Vol. 5 No. 8 (December 2006)

Uncommon Denominator

 
The Newsletter of the Commonweal Institute
http://www.commonwealinstitute.org/
 
 
“The truth about [America’s] past is not that it is too brief, or too superficial,
but only that we, having turned our faces so resolutely away from it,
have never demanded from it what it has to give.”
                                                                 – James Baldwin, from  Notes of a Native Son
 
 

CONTENTS
 
Talking Points I: Iraq and Thomas Hobbes
Wit and Wisdom: Denying the deniers  
Talking Points II: Back to the G-7!
Featured Article: “The Tourist Who Influenced the Terrorists”
Happenings: New CI Fellow; marketing training
Endorsements: Mike Honda
Get Involved: Spread the word; become a contributor

 


 

TALKING POINTS I

            In recent months it has become common, even fashionable, to describe the situation in Iraq as “Hobbesian.”  In his Nov. 29 column in the New York Times, for example, Thomas Friedman wrote that Iraq “is not the Arab Yugoslavia anymore.  It’s Hobbes’s jungle.”  Or, as Washington Post correspondent Thomas Ricks said on “Meet the Press” on Dec. 10, the Iraqi sectarian conflict is a “Hobbesian war of all against all.”  Helena Cobban, in the June 6 Christian Science Monitor, wrote that Iraq “has become a Hobbesian nightmare.”  The examples could go on and on.

            The point, clearly, is that the situation in Iraq is really, really bad, but never do those invoking Thomas Hobbes’s name bother to examine the deeper issues that such a comparison invites.  What does this persistent reversion to a seventeenth-century British political philosopher tell us?  How far does it take us in understanding the war in Iraq?  How does it work to frame the issue, and what assumptions are built into it? 

            In his most influential work, Leviathan (1651), Hobbes famously described the state of nature as a “war of all against all” and wrote that human life in a state of nature was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”  These are his two big sound-bites, and together they represent the basic conventional wisdom regarding Hobbes’s view of the world.  But what Hobbes had to say about human beings and society should be approached very cautiously, for his premises are not ones we should be repeating and reinforcing, even unwittingly.

            Against the political backdrop of English revolution and civil war, Hobbes – in De Cive (1642) and Elements of Law, Natural and Politic (1640), as well as Leviathan – developed a systematic, “scientific” theory of government in which natural human depravity required the imposition of an overawing central power.  In the absence of such a power – the leviathan – the unbridled pursuit of self-interest will lead, he argued, to a kind of rapacious free-for-all.  While stopping short of outright atheism, Hobbes’s political philosophy strips the world of any independent moral framework, reducing questions of good and evil, honor and justice, to matters of perception and relation (“these words of Good, Evill, and Contemptible, are ever used with relation to the person that useth them: There being nothing simply and absolutely so. . .”).  Instead he described a world where individual human beings, motivated by elemental appetites or desires for security and felicity, seek to extend the range of their power to satisfy those appetites and wants: “I put for a generall inclination of all mankind, a perpetuall and restlesse desire of Power after power, that ceaseth onely in Death.” 

            Hobbes did posit a rough equality among all human beings, but only as to the basic features of human life – physical appetites, the desire for longevity, and so forth – rather than a more fundamental moral or spiritual equality.  Moreover, the equality of individuals runs up against the overriding need for social order, in the form of contracts, pacts, or covenants enforced by an absolute sovereign, whose authority must be unquestioned – for if it is questionable then the whole system breaks down.  Even if the law appears unjust, it must be obeyed, because justice exists not as a transcendent quality but as the creature of contract: What is lawful is just.  Finally, an individual’s “value” is determined socially: “The Value, or WORTH of a man, is as of all other things, his Price; that is to say, so much as would be given for the use of his Power: and therefore is not absolute; but a thing dependant on the need and judgement of another.” 

            The keywords of Hobbesian theory, in short, are pessimism and absolutism: a pessimism regarding the moral order of nature and an absolutist belief in the depravity of man and consequent necessity of total obedience to authority. 

           And so what?  How do these details of Hobbes’s thought contribute to our understanding of the Iraq war?  Why should we hesitate before invoking Hobbes’s name in describing the conflict?

            Well, first of all, it’s worth pointing out the irony that the closest Iraq has come to a Leviathan is Saddam Hussein himself.  If the situation there were truly “Hobbesian,” as the commentators are so fond of suggesting, then the consistent solution would be to return Hussein to power.

