What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

The Other New Fusionism...

...Just as pointless as the New Fusionism:


What Lindsay, who enthusiastically supported the Iraq war, doesn’t say—or isn’t quoted as saying—is that he hates Paul’s old right and quintessentially libertarian opposition to our foreign policy of global interventionism. Senor Lindsay and his fellow ”modern" libertarians have made their peace with the Empire. As long as they can take drugs, abort fetuses, and sodomize each other to their hearts’ content, he and his Beltway buddies have no problem with the US rampaging over half the earth, regime-changing and taking out “rogue” states at will. As long as it’s a “free market” empire, they’re all in favor of it. (Justin Raimondo, at Taki's Top Drawer.)

So, on the one hand, we have the New Fusionism, which combines an evangelical moralism and social ethic with interventionist foreign policy, including the principle of preemptive war - and let it not be forgotten that the cash value of this fusionism is evangelical flirtation with the Guiliani candidacy - while on the other, we have the Other New Fusionism of the Cato libertarians, which combines the nihilistic creative destruction of globalist capitalism with the social ethics of the New Left and the democratist delusions of neoconservatism (this, of course, because they are utile toward the worldwide extension of The Market). Curiously, the first constant in this devil's brew of nonsense is the interventionist foreign policy. The second constant - though it remains a somewhat silent partner in the New Fusionism - is that same global capitalism which is intertwined with the foreign policy, which is why social conservative heavies are loath to endorse Huckabee, though Huckabee does not so much reject this as pine for modernizations not approved by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (This would be the Club for Growth, I suppose.) The current (grotesquely expanded) electoral season is a trial, not only of the soul of the GOP (snicker), but of the conservative movement (or what remains thereof) as a whole.

Update: It is worth noting that the Other New Fusionism has the advantage of coherence, which the New Fusionism simply lacks, inasmuch as the former combines a utilitarian/hedonist social ethic with a foreign policy utterly utilitarian in essence, wanting as it is for a moral warrant, while the latter attempts, vainly, to combine a substantive social ethic with that same foreign policy. At the meta-level, this is one reason why the social conservatives are not only dupes and suckers, often enough, but almost destined to witness the defeat of their ostensibly highest aspirations: their functional non-negotiables accept all the premises of their substantive adversaries. They have conceded 90% of the debate already.

Comments (62)

I was under the impression that the term "New Fusionism" referred to a combination of social conservatism and pro-free market policies. No one ever said in my hearing before that "New Fusionism" was meant to refer to a combination of social conservatism and interventionist foreign policy. My ignorance of political terminology is pretty wide, so I might have just missed this. Do other people who aren't opposed to "New Fusionism" really use the term this way?

As for the Giuliani candidacy being the "cash value" of the particular combination of social conservatism and interventionist foreign policy, whatever one calls that combination, that's not how I see it at all. All of the social conservatives I know who are (with some degree of agonizing) flirting with voting for Giuliani are doing it, crazily enough, *because of* their social conservatism. In the grass roots, I have not heard a single such person say to me, "But we should vote for Giuliani because he'll help us to win wars abroad," nor anything like it. I'm sure there are people who make such arguments in the blogosphere, but my guess...Those aren't the people for whom social conservative issues are front and center. The real deep-dyed social conservatives are considering Giuliani only because they are so terrified of HRC and what she will do on "their" social issues. And also because they've bought some line of baloney about what great judges Giuliani will appoint. (Sheesh!) Which is short-sighted, unprincipled, and foolish. I grant you all of that. It makes me really upset, actually, and I'm sometimes tempted to use stronger language about it. But has nothing to do with interventionist foreign policy.

And golly, I go over to my gmail account after writing the above and find a Don Feder column on Huckabee. I knew almost nothing about the guy. I suppose in this company his love of high taxes and help-A-with-B's-money-taken-by-C programs may or may not earn him enemies. But he's also a fan of illegal immigration, which should concern all here. So please: Let's not hear about the stupid SoCons who are opposed to Huckabee only because they've sold out to Big Business and Global Capitalism. Maybe, just maybe, they have the brains to look at the bigger picture.

Lydia, you asked: "Do other people who aren't opposed to "New Fusionism" really use the term this way?" Well, at least one person does, and his name is Joseph Bottum. The essay that I was responding to in the posts that Jeff linked to sets down what he believes is the "new fusionism" founded in a "moral" vision of the world. How widespread this "new fusionism" really is, I cannot say, but it most certainly exists, and it takes the form descrived by Jeff.

As for Huckabee, his record on immigration is indeed deplorable, as I have pointed out in a TAC column a few weeks ago and at fairly frequent intervals at Eunomia. Jeff's larger point, I think, is that Huckabee's errors are no greater than Giuliani's or McCain's on immigration (indeed, they may be less), but it is his deviations on economic policy that make him anathema to the gatekeepers of the party, whereas Giuliani's obvious contempt for the beliefs of social conservatives does not earn him anything like the same open scorn. It is a question of priorities and which faction in the movement will predominate. This is not an argument for Huckabee (I would not make such an argument), but simply a call to recognise that social conservatives are being had by the GOP (again).

