Along with 1968, 1989 is one of the most symbolically charged dates of the second half of the 20th century—the year in which democracy decisively triumphed over totalitarianism, and won the right to be hailed as the future of the world. But is 1989 still an inspiration for continuing change, or a high-water mark from which the tide of democracy has now receded?
In this month’s debate, Robert Kagan and Robert Cooper tackle these questions (and each others’ views), along with the issues of what can be said to be “normal” in global politics, what kind of world-view most accurately allows us to describe our times, and how far it is ever possible to talk about progress. The significance of the Cold War is, they agree, a crucial battleground, as is our sense of what most needs to change within the current world order. But such questions rarely have simple answers—let alone answers we can use to convince those we disagree with.
These contributions are about the past, who did what to whom in the Second World War and the Cold War. All very interesting but why is it that the two protagonists are blind and deaf when it comes to the crises in their own countries at this very moment? And why do I hear the sounds of hollow laughter from those truly in touch?
The current American Administration has handed over the running of the country to the big corporations, has lifted most oversight and has abandoned the old (Republican) policy of preventing monopolies. The huge financial crisis that is currently playing itself out is solely due to maladministration, incompetence, and simply bowing to the convenience and greed of the multinationals. In Washington D.C I pay significantly more than in London for my phone and DSL because a company called Verizon has been handed a virtual monopoly. At this very moment Rupert Murdoch is busy extending his media monopoly in New York and is turning the excellent news service offered by the Wall Street Journal into yet another source of right wing propaganda. I guarantee that nothing will be done. Microsoft is trying to take over Yahoo for a massive sum. No outrage detected. Nothing will be done about Iraq either - - too many well-connected people are making money out of it. If the public had a real say we would be planning to leave Iraq and letting them settle on their own method of government according to their tribal culture.
And Robert Kagan has the gall to pontificate about democracy! You cannot have a thriving democracy without an educated population (sorry, United States, you don’t qualify!). You cannot have a democracy dominated by monopolies. You cannot allow special interests to pressure, cajole and (dare I say it) bribe your legislators. You have no business to call yourself a democracy when huge corporations control TV and media (Clear Channel, an extreme right-wing corporation) controls over 1000 radio stations. Look what happens when a giant corporation (Disney) puts on a “debate” in the current dismal Democratic primaries - what you get are inane questions about why a candidate fails to wear a flag lapel pin. And you want to export this? Only at the point of a gun, and even Kagan will admit that seems to have failed.
But of course the agenda is to divert the public’s attention from the catastrophic failure and incompetence of the government, the homeless of New Orleans, the two million in jail, the dismal life expectancy, the millions without medical insurance, the huge deficit and give the poor mutts “American Idol” and the blatherings of “personalities”.
I challenge Robert Kagan and Robert Cooper to address what is actually going on under their own noses and to categorically commit themselves to stop thrusting their noses into other people’s business and discuss the real world problems of the flesh and blood with whom they live side by side. If they are so purblind or ideological that they cannot address the issues, please find somebody who can. The debate is exasperating. Answer, please!
Prospero,
Your posting reminds me of those prisoners in the Gulags who wrote to Stalin in the mistaken belief that he didn’t realise what was happening – if only comrade Stalin knew what was going on!. Robert Kagan is a Pharisee of democracy. All the word ‘democracy’ means in his mouth is freedom for corporate elites to profit gouge unhindered by law or social responsibility. Freedom to re-locate industry to cheap-labour China, regardless of the fact that it means the destruction of US industry; freedom to import cheap illegal immigrant labour to work in those industries that cannot be outsourced, such as construction, agriculture and meat-packing, despite the fact that it’s against the law, and billion dollar government bailouts to irresponsible financial institutions, despite the official ‘free market’ creed. Of course it also means the freedom to indulge in favoured prejudices.
The ‘war on terror’ is supposed to be part of the ‘existential challenge’ of the twenty-first century, but the Patriot act and similar legislation makes even picketing of corporations ‘terrorism’. Where’s the ‘Patriot draft’ to raise the troops to fight this ‘war’? Where’s the ‘Patriot tax’ to fund it? There is neither because either would concentrate the minds of the US public on this ‘war’ - and it wouldn’t survive that kind of serious scrutiny for ten minutes.
It’s no surprise that Kagan is involved in the Presidential campaign of John McCain. The old fool admits he’s no good on the economy, but he’s supposed to be good on foreign affairs - but that bubble bursts as soon as he starts to talk about the subject. “Al-Qaeda are an extreme Shia sect” - and he probably thinks Putin is the President of Scotland. McCain will easily be spun by Kagan and co into any direction they want because he just doesn’t understand the subject.
‘Kagan on democracy’ is as obscene a contradiction in terms as ‘Paris Hilton on propriety’.
This is what the neocons do. They are quick to send young men in to harms way, but if you challenge them personally they take the simple expedient of ignoring you. An intellectual without the courage to defend this thoughts is no intellectual.
I also found the exchange between Kagan and Cooper very disappointing. If democracy is founded on public debate, then their lack of edge does not bode well.
To be fair, they did raise a few points that relate to contemporary politics and the shape of the future (our Prospects as it were.)
1) China and India and their relationships to climate change
2) The balance between Geo-Economics and Geo Politics
3) The need for a rule-base system
They also reanimated an old myth, namely the inherent superiority of democracies. I will tackle this myth first as a way into the 3 points above.
And the book of the day is …
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mission-Accomplished-How-Won-Iraq/dp/1416569936/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209835863&sr=1-3
I share the disappointment with the Kagan-Cooper exchange. I think that they fail to sort out the question. I guess that the question being addressed is whether the concept of government of the people, by the people and with the free consent of the people is gaining ground in the affairs of the world.(”For the people” is not necessarily entailed by democracy. Those who wish to use political power to appropriate wealth for themselves and friends may succeed in democratic elections - Berlusconi is only one of the more flagrant examples.)
The question is more about what is going to happen than what has happened. Past events are only a partial guide to seeing what is happening now; as any economic forecaster whose most recent, still provisional, data is from several months ago will ruefully agree.
The question is, in part, about where is the intellectual debate. What concepts and models, authoritarian or democratic, are making the case that the other side feels it has to answer (or suppress).
On the other part of the question, where are there risks of an authoritarian or democratic takeover? There are questions of degree - e.g., Russia is clearly less authoritarian than in Soviet days, but how does it compare to Stolypin days? - which are linked to the issue of what pace of change is viable?
And when people give their half-free consent to a degree (which may be a high degree) of authoritarianism, are they deciding on a balance of the costs of possible disorder against the benefits of less authotity? And how far are such assents becoming more or less conditional on the authorities delivering order and such other benefits as economic progress?
If we attempt to sort out such questions as these, we will still not have much assurance about which current is “winning”; but we may be able to express what might be meant by winning somewhat more clearly, and have a corresponingly better idea of what might help democracy gain (or not lose) ground.
Anarchy or dictatorship, the traditional twin poles of democracy, the Hobbesian choice, if you will. Nor, as is always the case in any dialectic, are these two incompatible. There is a strong undercurrent of socio-economic anarchy combined with political dictatorship in the air at the moment. The sub-prime mortgauge crisis and the Patriot Act share the same root. It springs from the triumph of the greedy alienated self and its two basic modes of greed and fear. It is all individual rights without social responsibility. McCain’s twin promise of lower taxes and extended war are the very breath of it. It is the spirit of liberalism at its worst.
Democracy requires a demos, a common collective identity expressed in social solidarity. The lack of this is the point of democratic fracture. The main failing in this debate is to assume that democracy is synonymous with bourgeoise liberal democracy and to ignore social democracy.