Abu Hatem أبو حاتم

I can’t wait until I go out and buy Pat Buchanan’s new book Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War which argues that the modern U.S. is following in the footsteps of Churchill’s follies through empire building and thus precipitating its decline.

Buchanan, who I am not always the biggest fan of, was on Antiwar.com Radio last week explaining his stance. His arguments are intelligent and convincing:

The Americans are acting like the Brits in the 1900s… Mr. Bush when he declared war he put a bust of Winston Churchill in the Oval Office, this is who he models himself after. And Charles, as you and I know, every time there is a crisis we are suddenly back a Munich. Somebody’s Churchill, somebody’s Nelville Chamberlain… Milosevic is the Hitler of the Balkans, Saddam is the Hitler of the Persian Gulf, Ahmadenijad is the new Hitler he’s about to do a new holocaust. I mean the guy doesn’t even have, he has no navy, he has no air force, he’s got no missile that can hit the U.S., no nuclear weapons, he isn’t even in charge of the military there, and he even has a rival in the parliament, I mean this guy’s the new Hitler?

And this is Buchanan on my favorite cable TV news show of all time, MSNBC’s Morning Joe, on the unnecessary war and the Iraq conflict.  (MSNBC’s embed tool is not working with my blog for some reason, so just bear with me!).

While Morning Joe is no hard news program, and certainly no PBS’ NewsHour, three hours of straight political talk with no news is what I want to start my mornings with!

Share This

This is dedicated for everyone who could not stop laughing last night while watching John McCain’s absolutely horrid monotone and amort speech. Perhaps McCain should pick up a copy of Aristotle’s Rhetoric and improve his logos, ethos, and pathos - particularly the pathos. I know the man is old, but the Gipper was old and had Obama’s charisma.

Share This

Abraham Hamadeh of Arab Americans for Ron Paul has graciously posted my few month old blog entry on why Arab Americans should support Dr. Ron Paul the only true pro-peace pro-growth pro-liberty traditional conservative republican in this race. Unlike Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader, Mike Gravel, and others of our pro-peace friends on the left, Ron Paul is certainly a foot soldier for the Right, and the traditional Old Right at that.

Share This

Kudos to J.H. Huebert of the libertarian political blog LewRockwell who writes about the recent ruling of a French court on annulling a marriage contract because one spouse breached contract by deceiving her husband about her virginity. Liberty necessarily entails, and classical liberal theory affirms whether one is a libertarian or not (and I certainly am not) that mutually agreed un-coerced contracts must be enforced unless they break laws or entail an injustice. Huebert writes:

All hail France! Or at least one French judge, for treating marriage for what it is, a contract — and finding a breach where the would-be bride misrepresented herself as a virgin.

Of course many French people are outraged, as they so often are when private property and contract rights trump “secular” (that is, socialist) values.

Huebert sounds like the great French political theorist Frederic Bastiat and his arguments, in front of a tidal wave of French opposition, for private property rights. France has never been the same since it suffered the birth pangs of the Enlightenment in the French revolution. Every political ideology that exists today has its roots in the French revolution; and every revolution since the French revolution has gone through its steps.

“Secular values,” moral relativism and socialism characterize France now who still revere the odious John Jacques Rousseau to this day. Those who oppose this marriage contact’s annulment oppose freedom. The step children of Rousseau would rather have a theocracy of their nihilistic and atheistic postmodernism than true liberty and justice. This attempt at replacing true spirituality with obedience to State power bears great resemblance to Rousseau’s notion of the civil religion.

But if the French to this day want to find aids in removing the stench of Rousseau, they will find no better advocate for liberty than Frederic Bastiat who despised the forceful government imposition of secular moralities termed “progress” or “modernity” over a century ago, and instead said try liberty! Bastiat writes:

Socialists look upon people as raw material to be formed into social combinations. This is so true that, if by chance, the socialists have any doubts about the success of these combinations, they will demand that a small portion of mankind be set aside to experiment upon. The popular idea of trying all systems is well known. And one socialist leader has been known seriously to demand that the Constituent Assembly give him a small district with all its inhabitants, to try his experiments upon.

In the same manner, an inventor makes a model before he constructs the full-sized machine; the chemist wastes some chemicals — the farmer wastes some seeds and land — to try out an idea.

But what a difference there is between the gardener and his trees, between the inventor and his machine, between the chemist and his elements, between the farmer and his seeds! And in all sincerity, the socialist thinks that there is the same difference between him and mankind!…

While mankind tends toward evil, the legislators yearn for good; while mankind advances toward darkness, the legislators aspire for enlightenment; while mankind is drawn toward vice, the legislators are attracted toward virtue. Since they have decided that this is the true state of affairs, they then demand the use of force in order to substitute their own inclinations for those of the human race.

