This is a bit off topic but I am curious about something. How many of Gerges conclusions regarding Jihadism also apply to our own homegrown fundementalist movement? Esp the idea that the political dimension explains more than the religious one?

Posted at May 9, 2006 12:12 PM in response to Behind Jihadism

There are several enemies, not just one, although they are all very similar, being united within the Republican platform.

The first enemy is globalization, or unregulated global markets, which are dominated by a small number of the largest firms. Thus, the first enemy is a force, along with the opportunists (a minority of businesspeople and corporations) who are taking advantage of globalization to profit themselves at the expense of ordinary people and local businesses. The solution to this "enemy" is not protectionist tariffs and trade-barriers (that's too old-fashioned and conservative) but new cutting-edge ideas like a national investment in local economic development (lets call it "Localization"). We can add jobs by developing new small businesses. Another idea is "Fair Trade"- international trade deals that include provisions for protecting workers rights and the environment in all countries (call it "Good Globalization"). Lets stop the "Globalizers" and help the American people recover their economic stregth.

The other enemy is intolerance, another force, and the minority of self-appointed so-called "Leaders" who use intolerance to divide the American people against themselves, while promoting thier own status, influence and power. This includes anyone who employs overblown demagogic rhetoric, anyone who engages in witch-hunts, anyone who tries to use legislation to impose their values on others (there is someone like that in practically every congressional district). The solution to this problem isnt protectionist social legislation unless that legislation is also in the interest of all Americans. It will be up to us to explain how affirmative action, gay rights, immigrant rights, and strengthed science education in our schools help all Americans. So lets stop the demagogs and help the American people regain their sense of unity and common national purpose.

Key to exploiting our opposition to these twin enemies of the American people and the values they share is adoption of a political process that reflects the importance of the opinions of ordinary Americans and the issues they think are important. Currently, many political barriers exist to prevent ordinary people from getting their voice heard and actively contributing to policy debates: gerry-mandered districts that protect the incumbants of both parties, including the leaders of our own, weak campaign finance regulation that favors big-donars, including ours, a concentration of policy-making power in Washington making local decisions impotent, including communities whose values we dont share. All these contribute to a national government whose leaders can act without accountability. We have to possess the moral courage to oppose these things even though (or, more accurately, precisely because) they are not really in our short-term self-interest. An unaccountable government is incapable of holding large corporations accountable as well. So think of "Unaccountable government and unaccountable corporations" as a third "enemy" (granted, we need a sexier term than "unaccountable" Anyone?).

Three enemies: globalization, intolerance, unaccountability. Three solutions. Lets get going.

Posted at May 4, 2006 7:34 AM in response to Who is the Enemy?

Ah, the fine art of simultaneously pursuing dual incompatible strategies. Actually, there is nothing wrong with finding short-term tactical common ground with members of movements that we are otherwise in strong disagreement with- while at the same time adopting a framework of cosmopolitan tolerance ourselves. In retrospect, that is, I think, more or less what I do myself. The problem comes when one sets up some sort of global identity as a universal end state that we are trying to promote for everyone- and therefore to see the failure of that identity to spread as a problem, even a cause of despair. I dont think that the "Citizen of the World" type self-identity is ever going to appeal to more than a small percentage of the general population, and that is actually ok. We dont need everyone to share a common sense of identity, the same "global vision" in order to get along and work together to our mutual advantage. Thank goodness.

Of course the flip side of this is a movement that feels it must spread it's intolerance because they have defined themselves, or some larger group that they belong to, as morally superior to everyone else. Taken to an extreme (Nazis, Marxists, Al Qaeda) the rest of us cant tolerate them. A confrontation may be inevitable. Yet that, too, is no cause for despair. So far, the humanistic side has won all open confrontations.

Ultimately, I think tolerance is a function of economic well-being. People who are optimistic about thier future and are busy going about thier business dont have the time or the motivation to oppress or exploit anyone. Hate is grounded in fear. No fear, no hate. I hope.

Posted at March 15, 2006 2:03 PM in response to Identity and Global Conflict

Your post forces me to reformulate a little bit. I shouldnt have focused so exclusively on nation-states as examples, since Appiah and Sen were both talking about social movements like fundementalism and the effect they seem to be having on individual identity. Both seem to feel that globally there has been a loss of cosmopolitan identity that they both recommend as the best antidote to nationalism, fundementalism and like movements. This is a valid point.

OK, so my argument has to change somewhat- people join these movements because they satisfy some basic need- provide a sense of security and belonging that protects them from economic turmoil and social change. People turn to confrontational social movements when they perceive that their traditional way of life is under attack.

The solution to this is not going to be to convert them to some sort of cosmopolitan "citizen of the world" definition of self-identity- this would do nothing to protect the traditions they fear losing. Indeed, cosmopolitan tolerance is often attacked by these movements as part of the very thing threatening them, part of what they need to defend against. It seems inherently extremely unlikely that we could convince a significant number of the adherents of these kinds of movements to "switch idenitities" as it were- that's expecting too much from them. So I stand by my proposed solution- find tactical opportunites for people of different mindsets to work together, and their values and ideologies will follow.

Posted at March 13, 2006 7:41 AM in response to Identity and Global Conflict

The whole argument misses the point in my opinion. While there is nothing wrong with searching for a universal global moral values framework that can unify everyone and resolve all social conflicts peacefully, let’s not expect too much from it. Three studies that I remember from my graduate school days (and I don’t remember the original cites, so I apologize in advance):

1)      It is more effective to change behavior first and then wait for beliefs to change by themselves- changing behavior (by means of laws or by rewarding them) changes feelings and beliefs more effectively than changing beliefs (by means of persuasive arguments) will change behavior.

