zenpundit.com

A QUESTION OF ” FRICTION”

Yesterday, Dan of tdaxp in a beautifully illustrated post, took issue with my use of the metaphoric analogy of ” friction” to describe the potentially higher resistance that certain political movements ( in this case Neocons and Theocons) face in attempting to move toward their objectives. John Bolton, for example, could be described as a figure with higher ” friction” than Colin Powell or even Donald Rumsfeld.

Dan put forth an interesting argument that the real variable descriptor that I should have used was not friction but “temperature”. There is, I believe, a great deal of utility in Dan’s discussion of Nodes and relationships within networks deforming under the pressure and ” heat” of political conflict. I may put his analysis to work in the near future, it’s that good.

BUT… one part of his post troubled me. Dan stated categorically:

“Friction is not an attribute of a single enemy. It is a quality of a relationship between two entities”

This however is not really the case, not even in physics and still less in the domain of politics. While we may have to major, diametrically opposed adversaries – say the NRA and Handgun Control, inc. – they do not conflict with each other in isolation but within the context of all parties able to participate in the political sphere, most of whom have only partial or no real intrinsic interest in the conflict, yet can and will bring their influence to bear to affect the outcome.

I yield to Dan’s superior open source graphics capability in describing his model but the model itself is oversimplified to the point of error. Two variables in the political or geopolitical world is not enough. My crude powerpoint doesn’t even encompass all of the significant variables in Dan’s Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice example.

Frequently, the Darwinian effect of single-issue contests is the adversaries evolve over time into evenly matched ( at least enough of an equillibrium state to deny victory to one another) entities and third parties must be enlisted or opportunistically intervene to tip the scales, for reasons of their own.

Where you are trying to move the status quo toward, for what reason and at what speed will cause all the players who are cognizant of your efforts to recalculate their interests and react accordingly. It’s a clash within an interdependent environment – a battle of bewteen subsystems of a larger system, it’s just that the latter is ubiquitous so it is sometimes less recognizable.

DR.BARNETT ON THE PUNDITOCRACY OF FOREIGN POLICY

We are overdue for a string of PNM-related posts and this week looks like a good time to make up the deficit. Recently, Dr. Barnett made the following observation:

“Where the Post tends to lose is in the quality of the guest columnist (where WSJ rules). Here we have Madeleine Albright (who somehow manages to write just as boringly as she speaks) and Vin Weber (not exactly your towering intellect). In their supremely dull piece, they tout their Council on Foreign Relations study, highlighting its main findings (wonderfully obvious, they manage to say almost nothing new, which seems to be a prerequisite for CFR writing, which is so careful never to offend, you basically have only Sam Huntington’s “clash” article as a seemingly controversial piece during Foreign Affairs entire post-Cold War run). The Times, in contrast, seems to have as many or more Foreign Policy writers than Foreign Affairs types, and on that basis it clearly outperforms the Post.”

[ Emphasis mine]

Amen, brother.

The bipartisan foreign policy elite that is represented by Foreign Affairs has been essentially stuck in intellectual neutral since 1991. The amount of brainpower that has gone into ignoring the logical implications of the colossal, geoeconomic and geopolitical tectonic shifts of the past 15 years on the pages of that journal staggers the imagination. The rationalizations for doing more of the same, despite the results of out of date policy being demonstrably ineffective or counterproductive, are as endless in FA as they are obtuse. And Dr. Barnett is right about the writing from this group – the pieces are real yawners to read.

Insularity, self-referentiality and denial are why a small band of neocons were able to come along, catch the CFR -State Department crowd bathing and run away with their clothes. The former didn’t have to be right across the board, they just had to have some new ideas.

THE GREAT ONLINE SPREADING DEMOCRACY DEBATE

The Daily Demarche issued a challenge recently to conservative bloggers to find a blogger on the Left and initiate a discussion across the ideological divide that bloggers all too often comfortably settle in to by accident or design. I agreed to participate, though I have yet to find a suitable debating partner ( any takers out there ? I’ll even let you pick the topic ).

Marc Schulman of The American Future and Eric Martin of Total Information Awareness are the first to take up the challenge on the question of ” Spreading Democracy”:

Marc Shulman’s initial post:

“Against this backdrop, the question of the circumstances in which the US should attempt to spread democracy answers itself. We should give priority to establishing democratic regimes in those countries from which terrorists who view America as their enemy are most heavily recruited. The authoritarian/totalitarian governments of North Korea, China, and Zimbabwe are repugnant, but these countries haven’t produced terrorists intent on killing us. It’s the authoritarian regimes of the Middle East that should be targeted for democratization. Above all, we should not heed the advice of those who argue that if we don’t try to spread democracy everywhere, we shouldn’t attempt to spread it anywhere. These are the same people who would have us believe that, because America is less than perfect, it’s no better than any other country, including those that would do us harm”

Eric Martin’s initial post:

“With these lingering misgivings in mind, allow me to state emphatically that I support the promotion of democracy, or perhaps more accurately, the empowerment of people to create a more dignified, responsive and just political life through a democratic system of government…

….The lessons to be drawn from both the successful nation building exercises (Japan, Germany) and those of less tangible success, is that accomplishing such a Herculean task as establishing a credible, functioning democracy through a post-invasion nation building effort requires decades of hard work, commitment and a ton of money. But as Nadezhda pointed out in the paragraph above, the luxury of time is not always with an occupying force, especially in a region of the world where there is an inherent hostility to our presence, nor is the luxury of time always afforded by the American electorate who might lose patience with so many revenue draining, troop exhausting, long term projects. As such, nation building in the aftermath of military expedition is not a cost effective or realistic policy to embrace from a military, economic or political point of view.”

