March 2, 2007

Romney Confronts the Gap - Though Not by Name

Hatched by Dafydd

I just read Mitt Romney's speech that he gave at CPAC 2007, the conservative convention. I was particularly struck by this section, which I have reparagraphed for greater clarity (it's a transcription of an oral speech; my paragraphing is no less authentic than the transcriber's!):

We will defeat the violent jihad with a two-part strategy. First, an unquestionably strong military. The best ally peace has in the world is a strong America. We need more men and women in the military, better armaments, and a Strategic Defense Initiative.

And there's a second aspect of our strategy: we must bring together all the civilized nations of the world in what might be called a Second Marshall Plan. Together with them, and with volunteers, businesses and NGOs, we must support moderate Muslim nations and peoples.

They need public schools that are not Wahabi schools, the rule of law, property rights, modern banking and agriculture and pro-growth economic policies. In the end, it is the Muslim people themselves who will eliminate radical jihad.

I have several orchids for this prescription, but one onion as well. First the flowers...

Let's start with the simplest point made by this section of the speech:

  • At last, a conservative American politician is forthrightly defending the idea that our country needs to do more than just "kill people and break things" in Iraq and elsewhere.

After destroying the evil governments (and transnational terrorist groups) that strangle a third of the population of the planet, we must also help them build better, freer, and more economically sustainable institutions, from governments, to churches or mosques, to corporations. We cannot just break the bad and then walk away, shrugging: "Hey, it's your mess, not ours!"

  • It's also spectacularly helpful that Gov. Romney has clearly identified this nation building with America's own national security: "a second aspect of our strategy."

A friend of mine has not actually read Thomas P.M. Barnett's book the Pentagon's New Map, but has only heard one of Hugh Hewitt's eight interviews with Barnett. When Barnett's name came up recently, my friend raged at me that Barnett was "just another f-----g altruist!"

(My friend is a dyed-in-the-wode, small-l libertarian, for whom "altruist" is as vile an epithet as "statist" or "neocon." He often quotes the Ayn Rand definition of altruism: a man who would take food from his own starving child to give to a stranger's starving child.)

I immediately diagnosed the problem: The interview my friend heard must have been one where Barnett was talking about "shrinking the Gap," about rebuilding the nations in the Non-Integrating Gap to be more interconnected economically, legally, and culturally with the rest of the world, and about introducing them to individualism, liberty, and capitalism (henceforth, IL&C). But what my friend did not hear from earlier interviews -- or read, as yet, in Barnett's writings -- is that Barnett's motivation is only partially compassion.

He also believes, and I agree (and agreed with intellectually even before ever hearing of Barnett or his Core-Gap thesis), that it's absolutely critical for American national security to shrink the Gap... because that's where all of our enemies come from nowadays.

For exactly the same reason, I believe -- and my friend emphatically agrees -- that besides confronting and defeating Communism by force of arms during the Cold War, it was also vital that we confronted them ideologically, that we dealt head-on with the claims of Marxism and socialism and rigorously demonstrated why IL&C not only allow you to eat better -- they were more just.

In contrappunto, the gap between Gap and Core is not an ideological divide, though certainly ideologies (both Islamism and also plain, old Communism) "carpe diem" anent the divide. The yawning gulf is actually one of implementation, not theory.

Jerry Seinfeld, talking to Kramer; Jerry comes back and finds he's been burgled, and Kramer confesses he left the door wide open:

KRAMER: How can you not have insurance?

JERRY: Because I spent my money on the Clapgo D. 29. It's the most impenetrable lock on the market today. It has only one design flaw: the door...[shuts the door] must be closed!

I believe just as strongly today as I did 20 years ago in the power of IL&C to convert cringing masses into self-actualized actors for their own enlightened self interest. But there is only one design flaw: the target population must actually be exposed to IL&C for the recruitment to work as advertised.

The danger of disconnectedness is precisely that it exploits that "design flaw": governments and terrorist groups seek to prevent integration between Gap populations and the globalized world, so that the former never get to see what they're missing. By treating whole populations like mushrooms -- keeping them in the dark -- the Gapsters can also feed them the offal of jihadism or Communism. It's too easy to sell future paradise to those currently living in hell.

