Friday, October 18, 2019
Charting a Policy Response to Trump over Turkey and Syria
Turkey is now several days into its incursion into Syria. It has been planning this military foray for years, essentially since the outset of Syria’s civil war. The newsworthy item of course is that President Trump essentially gave President Erdogan a green light to proceed with those plans. Now, the media and politicians of various colors and ideologies are shouting condemnation of Trump for his decision. As one opposed to continuing military intervention, as well as a political foe of Trump, I see an obvious need to provide a clear analysis and a rational policy response to this crisis. Moreover, we need to dull the cacaphony of voices screaming foul and cheering for a policy reversal with little or no explanation to back up their calls for fresh intervention.
Point One: The US military bases in Syria were never authorized. They were established illegally under international law and are illegal still today. The evacuation of all US military personnel from Syria is absolutely an appropriate decision.
Point Two: The President of the US has no authority whatsoever to authorize a green light to any nation, whether an ally or not, to initiate an offensive incursion into another nation’s territory. Such decisions can only rightfully be taken within the UN.
Point Three: The Kurdish civilians living along the Syrian border with Turkey are evidently at risk as a result of Turkey’s military advance. Again, this is a matter for the UN. And, post haste the members of the Security Council should pass a unanimous decision calling on Turkey to cease its military action and repatriate its troops. US meddling via VP Pence’s visit to Turkey is not the appropriate response.
The civil war in Syria has continued for far too long. It began with demonstrations against the Assad regime. However, it quickly developed into an armed conflict and civil war. The US, Turkey and the Gulf States all supported the armed conflict. Weaponry and jihadist fighters were funneled into Syria largely across the Turkish border, although also through Iraq. The US government openly called for the overthrow of the Assad regime. Turkey supported jihadist / anti-Assad groups itself. Again, all of this activity was then and remains illegal. The activity worsened a civil conflict and led to an extended human tragedy and millions of refugees. Most of those refugees remain stranded in Turkey and Erdogan says he wishes to resettle the refugees within a 20 mile strip, ‘security zone,’ within Syria along the border.
During the worst phase of Syria’s civil war the jihadist offensive that had been unleashed by the US, Turkish and Gulf States took a disastrous turn. The most radical elements coalesced around ISIS and founded the Islamic State across Northeastern Syria and Northwestern Iraq. The Islamic State went on the offensive in both regions and began attacking Kurdish areas in Northern Iraq and along the Syrian border with Turkey. One of the worst attacks was on the city of Kobani, which Kurdish fighters defended at huge cost. During the fighting there Turkey sealed its borders to the Kurdish fighters because of its own ongoing political conflict with Kurdish separatists. The US entered the conflict directly at that point, establishing its illegal bases and providing arms to Kurdish fighters. Then, the Kurds in Syria and Iraq took the fight to IS. The Iraqi army also attacked the IS stronghold from the South. The result was a military upgrade of Kurdish forces in Syria and Iraq.
The crucial take away from the events surrounding Syria’s civil war and the rise and fall of the Islamic State is that the events were fueled by US interventionist policies. Many of the politicians calling today for the US to not abandon its Kurdish allies were the same ones who bear responsibility for inflaming the conflict from the outset. Turkey is also guilty on this score. Throughout Syria’s civil war Turkey supported paramilitary groups and jihadists. It appears that they are now giving such groups free rein to attack Kurdish villages and to create yet one more human tragedy.
Those calling for US troops to remain in Syria are promoting the same old policy of US intervention across the world and especially in the Middle East. This permanently prevailing policy whereby the US intervenes at every opportunity, whether to undermine unfriendly governments or to ‘protect’ human rights must cease. The US was never elected as the world’s police force. It’s motives are never neutral. Rather we must transition to a world where such actions are decided by a consensus within the UN. That has historically been impossible due to the structure of the Security Council and the veto rights of its permanent members. The most guilty party with regard to the exercise of such vetos has been the US.
Those calling for the US not to abandon the Kurds, our ally in the fight against the Islamic State, need to resolve a sequential policy problem. Continuing to support and arm the Kurdish YPG fighters is tantamount to providing support for Kurdish independence. That raises a major international policy issue. An independent Kurdistan would require the redrawing of borders and would strip away land not only from Syria, but also from Turkey, Iraq and Iran. Yes, the state borders in the Middle East were artificially established. Yes, the Kurdish question has been ignored and postponed for decades. And, the Kurds have been oppressed by all of the countries mentioned since the end of WWI. However, a call to support the formation of Kurdistan cannot be taken lightly and is not a decision for the US to take unilaterally. There are alternative scenarios. Support for the respect of Kurdish minority rights and a process of devolution of political process is one such alternative. Again, such a process does not fall within the sole purview of the US. Such matters should be pursued peacefully and through the building of international consensus through the UN. Arming and protecting Kurdish rebels is inconsistent with a proper diplomatic policy.
Thursday, April 4, 2019
Brexit, the European Union and Historical Crossroads
Brexit, the European Union and Historical Crossroads
The United Kingdom voted in favor of revoking its membership in the European Union. The process for implementing that vote is now in shambles. It is anyone’s guess how the process will finally play out. The deal that PM May negotiated with the E.U. admittedly falls short of the goals of Brexiteers. And, the idea of Brexit is equally regrettable in terms of a rational vision for geopolitical trends. Open borders, trade and peaceful coexistence remain, at least in my view, worthy destinations. Yet, if we analyze the way the E.U. has evolved, we can recognize crucial failures. The E.U. has passed numerous crossroads in its rendezvous with history and has fallen short consistently.
