Here’s another Ambitious Alex Knepper Project that will likely hit the dust bin within the course of a week. To date, I’ve probably ditched about three or four projects that I was preparing to take on — save for my three Rebuilding Lessons, and I still do plan on reviving the Candidate of the Week series that I abandoned after, what, one candidate? — but this seems to fit my new site role as resident pragmatist a bit better (where are you, DaveG? I need reinforcements!).
What is a pragmatic Republican? What is the Big Tent? This will be a series of short policy statements aimed at outlining principles on which all Republicans should be able to agree — my personal vision of the Big Tent is. Principles upon which the Huckabee wing of the party and the Giuliani wing can come to a relative consensus on.
Ten principles in total: Global leadership, individual opportunity with personal responsibility, cultural traditionalism, respect for religious freedom, political realism, objectivity, optimism, inclusion, constructive dialogue, smart governance.
The New Republican Party should stand for such principles, as are to be outlined. RNC Chair candidates, are you taking note?
Here is the first one:
Global Leadership
- In a time of economic turmoil, a resurgent Russia, an emerging China, and an Islamist threat, America will assume a position of leadership, as it traditionally has. We will engage in diplomacy when possible and military tactics when necessary, but never anything that is out of the bounds of fiscal sanity. We will affirm our country’s values on the world stage, rejecting any sort of moral or cultural relativism.
- Protectionism of any sort will be rejected. Free trade is the key to lifting third-world and developing countries out of poverty, while making sure that our domestic economy will be propelled into the future.
- Legal immigration will be encouraged. America should be drawing the best and brightest minds to its shores to keep our economy competitive. The classic “melting pot” formula still works, as it always has: our country can draw from the rich cultural traditions of others while making sure that our immigrants assimilate into American culture.
- We will stand up to the jihadist threat to the West, making no apologies for doing so. Debate may take place concerning particulars and micro-level tactics, but our overarching mission in the defense of the West must be clear.
- Socialist temptations must be resisted at home and discouraged abroad. Socialism is the key to economic stagnation, dependency on government, and cultural decline. America will affirm its commitment to individual responsibility and individual freedom, always starting from such principles. America must be a beacon of economic freedom to the world.
Tomorrow: Individual Opportunity and Personal Responsibility
—
THE PRINCIPLES:
Global Leadership – Individual Opportunity and Personal Responsibility – Cultural Traditionalism – Respect for Religious Freedom – Political Realism – Objectivity – Optimism – Inclusion – Constructive Dialogue – Smart Governance
—
Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com.
December 17th, 2008 at 3:19 am
Believe it or not, I actually agree with you. However, I’d point out that it’s not really going to be the RNC Chair or Candidates who really define what the GOP will be about on policy.
December 17th, 2008 at 3:20 am
I do believe it. You’re supposed to agree with me. That’s the point.
A lot more agreement is to come, I hope.
December 17th, 2008 at 8:10 am
So far so good Alex. I would add though, that from what I understand right now, we do not have ‘free trade’ that is fair to the American worker. We should be competing on a level playing field, and we’re not.
December 17th, 2008 at 8:28 am
Somehow I get the sense that they don’t really care what we think. We need to win somewhere, or at least have something useful about us that they want (be it money or boots on the ground) that they want before they’re going to listen to us. Luckily, the above is such a mainstream Republican perspective on foreign affairs issues, so they don’t need to pay attention for them to do what we want them to. Unfortunately, the above five point plank is utterly devoid of any actual policy recommendations regarding foreign affairs, and as such is basically pablum for the base. And the overall electorate fairly decisively rejected the packaging we presented this past election.
We need to do more than holler against the evils of socialism and jihad, especially given that the past 8 years has been a pretty poor representation of what our hollering can amount to if we don’t implement our ideals in a manner that actually works. We might get lucky and the Democrats might utterly squander their advantage (and it looks like we get to toy with Harry Reid for the next 2 years, at least, so we should get some victories that we shoudn’t have gotten if they had someone halfway useful as senate majority leader) we can’t just say “Oh, things are going to swing back to us if we stick to our guns.” We need to make the affirmative argument that we can and should be trusted with the wheel again, not just say “Free Trade Good, Socialism Bad.”
December 17th, 2008 at 9:21 am
IL, beware of the “level playing field” and “fair trade” gambits. These are little more than “an attempt by the U.S. government to compel some Americans to pay higher prices to other Americans than they otherwise would have paid.”
