The Daily Hegemonist

An enlightened review.

Peter Berkowitz's review of Gertrude Himmelfarb's latest work, The Roads to Modernity : The British, French, and American Enlightenments, is itself worth reading in its entirety. The last two paragraphs are particularly noteworthy:

Himmelfarb refrains from drawing lessons for the present from her exploration of the past. About the closest she comes is to remark that in America it was “a belief in human imperfectability, and the civic and political arrangements deriving from that belief, which sustained the country — a united country — through all the turmoil of its history.” However, had she wished to relax her scholar’s self-discipline and indulge in informed speculation concerning our current predicament, her rich and suggestive historical explorations would have furnished ample opportunity.

For example, she might have observed that the conceit driving the French doctrine of the general will is alive and well in the thinking of those international lawyers who today seek to bind all nations (but especially the United States) on the basis of principles that, despite vigorous disagreement among nations and the absence of consent, possess, the lawyers insist, universal validity and therefore reflect the will of all peoples everywhere. She might also have suggested that the respect for the limits of reason which leads to regard for the wisdom embodied in tradition and the mystery and teachings of religious faith is no less an imperative of reason than it was in the eighteenth century. And, in light of Edmund Burke’s complex career, she might have pursued the thought that because, now as then, circumstances vary and threats to liberty are multifarious, it may well be the better part of wisdom to struggle at home, on the leading edge of the Enlightenment, to conserve freedom’s moral preconditions while seeking progress abroad in the protection of liberty and equality. Although Himmelfarb leaves such speculations to others, her historical labors clarify their pertinence and lay intellectual foundations for their pursuit.

When Michael E. O'Hanlon's insightful analysis of the origins of the postwar contretemps in Iraq and Tod Lindberg's remarkably open explication of neoconservativism's liberal origins are also taken into account, is is apparent that Policy Review has shed some of its more grandiose notions in favor of a more balanced appraisal of current events.

An overdue development, perhaps — but one to be commended, nonetheless.

Halo 2.

Get it now.

Bowling for Karbala.

One of the many disappointments of the modern age is the seemingly irreversible decline in the erudition and rigor of what passes for social commentary throughout the political spectrum, especially amongst the self-anointed champions of the downtrodden. When combined with the incestuous relationship between the mainstream press, publishers, and the film industry, the end result of ridiculously-overhyped mediocrity is as predictable as it is regrettable.

Michael Moore's latest oevure, Fahrenheit 9/11, is a classic example of this trend. Mr. Moore's polemic (one hesitates to term it a 'documentary', given its extremely one-sided viewpoint and lack of follow-through, more of which momentarily) is a tired and tiring melange of partisan ranting, ad hominem bellicosity, and gleeful malice which seems not so much intended to inform or persuade as to flatter the vanity of those who already share Mr. Moore's views on the subject of the current Bush Administration generally and the invasion of Iraq in particular. In point of fact, Fahrenheit 9/11 is distinguishable from the amateur efforts on display at MoveOn.org mainly by the latter's lack of cameos by Mr. Moore himself, none of which add any particular gravitas or insight to the film.

Which is unfortunate because, on a few occasions, Fahrenheit 9/11 touches ever-so-briefly upon several pressing and genuinely relevant issues which merit further investigation:

The tardy, tepid, and timid nature of the Administration's assault upon Afghanistan and the Taliban subsequent to 9/11.

The venality and cupidity of various defense-related corporations so eager to cash in on the supposed windfalls to be had in postwar Iraq that their various officers, spokesmen, and other employees come across as unintentional self-caricatures of the tophatted 'war profiteers' of Marxist demagoguery.

The unsurprising yet completely indefensible fact that very few, if any, Members of Congress bother to actually read the bills set before them prior to voting on the legislation in question.

The Administration's incomprehensible lack of preparation for the aftermath of the Iraqi conflict.

The Administration's inexplicable decision to spirit members of the bin Laden family out of the United States on 9/13/01, without so much as a single interview by the FBI, CIA, or other agencies of the law enforcement and/or intelligence communities.

