Thursday, July 31, 2008
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Imperialism Without an Empire
Both former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton and Weekly Standard senior editor Andrew Ferguson do an excellent job of eviscerating Barack Obama's incredibly vacuous Berlin speech. But as moronic as Obama's "one world" rhetoric may be, it still offers an insight into the thought of Barack Obama and reveals him to be very European in his thinking.
The particular from the speech line Bolton and Ferguson analyze is "there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one." Yes it's a dumb line, but what makes it interesting is that the aspiration expressed is no different from the aspirations of empires. From the Assyrians to the Persians to the Macedonians, Romans, Mongols, Aztecs, British, French, Germans, Japanese, and communists, the ultimate aim of an empire is to control the world, to secure their interests for all time by subjecting the world to their power. Traditionally, this has been accomplished by military conquest.
Then World War I and World War II devastated Europe and much of the rest of the world, leaving the United States and the Soviet Union as the dominant powers in the world. The lesson the Europeans took from the the World Wars was that militaristic imperialism was the cause of the wars and that multilateral cooperations was needed to restrain the these destructive ambitions. At the same time, Western European powers, bowing to political pressure based on the evils of imperialism, divested themselves of their colonies abroad (although the remains of the British Empire are a commonwealth with the Queen as their sovereign).* Instead of building empires through military might, Western Europe looked to political integration under the United States' military umbrella to create an empire founded not on conquest, but on cooperative treaties and institutions (e.g. the Euro, the European Commission, etc.). Given Europe's history in the twentieth century, this wasn't a bad idea, even if the result has been something of a monstrosity, but I digress.
Given that Obama apparently doesn't plan to launch massive wars of conquest, the only realistic alternative to achieving his vision of one world standing together would be something along the lines of EU model where nations cede their sovereignty to supra-national institutions. In other words, Obama is willing to cede the sovereignty of the United States (or some measure of it) in exchange for a united world. If Obama is serious about this one world nonsense, a President Obama would be bad for United States' sovereignty.
*Of course, the Soviets often supported this political pressure surreptitiously so as to make these newly independent states dependent on them.
The particular from the speech line Bolton and Ferguson analyze is "there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one." Yes it's a dumb line, but what makes it interesting is that the aspiration expressed is no different from the aspirations of empires. From the Assyrians to the Persians to the Macedonians, Romans, Mongols, Aztecs, British, French, Germans, Japanese, and communists, the ultimate aim of an empire is to control the world, to secure their interests for all time by subjecting the world to their power. Traditionally, this has been accomplished by military conquest.
Then World War I and World War II devastated Europe and much of the rest of the world, leaving the United States and the Soviet Union as the dominant powers in the world. The lesson the Europeans took from the the World Wars was that militaristic imperialism was the cause of the wars and that multilateral cooperations was needed to restrain the these destructive ambitions. At the same time, Western European powers, bowing to political pressure based on the evils of imperialism, divested themselves of their colonies abroad (although the remains of the British Empire are a commonwealth with the Queen as their sovereign).* Instead of building empires through military might, Western Europe looked to political integration under the United States' military umbrella to create an empire founded not on conquest, but on cooperative treaties and institutions (e.g. the Euro, the European Commission, etc.). Given Europe's history in the twentieth century, this wasn't a bad idea, even if the result has been something of a monstrosity, but I digress.
Given that Obama apparently doesn't plan to launch massive wars of conquest, the only realistic alternative to achieving his vision of one world standing together would be something along the lines of EU model where nations cede their sovereignty to supra-national institutions. In other words, Obama is willing to cede the sovereignty of the United States (or some measure of it) in exchange for a united world. If Obama is serious about this one world nonsense, a President Obama would be bad for United States' sovereignty.
*Of course, the Soviets often supported this political pressure surreptitiously so as to make these newly independent states dependent on them.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Drawing Contrasts
John McCain famously said that he'd rather lose an election than lose a war. Based on Obama's claims that even knowing what he knows now, he still would have opposed the surge, McCain should point out that Obama would rather lose a war rather than lose an election.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Exploiting Government Reform to Seize Power
There is a proposal likely to be on the Michigan ballot in the fall that would radically restructure the state government; cut many elective positions; cut pay for government figures; eliminate fifty state boards and commissions; even eliminate two departments of the state government, among other things. But these reforms, of which many would be laudable on their own, are not simply reform for the sake of improving Michigan's government.
We now know what many have long suspected: The initiative is an attempt by the Democrats to take control of all three branches of Michigan's government by sleight of hand, having failed to do so through the more conventional method of winning elections. The proposal is structured in such a way that the overwhelming number of positions cut are currently held by Republicans, especially in the Judiciary. Furthermore, adding ten seats to the lower courts (to be filled by Granholm appointees), while eliminating two Supreme Court seats and eight Appeals' Court seats will give the Democrats a net gain of sixteen judgeships in the state courts. It is less clear what the effects of eliminating legislative seats would be, but it certainly stands to reason the Democrats would not have included the cutbacks in the proposal if they did not believe they would come out ahead in the deal.
There are some good ideas in the proposal (at least in principle), but the first slide of the PowerPoint presentation on the proposal makes clear that the good ideas mask a dangerous intent: to alter the political structure of the Michigan political system so as to shield them from the will of the people and entrench themselves in power for years to come, no matter how far they run the state into the ground.
We now know what many have long suspected: The initiative is an attempt by the Democrats to take control of all three branches of Michigan's government by sleight of hand, having failed to do so through the more conventional method of winning elections. The proposal is structured in such a way that the overwhelming number of positions cut are currently held by Republicans, especially in the Judiciary. Furthermore, adding ten seats to the lower courts (to be filled by Granholm appointees), while eliminating two Supreme Court seats and eight Appeals' Court seats will give the Democrats a net gain of sixteen judgeships in the state courts. It is less clear what the effects of eliminating legislative seats would be, but it certainly stands to reason the Democrats would not have included the cutbacks in the proposal if they did not believe they would come out ahead in the deal.
There are some good ideas in the proposal (at least in principle), but the first slide of the PowerPoint presentation on the proposal makes clear that the good ideas mask a dangerous intent: to alter the political structure of the Michigan political system so as to shield them from the will of the people and entrench themselves in power for years to come, no matter how far they run the state into the ground.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)