Writing by abuhatem on Monday, 31 of March , 2008 at 4:10 am
I have been reading a lot of good political theory for the past week. No, not the boring authoritarian communist statism that is Plato and his pitiful Republic, nor the totalitarian democrat (to use Israeli historian J.L. Talmon’s term) Jean Jaques Roussaeu, but the less ideological musings of Burke and his modern defenders such as Hayek.
Burke and Hayek both make a strong case for tradition and its role in politics. They make, if you may say, a secular case for social conservatism. Traditional values are rational simply by their traditional nature, due to their withstanding the wisdom of the ages and achieving a sort of permanence, these values have made the case for providing a sound basis for human happiness for generations. Burke discusses the permanence of morality rejecting the dangerous rants of the post-Enlightenment philosophes of his time, who like our time, seek to re-invent the wheel creating a new moral code. Burke also discusses the role of morality and traditional behavior in preserving societal cohesion.
Hayek takes it a step further. For Hayek, the spontaneous order of the market which organically develops society and civilization depends on tradition which it builds upon. No system of laws, Hayek says, can ever fully encompass a society and so the evolution of law depends on its traditional foundations in applying to new cases. His position is identical to that of both the Catholic Church and orthodox Sunni Islam - that God’s permanent law is unchanged but the “community of scholars” together have an understanding of applying this law to modern cases. A revolution, throwing out old laws for new ones, a doing away with tradition, will throw the baby out with the bathwater. As Hayek said:
Since we owe the order of our society to a tradition of rules which we only imperfectly understand, all progress must be based on tradition. We must build on tradition and can only tinker with its products.
Of course both Burke and Hayek did not reject all change. Both accepted economic freedom and the results it had in continually improving the material quality of civilization through technological innovation.
Enough with Burke and Hayek. Because they reminded me of perhaps my favorite writer. Not really a political philosopher in the modern or classical sense - indeed he shunned political philosophy as unnecessary - but a historian, sociologist, and economist (and the father of all three fields!) Ibn Khaldun. Ibn Khaldun’s theory of civilizational decline is very modern if you think about it. For Ibn Khaldun all civilizations eventually fall when they reach the stage of senility, analogous to the senile state of man. There are two main causes for these declines but they are interrelated. Firstly, economic freedom is transgressed. And secondly, morality disappears.
Economic freedom is transgressed when injustice, which for Ibn Khaldun (as in the Aristotelian and Islamic sense) primarily entails a transgression of property rights by the sovereign, occurs. The State which seeks to continually create new cultural programs to highlight its prideful status, over taxes its citizens yet receives lower and lower revenues because of this and eventually destroys the economy of the civilization through its injustice.
The transgression on economic freedom ties directly into morality and tradition. In the senile age of the dynasty, luxury increases and the people become more enamored in the sensate. People begin to lose the ‘asabiyah or group solidarity bonds which existed amongst families and peoples. Their religion, a fundamental aspect of their group solidarity, begins to decrease. Immorality increases, traditional morality disappears, and society becomes fragmented. Fragmentation leads to decline.
I have read Ibn Khaldun many times but I recently read an academic paper on his theory that transgressing economic freedom leads to decline and I was pleased that this was being noted of. The author of the paper said that if Ibn Khaldun had known of modern democracies and limited governments which preserve economic freedom he may have changed his mind on this inevitable rule of history. However, at the same time, who knows if we won’t meet the same fate - although I don’t agree with historicism.
The bottom line is that traditional values are important. In a future blog post I hope to more fully summarize Burke, Hayek, and Ibn Khaldun’s views on tradition in society. For Ibn Khaldun, tradition’s main task other than promoting virtue is societal cohesion.
The reason why people read and note of Ibn Khaldun today is because he thought differently. Other Islamic political philosophers of their day - such as Ibn Rushd, Ibn Bajjah, al-Dawani, and al-Farabi, simply just copied and pasted Plato believing he was some sort of standard of truth and intelligence. However, it is interesting that Muslims do have this tradition of political thought, and although much of it is cluttered with neoplatonist garbage, if you throw that out you can find some real gems. Maybe I will post about those some time as well.
