by Demosophist

On Bill Maher tonight I heard the host say something to the effect that "Well yeah, Bush had a list of reasons for invading Iraq and about the fourth one down had to do with regime change to rid the people of that brutal murderous dictator. But he obviously lied about everything else." And a similar bit of dissembling wisdom popped out the other night on Dennis Miller, from some panel guest whose name I have no good reason to recall. Well, I could waste time, as did David Horowitz on the Miller show, recounting how a lot of people made quite a big fuss about regime change and the "suffering of the Iraqi people." But I recall almost no one on the left saying anything like that, other than the usual suspects: Paul Berman (who wrote a book about it), Bernard Kouchner, and Chris Hitchens, as well as a few bloggers like Marc Danziger on Winds of Change. And all of those folks have subsequently been disowned and shunned by many of their ideological compatriots. more...

Posted by: Demosophist at 12:56 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 603 words, total size 4 kb.

Disclaimer: I'm not sure how Rusty feels about this issue, and for all I know we're diametrically opposed... so just make sure this post isn't attributed to him. I should also note that I'm not exactly a "liberal pushover." I believe, wholeheartedly, in the "ownership society." That said:

I'm sorry, but there's just something obscene about the way this Bankruptcy Bill is sailing to passage, without even token opposition from anyone. It seems almost self-evident to me that if it's such a walk in the park to file bankruptcy under current statute then the appropriate reaction from a responsible credit industry would be to... lend less, or at least cut the predatory lending, deception, etc.. That being the case, there's simply no way to interpret the desire to make bankruptcy as painful as having the skin stripped off your back by a cat-o-nine-tails (instead of just losing a hand or something), unless it's an over-arching GRUNCH (what R. Buckminster Fuller used to call the "Great Universal Cash Heist.") Gosh, you'd think that'd be a Democrat issue, right? I mean them being the guardians of the poor and disadvantaged and all.

We know how that worked out, for Iraq and the Middle East.
more...

Posted by: Demosophist at 01:11 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 600 words, total size 4 kb.

By Demosophist

I've been thinking lately about the process of nation-building in Iraq and elsewhere, under the difficult conditions imposed by a vicious terrorist insurgency. The prospects for the enterprise sometimes seem as likely as the quest for the Philosopher's Stone, the mythical device that was supposed to turn "dross into gold." Somehow the transfer of legitimacy from an occupying power to a new liberal democratic government, in a recently totalitarian society, seems just as implausible, and valuable. Recently I compared this bit of alchemy to a famous cycling contest, between American Lance Armstrong and Italian Marco Pantani, up the slopes of the bleak and legendary Mont Ventoux. Cycling is such a rich mix of competition and cooperation that it often supplies useful analogies for political processes, and this particular contest seemed appropriate because it involved an attempt by Armstrong to "render the victory" to another rider, in order to obtain cooperation of that rider's team in a larger strategy. The attempt was unsuccessful for a number of reasons. more...

Posted by: Demosophist at 06:55 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 1835 words, total size 12 kb.

1 two questions 1. was this your dissertation? 2, was it approved? You know how to wear a dumb exJarhead out! My eyes hurt. We have been, are and will win the War on Terror. Have faith

Posted by: Rod Stanton at March 06, 2005 06:48 AM (l5t6M)

2 Rod: But did you like the title?

Posted by: Demosophist at March 06, 2005 08:31 AM (Dfdj0)

3 OK I liked the title. I read the entire thing and you owe me for a new set of glasses. The title inttrigued me.

Posted by: Rod Stanton at March 06, 2005 08:07 PM (l5t6M)

4 Didn't Nietzche say something along the lines of "only a fool muddies his water?" 1) You state the obvious when you make the theoretical comment that Iraq will be able to handle itself when it has a population that supports its government and that (in theory) their military will be able to overcome the insurgency once they are better trained. Also, if there's anything we've learned in the last 30 years is that you can't apply western rationality in determining what will happen in the Middle East. Also, a bike race analogy (or any analogy) wasn't really necessary, and likely bored most readers (constant thesaurus perusal notwithstanding). 2) A well-trained military does not guarantee stability. See most South American countries. While I have hope it does, there is no empirical evidence that would suggest this is always the case. Opinions are one thing, but to create a mini-thesis without really backing up your argument with any kind of tangible evidence (save for a bike analogy you admit is inadequate) leaves a lot to be desired.

