Two inconsequential notes on the last piece

Want to bet that someone scandalized by Stanley Kurtz’s use of colonialist jargon eventually gets around to calling him “Colonel Kurtz” – that is, if it hasn’t happened already?

I love overwrought eponymous adjectives, hence Khalduno-Gellneric.

"to weaken the circle of particularism"

For my money, though I love the conviviality of Goldberg, and the literary essays of Derbyshire, the writer at National Review who best combines deep and impressive research with theoretical imagination and clarity of expression is Stanley Kurtz. This is not to say I have understood in toto his every column, but any lack of understanding has been due only to my lack of time or energy to address his writings, some of which require background in the subject he’s addressing in order thoroughly to comprehend them. I don’t quite have the historical knowledge to fully appreciate his latest, so this entry is more aimed at posing questions than giving answers to or opinions on some of the things he says.

Kurtz has written a so-called book review at the Weekly Standard, of Philip Carl Salzman’s Culture and Conflict in the Middle East. I say “so-called” not to denigrate or challenge him, but because it is so much more than a book review (pasted into Microsoft Word, in 12-point Times New Roman, it reaches 13 pages). The review encompasses an obscure (to me) allusion to Native American history, a mini-history of the discipline of anthropology, a summation of the book’s argument, and an analysis of our own time in light of the issues raised in the book (these last three elements apparently come from both Salzman and Kurtz, in which proportion he does not make clear).

At the end of an argument that, in essence, the Arab tribal nature of our enemies is more responsible for our (and their) troubles than is their Islamic nature (though it’s not that simple, so go read the essay, and then, perhaps, the book), Kurtz writes,

It won't be easy to weaken the circle of particularism – the self-reinforcing loyalties of extended family, tribe, and sect that dominate Arab countries at both the state and local levels. The British did something comparable in traditional India by creating a counter-system of liberal education and advancement through merit, rather than kin ties. But that took time, military control, and a favorable political environment. The road to genuine cultural change is long, and there are no easy shortcuts.

This seems profoundly sensible. It’s an admission of the benefits of empire, analogous to Jonah Goldberg’s advice to re-colonize Africa, or Thomas Barnett’s admonition to “shrink the gap.” But it gets me to wondering, in a chicken-egg kind of way: What did Europe do to escape tribalism? Was it the Romans and then the Church that set up meritocracies (army and clergy, respectively) analogous to the political one grown over the years in British India? Or was it faith in gods or God – a thing in which to believe other than earthly power? Do the Greeks get any credit, even though their democracies didn’t outlast their own strife? Why weren’t their democracies inherently tribal – or were they?

This example also brings up the American Indians. There I have fewer questions, though based still on a somewhat thin instruction in the subject. It seems clear that the American approach to “the gap” was both similar to and different from the British approach. The British gave over India to a private company – the British East India Company – to manage. That company essentially provided its own protection, until at some point they got too brutal and were essentially fired by the British government, who then took over the colony, finally releasing it after World War II. (Please don’t rely on this history, though, yourself – look it up if you have any doubts, because I wouldn’t bet my blog income on it being flawless.) The Americans also gave over the business of gap shrinkage to private actors – thousands and thousands of them, individual colonists or pioneers setting out on their own to find freedom and profit. But these individuals were not required to protect themselves, as the American Army was sent out in their behalf (thus becoming complicit in their injustices, as well as committing a few of its own). When enough of these individuals lived in an area pacified by the military, they would petition to become part of the United States, thus transforming the paradigm.

The Subcontinental solution, it seems, was primarily political – a transformation of Indian culture – though there may have been genocidal elements I don’t know of. In the American West, the solution was partly genocidal – though that was partially inadvertent and not truly comparable to the classic genocide perpetrated by the Nazis. It was also partially political, as some Indians became assimilated to the invaders. And it was something in-between – perhaps a form of ethnic cleansing – in which the gap was shrunk into a multitude of gaps we today call reservations. (It seems that the reservations are still somewhat gappish, if the horror stories I hear occur within them are true.) Iraq, finally, is an almost wholly government-run effort, almost entirely political in nature, with its temporarily colonized natives being – as often as they are willing – partners in the efforts of the U. S. military. It is not ethnic cleansing, because they are not being moved to make way for the invaders. It is not genocidal, because they are not being exterminated. (Indeed, one reason I supported the invasion of Iraq was because I preferred the certain travails of nation-building to the potential crime of nuclear genocide of an entire region – ask yourself what might have happened after four to five more 9/11’s, and you’ll perhaps see my point.)

I still have lots of questions, enough that I’m not entirely confident in what tentative analysis I do offer above. If I had to take a guess of where I’d find my answers, my dilettantish historical reading and poor memory suggest Henri Pirenne and Christopher Dawson may make good choices, though I certainly have no particular works in mind – the only one I know by the former is on the rise of the cities, and I’ve only read a few essays by the latter. Barbara Tuchman’s A Distant Mirror might be useful, though her main examination of lawlessness covers the mercenary companies of the 1300’s, which seemed to grow out of settled agrarian populations – perhaps that is an example of the Khalduno-Gellneric patterns of tribal alignment and causality that Kurtz mentions. Rather than pondering on any more, however, I’ll take my leave. Perhaps Mr. Kurtz can suggest a reading list for those of us who wish to know more – after we get finished with Salzman, that is.

