The economic policy of the Bush administration has been frightening: The deliberate unbalancing of the long-term finances of the U.S. government in the hope of sharpening the funding crisis of the social-insurance state--with the effect of slowing capital formation and economic growth, and increasing the interest of economic crisis. The backing-away from the Republican Party's historic commitment to free trade. The reversal of Newt Gingrich's proudest achievement: the partial reform of the farm subsidy program.
The security policy of the Bush administration has been more than frightening; it has been terrifying. At the moment administration insiders are trying to convince elite reporters that the Bush administration did not deceive outsiders about Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program as much as deceive itself--that the highest levels of the Bush administration proved grossly incompetent at the basics. They did not know how to assess intelligence. Nobody had heard of Machiavelli's 500-year-old warning not to trust exiles: "Such is their extreme desire to return to their homes that they naturally believe many things that are not true, and add many others on purpose; so that, with what they really believe and what they say they believe they fill you with hopes..." Note that this declaration of incompetence is the Bush administration's spin on what happened.
But the most awful and dreadfully terrifying aspect of all has been whenever Bush administration intellectual allies talk about what they see as the motivating theory of the world underlying Bush administration security policy. They call the Clinton Administration naive for believing that international relations is a positive-sum game in which all sides can win. They speak of explicit concern on the part of the United States not just for its absolute but its relative economic power. As the University of Chicago's Dan Drezner puts it, the logic of Bush's National Security Strategy is to "prevent other great powers from rising, in order to ensure the long-term growth of freedom, democracy and prosperity."
But what does "prevent other great powers from rising" mean? What could it possibly mean other than "try to keep China and India desperately poor for as long as possible"--for when China and India close even half the gap in prosperity separating them from the industrial core, their populations alone guarantee that they will be very great powers indeed.
It is certainly not in the interest of world prosperity, or in the interest of China or India, to try to keep them poor. It is not in the national interest of the United States either. The history of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries teaches us that there may well be something uniquely dangerous to world peace and political sanity during the two generations in which a culture is passing from a poor rural agricultural to a rich urban industrial (or post-industrial) economy. Whether the aggressive foreign policy pursued by Wilhelmine Germany, the Leninist and Stalinist agony of Russia, the terrors of Mao, the dictatorships of Mussolini and Franco, or the most monstrous Nazi regime--the twentieth-century transition to industrial society appears to be a very dangerous time both for the citizens of the country in transition and for neighbors and passers-by.
Is it really in the interest of the United States to try to "prevent other great powers from rising" at the cost of lengthening the period of time during which other societies are vulnerable to the devils that afflicted most notably Germany in the twentieth century? Wouldn't the rest of us rather minimize than maximize the time we might be faced with the problem of containing a National Hinduist India, a Wilhelmine China, or a Weimar Russia?
And do the rest of us want the children of China and India to be taught in fifty years that the rich countries at the turn of the twentieth century did all they could to accelerate the growth and increase the prosperity of China and India, or that the rich countries strove to "prevent other great powers from rising"?
It is long past time for a complete change of personnel at all levels of the Bush administration. The world cannot afford to have neoconservatives at high levels of the U.S. government who do not work for global prosperity and peace, but instead for maximum U.S. relative power. Now we do know that there are grownups in the Republican Party--statesmen who work for more rapid economic development, for multilateral cooperation, and for a world in which the United States leads because of its fortunate position rather than dominates because of its military power. They staffed the first Bush administration. Where are they?
Posted by DeLong at October 21, 2003 10:46 AM | TrackBack
Very provocative. I can see parallels to Niall Ferguson's critique of Britain's decision-making about Germany in the run up to WWI -- its apparent treatment of Germany as a "strategic competitor," creating the ground for the war. Touch, complex issues -- does anyone think Condi has the remotest grasp of them?
Posted by: P O'Neill on October 21, 2003 02:36 PM"It is long past time for a complete change of personnel at all levels of the Bush administration."
Is 13 months too long to wait?
Posted by: jim in austin on October 21, 2003 02:53 PM"complex issues -- does anyone think Condi has the remotest grasp of them?"
That strikes me as a rather condescending statement. On what basis do you make the supposition that she lacks "the remotest grasp of them?" Is there some attribute of hers that makes it seem obvious that this should be so, other than the fact that she works for a boss whose politics you happen to dislike? I'd stay away from the ad hominem mode of debate if I were in your shoes.
Posted by: Abiola Lapite on October 21, 2003 02:58 PM"complex issues -- does anyone think Condi has the remotest grasp of them?"
Perhaps it was buried in a footnote.
