A friend once told me that "anti-Zionists" (as opposed to anti-Semites) can be defined as: Those who think that the founding of the state of Israel was a political or legal or moral mistake.
Based on this "reasonable" definition, I am inclined to say that "anti-Zionism is racism." (Remember the infamous "Zionism is racism" UN resolution.)
Explanation: After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of WWI Britain and France pretty much dominated the Middle East and carved out various spheres of influence. From the late inter-war period, under the auspices of the League of Nations, until the end of WWII (circa 1949) the great powers tinkered with the borders, eventually carving out what is now Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Israel. (Egypt was pretty much intact already). So all of these countries are basically "colonial" creations. In fact the colonial powers even played one family against the rest, placing the Hashemites in Jordan, Iraq and Syria. All of these were basically the outcome of statist imperialism.
Now these anti-Zionists object to the creation of the state of Israel, but not the Kingdom of Jordan, or Iraq, Syria or Lebanon (whose borders changed quite often and dramatically in this period). Question: If Israel had been created as a Moslem state like the rest of them, would the anti-Zionists be objecting now? If the answer is no, then it is the Jewish nature of Israel that is the problem and not really the circumstances of its creation.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Friday, December 16, 2011
Blundering past the tombstones of apartheid
Ironic and sad that the very same brave critics of apartheid during that era now find themselves in the same position in this one.
For me the most amazing thing is how absolutely predictable all this is. Indeed I was one who predicted it, and hoped fervently to be wrong. Mandela saved the country from terrible bloodshed and dislocation. But his influence has finally faded away to nothing.
Black statism is no better than White statism and both are terrible for South Africa.
From: Lawrence Rosenbloom
Subject: Blundering past the tombstones of apartheid.
November 30, 2011 10:19 pm.
Blundering past the tombstones of apartheid.
By André Brink
South Africa is no longer the place of new hope introduced by Nelson Mandela. Over the past week, after a number of chilling premonitions, the country abruptly turned away from his footprints, preferring instead to blunder past the tombstones and debris of the apartheid era.
The adoption of the Protection of Information Bill by the African National Congress in a parliament shaken with shock and revulsion, cancelled in a single crude stroke the Freedom Charter which – even while wilfully denied for half a century – had guided the country through the murky years of D.F. Malan, Hendrik Verwoerd and the other apartheid leaders towards the new dawn brought by Mr Mandela in 1990.
It dented the proud new constitution built on a foundation of human rights admired all over the world, besmirched the legacy of Mr Mandela and Desmond Tutu, and insulted the legacy of millions who had dedicated their lives to the construction of a future built on the hope of a new beginning. It glorified the myopia, greed and selfishness of a handful of third-rate politicians focused only on their own gain and advancement.
Masquerading as legislation aimed at protecting crucial military and state intelligence, this bill is conceived in such a way as to protect the corruption that has now infested South African public life for years; and the absence of a public interest clause leaves it open to flagrant criminal abuse and self-serving manoeuvring. The vagueness and evasions that persist in the bill after extensive discussion in parliament and by the public suggest that these are not accidental problems or the results of carelessness. Rather they are part of a very deliberate strategy to develop the bill as a measure for covering up corruption and protecting political criminals – which, in due course, may make it a useful tool even in censoring public discussion and the arts, including – particularly – literature.
We should, of course, have been warned. The signs were there for anyone to see when the ANC turned the election of a new president into a mere insulting spectacle or changed their Youth League into a blunt instrument of mass entertainment, only to see how the League in its turn began to dictate ANC policy and manipulate its leadership, or when the Dalai Lama was first denied a visa and a senior minister in parliament petulantly asked: “Who is the Dalai Lama?”
It has never been a requirement for political leadership to be measured by moral integrity. And yet those leaders who have managed to leave an indelible imprint on their time have always brought more than political acumen to the exercise of their functions. Not all US presidents have been Washingtons or Lincolns. But even with their blemishes, an FDR or an Ike could leave a more lasting mark on their time than a Johnson or a Ford.
Perhaps the ANC has been too lucky, or too spoilt, for its own good. How could one expect any leader to step into the shoes of a Mandela. Still, perhaps his radiance could outlast even an ordinary successor, and Thabo Mbeki was not to be scorned (even if, admittedly, his father would have added more gravitas to the role). But Jacob Zuma? Had he not brought with him the shadow of unfinished business in the shape of allegations over a corruption scandal all might not have been as distressing as it now is.
I know that in the years before our political changeover, whenever I met the ANC leadership in exile I could always return with a profound faith in the quality of that leadership. There was always, of course, Mr Mandela. But there were others, and behind them, the shining shades of Albert Luthuli and Oliver Tambo, political leaders imbued with moral force and philosophical depth. But today? Who are the leaders in the ANC who, truly, think?
There were possibilities at an early stage but money or prudence saw them fade from view. With Mr Zuma, it seems, the streetfighters have taken over. Next year the party will be celebrating its centenary. How the mighty have fallen. How the Bright Morning Stars have tumbled into the sulphurous pit! We are back where we started when we believed we had finally freed ourselves from the blindfolds of censorship, and suspicion, and witch hunts, and restrictions on writing and speech and brave unfettered thought.
It could have been a tragedy, but regrettably our play lacks the stature that is indispensable for tragedy. There have indeed been men and women who bestrode the narrow stage like colossi. But it seems that South Africa no longer has space for real actors, only for clumsy and unfunny marionettes.
The writer has with Nadine Gordimer led a protest of South African authors against the new security legislation.
For me the most amazing thing is how absolutely predictable all this is. Indeed I was one who predicted it, and hoped fervently to be wrong. Mandela saved the country from terrible bloodshed and dislocation. But his influence has finally faded away to nothing.
Black statism is no better than White statism and both are terrible for South Africa.
From: Lawrence Rosenbloom
Subject: Blundering past the tombstones of apartheid.
November 30, 2011 10:19 pm.
Blundering past the tombstones of apartheid.
By André Brink
South Africa is no longer the place of new hope introduced by Nelson Mandela. Over the past week, after a number of chilling premonitions, the country abruptly turned away from his footprints, preferring instead to blunder past the tombstones and debris of the apartheid era.