Thus, after battering down the walls erected by the Gapsters, we have to complete the sequence by bringing in our own moral axioms of IL&C, so the starving, brutalized masses can see that they're not just more just, which is of little consequence to people who are born with one foot in the grave; they also allow you to eat better.

That is how we destroy jihadism, as Romney said: we not only show them we're the strong horse, we show them how our system can pull them out of hell and into, if not paradise, then at least into the twenty-first century. That is clearly in our national-security interest.

  • Finally, it is good to see a presidential candidate clearly state that "it is the Muslim people themselves who will eliminate radical jihad."

While this is the one area that President Bush has communicated well with the American people, there are many other putative "conservatives" who seem to believe that Arabs have a genetic predisposition towards tyranny and jihadism, or at least that the only way we can destroy jihadism is to "convert [the ummah] to Christianity."

This is dangerous defeatism: One flavor of defeatism is to insist that victory requires a policy that you know, deep down, is impossible... thus covertly implying that victory itself is likewise impossible.

Moslems do not need to convert to Christianity; Islam needs to have a Reformation followed by an Enlightenment. Gov. Romney understands this point and expresses it vividly.

As much as modern-day Christians may wish to forget, Christianity used to be just as violent, expansionist, intolerant, antisemitic, and bloodthirsty as Islam is today. Think of the crusades, which may have started as a defensive move to restore the Holy Land to Christian control, but which resulted in the mass murder of Jews they happened to encounter along the road and the looting and burning of Christian Constantinople, and other Christian cities whose wealth beckoned and tempted. Think of the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre. Think of the autos-da-fé, the expulsion of the Jews from Spain, the religious wars and persecutions in England, France, the Netherlands, and so forth. And there were Christian justifications for slavery, just as there were Christian denunciations of the "peculiar institution."

The movement that changed all of this began with the 16th-century Protestant Reformation and culminated with the 18th-century Age of Englightenment (including the American Revolution). Western society did not cease being Christian; but it did utterly change how it viewed Christianity. From a Mediæval concept of religion as the source of all law, the West shifted to the idea of religion as the source only of inspiration, while law, like all governance, comes ultimately from the consent of the governed.

All that "moderate Moslems" need do is bring about a similar transformation of Islam, forcing it to evolve from primitivism to modernity. It was done in Christianity, and "what Man has done, Man can aspire to do."

But of course, the last time, it took more than 200 years!

Let's hope that with that example behind us and a much brighter yet more challenging future ahead of us, we can shorten that transformation down to a few decades. Whether we can or not, however, this bold strategy is yet another reason to "shrink the Gap."

So what is the one onion?

  • Romney makes the classic mistake of thinking that "the Gap" consists entirely of Moslem cultures: his prescription is applied only to stop "jihad."

Barnett calls this the "arc of instability" fallacy... and it's simply not true. The Non-Integrating Gap includes much of Southeast Asia, the African interior, and large tracts of South America -- none of which is especially Moslem. Islam was not a factor in the horrific massacre of Tutsis and Hutus by each other, nor does it enter into the narcocratic hell of Colombia and Peru, the bestial depredations of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, or the brutal, disconnected dictatorship of Kim Jong-Il in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

The ummah and the Gap are not coterminous; and the non-Moslem parts need to be evolved and rebuilt every bit as much as do the traditional fundamentalist Islamic countries.

That is one reason I'm pretty sure Mitt Romney has not read Barnett... or at least not much and not attentively.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, March 2, 2007, at the time of 8:52 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/1847

Comments

The following hissed in response by: Hal

Y'know, this is a thought I've mulled over from time to time myself.

My political brain says, "We must promote moderate Islam over all other forms in the world!" My Christian brain says, "We must promote Christianity over Islam in the world!"

I'm not sure what part of my brain says this, but the thought is that "moderate Islam" may be an incredibly hard goal to come by.

I admit that I'm no expert in Islamic theology, but what little I know is that 1) Muhammad is the guy to imitate in Islam, and 2) Muhammad was a brutal and violent leader. From my perspective, moderate Muslims are peaceful and secular, but that's in spite of their religion, not because of it.

