. Clearly it was a political failure as well as an economic one; no freely functioning democracy would allow such events to occur. Fast forward to now and much of the world is not democratic. Whatsmore, even those that are democratic often have their economic policies designed for them by the World Bank, keen to liberalise trade. Thus you have this dangerous combination of economic liberalism and weak national political institutions.
Advocates of free markets always quote the failures of socialist regimes yet turn a blind eye to successful state intervention in the wealthiest economies. For example, Japan nurtured its economy behind heavy import tariffs thoughout its postwar boom, several times the US has bailed itself out with heavy military investment. Free markets and socialism fail for the same reasons; they are slaves to an ideology. Successful states usually use a combination of the two adapting as appropriate to the prevailing conditions.
That's why I think a World Bank led by a free marketeer dictating economic policy out of the control of the populace it is inflicted on is a dangerous thing.
Whistlin Bob,
I think you have misdiagnosed the cause of famine. It wasn't due to free trade. It was due to British dominiation over Ireland and lack of concern towards the Irish.
Think of free trade like this.....
Free trade means that citizens have the option of buying goods and services from other nations. This means that there are more options for people who want to buy things with their hard earned cash.
Currently, American's lack of free trade with respect to sugar means that American consumers pay three to five times the world market price for sugar.
Protectionism didn't work for Herbert Hoover. Instead it gave America the great depression and resulted in Hoover being booted out of office.
....another way to look at the free trade versus protectionism issue.....
After the Napoleonic wars, there was an attempt in Great Britain to maintain the high corn prices that occured during the war period.
The "corn laws" were passed, which prevented the import of corn into Great Britain. Free market economist David Ricardo argued against these corn laws, even though the resulting demand for domestic corn caused the value of his properties to increase. Decades later the corn laws were repealed.
Today, Great Britain does not grow enough food to feed its population. It imports much of it from abroad. This frees up British labor and land to be available for other industries.
Other examples: Where would Singapore be if it didn't import food? Where would America, Europe and Japan be if it didn't import oil? Where would Latin America be if it didn't import high technology?
Opposition to free trade is bad economics, plain and simple.
Commenting by HaloScan
