Are You in the Military?
General Patraeus and Stiffling Dissent
Yes sir! No sir!
The military is necessarily an authoritarian organization. It is imperative that the men in the field not question orders.
The troops are taught to always defer to the higher ups. It is hardly what you could call a democratic organization. It is more
of a social authoritarian organization, one for all and all for one, with a top down dictatorial rule. This is the way
the military functions, so that when men are given an orders, they don't question it. It is necessary training for the battlefield.
Don't ask questions of your commanders. Just follow orders. Do what I tell you and make it snappy.
President Bush has so relentlessly transferred his 'decision' about the war in Iraq to the Generals, saying repeatedly
that he will defer to the the commanders on the ground. He dismissed General Abizaid, who was against the surge, and replaced
him with a well known star within the military, General David Patraeus. The President relentlessly touted the Generals
September report as the 'final word' on what the coming war strategy will be, effectively transferring responsibility from Bushs
shoulders to the Generals shoulders. A political calculation.
Think about this for a second. The President has set up a scenario to deflect all criticism of the war, by politicizing
a General. Setting the stage so the General is 'the last word' on the war strategy. Bush has transferred his authority to
make the final judgement on the war to a military man. Okay..... but,
Isn't this a wildly dangerous scenario. You are not criticizing 'Bush's War' now, you are criticizing the 'Generals War'.
Thus the subtle transfer of power and responsibility from civilizian leadership, to authoritarian military leadership where
the mode is, follow orders, ask no questions. All good citizens must now abdicate to the military or be censured?
Do we really want to live in a democracy where a concerted political drive has turned a General into the 'nations leader'?
No no no. The buck stops at the Presidents desk. It doesn't serve democracy well for the President to pretend to
abdicate his power to a General as a decoy for deflecting criticism or taking responsibility for his policy. For those of
you who fear a centralized tyranical government, be aware that the Generals are not in charge of our country...yet.
- missliberties's diary
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
Madder than Larry Craig in a Pay Toilet
Now that's mad. And Mr. Bush is furious.
Texas colloqualism. thanks to Paul Bagala
Too many Democrats think that Bush is on the level. He's not.
It is the economy, stupid.
Well--
...Is Petraeus Bush's lapdog, doing the president's bidding before Congress? The ultimate "Bush apologist", as you called him last week? Or is General truly in charge, having been "transferred responsibility" as you say in this diary?
I think you're kind of having it both ways. Either a.) General Petraeus has been given so much authority over this war that the mere power he holds has created a "dangerous scenario" where the President has "abdicate[d] his power to a General" so that that General has become the "nation's leader", or b.) he is a "Bush apologist". He can't be both.
Myself, I simply see General Petraeus as a fairly competent military man, the kind of person I think shiould have been running this military effort from the start. I don't see him as a lapdog-- whereas General Casey and General Myers and many others *were* lapdogs-- unwilling to stand up to civilian leadership and say what needed to be said. I also don't see Petraeus as "in charge". Bush is still clearly "in charge". If Petraeus were to ever start saying the wrong things about the war in abundance, watch how quickly he is "retired" to the Joint Chiefs of Staff or some such.
I thinkit would have been politically smart for the left to have laid off Petraeus. Even if his testimony was not 100% independent or 100% accurate, I think you can chalk some of that up to a natural positive bias that is common in nearly all military leaders involved in a war. Instead, he should have been cast as just one opinion, important but not overly so. The case should be made over and over that the military is only responsible for the military aspects of the war, while the war occurs within a far greater political context. All the Democrats needed to do to blunt the testimony of Petraeus was to repeatedly and forcefully bring up Petraeus' exchange with Sen. Warner, when he was asked whether the Iraq War is making us safer here in America, and Petraeus answered "I don't know." I thought that that exchange encapsulated perfectly the limitations of judging the Iraq war solely on a military basis.
But Moveon.org and some lefty Democrats chose a different path and decided to rip into Petraeus. The character assassination of Petraeus, an appealing and earnest man at least by appearances, was sure to backfire and has been politically harmful to Democrats. The childish Betray-Us hook line for the NYTimes ad reminded me of "cut n run" and other Rovian slogans which have been poisoning the Iraq War debate for years.The main difference is that "cut n run" was far more slick than BetrayUs-- many Republican politicians were more than willing to parrot the "cut n run" line, whereas I doubt you'll be hearing many Democratic pols using the "General BetrayUs" line. "General BetrayUs" is a clumsy attempt by foolish and short-sighted left-wing activists at MoveOn.org to copy the sound-bite tactics of Karl Rove that we as Democrats should be condemning. This has been a collossal screw-up politically by Moveon.org, and I think you can empirically measure the effects of that screw up in votes: The Reid-Levin amendment got 5 fewer votes this time than last time around. If your position is that you want the troops home, things have taken a step backward.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
No.