Open at random any book on philosophy, politics, or history, and you will probably see how deeply rooted in our country is this idea — the child of classical studies, the mother of socialism. In all of them, you will probably find this idea that mankind is merely inert matter, receiving life, organization, morality, and prosperity from the power of the state. And even worse, it will be stated that mankind tends toward degeneration, and is stopped from this downward course only by the mysterious hand of the legislator. Conventional classical thought everywhere says that behind passive society there is a concealed power called law or legislator (or called by some other terminology that designates some unnamed person or persons of undisputed influence and authority) which moves, controls, benefits, and improves mankind.

Those that wish to nullify mutually agreed un-coerced and fully volitional contracts due to the vacuous cause of contradicting “modern secular values,” want a secular theocracy by the secular religion and values they propose. Instead, why not try liberty France? If the French truly believe they have “progressed” vis-a-vis the rest of the world, then they won’t oppose simple freedom.

Share This

Here are some translated excerpts from the comments written by readers in the Arab world on al-Jazeera’s article on Obama’s winning the democratic presidential nomination:

1. “I pray to God Almighty that he will be a lesser evil than other than him.” - Faisal
2. “When will we have the freedom that others have? When will the Arab world wake up and announce the death of tyranny by dictators that believe they are God incarnate? I feel so sad in the difference between us and them. Indeed I feel grief both at the conditions of the Palestinians, and at those who continually repeat that Americans are infidels.” - Mu’tassim
3. “Clinton’s loss is a great loss. Clinton was the wife of the most skilled U.S. president, who fixed their economy and tried to bring peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Obama is going to lose to McCain.” - Basel
4. “I am surprised at all of these Arabs who actually care for the race in the United States and actually think that peace will come from Washington. These people are the enemies of the Arabs and the infidels. They are all, without exception, the enemies of the Islamic nation and controlled by the Israel lobby.” - Khalil
5. “Congratulations to Obama. We need to see a change and even if it is only once.” - Dolama
6. “We really hope that Obama succeeds in implementing the change that he talks about and uses diplomacy to talk to Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas, and ends the occupation in Iraq. And that he not become a slave of the Zionist government in Israel. And we also hope that the Arab leaders and people will learn from this the importance of free and fair elections and the extent of their impact on democracy and freedom.” - Abu Noura
7. “We don’t really care much for U.S. presidential elections. This is because I am confident that Bush alone is not who governors the Unites States, nor the next president, but that the U.S. is governed by the White House and greatly influenced by the Jewish lobby and its controllers in Israel.”- Amaru
8. “All of them, Obama and McCain, are from the same infidel group.” - Khalid
9. “At the very least they have democratic elections! In the Arab world you have only two options: a king or a military coup, and they remain until the grave.” - Anonymous
10. “They are all thugs and pirates who butcher Muslims and are controlled by the Jewish lobby.” - Mahmoud
11. “The American hatred of Arabs will not cease until we begin to please Israel.” - Ali
12. “It is strange that I smell the smell of democracy coming from the shores of the U.S., thousands of miles away, and it smells much better than the stench of dictatorship which comes from the Arabs. Welcome to America, and wake up O Arabs!” - Anonymous
13. “The infidels are all one. I agree. Yet are we Muslims united? Are we Muslims truly better than them? Or are we divided into parts. We are the hypocrites which God condemns.” - Hasan
14. “This competition proves that the soul of democracy stems from patriotism, political awareness, and freedom to chose whoever one feels is most beneficial to the interests of one’s community.” Abbas
15. “We should know that America contains a vast variety of political persuasions. I believe that after America failed, and thank God it failed, at an illegal control of the world, it realized its failures in Iraq and Afghanistan and decided there was no choice except to embrace change. Obama came very quickly to attempt to repair the tarnished image of America.” - Ahmad
16. “But Obama lost so many of the last primaries. And even in many of the places he won he did so barely, they basically split the vote. This did a big favor to the republicans. I think Obama is going to be a weak general election candidate in front of the republicans.” - Samir
17. “This victory should have been announced a long time ago! Nevertheless, the ambition and stubbornness of Mrs. Clinton prolonged the time until the coming of this announcement. Obama’s victory and ability to pick up white votes should be a lesson we should learn in the Arab world: namely, that change is possible if there’s resolve and determination. If this is the case why reject American preaching of democracy in our countries? Are we for change in our own region? I hope that the answer is yes.” - Ibrahim

As you can tell, comments can be divided into basically three types: (a) happiness at Obama’s win and a hope that democracy can be brought to Arab shores, (b) extremist and radical hatred of America and indifference, or (c) punditry done by al-Jazeera viewers in the Arab world. This should further discredit the stereotype that the Arab street’s public opinion is monolithic. But it also affirms that radical anti-Americanism still exists in the Arab world.  The brash foreign policies of the Bush administration seem to be the main causal factor in this as almost each commentator mentioned foreign policies.  Furthermore, the number of pro-democracy and pro-liberty comments should discredit those who see Arabic civilization as the antithesis of liberty.

