Hi everyone,

I just finished an extremely intelligent book that presents a comprehensive and scathing denouncement of the G. W. Bush administration policies and what has been called the "neoconservative agenda."

The book is "The Bubble of American Supremacy" by George Soros.

I suppose I should disclose that I consider myself to be a "small L" libertarian and I also consider George Soros to be one of the "good guys". I say "small L" because I don't consider myself a Libertarian in the sense of the Libertarian National Party, mostly because I don't believe that the free market can solve all problems (in Soros' terms, I am not a "market fundamentalist"). I consider Soros to be a modern hero due to his development of the Open Society Foundation and the work of those foundations. I once saw Soros described as "the only private citizen with a foreign policy".

The book focuses on the damage that the W administration has done to the American reputation through their careless "you're either with us or against us" policies. The book discusses American policy in Afghanistan and Iraq, the "War on Terror", as well as the legitimacy of military intervention in soverign states in general.

The second part of the book suggests an alterative approach, where America takes a leadership role in the development of "open societies" around the world, not by trying to install "democracies" through military might, but by acting consistently with the highest standards of liberalism and "American values".

In my experience, most debates about these issues rapidly degrade to "make peace not war" on one side, or "the UN is f*cked and we can do what we want" on the other. Soros is above both of these facile extremes and presents reasoned analysis that, on one hand, recognizes that force is sometimes needed and morally justified, while, on the other, national soverignty needs to be voluntarily limited for the good of all.

I highly recommend this book and would love to discuss it with anyone here who has read it entirely. Not that big of a deal, really, its under 200 pages and I read it in one sitting.

This short paragraph from the preface will probably tell you whether you want to read it or not:

The United States enjoys a dominant position in the world today that cannot be challenged by any state or combination of states for the foreseeable future. It can lose its dominance only as a result of its own mistakes. At present the country is in the hands of a group of extremists whose strong sense of mission is matched only by their false sense of certitude. By abusing the position that the United States occupies in the world, the extremists have made our nation weaker, not stronger.

These are fighting words and many people will violently disagree, but they are justified by the gravity of the situation. These are not normal times. I have made it my primary objective to persuade the American public to reject President Bush in the forthcoming elections. ... America has to reexamine its role in the world and adopt a more constuctive vision.

FWIW,

Jim

I just have a comment about such books, from any perspective.

99% of them will be read by people who basically agree with the sentiments espoused by the author. This is not the correct audience, though honing opinions is certainly a valid exercise. The people that should really be reading these books are the people that disagree with them. They need to understand how the other side thinks, whether that means coming up with legitimate rebuttals or being converted to a new way of thinking, not even necessarily parallel with the author's.

Now, many of these books are full of opinion and rhetoric and nothing else, but many contain real suggestions, theories, and otherwise active thought.

What we really need to do is figure out how to get each side to fully comprehend the stances of the other side (or sides) and not just continue preaching to the choir.

Sorry for the tangent.

99% of them will be read by people who basically agree with the sentiments espoused by the author. [...]

What we really need to do is figure out how to get each side to fully comprehend the stances of the other side (or sides) and not just continue preaching to the choir.

If you have an idea how to do that, let us know ASAP!

Of course, this is the problem with political theatre, film, music... Conservatives don't listen to Broadside songs. Perhaps Jim was hoping some of our rather rare Bushophiles will read the book, so that we can have lively discussion.

If you have an idea how to do that, let us know ASAP!

Or you could even write a book about it .

If you have an idea how to do that, let us know ASAP!

I guess that was my point, and that, to some extent, the production of these books amounts to little more than mental masturbating.

the production of these books amounts to little more than mental masturbating

Which is, I would say, not a problem with the production itself of such books, but with the human tendency to need reassurance and to feel on "the right side" rather than understanding others' points of view. I am not speaking fron any of the two sides of this particular case, but making a general observation.

Having said that, I believe that publishing a book is however an opportunity, in itself, for those few who are sincerely interested in reading somebody's point of view.