What were these crossroads and how do I define the EU’s failures? First, here is a list of what I consider to be the key issues and then following I will provide some analysis of each.
1. The creeping process toward a transition from a customs agreement toward political union.
2. The introduction of the common currency without establishing an institutional framework first.
3. The expansion of the E.U. into Eastern Europe in the wake of the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and Comecon.
4. The response to the debt crisis which hit the peripheral countries of the Eurozone after the 2008 financial meltdown.
Creeping toward Union
Sadly the EU has become increasingly bureaucratic and less responsive to direct democracy. The direction of the EU’s structure and policies has been toward ever closer union and ever greater control over laws, national budgets and taxation. And yet, there has been far too little preparation and open discussion to educate the populace to fully embrace this course. Few referenda were held to endorse the course toward union. When referenda were held the results were mildly in favor (petite oui) or negative. When several nations rejected aspects of the process, they were asked to vote again. What has transpired, as a consequence, is what I have called a creeping transition toward political union with little or no regard to public opinion. This is not the appropriate way to build a consensus in favor of a new emergent super state. The result has been a backlash against the EU and in favor of nationalism. This backlash to a large degree explains the UK vote to leave the EU. But, such backlash is visible in numerous other countries as well.
The structure of EU institutions is indicative. The major bodies that govern the union are three, The European Council, The European Commission and The European Parliament. Major strategic decisions are under the purview of The Council. This is a body which meets quarterly or more frequently to resolve crises. It is composed of the heads of member states plus an appointed President (currently MrTusk) and the President of The Commission. The heads of state are of course democratically elected. However, delegating strategic decisions to this moderate sized gathering removes those decisions one additional level away from participatory democracy. The Commission is where the EU bureaucracy really thrives. All of the members of The Commission are politically appointed and not elected directly. Yet, it is within the Commission that policy questions are researched, debated and formulated for adoption. The third body, that of the European Parliament, is the sole institution within the EU that is elected directly by the people. However, this institution is the least powerful of the three. Something is amiss here and it is common knowledge. As a result participation in elections to the European Parliament is always less than participation in national elections. And this is the case across the board.
The Common Currency
The Euro was introduced after years of planning in 1999 as a virtual currency and in 2002 in the form of notes and coins across the group of nations adopting it. Despite the planning, there have been serious adverse consequences. Economists immediately pointed out two flaws. First, it is inadvisable to implement a common currency without having first established adequate institutions in support. The EU began building those institutions after the fact rather than having them established and fully operational before hand. Second, the use of a common currency would be problematic without having achieved economic conversion and providing backstop safety nets such as a single insurance scheme for unemployment benefits and integrated pension plans.
The Maastricht Treaty was supposed to be the antidote to these shortcomings. The Maastricht agreement required that countries joining the Euro should demonstrate a competitive level of economic development. The countries were also have a debt to GDP ratio of less than 60%, annual deficits below 3% and tamed inflation rates. Again economists pointed out flaws. They noted that individual countries going through recessions would be in a straight jacket, unable to respond to their economic doldrums through a flexible fiscal policy. When the Euro was finally introduced not only had the EU failed to address these limitations, it relaxed the criteria for economic conversion and admitted countries with vastly disparate levels of economic development. In hindsight today it is sadly easy to see that economists criticisms and predictions have proven to be accurate. (More on this issue below.)
EU Expansion
In 1990 the Warsaw Pact disintegrated. Gorbachev’s attempt to implement Glasnost and to reform the Soviet Union and its allied states failed. The Berlin Wall was torn down and governments across Eastern Europe collapsed. This event presented a political opportunity as well as a humanitarian responsibility. There was a clear need to provide economic support to allow the countries of Eastern Europe to stabilize politically and to transition to more efficient modes of production and economic organization. To a degree the EU did respond to the challenge. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) was set up to support investment and the transfer of expertise. A few of the countries have made relatively successful transitions.
On the geopolitical level, however, the EU failed miserably. When German unification went ahead the US and the Russian Federation agreed to permit reunification with the understanding that NATO would not expand to the east. This was a perfectly sensible agreement. It was time for a peace dividend after decades of Cold War. And yet that agreement was ignored. The US pushed and the EU caved. As the EU began the process of expanding into Eastern Europe it required new applicant nations to join NATO first and then begin the process to join the EU. From the US perspective America was seizing an opportunity to expand its empire. But from the EU perspective this was acquiescence pure and simple. The EU squandered the opportunity to spend the peace dividend.
During this period a significant policy debate ensued within the EU. The idea of political union was already on the table and being discussed. Everyone at the table, however, knew that the transition to political union would be difficult. At precisely the same time the need to respond to the political vacuum in Eastern Europe arose. The result was a debate over whether to expand the marketplace or to deepen the union among existing EU members. Deepening the Union was to include efforts to establish an independent foreign policy. As we reflect on this debate today it is not difficult to discern that the EU decided to do both simultaneously, but both haphazardly. And worst of all, the EU decided to accept the continuation of life under the wing of the American Empire. All discussion of creating an independent foreign policy remained just that, discussion.