That is not my position. (If you want the troops home we have taken a step backward.)
The point of this dairy is less about the realities in Iraq, than it is about, Bush outsourcing his (political) authority to a General, specifically to protect his policy from being criticized. Do we really want our country to go down the road of having our leaders hide behind the one note song, support the troops or else.
I see this (using Gen Pet as a political sheid) as an attempt to innoculate the public into the militaristic dogma of bowing down to authoritanism and it's military mindset. It is a bit of a taste of the revivial of McCarthyism. And Gen. Patraeus, is the in the flesh embodiment, of the all powerful last word, that should not be questioned due to the authority of the uniform. I as a citizen am not required to bow down to his authority and can still question it.
Politically stupid, are the democratic leaders who have allowed the public expectations to remain optimistic that the democrats would be able to veto this war. The Reid-Levin amendment would not have passed with or without MoveON. It was toothless posturing. The only practical amendment was the Webb amendment and someone got to Warner on that one (if you cut the troops we will use the National Guard)
Equally stupid are the democratic leaders that let themselves be cowed by this new MacCarthyism, if you don't support the troops you support the terrorists. It is why the blue dog dems (in redder states) continually fold.
A politically savvy democratic leader could easily have deflected all this hoopla over moveon's ad, by asking,
"Didn't you see the question mark? I believe that defending free speech at home is equally as important as fighting for it overseas."
By not standing up it just takes us further down the road to allowed a slow degradation of putting political authority in the hands of the military, which is NOT where it should be.
I have to give Hillary credit here for standing up and voting for free speech. That demonstrates leadership.
The big story is why did Bush let Gen. Abiziad, who as against the surge, go if he in fact listens to the Generals. Bush is a raving fanatic who doesn't listen to the Generals
It is the economy, stupid.
Just got thru clearing some brush :-)
Maybe my brush-clearing has caused a connection with Bush and caused me to view Petraeus somewhat favorably and moveon.org negatively...
So, don't let Bush protect his policy by hiding behind Petraeus. My way of doing that would heve been for Congress to simply ask Petraeus tough but fair questions, listen respectfully to the answers, tell the General "thank you for your service, sir," let him leave town, and then hammer the Republicans with statements such as Petraeus' admission that he didn't know if the war is making Americans safer.
Perhaps, but they are constantly given absolutely no support by groups like moveon.org who pursue a self-indulgent strategy which appeals to only a small minority of the public. These groups have no conception of how to bring people over to their side on an issue, even when they hold a winning hand.
Perhaps not, but what about the Webb Amendment? I think that there's a very good chance that the Webb Amendment would have passed, were it not for the moveon.org ad. The ad made it very unsafe for Republicans to vote for any Democratic amendment. But really, it's not just that ad-- it's been a constant vilification of the Republican Senators who have been wavering on the war-- Warner, Smith, Coleman, Collins-- rather than extending carrots to these waverers. The left constantly beats these guys over the heads with stick to the near exclusion of doing so to the ones who have really drunk the kool-aid on the war. I mean, when was the last time you saw Sen. Inhofe or Sen. Chambliss beat up over their statements and record on the war? Why haven't we pursued a strategy of making it at least somewhat safe for Republicans to vote for common-sense Democratic measures by concentrating our ire on those Senators who are most hostile to our general agenda? Why is it just accepted that carrots don't work anymore in politics? Why is our only tool a stick-- especially since our stick has not appeared to be very effective in making any changes in the war, much less ending it.
You want the Democratic Party to hide behind punctuation marks?
The right-wing smear machine loves question marks. Just put any old inuuendo or wild conspiracy theory out there, but stick a question mark behind your ridiculous allegation so that you can deny you smeared someone. Example: "Did the Clintons murder Vince Foster?" GoRight will be proud that you've come to the defense of question marks.
I won't support any so-called Democratic organization that hides behind question marks. If you have something to say, say it-- without equivocation or apology. Be slow and be sure if you're going to go after someone's integrity and character. If you're going to make the bold claim that General Petraeus is a traitor, have the guts to say it sans question mark, and stand behind it. In this case, I think they were reckless, hasty, and off the mark.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
No again.
I want the democratic party to defend the right to free speech.
You frame this issue continuously from a more right perspective, in my humble opinion. Hiding behind question marks?? That is a bit of a ridculous thing to say.
That is like hiding behind prepositions. The issue is free speech. I defend there right to say it, whether I agree or disagree.
I am not defending question marks, I am defending questions, free speech, and the right of any group to assemble, and lobby the government with an ad in a newspaper.
You can say they were reckless, etc. which is completely different than disagreeing with the substance of their question. Can the US trust General Patraues to tell the truth.
MoveON is the equivalent of the anti-War protesters during Viet Nam. Instead of taking on the issues of how to make the Middle East stable, they take on the 'left', it is merely a ditraction.
I am saying that the President is using a soft militarizing mindset on the general populace, by subtley and carefully using the military as a skirt to hide behind. Which is a variation on MacCarthyism. Intimidating John Q from speaking out against the policy and equating it with the military. The two are separate. But bush has blurred the lines on purpose.
And why is it that R's come out against the war strategy, and continuously vote with Bush? This has happened many times before the 'ad', so I don't think the two are related. Time to hold the Republicans feet to the fire for undermining the strength of our military, with endless deployments, for a failed strategy.
It is the economy, stupid.
I want the democratic
The word "betray" has the same derivation as the word "traitor". A traitor is one who commits treason. So the ad basically accuses the General of a serious crime, treason, or close to it. As such, I believe that the moveon ad is arguably libelous. There is clearly no right to commit libel in this country, free speech notwithstanding.
Furthermore, the resolution does nothing to prevent any group from publishing any ad in any newspaper with any content. Future ads are not subject to government review or censorship. In other words, free speech survives this resolution intact. The act condemns what moveon.org said, not their right to say it.
Funny that you bring up McCarthy-- a man who was in the habit of calling people traitors, and a man who was condemned by Congress for doing just that. Do you think that Congress did wrong by condemning his "free speech"?
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
Well I guess
we will just have to agree to disagree.
Bush has betrayed the trust of the American people, and Gen Pet is aiding and abetting that betrayal. Oops someone said it out loud.
It is the economy, stupid.
and Senator MacCarthy
held hearings in Congress to 'censure' those who were terrorist sympathizers, er I mean communist sympathizers, bringing an era of surpression of free speech.
As in if you don't love America enough you must be a terrorist, er I mean communist. (See Congressional 'censure' of moveon)
Bringing the wieght of the govt to censure and stifle groups and put them on the 'list', (see NSA wiretapping program) is what the MacCarthy era was all about. I don't really consider that free speech on MacCarthy's part, I consider that bringing the weight of the government to bear behind a witchhunt due to populist hysteria.
It is the economy, stupid.
Libelous Skymutt? You have GOT to be kidding
First - General Petraeous is a public figure who has written Op-Ed pieces and gone on Fox News to discuss his opinion. As such there is very high standard for him to prove libel.
Second - The ad is pretty darn clear. It calls his statements that the surge is working at odds with other reports and then uses future tense
"Today, before Congress and before the American people, General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us."
Third - One can 'betray' a trust without committing a crime. Is Al Gore libeling people when he refers to an "Assault on Reason"? AAAAAGH! Assault!?! That's a crime!
Arguably Libelous? Only if an attorney wanted to get hammered for filing a frivelous lawsuit.
Well, I explained why I thiought is was "arguably libelous".
I didn't just throw it out there with no support. I also didn't say that it's a slam-dunk case, or that I personally would convict MoveOn of libel.
Point taken, but your example is not a good one. The differences are clear:
1) Al Gore doesn't single out one person in his title.
2) The Gore book spells out that what is being "assaulted" is "reason"... and assaulting reason is not a crime. Yes, it is possible to betray a trust, but the MoveOn ad does not use the word "trust"-- it says that he is betraying "us". The "us" who would read this ad in a national newspaper would be people all over America. Is this therefore equivalent to saying that he is betraying America, and is thus guilty of treason? It could at least be argued so, and is thus "arguable".
Look, I'm not saying it's a strong case, but I bet you that a libel suit has been won at some point in history with a weaker case.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
Free speech under attack?
Please answer the following questions:
Unless you can legitimately answer "yes" to any of these questions, then it is hard for me to believe that MoveOn.org's free speech has been hampered in any way.
The Congress passing a denunciation of the add is in no way censuring MoveOn.org. Congress too has the right to collectively speak their mind on these issues.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
That's rich coming from
the guy that hates PC.
The political theater of putting the weight of the Congress behind right wing PC. Don't say *that* in an effort to silence criticism about the success or lack thereof in the infamous *surge*.
And wasn't it you who said "Free speech zones. Get used to it,"?
We had 'free speech' during the MacCarthy era too, didn't we?
It is the economy, stupid.
The free speech question
I think most of us are looking at this and scratching our heads on this as a free speech issue. Nobody is saying that moveon can't say whatever the heck they want, but please don't mind that other people (to include Congress) call them idiots for saying it.
To review:
Establishing a "Free Speech Zone" as you say above clearly would be a law that abridged free speech. The congressional action was meaningless which is why many of us are yawning in response to it.
The slippery slope
That's all I am saying.
Without pushback how much farther will this go?
There was free speech during the MacCarthy era right?
How many times do we have to listen to this garbage that the left/liberals/democrats are anti-American terrorist sympathizers. And then have the Congress move on MoveON, because they question Bush's Gen Pet. testiomony on the success of *the surge*.
See comment here
So maybe you should ask GR why he is asking us to get used to Free Speech Zones.
Bush is outsourcing (hiding behind) Gen Patraeus on purpose, just because you are *not supposed to* question the Great General, the last word in military authoritarianism..... blurring the line between civilian leaders and military leaders, to avoid criticism, which IS the point of this dairy.
Frankly this is what concerns me, that most of you are just scratching your heads.
It is the economy, stupid.
It's not as much of a slope as it is a cliff....
either an action violates the First Amendment or it doesn't. This devoid of meaning political play doesn't qualify.
I would imagine that if you asked the Congressmen and Women who voted, 99.9% would say that they absolutely defend the right of moveon to say what they did. (The other .1% are idiots). That's specifically why I don't feel that this is a slope argument. If there were any arguments on the floor that action should be taken against moveon, then please put forth the evidence and I'll condemn those words or proposed policies (and defend any potential slopes or cliffs). (Additionally, I don't believe there's even evidence that anyone wanted to go after them for potential slander which is not protected speech.)
Your focus on McCarthy era policies is a red herring. Our govt instituted policies that violated the first amendment, but drawing those analogies to the past doesn't necessarily make them analogous (speaking figuratively.)
You might be interested
in this more nuanced take at the gradual erosion against voices who dissent with something as seemingly innocuous as a bumper sticker that says "No Blood for Oil".
The culmination of this 'group think' mindset comes with the idiocy that was displayed by the Congress to censure an ad in a newspaper essentially to pull on the short hairs of democrats who have the audactiy to criticize the direction this President is taking the country.
The direction of hiding behind authoritarian figures like Generals, who have a double dog don't dare criticize me sign on their heads. (Support the troops you anti-America hater.)
And the irony of Greenspans comments that though it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge, we all know this war in Iraq was about oil, while peaceful folks are ejected from public events due to the surveillance of 'the guests' for the heresey of having a No Blood for Oil bumper sticker.
Slippery slope. MacCarthyism is a red herring, in that I don't want it to return to this country with terrorism being the new communism.
It is the economy, stupid.
I'm very interested in actual
violations of the 1st amendment and that's the distinction in your article (as opposed to pretend violations perpetrated by Congress).
And FWIW, I've never felt that Bush was a great friend to the Constitution.
Okay, but let me ask again......
was MacCarthyism, a violation of the 1st amendment?
It is the economy, stupid.
McCarthyism is a pretty broad topic,
and McCarthyism was a nationalistic movement rather than singular policy, so keeping that in mind, my short answer is "Yes, some of the policies instituted during that period known as McCarthyism violated amendment numero uno."
You'd have to get more specific for me to go into specifics.
Specifically
did Joe McCarthy violate the first amendment and if so, at what point did he cross the line?
It is the economy, stupid.
What are we driving at?
The official senate hearings where McCarthy brought suspected communists before the Sentate Foreign Relations Committee is an obvious violation.
I'd have to pick up a biography to get more specific than that. It's a little bit before my time.
Do you support political correctness?
As defined by yourself and Specter in various threads wherein the concept is you can say whatever you want but be prepared to live with the consequences?
Welcome to the consequences.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I disgree AT QB...
The democrats tried to introduce a measure that would have been a more generalized censure against all inflamatory speech, from the right and the left. If that isn't a slippery slope, I don't what is.
What if a democratic congress would have issued a censure against the swift boat ads against John Kerry back in 2004. Would you have been okay with that?
All this nonsense does is guarantee in the future both political parties are likely going to attempt to push these censures through congress in response to provacative politcal advertising when it hits a national nerve.
Stuff llike the Willie Horton ads, Swift Boat, Moveon. I don't think Provocative speech by national groups(usually the unhappy left and right wings of both parties) should start getting approval from the beltway boys to avoid the possibility of a congressional censure.
Kaligula....
I don't know what this measure is. If it's something that has teeth, then I would probably agree with the slope part. The censuring by itself stands as a meaningless political move to me.
I probably wouldn't have thought much of that move either. I just think that they're meaningless as it relates to freedom of speech issues, but I am interested in your first point (as to what accompanied the censure.)
Maybe, and I'll continue to view all of those measures as meaningless as well...until there's an actual call to action that is. More practically, do you believe the censure restricts free speech? Certainly moveon isn't going to be affected as a critic.
Answers...
No, the censures do not violate the 1st amendment.
The 1st amendment does not say congress shall pass no censures in protest to specific speech.
The problem is--and why these censures are not meaningless--is because of stuff like McCain Feingold. If all congress was doing was strictly limited to political theatre, that's one thing. But in the context of Mccain Feingold, it's not quite so innocuous. And that's the issue I have. congess IS mucking around with free speech and now seems inclined to start issuing censures as well. Bad combination.
Exactly
And this gets to the issue in my mind of how many people can back an individuals right to free speech with money, before they are no longer considered just one person.
Since money has been defined as free speech.
The censure is not a violation, nor is the moveon add.
But the atmosphere of hysteria, that an ad can generate is reminescent of the 'red scare'.
It is the economy, stupid.
Does congress have a right of free speech?
Do you object to them exercising it to condemn things that they find offensive?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Point taken, but these issues are mutually exclusive for many
people. Whether it strikes Congress that way is another matter for debate I would suppose.
Regarding the mutual exclusivity depending upon the point of view.....
Many people on the left who love McCain-Feingold probably hate the censuring. Then there are people like me who view one as a violation of the first amendment and the other as not and shrug their shoulders when people preach the slippery slope.
Maybe my mistake applying logic to Congressional decision making.
Bringing up issues
is considered 'preaching' on your part. Okay. Check that. Gotcha.
It is the economy, stupid.
Is that what he said, MissL?
Isn't this statement clear
"and shrug their shoulders when people preach the slippery slope."
preach the slippery slope, means what to you?
There is something to said for nuance and reading between the lines, imho, and slippery slope is exactly what this country has been on, regarding all this fear mongering hysteria that
a) got us into this war in the first place
b) has kept us there against the will of the majority of Americans
c) insists that Bush's 'good' Generals can't be criticized, only the bad ones get thrown under the bus, like Shinseki, Batiste and others who DARE speak out against the Bush policy.
The latest sign of hysteria is the shrieking hue and cry because a short man from Iran was invited to speak at a University. Once again as if asking questions of people is forbotten. What is to be afraid of? That the short man might not be the the cartoonish incarnation of pure evil that some people have painted him as, and that the heroic and mighty and uncriticizable Gen Pet is fighting against.
I view all of this as part of a slippery slope of right wing hysteria, and fear mongering, or the populist shriek and scream of the hardliners.
It is the economy, stupid.
This isn't about "bringing up issues" in general
It's about one particular issue and how it's being handled. No need to read that far into it.
Call me visionary :)
I am kidding but not kidding at the same time, because I am reading that far into it.
This ridiculous ghastly fear mongering has got to stop. It can start simply enough and then build into a crescendo of the famous RWH (right wing hysteria)
These guys have way overplayed the fear and propaganda card one too many times. It disgusts me.
And just to be radical, have you thought of reading or Naomi Klein's new book, "The Shock Doctrine, the Rise of Disaster Capitalism". That will get you going.
She has a fresh take and perspective on Milton Friedman's economic theories.
It is the economy, stupid.
MissL,
I bought Shock Doctrine and I started a little bit of it...just skimming. I'm finishing "Giving" by Clinton first.
BTW, two of my previous 5 books were "Assault on Reason" by Gore and Perkins's "Secret History of the American Empire" (I read Confessions too when it came out).
Over the past 4 years, I've probably read about 20 Left-leaning books. Nevermind everything else.
Good for you
An avid reader. I haven't read Perkin's Empire yet.
All this stuff going on and it feels like we are so helpless to make changes. All I can figure out to do, is to try and be nice to my neighbors...... and watch who and what I support with my money.
I often wonder if it would be better to just go with the ignorance is bliss option.
It is the economy, stupid.
Thanks MissL, but
seriously, I didn't take very well to your previous post.
I really do read all points of view. I did even when I was more liberal. I think I said this many times in the past. Yet you (and others) have continually made it a point to address me as if I'm as one-sided and biased in my sources and background reading as most here probably are.
Whether it's projection or just common posture to have on political blogs, I'm not sure. Maybe it's both. But it is irritating.
I'm not trying to sound mean or arrogant...though I am a little annoyed to be totally honest. But it'll pass. I'm generally a very cool-headed and pleasant guy when it comes to politics in person. I can't remember the last time I had an argument. I'm not very easy to argue with in person because I have a very easy-going manner about these things.
Computer screens are different. You have no idea how many times I bite my lip when people talk to me like I'm some kind of closed-minded ideologue. Yeah. Sorry, tea pot...I'm no kettle.
But anyway, some quick reviews:
Empire mainly sucked. It was a rehash of Confessions with far less objectivity. Perkins went off the deep end. It was a frustrating read. The man makes so many lucid observations and has all the facts right in front of him and then ignores them.
Gore wrote a decent book. A bit too whiny. He spends a lot of time complaining about things that are nobody's fault and can't be changed. I know where he's coming from and I sympathize but, again, I don't think he connects some dots the right way. Sometimes, ya just gotta move on and adapt.
Giving was good. Not very deep but good. Clinton's got a good heart. I like his take on non-government means to help. The book could have been shorter and better with fewer feel-good stories about people he's met who give a lot of time and/or money to help the poor. Some good chapters about private organizations and entrepreneurs making a difference in the third world and how we need more of it.
I'll stop there.
But for the last time, MissL. I've read and considered just about every angle. I've changed my mind many times and reconsidered many opinions I hold. I've become libertarian almost by default. And even there, libertarians are very diverse based on biases. Sometimes, I want to reach thru the screen and smack some of them...just like liberals and conservatives. :)
Linking Friedman to disaster captialism is nonsense
I haven't read that book and don't intend to. But from the reviews and passage quotes, any attempt to link Milton Friedman and Libertarian Economic policy to what the Bush Administration is doing in Iraq is absurd. The intellectual tradition of libertarian economists is against the use of government coercion to bring about social, political, or economic change. This notion that Friedman's true economic model requires authoritarian conditions is flat out nonsense. Friedman was opposed to the Iraq War, was deeply critical of Pinochet's political regime, and said his greatest achievement was ending military conscription in the US. It's a shame this great man is not alive to defend himself against this slander of a book.
If what you say
is true, that Friedman, as not an advocate of any means to privatize govt functions, than Klein's book would indeed be slander.
Do you have any links that verifiy Friedman's positions that disasters are not prime opportunities to bring about radical economic changes, which under normal circumstances the general population would resisit.
BTW, I appreciate your feed back as it is always thoughtful and interesting and seems fairly unbiased. :)
It is the economy, stupid.
You're asking the wrong question MissL,
This is totally irrelevant and the innuendo of your question is very biased.
Questions about motivation in these matters don't yield much of any value.
The hard fact question is to ask if Friedman's policy prescriptions, only some of which Pinochet followed, CAUSED the problems and economic problems Klein describes or if they actually helped in spite of Pinochet's ruling tactics.
Friedman believed in maximum freedom. Friedman believed peoples were hurt by heavy government....especially in poorer countries where such policies, whose effects were mitigated more easily and rationalized in rich countries, locked these developing countries in cycles of poverty and corruption.
Maybe you should read some of his work. But books aside, his own words in articles that you can find online tell the story.
I ask that question
because that is the link that Klein makes. That disasters are perfect opportunities to make radical changes.
Whether Freidman advocated such or not, it seems like this is exactly what happened in New Orleans.
It is hard for me to swallow the assertion that Naomi Klein is a flat out liar.
It is possible that some took Friedman's ideas and perverted them.
Nonetheless the piece that is always missing in the free markets, free peopel puzzle is the human element.
Even Greenspan argues this. If it weren't for irrational fear everything in the markets would be hunky dory.
To suggest that you can erase the human element, including the insanity of the power hungary personality, from any economic equation is to suggest that the world be filled with robots.
Greenspans own error in judgement was trusting the humans known as name Cheney and Bush. He even remarks in his book, that he doesn't know what happened to Cheney.
It is the economy, stupid.
Klein provides no "link"
it's a poor assertion based on blending and blurring speculation and fact in ways that lend weight to her objective.
It's not scholarly at all....at least so far.
What she does in kinda this:
Klein dislikes Tim. Klein loves dogs. So Tim must not like dogs.
So, Tim is seen on a street and there's a battered crying boy on the sidewalk. ERGO, bla, bla Tim beat up the boy because he doesn't like dogs (says Klein).
Granted, that's a little over the top. I'm not calling Klein a liar. Never said that (!). I think she sincerely believes what she writes. I just think she's misinformed and massages are info (a lot) to that end.
BTW, even Klein corrected a host on CBC who said "free markets". She said this isn't about free markets. She said the capitalism she describes is corrupt cronyism.
Too bad she doesn't follow thru on that idea.
Noami Klein and Alan Greenspan
They had a discussion on NPR.
Here is a transcript if you are interested.
It is the economy, stupid.
Yeah. I read it earlier.
I'm no fan of Greenspan's. But objectively speaking, he completely made an utter A$$ out of Klein. She said nothing that was really substantive and coherent with respect to what Greenspan was saying and he really took her to the wood shed when she kept pushing a person who was not attacking her.
Greenspan was a class act in that interview and Klein was a whiny little aggressor with no clue. She shifted and twisted in constant search of a bone to pick even if she had to change the subject.
She did use his book to make a point....which happens to be the same point I made in the post above....that she is attacking cronyism not free markets. Sadly, she doesn't follow thru on that because that would lead away from her ideology....which is really what she is pushing...not something empirical and well thought out.
She makes little sense in the final analysis. I'm seeing that in gory detail in her book. It's really sad that someone can be so shallow with the facts and have such a weak premise and be thought so fondly of...simple because people like where she's coming from.
That doesn't matter. Reality matters.
And if you think I'm wrong, find me an exchange where Klein accurately takes Greenspan to task for something he said without a clear and coherent and superior rebuttal by Alan.
Just to clarify some points...
Friedman was a long time champion of educational vouchers and did write an op-ed piece in the WSJ that argued for vouchers in post Katrina New Orleans. Friedman also did involve himself in advising a few dictatorial regimes during his lifetime concerning economic reform.
However, he never advocated authoritarian force nor prayed for disasters as a necessary condition to implement his ideas.
Like I posted earlier Friedman considered his greatest accomplishment to be ending military conscription in the US.
Friedman didn't support either Gulf War.
With respect to the transcript between Greenspan and Klein, there are some interesting points.
I have to say I'm largely disappointed with Greenspans answers.
First I disagree strongly that military action was needed against Saddam to ensure the flow of oil. That is total BS. That's with respect to both Gulf I and Gulf II.
He then claims Clinton, as a centrist democrat, was essentially a libertarian. Well that's complete BS. I joined the freakin ACLU during the 90s because of my disgust with the Reno Justice Department. Clinton absolutely sucked when it came to digital privacy and regulation.
Frankly, that interview hardly supports Greenspan as an enabler of "Disaster Capitalism." Rather it indicates he has gone to too many washington cocktail parties and has become a first class presidential ass-kisser.
ka1igu1a
Firstly, I agree though I think you;re being a bit harsh. Greenspan's views have been tainted by DC cocktails...I agree. For that, I think he overstates the threat from Saddam. Whether that was out of a genuine concern for oil flow on his part or simply because of stupid DC group think, I'm not sure.
I don't think he called Clinton a libertarian. He called him a centrist Dem which is pretty close to where he is in many economic respects....so he says.
At any rate, where he fends off silly jabs with ease was with Klein. The way she tried to attack him for stuff he doesn't approve of or cannot help is silly and really puts holes in her premise about lumping everything she disagrees in one messy bag and beating it with a stick. It doesn't work. The section about Latin America, very relevant to her book, was a very good part which really shows how off Klein is. I though Alan handled that very well.
Yeah, John you're probably right
Give the old man a break...
My oh My
Greenspans answers seem less than forthcoming, but he has mastered the art of the intelligent sounding non answer. The moral delima he faces of advocating Bush's tax cuts, and then blaming Bush.
HIs lack of awareness of the truck loads of money sent to Iraq to help the banks, loaded up from the Fed Central Bank??? Is he really that clueless.
He had an opportunity to glorify his economic policies and he now writes a book to distance himself from those he implement during Bush's term??? Pleading not guilty to the low interest rates that fueled this disasterous housing boom.
What a genious. Thanks for writing an apology for your legacy Alan, The Age of Turbulance that you helped usher in.
I guess he fell victim to the cult of personality with hoping Bush had read Ayn Rand. Oops. Bush has lots of rich crooked friends. He doesn't read.
Greenspan feel victim to the fantasy that his economic policies could liberate the world and the middle east. He saw Iraq as an opportunity to implement the free market ideal. The fantasy was that a privitazied and corporatized Iraq would become a free-market utopia that would spread the gospel of the market throughout the Middle East.
So why didn't it work. The lesson is that countries need government. Government is necessary and government is good. That government is necessary. Free markets will never be able to replace the institutions that are necessary for a civil society.
We have been hearing for years from these supply side buffons that government is bad, government is evil. They have underfunded every govt institution railed on about the horrors of public education, in an effort to rid the country of the evil scourge of civil institutions for the public good.
But look what happened in Iraq. Free markets will never ever ever be able to replace good government. All you will get is corruption without results, black markets that don't follow laws, and civil disorder.
The shock is the disaster that unfettered free markets alone are not enough Alan, Friedman, and the rest of the supply side gang, who are disguising colonialism as free markets free people.
Besides for you purist free marketeers, if the market was truly free, why do you we a Federal Reserve that just constricts the freeness of these so called free markets?
It is the economy, stupid.
You never learn, MissL
You say the same misinformed comments over and over again.
You take Klein's flawed and incoherent premise and muck it even more by saying things Klein, herself, wouldn't say to Greenspan because it's not true.
You also take her blurring of "free markets" that she, herself, has the sense to correct when pushed and attempt to blur it even further in ways that she knows enough to avoid saying out of embarrassment.
In all honesty, MissL, (and I'm being dead serious and would like a straight answer) do you ever attempt to learn anything from these exchanges and have it reflect in your subsequent posts???
I give myself five stars for the rant
I have been holding that it for a while now. :)
Misinformed according to you.
Tell me again how supply fuels the markets. And not demand. IN your dreams.
I will spend more captial, get credt for more capital so I can produce more bullets to have an more supply than there is a demand for.
Then maybe to sell my over supply of bullets I can start a war to create the needed demand. Magic.
It is the economy, stupid.
They key of course
is buying the bullets on credit. That's the supply side. It supplies the financial engineers who play games and get rich with the IOU's.
It is the economy, stupid.
Your paradigm is nonsense.
You see, this is where you are so laughably not up to the tasks you feel so confident in undertaking.