The Administration's apparent encouragement of the military and CIA to engage in the torture and abuse of prisoners and 'detainees' in Iraq and elsewhere.

The general incompetence, ineffectiveness, and irrelevance of the Department of Homeland Security and its various bureaux.

The fact that the President and members of the Cabinet routinely justify various intrusive and extraordinary measures (detaining suspected terrorists outside the normal legal system, secret trials, warrantless wiretaps, etc.) by asserting that the United States is at war — and yet the Congress has not formally declared war on any nation or entity in response to 9/11, and therefore there is no end in sight to the current claimed state of emergency.

The effect of inadequate numbers of troops, armaments, supplies, and transport, combined with the seemingly open-ended commitment in Iraq, on the nation's ability to respond to more direct and strategic threats from China, North Korea, Iran, and Saudi-sponsored terrorists such as Al Qaeda.

The unprecedented and corrosive influence of Saudi money on the political process in Washington, D.C., in general, and details of the longstanding relationship between the Bush and bin Laden families, in particular.

In short, Michael Moore somehow manages near-total avoidance of a serious examination and critique of the Administration's national security policy from either the Right or the Left, opting instead to produce a shallow and predictable sop to his apparent target constituency, the relatively small body of hardcore political activists who are already guaranteed to share Moore's views without need of further persuading.

For those interested in a substantive discourse on many of these issues, especially the origins of the U.S.-Saudi relationship and Saudi influence on American policy in the Middle East and around the world, former CIA operative Robert Baer's Sleeping with the Devil is a good starting point. And at $17.00 in trade paperback, it's a far better value than spending a similar sum for a ticket to see Fahrenheit 9/11 plus popcorn and soda, while at the same allowing one to avoid Mr. Moore's puffery and self-importance completely — a bargain at any price.

The Common Touch.

Listening to Howard Dean and his family describe his bona fides as a tribune of the people can be quite instructive:

"Look around," Mrs. Dean said in a recent interview, gesturing at the quarters where her boys grew up. "Howard didn't have the least bit of a glamorous upbringing."

In the view of his mother, it seems as if the Democratic front-runner practically grew up in a log cabin (albeit a log cabin situated conveniently on Park Avenue in New York City).

Explaining that every time she had a baby, the dining room would serve as a bedroom for the newborn and his nurse, she concluded, "I don't think we could even keep up with the Bushes."

Perhaps not, but they haven't done too shabbily, either. At a time when even highly-paid technical workers fear for their jobs, Gov. Dean has no worries on the home front:

All told, for instance, Dr. Dean's parents have given him and his family nearly $1 million in cash gifts over the last two decades, including a single gift of $200,000 in the early 1980's. And his wife's parents gave the couple $60,000 in 1985 to help them pay $161,700 in cash for the family's house on Burlington's south side, freeing the couple from monthly mortgage payments.

The Deans have amassed a nest egg of about $4 million, not including the value of their house, despite an annual income that has never exceeded $170,000. Some of it is in land — nearly $700,000 worth, plus the Burlington residence — but the remaining $3.24 million is in cash, bonds and a handful of conservative stocks.

And yet, the erstwhile populist was no stranger to social inequity.

While his parents were active in the exclusive Maidstone Club, an East Hampton institution that for decades refused to admit blacks or Jews, the Dean boys shunned that life. "I had plenty of friends at Maidstone, and they were people I liked," Dr. Dean said. "But it wasn't what I wanted to do. It wasn't that interesting."

Stirring stuff. Indeed, the reactions of the young Howard Dean to the societal upheavals of the 1960s were about what one would expect from a self-styled firebrand who regularly evokes the 'spirit of the 1960s' with such fondness:

During this period, Dean had no apparent involvement in the emerging causes and issues of the day. After entering Yale University in 1967, he was a popular but unremarkable student who took no role in campus protests against the war, or in a local issue, the trials of members of the Black Panther party in New Haven in early 1970, friends have said. After avoiding military service with a student deferment, he was eligible to serve by 1971, but presented evidence of a bad back and was rejected. He subsequently spent nine months in Aspen, Colo., skiing and working odd jobs, such as washing dishes and pouring concrete. He then became a stockbroker, following his father, a prominent figure on Wall Street, before entering medical school.