The scandalous element of whatever conservative, "fusionist," conglomeration of competing ideals one wants to pack together like a pebble-bearing snowball, is the patent violation by many of its tenets of Christian morality. There is a virtual cognitive dissonance at the heart of the contemporary American conservative movement, insofar as it is supported by Christians.
One witnessed the kind of cognitive dissonance of which I speak in the spectacle of, then governor of Texas, George W. Bush, mocking the condemned prisoner, Karla Faye Tucker, before turning thumbs down on her plea for a commutation from death to a life sentence. Bush, supposedly "born again," was incapable (for nakedly political reasons?) of finding any mercy, or charity, in his heart for this woman, despite having received many certifications from conservative Christian leaders of the authenticity of her conversion, along with their endorsements of the Good Works she was doing within the prison "community." The "Christian" conservative community went on to twice elect George W. Bush to be their leader, despite the spiritual depravity that the Karla Faye Tucker incident exposed to the light of reason. Only a bad man could have acted thusly; just as only a bad man could have been responsible for the conduct of an illegal and immoral war of aggression in the Middle East. Yet, these soi-disant "Christians," who espouse a socio-political philosophy founded upon such ideals as "greed is good" (it's my money! and you can't have it!), and "might makes right," somehow find these positions compatible with the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount.
Truly, the right hand does not even know what the right hand is doing, much less the left.

The sellout of the socons to Big Business and corporate capitalism is not direct, something I should have made more explicit in the original piece, but is evidenced by the solicitude the socon establishment has for the business conservatives - who, true to form, are - if Erickson is to be believed (and I think that he is) - willing to bolt to Hillary if Huckabee gains too much ground. The trouble, as the business conservatives perceive the matter, is that Huckabee is willing to raise taxes, a political act which is sometimes necessary to good government and the provision of even the fundamental public goods, whereas this is anathema to the business types. Social conservatives may regard fiscal conservatism, having to do with balancing budgets and paying for services, as separable from, and occasionally contradictory with, the specific objectives of some business conservatives (Certainly, Huckabee combines the two in a way that takes a little from each column), but the business conservatives ("fiscalcons" in the Erickson piece) regard financial conservatism as a package deal. You get both the never-raise-a-tax-ever side and the free-market, the-stranger-is-just-the-same-as-the-neighbour globalist side. Huckabee is willing to play along with the business types on immigration, but not on all trade agreements, and not on taxes. And the socon establishment would rather throw in their lot with candidates less sound on their fundamental issues than rankle the business conservatives.

Shame on them. (No, this is not an endorsement of Huckabee.)

Daniel, I appreciate the info. on Bottum. Out of neatness-freakishness (really) I let my subscription to First Things lapse, so I've been out of touch with what Bottum has been saying, though I've read on VFR about his crazy comment re. our being "as bad as the terrorists" if we limit Muslim immigration, or words to that effect. Before that the worst I knew about him was that a friend of mine who knows him personally told me he's a continentalist in philosophy!

Myself, I would be surprised if Giuliani were any sort of fiscal conservative either. I tend to think that, while the "fiscal conservative/social liberal" is a logically possible entity, in the real world of politics it's largely a mythical beast. I, for one, have never faced the Dreadful Dilemma with which pro-choice Republicans have been threatening those like me for twenty years: "What would you do if a pro-life Democrat who was fiscally terrible were running against a pro-choice Republican who was fiscally conservative?"

That social conservatives are being had by the Giuliani crowd is indubitable. If they are being rather surprisingly picky about Huckabee in that context may be a bit strange (why be so picky about Huckabee if any of you would consider voting for Giuliani?), but seems to me at least partly a reaction both to the Bush administration and to the push for Giuliani, inasmuch as Huckabee sounds rather notably like Bush himself, from the little I've now read, only apparently less likable and able to win personal affection. You'll notice Giuliani, of course, didn't win the straw poll vote amongst conservatives. None of them want him, that's for sure. The scandal is that they are thinking of taking the plunge in the end *at all*. This is a sort of being duped, but not, I think, by the business community nor by a love of interventionism in foreign policy. If anything, one could argue that that famous "electability" that is serving Giuliani so well is at least as much a function of the idea that maybe he'll be popular with swing voters, Democrats, and other liberals as a function of his being loved by the gatekeepers of the conservative movement.

The thing is, that the SoCon establishment is refusing to back Huckabee, and is leaning toward either Romney or Guiliani, precisely because they wish to keep the globalists on the reservation. And, if one considers the Republican field more generally, the explicit dividing line is one that the Powers That Be draw between conservatives who are full-throttle on the War, and those who have questioned even elements of the strategy, such as the "surge". Huckabee and Brownback questioned the "surge" - though the former, in one of the debates, avowed his support for the War as a matter of "honour" - and were disparaged widely for doing so.