Share This

That’s it, its over. Hillary is out of the race, and the dreams of a Clinton dynasty are finally over. The democratic nominee for president is going to be Barack Hussein Obama, half-Kenyan half-white, who’s father was a Kenyan goat herder. Only in America. What a great country.

Obama does elicit a sense of sympathy in me, being the son of immigrants myself, that in the United States of America there truly is freedom. I am no über-nationalist, and I have criticized many of this country’s foreign and domestic policies before, but I truly do love this country. No country is perfect. On the left many constantly remind us of this country’s nation building and aggression against Florida and Texas, its slavery of blacks, and its genocide of Native Americans. On the right many constantly remind us of America’s virtues: our battle against fascism and communism, and that we are the last best hope on earth.

I think the truth is a bit in the middle. Like every nation America does have its virtues and vices. Reinhold Neihbur, the most prominent American theologian of modern times, reminded us of them most vividly. The problem arises, in nations as in human beings, when virtues blind one to one’s faults.

The United States of America is a nation which despite its flaws is more free, more religious, more communal, and more traditional than many other countries. Despite the formation of government-industrial complexes as of late, or “soft fascism,” it is clear that the U.S. leads the way in economic freedom. America love it or leave it, and if you truly love it then work to continually make it better. In the words of Jefferson, “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism,” and in the words of the Muslim mystic Ibn Atallah “The root of sin is satisfaction with one’s lower self, the root of all goodness is dissatisfaction with one’s lower self” in other words never slack in maintaining one’s virtues and reforming one’s flaws.

The Arab world itself ranks now below Africa in terms of education, technology, development, and economics. There is no region in the world which is currently, under United Nations estimates, more backwards. And we find continually people immigrate from the Arab world to find solace in the United States. Things will never be perfect here, but we thank God and his mercy that the status quo here is one which is very generous.

Former generations of America did have their defects, but also their strength. Political philosopher Edmund Burke writes that when progressing on some fronts, we may regress on others, so society must be continually on the watch for self-correcting but fully cognizant of the fantasies of Utopia. America’s long periods of a non-interventionist foreign policy and full economic freedom led to prosperity and peace in many periods of American history. One only has to look at a president such as Grover Cleavland who hated and opposed war (the drums to invasion at that time were for Hawaii), affirmed economic freedom, and sought solace in limited government and personal liberties. Yet throughout the years America has grown more interventionist and more and more unnecessary wars have resulted. The solution to this problem is not, as our far leftist friends tell us, to hate America. The solution is to love America and help stop more unnecessary wars such as the current one going on in Iraq. Only in the U.S. can the son of a Kenyan cattle farmer become the Leader of the Free World. I truly thank God Almighty that I was born in this great country and ask God to guide this country. This is a country where economic liberty led to prosperity, where religion is cherished, and where tolerance, friendship, and personal freedoms are cherished no matter what the status quo of the last 8 years has been.

Barack Hussein Obama is a horrible presidential candidate and nominee. However, I would have said this for every single candidate except for traditional conservative republican maverick Ron Paul. Yet Obama deserves credit - he is a superior nominee of the democratic party than John Kerry was, than Al Gore was, and even than Bill Clinton, Michael Dukakis, or Walter Mondale. Obama has actually had the guts to challenge the Lee Atwater and Karl Rove republican strategy of painting one’s opponent as unpatriotic, and weak on national security. In Obama’s victory speech today, and in many of his addresses he has challenged the “politics of fear.”

Barack Obama is still not perfect. Obama supports the status quo in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, probably will not withdraw from Iraq, will spike tax rates and attempt to brutally partially socialize medicine, does not stand up for the life and dignity of the unborn, supports judicial activism and not strict constitutionalism, would federally mandate that all states recognize other states’ homosexual unions, has supported “bombing Pakistan,” and ridiculously claimed Americans need to eat less food to stop global warming.

But on most of these issues, other than the right of the unborn, who cares. We are faced with the worst republican nominee for president in history in John McCain. In fact, if I had a choice between Bush or McCain in the 2000 republican primaries, knowing what I know today, I would chose Bush, the worst president we have ever had. McCain ran as a neoconservative in 2000, before neoconservatism was popular. His top foreign policy adviser Robert Kagan is one of the greatest neoconservatives in Washington and he co-wrote an article in a 1996 edition of Foreign Affairs calling for an American grand strategy of “benevolent hegemony,” which even Henry Kissinger called ludicrous.

McCain is the most pro-war candidate we have seen in decades. His over idealistic gnostic and Utopian dream vision of making the world safe for democracy has failed before. Peace is not promoted through “coercive democracy” as Scott McClellan recently called it, or as Pat Buchanan more rightly called “democratic imperialism.” McCain not only wants to kick Russia out of the G8 (I thought the Cold War was over?), but he also wants to put pressure on China, create a “League of Democracies” effectively ignoring the UN and polarizing the world, staying in Iraq for a very long time (100 years, woops 10,000 years), but don’t worry he claims it won’t be war for that long, just occupation.