To all who knew him, it was apparent that this was a time of soul-searching and deep introspection on the part of the budding young progressive.

After Yale, having received a medical deferment from the Vietnam draft because of a long-standing back condition, Mr. Dean meandered and resisted Wall Street's pull. He spent 10 months skiing and working odd jobs in Aspen, Colo. When the spring snows melted in 1972, he returned to New York.

"People used to follow their fathers onto Wall Street," Mrs. Dean said. "That's the way it was done."

He began as a stockbroker's assistant and, two years later, was helping manage a small mutual fund. "He was damn good at it," Mrs. Dean said. "But I don't think it ever gave him any satisfaction."

Mr. Dean decided to become a doctor after working at a Denver hospital and then volunteering in the emergency room at St. Vincent's in New York. His disappointed father took the news well.

Shunning tradition and risking censure, the young Howard Dean was willing to make personal sacrifices in order to marry the woman he loved:

Years later, he remembers, his parents were immediately accepting of his decision to marry Judith Steinberg, even though it was highly unusual for someone from his family background to marry a Jew.

In fact, his mother said, she and his father discussed Ms. Steinberg's heritage, but decided they really liked her and felt she would have a calming effect on their determined but sometimes scattered son.

"We decided, well, he was never going to belong to the Maidstone Club, anyway."

Of course, one can't be held accountable for the outmoded and reactionary attitudes of one's parents - unless one becomes tacitly complicit in the perpetuation of those attitudes by one's unwillingness to repudiate them.

Told later of his mother's comment, Dr. Dean took a moment to soak it in. "She said that?" he finally asked, barking out a hearty laugh. "She's like me. She says whatever comes into her head."

Dean's mother has obviously been a major influence on him over the years.

Mrs. Dean sees her son's unpretentiousness as something he learned at home, pointing out that her own parents taught her to treat people in an egalitarian way.

"When I was growing up," she said, "we didn't even treat the servants like servants."

When one combines such worthy sentiments with his strong views concerning privacy and accountability, it stands to reason that Dean's background leaves him steadfast in his insistence on his empathy for the common man.

"I don't hide who I am," Dr. Dean said. "I am not in the least bit embarrassed about how I grew up. But, now, it wasn't quite as opulent as everybody might think."

Not quite, Gov. Dean. But, as we all know, opulence is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?

A Day to Remember.

No matter one's position on the wisdom of the conflict in Iraq, it is clear that the people he brutalized and oppressed for so long are well rid of him:

"The most important fact: Had the roles been reversed, he would have torn us apart and cut us into small pieces after torture," Mr. Chalabi said. "This contrast was paramount in my mind, how we treated him and how he would have treated us."

The recent spurt of competence evinced by the occupation government and Central Command is encouraging; it is hoped that the trend will continue, and that the soi-distant tyrant will soon be helped along to his reward.

Nuts.

It's good to know that the public school bureaucrats in Walnut Creek have matters well in hand:

At the center of the storm is a 5-year-old boy enrolled at Valle Verde Elementary School in Walnut Creek. He suffers from "peanut and tree nut" allergies that his mother says are life-threatening.

As a result, school officials have taken extraordinary steps in Pod C, a group of kindergarten classrooms at Valle Verde that share a common central area.

The parents of other kindergarten students were informed of the situation in a letter from school officials, who decreed that "all kindergarten students will begin the day by washing hands with soap and water . . . supervised by classroom staff."

Then they learned that a licensed vocational nurse has been hired to monitor the student. On the first day of school, parents said, their kids' backpacks and lunch boxes were searched for peanut butter sandwiches and such.

