yeah...

I have a moment before work returns and busies up my afternoon, and think I'll spend it responding to your (rhetorical) questions.

Simply put, I view the present disorder and seemingly frantic movement in all directions and none (yeah, we're that good) as the unmistakble signs that the world has entered into a period of significant change. A brief survey of history:

For the several hundreds of years beginning with the Peace of Westphalia and ending, arguably, with the onset of the Cold War, in 2001, or some time in the future, the world ahs been literally consumed by the idea of the nation-state. Nearly every major event in this historical era can be understood in the framework of nation-states. Both World Wars, arguably the Cold War (though this can also be defined as I explain below), and even the first Gulf War - and everything in between - all were the result of competition or conflict between nation-states for dominance over territory or economy, or both.

The Cold War signaled a slight shift in the paradigm, however. Now we had a conflict that, while between nation-states, and scaled up significantly with the added complication presented by nuclear arms, began to tackle the question of ideology. Who's "way" would rule? Yet, even with the introduction of ideology as the motivating force behind competition (rather than pride, ego, or territorial dominance as in previous wars), the Cold War remained primarily a competition-going-on-conflict between nation states for territorial dominance - even if by ideology rather than direct control.

Today's conflicts and problems move even further away from the notion of state-vs.-state and brings ideology to the fore. No longer is this fight solely over influence over territory. Rather, it is a conflict to determine the overarching ideological framework under which humanity will move forward (or backward, in my opinion, if the enlightened west loses). Put more simply, the transnational nature of our enemy, and supranationalistic nature of his goal have moved our present day geopolitical reality beyond state-vs.-state conflict. It's now a question of 'how', not as much 'who'.

As a result, you hear a lot more from that little word 'unprecedented' than you might have in years past. And for good reason - we are in largely uncharted, or at least undocumented, waters of human interaction. To be sure, ideological conflicts are not new per se to the human experience, but such struggles have, to my historical knowledge, never played out on such a grand scale, with all the globe watching, waiting, slowly making up its mind.

So there is a vast tectonic change afoot, one that is rumbling slowly but surely toward a new era in human history. Many of us mistakenly thought we had reached this plateau after the fall of communism, though that was just the beginning. The brief utopia enjoyed by the west after its victory over the "last" existential threat has made us unwilling to see that the job was not finished.

One manner in which this conflict should seem familiar is that it again pits rational western freedom and liberty against a totalitarian ideology capable and willing to assume command of even our most intimate thoughts and private dealings. And while it remains a struggle of freedom vs. tyranny, it is also a new struggle between unfamiliar foes whose paths have crossed before and are now approaching each other head on.

So while it is possible that the anarchists seem to have won this era, it is only because we are between eras, a time when anarchy reigns and time will tell the future order of things.

Posted by Otter425 | 20 April @ 14:24

Very astute and eloquently put, there is a natural inclination to be an alarmist about the way things are unfolding even if it is an interval, a momentary contraction before the birth of our newest temporary political solution...but...

as the world is changing, and it is and always has been, there is the apocalyptic sentiment to everything, whether we are all going to die under tramples of ocean or heat or nukes or heart disease or by a cat that plays piano badly. We are obsessed (possibly out of guilt) with our own demise and we seem to be welcoming it, it almost feels like we're ready to be put out of our misery, the boredom of our American prosperity.

Maybe it's because a third or more of our populace is actually banking on the end of the world to bring us salvation, which strangely feels more and more like a much needed baptism these days even if it's not a belief that I carry and/or am leaning toward the glib by the fact that it's 9 A.M. and I am in a cubicle writing this response.

Like all empires, we are spoiled by our greatness and seem gleefully oblivious to the jealousy we elicit. Either way, I am not disagreeing, but I'd like to posit that we are also moving away from national identity six years and sixty years from its respective peaks in recent times.

We may be as splintered as they because the majority of people fighting war for us are poor and we can simply change the channel; we (or some or many) don't identify with this war or even this greater struggle because it won't affect us until something else really bad happens again and if/when (God forbid) that moment does come, we may not have that spirit of the rally like we did last time...because some here might feel we deserved it this time...or because our identity as the individual ( "You" still flexing from being named winner of Time's Person of the Year) can disown their culpability because he or she has a blog (ahem) and can say they didn't make the decision or vote for that person or support that policy; it's like we're absolved from the decision-making so we can just chatter on about it (self-indictment). In essence (and complete-cum-harminious contradiction with our enemy), our "freedom" may have transcended our need for national identity because we're a country of pundits instead of activists and there is a greater debate to be had about whether punditry is actually activism at all.

Phew...getting back on point (I hope)...

Madeline Albright made a striking comment (completely unscripted) in the midst of a debate on Real Time with Bill Maher a few weeks ago which really got to me. In discussing the failings of the Bush policy, with Bill Maher snidely insinuating that Bush wants everything to end because of his religious beliefs, she said "Armageddon is not exactly a foreign policy."

I can't say for sure (and it's likely not my place to interpret) whether she meant that this is the message the rest of the world is taking from our endeavors or if this idea is simply the upshot of our flailing and sinking...or something else entirely...but my point is that the question is on the table; whether we believe it or not, other people may or do believe (and not necessarily Albright) that there is a point we are approaching where "talking" is out of the question and that means in some way or another that there is a counter-prophecy in the works, idealogues on both sides spinning rapidly toward the final showdown.

When pulled into this flux, it could mean much more than it does already, the "ideological struggle of the 21st century" as the man with the nuclear football puts it, we may not have time for a period when anarchy reigns before it's too late to step back from the abyss.

Go Rockets!

Posted by Adam | 2 May @ 11:32

A few (4) comments on your thought provoking response (though it may not be entirely coherent).