Share This
Category: Uncategorized
Writing by abuhatem on Tuesday, 25 of March , 2008 at 10:22 am
The beltway mainstream “fiscal conservative” ahem, “supply sider” on CNBC’s Kudlow and Company has one of the stupidest articles today for RealClearPolitics about how Fed chairman Ben Bernake is “his kind of guy.” Thats weird for someone who begins his show saying, correctly I might add, that free-market capitalism is the best path to prosperity. Uhh yeah. Of course he is your kind of guy. He bailed out Bear Stears of which you used to work, not allowing it to fall by the forces of the free market. Very “conservative.” Of course he is your guy, he keeps cutting interest rates causing people to pay more money for gas and food to just survive - especially elderly people on fixed incomes - for the sake of Wall Street “rebounding” and the recession being “cut short.” Very conservative. Of course he is your guy, he is undergoing the greatest government intervention in the markets by the Fed for decades upon decades for the sake of “stability.” Very conservative as well. It is people like Larry Kudlow who give supply-side economists, moneterists, Austrians, and all of the conservative monetary schools and philosophies a bad name. Conservativism, as I have said before, is not socialism for the rich. It is individual responsibility. Watching CNBC this weekend has been very torturous, everyone is being asked the question on inflation, and everyone is answering “well inflation is a big deal down the road, but its more important for financial markets to be stable even with government intervention.”What kind of free market is this? Other than Don Luskin and Jim Rogers, nobody on that entire network supports a true free market, they support government intervention but only on behalf of the rich. Let the banks fall, let the correction happen, and let the markets clean themselves out. I saw on Morning Joe today that Iceland moved their interest rates to about 20% today because of the world-wide inflation problem. You think?
Share This
Category: Uncategorized
Writing by abuhatem on Monday, 17 of March , 2008 at 7:53 am
Today Alan Greenspan has an article in the Financial Times saying that the current financial crisis is the worst since World War II. Bear Stearns is bailed out by the Fed, and the dollar moves towards a new record low.
On the television this morning, we find Democrats and Republicans arguing, yet none of them truly believe in a market economy or in true pure capitalism, no matter what either says. The Republicans are arguing for bail outs of big banks, cutting interest rates and increasing inflation to off-set and make quick the recession. The Democrats are arguing for subprime mortgage bail-outs, welfare programs, and unemployment stimulus packages.
Hayek truly got it right when he called interventionism a road down to socialism in his Road to Serfdom. So did von Mises in his great work on Interventionism, when he stated that interventionism is simply a slippery slope down to the fascism of Mussolini or corporatism. While Jonah Goldberg is writing books about liberal fascism, maybe he should be inclined to know that today’s neo-Republicans are themselves neo-Keynesian liberals who are supporting this very fascist system. Ron Paul spoke of it to Tim Russert on Meet the Press last year saying that corporatism was soft-fascism. While Goldberg is out writing a book making money on it, the fact is that his attack of so-called “liberal fascism” is an attack on his own neoconservative movement who upholds the same doctrines.
We have basically two arguments underway now: socialism for the poor what commodities investor Jim Rogers recently called socialism for the rich. Democrats want to take your property and give it away to the poor, create a dependency welfare state, put tariffs on other countries (which are a cause of monopoly if you didn’t know), increase the progressive income tax and punish productivity, keep in tact the deah tax and punish saving, etc. This is not socialism, or the abolishment of private property and the central planning of the economy, but this is welfare statism or in nicer terms a social market or Keynesianism, but not a true free market economy.
Republicans want to cut interest rates and thus increase inflation to cut short the recession, they want bailouts of big failing corporations, they support corporate welfare, wars in Iraq and other programs which increase the deficit, and deficit spending. Socialism for the rich as you may call it, Corpratism, big-business and big government in bed with each other, Keynesianism, etc.
Simply from a moral standpoint, both these interventionist positions of the Republicans and Democrats are immoral. Why? Because in essence both transgress against private property rights. Private property rights are the essence of any market economy. Conservatives traditionally defended private property rights morally using two arguments (1) the argument from natural law, and (2) the argument from religion (Judao-Christian-Islamic), as well as (3) the argument from efficiency (but this was not truly a moral argument).
The Democrat position hurts the rich unjustly. It punishes people for making more money, it steals their property at death, and it re-distributes their property to others who made dumb choices to bail them out. All in the same time trying to stop people from selling their property across national lines to save jobs. Even Karl Marx says in his Communist Manifesto that the progressive income tax and death tax are not economically viable - that their only true meaning is to destroy private property and the market economy system.
The Republican position hurts the poor unjustly. It debases their currency thus inflating their gas prices, it bails out fails banks, and it subsidizes big corporations using normal people’s money. This is not a market economy, this gives the rich government advantages over the poor.
A true market economy which respects everyone’s natural right to their private property is one in which both positions aren’t given sway. Since the American economy is more free than the very un-free economies of Europe, we do have more prosperity. Freedom does lead to prosperity while economic totalitarianism in all of its forms simply leads to poverty and stagnation. While the American economy is not perfect, it still faces this very basic moral problem. Ultimately, we can either have special advantages given to both sides - to both the rich or the poor - which Ludwig von Mises predicted would cause a form of soft fascism to exist (yes, Mr. Goldberg, your Republican party is supporting so-called “liberal fascism”) in which big-government and big-business would mutually help each other. Hayek also predicted it in his landmark work The Road to Serfdom.