Andrew J. Bacevich, a brilliant scholar of foreign policy and international relations and a non-interventionist pro-peace realist traditional conservative himself, makes the conservative case for Obama in The American Conservative:

So why consider Obama? For one reason only: because this liberal Democrat has promised to end the U.S. combat role in Iraq. Contained within that promise, if fulfilled, lies some modest prospect of a conservative revival…

As part of the larger global war on terrorism, Iraq has provided a pretext for expanding further the already bloated prerogatives of the presidency. To see the Iraq War as anything but misguided, unnecessary, and an abject failure is to play into the hands of the fear-mongers who insist that when it comes to national security all Americans (members of Congress included) should defer to the judgment of the executive branch. Only the president, we are told, can “keep us safe.” Seeing the war as the debacle it has become refutes that notion and provides a first step toward restoring a semblance of balance among the three branches of government.

Above all, there is this: the Iraq War represents the ultimate manifestation of the American expectation that the exercise of power abroad offers a corrective to whatever ailments afflict us at home. Rather than setting our own house in order, we insist on the world accommodating itself to our requirements. The problem is not that we are profligate or self-absorbed; it is that others are obstinate and bigoted. Therefore, they must change so that our own habits will remain beyond scrutiny.

Yet if Obama does become the nation’s 44th president, his election will constitute something approaching a definitive judgment of the Iraq War. As such, his ascent to the presidency will implicitly call into question the habits and expectations that propelled the United States into that war in the first place. Matters hitherto consigned to the political margin will become subject to close examination. Here, rather than in Obama’s age or race, lies the possibility of his being a truly transformative presidency…

But this much we can say for certain: electing John McCain guarantees the perpetuation of war. The nation’s heedless march toward empire will continue. So, too, inevitably, will its embrace of Leviathan. Whether snoozing in front of their TVs or cheering on the troops, the American people will remain oblivious to the fate that awaits them.

For conservatives, Obama represents a sliver of hope. McCain represents none at all. The choice turns out to be an easy one.

McCain’s foreign policy from a historical, empirical, and rational perspective will only further destabilize the world. Foreign policy realists have long wrote that excessive interventionism provides an impetus for increasing fear and insecurity in other countries and above all accelerates tendencies for powers to balance and check hegemons. This is especially true in a unipolar world in which there exists only one great power which is a regional hegemon. While the neoconservatives such as Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, and McCain adviser Robert Kagan have attempted to use hegemony to re-shape the world for “global prosperity and democratic peace,” nothing has resulted except spreading global security dilemmas and returns to realpolitik.

In fact, this is common sense. Not only have former neoconservatives such as Francis Fukayama recently accepted this, but so has McCain’s foreign policy adviser Kagan who’s new book talks about a new era of balance-of-power realpolitk. Oh brother.

Dr. Robert Pape, a foreign policy adviser to Congressman Dr. Ron Paul, and perhaps best known for his studies of suicide terrorism, has recently documented this phenomena in a very brilliant journal article entitled Soft Balancing against the United States. Pape writes that there are signs that Russia and China, as well as other lesser powers, are beginning to “soft balance” against the United States because of our neo-imperialist foreign policy. Soft balancing is defined by the great reliable source Wikipedia as “when weaker states decide that the dominance and influence of a stronger state is unacceptable, but that the military advantage of the stronger state is so overwhelming that traditional balancing is infeasible or even impossible.”

This criticism is not limited to the realist school of international relations. Liberals such as G. John Ikenberry have noted the neoconservative follies. In a Foreign Affairs article published a few years ago, Ikenberry argued that a neo-imperialist foreign policy did nothing but halt the neoconservative dream of spreading democracy and free markets. Instead of establishing a peaceful order, neoconservative gnostic fantasies were self-defeating, Ikenberry argued.

McCain wants to continue such neo-imperialism on steroids. A simple peruse through his March foreign policy speech is enough to scare you. The fact is that American interventionism has scared the world enough anyways. His tough talk on Iran does nothing but give Iran further incentive to possessing a nuclear weapon. In fact, Iran has recently re-affirmed its close relationship to Syria and signed a defense pact. Syria and Iran give significant support to Hezbollah in Lebanon which puts pressure on Israel, as well as Hamas which controls Gaza at the current moment. Iran’s support of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, and Moqtada al-Sadr’s Jaysh al-Mahdi give it a significant stake in Iraqi politics. Syria, and Iran are joined with arms deals by Russia, and foreign direct investment by China. The U.S. has been concerned for some time by Iraqi ties to Iran because of the China-Russia link. This is not to mention the recent “special relationship” established between Iran and Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. This is without doubt another example of “soft balancing against the United States.” American support of Saudi Arabia with a grand arms deal to counter Iran would have not been seen a necessary policy six years ago, had America not gone into Iraq.