I accept that Christianity had darker roots some centuries ago, but I'll also argue that it's more of a stretch to justify conquest and theocracy from the Christian scriptures than it is to justify it from the Islamic texts.

However, I don't think there has to be a conflict here. Let the government promote moderate Islam, while the missionary organizations promote Christianity (which, not coincidentally, are actually allowed to exist under moderate Islam).

I guess I'll just have to live with being of two minds on this.

The above hissed in response by: Hal [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 3, 2007 4:25 PM

The following hissed in response by: MegaTroopX

Considering that Romney responds to anti-Mormon bigotry with his own brand (This nation must be run by "people of faith"), maybe he's not the one to confront the Gap (and its attendant religions; Islam and Communism).

The above hissed in response by: MegaTroopX [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 3, 2007 6:12 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

MegaTroopX:

Considering that Romney responds to anti-Mormon bigotry with his own brand (This nation must be run by "people of faith"), maybe he's not the one to confront the Gap (and its attendant religions; Islam and Communism).

How is that quasi-quotation "bigotry?"

I think there is a tremendous difference between people who believe (have faith) in something larger than themselves and people who see the universe as beginning and ending with the ego... between Thomas Jefferson and Warty Bliggins.

Likewise, I see a yawning gulf between those people whose religion is some version of Ethical Monotheism and those whose religion is more or less the Baal-worship, complete with human sacrifice.

That said, this nation should be run by people who have faith in Ethical Monotheism -- except for that incredibly rare breed that has faith in an ethic that transcends themselves, and which yields moral, ethical behavior, but which has no monotheistic god.

There are some, but it's analogous to what mathematicians call "a set of measure zero."

For rhetorical purposes, it's silly to worry about that miniscule group. Thus, there is nothing bigoted about Romney's statement, assuming you quoted it accurately.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 3, 2007 9:09 PM

The following hissed in response by: SDN

But of course, the last time, it took more than 200 years!

Let's hope that with that example behind us and a much brighter yet more challenging future ahead of us, we can shorten that transformation down to a few decades.

The problem, Dafydd, is that modern weaponry doesn't give us that luxury. It took an army of 50,000 plus for Tilly's troops to commit "The Rape of Magdeburg"; it took months of fighting and several days, also. Move even to WWII: the bombings of Dresden and Tokyo, even Hiroshima and Nagasaki, took huge resources of men and time.

Now 200 or fewer jihadis with 10 18-wheelers and 10 Iranian / NoKo / Pakistani nukes can inflict, in 10 Magedeburgs somewhere on the globe, casualties equal to WWII on all fronts... and the first warning we may have of it is the flash. Certainly, there are countermeasures we can take, but we have to be lucky forever; they only have to be lucky once.

And I regret to inform you that I'm an uncivilized barbarian: My family and friends vs a million Muslims in Tehran? the million lose! The only sane policy is the Sgt in Hill Street Blues: "Let's do it to them, before they do it to us!"

The above hissed in response by: SDN [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 4, 2007 6:19 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

SDN:

And I regret to inform you that I'm an uncivilized barbarian: My family and friends vs a million Muslims in Tehran? the million lose! The only sane policy is the Sgt in Hill Street Blues: "Let's do it to them, before they do it to us!"

I must be misunderstanding you. Do you suggest we should launch all-out nuclear war against Iran, killing 70 million people, on the off chance that some Hezbollah members are about to drive nuke-laden 18-wheelers from Teheran to Chicago?

Or perhaps you mean simply to nuke Teheran itself, killing a scant 12 million?

Then when the dust settles, we could move on to Riaydh, Damascus, Islamabad, Cairo, and Jakarta. Doesn't this seem a bit extreme, even to you?

(By the way, perhaps you missed the episode of Hill Street Blues where that turn-out sergeant, Stan Jablonski -- Robert Proski -- explained that he did not mean that the cops should attack the suspects on sight... but that they should arrest them and take them off the streets before the completed their crimes.)

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 4, 2007 6:38 AM

The following hissed in response by: SDN

Dafydd:

Victory condition in this war: The friends, neighbors, acquaintances, etc. of the "extreme Muslim minority" suicide bomber won't support him in doing anything. I don't care if the reason is they are all singing Kum By Yah, or if they are so terrified of the certain result of his even attempting something, the cost to them in piles of bodies, burned out cities, etc. is so high, they'd rather kill him themselves first. If that can be accomplished without additional killing, great. If it requires the list of cities you mentioned to become glowing glass, I don't have a problem with that either.