The only solution over this, other than removing the welfare state and stopping protectionism, is de-nationalizing money. Hayek wrote an interesting pamphlet about this called The De-Nationalization of Money. The reason money needs to be de-nationalized, is that first of all privatization of almost everything leads to greater prosperity. But secondly, with government through the Federal Reserve being able to manipulate how much your dollar is actually worth, it is a natural extension of economic liberty that one be able to use whatever currency one likes to use. And eventually through market competition those sound currencies based on commodity standards (such as gold or silver) will replace those un-sound debt-based currencies which exist, allowing the poor’s money not to be unjustly debased and inflated.
As a Muslim, I believe that God has ordained the use of gold-based currency and not debt-based currencies, especially since Muslims do not believe in charging interest. In such a case the government cannot manipulate the currency arbitrarily.  Although a recession would be longer without government intervention, we must remember that recessions are also called corrections, and are good things inasmuch as they eliminate malinvestment and correct the economy.
Privatize and thrive. The chances of money becoming privatized, to use Milton Friedman’s words are “almost zero.” However, the idea is supported by many of those who believe in the market economy, if not on moral grounds, then on efficiency grounds - because privatized currencies lead to sounder currencies. Don Luskin, Chief Investment Adviser at Trend Macrolytics and columnist at the National Review Online, Steven Forbes of Forbes Magazine, Congressman Ron Paul, the late Milton Friedman, Rose Friedman, the Austrian School of Economics, and others support the concept. The gold standard seen of as idiotic by the ignorant masses, is actually supported by a huge group of economic intellectuals and actual business people, as well as the Islamic religion itself. And the only true way of returning the gold standard and keeping it to stay is to privatize money let people chose the best currency themselves.
Share This
Category: Uncategorized
Writing by abuhatem on Sunday, 16 of March , 2008 at 11:38 am
I have been upset for the past few days over this really stupid move by the Federal Reserve to bail out Bear Stearns bank because it was about to fall. In doing so the Fed cited powers allocated to it during the Great Depression which it has not really used much in the past century.
I think commodity investor Jim Rogers said it best. This is not a market economy, thats socialism for the rich. “Socialism for the rich” was actually a phrase used by economist Thomas Sowell, and others, concerning the general system of corprotism or when there exist industrial complexes between big government and big business.
One of the reasons the ignorant masses denounce the market economy is their claim that “the rich get richer” and “exploit” the poor masses. This is not truly the case in a market economy, this is the case in corpritism. If Bear Stearns was allowed to fall, people would see this was not the case. The success or failure of any enterprise under the market economy is in regard to whether the people want the goods offered or not.
I don’t agree with bailing out people who’s homes are getting forclosed the same way I don’t agree with bailing out big corporations or giving them special privileges. The essence of limited government is that the government does not have the power to give the rich or poor special privileges - even if a democratic majority wants them. No matter how many people vote for something or lobby for it, it is unjust for us to transgress people’s natural rights. And this is the essence of the market economy.
George Stigler, the late economist, called this “capture” in his great work The Economic Theory of Regulation - the fact that different interest groups are led to trying to get special treatment and rules to help them survive. As Milton Friedman proved in Capitalism and Freedom, no monopoly would truly exist if it were not for big government. James Buchanan also did work on this in the “public choice theory” of economics.
If conservatives truly want to show others that the market economy is the truly compassionate system they will not just oppose welfare programs to the poor or socialized medicine, but also corporate welfare and corpritism - no-bid contracts, special regulations, bail-outs, and the military-industrial and medical-industrial complexes.
Bear Stearns should have been left to fall and fail fairly. Secretary Paulson was on Fox News Sunday and This Week this morning and he was giving ridiculous justifications for this. He could not explain why he opposed bailing out homeowners while still bailing out Bear Stearns. “We want the economy to run well,” was the essence of his argument. That is ridiculous, a true moral economy is based on respect of the rights of everyone, and fairness.
Share This
Category: Uncategorized
Writing by abuhatem on Friday, 14 of March , 2008 at 5:10 am
These are four of my past articles this year.
Presidents don’t manage economy
At a recent campaign rally, Hillary Clinton stated the oft-repeated claim that America needed a president who could “manage the economy†and that she was the most experienced in that regard because of the eight years of prosperity during the economic boom of her husband’s administration.
Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, also made the claim on MSNBC that “Democrats know how to manage the economy†and that due to the recessions of the 1980s, 1991 and 2001 (which happened under Republican administrations), “Republicans just cannot manage the economy.†Republican politicians repeat similar claims about Democrats as well.
To state that one can “manage the economy†is a laughable farce and one of the greatest examples of logical fallacy. In a market economy such as ours, which is based upon private ownership and free enterprise, the economy cannot be “managed†by the government.
The state may regulate the economy, meaning imparting legal restrictions, and control taxation but unless we are discussing the public administration of bureaucracy, it is absurd to believe this is even close to what is meant by “management.â€
The President of the United States is not the Soviet Commissar. The assumption that central planning would result in prosperity was the underlying core tenet of socialism.
One may perhaps state that the word “management†is a harmless error in semantics, yet our perceptions of meanings often alter our expectations. An excellent example of this is Hillary Clinton’s claim that with her election, the economy will return to the boom of the 1990s. This claim is tainted by a very reductionist world view.