The adoption of the Protection of Information Bill by the African National Congress in a parliament shaken with shock and revulsion, cancelled in a single crude stroke the Freedom Charter which – even while wilfully denied for half a century – had guided the country through the murky years of D.F. Malan, Hendrik Verwoerd and the other apartheid leaders towards the new dawn brought by Mr Mandela in 1990.
It dented the proud new constitution built on a foundation of human rights admired all over the world, besmirched the legacy of Mr Mandela and Desmond Tutu, and insulted the legacy of millions who had dedicated their lives to the construction of a future built on the hope of a new beginning. It glorified the myopia, greed and selfishness of a handful of third-rate politicians focused only on their own gain and advancement.
Masquerading as legislation aimed at protecting crucial military and state intelligence, this bill is conceived in such a way as to protect the corruption that has now infested South African public life for years; and the absence of a public interest clause leaves it open to flagrant criminal abuse and self-serving manoeuvring. The vagueness and evasions that persist in the bill after extensive discussion in parliament and by the public suggest that these are not accidental problems or the results of carelessness. Rather they are part of a very deliberate strategy to develop the bill as a measure for covering up corruption and protecting political criminals – which, in due course, may make it a useful tool even in censoring public discussion and the arts, including – particularly – literature.
We should, of course, have been warned. The signs were there for anyone to see when the ANC turned the election of a new president into a mere insulting spectacle or changed their Youth League into a blunt instrument of mass entertainment, only to see how the League in its turn began to dictate ANC policy and manipulate its leadership, or when the Dalai Lama was first denied a visa and a senior minister in parliament petulantly asked: “Who is the Dalai Lama?”
It has never been a requirement for political leadership to be measured by moral integrity. And yet those leaders who have managed to leave an indelible imprint on their time have always brought more than political acumen to the exercise of their functions. Not all US presidents have been Washingtons or Lincolns. But even with their blemishes, an FDR or an Ike could leave a more lasting mark on their time than a Johnson or a Ford.
Perhaps the ANC has been too lucky, or too spoilt, for its own good. How could one expect any leader to step into the shoes of a Mandela. Still, perhaps his radiance could outlast even an ordinary successor, and Thabo Mbeki was not to be scorned (even if, admittedly, his father would have added more gravitas to the role). But Jacob Zuma? Had he not brought with him the shadow of unfinished business in the shape of allegations over a corruption scandal all might not have been as distressing as it now is.
I know that in the years before our political changeover, whenever I met the ANC leadership in exile I could always return with a profound faith in the quality of that leadership. There was always, of course, Mr Mandela. But there were others, and behind them, the shining shades of Albert Luthuli and Oliver Tambo, political leaders imbued with moral force and philosophical depth. But today? Who are the leaders in the ANC who, truly, think?
There were possibilities at an early stage but money or prudence saw them fade from view. With Mr Zuma, it seems, the streetfighters have taken over. Next year the party will be celebrating its centenary. How the mighty have fallen. How the Bright Morning Stars have tumbled into the sulphurous pit! We are back where we started when we believed we had finally freed ourselves from the blindfolds of censorship, and suspicion, and witch hunts, and restrictions on writing and speech and brave unfettered thought.
It could have been a tragedy, but regrettably our play lacks the stature that is indispensable for tragedy. There have indeed been men and women who bestrode the narrow stage like colossi. But it seems that South Africa no longer has space for real actors, only for clumsy and unfunny marionettes.
The writer has with Nadine Gordimer led a protest of South African authors against the new security legislation.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
An interaction fable
Tom, Dick and Harry are in an
interactive space. Tom and Dick live there, close by each other. Harry does
not. Harry is a “friend” of both, a patron interested in the helping to
organize peaceful coexistence between Tom and Dick. Harry is powerful and rich.
Tom is industrious, but fearful,
having had bad experiences in his childhood. Deep down he wants to live in
peace with Dick – indeed is keen to the possibilities for mutual gain by trade
and investment. But he is also paranoid and suspicious, needing credible
reassurances, because, although he is a well-trained and well-armed fighter, he
is much smaller than Dick. Tom's ancestors have lived in this space on and off
for three thousand years. In the last hundred years they founded many small,
successful economic ventures on land purchased from the local landlords, Dick’s
ancestors.
Dick is much less sophisticated
than Tom and economically much poorer. He too is suspicious and paranoid. Deep
down he probably would accept a peaceful existence with Tom, but his emotions
are very much influenced by the conviction that Tom has no right being in this
space as an equal with him. Dick is susceptible to the conviction that this
space, having once been under the religious authority of his ancestors, can
never legitimately be ruled by any other authority. So he is much less focused on co-operation and
much more focused on domination.
Harry does not really understand
these differences – does not want to consider them intractable. So he is very
insistent that Tom and Dick sit down and talk with a view to coming up with a
peaceful agreement on how to share this space. Because Harry is powerful, Dick
pretends to go along, indeed uses the opportunity to get financial support from
Harry, but never misses an opportunity to discredit Tom so as to avoid the need
to make any real progress toward such an agreement. This makes Tom all the more
suspicious and reluctant. Tom is not so good at pretending and so is seen as
the obstacle to progress.
Harry keeps on pushing this
ridiculous agenda.
To simplify, Tom wants peace,
real peace. Dick want domination, no matter how long it takes and how many
lives it costs. What does Harry really want?
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Obama and Israel again: domestic principles and foreign orientations.
"Whatever the AJC and ADL say, Mr. Obama can expect to
pay a substantial political price in 2012 for his antagonism toward Israel and
feckless courting of its enemies."
I certainly hope so. But where will the Jews be on this?