Apparently, the denizens of Walnut Creek still haven't quite grasped the fact that the experts know best (nor do they seem conscious of the irony inherent in the decision by the parents of the alleged sufferer of nut-oil allergies to alight in a town named after one of the deadly fruits):

"Look," says Kathryn Stewart, a clinical psychologist who works with special education high school students, "my son (now 15) is allergic to peanuts and an alumni of Valle Verde. This kind of nonsense makes me crazy.

"By kindergarten, and certainly by first grade, my son was able to say, 'What is in that?' " she said. "Searching a lunch box is insane. This goes to personal responsibility not changing the rest of the world to fit you."

At the very least, we ought to be grateful that the tots in question are getting an object-lesson in the supreme importance of adhering to the rules promulgated by agents of the state, no matter how trivial they may seem in the scheme of things.

We must catch them while they're young, before it's too late.

Empire in Reverse.

One of the unspoken understandings among the politically-engaged prior to the latest Iraqi adventure was that, barring absolute military defeat in detail, we would quickly prevail in the conflict and, whatever else may come, the oil revenues of a rapidly-revitalized Iraq would pay for the whole shebang (and, it was hinted, help pick up a moribund American economy in the process by ensuring that the world price of oil declined substantially). Many on the political Left castigated the Administration as being driven solely by the desire to exploit the Iraqi oil fields for the selfish benefit of the United States and her ally, Great Britain.

Indeed, this basic tent was a source of some small comfort to many conservatives who opposed the invasion on other grounds; if nothing else, we'd recoup our costs toot-sweet, and would get a stimulus of our own economy in the process. The President himself mentioned on more than one occasion that a primary motive among the ever-shifting justifications for the involvement of the United States in Iraq was to finally bring the benefits of Iraq's natural resources to the Iraqi people, as they so richly deserved.

Now, however, we're hearing a different tune.

On another note, the officials said their projections for revenues from Iraqi oil sales now stand at:

• $12 billion for fiscal 2004, which begins in October.

• $20 billion for fiscal 2005 and fiscal 2006.

The administration initially had predicted that Iraqi oil sales would pay for the bulk of the reconstruction and political transition after the war.

Now the administration says it wants $20 billion from Congress and tens of billions more from other nations to help pay reconstruction costs.

To recap, we've invaded one of the most oil-rich countries in the world; despite extensive experience in postwar reconstruction of defeated enemies, a supposed focus in recent years on 'nation-building' (whatever that is), and the fact that our septuagenerian SecDef is old enough to have direct memories of how we handled said reconstruction, we seem to've been totally unprepared to run a competent occupation government in Iraq; gasoline prices in the U.S. now exceed $2/gallon for no discernible reason other than vague mutterings about pipelines in Arizona and Labor Day weekend demand; we've done things like put out the oil fires of Kuwait after the first Gulf conflict in months rather than years, not to mention putting the carrier USS Yorktown back into action in less than 48 hours after it was heavily damaged in the Battle of the Coral Sea, this herculean task being within our capabilities some 60 years ago; and yet we can't even seem to get the oil fields of Iraq pumping again within something approaching a reasonable timeframe so as to benefit both the Iraqis and ourselves?

This empire-building we've embarked upon in the Middle East sure seems to be an expensive proposition, at least for the American taxpayer. Where's our share of the spoils?

Are we?

One of the many frustrations of the current situation in the Middle East is the fact that the Administration and its underlings keep insisting that we're in a state of unending war, although the Congress has yet to make any declarations to that effect:

Dov S. Zakheim, the Pentagon's chief financial officer, warned that Congress should expect additional budget requests. "This isn't a flash-in-the-pan kind of problem," he said at a joint meeting in Arlington of the U.S. Naval Institute and the Marine Corps Association, two professional organizations for military officers. "We're at war -- for some time."

Lt. Gen. Robert Magnus, the Marine Corps' chief budget officer, agreed with that estimate of long-term costs. "This is a generational war," he said, speaking alongside Zakheim. "This isn't just Osama bin Laden."

