About six weeks ago, Megan McArdle had a post at the Daily Beast asking "What's the use of a PhD?"I've been troubled by her conclusions, especially this, "From the outside, a humanities PhD does not seem likely to ever be a career-enhancing move, for the simple reason that a PhD is a lengthy apprenticeship designed to teach you the skills needed to do exactly one thing: be a professor."
It is again time for my Renaissance and Reformation class, and my reconnection with the theoretical basis of my work as a humanist. The humanists did not want to prepare students for the cloistered ivory tower. The humanists advocated an active life of engagement in the politics of the city and in business. It was the educational rivals, the scholastics, who saw the purpose of education as a narrow pursuit towards law, medicine, or the queen of the sciences - theology. The humanists argued that we should study man's history and literature to understand how to live - how to live an active life. Even the humanists wary of politics (Petrarch and Erasmus, just to name two) were still engaged in the central pursuit of the Renaissance, the rebooting of western civilization, no small matter.
How is it then, that further study of the humanities has become an essentially scholastic enterprise? It appears to be the case that the university is dominated by modern scholastics, and that even our core subjects are run by scholastics for scholastic purposes, not to ask how we should live an active life in our community, but rather to ask questions of interest to no one other than fellow academics. For humanists, history is not a subject, it is the subject. Everything has a history, and history can organize any subject meaningfully. The history of the humanists tended to focus on the lives of great men. It did this so it could examine the consequences of human action, and to then ask moral questions about their actions. If we understand something about the nature of causation and the moral significance of our choices, if we understand this well enough to write and speak persuasively among our peers and in our institutions, we are ready to go out into the world.
Such a modern humanist would understand classical republics, the British constitutional and political history, and American constitutional and political history. They would be prepared to undertake the role of an active citizen. Such a modern humanist would be able to assemble the history of their firm and their industry, so they could argue from evidence of success and failure when a proposed course of action was presented. They could quote the founder and other figures who established the culture of the firm, understand the mission of the business, and had a bigger vision of their role than a job description.
Florence was a town of business. It had a woolens industry and was the center of banking, thanks to a Papal monopoly. It was not a university town, like Bologna, Modena, or Padua.
Among the many institutions that need to be rebooted, the humanities certainly appears to be near the top of the list.
Friday, April 05, 2013
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Let old banks die, use the money to start new banks
Paul Romer suggests using the TARP money to just start new banks rather than throwing good money after bad in bailing out banks that are full of toxic assets.
Tom Philpott, over at Gristmill promises to discuss other banking models. He links to Martin Wolf at the Financial Times who writes, "a sizeable proportion of [U.S.] financial institutions are insolvent: their assets are, under plausible assumptions, worth less than their liabilities."
Paul Romer suggests using the TARP money to just start new banks rather than throwing good money after bad in bailing out banks that are full of toxic assets.
Tom Philpott, over at Gristmill promises to discuss other banking models. He links to Martin Wolf at the Financial Times who writes, "a sizeable proportion of [U.S.] financial institutions are insolvent: their assets are, under plausible assumptions, worth less than their liabilities."
Monday, February 09, 2009
The Independent reverses its opinion of pot.
The Independent, which was an active campaigner for the shift in status from Class B to Class C for cannabis, now reverses its stance and issues an apology.
The Independent, which was an active campaigner for the shift in status from Class B to Class C for cannabis, now reverses its stance and issues an apology.
Friday, February 06, 2009
Congressional Budget Office declares Obama plan is worse than doing nothing.
The CBO reported on Wednesday that Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, by .1 to .3% GDP. CBO does report the Senate bill would produce between 1.4 percent and 4.1 percent higher growth in 2009 than if there was no action, but the cost beyond the near term into the medium term would exceed the benefit.I recall during the ill-advised steel tariff, Mickey Kaus pointing out that the cost per job saved was around a quarter million per job.
This "stimulus" is in the same ballpark. Given the most generously small package, $750 billion and the most generous jobs creation figure 4.1 million, I get $183,000 per job saved. Given that maximal job production at optimal spending is unlikey, the quarter million figure is probabaly more accurate.
With that kind of money, you could pay people not to work until the next recession. Rinse and repeat.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Obama and Congress make hiring a liability
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act will have the effect of depressing wages and employment. Making today's HR choices a long term liability will make employers hiring shy. Or more precisely, more shy than they already are.
And this in an environment in which unemployment is higher among men than women. In which pay is as high or higher for women for the same work. And in which women graduate from college more than men.
