| | A very brief reply to a subject that can turn into a monograph, as Andre suggests. :)
Daniel: I agree that the GOP moderate luminaries are not the grass roots. These conventions are put on for two audiences: Red Meat for the party faithfuls, and more moderate politicians who hope to appeal to that spectrum of independent voters who are still undecided. In a close election, it is the difference between winning and losing.
Jim: Yes, indeed.. it is nice to disagree. Often the problem in these kinds of debates is that people will tend to doubt one another's intellectual honesty. But, lo and behold, reasonable people can actually disagree! Two people looking at the same facts, coming at things from different contexts of knowledge, or interests, can come to different conclusions. It's a novel concept! :)
Thanks too for the kind words about the trilogy. In lieu of a complete discussion on nation-building, let me just say that the neoconservative heart is in the right place: It is necessary to change a culture in order to change social and political institutions. That's a lot better than those who argue that all we need to do is get rid of the state, and the rest will follow automatically. In a culture that does not appreciate freedom and its prerequisites, that state would come back the next day.
I believe, however, that cultural changes must come from within, rather than being imposed from without, or from what I have called an Archimedean standpoint outside the culture, traditions, or history of the society in question. That's why cultural context is so crucially important when discussing political change.
I suspect that more fundamental change might come from, say, a homegrown liberation movement among the young in Iran---who reject the mullahs, than would come from, say, Afghanistan, which is a narco-state of tribal warfare, or, say, Iraq, which is fragmented along many cultural, ethnic and tribal divides (the Sunni, Shi'ite, and Kurdish distinctions are only some of the more prominent ones).
It is possible for politics to influence the shape of culture, but, like Rand, I believe that cultural change is a fundamental prerequisite to political change. That's why the people in Russia are still struggling in the post-Communist era; they lack many of the cultural preconditions for the achievement of capitalism---even though, politically, they've dismantled much of the central planning apparatus. Authoritarian political structures still exist there, as does a flourishing Russian Mafia, and there's always the possibility that some form of authoritarianism will return with a vengeance.
Which brings me, briefly, to Andre's points. What I mean by "nation-building" at home is what I implied in my "Caught Up In the Rapture" article: that Bush sees himself as a cultural warrior, and that he sees religiously-inspired politics as a tool to change culture. I think the bully pulpit can be used to affect civic culture---the way Reagan did to Washington culture or the way Rudy Giuliani did to NYC culture. But I still think the primary causal relationship is culture --- > politics, whatever the reciprocal effects. That's what I was taught and what I accepted from people as diverse as Rand and Hayek.
The neoconservatives have a long intellectual lineage. Many of the original thinkers, who built the neoconservative intellectual movement, were disgruntled social democrats or former New Dealers, who turned from the Stalinist left and its Soviet worship, who saw the fallacies of central planning, but who still accepted the welfare state as a given. They also retained the notion of state planning---except in the service of the "right" ideas. Today's neocons may give a nod to the "right" goals of Reagan, but the means by which they wish to achieve these goals---with muscular government intervention (as described in my "progressive conservatism" post at HNN)---is a nod to the "left" they abandoned.
That is the philosophy underlying the belief that it is possible to construct a culture of "democracy" in Iraq---by simply imposing "democratic" institutions on a society that knows little or nothing of procedural democracy, freedom, or individualism.
This is a very complex area that I can't possibly address comprehensively here; but I've been writing about it in many, many posts now for nearly two years. You might want to check through all the archives at notablog.net for some of the key essays on the subject.
Cheers!
|
|