            More broadly, however, while the violence and chaos in Iraq may look Hobbesian, we don’t want to imply that it is in fact Hobbesian, or that Hobbes’s view of human nature and human society is actually, ontologically true.  Since Hobbes was describing not just situations but fundamentals, his philosophy rules out the kind of enlightened, rational, real-world solutions we should be pursuing in the Middle East.

            People who understand politics understand the power of words to create reality.  We see what we are inclined to see, create what we expect to find, and respond accordingly.  Calling the Iraq war Hobbesian is on one level just a rhetorical flourish used to make a point.  Yet it reinscribes an understanding of reality and of people that we would do well to avoid.

WIT AND WISDOM

President of Iran Denies that Holocaust Denial Conference Ever Happened
Holds New Conference of Holocaust Denial Deniers


            “One day after hosting an international conference devoted to denying that the Holocaust ever happened, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made headlines again today by holding another conference to deny that the earlier conference ever happened.
            “President Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust denial conference was a page one story in newspapers around the world this week, making some observers wonder why the Iranian leader would hold another conference attempting to deny that the earlier conference had occurred….
            “At the conclusion of the Holocaust denial deniers conference, Mr. Ahmadinejad embarked on a tour to promote a new book about his hypothetical hosting of a Holocaust denial conference, entitled ‘If I Did It.’”

from The Borowitz Report

 

TALKING POINTS II

For the past year, Russia has held the presidency of the “Group of Eight,” or G-8, the exclusive club of powerful nations which together account for about two-thirds of the world’s economic productivity.  What a strange turn of affairs!  For the G-8 is supposed to represent the interests of economically modern liberal democracies, and Russia is neither economically modern nor a liberal democracy.  Moreover, in its foreign policy it is increasingly acting against the interests of the other member states.  The time has come, therefore, to reevaluate Russia’s membership in the G-8, and if necessary to revoke that membership in order to preserve the integrity of the G-8, to prompt change on the part of Vladimir Putin, and to signal the gravity of the issue in advance of the 2008 Russian presidential election. 

Following the fall of the Soviet Union, the Western powers began gradually integrating Russia into the G-7, which then consisted of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Japan, and the United States.  This effort at integration was primarily a gesture of good-will and an intended stimulus to liberalization, rather than a decision based on the economic and political realities of post-Soviet Russia, which were internally still in great flux, and never more than shakily aligned with the West.

Now, under Putin, Russia has backslid on the gains it did manage to make during the 1990s, and has become increasingly willing to abuse its energy resources to manipulate its immediate neighbors and aggregate power to the executive.  Flush with oil revenue, the Putin regime has badly undercut the rule of law at home, imprisoning or silencing dissidents, and reversing the process of political decentralization begun in the 1990s.  As a necessary consequence, it has thereby compromised the process of economic modernization that depends on governmental transparency, an independent legislature, and a fair legal system.  Intellectual property rights, fair and free trade practices, and science-based standards for economic policy have all suffered.  In foreign policy, the Putin regime has waged an unconscionable war in Chechnya; has sought to influence politics in Ukraine, the Caucasus, and the Baltic states; and most recently has effectively annexed offshore oil fields in the Sakhalin Islands area.  Today, Russia lines up more closely and consistently with China and Iran than with its G-8 “partners.”  The Alexander Litvinenko radiation poisoning case, even if not directed by the Kremlin, has the fingerprints of the Russian government, or elements within the Russian government, all over it, and the Kremlin’s investigation into Litvinenko’s death is about as convincing as O.J. Simpson’s search to find “the real killer.”  But maybe this sensationalistic case, by virtue – or vice – of its sensationalism, will be what it takes to begin to bring Westerners to their senses.

For the Europeans, in particular, have been singularly reluctant to confront Russia over any of its growing list of misdeeds, given their dependency on Russian oil (a dependency, incidentally, which the elder President Bush sought in vain to warn against), and given their profound aversion to conflict.  The United States, for its part, now finds itself ensnared in a misguided conflict in Iraq that has drastically weakened its ability to exert influence in other geopolitical spheres.