If the economy were strong, this would be merely misguided. But in a down economy (and unemployment is a lagging phenomenon, so will recover after the recovery is in effect) doing anything to make hiring less attractive is bad medicine.
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act will have the effect of depressing wages and employment. Making today's HR choices a long term liability will make employers hiring shy. Or more precisely, more shy than they already are.
And this in an environment in which unemployment is higher among men than women. In which pay is as high or higher for women for the same work. And in which women graduate from college more than men.
If the economy were strong, this would be merely misguided. But in a down economy (and unemployment is a lagging phenomenon, so will recover after the recovery is in effect) doing anything to make hiring less attractive is bad medicine.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Obama's Positivism
In the past several months, during the transition, two characteristics have emerged that have caught my attention. One is the President is interested in talking to anyone from the intellectual elite, right, left, or center. A sit down dinner at George Will's house with Bill Kristol and David Brooks being just the kind of thing I am thinking of. His appointments have struck the same tone, selecting well respected experts, including Bush Administration folks, rather than selections calculated to please his base.
Throughout the campaign, and mentioned again during the Inauguration, was a declaration of a post-partisan approach: "the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply." The combination of an appreciation of expertise and intellectualism plus a rejection of ideology is often a signal of Positivism.
"The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works (...)." Is this pragmatism, or Pragmatism? The philosophy of Pragmatism being an American variety of Positivism.
In government, the most common variety of Positivism is Technocracy. The fact that Obama was always very nebulous (Hope and Change) and short on actual explanations on the how can now be read as meaning there never was any agenda more specific than to put the experts in charge. Technocracy is the form of government where the experts decide policy and administrate its implementation. Technocracy, like all other forms of Positivism fancies itself scientific, and hence non-partisan.
Obama said "On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord. On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics." To him, politics is not a process in which interested groups meat, contest, dispute, and sometimes compromise. Such a notion is petty, false, and worn out. Rather disinterested experts will be the arbiters of policy and the intrusion of the pubic into the affairs of government will be regarded as ungrateful, petty interference.
Discarding the will of the people, all to common for the technocrat, for the expert opinion arrived at scientifically by the best and brightest might be worth it, if it worked. It does not. Experts possess a general expertise about abstract examples, general circumstances, but no one is an expert in their own circumstances but themselves. Great plans devised by benevolent experts are always a mess.
Do not impose experts on the people, but let the people decide themselves, through the political process and through the market.
In the past several months, during the transition, two characteristics have emerged that have caught my attention. One is the President is interested in talking to anyone from the intellectual elite, right, left, or center. A sit down dinner at George Will's house with Bill Kristol and David Brooks being just the kind of thing I am thinking of. His appointments have struck the same tone, selecting well respected experts, including Bush Administration folks, rather than selections calculated to please his base.
Throughout the campaign, and mentioned again during the Inauguration, was a declaration of a post-partisan approach: "the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply." The combination of an appreciation of expertise and intellectualism plus a rejection of ideology is often a signal of Positivism.
"The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works (...)." Is this pragmatism, or Pragmatism? The philosophy of Pragmatism being an American variety of Positivism.
In government, the most common variety of Positivism is Technocracy. The fact that Obama was always very nebulous (Hope and Change) and short on actual explanations on the how can now be read as meaning there never was any agenda more specific than to put the experts in charge. Technocracy is the form of government where the experts decide policy and administrate its implementation. Technocracy, like all other forms of Positivism fancies itself scientific, and hence non-partisan.
Obama said "On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord. On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics." To him, politics is not a process in which interested groups meat, contest, dispute, and sometimes compromise. Such a notion is petty, false, and worn out. Rather disinterested experts will be the arbiters of policy and the intrusion of the pubic into the affairs of government will be regarded as ungrateful, petty interference.
Discarding the will of the people, all to common for the technocrat, for the expert opinion arrived at scientifically by the best and brightest might be worth it, if it worked. It does not. Experts possess a general expertise about abstract examples, general circumstances, but no one is an expert in their own circumstances but themselves. Great plans devised by benevolent experts are always a mess.
Do not impose experts on the people, but let the people decide themselves, through the political process and through the market.