Make no mistake, the non-negotiables of the GOP are foreign-policy interventionism and globalist economics. The same applies to the Democratic establishment, but the Kossacks haven't all caught on just yet.

Truly, the right hand does not even know what the right hand is doing, much less the left.

That's a nice quip, Rodak, but I'm not on-board with your bill of indictment here. The Karla Faye Tucker episode is a dubious basis, in my view, to judge Bush "a bad man." The mocking was uttered, if I recall correctly, during an interview early in the 2000 campaign, and was pretty clearly the result of nerves not malice. Tucker's guilt was never in question; and while there is no reason to doubt her conversion, neither is there any Christian reason (as far as I can tell) for a sincere conversion to stay the sword of the state.

As for the alleged illegality of the war in Iraq, well, that too is not obvious. I opposed the war from the beginning, but calling it "an illegal and immoral war of aggression" to which no Christian can rightly give his assent, is pretty strident talk.

Look, the Right is in disarray. We all know that. The conflation of Conservatism with Capitalism is a big problem. The conflation of Free Enterprise with Globalization is another. The lily-livered posture toward Islam is yet another. The corruption of power, the embrace of globalism and mass immigration, the capitulation to pop culture -- the list goes on and on. But unless we are prepared to abandon the field, to concede that our country is lost, we have to work with the materials at hand. It will be painstaking and frustrating business, but in my view honorable business as well.

Make no mistake, the non-negotiables of the GOP are foreign-policy interventionism and globalist economics. The same applies to the Democratic establishment, but the Kossacks haven't all caught on just yet.

It may just be my pragmatic side, but the most disturbing aspect of the foreign-policy interventionism is its unilateral, imperial flavor. Actions that are done under UN sanction, while not perfect, always carry more legitimacy within the target country and improve the odds for success.

I don't read the Daily Kos, but I do read an assortment of liberal/left blogs, and have yet to see a single endorsement for HRC. They have defended her against attacks, but there is little love between the ideological purity of the left blogosphere and the triangulations of establisment candidate HRC. So far only Kucinich and Richardson have shown a concern towards foreign policy restraint, but Dodd has been moving towards the liberal base lately with his defense of Constitutional law, which implies a certain respect for boundaries that would be refreshing to see in Washington.

I have no problem, as all here know, with free market economics. So I rather _like_ the idea of a pro-free market, small government conservatism that is also strong on social issues. But we haven't had that for a long time. I find it difficult to understand people who still think we are living in a world where those two things are in tension and where some candidates represent one and some represent the other. The real truth is, as one commentator said in one of the linked articles (I don't remember which) that both the fiscal conservatives and the social conservatives, and the small-government conservatitves of all sorts, are getting the short end of the stick, and have been for quite a while. Anybody remember the heady days when we thought we might eliminate the NEA and the DOE? And the idea that somehow social conservatives have reaped big dividends during the Bush administration is, of course, absurd. I'm _still_ not sure even whether the Bush appointed justices would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade if they got the chance, and this mystery will probably remain for the indefinite future.

As for working with the materials we have, I'm leaning towards voting for Duncan Hunter in the ridiculously early new Michigan primary. For what that's worth.

"The conflation of Conservatism with Capitalism is a big problem."

Paul--
No, it's not. The conflation of Capitalism and Christianity, however, is. I called the war in Iraq illegal, which I personally think that it is. But more importantly to the thrust of my previous comment, is that it is, almost certainly, from a Christian standpoint, an Unjust War.
As for Mr. Bush, he is, like any of us, to be known by his fruits. The mockery may have been a result of nerves, if you have some need to give the man a pass. But his lack of mercy, from a Christian standpoint again, is indicative of the kind of man Bush is. The Christians who were asking for mercy for Ms. Tucker were, by and large, not even against the death penalty, per se. They were asking that Ms. Tucker's specific case be taken into account. This ability to take a condemned prisoner's specific case into account and to commute that prisoner's sentence, is a power that Bush had; it was not something outside the norm.
If the "sword of the state" is to trump one's religion, then that sword has become one's idol and master. And the indication that we received as a result of Bush's decision on the life of Karla Faye Tucker, has been more than borne out by his career as POTUS. He has given us war, torture, scandal, and shame. There is very little that is positive in the man's public life and much that is negative.

I don't see anything in Huckabee's current rhetoric that should bother anti-immigration conservatives. (Don't assume malice in the label. If you want a different term, I'll use it in further correspondence.) His recent rhetoric has been to secure the border first. I understand though that the Eagle Forum and a bunch of other folks still don't want him to be the candidate. I'm just saying that that is the issue he seems willing to concede upon. I personally don't like it, but I don't see how it is different from Romney's position on abortion.

There is no question in my mind that the libertarian position on economics has become the dominant one in conservative circles. Fund's hit piece in the WSJ is evidence of that, and I blogged about it at the time. I think there is no question that many soc-cons and Christian conservatives have adopted this as part of their orthodoxy. I haven't endorsed anyone yet, but Huckabee has given me a little enthusiasm for the process.