Posted by: chris_a on October 21, 2003 03:08 PM"who do not work for global prosperity and peace, but instead for maximum U.S. relative power"
The same could be said for domestic policy:
who do not work for domestic prosperity for all, but instead for maximum relative power and wealth in the hands of the wealthy.
Posted by: bakho on October 21, 2003 05:11 PMAbiola,
Her policies or her abilities to convince her boss of her policies have been disasterous.
By the way, the same reasoning is being applied to the EU, which may explain, Professor DeLong, my near-paranoid attitude when it comes to critizing European politians on weak grounds:
I have been raised by a atlanticist Reagan fan. Well, even my father these days can't take it anymore. He sees the US slowly moving against the EU as well as I see it. And we're talking about the kind of European who wouldn't have thought too long before volunteering his life to give back the gift of WWII to his beloved United States.
This strategic anti-EU policies have been in the air for a while, but they have taken a whole new dimension under GB II. Recently, Europeans have been told that, frankly, they are not allowed to have a European army (just like they can't negociate air space at the EU level, "the EU is not a country", well I thought it was up to Europeans to make up their minds about that).
I always thought that the American criticism towards Europe was precisely that it had a long tongue (and perhaps good brains) but no muscle. Now that Europe is trying to fix this, well...
The politics of alienation will only bring a new Cold War of sorts. We see it in North Korea for example. The counter-example is the progress the rest of the world has made with Iran lately.
The US is just not fungible enough to wage war against all the enemies this Administration currently identifies. God may be on our side, but he is known to be very unreliable with paying war bills. Just not his job. (And, by the way, from my reading of the Bible, he never made any such commitment, so at least He is being consistent.)
Posted by: Jean-Philippe C. Stijns on October 21, 2003 06:46 PMAnother excellent essay (and over 700 words to prove a point). Here the only tiny problem I see is that the bad guy straw man quote is from Dan Drezner who does not work for the Bush administration. I guess you could get a lot of other neocon quotes about say how united Europe is a threat to the USA (talk about implausible threats). You could probably even get anonymous White House sources who reveal their assumption that the world is a zero sum game. I'd say it is worth the bother
Posted by: Robert on October 21, 2003 06:55 PMHave any of you read Benjamin Barber's new book, "Fear's Empire," in which he picks apart the Bush Doctrine and the neocon critique?
I have a hunch that these neocons are really wanna be imperialists, who eschew mutliculturalism or reading lists beyond Dead White Males, because deep down inside they want to return to the 19th Century and pretend they are Victorian Englishman rather than Americans. They know what is best for the native unwashed masses because they have read Kipling.
Posted by: Cal on October 21, 2003 10:20 PMTo my mind, the imposition of "shock therapy" on the former Soviet Union was an immense historical tragedy- if not a crime. I have always wondered to what extent it was a carry over, if not a deliberate follow-though, from the "Cold War". And, of course, it was the Clintonoids who were primarily responsible for that policy.
Posted by: john c. halasz on October 21, 2003 11:08 PMI'd agree that this motivating theory ("Bush Administration" or not) is naive. The only country which can stop China is China.
If one believes in the worth of democracy, individual liberty, secularism and free markets, then one can hope that either: (1) China and India will become even more like the West (and so there is nothing to fear); or (2) they will resist and implode.
As to Europe (this is off-topic...) there's nothing to fear from them. They'll be retiring to their rocking chairs soon and will be needing people to care for them (if the hot weather doesn't get to them first!).
I apologize in advance for the questionable taste of my last comment...
Posted by: Andrew Boucher on October 22, 2003 12:05 AMBut some people could not thrive were it not for "questionable taste".
Posted by: john c. halasz on October 22, 2003 12:50 AMRe: Condi
"On what basis do you make the supposition that she lacks "the remotest grasp of them?" Is there some attribute of hers that makes it seem obvious that this should be so, other than the fact that she works for a boss whose politics you happen to dislike? I'd stay away from the ad hominem mode of debate if I were in your shoes."
Posted by Abiola Lapite at October 21, 2003 02:58 PM
IIRC, Condi claimed not to have read[1] e-mail from the CIA. About Saddam's nuclear weapons programs (or lack thereof). At a time when the US was planning on war with Saddam. Over WMD's. And when she was national security advisor, a job whose purpose is interdepartmental coordination, liason and interface with the president.
In addition, she's come up with some fanciful history about post-WWII Germany.
In addition, she was hyping the non-existant Saddam threat (remember 'we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud'?)
In addition, she claimed that nobody had any idea of suicide commando's using a plane, even though plots do to just that had been thwarted in the 1990's.
In addition, the post-war occupation of Iraq was f*cked up from the word 'go' - and Rice should have been in a nice position to persuade Bush that the war wasn't over when the Air Force stood down.