December 17th, 2008 at 9:32 am
MarkG – I’m talking about things such as an imbalance of tariffs and other things that have been negotiated in ways that favor our foreign competition. To me when we say ‘free trade’, that should imply ‘fair trade to American workers’, and right now it doesn’t.
December 17th, 2008 at 9:40 am
#6:
You actually agree with Mike Huckabee. Shocker!
December 17th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Mark: That’s perfectly correct, but that doesn’t help the guy who’s losing his job because Mexicans and Chinese can do it cheaper. Free trade is an excellent thing, but compassion and a plan for those who will lose their jobs because of ending trade restrictions is a must- for there is a lot of short term pain to go along with long term gain.
As for fair trade, the simple problem is that it’s an issue of encouraging lower standards in the developing world for environmental and worker protections. I don’t think many of us here care for the high level of environmental regulation in the US, or unionization, but at the same time it’s not good for the long term development of another country to utterly wreck their environment and turn their population into industrialized serfs. There’s a good argument against this, but the affirmative case isn’t just one of hippie-dippydom.
December 17th, 2008 at 9:56 am
We really need to purge the protestionists/free traders and FP realists from the party and bring back the fiscal conservatives.
December 17th, 2008 at 9:59 am
IL:
I disagree: The trade agreements we negotiate with other countries generally include a certain degree of management in the name of imposing politically defined levels of fairness to workers — although, in truth, this imposed fairness generally benefits companies in industries that lobby hardest. That’s the political reality that shapes the outcomes.
December 17th, 2008 at 10:02 am
If you want to reject protectionism, thats fine – but you have to hold other countries to the same standard. Free trade, on a level playing field, where all sides can compete on their own merits, is great. But the US cannot blindly addopt a “completely free import” strategy when its the only country doing so. Yeah, it leads to lower prices, but it also sucks jobs off shore, and when countries like Japan, Korea, China, and even the EU are placing restrictions on American imports, banning them altogether, or subsidizing local growers/producers/whatever to the point where American imports can’t compete.
I’m all for capitalism, etc., but the US needs to make it clear that we won’t tolerate the Japanese restricting American car imports, or the Koreans placing a tax on engine size, or the Chinese manipulating their currency, or the Euros writing in subsidies for local farmers…
You want to hold Americans to the free trade/open competition/no protectionism standard, great – but you sure as hell better announce that you are going to hold other nations to the same standard.
December 17th, 2008 at 10:04 am
“We really need to purge the protestionists/free traders and FP realists from the party and bring back the fiscal conservatives.”
While we’re at it we need to purge anyone who disagrees with me. Because that’s the unvarnished path to electoral supremacy. One reason I’ve not been around since the election is attitudes like this amongst the party. You’d think this past election was a victory where we had such massive majorities we could start trimming away at moderate republicans and attempting to move the party towards even greater ideological purity.
I’m rarely going to agree with Arlen Specter. I’m going to agree with him a lot more than I ever will with Ed Rendell or any other Democrat in Pennsylvania.
December 17th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Now, as for the main subject of the post, I agree – American must reasert itself as the unmatched, supreme economic and military power in the world. Russia is going through a military build-up (or was, until oil prices fell). Why aren’t we doing the same? China has been booming, attempting to become the world’s most important economy. Why aren’t we supporting policies that respond to their curreny manipulation and other unfair policies?
December 17th, 2008 at 10:11 am
RR:
Then provide incentives for workers to find other fields of employment. It is inefficient to promote the consumption of scarce resources above the level of actual demand by subsidizing this consumption. Trade barriers distort markets in a fashion similar to subsidies. It is equally inefficient to subsidize jobs in fields with poor future prospects.
We can’t generally expect to impose our views on other nations as to how they should use their resources. And if you say that the other country in question is wrecking the environment and enslaving the populace, this would by definition appear inefficient and unsustainable: Sooner or later the country will have to abandon such a course.
And if the foreign government is keeping such industries in business by subsidizing them, that means the foreign taxpayers are giving us their products at a discount — an unsustainable discount at that.
Generally, higher environmental and labor safety standards come with the higher living standards earned through growth and economic development. If you want to help other countries out of poverty, you would want to open up the market to imports from those countries.
December 17th, 2008 at 10:20 am
RR:
Har! I’m way ahead of you, bro. I’ve purged myself from allegiance to any party in anticipation of potential ejection.
There’s more than one way to skin a cat…
December 17th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Mark: I don’t disagree with what you say about rising standards of living being the metric from whence other advances spring, but at the same time we also need to recall that it’s perfectly capable for a nation to be fairly free in terms of it’s trading relationships, and at the same time treat it’s citizens poorly and damage the environment to a point where it both has an effect upon other nations and is increasingly expensive to repair.
