Month: July 2010

by David Frum

By far the most frequent objection to my proposed mission statement however was to its inclusion of the phrase "peaceful American-led world order."

Plaintively in some cases, ferociously in others, people asked: why should American world leadership be a goal of any kind of conservative politics?

My answer: consider the alternatives. For 60 years, the democratic countries have known ever-rising levels of affluence and security. This benign system of collective security and free trade has extended outward to encompass more and more countries: beyond western Europe to include central and eastern Europe, beyond Japan to reach the small countries of the Pacific Rim. We have not done so well in Latin America and the Middle East, but Chile at least has joined the system and Brazil likely soon will. 

This construct is the work of no one country, but it ultimately rests upon the reassuring fact of American power. As Murray Kempton said of Dwight Eisenhower, it is the great tortoise on whose broad shell the world sat in sublime disregard of the source of its peace and security.

Just as even the most self-equilibriating markets need a lender of last resort, so even the most stable international system needs a security guarantor of last resort. Some describe the post-1945 system as a "democratic peace." But democracy alone did not suffice to keep the peace after 1918. It's an American-sustained peace, and should the day come when America loses the power or will to sustain it, the international system that will follow will be not only more dangerous but also less hospitable to liberal values in the broadest sense of the word liberal. 

If I am certain of any one belief, I am certain of that.

And with that credo, it's time to express my thanks for this week of hospitality at AndrewSullivan.com. First to Andrew himself, speaking of liberal in the broadest sense, for opening his floor to some very divergent perspectives indeed – although I realize now I never did around to posting those links to Zionist summer camps.

Next to Andrew's never-resting colleagues Patrick Appel and Chris Bodenner, who make the blogs run on time. 

And finally to you, the thoughtful and challenging readers of this remarkable place in cyberspace. I hope we can extend these discussions in the weeks ahead at my usual lemonade stand, FrumForum.com. 

by Chris Bodenner

Participants wrestle during the 13th Annual Boryeong Mud Festival at Daecheon Beach on July 17, 2010 in Boryeong, South Korea. The festival features mud wrestling, mud sliding, and a mud king contest. By Chung Sung-Jun/Getty Images.

by David Frum

Another fundamental objection to my proposed mission statement for conservative reform is that it is not libertarian enough. One reader offered this alternative statement:

Conservatives believe our central purpose is to promote freedom; we do this by promoting individual liberty, supporting the division of powers through Federalism, reducing government to the lowest level necessary, and supporting free markets while keeping taxes low.

No question: conservatives do believe those things. I believe them too, and they are at the core of my draft mission statement. But they cannot be all we believe, or else we end up turning our backs on questions of vital concern to fellow-citizens, from the environment to terrorism.

Two other things need to be considered as well:

1) In a globalizing economy, the free market distributes rewards increasingly unequally. I wrote about this in an article published two summers ago:

Inequality within nations is rising in large part because inequality is declining among nations. A generation ago, even a poor American was still better off than most people in China. Today the lifestyles of middle-class Chinese increasingly approximate those of middle-class Americans, while the lifestyles of upper and lower America increasingly diverge. Less-skilled Americans now face hundreds of millions of new wage competitors, while highly skilled Americans can sell their services in a worldwide market.

Those potential losers from a globalized free market are voters too. If they get the idea that freedom is not delivering for them, then freedom's political basis becomes shaky.

2) This divide between winners and losers may explain something otherwise baffling about the way conservatives talk about freedom. The United States is a vastly freer country in 2010 than it was a generation ago. Yet when you talk to libertarian-minded people, and with the rare exceptions of a Brink Lindsey or a Virginia Postrel, what you usually hear is a lament for a vanished better past.

You can argue that they are wrong, remind them that we used to have a draft and airline regulations and bans on private ownership of gold. Or you can listen for the truth underneath the mistake – and understand that while people want government limited, they also want society to work. And if they feel their society used to work better, it's cold consolation to tell them that at least the government now does less.