Instead of radicalize the world, even an Israeli government minister has claimed recently that Israel-Syria peace talks would isolate Iran thus cutting Syrian support to Hezbollah and establishing a much more peaceful region. Obama’s talk of diplomacy, talking to leaders, and negotiation will lead to a much more stable world and a much more secure America than McCain’s acceleration of American decline. States use violence and alliances to put pressure and attain leverage for the sole reason of attempting to barter for their national interests. While of course appeasement is a failed strategy, diplomacy is not appeasement, and if the U.S. can seek its national interest through diplomacy and not continually through force, it will find itself in a much better position. Rule one of economics is that all agreements or transactions are not undergone unless they are mutually beneficial to both parties.

This is just on the foreign policy front. On domestic policy, McCain is just as horrible. McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts twice, voted for pro-abortion Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, was a strong supporter of the PATRIOT Act, No Child Left Behind, and almost all big government programs. In fact, even neoconservatives do not trust him for this reason. Ann Coulter, America’s greatest neoconservative extremist, is not voting for John McCain. Even for those seeking to stop abortion, Coulter and others have noted that McCain’s support of Ginsberg proves he is not really pro-life and should not be trusted. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. And the amount of babies and innocent life killed throughout the world of a neo-imperialist McCain foreign policy will without doubt exceed the amount of unborn babies aborted in this country. While both are evil, in the case of abortion an individual is doing the sin himself without being compelled by government, but aggressive war is waged and ordered by the government which is responsible to the people and the voters.

As a traditional conservative I usually support Ralph Nader, and I supported Ron Paul in the primaries, but this year the differences are stark. It is not two sides of the same coin like the Bush-Kerry debate of 2004. Obama is much better than John McCain, on almost every level, for all of those who care for liberty, peace, and prosperity.

I’ve got a crush on Obama.

Share This

See the Abu Hatem News feed on the side, or here for continuing coverage of the democratic primary.

UPDATE: Live blogging has concluded for the evening. Thanks for joining, the transcript remains below:

HuffPo on McCain speech: CNN’s Jeffery Toobin says “That was awful! That was pathetic!” while Josh Marshall, over at TPM, noted: “Here’s how bad it is. All the Fox commentators are giving competing explanation for why McCain’s speech sucked.”

CNN: Clinton supporters chanted “Denver! Denver!”

Clinton, not quite goodbye?

ABC News: At 11:06 pm ET Obama called Clinton’s aide Huma Abedin and left Clinton a phone message, reports ABC News’ Sunlen Miller.

Clinton email to supporters 6 minutes ago: This has always been your campaign, and tonight, there’s no one I want to hear from more than you. I hope you’re as proud as I am of what we’ve done and that you’ll take a moment to share your thoughts with me now at my website.

TVNewser: CNN’s Yellin reports that Obama called Clinton’s aide Huma Abedin and left her a voicemail.

CNN’s Carl Bernstein: Her stand on the war was the begining of Hillary’s undoing. MSNBC’s Chris Matthews: her vote for war in Iraq cost her the election

Russert: How great would it be to teach American history in an inner city school tomorrow, just the look on those kids faces, how great would that be

MSNBC’s Chuck Todd: If McCain does not win Pennsylvania in the general election he will have to win one of the following swing states: Iowa, Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon, Colorado

CNN’s Carl Bernstein: Bill Clinton may become chairman of Obama campaign, Hillary looking at many options in an Obama White House not just VP, many options even for a Bill Clinton role

NYTimes: Carl Bernstein said Bill Clinton was very upset too, and “we’re in the midst of another Clinton family drama.” He said that Mrs. Clinton did not concede because she wants to leave her options open — and doesn’t want to leave her husband’s legacy “where it is right now”

MSNBC: Obama’s delegates now are over 2219, we are overwhelmingly certain of an Obama victory.

NYTimes: Carl Bernstein said Bill Clinton was very upset too, and “we’re in the midst of another Clinton family drama.” He said that Mrs. Clinton did not concede because she wants to leave her options open — and doesn’t want to leave her husband’s legacy “where it is right now”

MSNBC: Obama’s delegates now are over 2219, we are overwhelmingly certain of an Obama victory.

MSNBC’s FirstRead: OVERALL DELEGATE COUNT Obama 2,154.5 to 1,931

TVNewser: MT Sen. Hank Tester endorses Barack Obama while on MSNBC

RealClearPolitics: Clinton wins popular vote under many scenarios

Clinton nets a net total of about 2000 vote tonight, beats Obama in the popular vote including caucus states, FL and or MI

BBC: PA Gov. Ed Rendell: Clinton should be VP, it is over.

CNN’s Gloria Borger: A Clinton campaign email says “this needed to be her night” and “you have to give her time.”

TVNewser: Russert: “There couldn’t be a more striking contrast…in style between John McCain and Barack Obama.”

Washington Post: Clinton washed away in trickle of delegates to Obama

Politico: Clinton adviser Ickes still stirring trouble

NYTimes: Senator Clinton ceded nothing. The speech was basically her stump speech, with a dose of defiance.