The editorial below, by Douglas Feith, is correct as far as
it goes. It fails, however, to point out that one cannot completely separate a
president's attitude towards Israel (or any other foreign society) from his
general principles. Obama's position on Israel is consistent with his
comprehensive leftist agenda - big government, pro-union, cradle to grave
entitlements at home; and pro broadly anti-American groups abroad
(anti-American closely translates as anti-market, anti-business). At this point
in its history Israel is a symbol of the achievements of individual diligence
and ambition in a market environment. In this it is the antithesis of every
other society in the middle east - save for the small Gulf states. Instead of
admiration it evokes resentment and envy, not only in the middle east, but
throughout Europe and elsewhere. Obama shares in this, sympathizes with it. His
record reflects that.
The American Jewish (predominantly "liberal")
establishment is sadly out of date on this. They do not know how to respond to
the fact that politically Israel's support has shifted from the left to the
right of American politics. They have been abandoned by their leftist allies.
Some American Jews have chosen to go along and have turned on Israel. I
distinguish between criticisms of the Israeli government - which clearly should
not be labeled as anti-Israel as such - and criticisms of a more fundamental
nature that mask an hostility to the very existence of Israel as a nation
state. - In some cases they brazenly express that hostility.
The message of the ADL and the AJC, addressed here by Feith,
is that Jews should not abandon their liberal orientation and reflexive,
slavish support of the Democratic party. Rather they should use their
considerable power to turn Obama-like hostility into support for, or at least
acceptance of, a firm American-Israeli alliance. A glaring example is the
carefully crafted pronouncement in support of Israel by Obama at the UN -
something produced as a clear response to the recent loss of a key
Democratic/Jewish congressional district in New York. Mr. Obama felt the tug of
the purse-strings and the swing-votes and he responded.
As Feith points out, the Israel issue was fair political game
until the recent shift from left to right. Now, all of a sudden, it's
inappropriate?
No! I could not disagree more. Jews should reject Obama's
entire agenda, of which the Israel-issue is only a representative part. And
they should do so with conviction and pride.
·
NOVEMBER
2, 2011
Israel
Should Be a U.S. Campaign Issue
Major Jewish groups are
trying to shield Obama from legitimate criticism.
By DOUGLAS J.
FEITH
Pro-Israel organizations have long been active in American
politics, promoting friendly relations between the U.S. and Israel. Jewish
groups, in particular, have helped ensure that candidates' attitudes toward
Israel would be an important element in congressional and presidential
elections. Yet now, two venerable Jewish organizations, the American Jewish
Committee (AJC) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), are saying that it is
improper to do this in the case of President Obama. They have taken the initiative
to shield Mr. Obama from the political consequences of his cold treatment of
Israel.
The AJC and ADL are jointly promoting a "national pledge for
unity on Israel." Its essence is that "America's friendship with
Israel . . . has always transcended politics" and that "U.S.-Israel
friendship should never be used as a political wedge issue."
Explaining this effort, ADL chief Abraham Foxman lamented that
presidential candidates have recently "challenged their opponents'
pro-Israel bona fides" and "questioned the current administration's
foreign policy approach vis-à-vis Israel."
True, every political movement wants unity in support of the
common cause. But since when have American supporters of Israel believed that a
candidate's attitudes toward Israel should be kept out of electoral politics?
Since never.
In 1984, pro-Israel groups exerted themselves to block the
re-election of Illinois Republican Sen. Charles Percy, the prominent chairman
of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who was an outspoken critic of Israel
and champion of U.S. engagement with the Palestine Liberation Organization.
Percy lost and, in an election night interview, attributed his defeat to the
Israel lobby. Other politicians who met a similar fate include Reps. Paul
Findley (R., Ill.) and Cynthia McKinney (D., Ga.).
When running against President George H.W. Bush in 1992, Bill
Clinton took full advantage of Mr. Bush's testy relationship with Israel. As
the New York Times reported in March 1992: "Some leaders of American
Jewish groups predicted today that President Bush would pay in the November
election for his demand that Israel freeze settlements."
One such leader spoke of the "anger and dismay in Jewish
communities over Bush Administration policy that is increasingly perceived as
one-sided and unfair against Israel," adding "I imagine it will be
translated into an unwillingness to vote for this Administration or contribute
funds." By the way, the speaker was Jess Hordes, Washington director of
the ADL.
President Obama came into office determined to distance the U.S.
from Israel and to portray Israel as the impediment to Middle East peace. He
insisted on an unprecedented Israeli settlement freeze, exceeding the demands
at that time of the Palestinian Authority itself. And he went along with the
PA's refusal to renew direct negotiations with Israel, agreeing that the
Palestinians could use U.S. officials to conduct indirect talks. Meanwhile he
offered "engagement" to Israel's Iranian and Syrian enemies, a vain
policy that failed as the courted regimes rebuffed the offer and brutalized
their own pro-freedom demonstrators.
Mr. Obama also orchestrated a public imbroglio with Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, walking out of a White House meeting with him in
2010 and refusing to be photographed with him. Quarrels between the men this
year have been openly bitter.
This vexed Mr. Netanyahu and the Israeli public in general, which
overwhelmingly views Mr. Obama as anti-Israel, and it antagonized not only the
president's domestic political opponents but also many Democrats in Congress.
When Mr. Netanyahu addressed Congress in May, most Democrats, including the
leadership, joined in the numerous standing ovations that were obviously
intended to contrast the affection for Israel on Capitol Hill with the bad
feeling emanating from the White House.
So anyone truly intent on preserving unity among Israel's friends
could do so by building on the substantial bipartisan opposition to Mr. Obama's
policies on Israel. Instead, the AJC and the ADL are working to protect Mr.
Obama.
These organizations exist in large part to defend the Jewish state
from unfair criticism, pressure and attacks. But they are defending President
Obama from well-grounded charges that he has subjected Israel precisely to
that.
If the AJC and ADL want to defend Mr. Obama straightforwardly,
they could do so. They might argue that his record on Israel is not
unremittingly hostile. They could try to balance some of the healthy features
of the U.S.-Israeli relationship—for example, the continuation of defense
cooperation—against the bad parts. But it's not a strong argument, which
explains why they are claiming to uphold a venerable (though previously unheard
of) principle of unity that precludes criticism of a president's position on Israel.
Whatever the AJC and ADL say, Mr. Obama can expect to pay a
substantial political price in 2012 for his antagonism toward Israel and
feckless courting of its enemies.