Debt Crisis on the Periphery
In 2008 global capitalism was rocked by the subprime mortgage loan crisis in the US. The cause was a complete failure in banking supervision. As ripples ensued across markets and borders, the EU faced its own crisis. The introduction of the Euro had created the expectation that national economies within the Eurozone would converge. (Recall from comments earlier that the Euro was introduced without adequate infrastructure and despite disparate economic development.) As a consequence debt markets in Europe did converge with interest rates across the Eurozone moving toward parity. This decline in interest rates in peripheral economies produced an explosion of debt. Then, when markets crashed over US subprime debt, the ensuing lack of liquidity in European markets led to a second thought on economic conversion. It suddenly became painfully clear that economic conversion had not occurred. Instead peripheral economies had simply become over indebted.
Capital and investment across the Eurozone should have been recycled to establish sustainable economic development across the zone. Instead liquidity had recycled as debt across the zone producing a sovereign debt crisis, Europe’s own subprime problem. Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy and later Cyprus all displayed various symptoms of an over extension of debt within their national economies, whether private or public sector. The response from the EU was misguided and inadequate. The EU did finally set up additional institutions such as had been needed from the start, banking supervision and a European IMF (the EFSF). But the medicine administered to resolve the crisis was austerity programs. This choice was one that stemmed from the German philosophy of political economy and a fear of inflation and / or the weakening of the Euro currency. What was needed as explained above was a recycling of capital and investment to offset the debt explosion that had occurred. Instead, by implementing harsh austerity programs, capital flows shifted towards safety, i.e. back to Germany. In lieu of a Marshall Plan for the periphery, the EU implemented what was in effect a reverse Marshall Plan. The economic disparity within the Eurozone is now greater than it had been prior to introduction of the Euro. And so the crisis within the Eurozone lingers.
Summary
Certainly all of the analysis here is up for debate. My point is precisely that. All of the points above should be on the table for debate. I term the above points failures. Others may reply that they were pragmatic policy choices. Still, the fact remains that there are significant obstacles remaining within the structure of the EU. It is still an open question whether the EU can move successfully toward a stronger, deeper union. In fact it remains entirely uncertain whether the nations within the EU even want a closer union. Without political union and a true movement toward economic convergence, however, the common currency will face continuing crises in future. And unless the EU develops its own political identity and an accompanying foreign policy, it will be held hostage by US interests. It is already evident what this will mean. A hard border will exist between the EU and Russia. In future this may also apply to relations with China. And NATO will call upon the EU to support regime change wars across the Middle East and beyond.
Now, to come back to the question of Brexit, how does the above analysis help to to explain the Brexit gambit and the ensuing shambles? The Brexit vote should not have come as a surprise. Sentiments against the EU had been prevalent throughout all along. The UK had been one of the nations least inclined to political union. It had refrained from entering the common currency and steadfastly cultivated a special relationship with the US. Nonetheless, Cameron took the gamble to call a referendum. Surprise! He lost. The popular vote was marginally in favor of leave. On the other hand, as we have witnessed in voting within the House of Commons, the MPs are marginally in favor of the remain option. Hence, there is a standoff which raises additional risks to the process itself and even the future of the UK. Ideally I would like to see the UK remain within the EU. In doing so I would hope that the UK could be weaned from its special relationship with America. I would also like to see the EU reformed in favor of greater direct democracy, so that we might see progress against the failures I analyzed above. But we all must appreciate that the transition will be a long and bumpy ride.
The United Kingdom voted in favor of revoking its membership in the European Union. The process for implementing that vote is now in shambles. It is anyone’s guess how the process will finally play out. The deal that PM May negotiated with the E.U. admittedly falls short of the goals of Brexiteers. And, the idea of Brexit is equally regrettable in terms of a rational vision for geopolitical trends. Open borders, trade and peaceful coexistence remain, at least in my view, worthy destinations. Yet, if we analyze the way the E.U. has evolved, we can recognize crucial failures. The E.U. has passed numerous crossroads in its rendezvous with history and has fallen short consistently.
What were these crossroads and how do I define the EU’s failures? First, here is a list of what I consider to be the key issues and then following I will provide some analysis of each.
1. The creeping process toward a transition from a customs agreement toward political union.
2. The introduction of the common currency without establishing an institutional framework first.
3. The expansion of the E.U. into Eastern Europe in the wake of the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and Comecon.
4. The response to the debt crisis which hit the peripheral countries of the Eurozone after the 2008 financial meltdown.
Creeping toward Union
Sadly the EU has become increasingly bureaucratic and less responsive to direct democracy. The direction of the EU’s structure and policies has been toward ever closer union and ever greater control over laws, national budgets and taxation. And yet, there has been far too little preparation and open discussion to educate the populace to fully embrace this course. Few referenda were held to endorse the course toward union. When referenda were held the results were mildly in favor (petite oui) or negative. When several nations rejected aspects of the process, they were asked to vote again. What has transpired, as a consequence, is what I have called a creeping transition toward political union with little or no regard to public opinion. This is not the appropriate way to build a consensus in favor of a new emergent super state. The result has been a backlash against the EU and in favor of nationalism. This backlash to a large degree explains the UK vote to leave the EU. But, such backlash is visible in numerous other countries as well.