HuffPo: McCain tries aggressively to distance himself from Bush

Lanny Davis launching petition drive to make Hillary VP

TVNewser: David Gergen on CNN: This was a defiant speech; compares Hillary’s speech to Nixon’s Checkers speech

TVNewser: James Carville: I’m befuddled by everyone saying ‘why didn’t she concede?’

Obama speech tonight will respond to McCain speech

Excerpts from leaked Obama speech: Despite what the good Senator from Arizona said tonight, I have seen people of differing views and opinions find common cause many times during my two decades in public life, and I have brought many together myself. I’ve walked arm-in-arm with community leaders on the South Side of Chicago and watched tensions fade as black, white, and Latino fought together for good jobs and good schools.

Excerpts from leaked Obama speech: John McCain has spent a lot of time talking about trips to Iraq in the last few weeks, but maybe if he spent some time taking trips to the cities and towns that have been hardest hit by this economy - cities in Michigan, and Ohio, and right here in Minnesota - he’d understand the kind of change that people are looking for.

HuffPo: Jesse Jackson, “A fullfillment of Dr. King’s dream”

HuffPo: LEAKED FULL OBAMA VICTORY SPEECH

Reuters: Obama projected to win Montana primary: TV networks

Hillary wins South Dakota

TVNewser: Wolf: Hillary Clinton showing no signs of conceding tonight.

TVNewser: Russert: The speech left unanswered just what she wants.

Hillary: Will decide what to do with campaign in the coming days

MSNBC: Obama the nominee

MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell: Hillary does want VP, will meet one-on-one with Obama soon

MSNBC’s Howard Fineman: Clinton aides say “don’t pick another woman” as VP

MSNBC’s Howard Fineman: Obama will only offer Hillary VP slot if he knows she will reject it, she does not want the job

Drudge: McCain speech exerpts, “You will hear from my opponent’s campaign in every speech, every interview, every press release that I’m running for President Bush’s third term. You will hear every policy of the President described as the Bush-McCain policy. Why does Senator Obama believe it’s so important to repeat that idea over and over again? Because he knows it’s very difficult to get Americans to believe something they know is false.”

Reuters: Obama speech will praise Clinton, say it is time for Democrats to unite

Reuters: Obama speech turns quickly to attacking McCain as little different than Bush

MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell: Hillary will not concede, wants to end it on a high win in South Dakota, will lavishly praise Obama

MSNBC: Congressman Jim Brady with Obama, one more superdelegate

MSNBC: Reuters leaks Obama will say “I will be the democratic nominee for U.S. president,” and “its time for democrats to unite” and will attack McCain

TVNewser: Steve - Rosen says, “Having read,” McCain’s speech, it, “has some strong medicine for Barack Obama.”

TVNewser: Matthews on MSNBC: “What is his beef with the media? After 10 years of covering this guy I have yet to see anyone lay a glove on him.”

CNN BREAKING NEWS: Only 4 delegates needed

CNN’s Candy Crowley: Hillary will not tear this party apart

CNN reports that Barack Obama is just five votes away from enough to have the Democratic nomination

McCain: Media was biased towards Hillary, “pundits and party leaders” declared Obama my opponent

Russert: McCain speech will claim he is better skilled to manage crisis than Obama

TVNewser: Updated delegate count. MSNBC -11, CNN -5, FNC +10

Tim Russert: McCain speech trying to “crash the party”

Share This

Western Confucian quotes Warren Buffet’s father, Congressman Howard Buffet on the fallacy of American empire:

The Wisdom of Warren Buffet’s Father

Even if it were desirable, America is not strong enough to police the world by military force. If that attempt is made, the blessings of liberty will be replaced by coercion and tyranny at home. Our Christian ideals cannot be exported to other lands by dollars and guns. Persuasion and example are the methods taught by the Carpenter of Nazareth, and if we believe in Christianity we should try to advance our ideals by his methods. We cannot practice might and force abroad and retain freedom at home. We cannot talk world cooperation and practice power politics.

— Rep. Howard Buffet, Sen. Robert Taft’s Campaign Manager, 1952

Share This

Over at The Monarchist blog which I found one day browsing Taki’s Mag I found this very good blog entry describing the political ideology of “the revolutionary.” Being that one of the recurring themes of this blog is that the very definition of a traditionalist conservative entails being a counter-revolutionary, it is interesting to see his take:

The second most perverted mindset across the psychological spectrum of politics and governance is that of the revolutionary. It is the mind of the revolutionary and his fanatical need to correct some perceived injustice, even if it means murder on a large scale to achieve his political ends, that yields the next most repressive form of government.

Mindset: “Personal trauma has caused an abnormal personality disorder in me. I spend most of my waking hours focusing my hatred and anger from this past event upon a perceived ‘political’ enemy and wrapping my uncivil criminal and violent agenda in a sanitising cloak of ‘a people’s political cause’. The immediate result of my revolution ranges from social deconstruction and balkanisation to anarchy and genocide. The governments I may form rely on fear, intimidation and tyranny to control dissent to my authority.”

