In Search of a Common Ground for Discussion About America’s Vision

The previous characteristics of the political terms “liberal” and “conservative” were designed to sketch out the current cultural political boundaries that might frame our future discussion of America’s vision.

A fresh discussion of a new vision for America must begin somewhere in between these boundaries Otherwise we become deadlocked in ideological debates and the kind of rhetoric that has done little to advance our democracy or empower our citizens. We need to move forward!

I realize these two terms, liberal and conservative, do not exhaust the lexicon of current politics. Even the growing number of registered “independents” would not find themselves agreeing among one another on issues of foreign policy, human rights, the environment, etc. So let us say there are conservative and liberal independents. The key point is that our discussion will require that we navigate the vast area in between the far right and the far left. These extremes are the boundaries to be avoided for those who still wish to participate in this process of visioning the future of our democracy. Naturally these boundaries are only snap shots of an evolving social/political landscape. We need to find more points of agreement than disagreement around which we can form a new consensus for our fledging democracy.

The following reflections are designed to focus more sharply on the current ideological terrain of neoliberals (Wilson forward) and neoconservatives (Reagan forward). Again, the purpose is to provide some historical perspective and thus to better understand which issues will require our most serious attention and also where we might find our common ground.

These thoughts were prompted by the publication of Francis Fukuyana’s new book, “America at the Crossroads,” Yale Press, 2006. The shifts he is making from his previous more orthodox neoconservative view are important since they open a wider field for creating an emerging consensus about the need to revitalize our basic values and polities as a leading democracy. Also, since it is frequently argued that neoconservatives evolved or morphed from neoliberals, let’s try to travel some of that road to see if some core principles begin to emerge that might inform the visioning process.

I have isolated three basic principles that might characterize the neoliberals.

1. International relations (U.N. multilateral agreements, etc.) depend upon a commitment to the national sovereignty of all nations. Hence policies should not be based on moral judgments about the character of any given regime. This has been basic to the doctrine of political “realism” that formed so much of the bipartisan foreign policy for the twentieth century, up until President Reagan.

2. “Social engineering” as embodied in the “New Frontier” and the “Great Society” programs needed to be tempered by the realities of scale, resources and past experience. The issues of race, urban decay, education and welfare are far more complex that the many disillusioned older liberals ever expected in the days of unrestrained optimism.

3. Strengthening international law and forging a network of alliances, and active participation in the U.N. is the best foundation for justice and pace in a modern and globalized world. Again, realism requires us to recognize that the U.N. is designed to keep, not make, peace. At times, when a nation fails, and chaos reigns, the protection of human rights may require multilateral intervention, such as in Bosnia.

On the other hand, neoconservatives see these three issues from a different perspective:

1. The “moral character” of a regime does matter, and at times regime change may be necessary to protect human rights and facilitate the rise of democracies. There are “evil empires” that inhibit the innate human desire for freedom. U.S. intervention is not only justified but necessary to create a political climate for democracy, which will foster world peace.

2. All “social engineering” projects are suspect. Privatization of programs for the public good is the best solution. In principle, the less federal government the better. Government should not be taxing its citizens, since they know better how to invest their own resources.

3. The effectiveness of international law and agencies such as the U.N. to effect peace and security is in serious doubt. Internationalism threatens our national sovereignty. Since states are to be judged by their moral efficacy, they should not have equal status, as in the U.N. charter. The U.N. only encourages rogue states and threatens our national security. Overall, international laws and treaties only serve to limit our freedoms and curtail our capacity for unilateral action.

It is interesting that many former neoconservatives have begun to moderate their positions. William Kristol’s famous comment, “A neoconservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality” has taken a new twist. The reality of our experience in Iraq has perhaps revealed the naïve acacolyptic faith of the neoconservatives, just as much as the neoliberals were tempered by the reality of the “Great Society.” So let me turn now to a potential reformulation of the above three issues as an illustration of how a new less ideologically rigid discussion might begin as we search for consensus.

1. Leadership

We all believe that America should be playing a leadership role, as the largest economic force in the industrialized world. But that leadership cannot be based on a theory of moral superiority or some exceptional status in world history. Restoring our national pride will require more humility and less hubris. Our nation can be an exceptional leader by admitting that our history of self government is a relatively short one and that we have no special privilege or divine mandate to democratize the world. Our moral character will be judged by our generosity to share our resources and help others achieve their basic human rights. We know this must be done cooperatively. Leadership takes the exceptional courage of humility. The “liberation” of other regimes is no longer a principle of our foreign policy. But neither is the relativism of “containment.” We live in a time when leadership will be expressed through persuasive collaboration and coalition building and demonstrating through generosity the power of our belief in the future.