Monday, September 29, 2008
A Do-Nothing Congress Explained
This has been one of the most do-nothing congresses in quite some time. I think I now know why. Its leadership is significantly to the left of the rank and file. This is why the congress does nothing, and when its forced to do something, it calls a recess and goes on vacation as it did when drilling was such a big issue. Nothing the leadership wants to do would be acceptable to the rank and file and so either the leadership gets defeated by its own party, or the leadership caves to the rank and file.
Barney Frank and Chris Dodd craft a bailout plan with the approval of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the OK of Obama, and 40% of democrats vote against it. The leaders don't control the party. They know it. They could dodge a vote on the drilling issue, but not on the bailout issue. Even when Reid, Pelosi, and Obama provide cover, 40% of Dems turn and go the other direction.
Looking at the Missouri delegation, its the far left that voted no, and most of the Republicans. Roy Blunt is the outlier, I suspect because he is part of the leadership that negotiated the plan.
Using the scoring method of voteview.com, here is the Missouri Delegation again, in order of their voteview score, with their bailout vote and party affiliation.
* Dist. 1 - Rep. William Lacy Clay No 49 D
* Dist. 5 - Rep. Emanuel Cleaver No 113 D
* Dist. 3 - Rep. Russ Carnahan Yes 133 D
* Dist. 4 - Rep. Ike Skelton Yes 212 D
* Dist. 8 - Rep. Jo Ann Emerson Yes 256 R
* Dist. 9 - Rep. Kenny Hulshof No 286 R
* Dist. 7 - Rep. Roy Blunt Yes 342 R
* Dist. 6 - Rep. Sam Graves No 362 R
* Dist. 2 - Rep. Todd Akin No 407 R
This has been one of the most do-nothing congresses in quite some time. I think I now know why. Its leadership is significantly to the left of the rank and file. This is why the congress does nothing, and when its forced to do something, it calls a recess and goes on vacation as it did when drilling was such a big issue. Nothing the leadership wants to do would be acceptable to the rank and file and so either the leadership gets defeated by its own party, or the leadership caves to the rank and file.
Barney Frank and Chris Dodd craft a bailout plan with the approval of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the OK of Obama, and 40% of democrats vote against it. The leaders don't control the party. They know it. They could dodge a vote on the drilling issue, but not on the bailout issue. Even when Reid, Pelosi, and Obama provide cover, 40% of Dems turn and go the other direction.
Looking at the Missouri delegation, its the far left that voted no, and most of the Republicans. Roy Blunt is the outlier, I suspect because he is part of the leadership that negotiated the plan.
Using the scoring method of voteview.com, here is the Missouri Delegation again, in order of their voteview score, with their bailout vote and party affiliation.
* Dist. 1 - Rep. William Lacy Clay No 49 D
* Dist. 5 - Rep. Emanuel Cleaver No 113 D
* Dist. 3 - Rep. Russ Carnahan Yes 133 D
* Dist. 4 - Rep. Ike Skelton Yes 212 D
* Dist. 8 - Rep. Jo Ann Emerson Yes 256 R
* Dist. 9 - Rep. Kenny Hulshof No 286 R
* Dist. 7 - Rep. Roy Blunt Yes 342 R
* Dist. 6 - Rep. Sam Graves No 362 R
* Dist. 2 - Rep. Todd Akin No 407 R
Missouri Congre4ssional Delegation on the Monday Bailout vote
* Dist. 1 - Rep. William Lacy Clay No
* Dist. 2 - Rep. Todd Akin No
* Dist. 3 - Rep. Russ Carnahan Yes
* Dist. 4 - Rep. Ike Skelton Yes
* Dist. 5 - Rep. Emanuel Cleaver No
* Dist. 6 - Rep. Sam Graves No
* Dist. 7 - Rep. Roy Blunt Yes
* Dist. 8 - Rep. Jo Ann Emerson Yes
* Dist. 9 - Rep. Kenny Hulshof No
* Dist. 1 - Rep. William Lacy Clay No
* Dist. 2 - Rep. Todd Akin No
* Dist. 3 - Rep. Russ Carnahan Yes
* Dist. 4 - Rep. Ike Skelton Yes
* Dist. 5 - Rep. Emanuel Cleaver No
* Dist. 6 - Rep. Sam Graves No
* Dist. 7 - Rep. Roy Blunt Yes
* Dist. 8 - Rep. Jo Ann Emerson Yes
* Dist. 9 - Rep. Kenny Hulshof No
Sunday, September 21, 2008
I just had occasion to listen to the Aug 28th 2008 edition of Extension 720. I started listening to Milt Rosenberg as a child while my parents listened to the show. Rosenberg is thoughtful, professorial, and respectful of his guests. Upon the occasion of National Review contributor, Stanley Kurtz, being on town (doing research on Obama and the Annenberg Challenge), Extension 720 booked him for the following day. They contacted the Obama campaign national headquarters just down the street and requested a representative to provide a contrasting point of view. However the Obama campaign had no interest in participation as evidenced by the fact that instead of discussing sending a person, they hung up on the show's producer and sent out an e-mail asking people to call in and complain.
