Offered as definitive proof we are living in the ideological Bizzaro world of 1992, here’s one-time Marxist Christopher Hitchens on Francis Fukuyama:
[…] in the first paragraph, we are told that Iraq has become “a magnet” for jihadists, later that democracy-promotion has been attacked both from the left and (gasp) the right, later that neocons have issues with “overreaching,” and soon after that “it is not an accident” that many neoconservatives started out as “Trotskyites.”
Not everyone will appreciate the unironic beauty of those last two formulations; they will appeal most to the few who are connoisseurs of leftist sectarianism. The opening words, “It is no accident, comrades,” used to be the dead giveaway of a wooden Stalinist hack (who would also make use of the deliberately diminishing term Trotskyite instead of Trotskyist). And these nuances matter, because Fukuyama now tells us that the book that made him famous, The End of History and the Last Man (1992), “presented a kind of Marxist argument for the existence of a long-term process of social evolution, but one that terminates in liberal democracy rather than communism.” Alas, the purity of his Marxism was soon to be corrupted by the likes of William Kristol and Robert Kagan, whose position was “by contrast, Leninist; they believed that history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will. Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as farce when practiced by the United States.” Pause to note, then, that even the advocate of the new foreign-policy “realism” feels compelled to borrow the most overused anti-Hegelian line from Karl Marx’s 18th Brumaire.
For all this show of knowledge about the arcana of Marxism and Straussianism, Fukuyama’s actual applications of them are surprisingly thin. It is not even a parody of the Trotskyist position to say that the lesson they drew from Stalinism was “the danger of good intentions carried to extremes.” Nor is it even half-true to say, of those who advocated an intervention in Iraq, that they concluded “that the ‘root cause’ of terrorism lay in the Middle East’s lack of democracy, that the United States had both the wisdom and the ability to fix this problem and that democracy would come quickly and painlessly to Iraq.”
The first requirement of anyone engaging in an intellectual or academic debate is that he or she be able to give a proper account of the opposing position(s), and Fukuyama simply fails this test. The term “root causes” was always employed ironically (as the term “political correctness” used to be) as a weapon against those whose naive opinions about the sources of discontent were summarized in that phrase. It wasn’t that the Middle East “lacked democracy” so much that one of its keystone states was dominated by an unstable and destabilizing dictatorship led by a psychopath. And it wasn’t any illusion about the speed and ease of a transition so much as the conviction that any change would be an improvement. The charge that used to be leveled against the neoconservatives was that they had wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein (pause for significant lowering of voice) even before Sept. 11, 2001. And that “accusation,” as Fukuyama well knows, was essentially trueâ€â€and to their credit.
The three questions that anyone developing second thoughts about the Iraq conflict must answer are these: Was the George H.W. Bush administration right to confirm Saddam Hussein in power after his eviction from Kuwait in 1991? Is it right to say that we had acquired a responsibility for Iraq, given past mistaken interventions and given the great moral question raised by the imposition of sanctions? And is it the case that another confrontation with Saddam was inevitable; those answering “yes” thus being implicitly right in saying that we, not he, should choose the timing of it? Fukuyama does not even mention these considerations. Instead, by his slack use of terms like “magnet,” he concedes to the fanatics and beheaders the claim that they are a response to American blunders and excesses.
That’s why last week was a poor one for him to pick. Surely the huge spasm of Islamist hysteria over caricatures published in Copenhagen shows that there is no possible Western insurance against doing something that will inflame jihadists? The sheer audacity and evil of destroying the shrine of the 12th imam is part of an inter-Muslim civil war that had begun long before the forces of al-Qaida decided to exploit that war and also to export it to non-Muslim soil. Yes, we did indeed underestimate the ferocity and ruthlessness of the jihadists in Iraq. Where, one might inquire, have we not underestimated those forces and their virulence? (We are currently underestimating them in Nigeria, for example, which is plainly next on the Bin Laden hit list and about which I have been boring on ever since Bin Laden was good enough to warn us in the fall of 2004.)