Mean Old Kissinger’s History Lesson

I don’t know much about Henry Kissinger other than that he has big scary eyebrows, he worked for Nixon, he was nice to China, and he has a sinister accent. In other words, I, having not read up enough on his era and actions, have internalized the superficial and widespread knowledge that he is bad, bad, bad. For all I know, he might be, though I am inclined to disbelieve it in total, given that the purveyors of that image are those with whom I often disagree. I was pleased to read, then, his essay in today’s Washington Post, in which he lists the three revolutions turning our world on its head geopolitically: 1. the collapse of or change in Europe’s structure; 2. the attempt of radical Islam to be victorious through the internal morphing through population growth of non-Islamic states into sharia-shaped tools of Islamic salvation; 3. the movement of geopolitical relevance from the occident to the orient, or at least, from the ocean of the occident – the Atlantic – to the oceans of the orient – the Pacific and the Indian. As a concise description of the world, and contra Kissinger’s reputation with the headline-reading crowd (i.e., myself), it was – it seemed to me – remarkably clear of bloodthirsty, imperialistic, or cynical observation. “Just the facts, sir,” was what I heard. Perhaps I am deluded.

The import of the essay seemed to be little more than reporting what people know already: that Europe is changing in ways yet to be fully understood; that Islam will not embed itself in the West without adjustment; that China and India are on everyone’s mind. The particular insight that I found to be new – and it may not be – was the linking of observation one – that Europe is changing, growing less statist, at least temporarily – with observation three – that China and India (and the rest) are growing ever more powerful and consequential. This is most likely a coincidence, for as soon as these countries tried on capitalism, they were bound to like it, economically, and gain power from it. But it may also be in part causal. It is a common observation that World War I ended Europe, that only the most dire of provocations could thenceforward force it to defend itself, and that any self-projection on the world stage, especially militarily, was bound to be tentative and slowed by the excessive social consciences and the emasculated armed forces they had bred to protect themselves from the self-inflicted wounds of the First World War. And although the illness of the Second was largely caused by the medicines taken and the balms applied to the wounds of the First, Europe recoiled ever more firmly from violence and resolute action on the world stage, lashing themselves together into a great ungainly scarecrow without a heart, to build a fine utopia of peace. May we never take that route. It is fine and right to give up the abuse of others, but to give up the influence of others because one is convinced of one’s own ineradicable iniquity is to leave oneself open to others’ influence, not always benign or unarmed.

P.S.

By the way, I don’t mean to make the black vote for Obama seem sinister in my post below. Tribal voting is not inherently sinful and can be relatively innocuous – certainly the feeling of solidarity with those like one is natural enough, and harmless when its limitations and dangers are understood. But remember that the politician who knows that his skin color, ethnic last name, or genitalia is enough to garner your vote is unlikely to feel compelled to do anything else to earn it.

Racists? Sexists?

If you’ve read last earlier post, you’d know I shouldn’t be taking time to post anything, but here I go. Consider this merely a snapshot, an impression, for a number of reasons, the three most important being that I spent about fifteen minutes on it, I know almost nothing about the immense variables of polling, and there are only two polls represented by one company, of whose reputation I know little. That said, I’ve read what Jim Geraghty and Byron York have had to say about the racial fissures along which the Democratic race is dividing. James Taranto, who’s been reading the same stuff, has been predicting that if Obama loses the primary, Dems could lose black votes for the first time since the New Deal, and if he loses the general, Republicans will again be sealed off from black votes, for who knows how many more years, by their supposed racism in voting against a black man for president. This seems to me to be unsurprising; it’s de rigueur to hear that whites, especially conservative whites, are the racists, the big meanies who want to see anyone not of their tribe go down, apparently just for the sheer joy of it. But, if Quinnipiac University Polls from April 2 and March 27 of this year are any indication, it’s not the whites who are the racists, or the men who are the sexists.

The first I have listed shows which members of which races (self-identified, I assume) would vote for which Democratic candidate (here is a link to the source page for the first, and here for the second – both are near the bottom of their respective pages, and both have been formatted into tables for (relative) ease of posting). A plurality, but not quite a majority, of all voters would vote for Clinton: 50%. Of whites, 59% of them would vote for Clinton, with only 34% of them voting for Obama. Given the trouble the two have had distinguishing their platforms from each other’s, that argues that there is some race identification in the aggregate white vote. But the black vote is a staggering 73% for Obama, with only 11% of likely Democratic primary voters planning to vote for Clinton, arguing a much greater race identification in the aggregate black vote. Similarly, in the sex divide, men are more likely, by 12%, to vote for the member of the opposite sex (auguring no sex identification at all), whereas women are more likely to vote for their own sex by 34%.