The opening shots have been followed, in good form, by a series of rebuttals:

Marc: Rebuttal # 1, Rebuttal # 2

Eric: Rebuttal # 1, Rebuttal # 2

A related post, though one not directly participating in this debate, occurs at Duck of Minerva ( hat tip to Dave).

Excellent job, gentlemen !

COMMENTARY ON DAN’S NEOCON-THEOCON AXIS

First, I’d like to congratulate Dan on his thought-provoking essay, evidently he did not spend all his time in Aruba chugging margaritas. A good deal of brain-power went into that piece. Dr. Von made the following remark in the comments section:

“In some ways there are many similarities to those damn ‘liberals,’ the only difference being which issues the right chooses to set mandates/controls to.”

Very true.

And this is the fly in the ointment because in any forward strategy, like the one outlined very well by Dan, it isn’t simply your momentum that is the main variable but also your friction. You don’t get any higher in terms of friction than Richard ” The Prince of Darkmess” Perle…unless of course you are Pat Robertson. And this axis, to the extent that it is perceived to exist as a poweful juggernaut, combines both.

So what we have here is the equivalent of a castor oil and prune juice cocktail, unequalled perhaps, for cleaning out the system but the lack of sugar is making it hard to get anyone else enthused about drinking it. And for the sake of our fellow Americans not having any more national landmarks being blown apart by airplanes on live television there are a lot of nation-states and transnational institutions that will have to swallow this concoction even if we have to get out the funnel – and we can’t be too choosy about which end we look to for an insert.

The American Right is not like the American Left which fits seamlessly into its global counterpart in terms of philosophy. On the Left, a moderate American Liberal and a far Left German Green or Social-Democrat are separated only by degree and not by differences in kind. They agree on principles, values, ethos and even basic vocabulary – while clashes among Leftists can be fierce they are accurately described as ” sectarian” because these are simply disputes within one big political Church. Even the totalitarian Lefttists are merely heretics, not infidels, to the rest of the Left these days.

The American Right is different. There is not one but many kinds of conservatives in the Republican Party and out of it. They are more like separate religions, each with its own philosophical and often incompatible moral premises, that have remained united primarily by the presence of a common enemy, the Left. In addition to the Neocons and Theocons you have Libertarians ( curently out of power), Big Business moderates and Old Money/Country Club liberal Republicans who ran the Republican Party before Barry Goldwater. When the USSR collapsed in 1991, the conservative coalition fell with it.

Hating Bill Clinton just wasn’t as powerful a motivator for the American Right in the 1990’s as was hating Joe Stalin in the 1950’s because of the lack of philosophical commonalities between these different groups. Some conservatives simply didn’t hate Bill Clinton very much, even Newt Gingrich kind of liked the guy on a personal level. Meanwhile a New York liberal and a French socialist can agreeably hate Bush together from the depths of their souls because he is ” the Enemy” from both of their perspectives and for the same reasons. Bush is like Sauron on steroids to the Left.

So, Bush has added some ” sugar” to the Neocon-Theocon mix by borrowing from the Libertarian tradition and the heritage of Woodrow Wilson and the Founding Fathers by invoking ” Freedom” and ” Democracy”. That rhetoric has forced a lot of formerly staunch opponents of Mr. Bush to stop and re-think just what the hell they are trying to accomplish in opposing every single move in American foreign policy. Maybe that might be a little counterproductive ? Maybe there’s some ground for compromise ?

It was a smart move by Bush because it has reduced the friction.

NEOCONS, THEOCONS, THE LEFT AND THE WAR

Dan at tdaxp has begun a mighty interesting discussion of American politics and perception within the framework of the GWOT. I’ll reserve my comments for later but here’s a slice of what Dan has to say:

“To put it slightly differently, Your enemy is not stupid. He knows what he is doing. He sees the world he lives in. He feels where it is going. And he wants to make it go someplace else. A corollary: If your enemy is stupid, he wouldn’t be your enemy. He would be an irritation.

In the same way I believe the American left does know better. The “Neocon / Theocon Axis” is not just convenient for two factions. It is a powerful motivation axis with decades-long staying power.

The “Neocons” and “Theocons” have different histories, but share common beliefs: suspicion of government social activism and belief in horizontal controls. For different reasons neocons and theocons want to control individual behavior through cultural norms. They are a real Fourth Generation Political Movement that is ready to peaceful use PISRR and the three stages of insurgent struggle (a href=”http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/04/24/4gps1_node_takedown_and_the_politics_of_personal_destruction.html”>Stage 1, Stage 2, and Stage 3) to get what they want in a decades-long struggle. Additionally, the Christian right have fused fourth generation struggle and family networks in an originally and extremely powerful way. “

Very intriguing !

I’ll have some analysis later tonight but right now I’m off to fly a kite with the kids !