Posted by: Venom at March 07, 2005 10:53 AM (dbxVM)

5 1) You state the obvious when you make the theoretical comment that Iraq will be able to handle itself when it has a population that supports its government and that (in theory) their military will be able to overcome the insurgency once they are better trained. Actually, I said the inverse of that. This and your other comments reveal that you don't really understand the point I'm making, which is not about either an Iraqi or American victory over the insurgency (which is something I assume will happen) but what role that plays in establishing the legitimacy of the regime. Suggest you consult something like a political science dictionary or encyclopedia, and look up the term "legitimacy" or "legitimation." Especially "social legitimation." You might also take a look at Lipset's The First New Nation.

Posted by: Demosophist at March 07, 2005 03:05 PM (Dfdj0)

6 "Actually, I said the inverse of that." Hahaha, that's great...despite the fact that the legitimacy of a government increases quite highly with the support of its population (which can be even higher if said government defeats an insurgency), you're "saying the inverse" of that. And yet trying to play up the logical consequences of this "inverse" at the same time. Very deep and mysterious. "This and your other comments reveal that you don't really understand the point I'm making..." Maybe that means you need to put the thesaurus down? I'm sure most people miss the points you're trying to make on a regular basis. Not because you're smarter and they're dumber, mind you. There's something to be said for concise points that don't meander all over the place. Legitimacy is, obviously, a consequence of a population supporting its government. If a people support their government, regardless of the means that government attained power, it has legitimacy in the eyes of its population. So, no, I didn't miss your point. I just didn't think I needed to "legitimize" your post with any more incredibly obvious analysis. "Suggest you consult something like a political science dictionary or encyclopedia, and look up the term "legitimacy" or "legitimation."" Thanks teach. Will that give me the insightful powers you cast with every verbose-ridden post?

Posted by: Venom at March 07, 2005 03:26 PM (dbxVM)

7 Hahaha, that's great...despite the fact that the legitimacy of a government increases quite highly with the support of its population (which can be even higher if said government defeats an insurgency), you're "saying the inverse" of that. Yeah, without legitimacy it won't have any support, but that's the least of it. The regime simply won't exist for very long. "Support" is simply a matter of having popular policies, and so forth, which has very little to do with this. (That's a matter of administrations, rather than regimes, if you want to get technical.) Conceptually you're not even in the ball park. Anyway, Venon... what makes you think anyone would be much interested in what you have to say (apart from pointing out conceptual errors that might mislead others) since you have a universally negative opinion of everything? It'd be like building a house with a .357.

Posted by: Demosophist at March 07, 2005 05:18 PM (Dfdj0)

8 "without legitimacy it won't have any support, but that's the least of it. " And you say I'm not in the ballpark...you're trying to put the cart before the horse with this statement. Popular support gives legitimacy, not the other way around. Otherwise, Saddam would have had a very legitimate government. But hey, how about I try to keep the illumination of conceptual errors to a minimum? "Anyway, Venon... what makes you think anyone would be much interested in what you have to say since you have a universally negative opinion of everything?" I don't think anyone would care what I have to say. Remember, I'm not at the point where I feel vain enough to have a blog. If you write in a blog, you open yourself to comment and criticism. If you don't like it, don't post. Besides, if you're going to write a monolithic post, you might want to keep in mind who your audience is. At this point, I'd bet that the majority of people who see your name likely skip your posts because your choice of words make even the simplest of issues a tiresome game of "how many big words will Demosophist use this time?" At which point, you have to ask yourself are you writing for the benefit of others or for yourself. I'm guessing the latter. So, why do it publicly? Oh, and I don't have a universally negative opinion of everything. Just when I see things that I think a)need questioning, b)are so inherently stupid, they require comment, or c)are ignorant.

Posted by: Venom at March 07, 2005 06:16 PM (dbxVM)

9 And you say I'm not in the ballpark...you're trying to put the cart before the horse with this statement. Popular support gives legitimacy... I'd bother to explain this to you, but you're such a nasty fellow what's the point? Pupular support is just popular support. It has little to do with social legitimacy. Again, I suppose it's too much to ask you to have enough humility to decide you may not have this topic knocked... but a good starting point is Max Weber. That's not so much for you, because you're pretty much unreachable, but in case anyone else is interested.

