The Year in Quotes

The 20 most puzzling, hypocritical, and revealing things said about U.S. foreign policy in 2012.

BY MICAH ZENKO | DECEMBER 28, 2012

Understanding U.S. foreign policy is not particularly easy, but you can learn quite a bit from press conferences, congressional hearings, congressionally mandated reports, and answers to reporters’ questions. Often, I come across passages that are puzzling, audacious, hypocritical, revealing, or inspiring. In chronological order, here are this year’s top 20 notable foreign policy comments from the U.S. government – with a little context from your columnist.

1. Michael A. Sheehan, assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low-intensity conflict: “Al Qaeda wasn’t as good as we thought they were on 9/11. Quite frankly, we, the American people, were asleep at the switch, the U.S. government, prior to 9/11. So an organization that wasn’t that good looked really great on 9/11.” (Andrew Tilghman, “U.S. Misjudged al-Qaida Capabilities,” Air Force Times, Feb. 7, 2012.)

2. Department of State: “We call on all governments to declare or reaffirm their commitment not to conduct explosive nuclear tests, and encourage all States that have not done so to sign and ratify the Treaty.” ( Media Note: CTBTO Prepcom Fifteenth Anniversary, Office of the Spokesperson, Feb. 17, 2012.)

Of course, one of the countries that the State Department is encouraging to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is the United States.

3. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: “I am not a military strategist, but I think I know enough to say air strikes [in Somalia] would not be a good idea and we have absolutely no reason to believe anyone, certainly not the United States, is considering that.” (Press Availability on the London Conference, Feb. 23, 2012.)

Hours after America’s chief diplomat said this, U.S. Joint Special Operation Command conducted a drone strike — confirmed by two U.S. officials — against vehicles in a convoy in southern Somalia, killing between four and seven suspected militants.

4. Attorney General Eric Holder: “An individual’s interest in making sure that the government does not target him erroneously could not be more significant.” (“Remarks at Northwestern University School of Law,” March 5, 2012.)

Holder offered this remarkable observation during a landmark speech that provided the Obama administration’s justification for why U.S. citizens can be killed, and why secret Executive Branch discussions are sufficient to deprive a citizen of his Sixth Amendment right to due process.

5. White House spokesperson Jay Carney: “We have eyes, we have visibility into the program, and we would know if and when Iran made a — what’s called a ‘breakout move’ towards acquiring a weapon. So we have the capacity to judge that as the regime, the sanctions regime, continues to be implemented. (Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, Aug. 10, 2012.)

Months earlier, a senior administration official stated: “I have zero doubt that if Iran attempted a [nuclear weapons] breakout, we’d see it.” In 2013, if pressure builds in Tel Aviv or Washington for the United States to attack Iran’s nuclear program, reporters would do well to recall these statements and ask officials if Iran has made a “breakout move.”

6. Representative Tom Graves: “Does the federal government have the ability to kill a U.S. citizen on United States soil or just overseas?”

Director of the FBI Robert Muller: “I have to go back. Uh, I’m not certain whether that was addressed or not…. I am going to defer that to others in the Department of Justice.” (Hearing of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies,March 7, 2012.)

Mueller has been the FBI director since the week before Sept. 11, 2001, and has been intimately involved in virtually every significant counterterrorism policy decision since. If he does not know if U.S. citizens can be killed by the federal government within the United States, it is hard to imagine who would. The Obama administration has never confirmed if the federal government can kill U.S. citizens at home, though Holder claimed that there are no limits to “the geographic scope of our ability to use force.”

7. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta: “Any government that kills its own people loses its legitimacy as a government.” (Statement on Syria before the Senate Armed Services Committee, March 7, 2012.)

Later, during this hearing, Senator James Webb asked Panetta if his standard would have applied to the Chinese government’s violent crackdown against Chinese citizens around Tiananmen Square in Beijing in June 1989. Panetta replied: “My personal view would be that that was the case there.”

8. Sen. Charles Schumer: “Unlike President Bush, [Obama] said the drones could go across the border into Pakistan.” (ABC News, “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” March 11, 2012.)

Actually, President George W. Bush authorized CIA drone strikes across the border into Pakistan roughly 45 times during his presidency — the first in June 2004.

9. Representative Adam Smith: “I mean, imagine in your own community if every day you had foreign troops rolling down the streets as if they own the place.” (House Committee on Armed Services, March 20, 2012.)

To quote President Bush regarding a different U.S. military occupation in April 2004, “[Iraqis are] not happy they’re occupied. I wouldn’t be happy if I were occupied either,” and in May 2004, “Who wants to be occupied? Nobody wants to be occupied.”

10. Department of State Legal Advisor Harold Hongju Koh: “I have never changed my mind [regarding targeted killings]. Not from before I was in the government — or after.” (Tara McKelvey, “Interview with Harold Koh, Obama’s Defender of Drone Strikes,” Daily Beast, April 8, 2012.)

On the faculty of Yale Law School for a quarter century before joining the State Department, Koh in 2002 said the problem with the Bush administration’s “legally undeclared war” was that it blurred the distinction between enemy combatants and other nonstate actors: “What factual showing will demonstrate that they had warlike intentions against us and who sees that evidence before any action is taken?” Apparently, Koh is satisfied with the facts he has seen to justify the Obama administration’s targeted killings — and believes that only the Executive Branch should see such evidence.

11. Ambassador to Afghanistan Ryan Crocker: “Attacks planned and launched from Pakistan target civilians, international forces and Afghan security forces, and we have the right under the United Nations charter to respond to those attacks — and we will.” (Dion Nissenbaum, Taliban Hit Tempers Obama’s Afghan Visit, Wall Street Journal, May 3, 2012.)

This is an interpretation of the U.N. Charter that few legal scholars agree with, and not one that has been made by any other U.S. official. Article 51 of the charter allows for the “inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations,” which “shall be immediately reported to the Security Council.”

12. Jake Tapper: “There are reports that some of the rebels in Syria are affiliated with al Qaida, are extremist. Are you not concerned at all that arming these rebel groups in Syria could end up having a horrible blowback effect?”

Sen. John McCain: “Well, I don’t know what horrible blowback effect there would be, besides the fact that extremists may take it over.” (ABC News, “This Week,” May 6, 2012.)

13. Senator Lindsey Graham: “The existential threat we are facing from a rogue regime [Iran] that denies the right of Israel to exist, that has killed over 2,000 Americans in Iraq, that has been a proxy for evil throughout the planet.” (Senate Legislative Session, May 17, 2012.)

It was less remarkable that Graham contended that a country that spends 3 percent of what the United States does on its military and has no nuclear weapons threatens the existence of America, than it was that his comments went unnoticed by the Washington press corps or pundits.

14. Question: “After warning against a North Korea third nuclear test, North Korea officials yesterday said they are going to strengthen its nuclear deterrent. Do you think this is going to [be] a vicious circle?”

Victoria Nuland: “Frankly, I’m not sure what they mean by that. So obviously there’s nothing to deter in this case, so I’m not sure what they actually had in mind.” (U.S. Department of State Daily Briefing, May 22, 2012.)

What the North Koreans might have in mind are the nuclear-weapons powers that surround their country or the almost 60-year armistice that it has with its neighbor to the south.

15. Senator McCain: “I think for example the elimination of [suspected al Qaeda members] is perfectly unclassified information and is important information.” (CBS News, “CBS This Morning,” June 7, 2012.)

McCain was asked if the White House should tout the killing of a suspected al Qaeda official. The previous day he had stated the opposite on the Senate floor regarding the revelation of an Obama administration kill list: “Such disclosures can only undermine similar ongoing or future operations and, in this sense, compromise national security. For this reason, regardless of how politically useful these leaks may be to the president, they have to stop.”

16. Secretary Clinton: “Some believe that when it comes to counterterrorism, the end always justifies the means; that torture, abuse, the suspension of civil liberties — no measure is too extreme in the name of keeping our citizens safe. But unfortunately, this view is short-sighted and wrong. When nations violate human rights and undermine the rule of law, even in the pursuit of terrorists, it feeds radicalization, gives propaganda tools to the extremists, and ultimately undermines our efforts.” (Opening Remarks at the Global Counterterrorism Forum, June 7, 2012.)

17. Senator Graham: “The biggest bipartisan accomplishment we’ve had in recent memory is to destroy the Defense Department.” (Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, June 13, 2012.)

As proof of this destruction, Congress recently authorized the Pentagon somewhere between $525 billion [House] and $527.5 billion [Senate] for its base budget for fiscal year 2013, an inflation-adjusted cut of less than 3 percent from $531 billion last year.

18. Government Accountability Office: “These include concerns about privacy relating to the collection and use of surveillance data. Currently, no federal agency has specific statutory responsibility to regulate privacy matters relating to [drones].”(Use in the National Airspace System and the Role of the Department of Homeland Security, July 19, 2012.)

For maps of where drones are currently authorized to fly in the United States by the Federal Aviation Admimistration, see here from the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

19. Special Operations Task Force South East, Afghanistan, Commander Mike Hayes: “Nations are really good at starting wars and really bad at ending them.” (Maria Abi-Habib, “Seals Battle for Hearts, Minds, Paychecks,” Wall Street Journal, August 30, 2012.)

An insight worth bearing in mind before the next war.

20. Representative Paul Ryan: “Peace through strength is not just a slogan. It’s not just something we say, it’s what we do. It’s our doctrine.” (Mitchell Landsberg, “Paul Ryan Fires up Colorado Crowd with Focus on Military,” Los Angeles Times, October 21, 2012.)

This statement perfectly captures the foreign policy of Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign.

4 comments

FPWelcome to Foreign Policy’s new commenting system! The good news is that it’s now easier than ever to comment and share your insights with friends. Here’s how it works: You can now sign in by creating a LiveFyre account (which will replace the ForeignPolicy.com accounts from now on), or using a Twitter or Facebook account, and carry on a conversation with your fellow commenters in the section below. You do not have to sign in using a social network if you choose to remain anonymous – simply use a LiveFyre account to continue commenting. For more information, click here.

Conversation from Twitter

Saybrook71
Saybrook71from Twitter

@ForeignPolicy “Where’s Benghazi?This damned virus.Bill,ask Monica 2 refill the Rx,OK?I can’t believe how hard I fell.Don’t recall a thing”

coggocog

Even as we speak, K Street lawyers are making (up) law suits to defend, offend and rear-end logical, illogical, anti-administration, anti-armed forces, anti-liberal, pro-conservative, elements for blasphemy.

Chorus: I didn’t do it.

…and I am Sid Harth@elcidharth

seconds agoReplyLike

Conversation on FP.com

jvillain

So many of the problems that the US has these days can be directly attributed to the abandonment of the rule of law. Ever since Chaney and Bush came up with the idea that you could even wave the constitution by getting the White House lawyer to say it is null and void the US has been in a free fall.

2 hours agoReplyLike
HughO

I have just been googling some of the prophetic words from the Biblical prophet Micah. The amazing thing is that some things never change and that Man’s Inhumanity to his fellow Man was as popular then as now. Many thanks to both Micah’s for their telling the hard truths.

2 hours agoReplyLike

Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy

About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP

Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues

Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us

FP Logo

11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342

FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2012 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

Latest:
philippine president signs a bil
Belen Fernandez
Belen Fernandez
Belen Fernandez is the author of The Imperial Messenger: Thomas Friedman at Work, published by Verso. She is a contributing editor at Jacobin Magazine.

‘Foreign Policy’ magazine’s ‘distinguished’ Global Thinkers
FP purports to “present a unique portrait of 2012′s global marketplace of ideas and the thinkers who make them”.
Last Modified: 29 Dec 2012 11:16
Listen to this page using ReadSpeaker

Obama is recognised for his “more restrained view of America’s role in the world” and for “curb[ing] his predecessor’s dangerous excesses”, thereby “conclusively put[ting] cowboy diplomacy out to pasture” [AFP]
A few years back, Foreign Policy magazine began compiling annual lists of “The FP Top 100 Global Thinkers”. Aside from some worthy exceptions, the lists are populated by individuals whose dearth of intellectual qualifications tends to render the whole business an exercise in oxymoron proliferation.

With this year’s survey of Global Thought, FP purports to “present… a unique portrait of 2012′s global marketplace of ideas and the thinkers who make them”.

Given the neoliberal presentation of the mission statement, it’s not surprising to find corporate apologists well-represented in the marketplace. Global Thinker no. 65, for example, is US economist Paul Romer, whose crusade to revive the practice of colonialism in the world is creatively euphemised by FP into a “novel idea for persuading a developing country to sign away a parcel of land to be governed by a foreign power as a model for economic growth”.

Multibillionaire Bill Gates is meanwhile elevated to the rank of “perennial FP Global Thinker for the enormous scale and ambition of his efforts to finance – and reimagine – global health and development”.

Some of these virtuous efforts were showcased in a 2007 Los Angeles Times report revealing that “the Gates Foundation funded a polio vaccination clinic in Ebocha, Nigeria, in the shadow of a giant petroleum processing plant in which the Gates Foundation was invested” and which itself contributed in no small way to the deterioration of local health.

The brains of empire 

Of course, no inventory of Global Thought would be complete without a celebration of the cognitive processes underpinning US imperial predations. Among the 2012 honourees are President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former National Security Adviser and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and former Vice-President Dick Cheney – the latter two icons dating from the administration of someone who has been excluded from the FP list despite notable thoughts such as that Africa is a country.

 
 Inside Story – How militarised is US foreign policy?

Obama, the “brainy 44th president”, is recognised for his “more restrained view of America’s role in the world” and for “curb[ing] his predecessor’s dangerous excesses”, thereby “conclusively put[ting] cowboy diplomacy out to pasture”.

To be sure, reports that the Obama team has managed to conduct five times as many drone strikes in Pakistan as the preceding cowboy – a practice inevitably resulting in rampant civilian casualties – are a sure sign of civilised progress and a conclusive rejection of George W Bush’s “smoke them out” rhetoric.

In similar counter-intuitive fashion, Clinton is praised by FP, along with her husband, for her “vision” that the US can “promote democracy and development abroad without… needlessly antagonising other countries. It’s a different kind of American exceptionalism, based on more than just firepower”.

FP does not care to explain how Clinton’s campaign to validate the 2009 coup d’état against the democratically-elected president of Honduras constitutes democracy promotion or an eschewal of needless antagonising of a country that has for the duration of its contemporary history been at the mercy of US corporate and military interests.