Its bad enough that the campaign's responce to its critics was to slander him an attempt to silence him, rather than to send someone to confront Kurtz in a debate where Rosenberg would have insured a useful and productive exchange. But they also used their own non-participation as a primary cause for attack. They chose to send no representative, so the responsibility for the absence of a Obama defender is their own, not WGN's.
It is worth noting that on September 16th, when David Freddoso was the guest author, Extension 720 found a willing defender of Obama, Dan Johnson-Weinberger, an activist and former student of Obama's rather than get burned again by the campiagn tactic of not sending a represenative and then complaining that they were not represented.
While it is true that the Kurtz interview happened during the Democratic convention, the notion that the Obama campian was unavailable to do media during their convention is absurd. You do major events to get people talking, so of course people are available to capitalize on the media. The campaign chose not to do Extension 720. The late notice (first thing that day, 13 hours advance) is more of an issue, but not at all uncommon in the media, where responding to news is so common. The booking itself was late, so advanced notice was impossible.
Here is a link to a Kansas City media blogger.
Its bad enough that the campaign's responce to its critics was to slander him an attempt to silence him, rather than to send someone to confront Kurtz in a debate where Rosenberg would have insured a useful and productive exchange. But they also used their own non-participation as a primary cause for attack. They chose to send no representative, so the responsibility for the absence of a Obama defender is their own, not WGN's.
It is worth noting that on September 16th, when David Freddoso was the guest author, Extension 720 found a willing defender of Obama, Dan Johnson-Weinberger, an activist and former student of Obama's rather than get burned again by the campiagn tactic of not sending a represenative and then complaining that they were not represented.
While it is true that the Kurtz interview happened during the Democratic convention, the notion that the Obama campian was unavailable to do media during their convention is absurd. You do major events to get people talking, so of course people are available to capitalize on the media. The campaign chose not to do Extension 720. The late notice (first thing that day, 13 hours advance) is more of an issue, but not at all uncommon in the media, where responding to news is so common. The booking itself was late, so advanced notice was impossible.
Here is a link to a Kansas City media blogger.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Chris Dodd's Left School of Rhetoric
Like other leftists, Chris Dodd employs the rhetorical device of accusing your opponants of your worst behaviors:
'How many times can this administration and some of my colleagues here in this chamber claim that any debate, any dissent, or any action that departs even one iota from the President's policy is "un-patriotic?"Jingoism and facile claims about "supporting the troops," about "good vs. evil," and about "victory vs. defeat" can no longer be tolerated--in fact they should never have been tolerated.'
Should not have been tolerated? Who is attempting to silence any dissent or debate? Should not have been tolerated?
This is during a debate in which Dodd declared, "this resolution before us does not represent as forceful an approach to accomplishing that goal as I would propose." Dodd wants to cut off funding. This is supporting the troops? "Inverted logic," indeed. Dodd attempts to dress up surrender as were redeployment. He's a liar and so he accuses others of lying.
This is either because he can't tell the difference between victory and defeat, good and evil, or supporting the troops and withdrawing support, or he's a liar. I think he's not only a liar, he lying abouy who is lying and what they're lying about.
Not content to advocate bad policy, he wants to be a despicable person too.
Like other leftists, Chris Dodd employs the rhetorical device of accusing your opponants of your worst behaviors:
'How many times can this administration and some of my colleagues here in this chamber claim that any debate, any dissent, or any action that departs even one iota from the President's policy is "un-patriotic?"Jingoism and facile claims about "supporting the troops," about "good vs. evil," and about "victory vs. defeat" can no longer be tolerated--in fact they should never have been tolerated.'
Should not have been tolerated? Who is attempting to silence any dissent or debate? Should not have been tolerated?
This is during a debate in which Dodd declared, "this resolution before us does not represent as forceful an approach to accomplishing that goal as I would propose." Dodd wants to cut off funding. This is supporting the troops? "Inverted logic," indeed. Dodd attempts to dress up surrender as were redeployment. He's a liar and so he accuses others of lying.