In short, because we had seen ample reason to assume that she is incompetant or a lying fraud.
Barry
[1] Of course she might not read all e-mail from the CIA to her office personally, but that's what she has staff for - to do the job.
I agree completely.
The National Security Strategy of preemption is so badly thought out you have to wonder what process and what people created it. Where was State? Where were the intelligence agencies? How did this thing make its way into print? It is easy to blame Condi, and the blame is well deserved, but it was also the responsibility of a lot of other people to say something, and they didn't.
Posted by: Jim Harris on October 22, 2003 04:37 AMThe substance of this argument boils down to nothing more than the addictive Democratic nostrum that 'we are smarter than they are, why can't everybody just concede the point and put us back in charge?'.
Realize also that hyperventilating about how afraid Republicans make you doesn't make this position any more persuasive.
If Democrats are so much smarter then why aren't they winning more elections? That's the system we have, and some of us even believe in it.
Posted by: JK on October 22, 2003 05:10 AMState was probably cut out of the picture, as bunch of striped-pants, tea-drinking comsymps^H^H^H^H^H islamofascist-symps who actually speak foreign languages. Powell was where he always has been, serving the GOP with whatever they want. The CIA was told that their job consisted of producing 'evidence' to support policy decisions.
In the end, the chain of responsibility runs Bush => everybody else, with Condi at the front of that group, due to her position.
And in the end, if Bush wasn't listening to her sufficiently, it was her duty to resign. She's got a Ph.D. in Poli Sci, alleged research in international relations, and experience in the Bush I/Reagan administrations (see: http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/ricebio.html).
Inexperience is not an excuse in any case, and would be a lie in her case.
The obvious source of this policy is that a bunch of people who advocated American Empire got their chance after 9/11. This was supported by a lot of factions who figured that empire could be profitable, and those who figured that it would serve their domestic goals. Aided, of course, by a media which was servile even before 9/11, and a whole host of apologists.
I think that a further point is that many of these officials are crony capitalists. They are people who are parasitic on the system; their dominance causes a whole host of problems.
Posted by: Barry on October 22, 2003 06:14 AMjohn halasz, "shock therapy" was never imposed on the former Soviet Union. Russian politicians freely admit that their bastardized economic program was designed to prevent the furtherance of the Communist crime. Go figure...
JK, in your haste to pretend intellegence you totally missed the substance of DeLong's argument. His point is that most Republican's historical wouldn't have supported many of the relativist policies being pursued by this Administration. Being a partisan Democrat of course he hopes that means these people will not support W in the next election.
Posted by: Stan on October 22, 2003 06:23 AM"As to Europe (this is off-topic...) there's nothing to fear from them. They'll be retiring to their rocking chairs soon and will be needing people to care for them (if the hot weather doesn't get to them first!)."
Andrew, would you please tell this to Rummy? Because it is strange, otherwise, to be both loathed for being toothless and contained as a dangerously growing military threat... Or is the loathing part of the containment strategy?
I tend to think it is, at least on behalf of some, the purpose being to discredit the EU as much as possible, so that 3rd countries dismiss it as diplomatically and economically irrelevant. Paradoxically, this strategy has had the opposite effect so far: Europe seems to have cleverly used the war in Irak to bolster its diplomatic position with many non-aligned countries. Machiavelic? Perhaps.
As for Asia, has anyone noticed that the Bank recently congratulated Asian countries for fostering regional trade. It's easy to keep Africa, and perhaps Latin-America, off the map. But this is simply not going to happen with Asia. Personally, I think it is actually in the interest of the US to foster new regional engines of growth, so that the US can progressively give up its unsustainable status as importer of last resort.
(But then again, I am naively assuming that economics have something to say about what is the best way to boost standards of living in America, assuming additionally that this is the goal of the whole enterprise.)
Finally, as for taste, you know what they say? Prude and rude ;-)
Posted by: Jean-Philippe Stijns on October 22, 2003 08:19 AM"As to Europe (this is off-topic...) there's nothing to fear from them. They'll be retiring to their rocking chairs soon and will be needing people to care for them (if the hot weather doesn't get to them first!)."
Andrew, would you please tell this to Rummy? Because it is strange, otherwise, to be both loathed for being toothless and contained as a dangerously growing military threat... Or is the loathing part of the containment strategy?
I tend to think it is, at least on behalf of some, the purpose being to discredit the EU as much as possible, so that 3rd countries dismiss it as diplomatically and economically irrelevant. Paradoxically, this strategy has had the opposite effect so far: Europe seems to have cleverly used the war in Irak to bolster its diplomatic position with many non-aligned countries. Machiavelic? Perhaps.