That the coup has ushered in an era of intensified murder and impunity raises additional questions about the merits of “American exceptionalism”.

According to FP, Clinton “has emerged as one of the Obama administration’s most forceful advocates for human rights and democracy” based on her preeminent role in “the push for the United States to intervene in Libya last year”.

This assessment overlooks the fact that even the New York Times – bastion of imperial apologetics – has drawn attention to disconcerting accompaniments to firepower in Libya such as NATO’s refusal to acknowledge or investigate the substantial civilian casualties that resulted from its own bombardments.

Condoleezza Rice is meanwhile hailed as an “optimist” with an “unwavering belief in American indispensability” in the world. This indispensability was previously asserted via such events as the 2006 Israeli destruction of Lebanon and 1,200 persons (primarily civilians) therein, assisted by rush shipments of US weapons to Israel and hailed by Rice as the “birth pangs of a new Middle East“.

The presence in the annals of Global Thought of Iraq war profiteer Dick Cheney – described by FP as Rice’s “dark-side-minded rival” who is to thank for “keeping the neocon flame alive” – is cast as a mere diplomatic reflection on the man’s influence: “Cheneyism is alive and well in today’s Republican Party”.

After decreeing that “If scaring us silly were a religion, Dick Cheney would be its high priest”, FP goes on to observe that the former VP “is still waging a campaign… to convince us that the dark side of terrorists and rogue states is out there and must be defended against at all costs”.

Israel’s global musings

Despite apparently mocking Cheneyesque propaganda concerning alleged “dark sides” and “rogue states”, FP devotes slot 13 on its Global Thinkers list to Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Ehud Barak “[f]or forcing the world to confront Iran’s nuclear programme” and for “[a]lmost single-handedly… wrench[ing] the world’s attention toward the apocalyptic potential of a nuclear Iran”.

That Netanyahu and Barak’s alleged feat is not as single-handed as FP implies is made quite clear in a recent essay for the Journal of Palestine Studies by Edward S Herman, professor emeritus at the University of Pennsylvania, and journalist David Peterson.

“Dick Cheney … is still waging a campaign… to convince us that the dark side of terrorists and rogue states is out there and must be defended against at all costs.”

- Foreign Policy magazine

Entitled “The Iran ‘Threat’ In a Kafkaesque World”, the essay presents such findings as that, from July 2002 to June 2012, “the volume of media attention devoted to Iran’s nuclear program [in English-language wire services and newspapers]… was 88 times greater than that devoted exclusively to Israel’s (and 105 times greater in the New York Times alone)”.

Never mind that the International Atomic Energy Agency has not, in the course of obsessive inspections, stumbled upon the Iranian “nuclear programme” that FP passes off as unquestionable reality.

As Herman and Peterson note, “[t]he last major US National Intelligence Assessment of Iran’s ‘Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities’ in November 2007 concluded with ‘high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons programme’” – something that cannot be said for the bellicose homeland of Global Thinkers no. 13, a country that is nonetheless exempt from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as well as from weapons inspections.

That non-Iranian entities may enjoy a monopoly on “apocalyptic potential” is furthermore suggested by the authors’ contention that the hype over Iran “allows the United States to divert attention from the real threats that it poses itself, including its own contribution to the spread of nuclear weapons by its refusal to live up to its own disarmament obligations [as stipulated in Article VI of the NPT] and its acquiescence in the nuclear weapons programmes of Israel, India and Pakistan outside the NPT”.

As for FP‘s assessment of Netanyahu and Barak’s global influence – “Pretty impressive for a country the size of New Jersey” – impressive is not the first word that ought to come to mind when faced with the possibility of regional destruction.

Perhaps in an effort to appear less blatantly warmongering, FP assigns slot 14 on the Global Thinkers list to another pair of Israelis: ex-Mossad director Meir Dagan and former Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin, for “mak[ing] a convincing, hard-nosed case that a strike [on Iran] would only make the Iranian threat greater”.

Lest we start feeling overly warm and fuzzy at the prospect of human co-existence in the Middle East, however, FP assures us that “[t]hese former soldiers are no peaceniks… Netanyahu once praised Dagan by saying that he went to war not with a knife but with ‘a rocket-propelled grenade between his teeth’”.

According to FP, “[i]f the Israeli government doesn’t end up launching a war against Iran, it won’t be because of the persuasive abilities of US President Barack Obama or the political machinations of Israel’s opposition parties”. It presumably won’t be because of FP either.

Belen Fernandez is the author of The Imperial Messenger: Thomas Friedman at Work, released by Verso in 2011. She is a member of the Jacobin Magazine editorial board, and her articles have appeared in the London Review of Books blog, The Baffler, Al Akhbar English and many other publications.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.
Topics in this article
People
Country
City
Organisation
Featured on Al Jazeera
An investigation into illegal human organ trading in Kosovo, Turkey and Israel, and the challenges facing law enforcers.
While the vast majority of Democrats strongly support Social Security, the folks who finance the campaigns do not.
It’s the exact inability of guns to secure our freedom that establishes the foundation for our civil government.
101 East speaks exclusively to some of the Indonesians who participated in the systematic murder of millions.

Content on this website is for general information purposes only. Your comments are provided by your own free will and you take sole responsibility for any direct or indirect liability. You hereby provide us with an irrevocable, unlimited, and global license for no consideration to use, reuse, delete or publish comments, in accordance with Community Rules & Guidelines and Terms and Conditions.

Add New Comment

Logout

SiDevilIam (edit profile)
257 comments 196 likes received
Image
Share on

Showing 8 comments

Real-time updating is enabled. (Pause)
1 new comment was just posted. Show

  • So many words and so dazed and confused. Stream of consciousness can sometimes work. Here. it just shows the writer cannot construct an argument or cannot write.

  • Sour grapes, man, for bless her darling heart this is one superb piece of enlightenment that came off most humorous and delightful to read.

  • Or perhaps that you can’t read.

    The arguments in the article are briefly presented, in part because of the length that would result from a more extensive presentation, in part because they refer to incidents past that have already been argued about and whose discussion doesn’t need further additions. Still, the article is perfectly understandable. If you feel the article doesn’t give you enough to bite at, don’t be a lazy boy and click on the links.

    (Edited by author 58 minutes ago)

  • Naaaa, he can read.

    The article is understandable DESPITE its confusing writing and extreme bias and excessive load of clichés. “Israel is bad, USA is bad, the others arent, everytime we mention Middle East we should mention Israel only to attack it”, “the problemns caused by islamists are Israel`s fault” bla bla
    Hardly a good writer this woman…
    A hatemongering radical leftist is more like it…

  • bubbareeves 11 minutes ago

    Belen Fernandez …..A Monumental Delusional Fool!!

  • A caveat in the case of Bill Gates. It’s absurd to hold him responsible for every dollar invested by the humongous corporation he founded a generation ago. Besides, he’s pretty much retired from Microsoft. On the other side of the ledger, how many other of the super-rich are doing more to help the poor of the world? Sometimes you have to take off those anti-imperialist blinkers to see the whole picture.

  • IwakPeyek2 8 minutes ago

    In a plain explanation, FP showers the world’s most-dangerous and stupid people with accolades. In other words, this is just like a miniature of Nobel Prize winning contest reserved exclusively for american pugnacity and stupidity. Therefore, it is just a normal thing for warmongering judges to choose warmongering people to boot.

    On the other hand, Muhammad (peace be upon him), who was the only man to have had been both a founder of a major world religion and a major military/political leader, has been put at the top of the list by Michael Hart – a good jewish observer – in his book “The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History.” Michael Hart just put the unwanted and fatherless child, whose birthday is everyone’s guess at no.3 and he is even surpassed by a mere flesh and blood Isaac Newton at no.2. How could a mere flesh and blood Isaac Newton surpass the particular unwanted and fatherless child, whose birthday is everyone’s guess and who some stupid people think he’s god?

  • Don’t recall ever being so captivated by an article and in a most humorous as this piece by Miss. Fernandez. For it does so point out how glory unequaled is the profession of politics once you reach the dazzling heights of being able to fly with eagles.

    But then, to gain the funding and backing needed to win reelection, one must come hat in hand to a money tree, called, High Society

Home › Features › Comments › The Future of History

The Future of History

Can Liberal Democracy Survive the Decline of the Middle Class?
Comment

Selections from the Foreign Affairs archives tracing the ideological battles of the past century and the evolution of the modern order. The authors include Harold Laski, Victor Chernov, Paul Scheffer, William Henry Chamberlin, Giovanni Gentile, Erich Koch-Weser, Hamilton Fish Armstrong, Isaiah Berlin, Benedetto Croce, Leon Trotsky, C. H. McIlwain, Alvin Hansen and C. P. Kindleberger, Geoffrey Crowther, David Saposs, G. John Ikenberry, Azar Gat, Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel, and Nancy Birdsall and Francis Fukuyama.

Comment

Today’s troubles are real, but not ideological: they relate more to policies than to principles. The postwar order of mutually supporting liberal democracies with mixed economies solved the central challenge of modernity, reconciling democracy and capitalism. The task now is getting the system back into shape.

Liberal democracies need to move beyond simplistic choices, such as that between more and less regulation. The real question is not how much regulation but to what end.

John H. comments on
The Future of History

Something strange is going on in the world today. The global financial crisis that began in 2008 and the ongoing crisis of the euro are both products of the model of lightly regulated financial capitalism that emerged over the past three decades. Yet despite widespread anger at Wall Street bailouts, there has been no great upsurge of left-wing American populism in response. It is conceivable that the Occupy Wall Street movement will gain traction, but the most dynamic recent populist movement to date has been the right-wing Tea Party, whose main target is the regulatory state that seeks to protect ordinary people from financial speculators. Something similar is true in Europe as well, where the left is anemic and right-wing populist parties are on the move.

There are several reasons for this lack of left-wing mobilization, but chief among them is a failure in the realm of ideas. For the past generation, the ideological high ground on economic issues has been held by a libertarian right. The left has not been able to make a plausible case for an agenda other than a return to an unaffordable form of old-fashioned social democracy. This absence of a plausible progressive counter­narrative is unhealthy, because competition is good for intellectual ­debate just as it is for economic activity. And serious intellectual debate is urgently needed, since the current form of globalized capitalism is eroding the middle-class social base on which liberal democracy rests.

THE DEMOCRATIC WAVE

Social forces and conditions do not simply “determine” ideologies, as Karl Marx once maintained, but ideas do not become powerful unless they speak to the concerns of large numbers of ordinary people. Liberal democracy is the default ideology around much of the world today in part because it responds to and is facilitated by certain socioeconomic structures. Changes in those structures may have ideological consequences, just as ideological changes may have socioeconomic consequences.

Almost all the powerful ideas that shaped human societies up until the past 300 years were religious in nature, with the important exception of Confucianism in China. The first major secular ideology to have a lasting worldwide effect was liberalism, a doctrine associated with the rise of first a commercial and then an industrial middle class in certain parts of Europe in the seventeenth century. (By “middle class,” I mean people who are neither at the top nor at the bottom of their societies in terms of income, who have received at least a secondary education, and who own either real property, durable goods, or their own businesses.)

As enunciated by classic thinkers such as Locke, Montesquieu, and Mill, liberalism holds that the legitimacy of state authority derives from the state’s ability to protect the individual rights of its citizens and that state power needs to be limited by the adherence to law. One of the fundamental rights to be protected is that of private property; England’s Glorious Revolution of 1688–89 was critical to the development of modern liberalism because it first established the constitutional principle that the state could not legitimately tax its citizens without their consent.

At first, liberalism did not necessarily imply democracy. The Whigs who supported the constitutional settlement of 1689 tended to be the wealthiest property owners in England; the parliament of that period represented less than ten percent of the whole population. Many classic liberals, including Mill, were highly skeptical of the virtues of democracy: they believed that responsible political participation required education and a stake in society — that is, property ownership. Up through the end of the nineteenth century, the franchise was limited by property and educational requirements in virtually all parts of Europe. Andrew Jackson’s election as U.S. president in 1828 and his subsequent abolition of property requirements for voting, at least for white males, thus marked an important early victory for a more robust democratic principle.

In Europe, the exclusion of the vast majority of the population from political power and the rise of an industrial working class paved the way for Marxism. The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848, the same year that revolutions spread to all the major European countries save the United Kingdom. And so began a century of competition for the leadership of the democratic movement between communists, who were willing to jettison procedural democracy (multiparty elections) in favor of what they believed was substantive democracy (economic redistribution), and liberal democrats, who believed in expanding political participation while maintaining a rule of law protecting individual rights, including property rights.

At stake was the allegiance of the new industrial working class. Early Marxists believed they would win by sheer force of numbers: as the franchise was expanded in the late nineteenth century, parties such as the United Kingdom’s Labour and Germany’s Social Democrats grew by leaps and bounds and threatened the hegemony of both conservatives and traditional liberals. The rise of the working class was fiercely resisted, often by nondemocratic means; the communists and many socialists, in turn, abandoned formal democracy in favor of a direct seizure of power.

Throughout the first half of the twentieth century, there was a strong consensus on the progressive left that some form of socialism — government control of the commanding heights of the economy in order to ensure an egalitarian distribution of wealth — was unavoidable for all advanced countries. Even a conservative economist such as Joseph Schumpeter could write in his 1942 book, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, that socialism would emerge victorious because capitalist society was culturally self-undermining. Socialism was believed to represent the will and interests of the vast majority of people in modern societies.

Yet even as the great ideological conflicts of the twentieth century played themselves out on a political and military level, critical changes were happening on a social level that undermined the Marxist scenario. First, the real living standards of the industrial working class kept rising, to the point where many workers or their children were able to join the middle class. Second, the relative size of the working class stopped growing and actually began to decline, particularly in the second half of the twentieth century, when services began to displace manufacturing in what were labeled “postindustrial” economies. Finally, a new group of poor or disadvantaged people emerged below the industrial working class — a heterogeneous mixture of racial and ethnic minorities, recent immigrants, and socially excluded groups, such as women, gays, and the disabled. As a result of these changes, in most industrialized societies, the old working class has become just another domestic interest group, one using the political power of trade unions to protect the hard-won gains of an earlier era.