Well, as a matter of coalition politics, free-market, globalist economics and social conservatism are supposed to be mutually contextualizing, integral aspects of the One True Conservatism. On the other hand, a critical element of paleoconservatism, and of crunchy conservatism as well, is that the rootlessness and creative destruction of capitalism are inimical to certain of the conditions of the Good Life as defined by a robust social conservatism.

In truth, Ross Douthat is largely correct to observe that


Obviously, the various interest groups in the "fiscal con" coalition - business interests, supply-siders, deficit hawks, and libertarians - have policy goals that cut in different directions, and the latter two groups, in particular, have plenty of cause for disappointment with Bush. But it's far from clear that the last six years have been a net win for the social right and a net loss for everybody else in the coalition; it might be more accurate to say that both social conservatives and small-government conservatives have taken a back seat to supply-siders and business interests.

Well, those folks and the new militarists, er., foreign-policy hawks:

As in the Cold War, foreign-policy hawkishness has become the glue holding the fragile GOP coalition together, even as Iraq has made foreign policy a general-election liability for the Right, instead of the asset it was in the Reagan years. Which is one way to explain the weird aftermath of the '06 debacle, in which social conservatives and fiscal conservatives each blamed one another for the defeat, when it was perfectly clear that the Iraq War had more to do the party's degringolade than the corruption of the small-government movement or the excesses of the religious right.

As regards the Kossack left, well, that was an unfortunate appellation, inasmuch as Kossacks have evinced some enthusiasm for the Two Americas rhetoric of Edwards, skepticism concerning the foreign policy of Obama - what with the neoconservatives fairly swooning over it themselves - and certain reservations about Hillary! But, all the same, the left generally hasn't awakened to the reality that the Democratic Party is effectively one wing of a globalist/interventionist/empire-building duopoly. The dominant faction among the Democratic establishment believes that they can accomplish the empire-construction more effectively, that's all.

I called the war in Iraq illegal, which I personally think that it is.

Really. Which law did it violate?

"Really. Which law did it violate?"

xkvsxe--
As I'm not a lawyer, I will concede the point to you that it may not be illegal. Let's just say that it's extra-legal, in not having been formally declared by congress, as required by law.

Rodak is a pacifist. (This came up in another thread.) So if any war were formally declared by Congress, Rodak would simply say that Congress was acting in a way that no Christian could countenance.

"So if any war were formally declared by Congress, Rodak would simply say that Congress was acting in a way that no Christian could countenance."

True. But a red herring in this context. The statement also disregards the fact that congress is not a Christian body.

Let's just say that it's extra-legal, in not having been formally declared by congress, as required by law.

I am not a Constitutional lawyer either, but it appears to me that Congress did formally authorize the war when they passed the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. To say that this is not an “official” declaration of war seems like nitpicking to me. I suppose you believe that every war since WWII has been “extra-legal”. In fact, President Clinton acted against Congressional support for his campaign in Kosovo. I guess that makes Kosovo "extra-extra-legal".

Yes. They were all extra-legal, Vietnam being the most egregiously so. The Joint Resolution is currently being repented of by many who voted for it. Had they formally declared war, there would today be no ambiguity concerning what their votes were intended to effect, and those who voted would be forced to take full responsibility for the results of that vote. Instead we are presented with the sick-making hemming-and-hawing of back-tracking legislators, stricken with buyer's remorse and worried about their political futures--as well they might be.
But religious conservatives voted for Bush and the ugly, pointless war, largely because he claimed to be pro-life. Now, ironically, the same religious conservatives seem poised to vote for Rudy Giuliani, a man on record as favoring federally funded abortions, because they fear jihadi blow-back in the streets of their cities on account of Bush's unnecessary war. There is just no end to the deals conservatives will make with the devil, and no lie too outrageous for them to suck up like it was mother's milk.
At least the secular liberals don't claim to be anything that they're manifestly not.

The Joint Resolution is currently being repented of by many who voted for it. Had they formally declared war, there would today be no ambiguity concerning what their votes were intended to effect, and those who voted would be forced to take full responsibility for the results of that vote

If there was an "official" declaration of war, why would those repenting feel any differently? The Constitution says Congress declares war, but it really does not say how. Congress voted to use armed forces against Iraq. How much more "official" does it get? Does it become official simply by adding "we declare war..." into the joint resolution? Congress knew very well what they were voting for.

"If there was an "official" declaration of war, why would those repenting feel any differently?"

They might not feel any differently, but they would have no wiggle room. HRC and others are now able to say that they never intended their votes to actually lead to war, but only to continued inspections, etc., etc., blah-blah-blah.
If war had been declared, and a legislator had voted for that declaration, there could be, as I already said, no ambiguity about what any individual's vote was meant to effect.

They might not feel any differently, but they would have no wiggle room. HRC and others are now able to say that they never intended their votes to actually lead to war, but only to continued inspections, etc., etc., blah-blah-blah.