As for Asia, has anyone noticed that the Bank recently congratulated Asian countries for fostering regional trade. It's easy to keep Africa, and perhaps Latin-America, off the map. But this is simply not going to happen with Asia. Personally, I think it is actually in the interest of the US to foster new regional engines of growth, so that the US can progressively give up its unsustainable status as importer of last resort.
(But then again, I am naively assuming that economics have something to say about what is the best way to boost standards of living in America, assuming additionally that this is the goal of the whole enterprise.)
Finally, as for taste, you know what they say? Prude and rude ;-)
Posted by: Jean-Philippe Stijns on October 22, 2003 08:24 AMJPS: No need to tell it to Rummy of course. He's well aware of the situation, given his "old Europe" comment.
But of course I exaggerated in my remarks. A declining power can be still a power.
I haven't seen the same bolstering of the EU's position with non-aligned countries, at least in any tangible way. But then, I will confess, I haven't looked particular hard!
Posted by: Andrew Boucher on October 22, 2003 09:26 AMStan,
At the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the French floated a plan and the Germans floated a plan...But they were immediately scotched because the American way is necessarily the best. I would think the German plan would have been the most interesting, since they are the ones most directly impacted, while the French are..French-(they were allied to Russia during the 19th century.) At any rate, an economic reform program that straight away produces a 60% drop in output can hardly be considered a great success. To be sure, the Soviet system was horrid both politically and economically and this was basically a case of bankruptcy. But there is a difference in bankruptcy law between liquidation and reorganization. And one asset the Soviet Union did have in abundance was a high level of technical education among its work force; having engineers sell apples on street corner can hardly be considered an efficient economic arrangement.
Really, would not a more gradualist approach have been advisable? For one thing, in order for a market based price mechanism to take hold, internal monopolies needed to be boken up, but the first effect of shock therapy was to entrench them even as massive inflation took hold. And a market system requires a legal and regulatory framework to be effective, so that, e.g., the government can collect tax revenues and small businessmen can be protected from criminal predation and banks operate on the basis of actual solvency. And would not some sort of capital controls been advisable, since the policy implemented straight away lead to the widespread, "quasi-legal" looting of assets and massive flight of capital abroad, from countries desperately in need of new capital investment?
As for the danger of communists returning to power, yes, Yeltsin and his neo-bolshevic capitalist cronies made much of this, but the idea that the Stalinist system could be reconstituted was absurd, though, in the face of such massive economic ruination, nostalgia for the bad old days is understandable. At any rate, one of the peculiarities of a one-party totalitarian state is that many of the most capable and knowledgeable, if ambitious, fellows will be party members for careerist reasons. Isn't the current president of Poland, who sent troops to Iraq, a former communist? (And you should realize that given the impossibility and absurdities of a centrally planned economy, what actually held that economy together was a secondary industrial barter economy. Many of the mid-level industry and factory managers were actually highly energetic and talented fellows in coping with the absurdities of the system, and, with retraining combined with genuine market reforms, could have become effective executives/managers.) But surely the main point is that, without successful economic reform, the prospects for anything remotely resembling a democratic political culture taking root were dim indeed. As it now stands the "Chekists" are back in power, industry is highly concentrated in its ownership/control and raw materials are the primary source of export earnings. Was all that talk of human rights just so much Cold War propaganda, since it seems that the "human rights" of the Russian and associated people were the last item of concern?
Perhaps it is a matter of taste as to whether one muses over lost historical opportunities. (Why did Bush I stop the Gulf War after 100 hours? My guess is that they had failed to think through the aftermath and that they were doing Saudi bidding.) But those who would always insist on moving briskly onward are perhaps missing a step or two in their arguments.
Posted by: john c. halasz on October 22, 2003 03:36 PMDeLong's analysis is right-on. The problem with the neocon domestic econ program and foreign policy is the same -- they are based on a view of the world that has no basis in reality. They believed that we would be welcomed by cheering crowds in Iraq and could turn the country into a pro-western liberal democracy that would be a beaming light for the rest of the Muslim world.
We now see that that policy could not work because we can not impose that type of policy in Iraq on the cheap or in the short-run. But because the Bush Admin lied about why we went to war even the Republicans are unwilling to provide the resources necessary for our Iraq policy to work. The same with the policy of "starving the beast". The neocons believe that by some miracle they can cut the role of govt through deficits withour hurting the economy. But in reality, that policy is a policy of destroying the village to save it. Smaller govt is a valid objective, but large deficits is not the way to achieve it. I believe in the common sense of the American people. Any policy that requires lying to the people about is inherently suspect.