Mr. Feith, a
senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, served as under secretary of defense
from 2001 to 2005.
Copyright 2011 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
Monday, October 10, 2011
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Israel-Palestine: Some observations.
Salam Fayyad (Arabic: سلام فياض, Salām Fayāḍ; born 1952) is a Palestinian politician and one of two disputed Prime Ministers of the Palestinian National Authority, the matter being under political and legal dispute. His first appointment, on 15 June 2007, which was justified by President Mahmoud Ab…
Saturday, September 17, 2011
A Palestinian state? What kind of state?
I support the creation of a Palestinian state in a comprehensive two-state solution. More than 70% of Israelis do so as well. Not that I put much faith or value in the bureaucratic machinery of the political entity we call the nation-state for the achievement of human rights and prosperity; but given the realities of the world today, a two-state solution may be a substantial improvement.
So, what would a comprehensive two-state solution look like? There are some key ingredients that the new state of Palestine should have if it is to have a chance of peaceful coexistence with Israel. The most essential is that it should be a liberal democracy; by which I mean a state (a society) in which the rule of law prevails and not the rule of thugs and corrupt bureaucrats. This is a huge leap from where Palestinian society is now, but one senses it is one that would be welcomed by many, especially the incipient Palestinian business community. Perhaps if we turned negotiations over to the businesspeople on both sides we would have a practical solution in short-order.
Such a state would necessarily entail the acceptance of the existence of the Jewish state of Israel as legitimate. In an ideal world there would not be Muslim states, Jewish states or Christian states. In fact, in an ideal world there would probably not be states. We would all be free "citizens" of a peaceful world, free to practice whatever religion or lack thereof we chose as long as we allowed the same to all others. In a substantially less ideal world, but one better than we have, states would all be officially secular and religion would be a private matter. But this is not the reality of the Middle East today (nor has it ever been). In fact the "Jewish" state of Israel is probably the closest to a secular liberal democracy existing in the region. The "Jewish" aspect is an ill-defined cultural and ethnic aspect of Israeli society that comes from the history of its peoples and is essential in defining their individual identities, their values, their literature, their language, the tacit presuppositions by which they live their lives. The same dynamic is at work in the "Muslim" countries. The tension that this presents for Israel as a liberal society is real, and it is a tension that is continually been confronted and resolved in different ways. But the Jewish character of the society is not-negotiable. To demand that Israel give up its "religious" identity in favor of a secular state encompassing all peoples of the region (Muslim and Christian) is a disingenuous demand for cultural and most probably physical suicide.
So, if we are taking about a two-state solution, in the current context, we are talking about a Jewish state alongside a Palestinian one (in which predictably Muslim culture and values and laws will be prominent) - two states coexisting with mutual acceptance and respect.
Is this what the current initiative to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state in some forum of the United Nations portends? Not even its most ardent and charitable supporters would claim this. I confess I don't know exactly what the motivation for this high-profile initiative is, but I know it is certainly not about establishing the kind of co-existence described above. It certainly contains no change in the official and de facto position on Israel as an illegitimate occupier of Arab land. (I am not talking about the so-called occupied territories, I am talking about the whole of Israel.) It is clearly not about peace, co-existence and co-operation. It is not really about power to the Palestinian people either. Their miserable lot will not change. It seems to be about leverage of some kind. It is most probably about political leverage for the cynical and corrupt Palestinian leadership. They, in uneasy partnership with the principle jihadi groups, like Hamas, would most probably use such state recognition to try to further isolate Israel and in the process obtain international aid and support for their corrupt (or extremist) organizations. In other words it is really a strategic step in the 63 year old war to undo what happened in 1948.
I have blogged before about the sorry state of the Palestinians and how they have been used as pawns by their leaders and other leaders in the region - condemned to inter-generational refugee-status in a poverty-stricken, terror-sponsoring, welfare-state in which any economic initiative is stifled and any constructive cooperation with Israelis discouraged (for example here). Changing the official status of this territory to a "state" will not improve their situation. It could conceivably make it worse if it leads to an escalation of hostilities.
So, should the U.S. veto the initiative in the UN? As bad as this will look, I would still probably say yes, it should. But my purpose is not so much to urge this, as to confront the ill-considered rush of support for the initiative (including by many American Jews). This is yet another example of how Israel is struggling in the public relations war. After all, why should we deny the Palestinians a state when Israel has one? What well-meaning thoughtful person could be against that?
But, of course, as I am trying to show, things are not what they seem. Not all "states" are alike. What if we added the qualifier "terrorist" to the state that the Palestinians are seeking? We would no doubt be accused of shameless provocation. OK, but can we use the qualifier "peaceful" instead? How about "all-inclusive"? Are there no conditions to be demanded for support? Whether or not the U.S. vetoes the proposal is ultimately less important than establishing an accurate realization of what is really going on here.
So, what would a comprehensive two-state solution look like? There are some key ingredients that the new state of Palestine should have if it is to have a chance of peaceful coexistence with Israel. The most essential is that it should be a liberal democracy; by which I mean a state (a society) in which the rule of law prevails and not the rule of thugs and corrupt bureaucrats. This is a huge leap from where Palestinian society is now, but one senses it is one that would be welcomed by many, especially the incipient Palestinian business community. Perhaps if we turned negotiations over to the businesspeople on both sides we would have a practical solution in short-order.
Such a state would necessarily entail the acceptance of the existence of the Jewish state of Israel as legitimate. In an ideal world there would not be Muslim states, Jewish states or Christian states. In fact, in an ideal world there would probably not be states. We would all be free "citizens" of a peaceful world, free to practice whatever religion or lack thereof we chose as long as we allowed the same to all others. In a substantially less ideal world, but one better than we have, states would all be officially secular and religion would be a private matter. But this is not the reality of the Middle East today (nor has it ever been). In fact the "Jewish" state of Israel is probably the closest to a secular liberal democracy existing in the region. The "Jewish" aspect is an ill-defined cultural and ethnic aspect of Israeli society that comes from the history of its peoples and is essential in defining their individual identities, their values, their literature, their language, the tacit presuppositions by which they live their lives. The same dynamic is at work in the "Muslim" countries. The tension that this presents for Israel as a liberal society is real, and it is a tension that is continually been confronted and resolved in different ways. But the Jewish character of the society is not-negotiable. To demand that Israel give up its "religious" identity in favor of a secular state encompassing all peoples of the region (Muslim and Christian) is a disingenuous demand for cultural and most probably physical suicide.