Posted by: Demosophist at March 07, 2005 06:59 PM (Dfdj0)

10 Holy smokes, you could split hairs until the cows come home, couldn't you? "It's not this legitimacy, it's that legitimacy." C'mon, it's common sense. Popular support makes all the difference in determining a legitimate government. You trying to dismiss it is pretty closed-minded. Considering that was the basis of your entire "argument" suggests to me you failed. "That's not so much for you, because you're pretty much unreachable, but in case anyone else is interested." lol...I guess you just glossed over my other point in that most people don't read your posts? I'm not really unreachable, unless someone is trying to argue a point they 1)haven't backed up (see your post) or 2)is inherently wrong (see your post). Writing a post that you crafted with every conceivable adjective at your disposal doesn't make your post "right," by the way. It just shows a need to attempt to confuse the writer into thinking you know what you're talking about. By the way, I noticed you completely avoided any defense of my take on your need to write gigantic posts. Maybe I hit the nail on the head? Surely you have the "humility" to realize that?

Posted by: Venom at March 08, 2005 08:50 AM (dbxVM)

11 *...to confuse the READER into thinking...

Posted by: Venom at March 08, 2005 08:52 AM (dbxVM)

12 Venom I think he said "fouls his doorstep". As in dump.

Posted by: Rod Stanton at March 08, 2005 11:54 AM (l5t6M)

13 Could be, Rod (though the "fouls his doorstep" has more flair). Either way, the message is the same.

Posted by: Venom at March 08, 2005 02:27 PM (dbxVM)

14 Holy smokes, you could split hairs until the cows come home, couldn't you? How does your inability to recognize a rather commonplace, standard and obvious distinction become my "ability to split hairs?" Equating "popular support" with political legitimacy is like equating applesaunce with jet fuel, observing that they're both sources of energy. George Washington had enough "popular support" to be elected, but so did Grover Cleveland and Jimmy Carter. The latter contributed precisely nothing to the legitimacy of the nation, while Washington contributed (for all practical purposes) everything. And for all I know Cleveland and Carter got a higher percentage of the vote. Legitimacy isn't popular support. It just looks like it, to the ignorant. Legitimacy is what your parents earned by telling you "no,' when you needed to hear it, which obvioushly wasn't often enough.

Posted by: Demosophist at March 09, 2005 02:15 AM (Dfdj0)

15 See, this is the problem with your argument. You're interpretation of the social legitimacy (or lack thereof) of Jimmy Carter's presidency is simply that: your interpretation. Perhaps your interpretation of social legitimacy is based on whether or not the society in question has engaged in some kind of nation-building (which again opens up the question as to what you actually consider "nation-building"). The "fans" of Jimmy Carter - i.e. the people who voted him in - might argue that his presidency did provide value in a socially legitimate sense. The problem is that you're confusing "identity" for "legitimacy" (oh, and cute comeback you slid in at the end, btw. I'll give you a free pass in the psychoanalysis, but I've got a few theories of mine own regarding your own upbringing). His presidency may not have contributed to the nation's identity in the same sense Washington's did, but is was legitimate in a social sense. If you were to argue that the Iraqis are in danger of losing their new identity without the efforts of the U.S. and its coaltion, I'd agree with you. However, this new country is still going to be socially legitimate with or without the U.S.'s help as long as the majority of Iraqis support whoever is elected. It's them, not you (or the U.S.) who defines the social legitimacy of their country. You're attempting to place your viewpoints (or those you subscribe to) as some kind of blueprint as to whether or not their country will be socially legitimate, while in fact its their perceptions that define what's legitimate or not. Their collective (read: majority) perceptions will define all of this. As such, their popular support plays a far greater role than you wish to admit.

Posted by: Venom at March 09, 2005 10:09 AM (dbxVM)

16 I'm really not going to belabor this topic any more, because you're apparently not even interested enough in learning or comprehension to bother to look up the concept somewhere (like Weber ferinstance). But suffice to say it's not "my definition" that's idiosyncratic, it's yours.

Posted by: Demosophist at March 09, 2005 10:54 AM (Dfdj0)

17 Thank you, because this exchange was becoming as boring as your post. The best part, though, is that you actually didn't prove a thing within your post, and like most wannabe philosophers can't back up shite.

Posted by: Venom at March 10, 2005 10:43 AM (dbxVM)

Hide Comments | Add Comment