2)      Studies show that small teams of people, such as those you might find in the workplace, are more likely to work together more effectively when they have short term concrete goals to accomplish than they are if all they have is a common sense of a long term mission or vision.

3)      People are more likely to resolve differences and conflicts when you can convince them to step away from their espoused positions (which are more likely to be broad and idealistic) and you can convince them to share their interests (ie: their short term concrete needs). That one I can remember: any book on negotiation by Roger Fisher or William Ury.

I find it difficult to imaging a common moral or ethical framework that could unify, say, the United States, China, and Zimbabwe. The US is an individualistic, market driven culture based in popular representative democracy, China is a collectivistic one party market driven dictatorship and Zimbabwe is a bloody tyranny bent on preserving its’ power at the point of a gun. What common moral or ethical ground could there be? But ask yourself what goals and objectives we may have in common.

What I propose, therefore, is a tactical approach to international conflict. Find common ground where you can to achieve short-term goals, especially in the economic sphere, and be prepared to fight when absolutely necessary. Trust that the international arrangements that are necessary to allow the majority of countries and interest groups to work together in their own self-interest also corresponds to the enlightened liberal framework that we have developed over the last few centuries. Expect a few setbacks every now and then (you know, the odd world war or terrorist incident) and trust that these incidents will not of themselves derail the direction of history, which is inexorably heading toward greater international integration.

Don’t worry about grand visions. Persuade people to behave nicely, and their hearts and minds will follow.

Posted at March 7, 2006 7:25 AM in response to Identity and Global Conflict

The question being, at the end of that five or six years (I think we have only 3 at most), what will Iraq look like? One country or three (or hundreds)? Will it be a democracy or a theocracy? Will we have succeeded, or failed? Nobody knows, and that's the frustrating thing.

Posted at February 28, 2006 8:31 AM in response to Where'd The Case Go?

Actually, I was implying that Hamas might beat us to it- that is setting up schools, clinics and so forth in the US.  "Vote Hamas for America's Future" It was a really lame joke.

Posted at February 24, 2006 9:37 AM in response to Forget DC- The Battle is in the States

"You broke it, you own it." That's pretty much the entire case, and it's basically unanswerable, because it's based on ethical criteria, not pragmatic ones. Taken to it's logical conclusion, the "Broke it- Own it" school doesnt have to care whether or not we are going to succeed- we would be obligated to try anyway, even in the face of near certain defeat, because we are responsible for the suffering that is happening there, including the civil war (there would be no civil war or sectarian violence if Saddam were still there).

Unfortunatly, because of the way the American people were misled regarding weapons of mass destruction, they had never debated nor arrived at a consensus that we should invade Iraq for the purpose of promoting democracy there. Thus, there is no reason why the American people should continue to absorb causualities in a cause they were never really committed to in the first place. This creates an ethical dilemma with no good solution.

Another problem is that it takes years, sometimes generations, for nation building to succeed. Bosnia and the Sudan will never really be stable until the current generation passes away, and another generation has grown up under conditions of peace and stability. That is also what happened in Germany and Japan. Perhaps we can bring democracy, stability and prosperity to Iraq, but there is no reason to expect that it could be done in three years. No one has ever done it that quickly.

Of course, in Bosnia, and hopefully in the Sudan, losses and costs are acceptable in part because many nations share the burden. Unfortunately, because of the way the Bush adminstration has dealt with our traditional allies and the United Nations with regard the war in Iraq, burden sharing there is unlikely.

Another practical issue is that there is a tradeoff between the number of troops we have over there and the amount of time it will take to install a stable government and economic infrastructure, if that is indeed possible. That is, the fewer troops we have over there, the longer it will take, and the less likely it will be that we will accomplish our goals quickly. "Troops vs. Time" are the two horns of the dilemma we are caught in. (not that flooding Iraq with troops alone would do the trick, but having enough resources to do the job is a necessary condition if our plans are to achieve their goals in the timeframe we find acceptable). Yet, because of the lack of visible progress so far, and the success of the insurgency to maintain chaotic conditions, the American public is unlikely to support increasing the number of troops committed to Iraq.

So- on pragmatic grounds we have difficult choice. Take the gamble that we can do the job in the time we have with the resources we have committed, or get out now and take the costs, including loss of national prestige and the likely increase in global terrorism.

On balance, I still favor staying there, but with some sort of timeframe measured in years. Which is the most likely outcome of all- if visible progress has not occurred by the time the Bush administration has ended, then the next administration, no matter which party it is, will likely experience overwhelming pressure to cut our losses and get out. Bush started this, he has to end it.

Posted at February 24, 2006 9:30 AM in response to Where'd The Case Go?

Thats right- if the neo-conservatives can steal tactics from the Marxist0Leninists, we can steal them from Hamas. Come to think of it- maybe we better hurry up before they beat us to it!

Posted at February 23, 2006 12:45 PM in response to Forget DC- The Battle is in the States

Now that's an idea! Stop talking about it, and do something. That could change the direction our society is taking without even winning anything yet. A true grass-roots social movement. And in a way that would appeal very strongly to the mainstream. I think it's legal as long as you dont use service delivery as way to campaign.   

It strikes me how similar your suggestion is to what the hard-line Muslim movement does in many countries in the Middle East (Wahabism I think). They set up schools, clinics, and so forth as a direct means of promoting thier political goals. The idea being that not only do you build good will with the population, but you protest the ruling regime by demonstrating how incompetent they are. And it's paid for by charitable donations. You could almost call it "Productive Sabotage". It's resistance by outperforming the ruling party.

Anybody out there know any other examples of this sort of thing?

Posted at February 22, 2006 1:28 PM in response to Forget DC- The Battle is in the States