Model of Government: Totalitarian Dictatorship (One Party Rule) after a short period of Mob Rule and Provisional Government.

Intellectual: The Social Contract, Or Principles of Political Rights (Jean-Jacques Rousseau), The Rights of Man (Thomas Paine) debunked by Edmund Burke following Reflections on the French Revolution, The Communist Manifesto (Marx and Engels), State and Revolution (Vladimir Ilyich Lenin), Giovanni Gentile, etc. History has completely debunked these latter intellectuals, and much of this debunking was accomplished by the insight and intelligence of one man - George Orwell (1984).

Notable Results: The Reign of Terror, The Great Purge, The Holocaust, The Great Leap Forward, The Killing Fields, Al Qaeda Sep 11th…

The Monarchist blog is hardcore classical conservative in every sense in the world (unlike the more usual traditional conservatives, paleoconservatives, paleolibertarians, and other “fusionists” of the movement) and so his ideas are not in complete sync with the majority of (American) classical liberal type conservatives. Yet his analysis of the “revolutionary” mindset is right-on-the-money.

This is a good time to review Burke’s views of revolution, for all of those supposed “conservatives” nowadays who instead adopt the New Right neoconservative fantasies of empire building, benevolent hegemony, and democratic imperialism.  The following are some notes I took in an advanced political theory class concerning Burke’s response to the French revolution, abridged for relevance, concerning the flaws of revolutions and revolutionaries:

Burke is not against everything that is called a revolution. He supported the American revolution because he believes that they fought for rights that they had that others had tried to take away. Rather than destroying their old government and imagining and creating a new government based on things they imagined, Burke said the Americans were creating a government based upon rights they already had. The origin of the right of no taxation without representation is our right as Englishmen. “Revolutions only in the sense of reaffirming rights you already had, trying to protect traditional rights and liberties as Englishmen.”

Burke was not opposed to all revolution and change. “A society without the means to change itself is without means of its own preservation.” The only revolution Burke supported is reaffirmation, when government goes astray. Burke liked change if it is evolutionary and not revolutionary.

Using reason to create something that has not existed ever in history is very dangerous and unreasonable.  For Burke we should not rely on reason as much as experience of things being tried. If nobody has ever tried it before, its because it probably would not work. We must listen to the wisdom of the ages.   If something has been done a certain way for a thousand years then it probably works.  If it didn’t work it would have been changed and evolved out of existence some how.  Burke discusses the monarchy, overtime it lost power, but it was never kicked out.  It evolved.  When the monarch was kicked out for a period, Cromwell’s dictatorship resulted.  There is a lesson here.

English politics has always been based in pragmatism.   While the French were and are based in ideology.  Even today, political scientists consider British political cultural as “consensual” while French political culture is a textbook example of one that is “fragmented.”   People based in ideology will follow reason. People based in pragmatism will follow their experience, i.e. common sense, tradition, etc.

Burke says that a society that is always theorizing about politics is a sick society. If politics works well, be thankful. If you are always talking about politics and stirred up, then this is a sign of a sick society. Politics is only one aspect of life it is not the whole. A society that is obsessed with politics is a society that is in trouble. In modern society we tend to assume that every time we have a problem we solve it through government and politics. This reflects the idea that politics is not just part of life it is all of life. This is not to say that we cannot solve some problems through politics.  Burke told his fellow Englishmen that we ought to do away with the slave trade, and promote religious toleration, and we ought to be giving people their rights.

For Burke, the French revolution was on the side of bad change because it was caused by people who just threw out the old and came up with a totally new way of doing things based on their reason rather than following the wisdom of the ages and allowing things in France to evolve to a better situation than that of the past.  When Burke wrote this book there were many people in England said, “We need to have the same kind of thing here!”  Burke wrote his book to disagree with this and stop this idea.

Burke was an Anglican and his mother is a Roman Catholic. He takes a very negative view of the religious aspects of the French revolution.  The worst of those aspects haven’t happened yet at the time he was writing.  Many of the British were against Roman Catholics and the Anglican Church and Burke just cannot accept that. Burke is against anything that weakens religion. Burke believes that religion is one of the pillars of state and society. “A state in which religion is weak is unlikely to be a good state.” It may be a strong state, since religion challenges and weakens government - but it will not be a good state.

Burke, in his analysis of the follies of revolutions was able to predict what is going to happen in France. Burke makes the argument that sure things were not as good in France as they were in England but at the very least the Frenchmen still had a constitution. Even Louis 16th, an absolute monarch, had asked the parliament to come when he had to tax people. He even had to call the Estates General into session. He was limited by the un-written ancient constitution of the French.

“We are building on the shoulders of our ancestors” we don’t have to start at zero at each generation. If we build on the wisdom of the ages, we increase our wisdom, we are better than those before us. If we throw everything out, we are back at zero. It is like the child that touches the stove and has to burn their hand to understand it being bad.

