-Caveat Lector- From http://www.houstonreview.com/articles/polichinello/P20010411.html }}>Begin The Houston Review April 11, 2001 HEGEMONY'SLITTLEHELPER Jonah Goldberg's Irrationality by Derek Copold Abandoning principle, National Review Online Editor Jonah Goldberg parenthetically admits in his April 9 column, "What exactly is wrong with being a hegemon I don�t know." This is interesting, especially considering that Goldberg enjoys challenging liberals with the question, "Aside from the murder and genocide, what exactly don�t you like about National Socialism?" Now, compared to liberals, Goldberg can probably point out quite a few more distasteful aspects of nazism, but nevertheless, and despite his good intentions, Goldberg�s admission aligns him with Adolph Hitler and other various historical monsters on the rather large question of to what extent we as a nation should impose our vision upon others. Before I go on, I should note that normally I find Goldberg a funny and interesting writer, though severely misinformed on foreign and military affairs. And he is emphatically not a nazi. Unfortunately, because he, and others like him, are unwilling to examine these kinds of statements, they wind up saying and doing very nazi-like things, though they may have contrary intentions. This column is a good example. While Goldberg is correct in his essential point that we don't owe China an apology, his reasons for arriving at this position are wrongheaded, woefully so. Instead of employing a plethora of moral and legal arguments, all readily available in this situation, Goldberg resorts to might-makes-right sophisms, which sound good in the short-term, but are disastrous in the long-term, particularly when carried into the international arena. In framing his outlook on foreign policy, Goldberg begins by downplaying rational considerations. He argues in his essay that because for "the last 2,500 years nations have regularly expended blood and treasure for reasons directly at odd with their national interests," we shouldn�t be afraid to follow their example and "�beat the crap out of somebody�" even if there�s no apparent need. Thus he accepts the underlying motivation behind nazism, imperialism, communism and Al Sharpton. But that�s not all. Goldberg then unwittingly undercuts the strength of this position by citing some truly foolish examples. The first case of irrational motivation he cites is World War I, "an incalculably stupid war" which he notes "was launched almost entirely on the basis of honor." Then, specifically, Goldberg goes on to point out, "Turkey and the Austro-Hungarian Empire based their decisions [to enter the same war] almost entirely on the fear that nobody would take them seriously anymore." Yes, the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires acted irrationally, but as their decision to enter the war cost them their existence, I don�t see how we want to follow their example. Why does Goldberg mention them? I don�t know. Jonah doesn�t even seem to be aware of the problem they present because he blithely continues along the same path, seemingly oblivious to the fact that he�s destroyed the basis of his own argument. He then produces another example, which is more favorable to his point, but only after some serious editing. Jonah cites the British trade negotiations with China in 1793, where the British emissary refused to kowtow to the Manchu emperor because doing so would demean the king he represented, and so Britain lost out on some juicy trade concessions. Goldberg tells us that this as a case of irrational motives of honor guiding foreign policy, and, we are to assume that things turned out well despite "China and Great Britain act[ing] completely against their self-interests.". Again, not really. If the British had simply given up, Jonah might have gleaned a moral point from this story, but 1793 is not the end of the story. The British were a bit more intent on trading with the Chinese than Goldberg lets on, and four decades later, they initiated the Opium War to secure trade concessions. Whatever motivated Britain here, it wasn't honor. As for China, she was forced to cede Hong Kong while much of her population became addicted to British imported narcotics. The lesson that can and should be drawn from this episode is that when the government acts as a salesman, a war is probably right around the corner. Had they been acting rationally from the beginning, the British would have told their merchants to make their own deals with the Chinese, and the same goes for China. But then again, that�s precisely the lesson an interventionist like Goldberg doesn�t want to learn, so his narrative slides over the less savory portions of the history. Unfortunately, this appears to be a national phenomenon. Like Goldberg, the American people and their government refuse to seriously, and rationally, consider our interests before entering inherently dangerous situations, preferring instead to wait until the consequences present themselves, as they have in Hainan. Just as the British should have asked themselves in 1793 whether they really wanted their diplomatic corps to act as marketing reps, the people in Washington should have asked and answered two questions about these surveillance missions in the South China Sea: (1) Why are we doing this? And (2) why are we doing this? That�s not a typo. The two questions use the same wording, but their emphases make them very different. The first has been answered. Officially, the Navy flies these surveillance missions to keep an eye on the Red Chinese, lest they should become a threat to Taiwan, Japan or to the Southeast Asian nations. OK, fine. So, why are we doing this? In his conclusion, Goldberg likens our present predicament to a prison term. Here, Goldberg tells us (based I hope on something other than personal experience) that the goal is to serve one�s time in peace without becoming a larger prisoner�s personal squeak toy. Although Cool Hand Jonah may like talking a good game, he knows perfectly well that the absolute best way to avoid "Tiny" is to stay out of prison altogether. The same can be said for our presence in Asia. The countries we claim to protect are more than capable of taking care of themselves. Japan has both the technical capability and the economic base to support their own defense. The same is essentially true of Taiwan and even South Korea. Knowing this, why exactly is it that an American aircrew is monitoring a coastline thousands of miles away from the nearest American possession? Better yet, why does the U.S. continue to maintain occupation level forces in Asia 55 years after the close of the Second World War and 10 years after the Cold War? Nobody in power has ever seriously answered these questions. It probably hasn't dawned on them to even consider these questions. A troubling thought when you realize this means 24 Americans nearly perished (and one Chinese pilot did die) yet our government doesn�t feel the need to justify the obvious risks it took when it ordered this mission. I suppose that�s one of the benefits of being a hegemon. It�s also exactly what�s wrong with being a hegemon. Derek Copold End<{{ T' A<>E<>R Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Integrity has no need of rules. -Albert Camus (1913-1960) + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The libertarian therefore considers one of his prime educational tasks is to spread the demystification and desanctification of the State among its hapless subjects. His task is to demonstrate repeatedly and in depth that not only the emperor but even the "democratic" State has no clothes; that all governments subsist by exploitive rule over the public; and that such rule is the reverse of objective necessity. He strives to show that the existence of taxation and the State necessarily sets up a class division between the exploiting rulers and the exploited ruled. He seeks to show that the task of the court intellectuals who have always supported the State has ever been to weave mystification in order to induce the public to accept State rule and that these intellectuals obtain, in return, a share in the power and pelf extracted by the rulers from their deluded subjects. [[For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, Murray N. Rothbard, Fox & Wilkes, 1973, 1978, p. 25]] <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