The structure of EU institutions is indicative. The major bodies that govern the union are three, The European Council, The European Commission and The European Parliament. Major strategic decisions are under the purview of The Council. This is a body which meets quarterly or more frequently to resolve crises. It is composed of the heads of member states plus an appointed President (currently MrTusk) and the President of The Commission. The heads of state are of course democratically elected. However, delegating strategic decisions to this moderate sized gathering removes those decisions one additional level away from participatory democracy. The Commission is where the EU bureaucracy really thrives. All of the members of The Commission are politically appointed and not elected directly. Yet, it is within the Commission that policy questions are researched, debated and formulated for adoption. The third body, that of the European Parliament, is the sole institution within the EU that is elected directly by the people. However, this institution is the least powerful of the three. Something is amiss here and it is common knowledge. As a result participation in elections to the European Parliament is always less than participation in national elections. And this is the case across the board.
The Common Currency
The Euro was introduced after years of planning in 1999 as a virtual currency and in 2002 in the form of notes and coins across the group of nations adopting it. Despite the planning, there have been serious adverse consequences. Economists immediately pointed out two flaws. First, it is inadvisable to implement a common currency without having first established adequate institutions in support. The EU began building those institutions after the fact rather than having them established and fully operational before hand. Second, the use of a common currency would be problematic without having achieved economic conversion and providing backstop safety nets such as a single insurance scheme for unemployment benefits and integrated pension plans.
The Maastricht Treaty was supposed to be the antidote to these shortcomings. The Maastricht agreement required that countries joining the Euro should demonstrate a competitive level of economic development. The countries were also have a debt to GDP ratio of less than 60%, annual deficits below 3% and tamed inflation rates. Again economists pointed out flaws. They noted that individual countries going through recessions would be in a straight jacket, unable to respond to their economic doldrums through a flexible fiscal policy. When the Euro was finally introduced not only had the EU failed to address these limitations, it relaxed the criteria for economic conversion and admitted countries with vastly disparate levels of economic development. In hindsight today it is sadly easy to see that economists criticisms and predictions have proven to be accurate. (More on this issue below.)
EU Expansion
In 1990 the Warsaw Pact disintegrated. Gorbachev’s attempt to implement Glasnost and to reform the Soviet Union and its allied states failed. The Berlin Wall was torn down and governments across Eastern Europe collapsed. This event presented a political opportunity as well as a humanitarian responsibility. There was a clear need to provide economic support to allow the countries of Eastern Europe to stabilize politically and to transition to more efficient modes of production and economic organization. To a degree the EU did respond to the challenge. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) was set up to support investment and the transfer of expertise. A few of the countries have made relatively successful transitions.
On the geopolitical level, however, the EU failed miserably. When German unification went ahead the US and the Russian Federation agreed to permit reunification with the understanding that NATO would not expand to the east. This was a perfectly sensible agreement. It was time for a peace dividend after decades of Cold War. And yet that agreement was ignored. The US pushed and the EU caved. As the EU began the process of expanding into Eastern Europe it required new applicant nations to join NATO first and then begin the process to join the EU. From the US perspective America was seizing an opportunity to expand its empire. But from the EU perspective this was acquiescence pure and simple. The EU squandered the opportunity to spend the peace dividend.
During this period a significant policy debate ensued within the EU. The idea of political union was already on the table and being discussed. Everyone at the table, however, knew that the transition to political union would be difficult. At precisely the same time the need to respond to the political vacuum in Eastern Europe arose. The result was a debate over whether to expand the marketplace or to deepen the union among existing EU members. Deepening the Union was to include efforts to establish an independent foreign policy. As we reflect on this debate today it is not difficult to discern that the EU decided to do both simultaneously, but both haphazardly. And worst of all, the EU decided to accept the continuation of life under the wing of the American Empire. All discussion of creating an independent foreign policy remained just that, discussion.
Debt Crisis on the Periphery
In 2008 global capitalism was rocked by the subprime mortgage loan crisis in the US. The cause was a complete failure in banking supervision. As ripples ensued across markets and borders, the EU faced its own crisis. The introduction of the Euro had created the expectation that national economies within the Eurozone would converge. (Recall from comments earlier that the Euro was introduced without adequate infrastructure and despite disparate economic development.) As a consequence debt markets in Europe did converge with interest rates across the Eurozone moving toward parity. This decline in interest rates in peripheral economies produced an explosion of debt. Then, when markets crashed over US subprime debt, the ensuing lack of liquidity in European markets led to a second thought on economic conversion. It suddenly became painfully clear that economic conversion had not occurred. Instead peripheral economies had simply become over indebted.