So, if we are taking about a two-state solution, in the current context, we are talking about a Jewish state alongside a Palestinian one (in which predictably Muslim culture and values and laws will be prominent) - two states coexisting with mutual acceptance and respect.
Is this what the current initiative to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state in some forum of the United Nations portends? Not even its most ardent and charitable supporters would claim this. I confess I don't know exactly what the motivation for this high-profile initiative is, but I know it is certainly not about establishing the kind of co-existence described above. It certainly contains no change in the official and de facto position on Israel as an illegitimate occupier of Arab land. (I am not talking about the so-called occupied territories, I am talking about the whole of Israel.) It is clearly not about peace, co-existence and co-operation. It is not really about power to the Palestinian people either. Their miserable lot will not change. It seems to be about leverage of some kind. It is most probably about political leverage for the cynical and corrupt Palestinian leadership. They, in uneasy partnership with the principle jihadi groups, like Hamas, would most probably use such state recognition to try to further isolate Israel and in the process obtain international aid and support for their corrupt (or extremist) organizations. In other words it is really a strategic step in the 63 year old war to undo what happened in 1948.
I have blogged before about the sorry state of the Palestinians and how they have been used as pawns by their leaders and other leaders in the region - condemned to inter-generational refugee-status in a poverty-stricken, terror-sponsoring, welfare-state in which any economic initiative is stifled and any constructive cooperation with Israelis discouraged (for example here). Changing the official status of this territory to a "state" will not improve their situation. It could conceivably make it worse if it leads to an escalation of hostilities.
So, should the U.S. veto the initiative in the UN? As bad as this will look, I would still probably say yes, it should. But my purpose is not so much to urge this, as to confront the ill-considered rush of support for the initiative (including by many American Jews). This is yet another example of how Israel is struggling in the public relations war. After all, why should we deny the Palestinians a state when Israel has one? What well-meaning thoughtful person could be against that?
But, of course, as I am trying to show, things are not what they seem. Not all "states" are alike. What if we added the qualifier "terrorist" to the state that the Palestinians are seeking? We would no doubt be accused of shameless provocation. OK, but can we use the qualifier "peaceful" instead? How about "all-inclusive"? Are there no conditions to be demanded for support? Whether or not the U.S. vetoes the proposal is ultimately less important than establishing an accurate realization of what is really going on here.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Peter Lewin Interview
| Peter Klein |
Adrián Ravier has put together a nice collection of Spanish-language interviews with economists of the Austrian school (volume 1, volume 2). The leading modern figures are all included: Mises, Hayek, Machlup, Lachmann, Rothbard, Kirzner, fellow travelers such as Buchanan and Shackle, and contemporary Austrians such as Garrison, Block, Hoppe, Higgs, Ebeling, Salerno, Boettke, and more.
Guest blogger Peter Lewin’s interview is coming out in a third volume, to be published later this year, and Adrián has given me permission to post the English version here. You’ll find Peter’s intellectual odyssey very interesting!
Saturday, July 30, 2011
The Third Way
Many, if not most, people reading
this will already know everything I am going to say. I am writing it, however,
for those, however many, who have never heard it. They constitute the majority among the population at large and,
more significantly, the majority among the population who think at all about
political affairs. I am frustrated by how often I encounter these immovable presuppositions,
so I am offering this in a modest effort to change some, maybe just a few,
minds.
What has become the conventional
wisdom, the common mode of thinking, imagines a political spectrum with
the liberals on the one end (the left) and the conservatives on the other (the
right). Anyone on either end is usually labeled an extremist, which means you
don’t have to listen to them. This is true for both extremes, but it is
especially true for the right, hence such terms as “hard right.” As a general
rule the left end of the spectrum is more urbane, sophisticated, eloquent and
educated. The right wing is often shrill, crass, repetitive, uninformed and
transparently stupid. Like all generalizations these are not true
characterizations of everyone who fits the label. Just impressions. The people
somewhere in the middle to the slight right or left of the center are regarded
(regard themselves) as the reasonable and normal majority. They vilify and
demonize the extreme right and patronizingly dismiss the extreme left (who are
to be admired for their idealism but discounted for their lack of realism).
Perhaps you recognize this story.
This traditional dimension from
liberal to conservative that I just described is deficient. It neglects to break down the
liberal or conservative mindsets along two relevant sub-dimensions, social
affairs and fiscal affairs. The following pictures will help illustrate.
Figure 1 below illustrates the traditional political spectrum.
Figure 1 below illustrates the traditional political spectrum.
Figure 1 - The Traditional Spectrum – Social and Fiscal
|
|
Left-wing liberal
|
Right wing conservative
|
Some clear issues divide the
traditional left and right on the question of limiting or using the power of
the government, the state. For example, the left believes in free speech, is pro-choice,
supports recognizing gay marriage and liberalizing immigration and perhaps
decriminalizing drugs. The right vigorously opposes these advocating state
power to restrict these choices. But there are other issues that divide them on the
basis of whose state-sponsored agenda should be implemented. On the left we
have anyone who wants to use the state to achieve a “liberal” social agenda
(income redistribution, entitlement programs, socialized health-care, consumer
regulation). On the right we have anyone who opposes these programs in the
name of fiscal prudence, and maybe some other reasons, but who believes in using the state to achieve other
agenda items like a strong defense, wholesome family values, a prominent role
for religion and so on. Where do we put someone who opposes both of these
agendas on the basis that they involve unwarranted, dangerous and inefficient uses of the
state? There is no place for them in this spectrum.