1.) Apocolyptic premonitions always accompany times of immense social/cultural upheaval. Consider the (by today's standards) ancient example from Jewish history of one Shabatai Zvi who, arround the time history posits Jesus was roaming the Israeli countryside (give or take a hundred years - I'm not a mind for biblically historical dates), many believed to be the messiah - that is until he became Muslim. The challenge for what I like to call the "silent center" is to curtail those along the perimeter from acting too quickly on these chicken little omens.

2.) The notion of "Empire" is a curious one in today's world, and folds into it both enlightened, post-modern complacency and the geopolitical arrogance or hubris frequently ascribed to this portion of the world's figurehead - namely the United States. Many claim that the US has reinvented imperial aspirations in a 21st century, post-colonialism mold that entails less direct political control and more economic and cultural domination. What is ironic to me about these accusations is that rarely, in my opinion, is it an official stated policy to enter a geographic region with the intent of dominating it to "exploit" the indigenous population and local resources for the benefit of us fat-cats.

Rather, this perception, and the jealousy it seems to engender, misplace the center of gravity for such policies. And, before I drop the B-word here, let it be made clear that I do not intend my statement here to constitute any sort of judgement - my opinion on this matter is a separate issue.

That being said, the center of gravity for such policies of (arguable) exploitation and local domination lies in the private secotr - with Business, global, big, and utterly consumed with tis bottom line.

Did the United States Government decide one day that it would be a good idea to exploit the children of Southeast Asia to make tennis shoes? As I understand it, the USG outlawed child labor, and the companies making the shoes decided to go where labor was cheapest so as to maximize profits. Did American consumers push for this result by demanding more goods at less expense? Perhaps, but ultimately it was a business decision, not an official foreign policy.

One could argue that, as consumers, we have the power to ultimately regulate business practices as it is our patronage that creates the coveted profits. And it is this realization that has, in my opinion, helped to numb free citizens to the world. Growing up, I heard enough about how my footwear had cost some poor 6 year-old three of his/her ten fingers, or how these poor children couldn't run and play because theirs was a country so poor they must all make my shoes to survive.

I was, and remain, naturally appalled by such revelations - but I can only bear so much of the burden for the world's problems. Will my decision to forgo shoes altogether make a crucial difference? Not if everyone else is still wearing their fancy new kicks. So why bother? The problem is too big for me alone.

We then see various attempts to organize consumers in effort to exert some of the control only a group can, but this does not carry the weight of the U.S. Navy or Army behind it, and so lacks the same authority, and thus does not yeild the same effect (as a national policy or law). And so, yet again, the shoulders shrug.

This may be an overly simplistic picture, I can't help that, this is a comment on a Blog.

Note, however, in closing to point #2, that this same phenomenon occurs with issues like national security and foreign policy. As you observed, and as I attempted to illustrate above, there is a point at which the inidvidual naturally seeks separation from the overhead entity - I can choose not to participate in any form of politics, and simply pay my taxes and live my life nearly oblivious to such a thing as government. And so at some point people cease to really care...

3.) Bill Maher, as funny as he can be, can provide a useful representation of what is really wrong with the American political scene. Gone, at least in terms of this president, is any respect for the Oval Office, for the institution that office is, for the position that office-holder fills. Right or wrong, agree or disagree, that is all part of the American political discourse. But to my knowledge there has not been this level of personal savagery directed at America's head of state.

In recent conversations with various interlocutors with whom I debate policy and principle, one asked how I could maintain a position when the people who agreed with me included such notables as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al (I'd like to note that the list also includes, at the very least, McCain and Lieberman) - citing his disbelief that given those associations I would continue to argue as I had.

What is striking here is that the personal rage directed against George W. Bush and most of those associated with his administration is a disease. I do not purport to be a strong Bush supporter, but I don't disagree with everything he says or does simply because he is 'W'. Yet this is precisely the track taken by so many in the world today, but especially here at home. This instant deligitimization, an inverted Midas-touch, if you will - is as damaging as it is infantile and dangerous, and in part has helped create the reality of today (at least as much as any of the President's policies have).

4.) The two elements described above, that of near total individualism and the personal vendetta against an unpopular president (it should be added that Bush has been targeted from day 1 of his presidency and, fairly or unfairly, has been the recipient of vile and vitriol since he took his first oath) have combined to create a sort of vortex in which each feeds the other.

Hard-line individualism (an inherent desire to see the world as a colelction of individuals, rather than in terms of groups or larger social identities) feeds the belief that it is not anti-American to blame the world's troubles on Bush and his policies, and to vilify any new proposals as just as bad as the last - i.e. instant failures (this is the case for more than just Iraq). Meanwhile, this criticism reinforces the notion that individuals are what comprise society, rather than groups of any sort.

Hence, when a terror group lists off "grievences" against the free world, we hear it as one individual speaking for multiple individuals (though certainly not all) in the same manner in which we hear a lawyer arguing a case for a defendant or plaintiff - two parties in mediation. We don't hear the enemies terms for our surrender. And what's worse, we misinterpret these terms and then wonder why, when we come back with a counter-offer, we are perceived as weak (or deny that we are seen as weak at all).

The real arrogance is not, then, in our imperial designs for the globe, but rather in our tunnel-vision perception that the entire world simply must play by our rules and act according to our norms - a sort of intellectual hubris that affects all who value talk over action in every circumstance. Being willing to fight is not a sign of a superiority complex or subtle bigotry, rather, the idea that we need never fight is precisely this. There is a time and place for talk, but also a space for deeds, and it is this that our self-righteous pundits fail to grasp either from arrogance or intolerance, or simply ignorance.

Posted by Otter425 | 2 May @ 16:07