English political philosophy is different than French political philosophy. It is a very different type of social contract theory than the French. Locke defends the current order with his social contract theory. Roussaeu starts a new order.

Despotism of the people’s origins is during the French revolution, J.L. Talmon called Roussaeu’s work “The blueprint for a totalitarian democracy.” It is an absolute government by the people. The most terrible forms of government in the 20th century have been totalitarian democracies. The reign of terror was a totalitarian democracy. The despotism of the multitude, according to Burke, is extremely bad. There is a middle way between the despotism of the monarchy and the multitude.

Instead of using their experience, the French tried theory. They used abstract ideals and created a new government based on theory and absolute ideals which had never been tried.  “Whilst they the French are possessed by these notions, it is vain to talk to them about the practice of their ancestors, of the fundamental laws of their country, of their constitution which is strengthened by experience of the ages and tradition. They despise tradition and thus they are going down to ruin. “ 

If you build a regime on reason and on theory then nobody has experience to lead.  Nobody has experience with how a government actually works. Men of theory accept the theories of social contract theories such as Rousseau.  We must destroy all of the old rituals, according to the French Revolution, because we must test all things by the scientific method and reason and do away with superstitions which keep us ignorant.

But Burke believes in “convention,” that there are certain things taken for granted in different societies. Burke has a real different view of nature from the French revolutionary leaders and Rousseau and social contract theorists. French Revolution says we must break away from society, why, because they all assume it makes us bad and unnatural. Society is unnatural to them. Burke says, if we divorce ourselves to society and the law then we are beasts we are like wild animals. If that is natural then I don’t want any part of it.

For more on the counter-revolutionary see here, here, and here.

Share This

Donald Devine, the head of the American Conservative Union, and an official in the Reagan administration offered a striking critique of the neoconservatives and their desire for empire before the war in Iraq even began. Devine, like Paul Craig Roberts another Reagan administration official, and other antiwar traditional conservatives, have been drowned out by pro-war neocon voices within the Right. Devine is highly educated in political theory and so his comments are always poignant. Here are some of Devine’s comments right after the war in Iraq:

Intellect abhors a vacuum as much as physical matter. So “national greatness” neo-conservatism soon replaced limited government as the ideal and filled the pages of the journals on the right, very much including NR, which at one point even called for a revival of colonialism under U.S. auspices and the building of an American empire. Bill Buckley himself was forced to repair to the pages of rival Human Events-which remained faithful to the original ideals but saw its role as a news magazine rather than as a journal of opinion—to condemn empire-building as incompatible with American conservatism. With the Weekly Standard message boosted by the TV stardom of its editor Bill Kristol—who recently boasted, “If people want to say we’re an imperial power, fine”—neo-conservatism became the dominant public face of the movement. The alternatives were the paleo-conservative magazines, Chronicles and the American Conservative, which were equally disdainful of mainstream conservatism.

Empire or National Interest? For a movement that began uniquely united in opposition to communism, it is strange that the conservative split would become most profound on foreign policy. From its founding document, the Sharon Statement, conservatives had agreed that all foreign policy had to be justified on the criterion—was it in “the just interests of the United States”? Communism was the “greatest threat” to those interests, so it had to be opposed. Iraq was not so simple for the question was empirical, not principled—was that war in the U.S. interest or not? Was it necessary to eliminate weapons of mass destruction and control terrorism or was Iraq not a threat unless the U.S. invaded and stirred up Mideast terrorism? Buckley and many others calculated war was necessary but still opposed empire building. Philosophically, either he was right that building an American world empire was against conservative principles or Bill Kristol, Max Boot and Paul Johnson-with some NR and the Wall Street Journal support—were correct that a new American colonialism was required to bring peace and democracy to the world. Even President Bush had said: “America has no empire to extend or utopia to establish”-but neo-conservatives were still trying to push him there anyway.

The New York Times reports Devine’s (incorrect) wishful thinking about a Bush-led Iraq war withdrawal after the 2004 elections:

A few months ago, Donald Devine, a vice chairman of the American Conservative Union, publicly apologized to Mr. Bush after it was reported that in disgust at the war he had failed to applaud a presidential speech. But in a column shortly before the election, Mr. Devine wrote that conservatives should vote for Mr. Bush precisely because he was likely to withdraw from Iraq sooner than Senator Kerry would.

Arguing that the president had dropped hints like a quickly retracted statement in a television interview about the impossibility of winning a war against terror, Mr. Devine argued that “the president’s maddening repetition of slogans” about the war was the “only politically possible tactic for a candidate who has already made up his mind to leave at the earliest reasonable moment.” He added: “The neoconservatives will be devastated.”

And in 2005, the Asia Times reported Devine said that “The only solution is for the US to exit before the whole thing comes apart.”

Devine is no saint traditionalist conservative, but at the very least him and Mickey Edwards and others part of the American Conservative Union are speaking out against empire, preemptive and aggressive war, and American support for oppressive regimes.

Share This