Christchurch, New Zealand, 11.30 am

by Patrick Appel

Todd May returns to the subject:

Several comments insisted that one would never become friends with someone unless there was something to be gained. This is certainly true. Close friendships are not simply exercises in altruism. Friendships that come to resemble relationships between donors and recipients begin to fray. Eventually they come to look like something other than friendships. The non-economic character of friendship does not lie in its altruism, but in its lack of accounting.

by Patrick Appel

A reader writes:

I think your reader typifies the kind of paranoia regarding Iran that seems to be driving us toward war.  Iran doesn't begin to compare to Japan of the 1930s and 1940s.

The Japanese had already occupied huge chunks of China in the 1930s; the Iranians could barely hold off the semi-competent army of Sadam Hussein in a war of attrition that lasted a decade.

The Japanese had an industrial base that could build aircraft carriers and first-class fighter aircraft.  With this, they built blue-water navy  that was able to sail across the Pacific to decimate the U.S. Pacific fleet. They equipped and trained marines that swept the U.S. and the British out of the Pacific, and came close to conquering Australia.

Seriously.

Another reader:

I understand that the human mind loves paradigms. The experiences of the past are are used to create an idea of the way the world works, and this is highly necessary in our day-to-day lives. And although this Dissent did not use the favorite "Nazi Germany" comparison, I'm not sure the "Imperial Japan" comparison is much better. Invoking World War II to justify US military action hasn't worked well in the past.

First, the culture of Iran is very advanced and very ancient. But barbaric? In what manner is Persian culture barbaric? I doubt this individual has ever heard of the Shahnameh or has read a single line of Persian poetry (poetry is central to their culture). There is certainly nothing in Persian culture that seeks to justify aggressive expansion. Japan's Prussian-level of cultural reverence for the military, however, did seek to justify aggressive expansion.

Second, the embargo on Japan was not because they told us they weren't building something and then we found out that they were (that would be convenient for Dissent's argument comparing Japan to Iran, though, no?). The emabargo was an effort by the Dutch, French, and Americans to curtail shipments to Japan of war materials like iron, steel, and oil so that it could not continue conquering Asia and start threatening Western interests. Note also that Japan was already engaged in rampant aggressive expansion by this point.

Thirdly, Japan began a war with the Western powers because they now lacked the resources they had needed to conquer and control Asia, and UK and Dutch colonial possessions in the region contained these resources. Noting that the UK and the US were very close, Japan planned a pre-emptive strike on Pearl Harbor in an effort to cripple our Navy and prevent us from interfering.

Does Dissent truly see Iran as a state getting ready to begin an aggressive war of expansion – especially considering Iran has the largest or second largest energy (oil + natural gas) reserves in the world and has no economic incentive on the level of Japan to expand? This country with a modest GDP, no military projection capabilities, that hasn't started a war in 250 years? Japan took advantage of a fractured China and the fact that the Japanese military was eons more advanced than anything in the immediate neighborhood in order to gain room for their population and in order to seize economic resources that the Japanese islands lacked. There was nothing to stop them. Does Dissent see this as the case for Iran? That Iran is a war machine that will just tear through American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, on their way to conquering Saudi Arabia (whoops, more US troops) and Pakistan?

Essentially, what is to be gained from war with Iran? They haven't started a war. The words of Khamenei (listen to him, not Ahmadi, because HE actually controls everything that matters, including the military) show absolutely ZERO intent of aggression: this includes support for a 2-state solution if the Palestinians want one and a fatwa, or Islamic legal opinion, that nuclear weapons are forbidden in Islam. The actions of Iran show no intent of aggression. And as the Oxford Research Group recently concluded war with Iran would, among many other things, become a regional war, the Strait of Hormuz will become closed, and oil prices will skyrocket. Does Dissent think the world economy is bad now?