I guess we will just have to disagree on this. Considering what Congress voted on was called the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, I find it hard to believe that anyone was confused about what they were voting for. It was all outlined in the resolution.

xkvsxe--
The difference, as I see it, is that the Joint Resolution *authorized* the use of force, at the discretion of the POTUS, under certain partially specified, and vaguely defined (not spelled out in detail) circumstances.
A formal declaration of war, by contrast, would have *mandated* the use of force, unconditionally.
No wiggle room.

The difference between a declaration of war and an authorization of force is that the former is the instrument appropriate to a republic, while the latter is the one appropriate to an empire, or quasi-empire. The former establishes certain facts and conditions and lays out the response. The latter transfers, by a purely formal mechanism, vast and unspecifiable powers to the executive, who then utilizes them as he thinks best. Moreover, this difference is demonstrated in the quality of the criticisms of those who object to this transfer of indeterminate power, the criticisms often devolving to, "Why do you hate America?", or "Why do you support the terrorists?"

A declaration of war ideally declares the deliberate sense of the people; an authorization of the use of force merely sets up someone as The Decider.

A declaration of war ideally declares the deliberate sense of the people; an authorization of the use of force merely sets up someone as The Decider.

I'm not seeing it. It appears to be nothing more than a play on words. If there is such a huge distinction, why hasn't the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional?

Congress voted on the resolution and they knew exactly what they were voting on. Anyone who voted for the resolution with the belief that it would not lead to an attack on Iraq is not fit for Congress. What it comes to for some is voter regret: "Hey, I didn't really know what I was voting for, so it's not my fault".

Make no mistake, the non-negotiables of the GOP are foreign-policy interventionism and globalist economics. The same applies to the Democratic establishment, but the Kossacks haven't all caught on just yet.


As far as Dems, for sure globalism is a must.
But foreign-policy interventionism is not so much. If not for political costs, Dems would be out of Iraq in minimum time.
If costs are not objection, Dems would put the whole world on welfare, it is true.
Not exactly the same as Jorge Boosh brand of Democratism from barrel of gun.

"Anyone who voted for the resolution with the belief that it would not lead to an attack on Iraq is not fit for Congress."

BINGO!

...and there's the rub.

I'm not seeing it. It appears to be nothing more than a play on words. If there is such a huge distinction, why hasn't the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional?
This is utterly unconvincing, and in the wake of the court's decisions on Kelo and McCain-Feingold, jejeune in its faith in the court. Besides, the SC inserting itself into war-making would raise a whole new set of constitutional issues regarding separation of powers, and could very well precipitate a constitutional crisis, as Congress and the President would likely, and for Constitutionally very well-supported reasons, refuse to obey SC diktat.
Congress voted on the resolution and they knew exactly what they were voting on. Anyone who voted for the resolution with the belief that it would not lead to an attack on Iraq is not fit for Congress. What it comes to for some is voter regret: "Hey, I didn't really know what I was voting for, so it's not my fault".
Those who voted for the "authorization for war" voted to avoid accountability. By and large, they have succeeded. Even the Democrats are poised to nominate to the Presidency someone who took this unprincipled decision to let someone else decide, and now disavows the consequences of her non-decision. If this doesn't show that the republic, as such, is dead, what will? Legislatures at every level are all too ready, even eager, to defer to experts in the executive and the judiciary. Legislation becomes primarily an exercise in posturing, in feeling, and a way to build up networks of patronage, but the idea that something so elevated as the legality of a course of action should be discussed is liable to consign one, in the eyes of his legislative peers, to crankdom.

This is utterly unconvincing, and in the wake of the court's decisions on Kelo and McCain-Feingold, jejeune in its faith in the court. Besides, the SC inserting itself into war-making would raise a whole new set of constitutional issues regarding separation of powers, and could very well precipitate a constitutional crisis, as Congress and the President would likely, and for Constitutionally very well-supported reasons, refuse to obey SC diktat.

Then what is the problem? There is nothing illegal, "extra-legal", or unconstitutional about the Iraq war resolution. The only reason this charge is made is because people disagree with the war.

Those who voted for the "authorization for war" voted to avoid accountability. By and large, they have succeeded. Even the Democrats are poised to nominate to the Presidency someone who took this unprincipled decision to let someone else decide

If you do not want to attack Iraq, then you vote "no" on the Iraq war resolution. It is that simple. Apparently there were some in Congress who understood this.

Besides, the SC inserting itself into war-making would raise a whole new set of constitutional issues regarding separation of powers, and could very well precipitate a constitutional crisis, as Congress and the President would likely, and for Constitutionally very well-supported reasons, refuse to obey SC diktat.

I'm not so certain that this would be a bad thing...

