Re: [OpenHeroQuest] Re: Vote RRRRRRRRRRRRR !!!!!!!!!

From: Chris Lemens <chrislemens_at_in2Yh8JN8Ben0gr7aeGTEdpnR5fJB3MT_vMGION7He9o4TSldXB482YlOGmAvj0Z>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 13:08:49 -0700 (PDT)

OK. Thanks for the history lesson.

> The stock marked collapse of 2001 has been compared
> to Black Friday.

Your statement is correct, but those comparisons are not very useful. The stock market collapse of the 1930's was due to horrible monetary policy, begun in Europe immediately after WWI, but only affecting America in the 30's.

> That event BTW was one of the milestones for the
> rise of the NSDAP as a slightly respectable
> political force.

True here, too, in a sense. The Democracts were much more open to things that 10 years before would have been called socialism (correctly).

> The election debacle of the Florida vote count
> and the current discussion about Democracy by
> court decisions (an unholy phenomenon over here
> as well),

I think this is overemphasized by our Democrat friends. Most people don't think that Bush is an illegitimate president. There are activists who think so, though. Was your point limited to activists?

> paired with the final breakdown of the social
> systems over here in Europe which stupidly
> cling to human labour as their source of
> revenues when human labour has become a marginal
> factor in economy should be seen as incitive in
> my comparison.

I didn;t understand alll of your point here, but I agree with the fact that the German social net, especially pensions, will completely break over the next thirty years.

> While our current democracy over here is light-
> years more stable than Weimar (which had a quite
> good constitutional law, too),

But, in fairness, not a long history with which to build up patterns of deference. One of my problems with many of our political troubles over here (not the Iraq issues, notably) is that they have disturbed long-set patterns of deference that help buffer the sharp edges of political mechanisms (not using recalls, for example).

> we face a breakdown of the system our parents
> have depended on for their old age. Coupled with
> the stock market troubles, I have little
> confidence that I will receive much of a pension,
> if retirement somewhere at age 70 still is an
> option then.

We figured that out over here about 15 years ago. No one my age (35) expects to get social security (public pension, in your parlance).

> From what I hear in our news, the economic gap
> between well-to-do and destitude grows in the USA
> as well.

True, but mostly (not entirely, but mostly) due to massive growth on the top end.

> Well, one of my grandfathers happened to be a right
> wing nationalist (Deutschnational) who was opposed
> to Hitler but, as a member of one of these parties,
> all of a sudden experienced "Gleichschaltung"
> (assimilation by the NSDAP, and in his case even
> assimilation by the SS). (I won't go into details
> other that my other grandfather immigrated 1934
> from Austria...)

I don;t think the parallel is apt. There are three constituents in the Republican Party: social conservatives, libertarians (you'd call us classical liberals), and business establishment types. The only thing that holds them together is resistance to more government spending. Depending on the issue, the coalition can fracture. If the Republicans started edging the wy you hint, you'd see a lot of us jump ship. Arnold is a pretty decent example of a libertarian Republican -- "liberal" on social issues, "conservative" on economic issues.

> > (not a major party value among Nazis) and want no
> > part of empire by conquest. Your implication to
> > the contrary undermines the credibility of your
> > entire position.
>
> Well, the "preemptive strike" paradigm has hit a
> very sore space in my family history.

It is still different from a war of conquest. It seems to me that it is mainly your feeling about what intent lies behind the doctrine of preemptive strike that worries you. There is no similarity between US formal war aims now and German war aims in WWII. Our military is not even properly organized, equipped, or trained to handle long term occupation.

> In Germany, we have been taught to learn from our
> history the hard way. It seems the lesson has stuck,
> even though now there are German soldiers in out of
> area missions - something 50 years ago nobody would
> have wanted to see. Thus we feel uncomfortable with
> the amount of power united in a single person office
> as the President of the United States, because we
> have seen the results of a technically free and
> democratic election in 1933 to an office which
> (technically, theoretically) carried a lot less
> power.

Sorry for your discomfort. Airplanes flying into tall buildings makes us uncomfortable, as does rogue states with programs for the weapons of mass destruction. I don't say that to restar the argument about what is factually true. I say it because I ask you to balance the risks: what are the risks of the US turning into a dictatorial conquest machine vs. the risks of terrorist strikes or WMD being used?

> In addition the manner how elections are conducted
> in the US makes certain that only demagogues get
> elected. Demagogues in positions of critical power
> make me nervous, as soon as moral control gets
> replaced by (however justified) moral outrage.

I think not. The primary system makes presidential candidates compete to push out the contenders by capturing a base, then taking the other guys' position. Once the primaries are pretty much decided in fact (which happens long before they are all held, usually), each candidate starts moving toward centrist positions to capture independent voters. It is one of the benefits of a two party system. Multi-party systems encourage ideological purity.

For example, while I don't think Gore was a good candidate and was too populist for my preferences, I don't think he was a demagogue.

Also, remember that most most Congressmen serve for multiple terms, so they have a strong incentive to become as centrist as possible.