2. Building self confidence

The litany of doubt and frustrations about the status of the “home front” is growing. The infrastructure of our social institutions – education, health and the general public is weakening. Our standings among other industrialized nations in educational attainment, quality of health care and income disparity between the wealthy and the poor (with a shrinking middle class) is shocking. Evidence for our competitive decline is clear. Our national debt is funding excessive consumerism of fewer products manufactured in the U.S. The floor is open for serious discussion, not tinkering, about our systems of education, health care, social security, etc. This must be a non partisan effort. It is not far off to say that our national security is a stake with these issues.

3. International Diplomacy

America’s renewed vision will require us to become involved in the non-unilateral solutions to the dilemma of failed states ravaged by poverty and hunger. We need to become less concerned about the semantics of the definition of genocide and lead in the strengthening of the U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. We can rebuild confidence in America’s role to take the environment seriously and explore alternative sources of energy. Nuclear proliferation has been exacerbated by our recent actions, and we can reverse those policies. International cooperation is our best national defense.

These three issues, Leadership, National Self Confidence and International Diplomacy are just illustrations of areas in which I believe we can begin a fresh nonpartisan discussion toward shaping a new National Vision.

______________________

Note: When referring to the U.N., I include the multitude of NGOs related to the overall mission of the U.N.

Knowing the "Enemy Within"

Americans are becoming more alarmed (For example see: Francis Fukuyama’s new book, America at the Crossroads and Kevin Phillips’ recent American Theocracy) about the direction their political future. Democracies, under stress, can evolve into fascisms. Lawrence Britt, a political scientist, defined the 14 Characteristic of Fascism in the Spring 2003 issue of Free Inquiry magazine.

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
   Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
   Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
   The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military
   Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism
   The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.
6. Controlled Mass Media
   Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security
   Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined
   Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected
   The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed
    Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government; labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
    Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
    Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
    Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections
    Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

The Third Anniversary -- A Time to Remember

On this third anniversary of our invasion of Iraq, it is important to recognize those civilians and combatants who have given their lives in this tragic period of history.

For an up-to-date accounting of U.S. military, coalition, contractors, etc. killed, MIA, and wounded see http://icasualties.org/oif/

For a current count on Iraqi civilian deaths go to http://www.iraqbodycount.net/background.htm

For an interesting web site from inside Iraq go to: http://www.uruknet.info

Defining "Conservative"

Today’s posting, Defining "Conservative" is the sequel to Defining "Liberal" two weeks ago. This project is part of an effort to move beyond the polarities of “Liberal” and “Conservative” as they have paralyzed American life today. But before we seek a new form for our failing democracy, we need to define the boundaries of where we are today in terms of basic political values. The next step is to move beyond these restrictions and seek a fresh definition of our vision as a nation. So this has been a look backwards before we turn forward into a less defined world.

Again, these terms, “Liberal” and “Conservative” are NOT meant to be associated with specific political parties. Rather, they are a way of looking at the world. They reflect our deepest values and beliefs. It is out of some of these assumptions that the future will be forged, beyond our present Democratic and Republican parties.

“Conservative,” Webster defines as “tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions,” but it is much more, and these 11 points seek to define that conservative mind.

1. Human nature’s role in the larger ecological environment is to dominate and tame Nature.

2. Human nature represents the highest development of Nature. Man is substantially at the peak of the chain-of-being, the end of the process of development.

3. Institutions, like religion, are the creators of “civilization” and not the byproducts of civilization; thus protection of the institutional infrastructure of democracy is basic to the future of civilization.

4. Governments and voluntary associations depend upon the leadership of strong individuals and their values are “the individual writ large.”

5. Governments derive their powers and efficacy from individuals. In general, the best government is the least government.

6. There is a manifest destiny about human history. The special role of the U.S. in the 21^st century is to advance democracy.

7. Compromise on essential matters that affect our national sovereignty or ability to act unilaterally is impossible.

8. Preserving the values of the inherited past is our best path to the future; the past was better than the present. The “good” will prevail only if mankind routes out the evil doers and returns to it past values. Evil may prevail unless those who advance the “good” increase their power and influence.

9. Democracy represents the highest and best form of political organization. As cultures become more “developed” they will from democratic governments as a law of human nature. Adjustments may be required from time to time in every democracy, but we will not need a new form of government.

10. Diversity of ten leads to chaos and anarchy. Uniformity results in a stronger and more effective form of social organization. Dissent is dangerous.

11. Postscript: In the end, a free mankind will prevail.