Incidentally, if it were quite as cleanly defined as all that, there would not be a debate over whether that long-ago authorization also entitles The Decider to ordain war against Iran. However, some are now arguing - and this is apparently the presupposition of the entirety of the Beltway controversy regarding Iran - that the authorization was sufficiently broad and open-ended to permit just such an extension of theater. As I argued, either the Congress declares war on X, or merely authorizes The Decider (which is postmodern American gobbledygook for "Emperor") to "engage in hostilities" with all and sundry he believes to be a "threat" to "national security".

Of course, critical to appreciating the calculated ambiguity of all of this dissembling is knowledge of the fact that anything and everything can be, and will be, declared a matter of "national security". Hell, the federal government and the principals have declared the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline, expressly engineered to cut Russia out of the action, a matter of "national security". Hence, cutting Russia out of the Central Asian energy picture is a vital matter of "national security", the point being that it is not so in objective terms (not that we are going to initiate overt hostilities there), meaning that, for Those Who Decide, "national security" pretty much means "What we wanted to do, anyway."

If you do not want to attack Iraq, then you vote "no" on the Iraq war resolution. It is that simple. Apparently there were some in Congress who understood this.
Some, however, like Senators Clinton and Kerry, wanted to be able plausibly to take credit if the war went well, and disavow responsibility if it did not. A yea or nay vote on a declaration of war does not allow the same latitude. Neither did an outright "no" to the 2002 authorization. But a "yes" was grand, as it was never clear exactly what one was saying "yes," and it could always be argued after the fact, whatever one thought at the time.
I'm not so certain that this would be a bad thing...
It might be a very good thing for those of us opposed to juristocracy, but it's not a risk that a Court that is conscious of its own authority and the need to preserve its own legitimacy would be expected to take.

No, the Court would never assume such a risk; the most the Solons (chuckle) would be willing to contemplate would be a call to the contending parties to accept the established precedents as the resolution of the matter.

All the same, it would be nice were the Congress to put both the Court and the Executive in their respective places....

Some, however, like Senators Clinton and Kerry, wanted to be able plausibly to take credit if the war went well, and disavow responsibility if it did not.

Except I do not think that they can reasonably deny responsibility since they authorized the use of the force. They know this, which is why they say things like “the President mislead us” or “I had no idea what I was voting for”. These arguments show incompetence on the part of Congress, not the President. Why is it that I do not hear people claiming that the war in Afghanistan is an “illegal” war? I suggest it is because they agree with that war.

Rodak is a pacifist. (This came up in another thread.) So if any war were formally declared by Congress, Rodak would simply say that Congress was acting in a way that no Christian could countenance.

No matter what arguments are there Rodak will be against any war.
It is OK for him to try to turn others using arguments other than pacifism. But to do so without acknowledgement that he is pacifist somehow doesn't look right to me.

But to do so without acknowledgement that he is pacifist somehow doesn't look right to me.

mik_infidelos--

Lydia knew it. Why didn't you? I see no need to append that information to every comment I make.
That said, being against war in general doesn't preclude one from making specific arguments against specific cases.

"What would you do if a pro-life Democrat who was fiscally terrible were running against a pro-choice Republican who was fiscally conservative?"

That, is a no brainer.

They know this, which is why they say things like "the President misled us" or "I had no idea what I was voting for". These arguments show incompetence on the part of Congress.

I completely agree they should have known an invasion was going to follow, but since the Executive branch did mislead Congress about Iraq, that first bit is a legitimate excuse. If you want to say they were incompetent for trusting the Executive on matters of national security, I will be happy to concur. Basically, if I sell you a product that is missing the primary feature that you bought it for, your anger is justified because of my fraud.

"That, is a no brainer."

I'll agree that the part of it that goes, "Do not vote for the pro-abortion Republican" is a no-brainer. For me, anyway. Voting for the pro-life Democrat is a different matter. There was an interesting interview with Bob Casey, Jr., along these very lines. He made it quite clear that he would vote with his party even on matters (like committee makeup) that would be likely to influence legislation on life issues and that in these matters he would not be influenced by his pro-life views. So what's the cash value of his pro-life views? Very little, IMO. Party loyalty is trumps. If the entire Democrat party became the Party of Life instead of the Party of Death, it might be a different matter. But I wouldn't advise holding your breath.

I completely agree they should have known an invasion was going to follow, but since the Executive branch did mislead Congress about Iraq...

In what way did he mislead? Do you think the President lied? Pretty much everybody thought Saddam had WMD. People thought this long before Bush was in office. President Clinton made regime change in Iraq official policy. I think the criticism has very little basis.

Maybe BushLied, maybe he didn't. It's not a discussion I find particularly edifying, since it's been going on five years or more.

Jeff, could you elaborate a bit on this?


At the meta-level, this is one reason why the social conservatives are not only dupes and suckers, often enough, but almost destined to witness the defeat of their ostensibly highest aspirations: their functional non-negotiables accept all the premises of their substantive adversaries. They have conceded 90% of the debate already.