That last bit goes without saying, as Osama bin Laden and the recent despot of Iraq seem to've had little or nothing to do with one another; one can only hope that at some point in their peregrinations, it will finally dawn on our seemingly-benighted politicians that their naviete (this is being charitable) has resulted not only in a manifestly avoidable embarrassment in Iraq, but an inexplicable lack of consequences for those most deserving of a good thrashing, irrespective of our long-term ambitions in the region.

One can only hope that priorities will be adjusted and resources aligned with commitments, whatever those may be, before the next probable confrontation comes to a head.

The suspense is almost unbearable.

Thirty Days Hath September . . .

If you've ever wondered what happens to any extra money left over at the end of the Federal Governmen's fiscal year, here's the answer:

Fall is coming, and for GTSI that means the end of the federal fiscal year is approaching and that civil servants are rushing to spend department funds before they revert to the U.S. Treasury on Oct. 1.

That's right - each and every September, government departments and agencies indulge in an orgy of spending, using the flimsiest of pretexts to purchase something, anything, which will help zero out their respective budgets. In a time of burdensome foreign commitments and unfinished business, one would think that fiscal restraint would be paramount, but instead, the opposite holds true.

The reason is quite simple. If a department or agency fails to spend every single penny of its Congressionally-appropriated funds within a given fiscal year, there's a risk that the next year's appropriation might be a bit smaller. And as we all know, that would be a tragedy of epic proportions.

Blood Money.

One of the major distinctions between a republic and an empire is that republics have citizens, while empires have subjects. Unlike citizens, subjects are primarily clients of the state; they derive their livelihood from the state and its attendant bureaucracies, and are expected to render it service when called upon to do so in exchange for said livelihood.

It is the natural tendency of any bureaucracy to expand the scope of its clientele as widely as possible; how else are its agents to measure success, except by the influence exerted over the lives of others, and the amount of largesse they can bestow upon (presumably) grateful recipients? And as the various bureaucracies of the Federal Government multiply in form and function - encompassing in their charters every conceivable facet of the human experience - it becomes increasingly difficult for the individual to avoid being counted as a client of one or another of these entities, the very fact of such a relationship providing further statistical 'proof' of the vital role played by said institutions in the everyday life of us all (and by extension, justification for expanding the funding, personnel, and power of the bureaucracies, ad infinitum).

So, whenever a bureaucracy doesn't seem to be succeeding in its mission to dispense funds from the public treasury amongst its perceived client-base, there is definitely a cause for concern in certain quarters:

"I am concerned, and I think the administration is concerned," said Kenneth R. Feinberg, the federally appointed lawyer who oversees the fund and makes its final decisions. Mr. Feinberg has estimated that the fund, which has paid out $623.1 million, could distribute as much as $3 billion. There is a basic award for every death, which is increased to reflect a family's economic loss as a result of the victim's demise. Mr. Feinberg plans to meet Tuesday with Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York City to discuss the mayor's unease about the pace of applications, and several members of Congress have asked Mr. Feinberg to visit their home states to help raise awareness about the Dec. 22 deadline, which is built into the fund statute and cannot be waived.

"The statute has a little more than three months to run," Mr. Feinberg said. "So where are the rest of the people?"

Note the phraseology - 'the administration is concerned', 'unease about the pace', and so forth. The last I checked, nobody in the administration seemed to be using such vivid language in regards to the pace of the pacification and reconstruction of Iraq or the situation in Afghanistan, where American troops are still being killed on a regular basis. So why the 'concern' and 'unease' over something as mundane as the pace of applications for a victims-compensation fund?

What to make of the fact that they're so eager to disburse funds that they're perfectly willing to hand over large sums of public money to the families of illegal aliens - illegal aliens themselves - while, incredibly, making promises not to enforce the immigration statutes with regards to same (some victims, as members of protected classes, apparently being above the law of the land)?

For some low-income families, fear seems to be as much at work as grief, he said. About 100 undocumented workers are thought to have died in the attacks, but the fund has received claims on behalf of only about 30 of them. The others, he said, are afraid of deportation or other sanctions if they file, despite written reassurances to the contrary from Justice Department and immigration officials.