Economic class, moreover, turned out not to be a great banner under which to mobilize populations in advanced industrial countries for political action. The Second International got a rude wake-up call in 1914, when the working classes of Europe abandoned calls for class warfare and lined up behind conservative leaders preaching nationalist slogans, a pattern that persists to the present day. Many Marxists tried to explain this, according to the scholar Ernest Gellner, by what he dubbed the “wrong address theory”:

Just as extreme Shi’ite Muslims hold that Archangel Gabriel made a mistake, delivering the Message to Mohamed when it was intended for Ali, so Marxists basically like to think that the spirit of history or human consciousness made a terrible boob. The awakening message was intended for classes, but by some terrible postal error was delivered to nations.

Gellner went on to argue that religion serves a function similar to nationalism in the contemporary Middle East: it mobilizes people effectively because it has a spiritual and emotional content that class consciousness does not. Just as European nationalism was driven by the shift of Europeans from the countryside to cities in the late nineteenth century, so, too, Islamism is a reaction to the urbanization and displacement taking place in contemporary Middle Eastern societies. Marx’s letter will never be delivered to the address marked “class.”

Marx believed that the middle class, or at least the capital-owning slice of it that he called the bourgeoisie, would always remain a small and privileged minority in modern societies. What ­happened instead was that the bourgeoisie and the middle class more generally ended up constituting the vast majority of the populations of most advanced countries, posing problems for socialism. From the days of Aristotle, thinkers have believed that stable democracy rests on a broad middle class and that societies with extremes of wealth and poverty are susceptible either to oligarchic domination or populist revolution. When much of the developed world succeeded in creating middle-class societies, the appeal of Marxism vanished. The only places where leftist radicalism persists as a powerful force are in highly unequal areas of the world, such as parts of Latin America, Nepal, and the impoverished regions of eastern India.

What the political scientist Samuel Huntington labeled the “third wave” of global democratization, which began in southern Europe in the 1970s and culminated in the fall of communism in Eastern Europe in 1989, increased the number of electoral democracies around the world from around 45 in 1970 to more than 120 by the late 1990s. Economic growth has led to the emergence of new middle classes in countries such as Brazil, India, Indonesia, South Africa, and Turkey. As the economist Moisés Naím has pointed out, these middle classes are relatively well educated, own property, and are technologically connected to the outside world. They are demanding of their governments and mobilize easily as a result of their access to technology. It should not be surprising that the chief instigators of the Arab Spring uprisings were well-educated Tunisians and Egyptians whose expectations for jobs and political participation were stymied by the dictatorships under which they lived.

Middle-class people do not necessarily support democracy in principle: like everyone else, they are self-interested actors who want to protect their property and position. In countries such as China and Thailand, many middle-class people feel threatened by the redistributive demands of the poor and hence have lined up in support of authoritarian governments that protect their class interests. Nor is it the case that democracies necessarily meet the expectations of their own middle classes, and when they do not, the middle classes can become restive.

THE LEAST BAD ALTERNATIVE?

There is today a broad global consensus about the legitimacy, at least in principle, of liberal democracy. In the words of the economist Amartya Sen, “While democracy is not yet universally practiced, nor indeed uniformly accepted, in the general climate of world opinion, democratic governance has now achieved the status of being taken to be generally right.” It is most broadly accepted in countries that have reached a level of material prosperity sufficient to allow a majority of their citizens to think of themselves as middle class, which is why there tends to be a correlation between high levels of ­development and stable democracy.

Some societies, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, reject liberal democracy in favor of a form of Islamic theocracy. Yet these regimes are developmental dead ends, kept alive only because they sit atop vast pools of oil. There was at one time a large Arab exception to the third wave, but the Arab Spring has shown that Arab publics can be mobilized against dictatorship just as readily as those in Eastern Europe and Latin America were. This does not of course mean that the path to a well-functioning democracy will be easy or straightforward in Tunisia, Egypt, or Libya, but it does suggest that the desire for ­political freedom and participation is not a cultural peculiarity of Europeans and Americans.

The single most serious challenge to liberal democracy in the world today comes from China, which has combined authoritarian government with a partially marketized economy. China is heir to a long and proud tradition of high-quality bureaucratic government, one that stretches back over two millennia. Its leaders have managed a hugely complex transition from a centralized, Soviet-style planned economy to a dynamic open one and have done so with remarkable competence — more competence, frankly, than U.S. leaders have shown in the management of their own macroeconomic policy recently. Many people currently admire the Chinese system not just for its economic record but also because it can make large, complex decisions quickly, compared with the agonizing policy paralysis that has struck both the United States and Europe in the past few years. Especially since the recent financial crisis, the Chinese themselves have begun touting the “China model” as an alternative to liberal democracy.

This model is unlikely to ever become a serious alternative to liberal democracy in regions outside East Asia, however. In the first place, the model is culturally specific: the Chinese government is built around a long tradition of meritocratic recruitment, civil service examinations, a high emphasis on education, and deference to technocratic authority. Few developing countries can hope to emulate this model; those that have, such as Singapore and South Korea (at least in an earlier period), were already within the Chinese cultural zone. The Chinese themselves are skeptical about whether their model can be exported; the so-called Beijing consensus is a Western invention, not a Chinese one.

It is also unclear whether the model can be sustained. Neither export-driven growth nor the top-down approach to decision-making will continue to yield good results forever. The fact that the Chinese government would not permit open discussion of the disastrous high-speed rail accident last summer and could not bring the Railway Ministry responsible for it to heel suggests that there are other time bombs hidden behind the façade of efficient decision-making.

Finally, China faces a great moral vulnerability down the road. The Chinese government does not force its officials to respect the basic dignity of its citizens. Every week, there are new protests about land seizures, environmental violations, or gross corruption on the part of some official. While the country is growing rapidly, these abuses can be swept under the carpet. But rapid growth will not continue forever, and the government will have to pay a price in pent-up anger. The regime no longer has any guiding ideal around which it is organized; it is run by a Communist Party supposedly committed to equality that presides over a society marked by dramatic and growing inequality.

So the stability of the Chinese system can in no way be taken for granted. The Chinese government argues that its ­citizens are culturally different and will always prefer benevolent, growth-promoting dictatorship to a messy democracy that threatens social stability. But it is unlikely that a spreading middle class will behave all that differently in China from the way it has behaved in other parts of the world. Other authoritarian regimes may be trying to emulate China’s success, but there is little chance that much of the world will look like today’s China 50 years down the road.

DEMOCRACY’S FUTURE

There is a broad correlation among economic growth, social change, and the hegemony of liberal democratic ideology in the world today. And at the moment, no plausible rival ideology looms. But some very troubling economic and social trends, if they continue, will both threaten the stability of contemporary liberal democracies and dethrone democratic ideology as it is now understood.

The sociologist Barrington Moore once flatly asserted, “No bourgeois, no democracy.” The Marxists didn’t get their communist utopia because mature capitalism generated middle-class societies, not working-class ones. But what if the further development of technology and globalization undermines the middle class and makes it impossible for more than a minority of citizens in an advanced society to achieve middle-class status?

There are already abundant signs that such a phase of development has begun. Median incomes in the United States have been stagnating in real terms since the 1970s. The economic impact of this stagnation has been softened to some extent by the fact that most U.S. households have shifted to two income earners in the past generation. Moreover, as the economist Raghuram Rajan has persuasively argued, since Americans are reluctant to engage in straightforward redistribution, the United States has instead attempted a highly dangerous and inefficient form of redistribution over the past generation by subsidizing mortgages for low-income households. This trend, facilitated by a flood of liquidity pouring in from China and other countries, gave many ordinary Americans the illusion that their standards of living were rising steadily during the past decade. In this respect, the bursting of the housing bubble in 2008–9 was nothing more than a cruel reversion to the mean. Americans may today benefit from cheap cell phones, inexpensive clothing, and Facebook, but they increasingly cannot afford their own homes, or health insurance, or comfortable pensions when they retire.

A more troubling phenomenon, identified by the venture capitalist Peter Thiel and the economist Tyler Cowen, is that the benefits of the most recent waves of technological innovation have accrued disproportionately to the most talented and well-educated members of society. This phenomenon helped cause the massive growth of inequality in the United States over the past generation. In 1974, the top one percent of families took home nine percent of GDP; by 2007, that share had increased to 23.5 percent.

Trade and tax policies may have accelerated this trend, but the real villain here is technology. In earlier phases of industrialization — the ages of textiles, coal, steel, and the internal combustion engine — the benefits of technological changes almost always flowed down in significant ways to the rest of society in terms of employment. But this is not a law of nature. We are today living in what the scholar Shoshana Zuboff has labeled “the age of the smart machine,” in which technology is increasingly able to substitute for more and higher human functions. Every great advance for Silicon Valley likely means a loss of low-skill jobs elsewhere in the economy, a trend that is unlikely to end anytime soon.

Inequality has always existed, as a result of natural differences in talent and character. But today’s technological world vastly magnifies those differences. In a nineteenth-century agrarian society, people with strong math skills did not have that many opportunities to capitalize on their talent. Today, they can become financial wizards or software engineers and take home ever-larger proportions of the national wealth.

The other factor undermining middle-class incomes in developed countries is globalization. With the lowering of transportation and communications costs and the entry into the global work force of hundreds of millions of new workers in developing countries, the kind of work done by the old middle class in the developed world can now be performed much more cheaply elsewhere. Under an economic model that prioritizes the maximization of aggregate income, it is inevitable that jobs will be outsourced.

Smarter ideas and policies could have contained the damage. Germany has succeeded in protecting a significant part of its manufacturing base and industrial labor force even as its companies have remained globally competitive. The United States and the United Kingdom, on the other hand, happily embraced the transition to the postindustrial service economy. Free trade became less a theory than an ideology: when members of the U.S. Congress tried to retaliate with trade sanctions against China for keeping its currency undervalued, they were indignantly charged with protectionism, as if the playing field were already level. There was a lot of happy talk about the wonders of the knowledge economy, and how dirty, dangerous manufacturing jobs would inevitably be replaced by highly educated workers doing creative and interesting things. This was a gauzy veil placed over the hard facts of deindustrial­ization. It overlooked the fact that the benefits of the new order accrued disproportionately to a very small number of people in finance and high technology, interests that dominated the media and the general political conversation.

THE ABSENT LEFT

One of the most puzzling features of the world in the aftermath of the financial crisis is that so far, populism has taken primarily a right-wing form, not a left-wing one.

In the United States, for example, although the Tea Party is anti-elitist in its rhetoric, its members vote for conservative politicians who serve the interests of precisely those financiers and corporate elites they claim to despise. There are many explanations for this phenomenon. They include a deeply embedded belief in equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome and the fact that cultural issues, such as abortion and gun rights, crosscut economic ones.

But the deeper reason a broad-based populist left has failed to materialize is an intellectual one. It has been several decades since anyone on the left has been able to articulate, first, a coherent analysis of what happens to the structure of advanced societies as they undergo economic change and, second, a realistic agenda that has any hope of protecting a middle-class society.

The main trends in left-wing thought in the last two generations have been, frankly, disastrous as either conceptual frameworks or tools for mobilization. Marxism died many years ago, and the few old believers still around are ready for nursing homes. The academic left replaced it with postmodernism, multiculturalism, feminism, critical theory, and a host of other fragmented intellectual trends that are more cultural than economic in focus. Postmodernism begins with a denial of the possibility of any master narrative of history or society, undercutting its own authority as a voice for the majority of citizens who feel betrayed by their elites. Multiculturalism validates the victimhood of virtually every out-group. It is impossible to generate a mass progressive movement on the basis of such a motley coalition: most of the working- and lower-middle-class citizens victimized by the system are culturally conservative and would be embarrassed to be seen in the presence of allies like this.

Whatever the theoretical justifications underlying the left’s agenda, its biggest problem is a lack of credibility. Over the past two generations, the mainstream left has followed a social democratic program that centers on the state provision of a variety of services, such as pensions, health care, and education. That model is now exhausted: welfare states have become big, bureaucratic, and inflexible; they are often captured by the very organizations that administer them, through public-sector unions; and, most important, they are fiscally unsustainable given the aging of populations virtually everywhere in the developed world. Thus, when existing social democratic parties come to power, they no longer aspire to be more than custodians of a welfare state that was created decades ago; none has a new, exciting agenda around which to rally the masses.

AN IDEOLOGY OF THE FUTURE

Imagine, for a moment, an obscure scribbler today in a garret somewhere trying to outline an ideology of the future that could provide a realistic path toward a world with healthy middle-class societies and robust democracies. What would that ideology look like?

It would have to have at least two components, political and economic. Politically, the new ideology would need to reassert the supremacy of democratic politics over economics and legitimate anew government as an expression of the public interest. But the agenda it put forward to protect middle-class life could not simply rely on the existing mechanisms of the welfare state. The ideology would need to somehow redesign the public sector, freeing it from its dependence on existing stakeholders and using new, technology-empowered approaches to delivering services. It would have to argue forthrightly for more redistribution and present a realistic route to ending interest groups’ domination of politics.

Economically, the ideology could not begin with a denunciation of capitalism as such, as if old-fashioned socialism were still a viable alternative. It is more the variety of capitalism that is at stake and the degree to which governments should help societies adjust to change. Globalization need be seen not as an inexorable fact of life but rather as a challenge and an opportunity that must be carefully controlled politically. The new ideology would not see markets as an end in themselves; instead, it would value global trade and investment to the extent that they contributed to a flourishing middle class, not just to greater aggregate national wealth.

It is not possible to get to that point, however, without providing a serious and sustained critique of much of the edifice of modern neoclassical economics, beginning with fundamental assumptions such as the sovereignty of individual preferences and that aggregate income is an accurate measure of national well-being. This critique would have to note that people’s incomes do not necessarily represent their true contributions to society. It would have to go further, however, and recognize that even if labor markets were efficient, the natural distribution of talents is not necessarily fair and that individuals are not sovereign entities but beings heavily shaped by their surrounding societies.

Most of these ideas have been around in bits and pieces for some time; the scribbler would have to put them into a coherent package. He or she would also have to avoid the “wrong address” problem. The critique of globalization, that is, would have to be tied to nationalism as a strategy for mobilization in a way that defined national interest in a more sophisticated way than, for example, the “Buy American” campaigns of unions in the United States. The product would be a synthesis of ideas from both the left and the right, detached from the agenda of the marginalized groups that constitute the existing progressive movement. The ideology would be populist; the message would begin with a critique of the elites that allowed the benefit of the many to be sacrificed to that of the few and a critique of the money politics, especially in Washington, that overwhelmingly benefits the wealthy.