While China is not a perfect example, as one of our largest trading partners they certainly do a great deal of business brought about by the liberalization of global trade. At the same time, they have utterly trashed parts of their environment, and the workers at factories are viewed as less valuable than the mechanical assets they use. That won’t remain true forever, but simply because something is likely to improve at some point in the future isn’t an excuse for it being terrible in the first place.
December 17th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Hey, awesome write-up!
December 17th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Smart move Alex. Basically all Republicans can agree on these principals and will say so. I await with curiosity the comments when you post on social issues.
December 17th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Great post Alex.
The Party needs to embrace free trade and globalism as well as establishing a larger sphere of American dominance and international influence.
December 17th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Alex,
While I’m closer to you then, say, to IllinoisGuy on the whole free/fair trade debate, I’ll repeat a question I asked on another thread. What is the problem with, in theory, opposing a particular free trade agreement? It seems to me that trade agreements aren’t substantially from any other sort of agreement. If a leader says, for instance, “Peace is better then war, therefore I’m willing to accept peace on any terms”, he’s not going to get very good terms. His assertion may be true enough, but in order to gain a genuinely worthwhile peace, he must be at least WILLING to continue in war. So how is it helpful to say “Free trade is good, and therefore everyone should support X or Y trade agreements”? Even if I accept the first premise, which I do, the second one does not follow. It could well be reasonable to oppose trade agreement X or Y, on the theory that better deals can be reached with harder bargaining and greater leverage; that someone who accepts all free trade agreements as ipso facto good, will be taken to the cleaners repeatedly in negotiations.
December 17th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Small Government Domestic Policy – Check.
Big Government Foreign Policy – Check.
Logical Coherence – Che… Uh… Did anyone see where we put Logical Coherence…? I know we had it laying around somewhere in the 1950′s and earlier…
December 17th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
While I’m closer to you then, say, to IllinoisGuy on the whole free/fair trade debate, I’ll repeat a question I asked on another thread. What is the problem with, in theory, opposing a particular free trade agreement? It seems to me that trade agreements aren’t substantially from any other sort of agreement. If a leader says, for instance, “Peace is better then war, therefore I’m willing to accept peace on any terms”, he’s not going to get very good terms. His assertion may be true enough, but in order to gain a genuinely worthwhile peace, he must be at least WILLING to continue in war. So how is it helpful to say “Free trade is good, and therefore everyone should support X or Y trade agreements”? Even if I accept the first premise, which I do, the second one does not follow. It could well be reasonable to oppose trade agreement X or Y, on the theory that better deals can be reached with harder bargaining and greater leverage; that someone who accepts all free trade agreements as ipso facto good, will be taken to the cleaners repeatedly in negotiations.
I imagine you’re referring to the fact that Jindal voted against CAFTA.
The fact that Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, and Ron Paul voted against it and that virtually every Republican besides them supported it tells me all that I need to know about whether it was “real” free trade or not.
December 17th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Small Government Domestic Policy – Check.
Big Government Foreign Policy – Check.
Logical Coherence – Che… Uh… Did anyone see where we put Logical Coherence…? I know we had it laying around somewhere in the 1950’s and earlier…
Josiah, the tent is big, but it’s not that big that it should encompass Constitution Party members such as yourself. You want to repeal NAFTA and withdraw from Iraq.
Of course it’s logically coherent: America supports particular values. It doesn’t worship at the High Church of the Small. It’s time to live in the real world, not the world we’d like to live in. We now live in a world of globalization, interconnectedness, and mass media. Fortress America is dead, if it ever really existed. Liberal internationalism is completely rejected by these principles, though. These principles are pro-sovereignty and anti-internationalism.
December 17th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
#20, Matthew, you said well what I’m thinking. We’re not as far apart as you must have imagined. In fact, I think we’re very close.
December 17th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Any agreement should be made with the workers, not just the consumers in mind. Because nearly everything can be made cheaper somewhere else, we ultimately could be trying to run our economy selling each other cheeseburgers. Our national security is already greatly at risk by us giving up our manufacturing base. Terrorist, other other countries, could cripple us in a matter of weeks because we have enabled them to. We need someone in there smart enough to encorporate all of this into the thinking rather than just trying to minimize the cost of everything to the American consumer. IMHO.
December 17th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Just as we moved from an agricultural to an industrial economy at the last turn of the century we need to move away from a manufacturing economy towards a consumerist economy.