In the face of this global threat and its recent and alarmingly rapid projection onto European and American soil, Fukuyama proposes beefing up “the State Department, U.S.A.I.D., the National Endowment for Democracy and the like.” You might expect a citation from a Pew poll at about this point, and, don’t worry, he doesn’t leave that out, either. But I have to admire that vague and lazy closing phrase “and the like.” Hegel meets Karen Hughes! Perhaps some genius at the CIA is even now preparing to subsidize a new version of Encounter magazine to be circulated among the intellectuals of Kashmir or Kabul or Kazakhstan? Not such a bad idea in itself, perhaps, but no substitute for having a battle-hardened army that has actually learned from fighting in the terrible conditions of rogue-state/failed-state combat. Is anyone so blind as to suppose that we shall not be needing this hard-bought experience in the future?
I have my own criticisms both of my one-time Trotskyist comrades and of my temporary neocon allies, but it can be said of the former that they saw Hitlerism and Stalinism comingâ€â€and also saw that the two foes would one day fuse togetherâ€â€and so did what they could to sound the alarm. And it can be said of the latter (which, alas, it can’t be said of the former) that they looked at Milosevic and Saddam and the Taliban and realized that they would have to be confronted sooner rather than later. Fukuyama’s essay betrays a secret academic wish to be living in “normal” times once more, times that will “restore the authority of foreign policy ‘realists’ in the tradition of Henry Kissinger.” Fat chance, Francis! Kissinger is moribund, and the memory of his failed dictator’s club is too fresh to be dignified with the term “tradition.” If you can’t have a sense of policy, you should at least try to have a sense of history. America at the Crossroads evidently has neither.
Of course, Hitchens has long since joined the Cult of Bush. And so his critique of Fukuyama’s turn—like my critique of Buckley—must be considered through Crawford-colored lenses.
Because it simply couldn’t be that those of us who started out supporting the war by criticizing, and finally eschewing, political realism and a status quo middle east policy— a policy that greatly (in our opinions) contributed to the 911 attacks (as well as to the anti-Americanism in the Muslim world)—still support the war for those same reasons: that we regard the failure of realism and political foreign policy pragmatism as the greater danger to our country in the long run.1
Instead, we are simply, y’know, into excommunicating dissenting neocons. Because if we do, Bush might notice us. And when he does, you can bet your ass we’ll be getting permanent tax cuts and private medical accounts—even if the rest of you non Cultists are forced to fend for yourselves in the new totalitarian America.
****
1 This doesn’t mean, of course, that there aren’t times for foreign policy pragmatism (for instance, before we advocated for democracy in Pakistan, we’d need to clear the way for democratic reform by closing the madrassas and working to expel the Islamic radicals; this is where realism applies, and neocons aren’t promoting a massive democraticization of the world by force of arms. In Iraq, our interests, combined with a formerly cosmopolitan culture in Iraq, coincided, making the effort a strategically viable and responsible one).
And pie. We’ll also be getting pie.
And dancing armadillos and free rimless glasses!
The pie is a lie. It’s not coming. That’s just the false incentive used to keep the Cultists in line and on message.
I use to have dreams of pie, too. But all that’s gone now. All I have is a dusty copy of The Road to Serfdom and a broken heart. And the Clap.
wow, jeffie g (a good rap name, btw) is on fire today.
i loathe fukayama with the fire of a thousand suns.
he is also a member of the odious “bioethics” council, and the author of the incredibly depressing masterpiece of ludditry “Our Posthuman Future”, where he condemns gerontology research (and all other kinds of biotech) as unnatural and destructive to homo sapiens.
Me, i’d like to live longer and be free from disease. Who knew that was bad for us?
Where’s this new totalitarian America he talks about?
Speaking of the ‘dillo . . .
Better an unrealistic and unpragmatic approach. No need to cozy up to emirates, princes, generals, warlords, tribal or religious figures. Except when they’re the expected result of our invasions and elections.
Sorry actus…but I do believe that both Afghanistan and Iraq now have democratically elected governments, not “emirates, princes, generals, warlords, tribal or religious figures” as you intone.
Of course that is a minor quibble. After all, Howard Dean assures us he will stop nuclear proliferation in Iran and North Korea…through sweet sweet negotiation…you know, what has worked so well up to now, then capture Bin Laden â€â€maybe with his own bare hands and provide free healthcare to everyone in America.
Nope, nothing unrealistic or unpragmatic about that…
runninrebel,
Karl Rove sends me pie every week. Maybe you aren’t cultish enough. When’s the last time you prayed to Cheney?
The dancing armadillo – now that’s a lie.
Give it up Jim, we have as much chance of seeing a dancing ‘dillo as we have of Bush patching our leaky levee!