Figure 1 is a one dimensional
spectrum. it combines fiscal and social issues. So it mixes the issues. In Figure 2 we introduce a distinction
between fiscal and social issues
Figure 2 - The Third Way – breaking
it down
|
|||
Fiscal
|
|||
Social
|
Liberal
|
Conservative
|
|
Conservative
|
( Spindrift for socially conservative issues?)
|
Right wing conservative
|
|
Liberal
|
Left-wing liberal
|
Libertarian – Classical Liberal
|
|
The traditional spectrum portrayed
in Figure 1 now lies across the diagonal of Figure 2 from bottom left (left-wing liberal) to top right (right-wing conservative). The most
significant additional information is provided by the third alternative to
these two, namely the Libertarian or Classical Liberal in the
bottom right cell. This characterizes my own perspective. It puzzles people.
When I talk to traditional left-wing liberals they want to put me in the top
right and are, therefore, puzzled by my support for gay marriage,
decriminalization of drugs and liberalization of immigration. When I talk to right-wing
conservatives they want to put me in the bottom left and are therefore puzzled
by my support for limiting government spending, deregulation of business, a
limited military and freedom of religion. They are confused because they are thinking in terms of a constraining
spectrum.
But once understood, the expanded framework is very
simple. It is based on the key question of the appropriate role of power, hence
of the state. In fact "liberal" as commonly used is a distortion of its original meaning. Originally “liberal” meant someone who believed in
individual liberty and supported policies to guarantee it especially limiting
government power. It retains much of that meaning in European political
discourse. I am not sure what “conservative” means in this context, but the
other end of the spectrum is anyone who supports using the state for their
social agenda whatever it is, so we can them the a “statist.” So if we were to
re-collapse Figure 2 into a one dimensional spectrum we would get the picture depicted
in Figure 3
Figure 3 – A better conceptualization
|
|
Classical Liberal
|
Statist
|
This is how I think of it. The statists are dangerous because they either support the use of state power for their agendas and don’t care about freedom (like fascists, Nazis, Soviets, etc.) or else they are naïve in thinking they can use the state for noble ends and still preserve individual freedom (like democratic socialists, some anti-poverty activists, most environmentalists, etc.). They tend to underestimate the power for good of the free market and overestimate the power for good of the state. Much of what I and like-minded friends and colleagues are trying to do is to shift the debate to this spectrum.
Monday, July 11, 2011
School Vouchers - Ivry Man (IM) asks Dr. Know (DK) for Guidance
Ivry
man finds himself in the park and, as expected, sees Dr. Know seated on his
usual bench looking agitated.
IM.
|
Dr. Know, how are you? I was hoping to see
you here. It has been too long since we spoke.
|
DK.
|
[Warm smile]
Indeed it has my dear friend. The responsibility for this lies with the guy
who writes this dialogue. Apparently he has been very busy with other things and
could not find the time to bother with the likes of us. Who am I to argue
with that?
|
IM.
|
As you said the last time we met. But
you seemed to be a bit preoccupied a moment ago. Is something worrying you?
|
DK.
|
How perceptive you are. Yes, in truth, I am
very frustrated. For years I have been arguing the case for school vouchers –
of course I am not alone in this – yet such little progress has been made.
Support is growing, especially among low income families in the worst school
districts in the United States, but the educational establishment is very
powerfully against them; even now when the current president has a real
opportunity to get behind them, he refuses to do so.
|
IM.
|
I see you are upset. I am not sure I
understand this issue very well. My intuition tells me that vouchers are a
threat to the whole idea of public education and all it stands for. But
perhaps you can help me understand better.
|
DK.
|
Indeed. I will be happy to. After all, that
must be the reason that this dialogue is being written, right?
|
IM.
|
I am not sure I understand.
|
DK.
|
Never mind. Actually your intuition is
shared by many people. One might say it is the conventional wisdom. Although
the public school system is only about 150 years old, the notion of public
schooling runs very deep in the American psyche. Many believe it is a key,
indispensible element of American democracy.
|
IM.
|
Yes. How are they wrong?
|
DK.
|
They are tragically wrong. While public
schooling may have been a good experience for many children, for the majority
of children today it is at best very mediocre and mostly a disaster. The
public school experiment is a failure. In terms of its own goals and
principles it has failed. It is time we disabused ourselves of mindless
prejudices in its favor and started to look hard at the facts and at the
logic.
|
IM.
|
I am sure you can elaborate for me.
|
DK.
|
I’ll try. The goals of public schooling as
an ideal are probably noble, admirable. To provide every American child with
certain minimal educational opportunities – who can argue with that? It is
seen as a way to implement basic democratic principles, allowing children of
poor families, as well as of middle class and rich families, access to that
great solvent of American society, education – and thereby to break down
persistent and dysfunctional racial, ethnic and economic barriers.
|
IM.
|
Yes, indeed!
|
DK.
|
Actually the original impetus for the public
school system was not so noble. It was basically a question of Protestant paranoia
over Catholic private education and an attempt to negate the subversive
progress of the latter. But this not so relevant now.
|
The voucher system I have in mind is one that would provide parents a choice of where to send their children to school by providing them with the equivalent in vouchers (or tax credits, or some such refund scheme) of the cost to the taxpayer of educating their children in the public schools. So it is not an argument for getting the state out of the business of subsidizing education. It is an argument for getting the state out of the business of producing education. Or, since I could imagine a dual system (such as we have in higher education), it would remove the monopoly of the state in producing education. A voucher system would closely resemble the GI bill.
|
|
IM.
|
Yes I follow that.
|
DK.
|
Note, vouchers or tuition credits or
something similar is provided rather than cash because of the standard
liberal objection that parents can’t be trusted to use the money for
education rather than booze or drugs. Liberal love humanity, it’s just people
they have contempt for.
|
IM.
|
Nice Dr. Know. Now that you have that off
your chest, what are the objections to vouchers?
|
DK.
|
It seems to me there are two main arguments
against vouchers, the "church-state separation argument" and the
"social responsibility argument".
|
IM.
|
I am more interested in the second.
|
DK.
|
Mostly the reluctance to even consider vouchers
seems to come from the conviction that a voucher system will be harmful to
the cause of "social equality" (as I mentioned a moment ago). There
is the perception that vouchers will destroy the public school system and
that this will exacerbate or perpetuate poverty..