This is either because he can't tell the difference between victory and defeat, good and evil, or supporting the troops and withdrawing support, or he's a liar. I think he's not only a liar, he lying abouy who is lying and what they're lying about.
Not content to advocate bad policy, he wants to be a despicable person too.
Ingraham filled with Hate
Laura Ingraham is just filled with hate. She is now constantly remarking on how she has to turn off press conferences or speeched by the President on the immigration issue. This has progressed from pulling out her hair, and other references of her frustration. I don't know what she hates. Its probabaly the President's policy. But this kind of talk reflects someone eaten up with hate.
She has delued herself into thinking that no sensible person in their right mind holds an alternative view, and that the American people are united in opposition to the President's policy.
I wonder what kind of economic theory she has, because a Smithian approach of free flows of capital and labor is not any part of it.
Indeed this is more evidence of the three part division of American political ideology. This anti-Smithian economics clearly puts her out of the ranks of liberals and puts her into a conservative economic theory in which a patriarchial state looks out for its workers and protects them from evils like competition and its dire consequences like wages set by free and open markets.
Laura Ingraham is just filled with hate. She is now constantly remarking on how she has to turn off press conferences or speeched by the President on the immigration issue. This has progressed from pulling out her hair, and other references of her frustration. I don't know what she hates. Its probabaly the President's policy. But this kind of talk reflects someone eaten up with hate.
She has delued herself into thinking that no sensible person in their right mind holds an alternative view, and that the American people are united in opposition to the President's policy.
I wonder what kind of economic theory she has, because a Smithian approach of free flows of capital and labor is not any part of it.
Indeed this is more evidence of the three part division of American political ideology. This anti-Smithian economics clearly puts her out of the ranks of liberals and puts her into a conservative economic theory in which a patriarchial state looks out for its workers and protects them from evils like competition and its dire consequences like wages set by free and open markets.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Why the Dems Oppose the Surge
Because they are venal liars who can't be trusted with responsibility.
When Bush was holding troop levels flat, they complained that too few troops were in place (other than those who more honestly, but less responsibly just advocated cut and run). Now that they get the additional troops they claimed were needed, they oppose the move. Objecting to any move Bush makes is not a policy, its a playground tactic. Apparently this is what Pelosi means when she talks of government for the children.
Because they are venal liars who can't be trusted with responsibility.
When Bush was holding troop levels flat, they complained that too few troops were in place (other than those who more honestly, but less responsibly just advocated cut and run). Now that they get the additional troops they claimed were needed, they oppose the move. Objecting to any move Bush makes is not a policy, its a playground tactic. Apparently this is what Pelosi means when she talks of government for the children.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Senator McCaskill:
The Democrats are worried about an open-ended commitment in Iraq. Where the United States had made open-ended commitments, such as Korea, Taiwan, Greece, and Turkey - open ended commitments made by Harry Truman - these countries have advoided domination by hostile, totalitarian powers, and made a slow transition to democracy. The first two or three decades for each of these countries (with some exception for Turkey) were not democratic, but the American commitment and presence helped those countries build democracies. Sustained commitment since then helped solidify democracy in these places. The current generation has the same duties in Iraq, Afghanistan, and places yet undetermined. What would Truman do? What would John Kennedy do? Are the democrats still willing to "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." Or has the Democratic Party and the Missouri Senator entirely embraced the Peace at Any Price policy of McGovern and the New Left, abandoning nascient democracies well before democracy is established and dominant? Where are Wilson, Truman, and Kennedy today? Where will you vote and where will your party vote? Abandon Iraq and condemn freedom's blossom? Or bear any burden to assure the survival and success of liberty in the Middle East?
The Democrats are worried about an open-ended commitment in Iraq. Where the United States had made open-ended commitments, such as Korea, Taiwan, Greece, and Turkey - open ended commitments made by Harry Truman - these countries have advoided domination by hostile, totalitarian powers, and made a slow transition to democracy. The first two or three decades for each of these countries (with some exception for Turkey) were not democratic, but the American commitment and presence helped those countries build democracies. Sustained commitment since then helped solidify democracy in these places. The current generation has the same duties in Iraq, Afghanistan, and places yet undetermined. What would Truman do? What would John Kennedy do? Are the democrats still willing to "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." Or has the Democratic Party and the Missouri Senator entirely embraced the Peace at Any Price policy of McGovern and the New Left, abandoning nascient democracies well before democracy is established and dominant? Where are Wilson, Truman, and Kennedy today? Where will you vote and where will your party vote? Abandon Iraq and condemn freedom's blossom? Or bear any burden to assure the survival and success of liberty in the Middle East?