Capital and investment across the Eurozone should have been recycled to establish sustainable economic development across the zone. Instead liquidity had recycled as debt across the zone producing a sovereign debt crisis, Europe’s own subprime problem. Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy and later Cyprus all displayed various symptoms of an over extension of debt within their national economies, whether private or public sector. The response from the EU was misguided and inadequate. The EU did finally set up additional institutions such as had been needed from the start, banking supervision and a European IMF (the EFSF). But the medicine administered to resolve the crisis was austerity programs. This choice was one that stemmed from the German philosophy of political economy and a fear of inflation and / or the weakening of the Euro currency. What was needed as explained above was a recycling of capital and investment to offset the debt explosion that had occurred. Instead, by implementing harsh austerity programs, capital flows shifted towards safety, i.e. back to Germany. In lieu of a Marshall Plan for the periphery, the EU implemented what was in effect a reverse Marshall Plan. The economic disparity within the Eurozone is now greater than it had been prior to introduction of the Euro. And so the crisis within the Eurozone lingers.
Summary
Certainly all of the analysis here is up for debate. My point is precisely that. All of the points above should be on the table for debate. I term the above points failures. Others may reply that they were pragmatic policy choices. Still, the fact remains that there are significant obstacles remaining within the structure of the EU. It is still an open question whether the EU can move successfully toward a stronger, deeper union. In fact it remains entirely uncertain whether the nations within the EU even want a closer union. Without political union and a true movement toward economic convergence, however, the common currency will face continuing crises in future. And unless the EU develops its own political identity and an accompanying foreign policy, it will be held hostage by US interests. It is already evident what this will mean. A hard border will exist between the EU and Russia. In future this may also apply to relations with China. And NATO will call upon the EU to support regime change wars across the Middle East and beyond.
Now, to come back to the question of Brexit, how does the above analysis help to to explain the Brexit gambit and the ensuing shambles? The Brexit vote should not have come as a surprise. Sentiments against the EU had been prevalent throughout all along. The UK had been one of the nations least inclined to political union. It had refrained from entering the common currency and steadfastly cultivated a special relationship with the US. Nonetheless, Cameron took the gamble to call a referendum. Surprise! He lost. The popular vote was marginally in favor of leave. On the other hand, as we have witnessed in voting within the House of Commons, the MPs are marginally in favor of the remain option. Hence, there is a standoff which raises additional risks to the process itself and even the future of the UK. Ideally I would like to see the UK remain within the EU. In doing so I would hope that the UK could be weaned from its special relationship with America. I would also like to see the EU reformed in favor of greater direct democracy, so that we might see progress against the failures I analyzed above. But we all must appreciate that the transition will be a long and bumpy ride.
Wednesday, April 3, 2019
Atheist or Agnostic
Atheist or Agnostic:
I just read an interview with the physicist Marcelo Gleiser. Several years ago I read one of his books, The Dancing Universe. I later included that book in the bibliography to my own philosophical book, The Bridge. Professor Gleiser has just been awarded the Templeton Prize and he was interviewed by Scientific American. The link to that interview is here: https:// www.scientificamerican.com/article/atheism-is-inconsistent-with-the-scientific-method- prizewinning-physicist-says/? utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly- review&utm_content=link&utm_term=2019-03-27_featured-this- week&spMailingID=58849609&spUserID=NTM5ODMzNzM1MQS2&spJobID=1603563188&spRep ortId=MTYwMzU2MzE4OAS2
There are two interesting themes that Gleiser responds to in the interview. The first is from the title, which is the idea that atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. The second is a warning that there is a danger of hubris among scientists, particularly those scientists who are seeking a ‘theory of everything.’ As it happens I dealt with both of these themes in my book, The Bridge. So, I want to take the opportunity to discuss them myself briefly.
Let me start with the second theme, the danger of hubris in science. I devoted a full chapter to this matter, On Science and Hubris. The risk is quite real. We are likely a very long way from anything remotely resembling a theory of everything. Gleiser talks about the boundary between what we know and what is beyond our current knowledge. I discussed this issue as well. In fact I coined a phrase by borrowing from a concept in contemporary physics. Astrophysicists today have discovered matter that can be detected but has not yet been seen or described. Similarly they have observed energy within the universe that they are unable at present to explain. They call these dark matter and dark energy respectively. I used this terminology to describe what we don’t yet know or understand dark knowledge. It is quite simply impossible to comprehend the relative balance between the body of knowledge we have acquired to date and the body of dark knowledge. And so, it is simply hubris to imagine that we are close to conquering the realm of dark knowledge.
The first theme on the other hand is, I think, misguided. Yes, it is true that we don’t understand all of the laws of the universe, nor all of the complexities of biology or the workings of the human brain. We can however, if we choose, understand the concepts of religious beliefs. We can trace the emergence of such beliefs within the historical period. We can read the religious and philosophical debates that took place historically over salient questions of religious belief. And, to a degree, we can speculate on the origins of concepts of gods and spirits that eventually developed into the various religions that exist today. If we examine all of these religious beliefs rigorously, we can safely say they are all demonstrably false. I would therefore argue that it is not hubris at all to state simply and with conviction that such beliefs are indeed false. Hence, if an atheist is one who rejects the beliefs currently and historically espoused by one and all existing religions, then that is an entirely defensible position. Now Professor Gleiser may counter that atheism is itself a creed. And that the atheist creed is guilty of hubris, since it stakes out an absolutist position which is based on the assumption that science has answered most of the important questions of the universe. I won’t argue with such a perspective, but I suspect that Professor Gleiser is arguing here against a straw man. I also recommend that he read my poem, Atheism, from my poetic drama, The Story of our People.