Which premises do you mean? That they are all liberals themselves, of a sort, or something else?

xkvsxe--
So, if Bush didn't lie, who do you think it was that did lie? There were no WMD, yet "everybody" thought there were WMD. It follows from this that *somebody*--some person, or persons, unknown--claimed to have specific knowledge about existing WMD. But it was *not possible* for *anybody* to *have* such knowledge, therefore: lies were told.
So who told them?
And why?

So, if Bush didn't lie, who do you think it was that did lie? There were no WMD, yet "everybody" thought there were WMD

I was unaware that these were the only two options. How about the international community believed he had WMD and the intelligence was wrong. Intelligence is complex and incomplete. It is not like we could have just asked Saddam Hussein if he really had WMD. If you say something that is wrong when you believe it is true, it is not a lie. If anyone was lying about WMD in Iraq, it was Saddam Hussein.

Right. Saddam Hussein was lying when he said he didn't have the WMD that he didn't have. You have to explain the math to me.

Look, Saddam Hussein was a nasty thug. But, that said, we have managed, by our presence there, to be largely responsible for the creation of conditions in Iraq that have contributed to the violent deaths thousands of ordinary Iraqis, AFTER Saddam Hussein had been hunted down and ultimately killed, the Baathist regime had been dismantled, and an election had put an allegedly freely-elected government in place.
Why?

xkvsxe-

I don't try to pin it all on the President, but as the top of the Executive branch he does bear a great responsibility. There was clearly some cherry picking going on, directed by PNAC neocons working with Chalabi, who took liberties with the evidence they had available. At the very minimum, you should grant that they were light years more confident in their assertions than they reasonably should have been.

As for regime change, I agree with Zippy's arguments that a case for just war could have been made, it simply wasn't. As one of the leftover reasons for staying, the flypaper strategy is a perversion of anything resembling just war. So in brief summary, the main reason we went in was false, at least one of the reasons we are staying is corrupt, and there is no end game in sight.

Rodak
Right. Saddam Hussein was lying when he said he didn't have the WMD that he didn't have. You have to explain the math to me.

Suddam Hussein could have easily prevented the war by complying to the U.N. resolutions, which included resolution 1441, which offered Iraq “a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations.” He chose not to. The man was not honest about anything. There is no doubt that he wanted WMD. Former Iraqi General Georges Sada claims that Iraq moved their WMD to Syria.

Step2
At the very minimum, you should grant that they were light years more confident in their assertions than they reasonably should have been.

That is something I can grant. However, there were many people, both Democrats and Republicans, that were overconfident. The President did not just make this stuff up in a vacuum. If you wish to say that the President gets most of the blame, then fine. What is done is done. We have to do deal with the situation that we are in now, not how we wish it would be.

As I recall, there were still inspectors on the ground, in Iraq, who had to be hurriedly extracted from the country, so that they wouldn't be victims of "Shock and Awe." The pictures dominating Iraq coverage, right up to the beginning of hostilities, were pictures of Iraqi missiles being crushed, even though some of them were technically legal under the sanctions.
Since we know that our Pentagon--presumably much superior in its record-keeping than was Saddam's--has managed to misplace large amounts of equipment in the Iraq theater, how can we assume that Saddam's military personnel were even capable of locating everything on our (erroneous) lists, in order to turn it over to inspectors?
I'm not defending Saddam here. Nobody regrets his passing. I will state for the record, however, that I'm against the death penalty; so, if I were in charge, he'd be alive in prison. Whatever. My point is that the war was never necessary. And, that being the case, we all have a lot of innocent blood on our hands, as Americans.

"Really. Which law did it violate?"

[the UN]charter allows nations to take military action with Security Council approval, such as during the Korean War and the 1991 Gulf War.

But in 2003, in the buildup to the Iraq war, the United States dropped an attempt to get a Security Council resolution approving the invasion when it became clear it would not pass.

If I'm not mistaken, treaties have legal precedence even over the Constitution.

Therefore, without Security Council approval the invasion of Iraq is illegal.

"If I'm not mistaken, treaties have legal precedence even over the Constitution."

Unnghh! We are AMERICANS! We don' keep no steeenking treaties!

If I'm not mistaken, treaties have legal precedence even over the Constitution.

Brilliant. Could you provide any support for this assertion?
Editorials from Workers Part of America propaganda organ do not count.

We are AMERICANS! We don' keep no steeenking treaties!

Very funny. Considering career of comedian?
Can US Prez sign and Senate approve a treaty that contradict US Constitution?
US Prez was sworn to UPHOLD US Constitution, he has no right to sign a treaty clashing with US Constitution.

Um, when, exactly, did the U.S. sign and the Senate approve (which it must, by the U.S. Constitution) a treaty that says that the U.S. will not go to war without the approval of the UN security council? Hello? The U.S. is a member of the UN. That doesn't mean the U.S. has to get UN approval for military action.

The Constitution does state that treaties will have the status of law, but there isn't one in this case.

Um, when, exactly, did the U.S. sign and the Senate approve (which it must, by the U.S. Constitution) a treaty that says that the U.S. will not go to war without the approval of the UN security council?