Friday, November 17, 2006
Europe fantasizes about Mideast peace
EU observer reports the plan here.
The Plan
EU observer reports the plan here.
The Plan
- Immediate Ceasefire
- Unity Palestinian Authority
- Meetings between Israel and Palestinian Authority
- Prisoner Exchange
- Euro-Peacekeepers
Ceasefire? All this does is perpretuate the violence because the agressor never gets its hat handed to it. The only thing that stops violence is victory.
Does Spain, France, and Italy actually presume to force a goverment on Palestine, when elections rejected a moderate goverment willing to negotiate in favor of Hamas and rejection of recognition of Israel? File this under "How Europe promotes Democracy".
No one will meet without Palestinian recognition of Israel.
Will the European peacekeepers be as effective as they were in south Lebenon, where there were promises of Europeans including a large French contingent, and we still haven't reached the primised numbers.
"A peacekeeping force does not come here with pre-set enemies. There is no enemy [inaudible] in a peacekeeping force. UNIFIL is a peacekeeping force. It's not a Israeli combat force or an anti-terror force, as they would like it to be. As long as we don't serve their direct interests, they are going to denigrate it as much as they can." Timur Goksel, former spokesman of the UNIFIL, July 26, 2006
If the purpose of a mission is to keep the peace, then any agressor is an enemy. For genuine peacekeepers, any hostiles are the enemy. In fact, based on Goksel's statement, UNIFIL is no peacekeeping force, its a Corps of Observation, and nothing more.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
It would seem my brother shares my weak blogging this summer. Aside from this note promising a new dedication to blogging, he hasn't posted since April. What devious forces conspire to keep us silent? I don't have time to explain.
Sunday, May 07, 2006
Change in Work Load
My work load increased by orders of magnitude. My time at work has doubled and the amount of effort required has climbed from incidental to way serious. Some days I now wake up, go to work and come home and sleep. As a result, blogging has been notably absent. Alas. Internet news reading, talk show radio listening, and blog reading have gone down in increasing order. On the other hand, I am enjoying work and all the work I'm doing, so hurrah for the free market, market capitalism, and increasing liberty in the economy.
My work load increased by orders of magnitude. My time at work has doubled and the amount of effort required has climbed from incidental to way serious. Some days I now wake up, go to work and come home and sleep. As a result, blogging has been notably absent. Alas. Internet news reading, talk show radio listening, and blog reading have gone down in increasing order. On the other hand, I am enjoying work and all the work I'm doing, so hurrah for the free market, market capitalism, and increasing liberty in the economy.
The Movie of my life would be a Black Comedy |
 Your best movie matches: Being John Malkovich, The Royal Tenenbaums, American Psycho |
If Your Life Was a Movie, What Genre Would It Be?
Sunday, March 12, 2006
Kaplan on Nation Building.
Robert Kaplan has another installment on army transformation and building civil societies out of anarchy. The Atlantic also has an interview with Kaplan as an on-line extra. I find over and over again that Kaplan understands what is required to combat insurgency and can describe it with clarity. My own approach is historical, from that greatest of all counter-insurgencies, the Gallic wars, the English conquest of Wales, the Penninsular War to the winning of the American West, the Philippines, Vietnam, and so on. Kaplan's obviously much more anthropological, at least in the sense that he spends most of his time on contemporary insurgencies and hot spots. Yet the results are the same. The force with the most will to stay its course prevails. This is far, far truer in insurgency than it is in conventional warfare. In such contests, what Victor Davis Hanson calls, the Western way of war, opposing forces stand up against one another and test their resolution in a main battle. By presenting yourself as a target, you demonstrate a certain fearlessness, but you can also get killed. The guerilla war is much more a war of wills.
Once you have the will to fight, or to stay, you can stay in the game. But will does not mean victory, only a continued struggle. Victory requires right actions taken at the right times. Marshal Suchet pacified Catalonia while Soult, Ney, and the other marshals failed. David Chandler attributed this to Wellington and the English Army he commanded out of Lisbon.