December 17th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
JA, CAN’T YOU SEE THE NATIONAL SECURITY IMPLICATIONS of this? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist guys. Take 10 minutes and think about what others could do to us if we have limited manufacturing capabilities. Its really frightening. We can’t let it happen guys, or we’ll be dead meat as a nation.
December 17th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
IL Guy,
I see Nationalism as an increasingly outdated and outmoded relic of the past. We need to oppose the government propping up unprofitable national manufacturing dinosaurs (socialism) and let the free market and global capitalism lead the way. Nationalism should play no part in our economic decisions – we need to move towards pure capitalism and globalism if we wish to succeed and move away from a dying manufacturing base that can be handled more cheaply abroad.
December 17th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
No, we can’t write off manufacturing. It needs to see changes, but for both security and economic reason, we must work to strengthen our manufacturing industry.
As I said, we just have to hold other countries to the same standard. Free trade isn’t truly free if Japan is blocking our imports or Europe is subsidizing its farmers. Its not free trade if we have to hold Ford, GM, etc. to strict environmental and emissions standards while China does nothing of the sort.
Fair trade doesn’t have to mean protectionism – it just means establishing a level playing field, which will sometimes require tariffs and/or other “hard ball” measures to make sure the United States can compete with those nations which try to cheat the system.
===
And ILG is right – getting rid of American manufacturing would leave the US military dependent on other nations – which means that we could be dictated to. The ability to build our own military free of terms and blackmail from other nations is essential to maintaining our status as a superpower.
December 17th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
JA = If all other nations of the world (and their terrorists) loved us 365 days per year decade after decade, maybe what you’re saying would make sense. That not being the case, what you’re saying is downright terrifying (and the very epitomy of the word stupid).
December 17th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Josiah, the tent is big, but it’s not that big that it should encompass Constitution Party members such as yourself. You want to repeal NAFTA and withdraw from Iraq.
A). Because I remember that you and I engaged in a somewhat lengthy dialogue on Facebook concerning my decision to support Constitution Party nominee Chuck Baldwin for President this year, I know you know that I’m a Republican and not a member of the Constitution Party, and I know you know that I explained to you explicitly why. Therefore, I can only assume you meant that label as an insult. However, in this context, I take it as a compliment, and will proudly have myself associated with the Constitution Party over the Republican Party on issues of national sovereignty and foreign policy any day.
B). I also seem to recall you and I having a lengthy discussion over AIM about a year ago on the issue of NAFTA, in which I showed you many specific clauses of the text of the Agreement itself, which are clear violations of the Constitution, clear infringements of America’s national sovereignty and national security, and clearly anti-free trade. Free trade should never require more bureaucracy and legislation, especially not 2000+ pages of it. Free trade can and should be accomplished merely by repealing laws.
C). God only knows how many debates we have had on Iraq, but I’ll say it again for the benefit of any one else reading this thread: No supporter of the Iraq Foreign Aid Boondoggle (i.e. the Iraq War) can truly be a fiscal conservative.
Of course it’s logically coherent: America supports particular values. It doesn’t worship at the High Church of the Small. It’s time to live in the real world, not the world we’d like to live in. We now live in a world of globalization, interconnectedness, and mass media. Fortress America is dead, if it ever really existed. Liberal internationalism is completely rejected by these principles, though. These principles are pro-sovereignty and anti-internationalism.
“America supports particular values”? That’s a very collectivist notion. America is composed of many, many individuals holding a very diverse array of many values, and has been that way since its founding. Though your aforementioned paragraph was a bit disjointed, what I think you’re saying is that America supports particular values and that we should therefore spread those values through government force abroad. Perhaps what you meant to say is that neo-conservatives support particular values–values that are intellectually, morally, legally, and fiscally bankrupt–and that neo-conservative policy planners should be allowed to steal money from their fellow countrymen and use it to fund their pet schemes around the world.
December 17th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Josiah!
A) The Constitution Party is the party of religious fanatics, militia members, and — oh, well, it’s not a big deal.
B) Actually, what I recall was not that you showed me specific clauses, but that you said that you actually had no idea what clauses were violations, but that Ron Paul opposed it because it wasn’t “real free trade.” You kept telling me that “real free trade” shouldn’t require so many documents and crap. I asserted that most of it was probably revision of old policy and that bureaucratic idiocy is probably what made it so long. Either way, I said, you can’t make the perfect the enemy of the good. You kept reasserting that it was “managed trade.”