Bitt, I agree with everything you've said. I try to read from as many different points of view as possible, but occasionally one finds an author who articulates things better than one has been able to themselves. That's exciting.

Of course, I'd love it if people with many different points of view read the book and commented on it. It would be even better if they made their own suggestions!

Jim

True enough, Bitt. I often think about this, especially when I see books that I think are making important points.

I’ve read plenty of stuff from the "other side", though not as much recently. As has been said many times before, on this BBS at least I'm able to hear ideas from a wide variety of backgrounds and viewpoints. The result is that I've seen myself become a lot more moderate in some areas and flat-out pegged in others. I'm amazed how much communicating with the people here has clarified what's truly important to me.

But the truth is, most people don't allow their beliefs and ideas to be questioned or challenged. I wish more would, because I think there’s a lot of truth that is missed simply because people don’t care enough to work for it.

I guess that was my point, and that, to some extent, the production of these books amounts to little more than mental masturbating.

I've never found these types of books particularly good for.... Oh, oh, I get your point now.

Seriously, I agree with your initial comments and other folks' observations that most people read stuff that agrees with, reinforces or fortifies previously-held opinions. I use "fortify" intentionally as I often open this type of book with the notion "I believe X. Am I being reasonable to believe X?" then finish some books going "Nope, I'm not nuts. Things are that screwed up!" Jeffrey Toobin's excellent "Too Close to Call" and Richard Clarke's imperfect-but-convincing "Against All Enemies" are examples. Just read a review of former ambassador Joe Wilson's new book and am looking forward to reading it. So as depressing as some of these are, at least they help me think I have not lost my mind. I read Soros' essay that developed into this thread's book of note and hope to read that soon as well.

But your essential point is correct. I am reading stuff that does not seriously contradict my gut. Would I read Karen Hughes' book? I'd sooner take the gas pipe! I have to imagine I'd feel very ill by page 3. I read an editorial by this incredibly resolute guy in the local right-leaning newspapers and almost went into convulsions -- wasted half an hour writing a letter to the editor that they won't publish. I don't feel better. Let me read some Soros-complmentary critique like this dire essay from the Independent. It may not be uplifting, and it does leave me feeling angry, but at least I'm not nauseated.

So, is some sharing of the left/right minds possible? I guess I'd say that maybe your 99.9% figure is maybe 0.5% high. I have passed around books including Toobin's, Clarke's and other to friends who don't share all of my views and who have then shared them with in-laws who erratically listen to all sorts of talk radio -- Rush and local clones -- with the end result being at least some interesting dinner debates. And in one case I may be helping to stem the tide of rampant, nihilistic Libertarianism!

And not *all* political books are reinforcers. Sadly, the most compelling political book I have ever read left me feeling pretty hopeless when it came to the political future of this country (that was Kevin Phillips' "Wealth and Democracy"). It kind of went to a dark place that I really hadn't planned on or wished for.

As long as I'm starting to launch into free association, whaddaya think about that Ariana Huffington? I heard her on the radio last night and I gotta say that there is at least one political actor left who has some spunk and has *some* semblance of an optimistic outlook. Maybe I caught her on a good night, but she has my vote. She recounted calling Shrub a "dry drunk" on a TV panel show. Quite the insight.

Ah, and while I have historically shied away from bumper stickers, I am definitely getting myself one of these.

See, I think that the vast majority of the American public is too ... stupid ... to understand that satire, regardless of being familiar with 1984. And I'd hate to seemingly promote Bush, or even make his name more visible. (Not that I have any real notion that people are on the verge of forgetting about him.)

As long as I'm starting to launch into free association, whaddaya think about that Ariana Huffington? I heard her on the radio last night and I gotta say that there is at least one political actor left who has some spunk and has *some* semblance of an optimistic outlook. Maybe I caught her on a good night, but she has my vote. She recounted calling Shrub a "dry drunk" on a TV panel show. Quite the insight

I would have to agree agree. I think she revealed in her latest book that she's voting Democrat for the first time this year. Her reasoning was something along the lines of "when the house is on fire, you don't worry about redecorating." Makes sense to me.