Instead of seeing economic phenomena in a holistic sense, people who believe this observe the prosperity during one era and the economic hardship in another, and they assume that there exists a casual relationship based upon only one variable: the presidency.
This is a gross oversimplification of phenomena; there are many other variables involved in the very complex organic world of economics. What if there were no computer developments, no Internet technology and no Microsoft in the 1990s? What if 9/11 came a few years earlier?
To add to this type of logic, would Hillary Clinton also need a Republican Congress – such as in the days of her husband – to replicate his economic successes?
Attributing prosperity to the economic “management†of one branch of the American government limited in its Constitutional power to intervene economically and ignoring the analysis of a plethora of other complexities and variables is very faulty science and simply inaccurate.
It also ignores the hard work of the American people. Philosopher of science Karl Popper said that paradigms such as this are intrinsically immoral in their rejection of evidence that falsifies the theories they purport.
In other words, it is dishonest for Hillary Clinton to claim that if we elect her, we will return to the economic prosperity of the 1990s.
Debates not focused on future
While the war in Iraq continues to be a central part of the debate in this year’s presidential election, the debates have lacked any intelligent discourse about broader and more important foreign policy questions, such as America’s role in the world.
Our “shining city on the hill” has emerged for the past 17 years as the world’s sole superpower and the greatest power in the history of the world. Globalization and free-trade among states radically alters the world we live in, and for the first time in history, international institutions such as the World Bank, IMF and European Union are chipping away at previous notions of state sovereignty. Democratic regimes and free markets are spreading throughout the world at an unprecedented pace.
“We’re at a moment when the international system is in a period of change like we haven’t seen for several hundred years,” said former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger on PBS’s Charlie Rose. International political economist Richard Roscerance echoed this sentiment recently in the Boston Herald, stating that this small window may be the only hope of firmly establishing new structures in the international system based on peaceful change.
Instead of reducing the discourse to Iraq and the War on Terror, it is essential that an open and intelligent debate should take place concerning America’s role in the world during this crucial presidential election, especially in this post-9/11 and post-Cold War world.
The essence of a democratic society and rational governance is discussion and discourse. Aside from a few candidates, such discussion is seriously lacking. It is naive to believe that the compassionate, faithful and principled essence of America means our foreign policy will be infallibly altruistic.
American Christian theologian Reinhold Niebuhr warned decades ago that arrogant blind patriotism, especially the belief of our nation doing God’s will in foreign affairs, may lead to immense injustice. Niebuhr stated that in foreign affairs, the United States should act knowing that the notion of exceptionalism from moral responsibility and divine justice was extremely dangerous.
As an American Muslim, I find that Niebuhr’s notions apply not only to Christianity but are universal in their wisdom. The belief that our actions always reflect respectfulness of others’ rights and dignity leads to a sense of arrogance, irresponsibility and even worse the belief that we will always do God’s will.
Such illusions of exceptionalism to moral responsibility led to the evils of Hitler and Al-Qaeda. Thus, it is extremely crucial that our nation not fall into the same mistake by not thinking deep and hard about the consequences of our actions in the world and not understanding America’s role in the 21st century world.
It is unfortunate that such a crucial debate is absent from the discourse of this presidential election.
Economic problems ignored
Presidential candidates love to promise many federal programs for voters. Long-shot Presidential candidate Ron Paul, often dismissed as “loony†and “eccentric†months ago, warned of these false promises and proclaimed that the economic ills associated with inflation would soon cause a major recession in the U.S. economy.
Monetary policy, Paul claimed, was the major cause of U.S. economic problems. Now that a recession seems imminent to many analysts, it appears as if we should have heeded his words. Following news of an impending recession, TV pundits such as MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, CNBC’s Jim Cramer and columnist David Brooks on PBS have all echoed the inflation mantra in their talking points.
When asked what the greatest cause of our current economist rut is, global economist David Malpass said, “We are printing too much money,†on PBS’s “Charlie Rose†program.
On a recent ABC News debate preceding the New Hampshire primary, Paul made the case that the Federal Reserve’s low interest rate policy has been inflating the money supply by “printing more money†and enabling unchecked government spending.
Fellow Republican Fred Thompson laughed and ridiculed Paul with a decisional joke about printing money. Thompson also stated on Thursday, Jan. 14, during a campaign rally that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernake was “boring†and that he would much rather watch a “Law and Order†rerun.
Ignoring a major cause of our economic ills is dangerous for a presidential candidate. A candidate blatantly ignorant about monetary policy is not suited to run our country.
The problem, however, extends further than Thompson. Before promising to offer such goodies as “universal health care†or sub-prime mortgage bailouts, voters should remember that deficit government spending is primarily dependent upon inflationary policies.