C) Government “force”? God, who the hell do you think you are, Naomi Klein? Give it a rest. Being influential does not mean using force. And if you’re referring to things such as the War in Iraq as being examples of “force” then you need to re-study your Libertarian Bible. It’s the non-initiation of force that libertarians are supposed to oppose, not force, period.
Quite frankly, the Big Tent Party has no room for people who cling to pipe dreams and absolutism.
December 17th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Alex,
A). As I also stated in our Facebook conversation, I don’t argue with the point that many Constitution Party members are religious fanatics, but so are many Republican Party members. The crucial difference is that the Constitution Party members’ religious fanaticism, at least, leads them to respect things like peace, privacy, liberty, and the Constitution, while the Republican Party members’ religious fanaticism leads them to aggress against those things.
B). Actually, I seem to remember showing you links to several passages of the Agreement text. I don’t recall what they all were, but the one I do remember showing you is a passage that granted the NAFTA bureaucracy the ability to set environmental standards for America. If you have a record of the conversation, feel free to prove me wrong. Regardless, my point still stands. Free trade agreements should never require more laws to be passed. Free trade can and should be achieved through repealing laws currently hindering it.
C). To “influence” is the act of producing effects on the action of another. “Influence” is not an antonym of “force,” and influence can include means involving force or means not involving force. I support influence in the sense of Americans engaging intellectually and economically with the rest of the world, but not influence in the sense of the American government using our military and/or clandestine officers to force changes in foreign countries’ government policies, leadership, or private practices, unless, of course, (as you pointed out) the use of force by our government is in legitimate, constitutionally-authorized self defense.
Have you been led so far astray by neo-conservatism that you view liberty as a “pipe dream”? And as for “absolutism,” wasn’t it you who wrote earlier about how we should reject relativism? Is it really wrong to be “absolutist” when it comes to absolutely rejecting fiscal irresponsibility in any type or form, and absolutely rejecting the initiation of force in any type of form? The biggest pipe dreamers I see are those who think that we can actually afford to police every corner of the world, overthrow Middle Eastern governments, and install and maintain democracies there.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:10 am
[...] Global Leadership - Individual Opportunity and Personal Responsibility – Cultural Traditionalism – Respect for Religious Freedom – Political Realism – Objectivity – Optimism – Inclusion – Constructive Dialogue – Smart Governance [...]
December 18th, 2008 at 12:13 am
Yes, I do view your version of liberty as a pipe dream. Yes, it is really wrong to be absolutist when it comes to rejecting what you define as fiscal irresponsibility. Yes, I am the one that said to reject relativism — moral and cultural relativism, which is about words and values. That’s far different than going back and reversing generations of policy changes.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:13 am
And speaking of pipe dreams in the Middle East, leaving it alone and expecting good results is one of ‘em. What exactly do you think we should do about Iran, Josiah?
December 18th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Alex,
My definition of fiscal responsibility is rather simple: don’t spend money that you don’t have, and don’t take money from others without their consent.
A Global War On Terror on the scale you and other neo-conservatives desire would be impossible to fund without doing both of the above. Doesn’t that concern you, or cause you to consider that perhaps a Global War On Terror isn’t the wisest means to achieving an end to the Islamist threat?
As for what “we should do about Iran,” (which is also a rather collectivist notion; who or what constitutes ‘we’ and ‘Iran’?), it’s not my concern what Iranians as a whole, or certain Iranians, or the Iranian government decides to do, so long as they don’t initiate aggression against my life and property. What Iranians do is up to them.
Some things that I would advise our federal government not to do in regards to Iran, might be the following: Don’t spend tax dollars trying to propagandize the Iranian people. Don’t spend tax dollars trying to change internal Iranian government policy and affairs. Don’t spend tax dollars trying to undermine/overthrow the Iranian government. Don’t spend tax dollars on imposing a threatening military presence near Iran. Don’t spend tax dollars blockading/hindering the economic transactions of the Iranian people. And especially don’t spend tax dollars injuring, taking the lives of, and destroying the property of Iranian people who have not aggressed against any of us.
December 18th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Setting aside this silly Clintonian “what constitutes ‘we’” business, do you not think that a nuclear Iran is a threat to the United States?
December 19th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Alex,
If you define “threat” as “an indication or warning of probable trouble,” then I’d say that, currently, no, an Iranian government with nuclear power capability does not constitute a threat to the welfare of the people of the United States. Despite the religious fundamentalism and general kookiness of some of Iran’s most publicized government officials, the Iranian government is composed of many moderate elements, includes a surprising number of checks and balances, and actually affords the looney toon Ahmadinejad relatively little power.