Come to think of it, the political figures that seem to always interest me are the ones who don't have strong allegience to their parties. Either they've switched parties, are rebels in their own party, or have stances on issues that don't necessarily fall into party lines. Guys like John McCain, Wesley Clark, and even Colin Powell to a lesser extent. I wish there were more of these people, but our political system doesn't allow them to survive for very long.

I would have to agree agree. I think she revealed in her latest book that she's voting Democrat for the first time this year. Her reasoning was something along the lines of "when the house is on fire, you don't worry about redecorating." Makes sense to me.

She manages to say things that might sound a bit shopworn coming out of somebody else's mouth, but her brightness invests her short outburts like this with a lot of punch. Is she single :-)

Come to think of it, the political figures that seem to always interest me are the ones who don't have strong allegience to their parties. Either they've switched parties, are rebels in their own party, or have stances on issues that don't necessarily fall into party lines. Guys like John McCain, Wesley Clark, and even Colin Powell to a lesser extent. I wish there were more of these people, but our political system doesn't allow them to survive for very long.

I agree, mostly. John McCain, well, I'm gonna write him a letter. Wesley, well, liked him but wasn't sure about suitability to executive politics (and I blame his campaign for blasting Dean out of the skies over Iowa).

Colin Powell? Huffington said the other night: "There is a special circle in Hell reserved for Colin Powell." My reasons are maybe just a tiny bit different than hers, but I agree 100 percent. Colin, you were the *one* guy on this side of the Atlantic who had any kind of a shot at stopping this war, and you completely caved. Now Cheney and Co. ignore you, treat you with contempt, and disgrace you further. Well, Colin, you deserve it. I wish there was a Hell, with that circle just for you.

This being Friday, and since nobody else has posted it, figure I should post the recently released RNC convention schedule. Scary.

Which one's Edgar and which one's Charlie. No, wait. That was a dumb question.

But it does bring a whole new meaning to the term "McCarthyism".

Colin Powell?

I did say "to a lesser extent." You really think he had ANY shot at stopping the war? In THIS political system? What could he have possibly done? He was completely outnumbered, and everyone knows that you can't go out on the world stage and dissent from the rest of your country's leadership. If you do, not only is your case drowned out by the rest of the people (including your boss) who are against you, but it makes the country look like it doesn't have unified leadership. Yes, everyone knows disagreements happen behind closed doors, but the Secretary of State speaking out against the direction of the President could create a really bad situation. I agree that at some point you have to take a stand, but it was going to take a lot more than just Colin Powell to stop this train's momentum, and I'm not sure who would have stood with him if he did decide to take a stand.

My only reason for including Powell is because he's the highest ranking individual left in our Government that isn't a mindlessly-led automaton. He occasionally speaks out against things. No, he never takes it as far as going out to the UN and denouncing the war, but he hits the Sunday talk shows and occasionally drops a hint or two that he would do things any differently if he had any kind of power at all. He's also indicated that he'll be leaving after he serves this term, which sends a message on its own (even if he's forced to say it has nothing to do with current policy, we all know better.)

Anyway, I also found this story interesting. An author and a retired General, both vocal Bush supporters in the past, are quite critical of the path we're going down with the Iraq war. Neither is going too far out on a limb, and I don't think either would come out and vote for Kerry, but again, it's a very powerful statement when someone who's supposed to be "part of the gang" comes out, however sheepishly, against what's happening.

Colin Powell?

I did say "to a lesser extent."

Yes, you did. And you're not obliged to hope that Colin burns in Hell, either. I will address your challenges to my line of thinking, too. But first...relevant digression!

I finished reading Joe Wilson's book "The Politics of Truth:..." Monday evening. Not a perfect book, but very interesting. If it had only been about the "16 words" lie/exposure and the subsequent revenge against him and his wife, it would have been a pretty skinny book. As luck would have it, he had a lot of other biographical material in the queue for possible publication. The result was something like 4-5 books in 1: "My time as a ski bum, my time as a diplomat in Africa, my time in Europe, my time in Iraq before Desert Storm, my time in DC, and my time dealing with the whole yellow-cake uranium lie".