Because "as surely as water will wet you, as surely as fire will burn", that "minority extreme Muslim" will think nothing of doing it to my friends, family or myself. If I could guarantee that the only result of delay would be my death, that's a risk I could assume. If I could guarantee that the only casualties are people like yourself who think we have the luxury of waiting for reform, that's OK; presumably you think the reward is worth the risk when you signed on. Unfortunately, I'm not (insert Belief Chief here), so I can't guarantee that.

The last time we failed to take seriously the rantings of a madman saying that we could join him, submit to slavery, or die, it took 60 million dead and a higher number of destroyed cities than you count to put him down. I prefer to "make the other poor, dumb b*st*rd die for his country (Allah, etc.)"

The above hissed in response by: SDN [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 4, 2007 7:40 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

SDN:

If I could guarantee that the only casualties are people like yourself who think we have the luxury of waiting for reform, that's OK; presumably you think the reward is worth the risk when you signed on.

You're not getting the point.

The United States is the lone superpower, but we're not God: We are not omnipotent. If we end up fighting the whole world, we will lose.

I don't know how serious you are about turning a list of cities and countries totaling more than a billion people into "glowing glass" -- I suspect you are simply vamping, though you may not know it yourself -- but if we started doing that, then long before we finished, we would be under literal attack even by the rest of the Functioning Core.

America would be destroyed. I am not willing to trot down the road to our own destruction, merely to satisfy somebody's hunger for Moslem blood.

It's not a "luxury" to "wait for reform;" reform is our only option for victory. Much as it may please you to fantasize it, America cannot conquer the world... and even if we could, if we did, we would no longer be America.

Do you think your life is so important that it's all right if America becomes just like Imperial Japan, so long as your safety is secured? And just how long do you imagine you would be "safe" in an actual, literal empire? Bear in mind that the first and worst victims of Japanese imperial terror were the Japanese subjects themselves.

There is no alternative to trying to "reform" the ummah (let's be more specific, trying to drag it into the twenty-first century with a Reformation and Englightenment behind it). If we fail, we must try again, as often as it takes.

Because the only alternative is our own eventual destruction... no matter how many nukes we sling around.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 4, 2007 1:42 PM

The following hissed in response by: rac

Dafydd,

A question. Just as being on offense and reducing the territory of the Gap is important, being on defense and not losing territory of the Core is also important. What does Barnett (or you) say about the looming problem of "Eurabia."

The above hissed in response by: rac [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 5, 2007 8:00 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Rac:

I don't recall whether Barnett has said or written anything about the Moslem influence on Europe; probably, but I don't know what.

For my own opinion, I simply have faith that Europeans are not going to lie back and take cultural suicide for much longer. I believe the problem is primarily in the governments, not the people.

For example, I suspect France will go for Nicolas Sarkozy, not Segolene Royal. I believe the people will also begin reembracing Catholocism (this is already happening)... and start having a lot more kids.

The way they have been acting is a natural reponse to having no external enemies -- but also having a quasi-socialist system that makes too many people think there is no future, there is no reason to sacrifice, you might as well party like it's 1999.

Now that they have an external enemy who has invaded the interior (those "youth" riots of the past two or three years), I believe the French are waking up to the reality that they'll either have to fight... or just surrender, become Moslems, and start praying five times a day.

But we'll see. I'm an optimist: I have faith that all people, of all cultures, can be reached, that all people (collectively, though not every individual person, of course) have a higher self, whatever they may call it. And that no culture, in the end, just gives up and dies. It may be killed by a stronger culture, but it goes down fighting.

And in reality, Western culture is the strongest culture that has ever existed, much stronger (because freer, more individualistic, and more capitalist) than the Arab-Moslem culture that has declared war upon us.

Once the "sleeping giant" awakens to the danger, you will see some stunning victories; not just straight warfare, as after 9/11, but much more creative ways of winning this war... from economics to politics to science to social action to religious response.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 5, 2007 2:38 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)


Remember me unto the end of days?


© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved