From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Fri Dec 03 2004 - 10:58:35 GMT
Hi Mark,
Picked up a copy of Understanding Power yesterday, I'll let you know how I get on with it. In the
interim:
> msh says:
> Well, I hope you're able to use Znet for more than NC. There are
> plenty of other resources and writers there and, of course, links to
> other progressive sites.
As time permits!
> sam:
> I used to subscribe to Norman Solomon's regular
> e-mails, until after 9/11, when I got fed up with him.
>
> msh asks:
> Why?
This is the one concrete area that I can point to where I have changed my mind on something as a
result of discussions in the MD forum, where, to condense drastically, I shifted 'rightwards' after
9/11, through following the discussions that that provoked about the value(s) of the US system.
There seemed to be a sense of moral equivalence between the US system and other regimes
(specifically the Taliban in that case) which, in the end, I found that I profoundly rejected. That
is, I am comfortable with the notion that the US system is, in an absolute sense, qualitatively
superior to many of the alternatives on offer - and, with caveats, it needs to be defended as such.
I'll look at him again now.
> msh says:
> I agree. And you have your work cut out fo you. From my side of the
> fence it's much, much easier to get the "other" point of view. Just
> flip on the radio or tv, open the NY times, the Washington Post. Or,
> if I'm feeling really masochistic, watch Bill O'Reilly and Fox News
> in general; or listen to Limbaugh and his ditto-heads and clones.
My most consistent source of news and comment, since I became interested in current affairs as a
teenager, has been the Economist. I think it's a mistake to conflate the 'corporate' agenda with the
'conservative' agenda, especially on values questions. The thing I like about the Economist is that
it's own attitude and bias is remarkably consistent and obvious, which makes it easier to weigh
things in the balance.
> sam:
> This is what I want to investigate further, and the decision to go to
> war in Iraq is a useful test-case. My underlying sense is that the
> logical consequence of your position is that those in positions of
> power are frighteningly corrupt, and I am reluctant to believe that
> they are quite as corrupt as all that.
>
> msh says:
> Well, there are layers of corruption. But I would have to say that
> the level of corruption of some leaders, including some of our own,
> is quite clear, and quite frightening.
As long as there is that modifier 'some' then I agree with you.
> I bet you don't have any
> problem believing that Arafat was corrupt, or Hussein, or Kim Il-
> sung, or Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Our official enemies are ALWAYS
> corrupt, almost by definition.
I would bracket out Khamenei from the other three (who I think we would probably agree were
corrupt?). Khamenei I would suspect is much less corrupt than our politicians, but then, I've always
thought it was a (realpolitik) mistake for Bush to include Iran in the axis of evil - he's brought
on the present crisis through those careless words.
> What's clear to me is that any human being who seeks for himself
> immense power over others (and all the perks that go with it), is
> going to be somewhat corrupt to start with. Once power is achieved,
> the unwillingness to relinquish it often leads to exponentially
> greater levels of corruption. I believe that this outcome is
> unavoidable as long as we retain within our societies hierarchies of
> unaccountable power and authority, of any kind.
I have sympathy with that, but I think we need to be careful to distinguish between the 'systematic'
corruption, and the individual corruption of particular people within the system. That is, you can
be a very nice person, kind to your children etc, and still commit abominable acts because the
nature of the system dictates it. Having worked with politicians at close quarters I am reluctant to
condemn them as a class - I think there are good and bad examples, just as in any other sphere. It's
the systemic problems that we really need to address (theologians call it 'structural sin').
> But I also understand your reluctance to reject the idea that OUR
> leaders are somehow different in nature from THEIR leaders. This is
> the expected result of being told from the cradle, every day in a
> hundred ways, that our country is great and good, our leaders
> beneficent and wise; though they may make a mistake here or there,
> our leaders are diligently and selflessly striving to make the world
> a better place for all. But the educational and mass media apparatus
> of EVERY state is dedicated to inculcating these exact notions. This
> fact alone should make us suspicious of our own beliefs along this
> line.
Yes, but even after viewing comparative political systems through the hermeneutic of suspicion I
remain of the view that the "Western" system (I'm thinking specifically of: the rule of law;
individual autonomy; democracy; free speech etc) is indeed better than the alternatives. The problem
is that the way the system functions means that it falls seriously short of where it should be (and
where it claims to be). But pointing out the flaws should not, I believe, blind us to the benefits
that obtain under it.
> sam:
> Thing is, I was also having this argument with a friend, and saying
> that Bush wasn't quite as immoral as my friend was alleging. And then
> my friend pointed out that Bush was happy to execute minors and the
> mentally retarded, and I was silenced, because (as my friend well
> knew) I think capital punishment is indefensible.
>
> msh says:
> As do I. And how different, really, is this from sending a Cruise
> missile screaming into an apartment building full of sleeping Iraqis?
> In fact, it's obvious to me that the latter is far worse.
Hmm. That there are specific 'war crimes' of which the US/UK etc should repent is, I think, clear -
but I'm more worried by things like cluster bombs, napalm and phosphorous etc than the cruise
missile attacks (unless there is a mistake in targeting - Chinese embassy anyone?) I still think
that our munitions are greatly more targeted than they have ever been before, and we take much more
care to avoid civilian casualties than other cultures. For example, I was talking to a friend last
night who had recently returned from Sarajevo and Serbia. He was describing the traumatised nature
of the Sarajevo residents following their 'siege', and contrasting it with the mood of people in
Serbia after the NATO bombing there. I really don't think you can see the two things under the same
light. Can we?
> sam:
> I think it has been well established that Blair, for example,
> strongly distorted the evidence re WMD to drum up support for going
> to war. What I am not so convinced about is that this distortion
> makes the overall decision worthless.
>
> msh says:
> And my point would be that the distortion is evidence of his
> corruption and, therefore, the overall decision should be regarded as
> HIGHLY suspicious, if not worthless. His argument is very simple:
>
> 1) We want to invade and occupy Iraq.
> 2) We need to persuade people this is necessary for their safety.
> 3) There is evidence that this isn't necessary for their safety.
> 4) Therefore, we must distort the evidence.
>
> Why would any leader follow such a line of reasoning, if he were
> truly interested in serving the best interests of the majority of his
> people?
I think his reasoning was more: the present situation cannot continue; the choice is therefore
"military action or retreat?"; he chose military action (on liberal internationalist/humanitarian
grounds, I believe); we must maximise political support for this; the argument about WMD is a useful
one; let's push it as far as it can go. I think he misjudged how strong it was, but I don't think it
undermines the earlier steps in the argument (which can be undermined in other ways, but not through
this distortion of evidence point).
> Anyway, thanks for the essay on Iraq. It looks like an excellent
> framework for discussing this issue further. I'll read it and
> provide some annotations and ideas; then maybe we should start a
> separate MD thread, so folks who don't want to participate can filter
> us out.
Great.
> As always, thanks for your thoughtful comments. It's a pleasure
> interacting with you.
Amen to that. Occasionally I despair about MD - as you know - so it's a boon to discover someone
with whom it's possible to have a lucid and reasonable discussion, even when disagreeing.
Regards
Sam
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Dec 03 2004 - 11:48:39 GMT