I just read an interview with the physicist Marcelo Gleiser. Several years ago I read one of his books, The Dancing Universe. I later included that book in the bibliography to my own philosophical book, The Bridge. Professor Gleiser has just been awarded the Templeton Prize and he was interviewed by Scientific American. The link to that interview is here: https:// www.scientificamerican.com/article/atheism-is-inconsistent-with-the-scientific-method- prizewinning-physicist-says/? utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly- review&utm_content=link&utm_term=2019-03-27_featured-this- week&spMailingID=58849609&spUserID=NTM5ODMzNzM1MQS2&spJobID=1603563188&spRep ortId=MTYwMzU2MzE4OAS2
There are two interesting themes that Gleiser responds to in the interview. The first is from the title, which is the idea that atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. The second is a warning that there is a danger of hubris among scientists, particularly those scientists who are seeking a ‘theory of everything.’ As it happens I dealt with both of these themes in my book, The Bridge. So, I want to take the opportunity to discuss them myself briefly.
Let me start with the second theme, the danger of hubris in science. I devoted a full chapter to this matter, On Science and Hubris. The risk is quite real. We are likely a very long way from anything remotely resembling a theory of everything. Gleiser talks about the boundary between what we know and what is beyond our current knowledge. I discussed this issue as well. In fact I coined a phrase by borrowing from a concept in contemporary physics. Astrophysicists today have discovered matter that can be detected but has not yet been seen or described. Similarly they have observed energy within the universe that they are unable at present to explain. They call these dark matter and dark energy respectively. I used this terminology to describe what we don’t yet know or understand dark knowledge. It is quite simply impossible to comprehend the relative balance between the body of knowledge we have acquired to date and the body of dark knowledge. And so, it is simply hubris to imagine that we are close to conquering the realm of dark knowledge.
The first theme on the other hand is, I think, misguided. Yes, it is true that we don’t understand all of the laws of the universe, nor all of the complexities of biology or the workings of the human brain. We can however, if we choose, understand the concepts of religious beliefs. We can trace the emergence of such beliefs within the historical period. We can read the religious and philosophical debates that took place historically over salient questions of religious belief. And, to a degree, we can speculate on the origins of concepts of gods and spirits that eventually developed into the various religions that exist today. If we examine all of these religious beliefs rigorously, we can safely say they are all demonstrably false. I would therefore argue that it is not hubris at all to state simply and with conviction that such beliefs are indeed false. Hence, if an atheist is one who rejects the beliefs currently and historically espoused by one and all existing religions, then that is an entirely defensible position. Now Professor Gleiser may counter that atheism is itself a creed. And that the atheist creed is guilty of hubris, since it stakes out an absolutist position which is based on the assumption that science has answered most of the important questions of the universe. I won’t argue with such a perspective, but I suspect that Professor Gleiser is arguing here against a straw man. I also recommend that he read my poem, Atheism, from my poetic drama, The Story of our People.
Saturday, February 16, 2019
William Stafford and the Aesthetics of Poetry
While daydreaming today I recalled a poem I had appreciated during my college years. William Stafford had visited my university and I went to hear him speak and read a few of his poems. The one that stuck with me is this one.
Traveling through the Dark
BY WILLIAM E. STAFFORD
Traveling through the dark I found a deer
dead on the edge of the Wilson River road.
It is usually best to roll them into the canyon:
that road is narrow; to swerve might make more dead.
By glow of the tail-light I stumbled back of the car
and stood by the heap, a doe, a recent killing;
she had stiffened already, almost cold.
I dragged her off; she was large in the belly.
My fingers touching her side brought me the reason—
her side was warm; her fawn lay there waiting,
alive, still, never to be born.
Beside that mountain road I hesitated.
The car aimed ahead its lowered parking lights;
under the hood purred the steady engine.
I stood in the glare of the warm exhaust turning red;
around our group I could hear the wilderness listen.
I thought hard for us all—my only swerving—,
then pushed her over the edge into the river.
I won’t attempt to explain or analyze the poem. There are plenty of sources for such exegesis. Instead I want to relate an interesting story from his talk. He told us of an experience where he sent two new poems in to two separate prestigious literary magazines. Both rejected his new poems. He received these rejections in the mail (snail mail then) on the same day. He mischievously decided to cross submit the poems again. So he sent one rejected poem to the other periodical and the second to the first. And, he told us that before leaving home on his reading and lecture tour he had received an acceptance from one of the two periodicals. He was then waiting to learn whether the second poem had been accepted as well.
This story provides an introduction to the next theme I want to address. What is it that distinguishes good from mediocre to poor quality artistic expression? The subject here is the theory of aesthetics. It is an aged philosophical question that has complex and varied perspectives. The common response that it is merely a matter of personal taste is just that, common. That view is simplistic and fundamentally flawed. Still, there is no single theory or answer that successfully addresses the multitude of perceptions regarding beauty, elegance or depth of meaning.