Bernake himself has hinted at the current fed’s inflationary policy by stating, consequent to his confirmation in 2006, that some inflation is good because it lessens the government deficit. Government funds come from taxing, borrowing, or inflating the currency, and in the end, our government’s inflationary policy only hurts the poor which it claims to be helping.
Another policy— the increase of the federal minimum wage— may sound nice to voters, but prices have risen across the board since its enactment, punishing the poorest consumers regressively. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the majority of minimum wage owners are the young or students.
Eighteenth century philosopher Freidrich Bastiat warned of the “broken window fallacy,†which refers to ignorance of the unintended consequences of economic actions.
Before we call for more government spending and entitlements, voters must realize that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Voters, wherever they fall on the political spectrum, must understand the effects that their policies have on the economy.
Iraqis struggle for existence
While American optimism about Iraq policy is growing, perhaps due to General David Petraeus’ and Ambassador Ryan Crocker’s reports to Congress this week, the reality on the ground is just as grim as ever.
While General Petraeus told Congress that President Bush’s troop surge in Iraq was finally beginning to work, the Associated Press reported that August was the single greatest month of civilian bloodshed in Iraq this year. The U.S. military reported that 100 Iraqi civilians were slain in Baghdad in August, but the Iraqi Interior Ministry found three times that many were killed in the Baghdad area alone. Only two weeks ago, the Mahdi Army of Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr began skirmishes with members of his own sect on a Shiite holy day. Civil strife and tensions in Iraq remain great obstacles to stability.
The greatest example of success in Iraq, which the Petraeus report highlighted, was the success of the transformation of the al-Anbar province – previously the most dangerous area in Iraq – into a safe and secure area due to deals made with tribal elders.
While this success gives a hopeful model for the rest of the country, one must make note, as Petraeus himself noted, that it did not come about due to the surge. This success is actually due to political deals. The Iraqi tribal leaders involved in the deals and pacifying al-Anbar said the same in recent weeks on the Arabic TV channel Al-Jazeera.
Furthermore, Syria’s rejection of Iraqi refugees earlier this week due to lack of resources has effectively stranded hundreds of thousands of Iraqis fleeing the country in a war zone and may increase tensions.
On top of all of this, the Iraqi government has been crippled by boycotts of various political parties. They have been unable to pass an oil law for the country after negotiating for almost a year.
A recent BBC/ABC News poll found that 70 percent of Iraqis believed that the surge was not working. A poll earlier this year by USA Today found that the majority of Iraqis say that their lives are not going well and that they have lost hope for the future. Even worse, The New York Times recently reported that the Iraqi Christian population is now almost inexistent due to ethnic cleansing. This population had existed for thousands of years, even throughout Islamic rule.
Although the Petraeus report spoke of some successes of the surge, the fact remains that its successes have been few and far between. Iraq today remains a dangerous and unstable country and the war continues to destroy the lives of millions of Iraqis.
Share This
Category: Uncategorized
Writing by abuhatem on Friday, 14 of March , 2008 at 4:43 am
Being that there is a Presidential election going on, I decided to go back and brush up on some Democratic theory. An interest in the Congress has kindled in me in the past few days following viewing the political battles between them and the Presidency. I have always been fascinated by one major aspect of democracy - compromise amongst competing interests. Robert Dahl wrote a controversial but interesting novel take on this in his work Polyarchy, and James Madison lays its foundations out in The Federalist 10. I took out two very interesting works to try to understand this concept of compromise - Gould’s very recent history of the senate: The Most Exclusive Club, and American majoritarian scholar Willmore Kendall’s work The Two Majorities. Kendall died in the mid-1960s yet his work is as important today as ever. Very, very little has been written about Kendall’s work which today is largely forgotten thus I hope that my blog entry can provide a little re-introduction and re-discovery of his literature which applies to our modern day. Kendall said and believed many things which I do not agree with, yet I find his Two Majorities to be his most useful work.
The Presidential elections in Lebanon are an example of the problem of compromise in democracy, particularly two of its forms - the Presidential or hybrid Presidential-Parliamentary systems. Lebanon’s original constitution was based in a hybrid system of France which combined the parliamentary system (Britain, Germany, etc.) and the Presidential system (United States, Latin America) to create a strong executive President coupled with a significantly powerful parliament.
The Lebanese system consists of a popularly elected parliament which has the power to create legislation. The parliament also elects a President through an election of 2/3rds which usually involves a compromise on a specific candidate. The President serves 6 year terms. The President’s main power is to appoint or veto a Prime Minister offered by the parliament. The Prime Minister is the most powerful member of the government and generally controls the agenda of public policy in the country. Prime Ministers, as in any parliamentary system, come from the majority party or ruling coalition’s ranks.
The problem is the Lebanon has been deadlocked and not elected a President for over 7 months now because nobody can compromise enough to agree on a candidate. And this is where a “compromise” aspect of democracy fails and leads to what ironically the French called imobilisme, a stalemate in government.