Are our solons possibly worried about the potential of bankruptcy-inducing lawsuits filed by families of the 9/11 victims to disrupt a fragile, near-moribund economy?

The fund, created by Congress as part of a legislative package to protect the airline industry from ruinous litigation, requires those who file claims to waive their right to sue over the attacks — other than lawsuits filed against the terrorists who planned the attacks and those who are accused of harboring or financing them.

Mayhap. But then a Mr. Kenneth Feinberg, who oversees the fund on behalf of the Government, seems to wave aside such notions:

But citing Justice Department statistics, Mr. Feinberg said that only 69 disqualifying lawsuits have been filed, and only three of those were filed in the last five months. "Most people are not suing and have not filed with the fund," he said. "You have to ask why."

His own answer — one that was echoed by the leaders of some family groups that coalesced after the disaster — is that many people are still too paralyzed by their grief to confront the logistical burden and emotional pain of filing a death claim.

"I have met with thousands of families," Mr. Feinberg said. "And you would be amazed at the number of people who, when I say the deadline is approaching, still come up to me in tears and say, `I'm not ready.' "

Perhaps Mr. Feinberg is amazed, but I think those of us who aren't in the business of signing up grieving families as bureaucratic clients are not similarly bemused. At least for the middle-class, life insurance is the primary method of ensuring that a family's financial obligations are met in the wake of the unexpected death of a wage-earner. The modern, seemingly-unquenchable thirst for entitlements doesn't quite extend to seeking out additional windfalls accruing from the deaths of loved ones, at least in most families.

And that thought is apparently a troubling one to our self-appointed dispensers of largesse; they view it as an affront to the culture of victimization they've so carefully fostered in America, an implicit and reflexive (and, therefore, all the more insidious) challenge to their self-anointed status as the Source of All Good Things. Whenever the hoi polloi shy away from the outstretched hands of government alms-givers, 'concern' is expressed via semi-official information outlets in hopes that the poor, misguided souls will realize the error of their ways and return to the warm embrace of those who know best:

When the fund was first set up, it was the target of fierce criticism by some bereaved families, who resented its limitations on their right to sue and disputed its formulas for calculating their economic losses and emotional suffering. One of the most vocal and active critics was Charles G. Wolf, whose wife, Katherine, died in the trade center's collapse.

But Mr. Wolf said on Friday that he does not think that lingering anger and dissatisfaction are the reasons for the low application rate. Indeed, he said that Mr. Feinberg has recently proven to be so much more flexible and fair in his policies and decisions that Mr. Wolf now plans to file his own claim with the fund and is actively encouraging others to do so.

"For the mental health of these victims, they need to file," Mr. Wolf said. "They need to put closure on something."

It is quite revealing of the mindset of our elites that in their worldview, the citizens of a nation born in revolution, wracked by civil war, drawn into the major global conflicts of the previous century - and taking up the challenge of saving the world from the twin dangers of Nazism and Communism in the process, not to mention being currently engaged in policing the globe at large - are now reliant upon the generosity of the public treasury not only for emotional closure in the face of personal loss, but for their very mental health!

As we've seen, though, we aren't really viewed as citizens, anymore. We are instead thought of as subjects of the state, and are therefore perceived to exist solely in order to serve it, and to bind ourselves to the state ever-more-closely by partaking of its generosity. Hence the perplexity of those like Mr. Wolf when confronted by those who still view themselves primarily as individuals concerned with life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and therefore as independent actors posessing their own moral compasses, quite apart from the prescriptions of the experts:

But he still meets resistance, he said. One parent told him that a fund award would seem like "blood money." The man seemed only partly persuaded by Mr. Wolf's argument that he should file a claim and "do something wonderful with the money — establish a foundation, give it to charity in your daughter's name."

It seems that at this late date, we haven't all lost our basic sense of dignity, even in the face of gross injustice and mass tragedy. And some of us even dare to think of ourselves as free men and women - citizens - rather than as the needy clients of an ever-expanding, self-perpetuating Ministry of Love.

A cause for concern, indeed.