But there are still options for taking a principled stand on behalf of important Western values, and sometimes we need to choose confrontation over conciliation.  That doesn’t always have to mean military action, of course, but it does mean standing up for something once in a while rather than allowing economic “interests” to lead us around by the nose.  And G-8 membership is a perfectly legitimate issue on which to hold ground.  Russia didn’t really belong in the G-8 in the first place, and now that under Putin it has slid backward into authoritarianism and economic gangsterism, what’s the point?

A number of Congressmen from both sides of the aisles – most visibly John McCain and Joe Lieberman, but also quite a few others from both the Senate and House – have called for the United States to take a harder line on Russian membership in the G-8.  This is not exactly a “progressive” position, but perhaps it should be, for the big losers under the Putin regime have been the Russian progressives themselves.

 

FEATURED ARTICLE

The following is an excerpt from Rolf Potts’s “The Tourist Who Influenced the Terrorists,” which appears in the October 2006 issue of The Believer

“With the global rise of political Islamism, many pundits have recently begun paying closer attention to the writings of Egyptian scholar and Muslim Brotherhood publicist Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966), whose radical Milestones and 30-volume In the Shade of the Koran are said to be masterpieces of jihadist thought and persuasion. These writings, which some analysts consider to be an ideological influence on violent Islamist movements such as al-Qaida, contain an uncompromising anti-Western slant that Qutb supports with observations from his travel experiences in the United States.

“In these classic jihadist works, Qutb is never all that specific about how and where he went about assembling his presumed expertise on American culture, but biographers note that he spent a majority of his 1948-50 U.S. sojourn as a scholarship student at Colorado State College of Education, in the high-plains town of Greeley. Moreover, not long after his return to Egypt from the United States, Qutb attempted to sum up his expatriate experience in "The America I Have Seen," a short travel memoir that appeared in the November 1951 issue of Egypt's Al-Risala magazine.”

            Read the whole article at http://www.vagablogging.net/06-11/from-the-october-2006-issue-of-the-believer.html.

HAPPENINGS

New CI Fellow – The Commonweal Institute is proud to welcome Bill Scher, the Executive Editor of the popular political blog LiberalOasis.com and a regular commentator on Air America, as our newest Fellow. With his professional background in media strategy, Bill has been outspoken about the need for political activists to redeem the word “liberal.”  Read his new book, Wait! Don’t Move To Canada!: A Stay-and-Fight Strategy To Win Back America (Rodale, 2006), about why this will be critical if we (liberals, progressives, moderates, and independents) intend to take back the country from the conservative political machine. Expect him to expound on these ideas in the CI blog (www.commonwealinstitute.org/CIBlog). 

Marketing Training – On January 12, Commonweal Institute President Katherine Forrest will train budding environmental activists in techniques of marketing and factors that increase social influence.  Others on Acterra’s Be the Change program that day will be California State Senator Joe Simitian and Palo Alto City Councilman Peter Drekmeier.

 

ENDORSEMENTS
 
            “Moderate and progressive members of Congress need a substantial resource that can develop public support for our whole range of issues in a timely fashion, and defend our gains from right wing attacks. The Commonweal Institute is positioned to be that organization. I hope to see them grow quickly.” – Congressman Mike Honda, D-San Jose, 15th CD-CA

GET INVOLVED

            If you agree with Mike Honda(see above), there are a number of ways you can help the Commonweal Institute achieve its goals. 

            Right now, as you read, you can simply forward the Uncommon Denominator to friends and family who might be interested in learning about the Commonweal Institute.  Getting the word out is crucial.

            You can also join our network of donors building the Commonweal Institute.  Your tax-deductible contribution is vital to making the Commonweal Institute an effective organization.  $100 would help so much! Even a contribution of $10 or $20 will make a difference because there are so many moderates and progressives.  Click here to contribute online.  Or call 650-854-9796.  Your support is essential.

 

 

© 2006 The Commonweal Institute

 


 
To subscribe to this free newsletter, send a blank message to: ci-newsletter-subscribe@commonwealinstitute.org.


or

 
To subscribe at an email address other than your regular one, go to http://commonwealinstitute.org/mailman/listinfo/ci-newsletter_commonwealinstitute.org, and then enter your name and email address and click on “Subscribe.”
 
Privacy Policy: The Commonweal Institute does not share subscriber information with any other organization or individuals.
 


 

 

Commonweal Institute
325 Sharon Park Drive, Suite 332
Menlo Park, CA  94025-3465
650-854-9796 (voice), 650-854-8132 (fax)
www.commonwealinstitute.org