|
This is a very bad argument. It is now
pretty much undeniable that, as I asserted earlier, the public school systems
are, in general, failing in their overall mission to provide all elements of
the population with at least an "adequate" education. The public
school system as an institution is supposed to advance the aims of
"equality of opportunity" for all Americans regardless of gender,
race, national origin or other educationally irrelevant characteristics and
of provide opportunities for those who have different learning styles and
approaches as well. It has been thought that schools that were segregated by
ethnic group could not deliver on these aims and so the aim of desegregation
has evolved along with our national educational policy.
|
|
IM.
|
Yes you pretty much said as much already. So
what is the reality?
|
DK.
|
If you will be patient I will get to that
soon enough.
|
IM.
|
A thousand pardons Dr. Know.
|
DK.
|
Very well. As it stands now, seen in the
light of these aspirations, I believe we should be bitterly disappointed.
There are some very good public schools, even some superlative ones. These
are few in number and they are located primarily in the affluent suburban
areas. They are attended mainly by children from upper income families,
mostly white. But, most of our public schools are substandard, overcrowded
and bureaucratic. Many of those in the inner-cities are downright dangerous -
they are breeding grounds for the drug-traffic, for teenage-pregnancy, for
gang-warfare and much else besides. And they do not educate the children who
attend them, who are mostly poor and from minority families. The worst
nightmares of those who oppose segregated schools are fulfilled by the public
school system as it now operates. At best we have institutionalized
mediocrity. At worst we have exacerbated the cycle of poverty and
deprivation. It is no exaggeration to say that the public school system is perpetuating and exacerbating the very problems it was apparently designed to
solve!
|
IM.
|
So how would vouchers solve this?
|
DK.
|
Well. Vouchers would provide at least the
potential of a way out for some, maybe many, maybe most families. That is
why, I believe, many families and leaders from minority communities are now
actively and vigorously supporting them. As I said earlier, the proposal I am
considering, and which all leaders in the field of education should actively support, is
one which provides to parents the equivalent of the cost of educating their
children in the public schools. At least this way parents would have a choice
and schools would start to be accountable to them.
|
IM.
|
I think I see where this is going.
|
DK.
|
Well, there are two usual objection at this
stage. One, those parents who could afford to "top up" (add to) the
value of the voucher would take their kids to private schools in the more
affluent areas, and this would exacerbate inequality. Two, even the poorer
parents armed with a voucher will pull their kids out of the public schools,
so the public school system would collapse. There would be nowhere for some
kids to go, especially those with special learning needs.
|
IM.
|
And what do you say to that? You have an
answer I am sure.
|
DK.
|
In answer to the first objection: I wonder
how much more segregated the system could become than it is now. I suspect
actually that with a voucher system schools would become less segregated, not
more segregated, as kids from the poorer neighborhoods take their vouchers to
schools of their choice. In any case, it is one more spurious argument in
favor of the sacrifice of individual economic and social advancement in the name
of equality – as Milton Friedman pointed out; those who try to achieve
equality by sacrificing freedom of choice end up sacrificing both.
|
IM.
|
Aha! And what about the second objection,
precipitating the collapse of the public system?
|
DK.
|
If the public school system is that fragile
that, at the earliest opportunity, its clients would abandon it for preferred
alternatives, one might wonder why it is indeed worth saving at all. To the
supporters of public schools as an ideal in itself, I would ask how bad do
the public schools have to get before you will consider that perhaps they are
not worth saving? There are currently a variety of private scholarship
programs that provide 50% of the tuition of private schooling for the child,
the other 50% being provided by the parents. Parents are invited to apply.
The programs are incredibly oversubscribed – by many hundred percent. In
other words, hundreds of thousands of families, many of them very poor, are
prepared to pay 50% of a private school tuition in preference to the “free”
education their kids could get in the public schools. What does that tell you
about the value to them of each of these alternatives? This is not
hypothetical, this is fact!
|
Of course “free” public schooling is not
really free. Right now the state and local governments are spending a fortune per child in the public schools, actually much more than is generally known and
much more than in the private schools!! The sums are actually breathtaking,
and the worst school districts are spending the most! All or most of this
money would be available for vouchers, implying a substantial sum in the
hands of parents when choosing among educational options for their children.
This makes the schools accountable to parents – not to administrators, to
unions or to government committees.
|
|
IM.
|
Yes, but what about those who are left in
the dysfunctional public school system, and what about those kids with
special needs?
|
DK.
|
I thought you might say that. And it brings
me to perhaps the most important point of all – pay careful attention to what
I am now going to say.
|
IM.
|
Yes sir, Dr. Know. You know I will!
|
DK.
|
When schools are accountable to parents, who
have many thousands of dollars of potential revenue for the them, the extent
and type of response that might develop is literally unimaginable. The
variety of schools of many types, sizes, qualities and specialties (including
those for special needs children) is likely to be very large. There is likely
to be a high degree of innovation in educational styles (responding to
parents who have different opinions and desires in relation to aspects of
educational philosophy), and a high degree of dynamism in educational
development. Schools will most likely be smaller, safer and more enjoyable.
There will be fewer administrators per child, more (and better-performing)
teachers per child.
|
Educational experts don’t like this at all.
