To get into the spirit of the '08, and brush up on the Clintons, I have just been reading Bob Woodward's The Agenda (1994) which covered the early days of the Clinton White House. One of my initial reactions was to be struck by the apparent shift in current Democratic politics away from the centrist rhetoric of the early 90s, the "New Democrats" . In fact, if we were to believe everything in the media (mainstream or blog) we would assume those days were over. My interpretation was that it appeared the Democrats had been enthusiastically adopted their party's opposition to the Iraq war to the point where they would take a stand of opposing most Republican policies, in a pronounced shift leftward (or at least towards populism - e.g. John Edwards), and the centrist was an endangered species.
Not so, according to David Brooks, here in the NY Times. Brooks suggests that:
Now it’s evident that if you want to understand the future of the Democratic Party you can learn almost nothing from the bloggers, billionaires and activists on the left who make up the “netroots.”
You can learn most of what you need to know by paying attention to two different groups — high school educated women in the Midwest, and the old Clinton establishment in Washington...In the first place, the netroots candidates are losing. In the various polls on the Daily Kos Web site, John Edwards, Barack Obama and even Al Gore crush Hillary Clinton, who limps in with 2 percent to 10 percent of the vote...Moguls like David Geffen have fled for Obama. But the party as a whole is going the other way. Hillary Clinton has established a commanding lead.
This does feel a little like a "emperor has no clothes" moment. The lead Hillary enjoys is now so blindingly clear, that it's almost hard to believe the amount of power that had been credited to the so-called "netroots" blogs and organizations who seemed destined to topple centrist Hillary along with any conservatives. Anyone remember August 2006, and the netroots hysteria surrounding the Lieberman-Lamont primary?
Could it be that the netroots movement may have been, to quote a Democrat of a previous generation, "all hat and no cattle"?
Friday, September 28, 2007
The Center Holds: Netroots overstated
Sunday, September 23, 2007
US military dominance to give way to the 'Asian Century'?
Robert D. Kaplan, in this opinion piece with the New York Times brings to light the declining military influence of the United States in the Pacific - once considered "an American lake". Kaplan notes that "Asian dynamism is now military as well as economic".
I feel that this is presented as a bad thing for America, and a bad thing globally. Kaplan certainly hints at the growing danger of Asian nationalism, in contrast with 'post-national West' (e.g. my earlier post on Belgium). "Asia is marked by rivalries that encourage traditional arms races", Kaplan notes "...the Indians, Pakistanis and Chinese have great pride in possessing nuclear weapons." On the other hand, Europe has moved away from military power (see Robert Kagan's slogan "America is from Mars, Europe is from Venus"). Japan's navy is now apaprently greater than the United Kingdom's.
Kaplan writes that:
"People in countries like Germany, Italy and Spain see their own militaries not so much as soldiers but as civil servants in uniform: there for soft peacekeeping and humanitarian missions."
The above is a fair point. I am always a little dismayed by the shock people express when their soldiers are called into actual combat. War is always a terrible business. To go to war is to kill, and be killed. We aren't doing ourselves any favors by closing our eyes to these truths - it turns war into a game and will only cloud our decision to commit to war, one way or another.
There are two questions that I feel come from this article.
The first, is there a point at which this disavowal of military power becomes more than peacefully idealistic, and becomes instead dangerously irresponsibile?
The second, are we witnessing an era of permanant decline in American influence?
On a personal level, I think that the answer to the first question must be that yes, there is a point of irresponsible disengagement. I think that, despite the disaster of Iraq, there must be scope for, at the very least, humanitarian military intervention - look to Bosnia, and look at Sudan.
The answer to the second question, US influence, is more difficult. Looking at military and economic influence, it would be a stretch to characterize either as in a weak position. By any measure the US is the world leader in both. However, the weakening of the US dollar, the decline in the underlying economic stability and growth could present major problems. I feel the greatest problem will be a lack in confidence - a lack of international confidence in the US economy will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I would submit that this decline does not have to be permanent, and both measures of power can be reclaimed (if the US wants it). The percentage of GDP used for military spending is at record lows - this can easily be raised. The US economy can be strengthened with better domestic policy.
It comes down to a question of political will.