In fairness to the other side of the legal argument - the whole of which I personally find extraordinarily irrelevant - there is a kind of "bait and switch" which is common among Iraq war supporters when it comes to the invocation of the UN. That is, the authority of the UN is invoked by saying that war was justified by Iraq's (putative) noncompliance with UN resolutions; and the authority of the UN is belittled when it comes to actual authorization for war. "Noncompliance" apparently only applies to Iraq, not to the U.S.

My advice to anyone who still supports the Iraq war (not to suggest that Lydia does) is to leave the UN arguments out of it. Once it is stipulated that the UN has authority on the matter the war is illegal, period. So don't stipulate UN authority by invoking Iraq's putative noncompliance. In doing so the opposite of question-begging occurs: the opposition's conclusion is assumed to be true in the premeses.

No, I was just questioning the "treaty" statement, because AFAIK there is no treaty. It's pretty important that we realize that legally, UN membership is not tantamount to a treaty to do (God help us) whatever the UN says, or we'll be off to the races with all manner of UN craziness, including the UN dictating US abortion policy, "women's issues" policy, etc., etc.

The whole non-compliance thing never seemed to me good grounds for a war. I _suppose_ one cd. argue that by admitting the inspectors in the first place instead of defying the UN from the outset, Iraq was implying that it was going to comply, so they had to then stick to it. But I never gave much thought to that question one way or another. I spoke out against the war in private at the outset when even more "paleofriendly" friends were in favor.

The Constitution does state that treaties will have the status of law, but there isn't one in this case.

Article VI states in part:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

The issue is: can a treaty be signed that contradict Constitution?

As an example, can US sign a treaty that prohibits drawings of the Mohammed, the child molester, and demand prison term for violators?

Obviously such treaty contradict clashes with First Amendment and as obviously in my opinion will be rejected by Supreme Court even if signed and voted in.

Having said that, it was Bush The Elder with his new World Order delusion that assigned to cleptocrats and thugs at UN an importance no one ever thought the deserve.

Clinton, a value-free snake, used UN when it was convenient. The war on Serbia, to establish yet another Islamic state, didn't have any UN approvals because Clinton knew he could not get one.

Bush The Younger, Pox on both their houses, again promoted UN into Supreme World Counsel.

Out of power, Dems love UN, once in power they used it only when it is serving their needs.

Out of power, Repubs hate UN, once in power they must prove their statesmanship by being subservat to UN.


1945: US Senate ratifies UN Charter by a vote of eighty-nine to two

And rjp, does ratifying the UN Charter amount to signing a treaty that the US can never go to war with anybody, anywhere in the world, without UN approval? This is entirely news to me, and to a lot of congressmen too, I'd bet. Next thing you know we'll be told that the fact that we ratified the UN charter means we are now bound by the rules of CEDAW.

Tonight's edition of "60 Minutes" blows the lid off the scam that served as the main justification for the invasion of Iraq. It told the story of an Iraqi ex-pat, who was questioned by the Germans for a year and a half, convincing them that he was a chemical engineer who had directed an operation to manufacture mobile chemical weapons labs in a supposed seed purification facility. His whole story has now been shown to be a complete fabrication. The CIA, with information procured at the site by inspectors, knew that the story was false nearly a month prior to the start of the war, but this information was not used. The lying Iraqi, code named "Curve Ball" provided the information that the hapless Colin Powell presented to the UN, to his eternal shame. This was, in great part, how the lies told by Powell, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush misled the press and the American people.

Lydia,

"Countries that have ratified or acceded to the Convention [CEDAW} are legally bound to put its provisions into practice. They are also committed to submit national reports, at least every four years, on measures they have taken to comply with their treaty obligations."

I don't think the US has been stupid enough (yet) to ratify this.

As for war, of course we could defend ourselves if attacked, or defend allies with whom we have mutual defense treaties, if they are attacked. NATO, for example.

But that's my point: A country can be a member of the UN, certify the UN charter, but further _specific_ surrenders of that country's sovereignty have to be made explicit and signed on to separately. At least as far as I know. Okay, I guess paying dues is already built into membership. But AFAIK there's nothing about being a member per se that means that you have signed a _treaty_ that you won't go to war without security council approval. I certainly hope not.

The UN Charter doesn't explicitly state one member country cannot attack another for any or no reason but the sense of the many articles is that the Security Council decides what, when, where, etc.

Article 51 says: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."

Does anyone actually believe Iraq attacked the US and the US responded in self-defense?

No, but that doesn't really say what you need in order to say that the Iraq war was illegal as a breach of a treaty. It just says that if a country _is_ attacked it can respond without approval. (Well, thanks so very much.)

Again, it's just the legal point I'm addressing, because I think it's very important that the U.S. keep complete sovereignty regarding causes of war. I was actually, I want to repeat, an opponent of going into Iraq from the outset. What we should do now, I don't know.

|

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.