William Stafford confronted the problem decisively. He challenged the editors of two separate literary magazines and demonstrated that there was no unified consensus on his new poems. His poem here is another example of the disparity regarding a theory of aesthetics. Stafford’s style is deceptively simple. It is conversational as though a casual discourse, though packed with a deep punch to the gut. This style had been abandoned by modern poetic movements. Poets had decades earlier embraced the emerging styles of modern painting with distorted perspectives and collages of images. (Think of Picasso’s paintings.) There was a conscious attempt to emulate such paintings and to express ideas through verses encompassing a complex weave of dreamlike images and shifting scenes. I don’t mean to say that modern poetry is less meaningful or elegant than more traditional poetry. Rather the point is that varying styles are simultaneously taken as successful art forms. Stafford’s poems survive as do T.S. Eliot’s and Homer’s and we cherish them all.
The central determinant is not style, but rather how the message resonates and whether the language and images provide sufficient power to support the resonance. Stafford submitted two poems to two respected editors. Both rejected his poems. But then, one editor, and possibly both, accepted the poem rejected by the previous editor. I have no way to research this hapoenstance further. It is a detail that is lost to history’s broader course. Yet, the hapoenstance was and remains instructive and significant.
Traveling through the Dark
BY WILLIAM E. STAFFORD
Traveling through the dark I found a deer
dead on the edge of the Wilson River road.
It is usually best to roll them into the canyon:
that road is narrow; to swerve might make more dead.
By glow of the tail-light I stumbled back of the car
and stood by the heap, a doe, a recent killing;
she had stiffened already, almost cold.
I dragged her off; she was large in the belly.
My fingers touching her side brought me the reason—
her side was warm; her fawn lay there waiting,
alive, still, never to be born.
Beside that mountain road I hesitated.
The car aimed ahead its lowered parking lights;
under the hood purred the steady engine.
I stood in the glare of the warm exhaust turning red;
around our group I could hear the wilderness listen.
I thought hard for us all—my only swerving—,
then pushed her over the edge into the river.
I won’t attempt to explain or analyze the poem. There are plenty of sources for such exegesis. Instead I want to relate an interesting story from his talk. He told us of an experience where he sent two new poems in to two separate prestigious literary magazines. Both rejected his new poems. He received these rejections in the mail (snail mail then) on the same day. He mischievously decided to cross submit the poems again. So he sent one rejected poem to the other periodical and the second to the first. And, he told us that before leaving home on his reading and lecture tour he had received an acceptance from one of the two periodicals. He was then waiting to learn whether the second poem had been accepted as well.
This story provides an introduction to the next theme I want to address. What is it that distinguishes good from mediocre to poor quality artistic expression? The subject here is the theory of aesthetics. It is an aged philosophical question that has complex and varied perspectives. The common response that it is merely a matter of personal taste is just that, common. That view is simplistic and fundamentally flawed. Still, there is no single theory or answer that successfully addresses the multitude of perceptions regarding beauty, elegance or depth of meaning.
William Stafford confronted the problem decisively. He challenged the editors of two separate literary magazines and demonstrated that there was no unified consensus on his new poems. His poem here is another example of the disparity regarding a theory of aesthetics. Stafford’s style is deceptively simple. It is conversational as though a casual discourse, though packed with a deep punch to the gut. This style had been abandoned by modern poetic movements. Poets had decades earlier embraced the emerging styles of modern painting with distorted perspectives and collages of images. (Think of Picasso’s paintings.) There was a conscious attempt to emulate such paintings and to express ideas through verses encompassing a complex weave of dreamlike images and shifting scenes. I don’t mean to say that modern poetry is less meaningful or elegant than more traditional poetry. Rather the point is that varying styles are simultaneously taken as successful art forms. Stafford’s poems survive as do T.S. Eliot’s and Homer’s and we cherish them all.
The central determinant is not style, but rather how the message resonates and whether the language and images provide sufficient power to support the resonance. Stafford submitted two poems to two respected editors. Both rejected his poems. But then, one editor, and possibly both, accepted the poem rejected by the previous editor. I have no way to research this hapoenstance further. It is a detail that is lost to history’s broader course. Yet, the hapoenstance was and remains instructive and significant.
Monday, January 28, 2019
The Error of US Foreign Policy
The Liberal and Neocon establishment consistently portrays global events through a false lens. We are witnessing this tactic once again these past few days over the political crisis in Venezuela. What is this bias that distorts perspectives and leads to cries for intervention? The bias is quite simple; it is the unjustified supposition that the US has the right or even the obligation to play the role of arbiter in world affairs. This bias is ever present in diplomacy and in the media. Yet, the premise is patently illegal.
Venezuela has been a thorn in US designs for two decades following the rise of Hugo Chávez through democratic elections. Chavez befriended Castro and used Venezuelan State oil revenues to promote socialist policies domestically and anti-imperial movements across Latin America. There were numerous attempts to overthrow his rule. All failed and he died in office. His successor President Maduro has continued those policies.
The media has for years portrayed Venezuela as a failed socialist experiment and its leaders as corrupt and/or incompetent. In fact Maduro has been a far less charismatic leader than Chávez. He has also lost leverage and resources due to the decline in oil prices. And he and his government may well be guilty of corruption, although the details of such charges have never been substantiated in the media, which seems to suffice in accusations in lieu of facts. Unmistakably though there is now widespread disenchantment domestically with his rule.