TW: Care. Because rich elitists like Goldstein and Bush don’t care about the “little people”.
You really think we don’t deal with religous, ethnic and tribal leaders in Iraq and Afghanistan just because we have elections there?
It is the way the future. You know, to fight “the greater danger to our country in the long run.”
Jay,
Well, I didn’t get the memo the week of the whole Miers deal and I went against it (unknowingly). So, maybe that’s it.
But I pray to Cheney’s cock at least twice a week.
actus,
I don’t know why I’m bothering, but the new policy realism is not a regection of “foriegn policy realism” per se, but the acceptance of a new reality. Y’know, that whole post-9/11 thing.
But I know you enjoy making thoughtless, disconnected, contrarian arguments, so go for it.
“rejection” “foreign”
Whatever. It’s friday I ain’t got nothin to do tomorrow.
Hitchens has been lauded as the greatest essayist since Orwell. He’s good but I think Norman Podhoretz is better. His essay “The Panic over Iraq” several months ago still echoes in my mind.
“You really think we don’t deal with religous, ethnic and tribal leaders in Iraq and Afghanistan just because we have elections there?”
Of course we do, but that’s not what you said friend. You said that such entities were “the expected result of our invasions and elections”…which is patent BS.
“It is the way the future. You know, to fight “the greater danger to our country in the long run.â€Â
You have no way of knowing that and neither do I, but it is quite clear to everyone that Dr. Dean has precisely 0 ideas on how to allay any of these dangers…which is precisely why his asinine proclamations were both vacous and reiterited commitment to the same old tired solutions that have proven not only ineffective by disastrous.
actus:
The reality is that American foreign policy is a combination of the pragmatic and the idealistic. Unlike, say, French foreign policy which is almost entirely pragmatic.
It was that combination that led us to intervene in South Korea in 1950—an invasion of a sovereign country, that also happened to be close to Japan.
What you utterly, resolutely, stubbornly refuse to recognize, however, is that there is an idealistic streak in American foreign policy. It is that streak that led us to put pressure on various South Korean governments to liberalize, and that ultimately led to the rise of a democracy in Seoul. One that is sufficiently successful that, no matter what their foreign policy towards North Korea, the prospect of a coup d’etat is vanishingly small.
Stability is not a bad thing, but it cannot be the only thing. Just look at Cote d’Ivoire to see what happens when it is.
No joke. In the 90s I supported Clinton because I agreed with him on most social issues, liked his spending restraint, felt the few issues I disagreed with him on were unimportant, and the GOP was too dysfunctional to offer a viable alternative.
Today I support Bush even though I disagree with him on most social issues and hate his runaway spending because I feel the few issues I agree with him on are enormously important and the Dems are too dysfunctional to offer a viable alternative.
I’ve felt like I was taking Mugatu’s crazy pills for about four years now.
We expected religious, tribal and ethnic leaders to gain, rather than lose, power once Saddam was taken out. We expected these power structures of society outside of saddam to be reflected in the parliament.
Damn right! I for one am sick and tired of being accused of trying to “force Iraq into a facsimile of Texas at gunpoint.”
We aren’t there to “force” democracy down Iraq’s throat, we’re there to remove the forces standing in the way of Iraqi self-determination.
If you marry that humanitarian effort (which has value for it’s own sake, IMO) to the theory that our actions makes America safer well, as you say… a perfect convergence of mutually reinforcing factors imerges.
Some people (*cough*like me*cough*) might even call it a duty to act upon such tailor-made circumstances.
That said… I still don’t know what to make of Hitchens. Until he became the de facto spokesman for our efforts in Iraq, I’d never really heard of him, and the more I learn about his earlier pursuits, the more confused I become.
Bizzaro world? Too right. Ummm… which way’s the bar? I need a drink to counteract the effects of having a committed Leftist as my staunchest defender.
Yo, barkeep? Anarchy and soda, please… *gulp*
Don’t look now, but Jim Carey teaches the Cycle of Violence class…
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/audio/GeoTeacher.mp3
It’s too late now to argue who supported the war in Iraq and who did not. The United States destroyed a well-kept dictatorship with no immediate plans on Israel, and created a failed stated surely to harbor terrorists. There is no easy way out now, just as in Vietnam. All options are too bad.
United States destroyed a well-kept dictatorship
What the HELL does that mean?!