The dangers inherent in such a movement are obvious: a pullback by the United States, in particular, from its advocacy of a more open global system could set off protectionist responses elsewhere. In many respects, the Reagan-Thatcher revolution succeeded just as its proponents hoped, bringing about an increasingly competitive, globalized, friction-free world. Along the way, it generated tremendous wealth and created rising middle classes all over the developing world, and the spread of democracy in their wake. It is possible that the developed world is on the cusp of a series of technological breakthroughs that will not only increase productivity but also provide meaningful employment to large numbers of middle-class people.

But that is more a matter of faith than a reflection of the empirical reality of the last 30 years, which points in the opposite direction. Indeed, there are a lot of reasons to think that inequality will continue to worsen. The current concentration of wealth in the United States has already become self-reinforcing: as the economist Simon Johnson has argued, the financial sector has used its lobbying clout to avoid more onerous forms of regulation. Schools for the well-off are better than ever; those for everyone else continue to deteriorate. Elites in all societies use their superior access to the political system to protect their interests, absent a countervailing democratic mobilization to rectify the situation. American elites are no exception to the rule.

That mobilization will not happen, however, as long as the middle classes of the developed world remain enthralled by the narrative of the past generation: that their interests will be best served by ever-freer markets and smaller states. The alternative narrative is out there, waiting to be born.

  • 57 comments

Leave a message…
  • ray joseph • 3 days ago

    Simple cut spending or the USA credit rating will be lowered again , and the possibility of China raising the rate , and the result will be at the surprise of no one , that USA will be found in the same economic failure of the EU troubled countries .
    Tax rates increases will be met with higher interest rates , as the loss at the front door will be recovered at the back door with increased rates and fees .
    The rate jumped last week just before Christmass , this was just a shot across the bow by big money as a caution as they are not without tools of influences .
    The EU plan now is to move to one Banking voice of control with China supporting this move with a signature of approved loans , so lets not lose sight of facts , spending cuts occur or China will hold the strings and the big money is at the very least cautious of this drift .
    Obama was supported by unions , now these unions threaten to close ports in a strike . It is always amazing when social unions corner social govs. This strike could cripple the USA economy with the cliff at the door , and lets not forget the exodus of wealth that has left France and other EU countries with high tax rates . No spending cuts will result in spending cuts by the Middle Class as the economy will retrack over night if no wisdom is applied to the USA economy .

  • 0
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • William Starr • 4 days ago

    “supremacy of democratic politics over economics”….is this not what the left has always done…..at the heart of any left wing movement. The elevation of politics at the cost of sound economics? It HAS to be authoritarian in nature, otherwise people just flee. You get France now (the rich and productive) or the Iron curtain (to keep them in). The crux of ANY of these arguments is to demonize (such as the Jews in the past) or redistribute for some higher cause. In the end what you get is a system that less about individuals and more about a system that systematically reduces property rights and individual liberties in a authoritarian nature.

  • 0
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • niklas monrad • 4 days ago

    This is an interesting analysis, which I can personally endorse.That being said, I find there is a demonstrative absence of any discussion about the economics of the environment.

  • 0
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • Avatar
    xinzhi s. (May. 30, 2012) • 7 months ago

    You mentioned both IQ and genetics above, don’t you know that Ashkenazis’ mean IQ is 112 compared to whites’ 100? This difference means that, given a million whites and a million Ashkenazis, there will be 10 times more Ashkenazis with IQ above 145 than whites. http://www.bestoakley.net

  • 0
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • Avatar
    MEHRDAD N. (May. 6, 2012) • 7 months ago

    First, it is necessary for entry to glance at the Embassy of conquering America, and will refine it and the role that it could issue in selecting the President America is examined.
    America Embassy takeover in Tehran, Iran’s most lasting impact on foreign relations agency. Including for the first time a decisive role for an independent country and was created as a result of America’s presidential election in Iran was organized in 1979.
    About 400 students who called themselves Students Following the Imam’s line in 1980the America Embassy in Taleghani st. moved and occupied the embassy attack. The action was approved by the leader of the Islamic Revolution Imam Khomeini and called it as the first revelation. . In confirming their presence at this Seyyed Ahmad Khomeini endorsed the action is performed. Following this incident, the interim government of Prime Minister Bazargan to resign their resignation which was accepted by the Leader. and the Council assume the government of the country and Bani Sadr was appointed as Head of State.
    Bani-Sadr, acting State Department showed up and he takes the place of the pole. He says, “can not be kept forever and America as the land of the hostages freed, can not transfer a patient to submit to the humiliation of the Islamic Republic of Iran would not endanger the citizens to keep this man 50 or 60 the patient is satisfied. “

    Carter on March 26, 1980 (fourth Persian date Farvardin 1359) I wrote a letter addressed to the confidential and will announce: “We are ready to accept new truth is born of the Iranian revolution, we are. It remains our aim and ambition, because I think that our goal is world peace and justice for all nations, we are pursuing. »
    But the Imam will be released to Carter’s letter. Carter was a political scandal in Americato publish this letter. Kissinger immediately disclose the contents of the letter, Carter stated: “America must tell the authorities that the party is over. »
    Elections in America were all ready, in Tehran on the eve of the House was voting. Mohammad Mousavi Khoeini and says: “If we accept U.S. conditions, their hostages Monday (election night America) from Iran to fly.”

    Special Commission of four, Imam Khomeini was provided. Discussion on Sunday 5Persian date Aban 59 in a confidential meeting had begun, the representatives of the Commission reads the data Mousavi Khoeini heard and then voted and will vote on the proposal.

    The ball is now in the ground, Carter. But it can not pass the ball to the middle. Carter said: “We say we agree with the conditions we are not in conflict with the laws of America.” Hostages were released the next day, Reagan won the election.
    Spiegel wrote: “The United States could decide who sit in power in Iran, but today Ayatollahi in Tehran to determine the fate of the presidency of the United States. “

    The foregoing review of Iran’s role in selecting the President America in 1980 can be realized. Iran was the role that the Carter White House going to stop.

    It may now be witnessing history repeating Iran can still be an effective role in the upcoming election of America.
    Structural component is based on the composition of each country’s electoral politics and the laws of a country will be held. Although the election is something internal to each country but also of regional and global developments on elections in some countries is effective. Among these is the United States. Because Americans know so well as a world power in its internal affairs, international affairs are also considered. In this framework, the Persian date Aban 1391 American presidential elections are held for months before candidates from both Democratic and Republican parties, along with their positions on foreign policy, domestic policy formulation and presented.
    Given these conditions, some countries and regions have a pivotal role in American elections. Iran is among countries over three decades of his life had the greatest effect on American elections and the candidates have been some kind of axes.
    Example of this issue in the presidential election of 2008 can be seen clearly that the people of the Democratic and Republican candidates Obama and McCain wanted to discuss their views toward Iran. The major part of their propaganda campaign against the Iranian issue was dealt with so that even a part of their televised debate of the issues of Iran was established. . Of the electoral process in Western countries including the United States shows that some people look towards Iran, which was created by the end of the interaction and sometimes hostile policies toward Iran is the government. As the 2008 election because of the tendency of people to interact with Iranian politics, candidates, especially Obama’s engagement policy with Iran and tried to emphasize the slogan of change is allocated to how to engage with Iran without precondition.
    However, after 3 years Obama continues to implement its election promises to the American people did not act against Iran, but the positions he took on the role of Iran in the equations Sandy his election campaign in a country like America.
    Readout of American elections in 2008, records show that the American people against their country governments to incorrect policies towards Iran and demanded the end of this process were emphasized.
    After talks between Iranian representatives and the Group 1+ 5 hope to solve the Iranian nuclear issue and step by step to understanding Iran and the West is alive.
    This attitude exists between Iran and the P5 +1 that resolve cases based on Russian design built step by step and if so, certainly the Baghdad talks will be meaningful and beneficial to both sides of the misunderstanding and pessimism going out together.
    The Russians had made the offer of months ago that what is called the Iranian nuclearissue, with the Geneva and Istanbul is removable and if this trend continues, no progress in negotiations is not income.
    They were innovative plan that “step” by “step” was called Under this plan, build confidence between the two sides are formed such that the ambiguity of existing agencies and representatives of Iran to the questions and answers1+ 5. And also for the removal of sanctions and pressures against Iran takes steps several layers.
    The most important event that occurred during the recent negotiations, reaching a common approach to solve the crisis of mistrust. Pursue sanctions against Iran, the main axis of the future negotiations with the P5 +1.
    This is the progress of negotiations and achieve short-or long-term solutions to the crisis, rather than the former dead and some equations and forecasts broken down fold. Among these equations, and predictions can be noted that the Zionist militarism and threats in recent months had increased to an unprecedented way.
    The water was cold on the body of the Istanbul talks between Israel and its fanatical supporters, who were opposed to granting the opportunity to Iran. However we can say that the continuation of talks between Iran and the West, the interior of the United States and the presidential election will affect this country.
    Barack Obama accused Republicans of destroying the opportunity for compromise and will use his time to drawing and the Zionist lobby over the past Obama has disappointed and would not count on him.
    But surely before beginning substantive discussions at the meeting in Baghdad should not be a definitive analysis of the negotiations . But the current environment and what the media have reflected several speculations canbe sure it may become in the future See the future of relations between Iran and the P5 +1 to what extent can the international environment, elections, America, and the market economy, Iran and the oil embargo. And can affect change.
    Today the situation is that Iran is America ‘s elections as the primary actors in this election, Reagan was at the time.
    Obama has many problems, including economic problems and problems of Afghanistan and Iraq and Syria that America could not solve it.
    The situation and problems and should be said that Obama is pro-war and knows that the war caused great difficulties for his the country and war can cause oil prices to be up to $ 200. The problem is that Obama can be negotiated with Iran and even give concessions to Iran.
    There is no doubt that the problems in America and in case of war against the Islamic Republic to admit experts in oil prices in world market prices will rise unprecedented.
    And aspirations of the Islamic Republic of Iran has never left any country to ransom andalways force the ball in front of America has dealt with all authority.
    United States needs to negotiate with Iran because the Iranian issue is the role of owner in America a green light also has been shown by President Obama.
    If the tension between the two countries have since continued, expensive gasoline in America will be intensified and the public a chance to vote for Obama because the country is under a lot of people in America, their gasoline.
    It is due to trans-regional powers and players to become Iran’s balance of political forces, social and security in the Middle East and Islamic countries, most candidates try to take positions in central America, especially those that claim that can manage the communication and interaction have with Iran, something that Bush and Obamaadministrations practically a negative record as a challenge and has occupied the minds of the politicians in America.

    American hostages in Iran in 1980 with its political role played in Iraq and is currently the best tool to influence American elections in 2012. . Oil rich Iran has also enabled the country to destabilize the world economy to risk bringing Washington politics. Temporary closure of the Strait of Hormuz and its impact on the global economy will prove this case.
    Obama’s popularity among Americans, with the possibility of military action against Iran decreased more found as many U.S. officials, like Sarah Palin, Pat Buchanan, Dick Cheney, George Friedman and Ron Paul and his brother David (not the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Fidel Castro) were admitted to it.
    In addition to tightening sanctions against Iran and sending spy planes into the country’s financial crisis prevailing in the West and the possibility of military attack on Iran’s nuclear power plants again, Obama’s victory to the non-occurrence probability have made.

    Mr. Obama on the policy through diplomacy can provide up to its demands. The democratic government has been insisting on the other so-called P5 +1 and the World Society convinced that the best option for resolving the Iranian nuclear option is diplomacy.
    Consequently mutually Republicans claim that diplomacy had not responded to dateagainst Iran and Iran in diplomacy under his militaries activities continues. This means that during a respiratory cycle and the time that Iran’s nuclear activities militaries its own uses. These positions are quite similar to the view that the Netanyahu government and Israel. So it is natural that if the achievement or the parties agree or comments may be closer to each other, this is considered a triumph for Mr. Obama’s policy. In other words, what is the positive point in the record that Mr. Obama be considered for election, will be welcomed. Iran on nuclear issues and many issues related to Iran and even domestic issues America is also a credit for each party on every issue that is. They have tried to undermine it and negate it. Mr. Romney as the Republican candidate was conclusive. Republicans also have a role in foreign policy debates have emphasized the opportunities for nuclear talks with Iran’s nuclear activities to complete the circle of militaries approach.
    Mr. Obama is a completely different approach with the Republican approach. They are definitely in advertising to attract public opinion to try to approach each other, these two points is not only about Iran’s nuclear issue but all issues related to use them to maximize the differences between Iran and America.

    It was thus possible to argue that Iran’s nuclear negotiations could be important for each of the two parties, Republican and Democrat. If the negotiations take a positive and dynamic in the Democrats will win the upcoming elections.
    Obama believes this is because the party leadership to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue through diplomacy are. And always the military option as a last resort, were considered. Obama will insist on the principle that his relations with the Jewish lobby in America was difficult. Ehud Barak, who somehow always on the war drum against Iran criticized bangs.
    If negotiations fail, Republicans have a winning card in hand that will lead them to the White House Because they always believed that Iran’s nuclear activities are un peaceful and military solution to solve the Iranian nuclear problem are recommended.
    After review of the above can be concluded with Iran as a regional power that is able to partially affect their performance in the chess game of politics each presidential candidate sent to the White House.
    mehrdad nouri
    International Relations

  • 0
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • Avatar
    Gennady M. (Dec. 11, 2009) • 9 months ago

    ‘Something strange is going on in the world today’ in the false Fukuyama’s vision of the End and the Future of History only. He must read Hegel (better late than never).
    The goal of History is global ‘modern’ Democracy, not middle-class’ libertarianism and global multicultural mixture. So dichotomy of capitalism and socialism is not crucial. Nowadays market/capitalism is a tool for modernizing mankind as Christianity in the past.

  • 0
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • Avatar
    randi c. (Feb. 24, 2012) • 10 months ago

    As long as private capitalization on and competition with the common resources of the biotop is allowed all sorts of imbalances will exist. Social engineers will have to find a new socioeconomic key of distribution which has to be rather drastic, and that is why even socialists have a hard time recognizing its necessity. Prof. Herman Daly and others are doing a good job in research of just and effective ways to reorganize societies and their economies.