Now, media presentation and political dialogue in the US have openly called for the overthrow of the Maduro regime. Anyone who resists such calls is branded as a fool, a socialist sympathizer or a Russian agent. Criticism of US policy is quashed. Rational debate is obstructed. The consensus opinion promoted by the Liberal and Neocon establishment is that regime change is essential to avert a humanitarian crisis and to topple a corrupt and unpopular regime. But let’s take a small step back to reflect on the facts of the situation.
The US has already implemented economic sanctions on Venezuela. These sanctions have served to exacerbate the problems that originated with failing government policies in Venezuela and the collapse of oil prices. The sanctions that the US has imposed have punished the people in Venezuela with the intent to weaken the Maduro government. Moreover, these sanctions are immoral and illegal under international law. Two days ago a leader of the opposition in Venezuela declared himself the acting president of the country. And the US immediately recognized him (Guaidó) as the legitimate ruler. Recognition of Mr Guaidó is contrary to Venezuela’s Constitution and it is patently illegal under international law.
Of course, by pointing out these facts the media chorus and self righteous opinion leaders will shout me down. They will ask, “Do you support the corrupt Maduro government? What would you suggest, that we do nothing to help the impoverished people in the country?” And this is precisely the bias I am addressing here. The US has no legal right to take the actions it has taken. There are processes (admittedly weak) to address such political crises through the UN and other international bodies. Unilateral action and direct intervention in the internal affairs of foreign countries is not legal. Nor does the US have any moral right or obligation to do so. Perhaps I should add a biblical reference to convince the religious lobby. ‘If Maduro is guilty of mismanagement and corruption, then let the nation that is without sin cast the first stone.’ The US, despite its claims of exceptionalism, is not such a nation.
We require a new paradigm for US foreign policy. Policy should not be based on the false premise of an exceptional society that leads the world from a moral high ground. It should not be led by the financial interests of corporate and military lobbyists. The self righteous cries of liberal voices for humanitarian intervention do not have the mandate to dictate policy. The US must act openly through international organizations and not clandestinely. It has no right to play a role as an arbiter in world affairs. It has been doing so for decades without a mandate. And, it continues to propagate the myth that it has assumed this role reluctantly out of responsibility to an international status quo and in support of democratic freedom and economic progress. Let’s write a new paradigm based in self criticism and upon international law.
Venezuela has been a thorn in US designs for two decades following the rise of Hugo Chávez through democratic elections. Chavez befriended Castro and used Venezuelan State oil revenues to promote socialist policies domestically and anti-imperial movements across Latin America. There were numerous attempts to overthrow his rule. All failed and he died in office. His successor President Maduro has continued those policies.
The media has for years portrayed Venezuela as a failed socialist experiment and its leaders as corrupt and/or incompetent. In fact Maduro has been a far less charismatic leader than Chávez. He has also lost leverage and resources due to the decline in oil prices. And he and his government may well be guilty of corruption, although the details of such charges have never been substantiated in the media, which seems to suffice in accusations in lieu of facts. Unmistakably though there is now widespread disenchantment domestically with his rule.
Now, media presentation and political dialogue in the US have openly called for the overthrow of the Maduro regime. Anyone who resists such calls is branded as a fool, a socialist sympathizer or a Russian agent. Criticism of US policy is quashed. Rational debate is obstructed. The consensus opinion promoted by the Liberal and Neocon establishment is that regime change is essential to avert a humanitarian crisis and to topple a corrupt and unpopular regime. But let’s take a small step back to reflect on the facts of the situation.
The US has already implemented economic sanctions on Venezuela. These sanctions have served to exacerbate the problems that originated with failing government policies in Venezuela and the collapse of oil prices. The sanctions that the US has imposed have punished the people in Venezuela with the intent to weaken the Maduro government. Moreover, these sanctions are immoral and illegal under international law. Two days ago a leader of the opposition in Venezuela declared himself the acting president of the country. And the US immediately recognized him (Guaidó) as the legitimate ruler. Recognition of Mr Guaidó is contrary to Venezuela’s Constitution and it is patently illegal under international law.
Of course, by pointing out these facts the media chorus and self righteous opinion leaders will shout me down. They will ask, “Do you support the corrupt Maduro government? What would you suggest, that we do nothing to help the impoverished people in the country?” And this is precisely the bias I am addressing here. The US has no legal right to take the actions it has taken. There are processes (admittedly weak) to address such political crises through the UN and other international bodies. Unilateral action and direct intervention in the internal affairs of foreign countries is not legal. Nor does the US have any moral right or obligation to do so. Perhaps I should add a biblical reference to convince the religious lobby. ‘If Maduro is guilty of mismanagement and corruption, then let the nation that is without sin cast the first stone.’ The US, despite its claims of exceptionalism, is not such a nation.
We require a new paradigm for US foreign policy. Policy should not be based on the false premise of an exceptional society that leads the world from a moral high ground. It should not be led by the financial interests of corporate and military lobbyists. The self righteous cries of liberal voices for humanitarian intervention do not have the mandate to dictate policy. The US must act openly through international organizations and not clandestinely. It has no right to play a role as an arbiter in world affairs. It has been doing so for decades without a mandate. And, it continues to propagate the myth that it has assumed this role reluctantly out of responsibility to an international status quo and in support of democratic freedom and economic progress. Let’s write a new paradigm based in self criticism and upon international law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)