A serious study of the Iranian government shows that their main domestic goals are to create a safe and sustainable homeland and homebase for spreading Shiite Islam throughout the region, and to preserve their Persian heritage; their main foreign policy goals are to maintain a state of “managed chaos” in Iraq (partly to keep Iraq from becoming a threatening challenger again, and partly to keep American forces bogged down and unable to launch an attack on Iran), as well as to help create a homeland for the Palestinians.
Even the most fundamentalist figureheads in the Iranian government know that a nuclear attack on America or one of the American government’s close allies, either initiated directly by the Iranian government or indirectly by “handing off” a nuke to a smaller terrorist group (which would inevitably be traced back to Iran) means the end of Iran, period. Not even Khamenei or Ahmadinejad would be willing to sacrifice the entire Persian race, the last great bastion of Shia Islam, and one of the greatest friends of their embattled Palestinian brethren, for the sake of taking out one, two, or even a handful of American or Western cities. And the Iranian government is certainly not going to nuke Israel, unless they want to leave their Palestinian friends a nuclear contaminated homeland (plus, if Muslims, especially Shiite Muslims, nuked any Israeli city, we all know that it’s going to be a long time before the Palestinian cause gets any sympathy). It’s not going to happen.
However, America does face the possibility of a real threat from Iran in the future if we continue to antagonize and threaten the Iranian government and the Iranian people politically, religiously, economically, and physically.
December 19th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
Who the hell said anything about Ahmadinejad? You’re the second person this week to do this to me: I’m speaking about Iran’s nuclear program, and you foreign policy liberals and libertarians have a finite set of talking points that are marched out upon hearing the phrase “nuclear Iran” from the lips of a conservative. It’s like Tourette’s or something: “Ahmadinejad has little power!”
He has no power over the nuclear program, but he’s important as a window into the motives of the Khamenei regime and the Guardian Council, both of which Ahmadinejad finds favor with. Khamenei (and other Iranian pols like Rafsanjani) are saying full speed ahead with the nuclear program — and everyone who isn’t a total head-in-the-sand idiot knows that they’re not really seeking nuclear energy.
You’re right: they want to spread Khomeneist Shi’ism, and having a nuke would be an excellent little thing to hang over the region’s head. They’ll use a nuke to (a) gain regional hegemony or, of course — (b) nuke Israel in hopes of bringing back the long-lost Imam. They don’t care about Iran — “Patriotism is paganism,” once said Khomenei himself. “Iran can go to hell for all I care.” Iran’s government exists as a vehicle for Allah.
It’s not about “taking out American cities.” It’s about causing chaos to bring on the apocalypse.
The Iranians couldn’t give two whits about the Palestinian cause; they do it only to foster sympathies in the Arab region and promote marriages of convenience. Otherwise, they’re theological foes.
December 20th, 2008 at 1:20 am
Alex,
Perhaps I have misrepresented my viewpoint. I’m not here to defend Iran, so much as I am to defend the American taxpayer. Iran may very well be trying to develop a nuclear weapon (though I think it is most likely that they are not, but are trying to convey the impression that they are as a way to make potential aggressors think twice).
Also (while I repeat that I’m not trying to defend the Iranian government here so much as the American taxpayer), even if Iran is developing a nuclear weapon, there is little evidence in practical reality that the Iranian government is not a rational, non-suicidal, self-interest-seeking entity that can be dealt with strategically. The biggest evidence is in the resolution to the Iran-Iraq War, which Iranians also considered part of the cosmic struggle of the end of times, to culminate in the return of the long-lost Imam. But, facing poor military prospects, the Iranian government accepted a peace settlement, showing that despite the Iranian regime’s fiery religious rhetoric, it is fully capable of strategic calculation and does act in its political self-interest when push comes to shove. This is also evidenced in the fact that, despite the staggering abudance of chemical and biological weapons available in Iran, the Iranian government has never passed such weapons off to Hezbollah or other such terrorist groups, because of fear of an Israeli response.
In any case, if Iran is developing a nuclear weapon, then there are two major possibilities: Either Iran is developing a nuke in order to use it on Israel, or they are developing a nuke to use as a strategic bargaining chip (they have seen how our government has treated North Korea pre- and post-nuke). I suspect the latter before the former.
However, if the former is the case, Americans ought to ask the question of whether or not we are to be the protectorate of other peoples and their governments. Do you support American intervention into Darfur? Tibet? Sri Lanka? Should the American government have intervened in Rwanda? Bosnia? The Congo? The Iran-Iraq War?