Parts of the book are a bit self-congratulatory (basking in George H W Bush's acclaim as a hero) but how do you write something autobiographical without some risk of that. The right wing will no doubt hurl at Wilson's more recent reveling in the company of leftists like Warren Beatty and Norman Lear.

Overall, though, it is a very interesting book throughout. Lots of African Cold War/post-colonial political history and a *very* interesting look behind the scenes in Baghdad leading up to the Gulf War. And it would seem that he was pretty kick-ass. A hero maybe?

More recently, Wilson is completely pissed and says so. He resorts to borderline name-calling and insult, but, in my court, I will allow it. His anger is justified.

Why digress on this here? Just to emphasized that the most effective recent critics of the Neocon Vulcan agenda were hardly the Warren Beattys of the world, rather it is the Wilsons, the Richard Clarkes, the Paul O'Neils (and now the Anthony Zinnis). Either conservatives or centrist careerists with service across several administrations. I admire them. I thank them.

You really think he had ANY shot at stopping the war?

A sure chance? No. ANY chance? Absolutely.

In THIS political system? What could he have possibly done?

Resigned. In public, with a coherent explanation. Pull an Elliott Abrams or (less effectively) a Cyrus Vance. Make himself available to appear before congressional committees. Remember those votes in the House and Senate where the Democrats rolled over and handed Shrub the unbelievably open-ended authorization (on false premises) to go to war? What might have happened to those votes?

He was completely outnumbered, and everyone knows that you can't go out on the world stage and dissent from the rest of your country's leadership.

Why not? It was his responsibility. He neglected it. Outnumbered? Not sure. The public face of this administration is 3 faceted: Bush, Powell, and Rumsfeld. Sure, other constituencies are aware of Cheney (for good or ill) and Rice, but few "average" citizens see beyond the innocent, homey, Alfred E. Neuman countenance of Shrub to really see the Wolfowitzes and Perles. So the Neocon war party hammers along through their American Enterprise front people and media types like David Frum. And, for a long, long time, they lied essentially unchallenged in the runup to this catastrophe.

Powell *counseled* some caution -- played Cassandra with respect to the "post-war" morass we are seeing now -- and he agreed with Pentagon concerns about force strength, yet he went to the UN with a case that was essentially bullshit to *advance* the likelihood or war, not reduce it.

Imagine what public opinion might have been like had Powell, instead of adding his prestige to this adventure, subtracted it. Even if he *threatened* to resign, might the war had been delayed 3-6 months? Where might that have led? When the chips were down, he was more interested in being Secretary of State than in telling the truth or in helping his country avoid what will prove to be the single biggest national mistake in our history*.

If you do, not only is your case drowned out by the rest of the people (including your boss) who are against you, but it makes the country look like it doesn't have unified leadership. Yes, everyone knows disagreements happen behind closed doors, but the Secretary of State speaking out against the direction of the President could create a really bad situation.

I would submit that the Secretary of State *not* speaking out against that direction has inestimably helped create a much worse situation.

I agree that at some point you have to take a stand, but it was going to take a lot more than just Colin Powell to stop this train's momentum, and I'm not sure who would have stood with him if he did decide to take a stand.

Imagine Colin Powell shaking hands in a photo op with Robert Byrd.

My only reason for including Powell is because he's the highest ranking individual left in our Government that isn't a mindlessly-led automaton. He occasionally speaks out against things. No, he never takes it as far as going out to the UN and denouncing the war, but he hits the Sunday talk shows and occasionally drops a hint or two that he would do things any differently if he had any kind of power at all. He's also indicated that he'll be leaving after he serves this term, which sends a message on its own (even if he's forced to say it has nothing to do with current policy, we all know better.)