Another example of the “compromise” aspect of democratic theory can be seen in France. In French politics there is a concept of cohabitation which is when the President - who is popularly elected - is of one party while the parliament (and thus the Prime Minister) is of another. During these periods in French politics, the Prime Minister basically controls all domestic policy while the President controls foreign policy. It is interesting to note that the French have now allowed their legislative elections to coincide with their Presidential elections to avoid this.
In the United States, a full Presidential system, there is one major case of “compromise” in democracy. This is when the Congress is controlled by one party while the Presidency is controlled by another. Modern realizations of this are in the present 2006-elected Congress led by Democratic speaker Nancy Pelosi as opposed to the Republican executive branch of President George W. Bush. In the previous Presidency of Bill Clinton this ocurred after the 1994 “Republican revolution” which had Democratic President Bill Clinton and Republican House speaker Newt Gingrich at odds.
Parliamentary democracies, such as the United Kingdom, do not face such periods of “compromise.” Under the British system of “fusion of powers,” the majority party in parliament and thus the Prime Minister and his cabinet, control the entire government. They can essentially pass what they need to pass and there is little need for “compromise” until legislative elections occur.
Therefore two main questions occur in this comparison amongst systems - why is the American system rooted in a compromise based separation of powers, and what have modern gridlocked government’s accomplished? Willmoore Kendall’s work answers the first with beautiful exposition and defense of the founding fathers. And during this Presidential election year, they are extremely pertinent to discussion.
Kendall asks the question, why does the same majority of voters who elects a President then elect a Congress which completely opposes him? The same voters who desire the high minded ideals which each candidate offers them in the Presidential election simultaneously elect a Congress - even if it is of the same party - which is skeptical and opposes the President. The control of Congress and the control of the Presidency are what Kendall calls “the two majorities.”
Kendall argues that the Founders believed in majority rule (with minority rights - the essence of classical liberalism, but I will write about those and the marriage of classical liberalism and democracy in a later post). Yet they understood that popular sentiment could consist in short bursts of popular support which fade quickly. Thus they spread out the elections of Congress which would exist both at the beginning of and the middle of a President’s terms. They also spread about the election of Senators and made their terms six years long so that they would not be affected by bursts of popular sentiment.
Kendall argues that the Congress is essentially the embodiment of an aristocracy of elites in the American system. The Senate and House have their roles and structures and their organizations of leadership. There are also many differences within the Congress itself. There is the House which is essentially a reflection of current popular sentiment being up for election every two years, but then there is the Senate which was created to represent states and originally elected by state legislatures and in much slower spurts of 33% every 2 years. The Senate itself is very undemocratic, there is the filibuster which can destroy legislation which is not supported by a super majority of 60 votes. All of this causes many unnecessary problems in attempting to create law - and by extention policy.
Yet Kendall argues that the creation of the institution of the Congress was ingenious and believes as the founders did that it should be the most powerful branch of government. Kendall rejects removing the filibuster, or ceding power to the executive branch as most called for at his time. Kendall also rejects Dahl’s argument that the Congress should be a “polyarchy” of deliberations by informed representatives of the people which led to a compromise which gave “a little bit to everyone.” Instead Kendall states that the Congress’ tensions with the Presidency is the most healthy aspect of American democracy, that the “two majorities” highlight an essential aspect of the American system of “majority rule” which he calls — the intensity problem.
The intensity problem in democracy is that although the popular collective majority will may intend the enactment of certain policies, some policies are more important and more supported than others. Thus different elected officials, whether the President or Congressman, may have a list of objectives they want to pass with some more important than others. An opinion which is so intense that it causes the “two majorities” to concur through elections which are broken up by long 2 year breaks are deeply held by the public and are thus “intense majorities” which should get their will. Opinions which are not as intense, meaning their majorities fluctuate throughout differing elections creating no clear strong consensus of the “two majorities” will be defeated in Congress or vetoed by the President.
Because the Congress is formed by two distinct institutions - the House of Representatives and the Senate - which must agree and compromise on a final version of their bill, this further insures that the policies which are passed are of intense majorities. The Senate also compromise in crafting their version of a bill if faced by a minority of 41 to 50 which may filibuster a bill if they feel strong in their intensity of opposition to a Bill (a filibuster can be stopped by a 60-40 supermajority). George Washington told Thomas Jefferson that the Senate was created to “watch over” the House, making sure that the laws passed were not simply fading bursts of popular sentiment.
After the House, and Senate compromise on a bill which is supported by a strong enough intensity majority will that it is agreed upon by both bodies, the President must sign it. And if the President, also elected by popular will, does not like the bill it will fail unless the intensity of the Congressional majority is so strong to be overwhelming with a 2/3rds over ride. And thus there exists another aspect of compromise.
A modern example can be the war in Iraq. The same American public who elected a Republican President and Congress in 2004, then supported a Democratic Congress against the war in 2006. However, because the Presidency was controlled by an opposing party the majority will is not intense enough to be “long lasting” in its nature unless a Democratic President is elected in 2008 in which the policy will be enacted.