If you accept that it is the American government’s (and, hence, the American taxpayer’s) obligation to sacrifice their bodies, money, and property, for the benefit of these other peoples, then you should also be able to explain how the American taxpayer is to come up with the resources in order to successfully police these foreign conflicts. Since Americans cannot possibly come up with the necessary resources to follow through on such “obligations,” how can Americans be “obligated” to do something that is impossible? That’s an illogical notion, though I have the feeling you don’t believe such a moral obligation to actually exist upon the American people.
What I do suspect, however, is that you feel that while there is no general moral obligation upon the American taxpayer to stop foreign wars from occurring, or to save foreign peoples from dying, you feel that this is a special exception for some reason. I’ve noticed that you like to draw some sort of big antithesis between “Principle” and “Pragmatism.”
I imagine that while you might accept, perhaps on the “high philosophical level,” the principle that one individual has no obligation to sacrifice his body, money, and/or property to benefit another unrelated individual, halfway ’round the world, you feel that we have to be “practical” and come up with a real solution to this particular problem. However, if this is the case, you are setting up a very false antithesis. Any action that is undertaken in accordance with correct principles will result in the best practical situation in the long-run. This is because it is impossible for you or I to foresee all the consequences of any particular action considered in isolation. We must act by general rules of action, or principles, because we are only capable of judging the consequences of following logical general rules of action.
Let’s say that the Iranian government is developing a nuclear weapon. Considering the case and attempting to form a “solution” to this issue in isolation, what is the correct long-run solution? Considering only the merits and circumstances of this particular situation, is a full-scale American military invasion and occupation of Iran the correct solution, despite the possibility of destabilizing Iraq and finally pushing the Iranian people (there has, so far, never been a single Iranian suicide bomber) into the anti-American Jihad? Or is a strategic bombing campaign to take out Iranian leadership and/or military sites the correct solution, despite the probability that this will foster even more intense resentment in the Muslim world and may return to us as deadly blowback years down the road? Or is a “laissez-faire” policy of leaving Iran alone the correct solution, despite the possibility that they may acquire a nuke and use it as a tool for regional hegemony or may detonate it in an Israeli town? Or perhaps another option, with all of its possible consequences, and so on?
What I gave you is merely the highly condensed version. There are limitless actions the American government could take that could, basing our considerations merely on the merits of this isolated case, result in equally limitless possible effects, which may be to our (and the world’s) net-benefit or net-detriment in the long-run. This applies not just to Iran but to the whole foreign policy of the American government, which is what your post is all about.
In advising our government on its foreign policy, we ought to respect such logical principles as: not spending more money than what is had (and, furthermore, spending considerably less money that is actually had if it can be helped), not taking money from others without their consent (and even if money is taken from others with their consent, it should not then be used for fraudulent purposes), not obstructing economic transactions having nothing to do with you, not harming the bodies or properties of individuals who have not aggressed against you, and not requiring one person or group of people to sacrifice themselves for another. The course of action that our federal government has currently taken and is considering taking in regards to Iran fails to pass the muster of all the aforementioned principles and more. Therefore, such a course of action should not be taken.
The Iranian government may indeed be seeking a nuclear weapon, they may indeed intend to use it not just as a strategic bargaining chip but as an actual weapon, and they may indeed use it and/or other weapons to harm other people. But the American taxpayer has no obligation to intervene in such matters. Even if it would be good and nice for people in America to take action to promote peace, safety, nuclear non-proliferation, etc, in the Middle East, you can’t force other people to do so. The logical implications of acting in this way and in other ways like it, is so clearly detrimental in the long-run that it must be rejected. The Iranian situation is very complicated, nuanced, and delicate, with a limitless array of possible outcomes based on a limitless array of possible courses of action. There is no way for us to correctly discern how each individual in the Iranian government will act in the future, so there is no way to base a solution on the guessed future actions of these individuals. We can only act according to general, logical principles, and only by doing so can we achieve the best practical outcome.
December 20th, 2008 at 2:06 am
1) I do not support a ground invasion of Iran.
2) I do not believe in an “obligation” to assist foreign countries. I think that it’s smart foreign policy, because it sends a red light to would-be aggressors and genocidal maniacs. I do believe that we should intervene in the Sudan, and perhaps Zimbabwe. The time has passed for other countries to maximally produce a net positive output for us spending lives and money there.