  • 0
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • Avatar
    Stephen V. (Feb. 21, 2012) • 10 months ago

    There is not so much a dearth of progressive ideas and ideology—but a corporate control of policy and minimization of distribution of those ideas. The little known Peoples’ Budget of Congress’ Progressive Caucus is an excellent illustration. It addresses many of the concerns raised in this article, yet few have heard of it. Few, also, know that that same Progressive Caucus is the largest such entity in Congress.

    In specific, Mr Fukuyama is in error regarding his statement that accuses the left of “a lack of credibility. (That) Over the past two generations, the mainstream left has followed a social democratic program that centers on the state provision of a variety of services, such as pensions, health care, and education.” In fact where the social democratic left has been successful it has been in these very areas. Especially healthcare, where most of the developed world has some form of universal, equitable health care– Always not for profit and often single payer.

    Time and space do not allow for a complete response. However, I would posit two related and relevant points to ponder. Corporate control of the narrative and policy has curtailed progressive ability to mature the dialog. That same corporate frame’s predominance has only permitted the “academic left … postmodernism, multiculturalism, feminism, critical theory, and a host of other fragmented intellectual trends that are more cultural than economic in focus” to be visible. This has simultaneously served them as a sop to their consciousness but one they can dismiss for its ephemeralness. Far beyond incoherent scribblings, this progressive economic, social, psychological and political philosophy “is all around if you could but perceive.” It is in the aforementioned People’s Budget, in the writings and critiques of Thom Hartmann, Naomi Klein, Jared Bernstein, Rachel Maddow, Robert Reich , Paul Krugman and oh so many more. And, yes, Occupy is one of our distilleries.
    stephenadairvernon.blogspot.co…

  • 0
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • Avatar
    Guest (Jan. 13, 2012) • 10 months ago

    The collapse of the middle class, the group that is not the top or bottom percent and owns assets is happening fast. Like those that still say “the man is putting me down”, most political movements are anchored in the past and view current problems with a filter that prevents them from seeing what is going on.

    The bottom class was the first to realize that automation was destroying their ability to earn money. Automation is in economic terms the human capital equivalent to slavery. As automation moves up the IQ ladder, more will be without work.

    What do we do with those that can not compete with high IQ automation?

    If ones time is no longer valuable to others then what will people do to trade for a living?

  • 0
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • Avatar
    Abdelouahed O. (Dec. 25, 2010) • 10 months ago

    Isn’t it high time to change your mind and let your ideology fit the reality of history and the present changes? A new democracy has been taking place since the Arab Spring broke out. And since it is a fair and people-based democracy, it has been bringing about the will of the peoples and will continue to prevail, here and in the future, for the age of top-down democracy has gone away and will never be back. The fall of dictators in the Arab World is the beginning of the decline of the western system, for they had been part of it and had been working in their same network.

  • 0
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • Avatar
    Maxwell H. (Dec. 21, 2011) • 11 months ago

    Unfortunately, the rapid growth of technology preceded the ideological expansion of democracy. Inequality has always existed and without any adjustment in the ideological thought process behind the structuring of government, democracy will lose its integrity. An example of this is the mere 1% of the US population holding 23.5% of GDP (2007).
    There is a desperate need for a realistic route to ending the domination of the elite. This route will include an understanding of what democracy’s tenants are, the needs and desires of the people, and a policy that allows for a relatively equal distribution of political power throughout the classes. This structural change must be generated by the middle class. As Fukuyama states, “there is a broad correlation among economic growth, social change, and the hegemony of liberal democratic ideology in the world today”. There must be changes to each of these three pieces of the puzzle in order for any plausible and realistic ideology to emerge from the technological age. The upcoming presidential race will have an enormous impact on the rising inequality that is spreading not only in the US but also across the globe. The question is whether or not that impact will be positive or negative. We can only hope for the former.

  • 0
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • Avatar
    Ran O. (Feb. 6, 2012) • 11 months ago

    “..since Americans are reluctant to engage in straightforward redistribution, the United States has instead attempted a highly dangerous and inefficient form of redistribution over the past generation by subsidizing mortgages for low-income households.”

    Form this perspective the housing bubble seems as the legitimate, morally right thing to do: if the government can’t provide the lower socioeconomic parts of society the minimal living conditions, then other parts of society will find a way (or at least try).

  • 0
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • Avatar
    Matthew S. (Dec. 2, 2010) • 11 months ago

    So I understand how the right has this divine reverence for the marketplace, and how it and the corporations that reside within it, must be left to their own devices. But that’s ridiculous. Taking rules and regulation out of the marketplace is like taking rules and regulation out of a football game. It only leads to chaos.

    Wouldn’t a better market be one that was controlled, so that it would not periodically destroy itself. Wouldn’t you want rules in place to prevent or even eliminate the chance of cheating, or unfair trade practices? Like all human systems, the market needs periodic upkeep.

    And there is the argument on the right the periodic crashes are a good thing, that they weed out the problems, that it is natural selection, but what is so great about a system doesn’t work all the time?

    What I’m saying is that humans have this great ability to make self-correcting systems. We have thermostats that regulate the temperature of your house. We have refineries that use complex chemical engineering to create fuels. And if any of these systems failed or blew up, we would trash them. So shouldn’t an economic system follow the same principles?

    We need sound principles in place to prevent economic catastrophe. Because would you let a refinery run itself with no oversight?

    I can add more to this point. For example, what if we combined the laws of the so called free market with the laws of nature to determine how things play out. I’m sure we’d come to some interesting conclusions.

    How aren’t banks that are “too big to fail” any different than dinosaurs? And following this point, if we use the dinosaur idea, what happens when a major catastrophe comes along?

    The dinosaurs were large and specialized to the lifestyle of which they best could profit from. So when that disaster hit, they died. However, what survived the catastrophe that took out the dinosaurs? Mammals survived. Why did mammals survive? They were smaller and more responsive to change. They also had the ability to breed quicker. Therefore, small mammals survived because, being smaller, they didn’t need to eat as much, they reproduced faster and more plentifully. So if some died off, there were others to replace them. So following this logic, small competitive banks would be more responsive to change than large investment banks. And if some of these smaller banks go under, there are others to replace them, so the hit on the economy is lessened.

    Working off of that same vein, a system with smaller businesses, would work across the board for increased survivability during times of economic downturn.

    For example, this model is used in Germany where these businesses are known by the name “Mittelstand.” These small to medium sized enterprises do a great job weathering economic instabilities because they are more responsive to change. They are smaller, so they have less sprawling supply lines and infrastructures in place. Larger supply lines and infrastructures lead to trouble when trying to change production lines or re-educate the workforce. Consider trying to turn in Galleon around as opposed a small Clipper ship. And also if one of these enterprises goes out of business, there are always others to pick up the hole left in the economy by the business’s exit.

    Smaller businesses have another advantage. They actually encourage competition amongst one another: leading to lower prices, better quality and more jobs. Smaller businesses also have less of a damaging effect on government, as smaller businesses have less lobbying power.

    And though it is only my opinion, I see lobbying power by businesses as a problem, because the voices of the business interests outweigh the voices of the public. However, I think that it is not a problem if the administrators and workers within a business work together to actively lobby, because then it is people that are lobbying not property.

    Also, since workers make up the vast majority of the people working for a business, they will most likely only lobby where both the business’s interests and the worker’s interests are one in the same. It is another way to check the power of business, and theoretically discourages practices unfair to workers. It also encourages consensus between workers and administrators, thus tying their success together.

  • 0
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
    • Avatar
      Guest (Jan. 13, 2012) Matthew S. (Dec. 2, 2010) • 10 months ago

      Many agree that the end of the Joe Kennedy designed Glass-Steagall and its replacement with Dodd-Frank is at the core of the mess we are in.
      Too much government action is bad. But it is a straw man argument that the right wants anarchy.

      Take the Department of Education. Do you believe we should just divide education money by population directly to the states or is it worth 15 cents out of every dollar to pay the Department of Education to distribute the money to the states?

    • 0
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
  • Avatar
    Santosh K. (Dec. 4, 2011) • 11 months ago

    Isnt this worldview guided by the assumption that Political ideology will drive the world? Isnt this itself a 19th and 20th century thought? What if we are entering a millenium where Economics will drive Political thought?

  • 0
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • Avatar
    CHRISTOPHER S. (Jan. 31, 2012) • 11 months ago

    The issue of the EU is both economic and political. Economically the free market system has reached maturity and is now in decline. Competitive based business and industries continue to derive less and less benefit from competition which expends increasingly more and more resources to achieve functional stability. The result has been growth sustained by ever increasing debt obligations. Political liberal democracy faces a contiguous challenge as expanding demography drives both processes. Should the world rescue the middle class as proposed by Francis Fukuyama in his recent Foreign Affairs article “The Future of History” at an ever increasing cost? Or should the free market system be replaced by a new economic and political paradigm? Democracies established on rule of the majority are now suffering demographic strangulation as minority interests are leveraged against majority interests through ever advancing technologies. Consequently more and more draconian measures are required to sustain its existence just as free market economics is being demographically challenged by dysfunctional competition. The paradigm of this conflict is structural functional in nature: As societies grow and expand they increase in complexity. This complexity then drives further complexity through innovation as expansion feeds back into the social order. The result is an underlying dynamic which accumulates aristocratic expertise and its development to address societal needs as they accumulate in the growth structure. Current liberal democracies as well as pre-existing non-democratic order now face constraints caused by internal contradictions with in their governmental structures. The development has been from workers to middle class to industries which increasingly support the affluent and wealthy ruling classes who use these systems for their own benefit. The result is an increasing evolution towards entitlement of the upper class which now faces the prospect of retrograde evolution to secure these entitlements as the middle class is reduced back to the state of workers and the ancient Marxist class warfare that precipitates. The process is one of devolution where the many are sacrificed for the few. In order to rectify this situation it may be necessary to create a global financial system that replaces the current failed model. One that eliminates or reduces the dysfunctionality of aristocratic processes through semi-automated AI networking that are established on consensus based processes which can be automated and that integrate economic and political activities. It is a paradigm that defines government and economy as a machine operated by people to provide for our collective needs. Ideology and religion become properties of individuals as functional mechanisms for identity formation rather than purely collective properties of governmental and economic structure. This changes the relationship between citizens and government to one where government assumes responsibility for using its human capital while individuals assume responsibility for implementing these mandates. Because the underlying mechanism is to replace a closed demographic system with an open one through guided transition from worker to middle class to aristocratic expertise advancement must be based on merit. The process of accumulating wealth and talent becomes the focus of AI managed enterprise rather than exclusively human. True wealth is then measured in terms of functionality as talent drives innovation which then drives demography. Economic competition is redefined into ever efficient mechanisms for distributing goods, services, and the entire host of human needs. Expansion becomes modular as expertise requires ever greater tools to resolve humanity’s ever increasing challenges. This is the paradigm of complexity which must be solved in order to prevent humanity from collapsing back into the Stone Age.

  • 0
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
    • Avatar
      via f. (Aug. 21, 2009) CHRISTOPHER S. (Jan. 31, 2012) • 10 months ago

      CHRISTOPHER offers an excellent diagnostic, yet I’m deeply skeptical of the cure.

      There cannot be a managed transition, and even less so could there be one driven by consensus and carried by semi-automated AI networking (whatever that means). Indeed, if AI stands for artificial intelligence, I’d ask to learn if the rules guiding the system are the ones we are supposed to reach by consensus.

      One should be reminded that consensus ends where the big powers say it does, the same big powers vote differently in the Security Council, and WTO is stuck in its search for consensus.

      For an idea about the evolution of complex social systems, we have Joseph Tainter’s http://fromabctoxyz.blogspot.c…

      A repositioning of the system could also come as result of a common experience of a cataclysmic event, natural- or man-made, like war.

    • 0
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
  • Avatar
    Amirali M. (Apr. 19, 2011) • 11 months ago

    One can argue that the advent of technology can deliver Marx’s message to the right address. Prior to the twitter and Facebook age, it would have been much more difficult for different nationalities to communicate, exchange ideas and unite in support of the same cause (hence the failure of the Second International). Today however, one can argue that the downgraded and frustrated ex-middle class of the developed world may begin to relate more to one another via the Occupyeverwhere movements than they relate with the upper middle and elite classes in their own societies. Perhaps the way forward is not a form of reinvigorated nationalist ideologies but a newly developed internationalist ideology.

  • 0
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • Avatar
    Amirali M. (Apr. 19, 2011) • 11 months ago

    One can argue that the advent of technology can deliver Marx’s message to the right address. Prior to the twitter and Facebook age, it would have been much more difficult for different nationalities to communicate, exchange ideas and unite in support of the same cause (hence the failure of the Second International). Today however, one can argue that the downgraded and frustrated ex-middle class of the developed world may begin to relate more to one another via the Occupyeverwhere movements than they relate with the upper middle and elite classes in their own societies. Perhaps the way forward is not a form of reinvigorated nationalist ideologies but a newly developed internationalist ideology.

  • 0
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • Avatar
    Mohamed E. (Jan. 20, 2012) • 11 months ago

    Well frankly Mr franky, your are whether attained with amnisia or you have a short memory. Then in 1991 you wrote your famous article “forget about Iraq History is dead” Now it seems that you are not conviced that the triumph of liberal democracy that you have preached is real. To say that the left has come up with no alternative idea, are you now vendicating your self from your self assertive dogmatism that you have believed in for so long.

    Your already claim has sentenced the intellectuel to death, but still you have told us in your bookish “Trust” a lot of no sense. And see where we are now.
    Persenally I will say ” Forget about Fukuyama his idea of the triumph of liberal dimocracy is dead”
    What we really need is a new enlightment

  • 0
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
    • Avatar
      Abdelouahed O. (Dec. 25, 2010) Mohamed E. (Jan. 20, 2012) • 10 months ago

      I appreciate your critical review to the essay and I wonder how such change looks like, especially after the Western economic crisis and the mainstream Arab revolutions during which (democracy) has been bringing about new systems with new criteria and new leaders!!!

