Slouching Donkey, Lying Elephant

Imperialism is as...

Over at the ever-worthy-of-reading Obsidian Wings, Edward takes issue with a Belmont Club article about our evolving concept of modern warfare, suggesting that it strays into rhetorical territory that takes us down a road that Rome tread to its peril.

The issue of American imperialism--whether it truly exists and whither it takes us--festers nastily beneath many of the arguments about the Iraq War and the PNAC dreams that fuel this administration's foreign policy. Like fascism and Hitler references, it is a loaded term that is frequently misused by the left--which is unfortunate, because it is a word which has a critical place at the table in any discussion of American foreign policy.

I indulged in a brief shot at Bird Dog of Tacitus fame in the comments of the linked ObWi post after BD suggested the following:

Allow me to apologize in advance for picking on you, BD, because this isn't your shortcoming alone: I believe that many of the people who support Bush's plan for remaking the Middle East and the PNAC plan in general for American leadership (read: dominance) in global affairs are in fact the ones who are misusing the word "imperialism" by refusing to acknowledge that it by definition describes their stated goals and aims: For those who believe that The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language is a tool of the SCLM, Webster's Unabridged offers less clarity but is still instructive: I realize some out there in Blogistan feel that pointing out the ideological connections between the PNAC and the Bush Administration is a dead horse which has been beaten into dog food. I disagree. There is room for reasonable disagreement about whether or not the PNAC's principles--and by extension, this administration's stated and unstated goals for American global leadership--are the correct course for this country to set.

But imperialism is as imperialism does. If you're not ashamed of your policies, then you shouldn't be afraid to call them what they are.

Islam and Democracy

Some critics of the neoconservative plan to democratize the Middle East have argued that Islam is incompatible with democracy--a notion which is often roundly denounced as "racist" or "bigoted" by folks across the board. Most of us on the left think that this is a profoundly silly idea, and I'm inclined to agree--the idea that Muslim are wired in some way which makes democracy impossible is demonstrably false.

Via Winds of Change, we find Amir Taheri tackling this subject in his essay, Islam and Democracy: The Impossible Union. Taheri is clearly very well-educated, a scholar of the subject matter about which he writes. He first argues from a linguistic standpoint:

There is truth to what he says. A language is more than just a tool for communication, it is a fundamental building block of thought. It both reflects the social patterns of society and reinforces them--witness, for example, the elaborate layers of politeness and social status in Japanese, a language in which humble and honorific speech have their own pronouns and verb conjugations.

But living languages are not static, and neither are the cultures which speak them. Taheri points out that the Arabic tongues only imported (and with little change) the word "democracy" as a loanword, and that it had no natural word for that--or for "equality", "politics", or "government". I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that Muslims are incapable of comprehending or participating in government or politics--why, then, assume that they are incapable of assimilating the no-longer-new concept of democracy?

To take another example from Japanese loanwords:

Up until this point, Taheri seems to be arguing that Muslims cannot have a democractic government--among other reasons, because their language lacks the facility to adequately express democracy's fundamental underpinnings. Shortly thereafter, however, he comes to what seems to be his main point, and it's not quite as sweeping: This is more reasonable: his argument is not, as it appeared, that Muslims are incapable of democracy--an absurd notion for which he himself is a living rebuttal--but that an Islamic theocracy is incapable of being democratic.

I'll take Stating the Obvious for $400, Alex.

Not being an Islamic scholar, I won't deign to debate this point with him. Especially since from what I do know, I'm inclined to agree: theocracies are fundamentally undemocratic. At least, I'm assuming he's talking about theocracies, especially since he later makes the following point:

Taheri makes it further clear that the incompatibility is between theocracy and democracy, not between Islam and democracy, in his closing paragraph: Note the passage I emphasize. Does this sound familiar to you? Ring any bells?

Yes? No? Bueller?

How about the separation of church and state?

The degree to which religious doctrine and beliefs should have a place in government is a point of eternal contention in America. Some people believe that America was founded on Christian beliefs as a Christian nation, and that God has been wrongfully removed from the government. Most Americans believe that, to one degree or another, there ought to be a wall separating church and state.

Personally, I believe that the more influence religion is allowed to have over the laws and policies of a state, the further that state moves from the ideals of democratic equality. Doctrinal religions which preach the infallability of God's word and the absolute adherence to their tenets are not, shall we say, conducive to a healthy democratic debate over their merits as law. Taheri would no doubt be surprised to find that I agree with many of his arguments about Islam--I simply think they point at a different conclusion than his. It's not that Muslim societies are incompatible with democracy, it's that Islamic theocracies are--by dint of being theocracies, not by dint of being Islamic.

Getting Pumped

So I'm reading this CNN article about Kerry's assertions that he can wage a more effective SCWoT than Bush. Yawn. Nothing exciting or even interesting in there, but scrolling down to the bottom provides us with an unrelated bit of policy wonking: some back-and-forth between Kerry and the Bush campaign about rising gas prices. Kerry thinks he can bring down gas prices by virtue of Not Being Bush, and to the extent that ME instability affects gas prices, he may well be right. The Bush campaign fires back that Kerry supported a 50-cent gas tax hike ten-plus years ago, which is true--although he never actually took any action to make it happen.