I usually love the Dissent of the Day feature, but in this one case I will use an analogy: just because Jenny McCarthy thinks that vaccines cause autism doesn't mean you should give her a platform to speak when a doctor says otherwise.

I mostly side with these readers over the dissenter, but I disagree about my second reader's last point about giving a platform to toxic ideas. Sometimes I post e-mails with obvious flaws because I'm interested in the readership's push-back. The main contention of the Dish is that debate clarifies and disinfects. You cannot counter arguments without airing them.

by David Frum

As mentioned below, some readers raised more fundamental objections to my suggested mission statement for a reformed conservatism:

A reality-based, culturally modern, socially inclusive and environmentally responsible politics that supports free markets, limited government and a peaceful American-led world order.

The first of the fundamental objections bristled at the phrase "culturally modern." Was this code for jettisoning social conservatives from the Republican party?

Two answers.

First, "culturally modern" refers to a lot more than just the abortion/stem cells/same-sex marriage cluster of issues.

A culturally modern party is one comfortable with science and technology, with women's equality, and with a globalized economy. It's a party that regards New York City and Silicon Valley as just as much "real America" as Kentucky and South Dakota.

But as to those hot-button issues … if the Democrats can accommodate both investment bankers and unionists, the GOP should be able to find room for differing views on issues pertaining to sexuality. We always say we're a "big tent." But when was the last time we allowed a pro-choice Republican a slot on a national ticket? 1976, that's when. One reason we got stuck with Sarah Palin for VP in 2008 was that when McCain (wisely) decided he wanted a woman running mate, he bumped into this constraint: all the other Republican female senators and governors were pro-choice, and therefore were excluded from consideration from the start.

Yet it is a fact that many Republicans and (yes!) many conservatives are prochoice. Many more favor stem-cell research. Many again were appalled by the Terri Schiavo episode. Younger Republicans and conservatives, like younger Americans generally, are moving to acceptance of same-sex marriage.

These Republicans and conservatives deserve better than to be dismissed as "Republicans in Name Only." They are not an after-thought within the party and the movement, to be accepted on sufferance so long as they defer to the leadership of others.

To be a patriot, we must love our country as it is, not as it was – or as we imagine it was. A wise conservatism does not resist change. Such a conservatism would be doomed before it started. A wise conservatism manages change.

That's the kind of conservatism I think we need more of – and that my phrase "culturally modern" attempts to describe.

by David Frum

Yesterday I posted a bleg asking readers of AndrewSullivan.com and FrumForum.com for help writing a one-sentence description of a modernized, reformed conservatism. We've had a stunning response: almost 200 suggestions, via email from AndrewSullivan readers and in the comments section at FrumForum. They are enormously helpful, and I am very grateful. Let me share some of these ideas, and then offer a response.

To remind: here is my first draft, for which I asked for improvements:

A reality-based, culturally modern, socially inclusive and environmentally responsible politics that supports free markets, limited government and a peaceful American-led world order.

Some readers offered alternatives that – while superbly concise – were just too general: they describe the professed world view of almost all American political groupings within the ultra-socialist and ultra-libertarian extremes:

Meritocracy tempered by compassion.

Free markets with a referee to ensure fair play.

Others focused too much on what we're trying to reject, not on what we're trying to accomplish.

Restoring sanity to the Republican party.

Some just made me laugh:

We want the country promised to us by our grade-school social studies textbooks.

Killing bad Muslims with upper-class tax cuts.

Not just for white people any more, we promise!

Some offered very helpful line-edits for greater precision.

My phrase "socially inclusive" is clumsy. I wanted to find a way to stress that Republicans and conservatives needed to pay more attention to the economic interests of the less affluent. But enough of you were baffled by the term that clearly some other phrasing is called for.

Two readers objected to the phrase "reality-based" as snarky. It was not intended as such, but I agree that "evidence-based" is better.

Some readers raised more fundamental criticisms. I'll turn to those in a second post.