The shredding machines were properly lubricated?
There was no standing in line for the firing squads?
He kept the proper records of all the hush money he paid to Kofi?
“well-kept dictatorship”
Oh. my. God.
But Geez, Danny! The American Revolution was sooooo long ago! And that was more of a monarchy.
Oh wait. Were you talking about the Third Reich?
tw: Return to the future…
We could always cut ourselves three times and apply for Purple Hearts.
I was so stunned by the utter stupidity of the “well-kept” statement I forgot this:
Except for those $25,000 bountys Saddam was paying the families of suicide bombers who killed Jews, in ummm, Israel.
Schmuck.
And thus Danny exposes his, and all others who make that arguement, utter inhumanity. Because a ‘well-kept dictatorship’ is better than, at the very least, trying to rid one corner of the world of tyranny.
No, Danny, it’s never too late to point out those who argued against the attempt to expand human freedom.
TW: There’s always a ‘but’.
Little Danny Simkin’s a Kos plant. (An operative, not a rutabaga, although…)
Has to be.
Right?
tw: The millions who passed away.
Yep, but topically off limits. Little Danny Simkin already called no topsies and no punch-backs:
tw: The decision to be a fool.
Ok, one more post, just to use the Turing word:
tw: Because Little Danny Simkin IS the proud American Left, advocate of brown people world-wide.
Or go AWOL for a coke-fueled bender.
The left will never forgive itself for losing to Bush. Twice.
Thats. Really. Gotta. Hurt.
cue the victim status ‘stolen election(s)’ statement….
Nah, we would usually cruise into Cambodia for some Thai-sticks…that shit would sear your fucking brain, dude.
Please. Weed is weak-ass hippy shit. Just gimme good ol’ JD and an eightball of uncut Colombian.
As P.J. O’Rourke once wrote about Hitchens, ‘Christ, who’s handing out the green cards around here?’
Reality has smacked Hitchens sharply between the eyes once, to some effect; it remains to be seen whether he can make the broader extrapolation, even with the vilification he receives from his former peers…
Because they were fake but accurate! THEY WERE FAKE BUT ACCURATE DAMMIT! WAAAAAAHAAAAAAA!!!!!!
Whatever.
TW: Eat any good books lately?
The left’s supposed stand on compassion for humanity is pretty much defined by:
As long as it is over there and it ain’t bothering us, don’t touch it.
If they really did care about humanity they would be celebrating Saddam’s takedown just as we are. Instead, in not so subtle ways, they decry it.
For the others, it is just plain ignorance.
To me, it seems strange that we who are called the warmongers and supporters of baby killers are the one’s who are so steadfast in our support of the individual Iraqi’s and the freedom of the ME citizens.
How many tears have the left shed for them?
That explains the anti-sweatshop movement.
actus, I’m not catching where you’re going with this. “Religious, tribal and ethnic leaders” is just another (multi-cultural) way of saying “leaders” – those with constituencies. Who else, in a nation where a murderous dictator did his damnedest to silence dissent by stopping the hearts, rather than discouraging the spirits, of dissenters, would be elected to a parliament? Aren’t Jackson and Sharpton religious as well as political figures of importance in the US? How about JFK, back in the day – wasn’t he a leader among the bloc of American Catholics? Remember when Lieberman was Gore’s VP candidate? Wasn’t he touted as potentially the first Jewish VP because that identification was important to a particular common-interest, oftentimes similar-in-ancestry group (or what we might call a “tribe” if we weren’t so Western and enlightened and all)?
In fewer words, what makes your puzzling assertion not just a patronizing slur? That you may disagree with the positions of the players doesn’t mean that they’re not the correct representatives of the people they actually represented even before elections occurred.
Would they have all been our favorites? No… but it’s not our government. We’ll need to continue to expend diplomatic energy to moderate the influence of the most fundamentalist parliamentarians, just as we have been doing in the recent Golden Dome crisis – but if we demand that Iraq’s government reflect our sensibilities, then we’re setting up precisely the puppet government that others in the region (and naysayers here) claim we intended all along. Gut check: given that the Iraq government is happening, would it be a good or a bad development, in your mind, if it were a US puppet?
I wouldn’t let it bother you Jamie, we all have that feeling when we read actus.
I think it has something to do with him/her being completely unable to form a coherent thought.
Or s/he may just be really stoooopid.