On this subject of will, we speak not only of the will of leaders, or of soldiers, but of institutions. Old, established, strong institutions on the one hand, and weak, fragile institutions on the other. Sometimes the strongest institutions are the most primative. One of the key reasons for Allied success in WWII was the friendship of Churchill and Roosevelt. Another was the cultural similarities of the Americans and the Commonwealth. From 1939 to 1941, the totalitarian states were united against the democratic states. But Germany, Italy, Japan, and the Soviet Union were not united in any firm sense. All that united them was a mutual self interest and opposition to the democracies. Cleavages between these powers resulted in Italy being flipped and Russia being dropped. Japan and Germany, on the other hand, had elements of suicidal commitment to resistance. Both Japan and Germany could have made the terrible switch to an insurgency. Japan was activly making plans for it. This is one of the reasons for the use of the A-bomb. In Germany, Hitler was so disapointed in the conventional failures that he pursued the destruction of the whole German nation. Imagine WWII in which Hitler and Stalin, especially, had a cordial friendship in the vein of Roosevelt and Churchill.
Friendships, cultural similarities, and even kinships, are a more primitive basis for social order, but being more natural, can exist without the effortful cultural creations of the West. Commitment to abstract principles requires habituation. Commitment to kin groups is ab initio.
Kaplan describes how tribal leaders are employed to get things done while the civil authorities take root.
Kaplan describes how in Nimrud, LtC Norris first relies on a thuggish police chief, Salim, but gradually nudges him aside in favor of the more democratic and lawyerly Mayor Isa. One of his other themes, which also appeared in Imperial Grunts, was that order must preceed civil development, or that order must proceed freedom. This is a most Hamiltonian observation.
Robert Kaplan has another installment on army transformation and building civil societies out of anarchy. The Atlantic also has an interview with Kaplan as an on-line extra. I find over and over again that Kaplan understands what is required to combat insurgency and can describe it with clarity. My own approach is historical, from that greatest of all counter-insurgencies, the Gallic wars, the English conquest of Wales, the Penninsular War to the winning of the American West, the Philippines, Vietnam, and so on. Kaplan's obviously much more anthropological, at least in the sense that he spends most of his time on contemporary insurgencies and hot spots. Yet the results are the same. The force with the most will to stay its course prevails. This is far, far truer in insurgency than it is in conventional warfare. In such contests, what Victor Davis Hanson calls, the Western way of war, opposing forces stand up against one another and test their resolution in a main battle. By presenting yourself as a target, you demonstrate a certain fearlessness, but you can also get killed. The guerilla war is much more a war of wills.
Once you have the will to fight, or to stay, you can stay in the game. But will does not mean victory, only a continued struggle. Victory requires right actions taken at the right times. Marshal Suchet pacified Catalonia while Soult, Ney, and the other marshals failed. David Chandler attributed this to Wellington and the English Army he commanded out of Lisbon.
On this subject of will, we speak not only of the will of leaders, or of soldiers, but of institutions. Old, established, strong institutions on the one hand, and weak, fragile institutions on the other. Sometimes the strongest institutions are the most primative. One of the key reasons for Allied success in WWII was the friendship of Churchill and Roosevelt. Another was the cultural similarities of the Americans and the Commonwealth. From 1939 to 1941, the totalitarian states were united against the democratic states. But Germany, Italy, Japan, and the Soviet Union were not united in any firm sense. All that united them was a mutual self interest and opposition to the democracies. Cleavages between these powers resulted in Italy being flipped and Russia being dropped. Japan and Germany, on the other hand, had elements of suicidal commitment to resistance. Both Japan and Germany could have made the terrible switch to an insurgency. Japan was activly making plans for it. This is one of the reasons for the use of the A-bomb. In Germany, Hitler was so disapointed in the conventional failures that he pursued the destruction of the whole German nation. Imagine WWII in which Hitler and Stalin, especially, had a cordial friendship in the vein of Roosevelt and Churchill.
Friendships, cultural similarities, and even kinships, are a more primitive basis for social order, but being more natural, can exist without the effortful cultural creations of the West. Commitment to abstract principles requires habituation. Commitment to kin groups is ab initio.
Kaplan describes how tribal leaders are employed to get things done while the civil authorities take root.
Kaplan describes how in Nimrud, LtC Norris first relies on a thuggish police chief, Salim, but gradually nudges him aside in favor of the more democratic and lawyerly Mayor Isa. One of his other themes, which also appeared in Imperial Grunts, was that order must preceed civil development, or that order must proceed freedom. This is a most Hamiltonian observation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)