And it appears the Democrats are going to not only take the Congress next time, but the Senate by perhaps 60 votes. Such an intense majority will be a mandate for change unseen of since the time of Franklin Delano Roosevelt who altered American public policy in the most rapid period in the history of the United States. But for now, the gridlock which confronts our government is not so bad after all - because two-party compromise is the essential feature of our Republic.
It is interesting that Clinton and Gingrich, bitter rivals, accomplished more together for both sides than Clinton did with a Democratic Congress or the Republican Congress would do with George W. Bush. The late Milton Friedman said before he died that the best type of governments always occurred in the United States under a gridlocked President and Congress. Or as Lord Acton said “absolute power corrupts absolutely.” An Obama with a Republican Congress down the line would be a more conservative - yet compromising - government than Bush and the Republicans ever accomplished.
Share This
Category: Uncategorized
Writing by abuhatem on Friday, 14 of March , 2008 at 3:34 am
G. John Ikenberry is truly brilliant and is perhaps the greatest modern proponent for the institutionalist (or “neoliberal”) school of international relations. Ikenberry’s work “After Victory” on how the new hegemon victors of great wars often attempt to re-shape the international system is the strongest argument for institutionalism that I have seen. Only Richard Roscerance, an international relations scholar and political economist, in his analysis on “concerts of great powers” in classical international systems has an argument which compares to Ikenberry’s in strength.
In last month’s Foreign Affairs, Ikenberry wrote an article on the ultimate contemporary litmus test for the realist (balance-of-power) and idealist (institutionalist) schools of international relations - China. While many realists - including John Mearsheimer and Kenneth Waltz - see China as a potential regional hegemon and rising power which must be balanced against and contained to preserve American preeminence, Ikenberry argues that the modern institutionalist “neoliberal” world order based in international norms, democracies, and interdependent globalized markets, will thus integrate China to the international system.
I tend to be convinced by Ikenberry much more than the realist school. Realism is useful in explaining balances of power, yet its determinism, scientism, and completely amoral analysis makes it anathema to me.
A note on historicist theory:
For philosophy of science purposes I do not believe in a “theory” of international relations which is simply another of a myriad of failed manifestations of historicism. Karl Popper’s work The Poverty of Historicism provides an ingenious refutations of such theories which claim to predict the future by finding “laws of history.” Indeed much current literature in international relations repudiates systemic “theories” of international relations. However, this does not mean that there does not exist some usefulness to their study. I am currently in the process of researching a very long 20-40 page paper on some of the assertions of international relations on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and I have found a degree of usefulness to these systemic theories as long as you take the historicism out.
Share This
Category: Uncategorized
Writing by abuhatem on Friday, 14 of March , 2008 at 2:56 am
Arthur Lee, a delegate to the American constitutional convention, and diplomat to France during the Revolutionary War declared the significance of property rights in a most eloquent way. Lee stated “The right of property is the guardian of every other right, and to deprive the people of this is in fact to deprive them to their liberty.” Property rights have been seen throughout history as the cornerstone of liberty, the impetus of the development of civilization, and the basis of justice. The respect for property rights has been the foundation of the conservative movement in the United States since the days of Senator Robert Taft to Barry Goldwater through Ronald Reagan.
Muslim civilization too understands the importance of property rights. Before Pan-Arab socialist movements cancerously spread throughout the Middle East; the Islamic tradition was one of affirmation of property rights. It is recorded by French historian Ferdinand Braudel that the first stock market in the world existed in 11th century Cairo, in modern Egypt. The Islamic tradition, like its Judeo-Christian cousins, accepts the God-given natural right to one’s property. It is also interesting to note that the secular version of natural law formulated in modern times by libertarians and conservatives such as Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Frank Meyer, and Murray Rothbard which are rooted in Jocke Locke and the Thomism of Thomas Aquinas, may have their roots in Islamic thought as well. Aquinas who stated that respect for private property completes man’s need for order was influenced by Persian Islamic theologian Abul Hamid al-Ghazali as Shaikh M. Ghanzanfar notes and the Spanish Salamanca school noted by Rothbard, which preceded the Austrian school of economics. The Salamanca school had many attachments to Islamic sociologist Ibn Khaldun according to scholars such as professor Clifford Theis and Islamic economist Imad ad-Dean Ahmad. Ibn Khaldun noted the relationship between property, civilization, and justice stating in his magnum opus al-Muqaddima:
Men persist only with the help of the property. The only way to property is through cultivation. The only way to cultivation is through justice. Justice is a balance set up among mankind. Those who infringe upon property rights commit an injustice. Those who take away property commit an injustice. Those who deny people their rights commit an injustice. Those who in general take property by force commit an injustice, and injustice ruins civilization.