Now, I’m sure there are many, many problems with my analysis. Let’s see if I can count the ways:

1. Tribe-identification doesn’t necessarily require tribalism (racism, sexism,
etc.).
2. I’ve ignored the convict gap: because a much greater proportion of black men than white men are current or ex-felons who would be voting at a 73% clip for Obama, the male vote for Clinton may be skewed higher than it should be; that might also imply that the Black sentiment for Obama is not accurately represented, as at least 73% of all current and ex-felons who are black are statistically likely to be Obama supporters, if they follow the pattern of their fellow race-members. That said, how many former convicts are “likely primary voters”?
3. I’ve ignored the Bradley Effect and the Reverse Bradley Effect – they essentially posit that those who answer exit polls tend to answer dishonestly in the direction of social pressure, with the result, for instance, that whites who would never vote for any black candidate would also never admit that to anyone, including the taker of an anonymous exit poll

But in favor of my analysis:

1. a lack of tribal-identification in voting implies a lack of tribalism, as
tribalism would prevent those voting patterns (though it wouldn’t necessarily
prevent the Bradley Effect)

The second poll is interesting as well, as it assesses the opinions of registered Democrats in Connecticut (as of March 27, 2008) regarding the so-called Dream Ticket, the black man/white woman or white woman/black man ticket. But therein is felt the friction of the rub: who goes first? One would suppose that, statistically, the question would be a wash, that Obama voters would want Obama at the head of the ticket about as often as Clinton voters would want Clinton at the head of the ticket, and that they would be about equal in their willingness to see a divided ticket. But that is not what we see:

Conn Registered Democrats (March 27, 2008):
42.(If registered Democrat) Some people have suggested that Senator Obama and Senator Clinton should run together in the general election for President in November. It could be a Clinton-Obama ticket, with Clinton running for President and Obama for Vice-President, OR It could be an Obama-Clinton ticket, with Obama running for President and Clinton for Vice-President. Which would you rather see - A Clinton-Obama ticket or an Obama-Clinton ticket, or would you rather they not run together?

As we might have expected, the totals break down evenly: just under a third of all registered Democrats in Connecticut reportedly want a Clinton-Obama ticket; just under a third want an Obama-Clinton ticket; just over a third do not want them to run together. Well, that last was unexpected, for me, until I looked at the columns to the right. As we find, Clinton voters are slightly more favorable to a ticket headed by Obama than Obama voters are to the opposite. That difference of two percent is probably within the margin of error. (The only surprise here is that these numbers aren't both zero.) What isn’t likely to be in the margin of error is that 20% fewer Obama voters want to see Obama on a ticket with Clinton, because 42% of them don’t want him joining her at all, in any combination! Only 19% of Clinton voters feel this way. Why would Obama voters be so antipathetic to having Clinton anywhere on the ticket?

Do they dislike her politically or personally?
Are they paranoid about her politically or personally?
Do they dislike her because she is white?
Do they desire the black candidate to score a thorough victory over his white primary opponent (with another candidate of his choosing, white or black, being an acceptable running mate) ?
Are they sexist?

The third and fourth questions assume the black-heavy nature of Obama’s support, though the other ones do not.

There is ultimately no real way to answer these questions, certainly not without extensive studies, and even then perhaps not if the Bradley and similar Effects have any validity. I am not the one to undertake those, as it is about this point of quickly multiplying theories and counter-theories that my head begins to spin. But the first poll somewhat directly, and the second poll somewhat obliquely, seem to give credence to what we’ve seen in the Rev. Wright’s speech and much of the black response to it: that black anger towards and disdain for whites is widespread and encouraged, certainly far more so than white anger and disdain are with regard to blacks. I heard the claim when I was younger that blacks could not be racist, that it was a purely white phenomenon. But we all know, whether we want to admit it or not, that sin is a universal human phenomenon; and racism certainly falls under that rubric.

Fool’s Day, Indeed

I can’t tell you how angry I am at myself. They gave us until Tuesday – 9:00. That means that I could have gotten every last drop of work done on my grades, but didn’t. I could even have made a few fixes this morning, but didn’t. Why, because why not put off until tomorrow what you could very easily do right now seeing as how you’re not doing anything of value at this moment anyway because hell you can always read political ephemera on the web and that really penetrates deeply and informs your life and work. I could go on. Ugh. Why didn’t I know this? In part, because I didn’t read the “Principal's Percolations” sent out right before break. In part, because I don’t know that before the last day of the semester we ever got any notification – no one else seemed to know either when grades were due. But the real reason is because I never know this stuff. I never make it my business to. I simply fly by the seat of my pants and get done what I can get done when I can get it done, hoping that a strong constitution will allow me to will my commitments to completion. It’s not working anymore. I’m 33 and I am getting older. And now my chest gets heavy and my heart pounds when I’m stressed out. My sleep was even affected last night, and that never happens. I went to bed around 9:30. I woke around 12:30 thinking it was already morning. I woke at 1:15 to the sound of banging windows, but I can sleep through anything. I woke at 2:15 (or thereabouts – all listed times are approximate) to a cell phone alarm unhappily set for 2:15 AM that should have gone at the antipodal point of the next day. I woke at 3:15 because I thought I heard the alarm I had set for four – I hadn’t. I woke at four to my alarm and pissed away the next two hours through a feeling of fear and complacency reading politics and playing hearts. Blast it all.