They have all sorts of objections based on their own visions of how they
think an educational system should be structured, based on their “expert”
knowledge. So they are willing to denounce and condemn the very idea of a
state- or nation-wide voucher system on the basis that, for example, it might
imply the segregation, rather than main-streaming of special-needs kids, or
the teaching of subjects not to their liking, etc. The arrogance of this
amazes me. Because of their ideological commitments, these people are
prepared to sanction the holding of our children hostage in failing American
schools and foreclose fantastic opportunities for them in order to be able to
try to achieve the doubtful benefits of their visions – many of which have
already been tested and found wanting.
|
|
IM.
|
But what if these experts are right about
their arguments for a good educational system for all and the deprivation of
some?
|
DK.
|
Even if there were any merit to the very
dubious argument that unfortunate minorities like special-needs families, or
kids of dysfunctional parents, or who knows-what, would suffer as a result
the introduction of a comprehensive voucher program, it does not follow that
one should sacrifice the considerable benefits of the majority in order to
preserve the status quo for the special minority. Surely not! A better
argument would be to accept vouchers with the proviso that this apparent
shortcoming be attended to if necessary by special provisions.
|
IM.
|
Hmm! So are you telling me that but for the
opposition of these educational elites, the facts and your logic would
prevail?
|
DK.
|
Sadly no. If it were just the opposition of
the educational elites, who are, to be sure, powerful, I believe the
arguments for choice in education would have prevailed long ago. It is,
rather, overwhelmingly the power of the teachers’ unions that stand against
rationality, progress and real reform in education. The teachers’ unions are self-serving, politically very powerful, unmovable bureaucracies.
They are in bed with many parts of the executive and Congress. Introducing
choice in education would remove protection for bad teachers, would spotlight
unnecessary administrative positions and would take away educational
decisions from the bureaucracy and put them in the hands of parents. The
survival of the unions is threatened by vouchers and they are able and
willing to use whatever opportunistic means they can to oppose them. Their
opposition is not a principled one! It is based on their vested interest. In
my book what they are doing to America’s youth is basically criminal. Yet,
thus far they have been able to hide the consequences of their actions from
most of us.
|
Recently, however, the realization has
dawned on parents in the most miserable school districts – in Wisconsin, in
DC, in Florida and some other places. And there is a growing groundswell in
favor of parental choice in education. This is a non-partisan, non-class
issue. Poor minority families are rising up against the teachers’ unions. The
outrage is growing. It is heartening, but also frustrating. These are
low-income minority families appealing for the right to send their kids to
charter schools or voucher-accepting private schools of their choice. The
president has a real opportunity to do something really different – to bring
real and beneficial change now. But, so far, he has not had the courage to
oppose the teachers’ unions and I doubt he, or any other president, ever
will. If a breakthrough comes it will probably be in the courts and maybe
also in the Congress. It is long overdue.
|
|
IM.
|
What about the church-state separation
argument?
|
DK.
|
It’s really hard to know if this is a
genuine argument, a real worry, or simply another strategy. Many who oppose
vouchers assert that they violate the constitutional separation of church and
state "because state money can be used for religious education." I
believe the logic is faulty. Right now the state is involved in the choice
that parents make regarding their children’s religious education. That is
because the state makes the price of a non-religious education much cheaper,
at the margin, than a religious one. An education containing, or based on, a
religious tradition has to be obtained in a private school. This implies that
those parents who choose this option end up paying twice. Once, through their
taxes, for the public school they don’t use, and again, from their after tax
income for the private tuition. Saying that the state is uninvolved adopts
the myth that an education that is devoid of religious content is somehow to
be considered "neutral". It is not neutral. It discriminates
against those who, at equal prices, would have chosen a positive religious
content. It discriminates against those who would rather have their tax money
educate children in a religion of their parents’ choice. Can a case not be
made that the only neutral situation is one that gives the parents a choice,
that is to say, is non-coercive with regard to both imposing or depriving
religious content?
|
In any case, as a practical, legal matter,
the argument seems to be wrong. A number of current supreme court decisions
indicate that, as does the fact that under the GI bill veterans can choose
religiously based universities. The money goes to the parents, not to the
schools. And then the parents decide. There is no violation of church-state
separation. These are private choices.
|
|
IM.
|
Is that it?
|
DK.
|
Pretty much. I would finally add this. Apart
from anything else, as a fundamental moral question, on what basis can one
support the denial of educational choice to parents?
|
IM.
|
So every argument to the contrary you
consider to be soundly refuted. Are there any valid arguments against
vouchers?
|
DK.
|
Yes, indeed, there is one. But it comes not
from those who support the public school system. It comes rather from those
who oppose any kind of government involvement in education, it comes from
those who regard vouchers, or any educational subsidies, as dangerous insofar
as they may extend the power of government over the private education sector.
Schools qualifying for vouchers would be state-certified thus extending state
discretion. This has obvious potential for abuse. One could hardly think of
anything more dangerous than giving power over education to powerful
governments. The power to command huge resources for the education of young minds
is indeed an awesome and dangerous power that one should keep out of the
hands of potentially opportunistic bureaucrats. And vouchers would extend
this power over private schools who chose to accept the vouchers. We can
already see the corrupting influence of this type of thing in our higher
educational systems – in the runaway tuition costs and in the state
discretion over aspects of the curriculum that they fund.
|
I have no argument against this objection. I
accept it. I too am against the involvement of government in education at any
level. I firmly believe that educational quality and achievement at all
levels would be better without it. But my strong advocacy of vouchers is
based on the judgment that a comprehensive voucher system would be infinitely
better than what we now have, infinitely better. And the probability of
achieving a comprehensive voucher system (or even an expanding piecemeal one)
that would bring so much benefit to so many children being introduced soon,
is so much higher than the probability of achieving a more ideal (from my
point of view) system. So my argument is also a strategic one. I judge the
benefits of subsidized parental choice to be worth the risk of its very
really pitfalls and dangers. I would hope that if ever there were a
comprehensive scaling back of the size of the state at all levels, education
would be included, whenever such a remote possibility ever arrives.
|
|
I strongly prefer parental choice to what we
have now because I believe that, in general, parents want the best for their
children and that competition through the educational market will work to
give it to them. But even if, as you hear this, my dear friend, you have
lingering doubts, ask yourself "how could it be worse than it is
now?!!" How could it be worse?! The standard to hold any proposed
alternative to is not perfection, it is relative improvement. I don’t see how
giving parents of children a choice between schools could make them (their
children) worse off.
|
|
IM.
|
As usual Dr. Know, this has been a most
enlightening discussion. But I have a few questions for you on another
subject if you don’t mind.
|
DK.
|
Ah, I wish I could. Unfortunately that will
have to wait for our next meeting. So good to see you. Until next time.
|
Upon which he rises and ambles off in the direction of the
library.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)