    • 0
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
  • Avatar
    André R. (Jan. 31, 2012) • 11 months ago

    A concept that wasn’t tried is a fierce ordoliberalism. Carrot and stick. That would mean the world to become a bit Prussian and end the corruption and capture of the state which deadlocks the United States political system. It would result in a strong focus on antitrust and competition enforcement, “small enough to fail”, add multiple lines of defense, Kantian rule. “Fail safe” governance.

  • 0
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • Avatar
    Matthew S. (Dec. 2, 2010) • 11 months ago

    I think that markets have become much too limited in their freedom of choice. In the U.S., we only have 4 major cell phone providers, and this of course leads to price fixing through oligopolies. Thus, we need a great revival of our anti-trust legislation to effectively combat such problems. I personally would solve this problem without excessive or undue regulation with the following law. No Corporation can own another Corporation, nor can they own stock in another Corporation. I think this would benefit our markets greatly and break up these behemoths that dominate our economic and political landscape.

    I would also reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act to accomplish a similar goal in the finance industry.

    As I stated in another post, one of the fundamental corporate statutes states that a Corporation must put profit ahead of all other competing interests. So what this means is that Corporations are legally obligated to make as much money as possible. If anyone in the corporation interferes with the ability to make as much money as possible, they are fired.

    It is not that these people in the Corporation necessarily want to be dishonest or want to chase profit, but rather that the system is flawed, and pushes them into a position of unchecked greed.

    Thus, what we need to do is change the statute. We could re-word it to say something along the lines of: a Corporation of legally obligated to produce profit ahead of all other competing interests except when it adversely affects its workers or its stakeholders.

    This would bring more interests into the equation and protect the rights of more people. It would essentially tie the Corporation to the public good. It would also discourage unfair wages and outsourcing and community destruction.

    If the Corporation is the dominant player in the new economy then it has a responsibility to assume new roles in the community, otherwise we will merely have a new form of tyranny. Therefore, I think democratizing Corporations will have the effect of providing services to a greater number of people and thus provide for the common good. However, it must be done through legislation.

    The problem is not the people, it is the system.

  • 0
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
    • Avatar
      CARLA B. (Apr. 3, 2012) Matthew S. (Dec. 2, 2010) • 9 months ago

      I agree with Matthew. In the second to late paragraph Fukuyama states “The current concentration of wealth has already become self sustaining, as the economist Simon Johnson has noted.” Fukuyama explores many of the trends leading to the decline of the middle class, globalization and mechanization but ignores the fact that we are in a winner take all economy and for decades the profits from our system has been increasingly skimmed of by those at the top. It is heresy to question corporate governance or corporate compensation systems. Our system has been subverted to support the corporate good and not the community good.
      And I agree that there is not enough competition. For instance I have only two choices of cable, internet telecommunications in the large market area I live in. They are both equally bad and over priced but if I want this type of service I have no choice.
      We have plenty of money around to solve the problems of our day, of which Fukuyama commented on such as investment in infrastructure, education and research and I might add restructuring entitlements. The problem is that it is concentrated in the wrong places and to state so in our political environment one is charged with all sorts of euphemisms.
      I agree with Fukuyama’s last line “The alternative narrative is out there waiting to be born”. I question even if it is out there being shouted from the roof tops will the prevailing elite let it be heard? I look at the hard core shouting heads on right of our political spectrum and I think not.

    • 0
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
  • Avatar
    ROBERT G. (Oct. 12, 2011) • 11 months ago

    See my comments on Mr. Kupchan’s article “The Democratic Malaise”. They are equally germane to this piece.

    This is more smoke and mirrors…now the problem is that the left doesn’t have any good ideas on how to fix the economic and political system.
    Mr. Fukuyama and Mr. Kupchan are both barking up the wrong tree. They both want to pass over the real problem and try to convince everyone that it’s really either the lack of ideas from the left (Mr. Fukuyama) or globalization (Mr. Kupchan) that is causing all the problems for modern democracies.
    I have already commented on Mr. Kupchan’s piece, but I have some comments on this one as well.
    Mr. Fukuyama states ““Marxism died many years ago, and the few old believers still around are ready for nursing homes.”
    Not so fast…there are intelligent people out there taking another look at Marx’s ideas about the inherent self-destructive nature of capitalism…not “Marxism”, whatever that is. Marx did not even call himself a “Marxist”. If we in the US can get far enough away from the “Red Scare” to finally take a look at what Marx was correct about, namely that those with capital are not likely concerned about those without capital, then we may be able to come up with an alternative to the sorry excuse for democracy and free enterprise that we have today.
    The problem is much simpler than all the “static” in both this article and Mr. Kupchan’s article “The Democratic Malaise”. The American free enterprise system has become what Marx correctly predicted it would become, e.g. a monster that takes great care of a very few and makes misery for the rest. It is time for our economic and political leaders, as well as our academics, to take a hard look at our economic and political systems (one cannot be fixed without considering the other) and see if we cannot adjust them both so as to allow for everyone to have an opportunity to get what they need. And remember, most people do not need yachts. They want a modest home, the ability to take care of their family, send their kids to trade school or college, and maybe take a week-long vacation each year. This is not about redistribution of income. This is about a big mistake we made when technology first came on the scene during the industrial revolution. We had the chance to use technology to make everyone’s life better and we chose to use it to make more money for the most wealthy. We have continued down that greedy road ever since and we are now just beginnng to pay the price for it. Let’s get real and stop trying to blame this mess on globalization or lack of ideas from the left. Let’s start to be honest about the real issue..the fact that we have been a society (United States) that has been willing for forty years (or much longer really) to allow the rich to get richer with no consideration for the rest. Read Marx. He talked about how this was built into the nature of capitalism itself.

  • 0
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
    • Avatar
      William D. (Jan. 15, 2012) ROBERT G. (Oct. 12, 2011) • 10 months ago

      Capitalism is one of the most prominent influences in the world today. Marx was
      the first to identify capitalism as a historical object and showed how it arose,
      by what laws it worked, and how it might be brought to an end.

      Just like Newton’s work on gravity and Freud’s work on the subconscious, Marx
      exposed in our everyday life this imperceptible entity called capitalism.

      Equally important, and much less mentioned is Marx’s moral and cultural
      critique, which is of particular relevance to religion. The extraordinarily
      rich, fertile body of Marxist writing in these subjects is unavoidable today.
      Alienation, the commodification of social life, a culture of greed, mindless
      hedonism, racism, and the flight of meaning and value from human life: it is
      hard to find any discussion of these questions that are not seriously full of
      Marx’s ideas.

      The idea that Marxism is finished would be great news to Marxists everywhere.
      They could pack in their marching and protests and return to their families.
      Marxists want nothing more than the end of Marxism. Being a Marxist is like
      being a medic–you wish you didn’t have to do it. The fact that there are still
      Marxists today is a very sad state of affairs.

      As long as capitalism is still in business, I am afraid Marx will be around. At
      the last sighting, capitalism seems to be as vigorous as ever.

    • 0
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • Avatar
      Jordan B. (Feb. 2, 2012) ROBERT G. (Oct. 12, 2011) • 11 months ago

      Quick note. I would largely agree that much of Marx’s works provide relevant discourse to contemporary issues but that isn’t to say that Marxism (of which is an academically accepted framework and definiton of which you appear to dismiss the usefulness of such language) ‘packs a punch’ among the academic, political or economic world. Not only is Marxism largely dismissed while discussing contemporary issues (although Roubini appears to be bringing it back hehe), its importance as an academic approach (in economic or political departments at universities. Even many philosophical departments reject any Hegelian-esque framework) has been disappearing for decades.

    • 0
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
      • Avatar
        ROBERT G. (Oct. 12, 2011) Jordan B. (Feb. 2, 2012) • 11 months ago

        Check out David Harvey and his analysis regarding the crises of capitalism. Lots of good analysis about our most current crisis via a rigorous use of Marx’s concepts. The question is can we move closer to zero growth globally and yet achieve and maintain full employment, and better yet, worthwhile employment. We cannot continue to count on 3% growth. Real demand and available resources will not support this indefinitely on a global scale. Only artificially created demand can temporarily support this kind of growth, which is what we have been relying on and why we are in the mess we are in now. Marx’s ideas have been pronounced dead before, but I think we will hear his name mentioned more and more as we move forward in trying to address this latest crisis of capitalism.

      • 0
      • •
      • Reply
      • •
      • Share ›
        • Avatar
          James Q. (Aug. 29, 2011) ROBERT G. (Oct. 12, 2011) • 11 months ago

          We cannot maintain full employment even with outstanding growth. Economies of scale are becoming too efficient, and day by day more tasks that used to require humans become possible to automate. There will come a time when the marginal additional labor input required to supply an additional human being with all the trappings of a middle class lifestyle gets arbitrarily close to zero. When that time comes, such a lifestyle will be more affordable than ever, yet unattainable as there will be a closed subset of humanity that literally has no use for the rest. At that point, only permanently supported artificial demand can avert violent revolution (redistributive “solutions” generally falling under the aegis of “violent revolution”.)

        • 0
        • •
        • Reply
        • •
        • Share ›
  • Avatar
    Guest (Jan. 24, 2012) • 11 months ago

    While Fukuyama’s analysis of what’s happening or what’s happened is fairly through and accurate as it usually is, his optimism for the future and his proposed “solutions” leave much to be desired. There is no basis to believe that there is in fact a solution to the economic situation that will pave the way for some glorious rebirth of the middle class or equality. Historically speaking, society has been divided into a large underclass and a small overclass. That seems to be the default of human societies, due to human nature. Fukuyama himself mentions that the bourgeois are instrumental in having a middle class, democratic state. I agree, but that group is vanishing. He also mentions technology but has no solution to that problem either.

    What Fukuyama and many other analysts need to face is the fact that the problem might be structural. There is no saving the middle class liberal democratic experiment. Such a model inherently falls apart.. So his thought experiment about towards a realistic future of liberal democracies is misplaced.

  • 0
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • Avatar
    Guest (Jan. 18, 2012) • a year ago

    “Economically, the ideology could not begin with a denunciation of capitalism as such, as if old-fashioned socialism were still a viable alternative.”

    Who is to say that the new ideology has to accept capitalism as the only economic model? Occupy Wall Street is indeed a very well-thought movement with strong ideological grounds based on anarchist principles, determined to question “everything” and to create an “alternate” world:

    (http://www.aljazeera.com/indep….

    The inability of capitalism and liberal democracy to continue to deliver increasing well-being in the West, exacerbated by the ravages of financial speculative capitalism which lead to the 2008 debacle, the increasing levels of inequality and poverty, and the disenchantment with lobby-and-money-based politics, all of which you acknowledge, might see the rebirth of anarchist ideas, which may get traction as the crisis deepens. This time the struggle might not be between capitalism and state socialism, but between direct vs. representative democracy, cooperative rather than competitive economic models, and direct action instead of protest. Don’t rule the anarchists out just yet. Maybe we should dust-off those Bakunin, Kropotkin, and Emma Goldman books!

  • 0
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
    • Avatar
      James Q. (Aug. 29, 2011) Guest (Jan. 18, 2012) • 11 months ago

      It’s well and good to “question everything”, but eventually (if its not to be a merely Onanistic exercise) answers must be reached. The Occupy movement is long on sentiment and short on proposals. A practical economic system channels individual self-interest into productive paths. Socialistic alternatives depend upon legislating away, or worse yet wishing away self interest.

      Such alternatives are destined to fail because governments are essentially unable to actually control an economy. The example of Soviet style state communism showed that to control an economy is to destroy it, like gripping a handful of sand. This was borne out in the small by the 2008 recession, which arose from socialistic housing subsidies, and to which credit default swaps were but an adjunct. We can monkey with a variable or two, but cannot escape the blowback. Marxism is not an escape from this – it’s all blowback.

    • 0
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
  • Avatar
    Guest (Jan. 16, 2012) • a year ago

    For a deep consideration of the issues raised by F. Fukuyama one should read Panayiotis Kondylis’ books “Planetary Politics after the Cold War” (1992) and “From the 20th to the 21st Century: Examining World Politics Around the Year 2000″ (1998), in which the root causes that govern future world politics are examined in detail.

    Alexandros Tzirkotis

  • 0
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • Avatar
    ALEXANDROS S. (Jan. 9, 2012) • a year ago

    First of all congratulations for this analysis, even though i have to say that in my opinion it fails to give the full picture in a couple of issues. First, the Arabic Spring: Of course everyone likes the idea of Democracy because everyone wants to decide for his future, i do not even dare to judge our democracy because it is a huge issue, but let’s say that the western countries are democratic, even though democracy is appealing, i do not know if the western model is appealing to the rest of the world, second the western model has based in national similarity an in national countries or in federal states, the Arabic world countries and Turkey and Iran have been formed having people of different nations or tribes or religions or all together and in big numbers. Egypt is more like a national country and we could talk about a democratic revolution, although there is a religious fight that can not be ignored and Libya looks like to me more like, which tribe is going to prevail. Also we should not forget that democracy demands educated people so to be real and not just a meaningless word, the lack of education because of the totalitarianism in the region, forever, is a huge obstacle!

    Second, the author says about, engineers for example, capitalise their talent more than they used to. Well, this can happen, but the biggest inequality is that even though a lot less people have to work in a factory nowadays and people buy more, all products cost much more than they used to and the profit for the elite becomes more and more, while at the same time people that were working in factories stay unemployed so poor. By this i want to say that the problem has two sides, not only people become more rich but many more become poorer. We have “slaves” as someone has said, but just a few benefit from them.

    In any case, i am worried Andrea and Joe, your comments are disturbing and false as well, Andrea i do not think that profit has a race, it has no difference if the billionaire person is Jew, English, Greek, Turkish, German, Brazilian or whatever, he will still work as a part of an elite, this is the big issue to be solved. Second this thing about genetics is absolutely unacceptable and immoral and i do n’t even want to mention who these comments reminded. Also Joe this thing about the IQ is nonsense, there are so many different ways to measure IQ and most of them are questionable, even though you would get your answer why there are so many Jewish in Harvard if you read Robert’s comment above. I mean i know a couple of prime ministers in countries around the world that have been to Harvard and you can not say that they were very successful :)

  • 0
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • Avatar
    Omar N. (Mar. 20, 2009) • a year ago

    That STUPID CAPCHA system keeps telling me “try again” only to discover that it had already accepted ALL my previous attempts.
    It may well repeat that now with unwanted multiple entries

  • 0
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • Avatar
    Omar N. (Mar. 20, 2009) • a year ago

    That STUPID CAPCHA system keeps telling me “try again” only to discover that it had already accepted ALL my previous attempts.
    It may well repeat that now with unwanted multiple entries

  • 0
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • Avatar
    Omar N. (Mar. 20, 2009) • a year ago

    Liberalism economic then political are in a crisis that the 2007-2008 financial crisis marginally ,but with a substantial margin, uncovered .
    Next time around it will NOT be concealed as it was and is concealed now.
    Maintaining the privileges of mega corps and their CEOs at the expense of pension funds, social adds on and labour unions will NOT be allowed nor tolerated.
    The minor political repercussions of that recent crisis and outputs there from do not, yet, seem to affect the coming presidential elections.
    The next inevitable crisis’ will have to usher and introduce into American life a new financial/economic AND political system; most probably by the emergence of a new political party to challenge the present one Democratic/Republican party system.