3) I don’t get your obsession with suicide bombing. You’ve brought up the point that there has never been an Iranian suicide bomber several times, but there have hardly been any suicide bombers, period. Suicide bombing is extremely difficult to justify within Islam, and there’s a very solid argument to make that al-Qaeda’s suicide tactics are very much outside the bounds of Islam, even if their justification for jihad is decent. (Palestinian suicide bombings can best be described as religiously-flavored political actions. The entire politico-religious situation there is a mess.)
4) Even if the Iranian government did pass off a chemical weapon to Hezbollah, the group only acts with the express permission of Khamenei. It’s not merely a group that Iran funnels money to, but an agent of the Iranian government. Your proposition, anyway, that it’s somehow in the better religious interest for them to go all-out with what they have ASAP is ludicrous; if the Iranians know that there’s more potential for hegemony or destruction in the future, then it’s best for them to hold off. We Westerners have really lost track of this, but Middle Easterners have not: patience is a virtue. It’s certainly not for “fear of an Israeli response.”
5) The Iranians accepted a peace settlement in the Iran-Iraq War because there was little other option, from both a traditional rational-actor’s perspective and a religious perspective, to further their goals.
6) Yeah, principle is always what leads to the goal occurring, which is why Ron Paul is a huge powerbroker in Congress, and why the Libertarian Party is a major force in American poli — oh, wait…
December 20th, 2008 at 2:31 am
1). Why not?
2). Do you believe that the American taxpayer who wants no part in assisting foreign countries has a right not to be forced to do so?
3). I brought up suicide bombing in passing as one of the limitless possibilities that could result from one of the many courses of action our government could take against Iran.
4). We can speculate all day long about why the Iranian government hasn’t passed off a biological or chemical weapon to Hezbollah yet, but regardless of whether or not they haven’t because they fear an Israeli reprisal or because they’re waiting patiently in order to maximize the effects of a bio/chem attack, it shows that the decision makers in the Iranian government are not totally irrational, are strategic-minded, and are self-interested.
5). Ah, yes?
6). If, by “the goal,” you mean the maximization of individual satisfaction and well-being, which is the end that all individuals (smart or stupid, sane or insane, masochistic or self-interested) seek, then, yes, following logical general rules of action (i.e. “principles”) is the most efficient means to achieving that end. If, by “the goal,” you mean the maximization of your power over others, then, no, logic and moral principle is not the most efficient means to achieving the goal.
December 20th, 2008 at 2:38 am
1) We don’t have the resources to do it.
2) No, but we live in a democracy, not a minarchist system, and we’re never going to live in a minarchist system. I’m working with the system that we have and the world that we’re faced with. You, in contrast, are living in a fantasy world.
3) Suicide bombing makes the news for its rarity; it’s indeed a rare occurrence and not a very well-grounded action, in religious terms.
4) Of course they’re not irrational, and they are definitely self-interested, but that must be defined in their terms. If by not irrational you mean that they are not mentally insane, then, no, they are not. They’re certainly wacko, though. They are self-interested in the sense that they want to be the best servants of Allah that they can be; they do not place preservation of the state at the highest level of importance as non-religious states tend to, though.
5) Er, yes.
6) Adhering to strict libertarian principles in 2008 will get you nowhere, politically.
December 20th, 2008 at 2:52 am
1). But we have the resources to conduct a Global War On Terror?
2). Does “working within the system” require us to act immorally?
3). Suicide terrorism is indeed a somewhat relatively rare occurrence, considering all of the other combat tactics employed on a daily basis, but it is a possible consequence of certain actions.
4). I agree with you here, though I’m highly skeptical that those in the Iranian government would be willing to sacrifice their entire country in order to take out an Israeli city or to spark a bout of regional chaos.
5). So, the Iranian government considered its options, and instead of pressing onward into the cosmic battle with the conviction that Allah was behind them, they cut a political deal to save their state…
6). In the short-run, yes. You’re quite right.
December 20th, 2008 at 2:59 am
1) Yeah.
2) Yeah.
3) Yeah.
4) Only because compromising virtually the entire Shi’a power base to take out one city would be an idiotic strategic move from both a religious and political standpoint.
5) The Iran-Iraq War itself was not viewed as the precursor to the end times.
6) Yeah.
December 20th, 2008 at 2:59 am
Let me expound upon #2: Do you have no appreciation for the concept of ‘least bad’? Would you rather someone smack you around a bit or stab you with a knife?
December 20th, 2008 at 3:09 am
I didn’t know that someone presenting me with the alternatives of smacking me around a bit or stabbing me with a knife required me to act immorally.