Both of them think the other is going to cause them to raise, or at the very least stay high. Both of them are positioning themselves as white knights of black crude, the saviors of the average consumer at the pump. The messages from both the Bush and Kerry campaigns are clear: they want gas prices to go down, and they think this is not only the correct political decision from a vote-gathering standpoint, but good policy.

They're both wrong.

With gas prices across the nation topping two dollars (and even oil-friendly Texas averaging around $1.80) per gallon, it's hard for anyone to not feel the crunch. Even if you, like me, don't drive, you're still paying--groceries and goods must be shipped, and shipping uses gas. An increase in gas prices drives up the markup of the goods that must be moved from point A to point B. Those who take public transit will soon find their fares going up, if these prices stay constant through the fiscal year. Smaller businesses, who generally have less margin for error, may find it harder to compete. In short, there are few people in this country who won't feel the pain of skyrocketing crude costs. And I think this is a good thing, because it may be the boot to the head that we need in order to seriously rethink our dependence upon oil.

Some of you may have heard the term "peak oil". Most of you understand that we are depleting the world's oil reserves far more quickly than our planet generates it. For those of you who are confused or doubtful, consider the following exercise:

Let's say you have a big bowl of black jelly beans. If you don't like licorice, substitute a flavor you do. You're having a party and you've invited a bunch of friends over. Every hour, you dump a handful of jelly beans into the bowl. Meanwhile, more people are showing up and sharing the jelly beans.

Eventually, the jelly beans are going to start getting eaten faster than they're replenished: this is peak oil. Experts, doomsayers, and pollyannas all disagree on the numbers, the when, but nobody with a brain can argue with the end result: the oil will run out. Eventually, it will no longer be cost-effective to drill for what little oil is left, and our way of life as we know it will no longer be sustainable on a petroleum economy.

Some say this point is decades away. Some say that it is only a matter of years, or that we are hitting that point now. Personally, I don't have the scientific education to say for sure one way or the other. What I do know is that we can't afford to be wrong, and that we must take this issue seriously.

The fact that we still buy SUVs and Hummers tells me that we have not yet reached that point. There are many traits for which Americans, collectively, can be admired, but our ability to make difficult decisions and sacrifices in order to confront a problem which is in our best interests to solve is not among them. I do not believe that we will honestly and seriously confront the problem of our petroleum addiction until it is hurting us. And high gas prices hit Americans in a way they can't ignore.

For this reason, I think it's a good thing that gas prices are going up. It's tough to say that, because my fiance does drive and the gas for our car (to the extent that we actually use it) comes out of my paycheck. But when I can take a step back from the day-to-day perspective of trying to make ends meet, I can only conclude that it's not only good that gas prices are high--but that they need to go higher.

How high? High enough that Americans collectively say "enough!" and demand that their elected government provide them with alternatives. High enough that we, as a country, embrace the lifestyle changes and personal sacrifices that are necessary in order to transition to a sustainable energy economy. High enough that not only does the thought of driving something that gets ten miles to the gallon become anathema to any thinking person--but that we start moving beyond the necessity of driving anything which burns gasoline.

The changes necessary will be drastic and uncomfortable. There's a large part of American culture which not only worships at the altar of consumption, but seems to believe in our divine right to consume and sustain our way of life--and they will fight tooth and nail against responsible alternative energy strategies which move away from oil. But make no mistake--these changes are necessary. Either we make them now, when we are privileged to only be inconvenienced by them... or we make them in desperation years down the road, when even the most ardent priests of petroleum can no longer deny that there is a deadly crisis upon us.

UPDATE: Kevin Drum has picked up on this issue, but he's starting with the wrong assumptions and asking the wrong questions. He's promised he's going to come back to this, so I'm interested to see what he comes up with.

The Hand That Feeds

There's been a lot of noise in blogistan recently about the growing disfavor in which everyone's favorite con man and pet rock, Ahmed Chalabi, has been finding himself. Only yesterday the Pentagon figured out what even the supporters of the Iraq War have known for a year now: that Chalabi was a con-man whose "intel" was worth its weight in Saddam-era dinars.

Which is to say, it makes a great substitute for toilet paper if you happen to be short on such commodities while deployed.

Now we have breaking news that our boys in chocolate chip camo have raided Chalabi's home "looking for something":

Chalabi has been conning this country for a long time now. He shares a portion of the blame for the lies that allowed Bush to take this country to war, and it was his "intel" which perpetuated many of the myths still being paraded as facts. He set himself up as the neocon lap dog, willing to tell the hawks in Washington whatever they wanted to hear in exchange for an ongoing subsidy and a shot at real power once Baghdad fell. And he's been screwing us the whole time, in increasingly blatant ways.

I think Chalabi's about to find out what happens when a lap dog bites the hand that's been feeding it.