  • 0
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • Avatar
    Omar N. (Mar. 20, 2009) • a year ago

    Liberalism economic then political are in a crisis that the 2007-2008 financial crisis marginally ,but with a substantial margin, uncovered .
    Next time around it will NOT be concealed as it was and is concealed now.
    Maintaining the privileges of mega corps and their CEOs at the expense of pension funds, social adds on and labour unions will NOT be allowed nor tolerated.
    The minor political repercussions of that recent crisis and outputs there from do not, yet, seem to affect the coming presidential elections.
    The next inevitable crisis’ will have to usher and introduce into American life a new financial/economic AND political system; most probably by the emergence of a new political party to challenge the present one Democratic/Republican party system.

  • 0
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • Avatar
    Omar N. (Mar. 20, 2009) • a year ago

    Liberalism economic then political are in a crisis that the 2007-2008 financial crisis marginally ,but with a substantial margin, uncovered .
    Next time around it will NOT be concealed as it was and is concealed now.
    Maintaining the privileges of mega corps and their CEOs at the expense of pension funds, social adds on and labour unions will NOT be allowed nor tolerated.
    The minor political repercussions of that recent crisis and outputs there from do not, yet, seem to affect the coming presidential elections.
    The next inevitable crisis’ will have to usher and introduce into American life a new financial/economic AND political system; most probably by the emergence of a new political party to challenge the present one Democratic/Republican party system.

  • 0
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • Avatar
    Omar N. (Mar. 20, 2009) • a year ago

    Liberalism economic then political are in a crisis that the 2007-2008 financial crisis marginally ,but with a substantial margin, uncovered .
    Next time around it will NOT be concealed as it was and is concealed now.
    Maintaining the privileges of mega corps and their CEOs at the expense of pension funds, social adds on and labour unions will NOT be allowed nor tolerated.
    The minor political repercussions of that recent crisis and outputs there from do not, yet, seem to affect the coming presidential elections.
    The next inevitable crisis’ will have to usher and introduce into American life a new financial/economic AND political system; most probably by the emergence of a new political party to challenge the present one Democratic/Republican party system.

  • 0
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • Avatar
    Fred L. (Feb. 28, 2010) • a year ago

    (Footnote to my previous comment: Fukuyama’s article also highlights the growing cultural, political and economic divide between elites and masses. In America, the latter buy into patriotism, nationalism, local community, and “family values” and feel betrayed by government and corporate elites: animating forces in the Tea Party. The elites, on the other hand, subscribe to multiculturalism, mass migration, and a global orientation in all things. They are globally oriented and disdain those who can’t make it in the new order–brilliantly described in Chrystia Freeland’s seminal Atlantic article :The Rise of the New Global Elite.”)

  • 0
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • Avatar
    Fred L. (Feb. 28, 2010) • a year ago

    Excellent article that follows a long line of social science analyses on the importance of a large, educated middle class as the vital “balance wheel” of democratic societies. The definitive middle class political battle is going to be the struggle to reform the most popular middle-class safety nets: Medicare and Social Security. As I point out in my own book, ONE NATION UNDER AARP, perhaps half of aging baby boomers may not be able to maintain anything like middle class status as they age. Whether they will be able to mobilize to defend their own interests–or be mobilized by AARP–remains to be seen. The politics of old age entitlement, in turn,will reflect globalization’s erosion of the spirit of E Pluribus Unum, national cohesion and the nation state–the subject of another fine 1996 article in this journal.

  • 0
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • Avatar
    Joe S. (Jul. 8, 2011) • a year ago

    1. Fukayama is indeed recognizing that he there may in fact exist a contradiction within liberal democracy that prevents it from being the “end of history”.

    2. Fukayama briefly alludes to the demographic issue (ie. capitalist societies don’t have many kids) – but it probably ranks with the “endangered” middle class as a major contributor to current problems.

    3. The last several paragraphs of the article fail to really say anything … thus confirming that not only does “the left” not know how to handle the current situation but really noone does. If a resolution is found, it may well be a “right-wing” solution. You won’t know until you find it.

  • 0
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • Avatar
    Vladimir P. (Dec. 25, 2011) • a year ago

    Alternative narrative waiting to be born? I don’t think so. If it is out there it would have been published by now and caught interest of the masses.
    It’s interesting how your criticism concentrates only on the left. As if the right has some compelling arguments today. How about checking this article: http://breakthroughjournal.org….
    What would you say if I would suggest that the next big thing in the arena of ideas might not come from “narratives,” but from goals, broad based and worthy goals. Or maybe even one goal. Those things we call ideologies had simple goals behind them. Its not a narrative we need – it is a worthy goal that can excite a lot of people. Unfortunately, it seems it can only be born out of necessity, and it seems we are not there yet.

  • 0
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • Avatar
    PETER T. (Dec. 1, 2011) • a year ago

    Excellent article – great overview of history + very thought-provoking. Find it hard to disagree with the view put forward.

  • 0
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  • Avatar
    Andrea F. (Dec. 21, 2011) • a year ago

    Fukuyama worries that technology has killed off many jobs, which means more and more people won’t have meaningful labor.

    But maybe this is a good thing(at least with hyper technology in the future). Most work is boring and laborious. Most people don’t want to work and work only because they have to.

    We are not there yet, but suppose future techology is so advanced that robots will manage other robots to produce tons of stuff and services for man. Then, we would have a massive mecha-slave race working for us. While it’s wrong to enslave fellow man, who would be opposed to robots programmed and designed to serve as slaves(and managers of those slaves)?

    Today, people without work live on welfare. But remember that the aristocrats in the past didn’t work because slaves or serfs did the work for them. In Egypt, the masses of slaves toiled while Pharaohs and their cohorts lived the good leisurely life.

    If we can have huge armies of mecha-slaves working for us, every person could live like an aristocrat or pharaoh. Sure, certain key positions will still have to be manned by people, but the thing is most people won’t have to work since most of the production and distribution will be done by robots who will be the slaves of all mankind.
    This way, humanity can make the transition from the majority being in the middle class to most people aristocrats who won’t have to work. Instead of thinking in terms of technology taking away our jobs, we could see technology as removing our need to work–indeed liberating mankind from dreary labor. Since robots will produce all that we need, we can take it easy or use our time to enjoy art and culture.
    This wouldn’t be capitalism, nor would it be communism. It would be… techno-aristocratism.

  • 0
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
    • Avatar
      Matthew S. (Dec. 2, 2010) Andrea F. (Dec. 21, 2011) • 11 months ago

      This is a good idea. However, in terms of building the economic infrastructure, technological infrastructure and knowledge infrastructure that are required to produce such a system, we need more investment. However, it is obvious the you are using systems thinking to solve complex problems.

      Therefore, think of a current problem, and dive deep into thought for some potential solutions. Dig in, do some homework, and dazzle us with a new solution.

      Because I find this much more interesting than splitting people up into cultures, and then determining who are “haves” or “have nots.”

    • 0
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
  • Avatar
    Andrea F. (Dec. 21, 2011) • a year ago

    Some of Fukuyama’s observations are correct, but he fails to note two serious related issue:

    (1) Immigration.

    (2) Jewish power.

    Many problems in the West would not be less severe if it weren’t for out-of-control immigraiton. As ‘free trade’ has become an ideology than a theory, so has ‘diversity’ become a faith than an idea.
    When people say ‘diversity is our strength’, of course it’s true to some extent. After all, who would say homogeneous North Korea(all crazy North Koreans) or Zimbabwe(all black) are towers of strength? On the other hand, has diversity been such a blessing for Brazil, Peru, Venezuela, etc ? Is Japan or Sweden worse off because it’s more homogeneous than, say, Mexico or Pakistan?
    So, you see, diversity CAN BE a strength, but it all depends on how much and what kind. It’s like a pizza is improved with different toppings but not by green peas and cabbage.

    This mindless faith in diversity–and the hysteria that anyone opposing it is a ‘xenophobic racist’–has brought massive numbers of low IQ migrants from the Third World to the West. And they also have lots of children who grow up listening to rap music and having babies out of wedlock and living off welfare. The idea that millions of immigrants from Muslim and African nations will work hard and pay taxes to support the aging white European population is just a crazy dream.
    And things aren’t all that brighter in the US either. One look at California and its budgets woes–as well its divisions, distrust, and disintegration–should make it obvious that ‘diversity’ isn’t always a good thing–especially when the bulk of the diversity is from a single nation, Mexico, a very dysfuctional nation with lots of uneducated people who don’t improve much in America even after several generations. With Mexicans taking over the Golden State, what they have there is a kind of mono-diversity.

    First thing the West should do is end immigration, migration, and send back illegals. Next, white people need to have more children but along anti-idiocratic lines. If the future economy depends more on creative and smart people, we need more smart people, and study after study has shown a close link between genetics and IQ. So, we need policies that encourage high IQ people to have more children and policies that discourage dumb people from having more kids. (Indeed, pay poor people to have abortions or get sterilized. Voluntarily of course. While coercive eugenics is wrong, I see nothing with voluntary eugenics.)

    Of course, the next big revolution could be in bio-genetics. If it becomes possible to boost the IQ of all newborns in the future, societies would have mostly smart people, and then, maybe more people will act sensibly and responsibly. Surely, a nation where everyone has an IQ of 130 will operate differently than a society where IQ ranges from very high at the top to very low at the bottom. The problem of inequality is largely the result of relatively few people being really smart. (This is why all this talk of spending more on education will not work. Higher spending to educate most blacks will NOT turn them into high intellectual material–with exceptions of course. Similarly, no matter how much money we spend on Asian-American athletics, there’s little chance of any Asian-American becoming a star football players. That is unless he happens to be half-black.)
    But if we can bio-engineer similar IQs among all people, it may be able to create something closer to fair competition. Similarly, why are all finalists for the 100 m sprint of West African origin? Why is the NBA dominated by blacks? It’s because West Africans are biologically stronger, faster, and tougher than other peoples. If we want more diversity/equality in those sporting events, there are two options: affirmative action for non-blacks, whereby less athletic non-blacks would be favored over better qualified blacks. The other option is to go to the roots of biology and alter the genes of non-blacks so that they will be as fast and strong as blacks. In America, Jews are very powerful because of their higher average IQ. Of course, this subject is generally taboo, but it’s the only thing that will explain the true nature of Jewish power.

    On the issue of Jewish power, it’s essential to understanding why today’s left/right divide is so confused. It’s because Jews are (1) mostly on the left and (2) the richest and most successful beneficiaries of the capitalist system.

    So, culturally and intellectually, institutions of the West follow the left-liberal line shaped and dictated by Jews. But economically, there’s been a resurgence in globalist neo-liberalism. Since capitalism has been so good for the Jews–even liberal and leftist Jews make more money than conservative gentiles–, why would most Jews want to be rid of capitalism and globalism? Why do Jews love globalism and ‘free trade’? It weakens national borders and nationalism. Since Jews are minorities in most nations, what they fear most is nationalism dominated by the gentile majority. Jews don’t want unity between gentile elites and gentile masses along nationalist lines. Such unity can be an obstacle to Jewish interests and Jewish power.
    So, both Jewish leftist and Jewish rightists(neocons)are agreed on the usefuless of globalism. Of course, neither side will admit that it supports globalism because “it’s good for the Jews.” Neo-liberal Jews will say globalism is good for spreading wealth, freedom, and opportunities around the world. Leftist Jews will say globalism creates a global village where ‘cosmopolitan peoples of the world will be allowed to move freely everywhere.’

    Another problem, especially in the US, is that most people are not Jewish but Jews comprise the most powerful elite. At the very least, the Japanese are ruled by Japanese leaders, and Germans are ruled by German leaders. Americans are ruled by Jews who don’t really trust nor feel close to most Americans. Jews are more interested in playing divide-and-rule than rule-and-rule. American Jewish attitude toward Americans is rather like British imperialist elite attitude toward Indians. Jews worry about the gentiles with pitchforks coming after them, so the main objective of the Jewish elite is less to lead than to increase diversity among gentiles so that Jews can play blacks against whites, browns against blacks, blacks and browns against whites, whites against blacks, etc. The basic mechanics of this can be seen on the Jerry Springer Show. As Chinese and Romans said, ‘make barbarian fight barbarian’, Jewish elites work in terms of ‘make gentiles fight gentiles’. With leadership such as this, where is America headed?

    When Wasps ruled America, they could be criticized and scrutinized–and indeed much of it was self-criticism by reformist Wasps. So, this allowed some degree of checks and balances.
    But Jews have turned the Holocaust into a kind of religion. Any criticism of Jewish power is condemned by ADL and the media as ‘antisemitic’ and ‘crypto-Nazi’. Ron Paul is getting hell for not being an ardent support of Israel. (Why does any American have to support Israel? Are we obligated to blindly support Mexico, China, India, Turkey, France, etc? So, why this slavish attitude to Israel? Of course, the answer lies in the nature of Jewish power. Can you imagine the gumption of a Indian-American saying an American candidate must support India’s interest over all others? Can you imagine a Canadian-American demanding that American politicians be blindly pro-Canada on every issue? Can you imagine a Turkish-American saying the US government must think day and night of ‘what is good for Turkey’? So, why do we have to give a special damn about Israel, especially when so many Jews are hostile to most white Americans? Where do Jews get such chutzpah and arrogance? It’s one thing for Jews to bait Germany since Germans carried out the Holocaust. But America lost 400,000 men–most of them white gentiles–to defeat Hitler. Why do Americans owe anything to the Jews? If anything, Jews should be grateful to American whites.)
    Jewish power is especially corrupt and dangerous because Jews will not even admit they have the power–anyone who says Jews are powerful finds his career destroyed faster than anyone accused of communism during the McCarthy era–, and Jews will not accept any criticism.
    Worse, Jews, unlike Wasps of the past, are not much for self-criticism.
    This is dangerous because Jews are powerful on Wall Street(biggest economic sector in America), Hollywood(cultural heart and mind of America if not the world), high-tech, big pharma, law firms, government and foreign policy, and news media. And there are three Jews out of nine justices on the Supreme Court. 60% of funds for the Democratic Party comes from Jews. 40% of funds for GOP comes from Jews. Some estimates say Jews are 2% of the population but own up to 40% of all the wealth.
    But because Jews have defined themselves in relation to gentiles as perfect saint-victims of vicious closet-Nazis, Jews continue to act like they are the most powerless people in the world. When the most powerful people act like the most powerless, there’s something wrong. It’s like the richest person acting like he’s the poorest.