Supply? Demand? Fuels markets? That's YOUR strawman, your bone to pick with whoever actually looks at things in either way. You fill in way too many blanks with your own imagination. Greenspan is not a supply sider. Terms like Supply side are for partisans to fight about and woo voters. Don't degrade me or my time with such nonsense. My notions of economics are the topic here but suffice it to say that I think supply side is a political gimmick and demand side is (ala Keynes) is woefully inadequate and mostly wrong. Keynes knew his models didn't add up but in the end simply chose to say "in the end, we're all dead. Nice attitude from a self proclaimed short terms thinker.
There. I your post. See how that works?
BTW, did your mom used to tell you to sit still when you were younger? Because you fidget an awful lot.
You attack many ideas ideas (like the issue I just addressed) and positions that are not really in play...especially with me. But let's move on.
The tax cut issue, though totally irrelevant to Klein's premise (remember? we're talking about Klein's book...or did you forget that with the Greenspan diversion?), is not that hard to understand nor is it the issue here. He advocated cuts, not any particular cuts and he also deplored all the spending that shot up...way up. He did address this in the interview. But that's really not the issue and I really don't care. It's not that hard to see. Those cuts were going with or without any approval from Greenspan. Anyway, throughly uninteresting.
Now, you have said on my comment above titled "Klein provided no link". Not only that but you say things that were already refuted in that post and then in your link to the interview...things about which neither Klein nor you have have leg to stand on. Klein got nowhere on such matters and Alan was barley trying.
That's one thing. Maybe I'll get an answer on that.
Moving on...Yes, you are misinformed. I don't care where you fall on the ideological spectrum. You can be misinformed under any ideology.
Let's skim this latest post in order. I'll be very brief. I'm sure you'll be able to see where I'm refering to:
Greenspan doesn't make economic policies only monetary. I thought the interest were too low as well. But somehow I think high interest rates would have had you complaining nonetheless. You seem to have evolved into this position. I was always here.
Skimming .....Skimming...Skimming.....(eye rolling)
ah...
Again, Greenspan doesn't make economic policy. I don't see what failed policies he implemented. I'm sure this one will get responded to by addressing something I didn't write.
Free markets? Iraq? get real. Utopia? who said? I thought it was about democracy. Junk, MissL, Strawman Junk. Please do better.
Countries need government. As opposed to...what exactly? Straw man.
Oh, let's repost this gem:
Wow. Is this your agenda? Great. Let me know why such platitudes are worthy of discussion and who on this site or in that interview holds an opposing view.
Another poor strawman. You got it in for them today! Poor guys.
Last paragraph...the necessity of the Fed and its proper role is an underdiscussed issue. But that's another story.
Oh well. We'll see if I get a real answer.
Are you denying
flat out that their is a strong ideological divide in this country between those that think government can be good and those that think the most dangerous words anyone can hear are from the great Republican President Ronald Reagon who said "I am from the government and I am here to help".
There has been a concerted effort to privatize government in this country, from once public parks to the post office, to public schools.
Are you saying that Alan Greenspan is not on board with the grand privitization scheme for America which he considers to be the salve that will alliviate any resurgance of communist or socialist tendencies here in the US and in the world?
This started when Milton Friedman was Ronald Reagan's economic policiy adviser and supply side voodoo economics. And it has ended with Alan Greenspans lower taxes, lower interest rates, flood the country with capital and liquidity, inflate the price of homes, and ignore regulations as a nuisance,
Magically the markets are oiled with low interest rates but oops we forgot about the micro economics of the little guy who can't pay his morgage. That pesky human element.
Are you saying that the architects of the plan to rebuild Iraq were not out to use Iraq as the glorious model for free markets idealogues.
The honey pot theory that said 'We've opened Iraq for business because business is the driver, the great honied goo of trickle down.
Come one come all ye private contracters you will make a killing here in Iraq. It's free markets baby, let's roll.
How can we expect people that hate government to be good at building one in Iraq? Especially while they are busy trying to tear down govt here in the US.
It is the economy, stupid.
MissL,
Clearly, I'm not denying any of that nor was that my issue nor is privatize vs. no privatize the issue.
In fact rereading your latest post, it's clear that you willfully don't want to see what I'm talking about.
All this Are you saying [something you didn't say]? tactics aren't going to fly with me. I asked you questions and you're not answering.
Oh well. Good thing I wasn't very optimistic.
WTF...
I guess the only shortcoming of internet message boards is that you can't share the drugs
..
^
sick, huh?
stunning. I mean, really. Make a valid argument. Piece things together in a coherent way that challenges while making sense.
Is it asking too much?
Nah...
I just wish ML could share :)
Ha!
Naomi and I have the same connections........:)
It is the economy, stupid.
I think of "hey diddle, diddle" when I read stuff like that
Just a string of sentences that ramble while saying little...and the cow jumped over the moon.
You're taking that choice of word
too literally.