Only through property does economic cooperation materialize, the institution of property is necessary for Aristotle’s statement that man is social animal to manifest itself. It is an oft-repeated truism that private property through trade continually increases the standard of living of men through a cycle of innovation destroying inefficient structures, institutions, and industries or what Jospeph Schumpeter called creative destruction. Von Mises, Hayek, and others defended the institution of property continually in their writings, the very institution which the cancer of socialism attempted to destroy. These writers, which would later be revered by the American conservative movement, understood the importance that property rights held in relation to liberty and justice. It is ironic how much the modern conservative movement based in classical liberalism truly shares in common with the Islamic economic tradition.
It is thus very disheartening that the disastrous policy of warfare “ the ultimate manifestation of property destruction is promoted by the conservative of all American parties. Further ludicrous is the belief that that war with Iraq will spread democracy and free markets throughout the Middle East. The Washington Post reported that the U.S. envisioned a free market paradise in Iraq. Yet it is awfully contradictory to believe that respect for both the right to life, and private property rights which are deeply rooted in the Constitution and the words of the Founding Fathers of our republic can be taught through transgressing upon the property rights of other people. This would certainly not be an instance of leading by example.
The number of civilian deaths in the Iraq war is of phenomenal proportions with some estimating one million Iraqis have been killed since the start of the war. The refugee crisis is even worse, with up to seven million Iraqis having fled Iraq. Iraqi infrastructure continues to be in horrid condition and the Brookings Institution’s Iraq Index notes this month after month. Instead of planting the seeds of liberal democracy in Iraq – the Iraq war, if anything, has radicalized Iraq. The Muslim tradition of respect for natural rights and property rights is being forgotten, Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds now engage in a struggle for power and sectarian violence. Even the present surge strategy does nothing but reinforce the notion that unfettered brute force may bring about stability a view contrary to our founders’ view of limited government and respect for natural rights.
Furthermore, the myth that warfare helps the economy an example of Friedrich Bastiat’s broken window fallacy is embedded in the conservative and American consciousness. President Bush recently told NBC’ss Today that “I think actually the spending in the war might help with jobs. Yeah, because we are buying equipment, and people are working.” Paul Krugman, economist and New York Times columnist has made similar comments recently. The absurd assertion that the destruction of lives and property benefits the economy is the least of the irrationalities involved in our quagmire in Iraq.
The conservative movement used to be completely opposed to the modern neoconservative project and understood that respect for property rights against government’s forceful interventions through wars abroad was a natural corollary to the rejection of government’s forceful interventions domestically. The isolationist Old Right accepted the natural law and Judeo-Christian just war theory of St. Augustine and others which prohibited war except in proportional self-defense as a last resort. They were strict constitutionalists who followed the advice of Thomas Jefferson - “peace with all nations; entangling alliances with none.” Both the Muslim world and the West have their roots in the respect for natural rights, private property rights, and markets instead of war, terrorism, and violence and both worlds would benefit immensely through free trade. Trade, as the late Chicago School economist Milton Friedman wrote, brings cooperation and spreads liberty. “Few measures that we could take would do more to promote the cause of freedom at home and abroad than complete free trade” Friedman wrote, further confirming that respect of natural rights and property is the impetus of civilization, cooperation, and justice while its disrespect through both war, theft, or state intervention lead to injustice and strife.
The neoconservatives who have attempted to eradicate terrorism and bring about a culture of classical liberalism and respect for natural rights in Iraq through warfare have utterly failed because warfare is the antithesis of markets, classical liberalism and respect for natural rights. The truly conservative means of spreading the cause of liberty would be free trade. It is very odd how far the modern conservative movement has strayed from its predecessors.
Share This
Category: International Relations, Political philosophy
Writing by abuhatem on Friday, 14 of March , 2008 at 2:55 am
Despite the new tone of his rhetoric, Republican nominee John McCain’s voting record is far from conservative. Although McCain now paints himself as a supply-side, small government conservative who was a “foot soldier in the Reagan revolution,†there is a gaping disconnect between his words and his actions.
As recently as August 2007, McCain voted in August against moving millions of SCHIP dependent Americans eligible for employee sponsored health insurance users off of the government plan to private insurance. Although telling the Washington Post that he opposed embryonic stem cell research and was a member of the Pro-Life movement, in April of last year he also was one of 17 Republicans who voted for the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.Â
Instead, this is the same John McCain who is a neoconservative in his foreign policy - wanting to kick Russia out of the G8 and put pressure on China, and maybe bomb Iran - while being a liberal in his domestic policies.
Hayek and Mises discuss how government’s intervention in the economy domestically - through plundering of property, and transgressing natural rights - is analogous to warfare in foreign policy. As Randolph Bourne says “War is the health of the state.” And the absurd thing is, as almost every economist has proven since the 16th century and Bastiat’s ingenious “broken window fallacy,” war does not really help the economy - it hurts it.
 My next post will be about the classical American conservative movement and war - as well as their similarity in thinking with Muslims.
Share This
Category: American Politics