    Many of the top players in the academia, government, and Wall Street who devised and designed the new economy based on global finance were Jews. Everyone from Milton Friedman to Larry Summers to Barney Frank to Lloyd Blankfein to etc. And even leftist Jews are funded by the likes of George Soros whose billions were made via the new globalist economy. NATION magazine and NPR get the bulk of their donations from rich liberals and leftists, many of whom are Jewish. Indeed, leftism, which has degenerated into a game of flaunting alternative lifestyles, is now a cultural toy of the urban ‘creative’ rich. It’s more interested in ‘gay marriage’ than the conditions of working Americans.

    The media used to be the fourth estate, and when Wasps ruled the roost, there was no taboo against criticizing Wasp power and privilege. But with Jews controlling both the heights of government and big finance, their co-brethren in big media don’t bother to call out on Jewish corruption and abuses. Big media i is just another bastion of tribal Jewish power. Jon Stewart mocks GOP candidates for sucking up to Jews, but he doesn’t point out that it’s because politicians need Jewish approval and backing to have any chance of winning national elections. Obama, for example, won only because of massive Jewish money and media support. Jon Stewart blames the whores instead of the pimps. But then, he is just another co-tribalist who pretends to be an independent thinker but refuses to speak out against Jewish power.
    Social networking and tribalism are much stronger among Jews than among Wasps who, despite their many hypocrisies, did espouse a certain sense of principles, ethics, and honor.
    Jews make a lot of noise about ‘social justice’ and ‘speaking truth to power’, but they are not morally credible because they use their great power to silence anyone who dares to speak the truth to Jewish power, which is the most powerful force in America.

    What is to be done?

    1. First, the GOP needs to reconfigure itself as the party of the middle class and working class. GOP needs to understand that 2/3 of Wall Street is liberal, Democratic, and globalist. 2/3 of Wall Street money went to Obama in 2008.
    Also, there are many more liberals than conservatives among the superrich.
    If anything, superrich liberals support ‘big government’ as a kind of control mechanism of the masses. If the people become more dependent on government, they are less likely to rise up and overthrow a rotten system. Also, the superrich know that globalism–which fattened them–had led to vast inequalities in wealth. So, in order to calm the anxious masses, the superrich are hoping to use government to dole out more bread and circuses to the masses. If people are too busy checking facebook for the latest Lindsey Lohan story, they’re less likely to unite and act.

    In the short term, what white people should do is call for Jews to count as a separate racial category and demand affirmative action for white gentiles at the expense of Jews. Though Jews are white, a separate racial category for them would not be anything new. After all, many Hispanics are white, but they count and benefit as a separate race. Thus, even white Cubans are favored via affirmative action over whites. Since Jews support affirmative action for blacks and Hispanics at the expense of whites–especially poor and working class whites(rich whites have connections and liberal credentials favored by places like Harvard and Yale)–, it’s only natural for white gentiles to demand their share of the affirmative action pie. If the whole point of affirmative action is to make things fair for all races according on the basis of proportionality, then how ‘fair’ and ‘just’ is it for Jews, who make up only 2% of the population, to hold wildly disproportionate shares in the most prized professions? For example, why are 21% of Harvard students Jewish while only 22% are white gentiles? Why should a people, who make up only 2% of the population, enjoy that kind of ‘racial favoritism’? If Jews can argue that there are NOT ENOUGH blacks and Hispanics in certain fields, then we should be allowed to ask why are there TOO MANY Jews in certain fields. If Jews say there are TOO MANY white fireman in a certain community, white gentiles should unite and ask, ‘how come almost all of the major media outlets are owned by Jews, how come there are so many Jewish pundits on TV, how come there’s so much Jewish money influencing elections, how come there are too many Jewish judges and lawyers at the top, how come there are too many Jewish controlled firms on Wall Street, etc. ?

    Only through such candid talk is there any hope for a new future founded on truth, justice, and fairness.

  • 0
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
    • Avatar
      Matthew S. (Dec. 2, 2010) Andrea F. (Dec. 21, 2011) • 11 months ago

      Looking at things through a racial/cultural lens is interesting but as time progresses racial/cultural divides have begun to diminish, which is a result of things like consumerism, a system where anybody can buy and do nearly anything.

      And after seeing it with my own eyes, I have to say that in the preparatory schools, where they powerful are educated, all races and cultures are represented. Because at the top, they don’t care. After all, American racism was just a system of control instituted 300 years ago.

      So where did racism come from? The power elite / Super Class / leaders/ etc., only used racism for the purpose of stopping popular revolt and creating a working class. In the United States, namely the Virginia colony, there were indentured servants, and they happened to be both black and white.

      There were also the original settlers of the land. Now the original settlers had begun to form an aristocratic class, and saw fit to get access to the best land possible, as it was being surveyed, and settlers were pushing West. Unfortunately the newly freed indentured servants had a problem with this, as they too wanted access to quality land. So the newly freed indentured servants, both black and white, banded together and rose up against this aristocratic land-owning class. Well, the aristocracy felt the need to put a stop to this.

      Therefore, they enacted laws stating that black indentured servants could no longer be granted freedom. And they also whipped up racist sentiment, arguing to the white indentured servants that they were in fact better. Racism was just a tool for popular control.

      As for Judaism, well the values of education and literacy are stressed in that culture. So it is not surprising that by championing these values their culture tends to succeed. In this knowledge-based, rapidly changing world, education is the most important key to success.

      So it is interesting that you are looking at things through the lenses of culture, but it seems in this day and age things are dominated by new tools. Money and information (and by default technology) are the new tools for domination and control.

    • 0
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • Avatar
      Robert R. (Dec. 13, 2010) Andrea F. (Dec. 21, 2011) • a year ago

      While your comment is somewhat disturbing to a lot of readers, you may be addressing the elephant in the room everyone knows is there but fears to talk about. Recall that Ayn Rand, who was born Jewish, but totally renounced Judaism religiously and culturally, urged us to speak of that which we fear. Your analysis is interesting, and would be more intriguing if the facts you base it on are verifiable. I am not suggesting they are not, but, for example, the bold assertion that the IQ of Jews is higher than that of white non-Jews should be verifiable (one other comment suggested that the average was 112 against 100). So the source of this fact should be available.

      If Jews have power in the U.S. disproportionate to their numbers, and casual observation seems to suggest that they do, it is because as a group they were the original capitalists. In Medieval Europe, the primary source of wealth was land and what was produced from it. Jews were generally forbidden to own and cultivate land. This proscription and the ban on lending money at interest by the Christian church, led to Jews becoming moneylenders and later bankers. Because they were stateless and had contacts all over Europe, being merchants was natural. They also became entertainers, because it could be a lucrative occupation open to them. Many became purveyors of precious stones and metals – jewelry – because it was a portable store of wealth when they had to get the hell out of Dodge in the face of pogroms. It doesn’t take a superior intelligence to gravitate to occupations that will fill a need that no one else is filling when the primary source of wealth is foreclosed to one. It’s kind of like Euclid’s illiterate slave working out the pons asinorum geometry problem in the sand. Jewish immigrants to the U.S. found a society and economy that needed and valued experience in the occupations they had a long tradition and thus expertise in. And the liberal democracy found in America was generally tolerant of Jews, particularly those willing to assimilate into the broader culture, which most did.

      This topic may be inexhaustible. But for now, I can give one good reason for the U.S. support of Israel. It is the only true friend we have in the Middle East, which is a major source of our primary means of energy for the foreseeable future.

      If you wish to discuss this further outside this forum please see http://21stcenturyphilosopher….

    • 0
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • Avatar
      Joe S. (Jul. 8, 2011) Andrea F. (Dec. 21, 2011) • a year ago

      > For example, why are 21% of Harvard students Jewish while only 22% are white gentiles?
      Why indeed. You mentioned both IQ and genetics above, don’t you know that Ashkenazis’ mean IQ is 112 compared to whites’ 100? This difference means that, given a million whites and a million Ashkenazis, there will be 10 times more Ashkenazis with IQ above 145 than whites. And that comes on top of an ethos enjoining them to study hard and enter the professions.

    • 0
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
  • Avatar
    Nei M. (Dec. 21, 2011) • a year ago

    Neocon poster-boy Francis Fuckyamama, like his fellow odious pseudo-intellectual Christopher Hitchens, made his fortune by offering an apparently “intellectual” rationale for the redneck racist scum who invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, and opened torture camps on Cuba. This, claimed Fuckya, was the future shape of “liberal democracy”, and was so successful (haaaaaaaahahaha!) that it marked The End Of History.

    Well, except for the blowback, that is. And invading Iran.

    And now this same discredited warmonger is saying that it *won’t* be the End Of History, because it’s all going to fall apart? So which is it, Franky???

  • 0
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
    • Avatar
      Andrea F. (Dec. 21, 2011) Nei M. (Dec. 21, 2011) • a year ago

      “the redneck racist scum”

      You mean the ‘redneck racist scum’ who appointed the likes of Condie Rice and Alberto Gonzalez, supported affirmative action and disparate impact policies against working class whites, pushed open borders policy with Mexico, doled out tens of billions to Africa though AIDS pandemic caused by sexual behavior of reckless African men, filled his government with Zionists, is marrie to a woman who supports ‘gay marriage’ and raised her daughters to do likewise, and etc?

      Some ‘redneck’.

    • 0
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
    • Avatar
      Andrea F. (Dec. 21, 2011) Nei M. (Dec. 21, 2011) • a year ago

      “the redneck racist scum”

      You mean the ‘redneck racist scum’ who appointed the likes of Condie Rice and Alberto Gonzalez, supported affirmative action and disparate impact policies against working class whites, pushed open borders policy with Mexico, doled out tens of billions to Africa though AIDS pandemic caused by sexual behavior of reckless African men, filled his government with Zionists, is marrie to a woman who supports ‘gay marriage’ and raised her daughters to do likewise, and etc?

      Some ‘redneck’.

    • 0
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
  • Avatar
    John H. (Mar. 25, 2011) • a year ago

    Liberal democracies need to move beyond simplistic choices, such as between more regulation and less regulation. The real question is not how much regulation but to what end. Regulation that promotes competition and innovation (such as requiring fossil fuel prices to reflect what are now externalities) can save liberal democracies, create jobs and make companies more competitive, while regulation that stifles innovation and competition will not.

    John Howley
    http://philamchamber.org/john-…

  • 0
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
  1. 7 personal results. 1,930,000 other results.

    Google Home‎

    US (Fucked-up) Foreign Policy and I | My Sister Eileen

    mysistereileen.org/2012/…/us-fucked-up-foreign-policy-and-i/

    Dec 19, 2012 – Book Review: 3D Deceit, Duplicity and Dissimulation of U.S. Foreign Policy Towards India, Pakistan and Afghanistan by Arvind Goswami …

  2. Hillary Clinton has so fucked up American foreign policy it will …

    6 posts - 1 author - Nov 20

    Oh, well… that’s just great. Hillary Clintoon has so fucked up American foreign policy in the Middle East that it will never ever be fixed.

  3. US (Fucked-up) Foreign Policy and I : : वसुधैव कुटुंबकम

    Aug 4, 2012 – Dec 2, 2009 – Objet : Re: Superpower Syndrome: Sid Harth …. US goes to war — as in Iraq and Afghanistan — London and Canberra go …

  4. US (Fucked-up) Foreign Policy and I : : वसुधैव कुटुंबकम

    Jul 30, 2012 – 2 days ago – Policy is not nobody’s private property | हिन्दू तर्क … … Jun 15, 2012 – 19 hours ago – US (Fucked-up) Foreign Policy and I …

  5. US (Fucked-up) Foreign Policy and I | My Sister Marilyn Monroe

    Mar 9, 2012 – US (Fucked-up) Foreign Policy and I. February 19, 2012. My dear Narain D Batra,. I am Sid Harth. I am not interested in what Mathai said and …

  6. US (Fucked-up) Foreign Policy and I | My Sister Marilyn Monroe

    Mar 9, 2012 – 17 hours ago – You tell me. If you do, I shall regale you with: What the fu** CIA is messing in Syria for? I promise….and I am Sid …

  7. US (Fucked-up) Foreign Policy and I – My Sister Marilyn Monroe

    Apr 17, 2012 – sidharthspeaketh.com/2012/…/us-fucked-up-foreign-policy-and-i-16/. Feb 16, 2012 – Thus Spake Sid Harth. Control Free Speech? Over my …

  8. US (Fucked-up) Foreign Policy and I@mysistereileen.com – Google+

    Apr 17, 2012 – navanavonmilita.newsvine.com – Sid Harth. navanavonmilita.newsvine.com/. Let’s get at the bottom of this latest example of American stupidity.

  9. USA has the most fucked foreign policy – The Siccness Network

    http://www.siccness.net/…/usa-has-most-fucked-foreign-policy-4555…

    Fuck I love USA, but when it comes to foriegn policy its too fucked up. And all the other countries know it too. And as far as the mid east, they dont.

  10. US (Fucked-up) Foreign Policy and I « Wassup? Doc!: Sid Harth

    US (Fucked-up) Foreign Policy and I. February 9, 2012. Foreign Policy and I. Everything you always wanted to know about foreign policy and more …

Ad related to US (Fucked-up) Foreign Policy and I

  1. United States Foreign Policy

    CSIS Foreign Policy research. Read the bipartisan reports now.