A Re-educated German Reminds America of Its History

Philosopher and social critic Jurgen Habermas was born in Germany in 1929. His father was a Nazi sympathizer. Under those conditions, and given Hitler's internal propaganda machine from the early 1930s to the end of the war in 1945, it would have been difficult for a 16-year-old to be immune to the conventional thinking of his surroundings. When the Americans arrived, they fostered a re-education program, particularly among the young. Habermas, in retrospect, was grateful for the ideals that Americans brought to Germany.

In the bizarre post-9/11 world, Bush and many members of Congress tossed out a good many of those ideals. Here's an interview of Jurgen Habermas by Eduardo Mendieta from sometime in 2003 that was published in Logos Journal in August 2004:

What I take to be false is Kagan’s [neoconservative] stylization of US policy over the course of the last century. The conflict between “realism” and “idealism” in foreign and defense policy occurred, not between the continents, but, rather, within American policy itself. Certainly, the bi-polar power structure of the world between 1945 and 1989, compelled a policy of balance of terror. The competition between the two nuclear-armed systems during the Cold War created the background for the towering influence which the “realist” school of international relations in Washington was able wield. But we must not forget the impetus which President Wilson gave to the founding of the League of Nations after the First World War, nor the influence which American jurists and politicians themselves exercised in Paris after the US retreated from the League. Without the US, there would have been no Kellogg-Briand Pact, nor the first international legal proscription of wars of aggression. But what fits least in the militant picture of the role of the US that Kagan paints, is the policy of the victors in 1945, initiated by Franklin D. Roosevelt. What Roosevelt called for in his undelivered Jefferson Day Address of April 11, 1945, was for the world to seek not only an “end to war,” but an “end to the beginning of all wars.”

In that period, the US was at the peak of the new internationalism, and spearheaded the initiative for the creation of the United Nations, in San Francisco. The US was the driving force behind the UN, which (no accident) has its headquarters in New York. The US set in motion the first international human rights convention, campaigned for the global monitoring of, as well as the juridical and military prosecution of, human rights violations, pressed upon the Europeans the idea of a political unification of Europe—initially, against the opposition of the French. This period of unexampled internationalism, loosed, in the ensuing decades, a wave of innovations in the field of human rights, blocked, indeed, during the Cold War, but implemented, in part, after 1989. As of that point in time, it was yet to be decided if the one remaining superpower would turn away from its leading role in the march toward a cosmopolitan legal order, and fall back into the imperial role of a good hegemon above international law.

(snip)

For a European observer and a twice-shy child such as I, the systematic intimidation and indoctrination of the population and the restrictions on the scope of permitted opinion in the months of October and November of 2002, (when I was in Chicago), were unnerving. This was not “my” America. From my 16th year onward, my political thinking, thanks to the sensible re-education policy of the Occupation, has been nourished by the American ideals of the late 18th century.

Under Bush, Americans lost their way for the better part of five years. Visitors like Habermas were startled by what they saw. When the history of our era is written by those who have twenty years from now the facts of what happened from 1989 to 2009 (many of those facts actually available in 2002), Bush, Cheney, Rice, Wolfowitz, Perle and Rumsfeld will be skewered for being so profoundly wrong about the problems the United States has been facing since the end of the Cold War (Actually, our current problems started with the election of Ronald Reagan but that's another chapter in the broader story). Some day a significant number of Americans are going to have to do a little re-education of their own if the qualities that have made our country successful are to be remembered as well as updated. For our first 200 years, Americans had brains but also a good amount of luck. Since 1980 we have made far too many mistakes and most of those mistakes can be attributed to a Hobbesian conservatism that has proven to be a failure. In the next ten years, we'll see whether the Hobbesians still have life or whether Americans are finally ready to move forward.

By Resigning, Sarah Palin Free to Indulge Greed

Saran Palin may have been the know-nothing vice presidential candidate for John McCain but she's not totally dumb. Many newspapers are speculating about the reason for her resignation. Here's the Los Angeles Times:

She spoke in that cryptic fashion throughout her appearance Friday, saying her decision to step down had been some time in the making, although she never clearly spelled out why.

"Many just accept that lame-duck status and they hit that road. They draw a paycheck. They kind of milk it. And I'm not going to put Alaskans through that," Palin said.

I can't say exactly why Palin is stepping down. I know it's entirely possible another scandal is on the way. But my first reaction after reading her comment about milking the lame-duck status is BINGO! Why? Because, like many contemporary Republican politicians, Palin has a way of squirming out from under by attributing to others her own motivations. There is money out there waiting to fill her pockets: if she can just get out from being obliged by various ethics laws that apply to remaining governor.

If I were a betting man, I would say she's resigning in order to cash in. If it leads to the presidency, that will in her mind be a bonus. But at the very least she will become a wealthy lady by hitting the speaking circuit, etc., etc., etc. It certainly has worked for other politicians, mostly Republicans but certainly some Democrats. If anything motivates Palin, it's all those goodies she'd like to get her hands on. More than likely, Todd Palin is on aboard. Ironically, I doubt that Alaska will miss her.

Edwards Says We Need to Restore Our Credibility

In years past, there was much that Ronald Reagan and the senior Bush did that I did not agree with, but both presidents had considerably more credibility than the current occupant of the White House. Around the world, our credibility, and therefore our ability to get things done, has been badly damaged by Bush and Cheney. John Edwards understands this and has talked about the issue several times now. Here's an AP story on a recent visit to San Antonio by Edwards:

Democrat John Edwards said Wednesday he's not worried about all the attention Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama are getting more than a year and half out from the 2008 presidential elections.

In San Antonio for a private fundraiser, Edwards told reporters after a campaign rally that "I feel a long way from left out. I think it'll be clear that I'll get all the attention I need."

(snip)

The former senator also said America must regain its credibility and "deal with what is the bleeding sore of Iraq."

(snip)

Also Wednesday, U.S. Rep. Charlie Gonzalez, D-San Antonio, issued a letter endorsing Edwards for the Democratic nomination.

I'm convinced that the early poll numbers for the 2008 race don't mean much. Only a few months ago, McCain seeemed to be the clear front-runner among Republicans and now his numbers have fallen off. One of the clues that the race for 2008 is still in its early stages is that Rudy Giuliani is taken seriously as presidential material.

I'll write more about Giuliani later on but, getting back to Edwards, he's actually well-positioned to make his move when we start getting closer to the primaries and people start getting serious about where our country needs to go in the next few years. Obviously, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are fine candidates but I find it interesting that it's Edwards most Republican right wingers are attacking.

When I look for news stories for all the Democratic candidates, there's always nonsensical stories that pop up that have been written by Republicans trying hard to smear Democratic candidates in the early going. But the attacks on John Edwards, particularly the one recently by right wing hit artist Ann Coulter, are ridiculously over the top.

Rush Limbaugh has several hits on Edwards lately that suggest Limbaugh has some sort of fixation on Edwards. I'm amazed, at this late date, that Limbaugh still has any credibility given how wrong he has been on a number of issues in recent years, including his often blind support for Bush's judgment, but there he is when you try to find information on the Democrats.

Even if we take into consideration Limbaugh's poor judgment, what's consistent about right wingers is that the more they fear something, they more they attack. Limbaugh clearly fears John Edwards but I think it's more than that. If a Republican wins, Rush Limbaugh could still consider himself relevant though that's not quite as true as it was ten years ago when Limbaugh had a considerably bigger audience. If a Democrat wins, however, Limbaugh would lose his small stake in the Republican Party's right wing era of dominance. The radical revolution would be over for sure. Edwards may be the Democrat that Limbaugh feels could render him impotent and irrelevant.