Some say that Powell doesn't dislike the media portrait of him as a "tortured figure". That doesn't do anything for me. Not a mindlessly-led automaton? When you bend over the table and let Cheney and 30 other hawks give it to you -- and then say "General Powell reporting for duty, sir!" -- I think you have other problems. What a disgrace.

He has *lots* of money. He doesn't need to be Secretary of State. I think that any argument that he somehow achieved more by staying within the administration has been proven completely false. He did nothing to challenge neocon agenda whether in Iraq or Israel/Palestine, and he is still dancing as they are the ones fireing the bullets at his feet. Darn, resigning on principal might have even propelled him to the front of the pack of Republicans as our collective NyQuil wears off and Neocon influence (we hope!) wanes.

Anyway, I also found this story interesting. An author and a retired General, both vocal Bush supporters in the past, are quite critical of the path we're going down with the Iraq war. Neither is going too far out on a limb, and I don't think either would come out and vote for Kerry, but again, it's a very powerful statement when someone who's supposed to be "part of the gang" comes out, however sheepishly, against what's happening.

Somebody is sure to criticize Zinni and/or Clancy for trying to sell books!

[digression again....]

It is a funny thing. With regard to Richard Clarke's book, a friend said "Well, interesting information. I just question the timing." If someone has a critical story to tell, must they suppress it just because they might make money? When would be a *good* time for Clarke to publish? After the November election?

Anyhow, I wish Colin had decided to write a tell-all book this year. When he writes one *next* year, I will spit on it.

The Rush types always spout how people against the "BFU" (Big F*ck Up) are against America -- always apologizing for the USA when we shouldn't be -- that we are ashamed when we should be proud. I don't really see that, but I have to confess I *am* ashamed, and it ain't just Abu Graib. So here goes, as sincerely as I can make it sound:

I'm really sorry, Afghanistan.


Jim


*"biggest mistake in our history". OK, I didn't include slavery, a much *bigger* mistake, since we eventually came to our national senses, and there were things to be proud of in that recovery. Vietnam? Huge mistake. Millions killed. Yet I submit that, if only from the standpoint of pure national self-interest, our situation in the world has been harmed more severely by this big, big, mistake and that the injury will take much longer to heal.

Remember those votes in the House and Senate where the Democrats rolled over and handed Shrub the unbelievably open-ended authorization (on false premises) to go to war?

I apologize for bringing yet another book into the mix, here, but I just finished reading Worse than Watergate, and it sheds a bit of light on what happened regarding that "open-ended authorization."

Here's what John Dean had to say:

But in granting this unprecedented authorization, Congress insisted that certain conditions be established as existing and that the president submit a formal determination, assuring the Congress that, in fact, these conditions were present. Specifically (and here I am summarizing the technical wording; the actual language may be found in the endnotes), Congress wanted a formal determination submitted to it either before using force or within forty-eight hours of having done so, stating that the president had found that (1) further diplomatic means alone would not resolve the "continuing thread" (meaning WMD) and (2) the military action was part of the overall response to terrorism, including dealing with those involved in "the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." In short, Congress insisted that there be evidence of two points that were the centerpiece of Bush's argument for the war.

-- p. 148. (Emphasis his, typos mine).

So, while they did give Bush the power, they also stipulated some obligations that Bush must fill in order to use that power. Over the next couple of pages, Dean goes on to demonstrate how Bush did not, in fact, comply with those obligations.

This is not to say that the Dems (and others) didn't roll over when they shouldn't have, but it does demonstrate that they were hoodwinked by a rather unscrupulous administration.

All it demonstrates, once again, is that those were not the two real reasons for the war. Guess what: I knew that -- back then & now.

the vast majority of the American public is too ... stupid ... to understand that satire,

But "if we kowtow to the stupid (terrorists), haven't the stupid (terrorists) already won?"

Well, my point is that to those stupid people, it may well look like an actual endorsement, and I don't want to promote him at all, accidentally or not. In fact, the stupid ones are likely to be the ones that haven't already made up their minds which way they're gonna vote.