> (I live in a country where hardly anyone knows
> the text of the national anthem, where the flag
> is a piece of cloth in black, red and a yellow
> called gold rather than a rallying point
> for moral. At best, it is a rallying point for
> hooligans.

That's sad. Our historical context directly connects expressions of patriotism with values of liberty, democracy and no-taxes-on-tea-thank-you-very-much.

> Nobody here would dream to have school prayers
> include the gouvernment or its leaders.

Prayer in public school is pretty much outlawed here, even if they are not positively encouraged by the government. I've never heard school children pray for George Bush.

> It is a country whose foreign policy has only in
> the last 12 years been that of a sovereign state.

It does. You see it as a pretext for something horrible. Try examining it at face value. That's not me trying to be flip. Set aside your deeper suspicions for a moment.

> I hope this explains my strained relations to
> nationalism - over here, that has become the
> province of inebriated soccer fans.

So take it back.

> > One war at a time, please.
>
> My sentiment exactly, that is why I am so angry
> about the hands-off policy of the USA in
> Palestine. That conflict has been the breeding
> ground for al Quaeda sentiments for longer than
> I live.

Agreed. But, like Northern Ireland, we may have to wait until the combatants exhaust themselves before stepping in decisively. We nearly got there with Barak, but Arafat screwed the pooch at the last moment. We have not had as good an opportunity since.  Sharon is, to put it very politely, not helpful. I for one, am tired of Americans being targeted for his petty imperialist games. If he wants more territory, he can have New Jersey--we don't want it.

> Face it - a lot of the bad feelings against the USA
> result from their position in the Palestine
conflict.

I've agreed with your position since the issue first came up here.

> I do advocate the right for the Israeli to have
> their state in Palestine. Likewise, I do advocate
> the right for the Palestines to have their state
> somewhere in Palestine, too. This other position
> has been lacking in US policy,

No. President Bush reversed that policy. He expressly endorsed a two-state solution and twisted Sharon's arm until he agreed to it as well. The problem was that Sharon said "someday."

> and the UN veto has been over-used.

Agreed, in the context of the Palestinean conflict. I think not using it would send a nice first message. Then start cutting off money. Then

> Equal measures against both sides and something
> like a UN conducted trial similar to the Nuernberg
> prequels against terrorist leaders of both sides.
> If this means that established politicians are
> interrogated, be it.
>
> I fear that anything less decapicitating can yield
> no results.

The problem is that extremists on bother sides would distrust the results, and neither is defeated.

Besides, since we don't trust our soldiers to the tender mercies of our friends at the international criminal court, how could we ask either side to do the equivalent? Would radical Palistinean accept a non-Mulsim judges? Would radical Israelis accept non-Jewish judges?

I think the only way armed intervention works is if we twist Sharon's arm into accepting a peace deal that keeps the border roughly at the Green Line, pays for the re-settlement of his settlers back into Israel proper, funds his silly wall along the Green Line, mans it with American troops for some time, and lets him keep a defensive strip along the Jordan Valley. The problem, even there, is Jerusalem.

If Sharon really wanted peace, he could pull back his settlers, build his wall along the Green Line, keep Jerusalem, and expel Palistineans until he had no internal terrorism. Eventually, the Palistineans would accept that as a fait accompli so long as they could have fair access to Jerusalem -- apart from the ones sworn to destroy the state of Israel, who just have to be killed.

> One reason for the bluff no from Germany and
> France was the public opinion that there was no
> thought-out strategy for the time after the
> occupation.

The problem is that we genuinely believe we are there to liberate, not occupy. The correlary is that we don't really need an occupation strategy; we just need to free these folks and give them a helping hand. They'll figure the rest out themselves. Turns out that we're out of practice in the liberation business.  We've forgotten that you have to administer the place yourself for a good five years while the locals (Iraqi, Japanese, German, or whatever) figure it out. Hey, we're not infallible. But we are motivated by good values and goals.

> (Another reason is the quite different concept of
> Terrorism between the Anglo-Saxon and the Old
> European nations. Perhaps it is the past
> experience with our own terrorists from the 70ies,
> the Red Army Fraction, AKA Baader-Meinhof group.)

I didn't understand your point here. Try again?

> BTW, during the offensive the British approach
> to the population carried about the same risk
> as the US approach (danger of snipers and
> suicide bombers), but gave the people less the
> impression that the invaders came to conquer.
> I know I would not want to march there, and
> I would likely be paranoid as hell if I had to,
> but to appear as conquerors just breeds partisans.
> If anything, that seems to be a lesson learned
> from the British military presence in Ulster.

Sort of agreed. I agree that the Brits pulled it off better than we did. However, they have easier territory than we do. And do you really want the US building up competency in taking and administering territory?

In any case, having visited my Northern Irish in-laws enough, the British troops there are not terribly friendly -- they walk around with rifles lowered and stop cars in the middle of the night along country roads without identifying themselves. If your point is that this is still better than rolling around in Bradleys, I guess I'd agree, though they do use armored cars with, for an American, unsettling frequency.



Chris Lemens

Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com            

Powered by hypermail