On Political Cartoons and the Anti-Imperialists

On Political Cartoons and the Anti-Imperialists: The above cartoon appeared in Harper's Weekly in September 1900. It depicts a fiery President McKinley firing a cannon into an effigy mocking him and the pageantry of imperialism. One October night in 1898, McKinley claimed to have been visited by God in a dream, Who told him to start building an American empire. The first step in that empire-building process would be war with Spain, which enabled the U.S. to acquire territories like Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines. At the same time, however, there was a growing cohort of Americans who viewed these imperial acquisitions with disdain. Led in part by two Massachusetts Senators, George Boutwell and George Hoar, the Anti-Imperialist League actively opposed the McKinley/Roosevelt administrations in their attempts to expand America's power/reach around the world. The primary argument put forth by the anti-imperialists was that the U.S. got its start as a country thanks to anti-imperialism. Why did the country now want to take the same path as Britain or Spain? Imperial empires only seem to end in disaster.

On Quebec's Quiet Revolution

On Quebec's Quiet Revolution: In the 1960s and 1970s, the Province of Quebec underwent a series of trans-formative sociopolitical changes. For one thing, the Parti Quebecois (PQ) gained serious traction in provincial politics, which made the prospects of a sovereign, independent Quebec a distinct possibility.  As part of this sovereignist instinct, political leaders like Jean Lesage and Rene Levesque (pictured above) wanted the Province to have more direct control over industries like education and healthcare. Prior to the 1960s, much of those two industries were heavily influenced by the Roman Catholic Church. Two other major initiatives of the Quiet Revolution involved areas such as civil service and utilities. With civil service, politicians pushed for a provincial-wide pension system for public employees. And as for utilities, politicians sought energy independence with the increased development of Hydro-Quebec, which generates electricity for the entire Province.

On Québécois Separatism

On Québécois Separatism: At the bottom of Quebec's license plates it reads "Je me souviens," which translates from French to English as "I remember." For decades, the meaning of this phrase has been debated among Canadians. The phrase dates back to the 1880s, when the architect of Quebec's provincial Parliament had it carved into the stone above the main doorway. That architect, Eugene Taché, never left an explanation of the phrase's meaning. But in the early 1900s, the phrase became adopted as Quebec's official motto. And early historians of Quebec's heritage began to reconcile the phrase with Canada's colonial past. Ever since Canada gained its independence from Britain in 1867, there had been a large constituency of French-speaking people in Quebec who resented ever being subjected to British rule. By the mid-twentieth century, however, Canadian historians started to see the phrase more as a rallying cry for the Quebec sovereignty movement. Thus, whenever the phrase "Je me souviens" gets uttered, it's a reminder for the people of Quebec to recall the days of Jacques Cartier, Samuel de Champlain, and New France. Days when French Jesuits missionized the natives while settling the St. Lawrence River. Days before Quebec became part of British Canada.

On Why the Cold War Never Ended

On Why the Cold War Never Ended: Europeans were ecstatic when the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, and again when East and West Germany unified in 1990. But the birth of the Russian Federation in 1991 did not seem to precipitate the same kind of jubilant response. In general, nobody really knew what the "Russian Federation" signified. It was not until 1993 that something resembling a "constitution" was even in place to govern this newly democratized country. And with dual executive positions (Russia has both a President and a Prime Minister), people became confused over where the political power to govern actually resided. In fact, for the past fifteen years, the President (currently Vladimir Putin) and the Prime Minister (currently Dmitry Medvedev) have essentially swapped positions. With this kind of political back-and-forth (spoils system), many foreign observers continue to remain skeptical, as Russia's executive functions appear not-so-different than that of the Soviet politburo. Yet what's particularly troubling are Russia's recent military advances in the Ukraine and Syria. For if there's one thing Putin understands it's power (he's a realist), and he knows the United States lacks the political will to confront Russian aggression.

How "Working-Class" Is Socialism?

How "Working-Class" Is Socialism?: Not very, is the short answer to this question. Aside from Eugene V. Debs and A. Philip Randolph, who worked as a boilerman and porter, respectively, and who participated in unions like the American Railway Union (ARU) and Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters (BSCP), socialism has largely been the product of highly-trained technocrats, especially in Europe. For example, one would be hard-pressed to find historical accounts of early socialist/communist thinkers like Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels toiling away in factories along the Rhine. However, Engels did observe the drudgeries of working-class England when he visited Manchester's textile factories in the early 1840s. But one-hundred years after Marx and Engels, Austrian economist Friedrich von Hayek stated that "socialism has never and nowhere at first been a working-class movement." While this might be somewhat of an overstatement, Hayek understood that socialism, as an ideology of the downtrodden masses, rests unabashedly on the supreme assumption that a central authority, i.e., the state, can somehow consolidate and utilize all earthly knowledge for the purposes of equalizing society. While this idealistic assumption may sound appealing, the logistical difficulties behind central planning in this fashion simply preclude most forms of socialism from existing.

Leo Strauss and Neoconservatism

Leo Strauss and Neoconservatism: Having partly originated in the writings of American political philosopher Leo Strauss, neoconservatism is a set of beliefs that melds economic liberalism with social conservatism. Although Strauss' works do not explicitly use the neoconservative label, they do present a feasible alternative to the political philosophy of the New Left. In effect, Straussianism constituted a right-wing version of American Marxism in that its adherents worked under a broad structural framework. This framework specifically repudiated the excesses of individualism, which Strauss understood as being indicative of both relativistic and nihilistic thinking. Modern American liberalism, for Strauss, was becoming increasingly hedonistic and aimless, especially with respect to public policies like abortion and welfare. Early neoconservatives therefore sought to correct this hedonistic aimlessness by fashioning a kind of politics rooted in the core values of capitalism, democracy, and freedom. This value-driven approach ultimately helped neoconservatives to synthesize their ideas in the 1960s and 1970s under thinkers like Daniel Bell and Irving Kristol. As a result, this political philosophy became a mainstay in American politics from the 1980s to the 2000s, particularly in the area of foreign policy.

On Israeli Foreign Policy

On Israeli Foreign Policy: When Israel became an official country in May 1948, she confronted five Arab armies on her newly established borders. Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria each invaded Israel in the name of Pan-Arabism, which sought to reassert Arab control over Palestine. But it was the ideology of Religious Zionism that helped the Israeli people remain resolute and fend off their Arab foes. This strain of Zionist thinking has become central in the political processes that define Israeli foreign policy. Ever since the country's early foreign ministers; Moshe Sharett, Golda Meir, and Abba Eban, Israel has demonstrated a strong inclination for self-determination whereby her national interests supersede the collective interests of her Arab neighbors. For example, when Palestinian Arabs fled Israel at the onset of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, they were not allowed to repatriate. At that time, Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, who simultaneously headed the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and the Israeli government, employed a variety of heavy-handed policies toward Palestinian Arabs. His thinking centered on the idea of "peace through strength." Therefore, if Israel pursued aggressive settlement policies through mechanisms like the National Water Carrier project, then Palestinian Arabs would necessarily recognize the permanence of Israeli statehood, and thus, political stability in Israel would subsequently ensue.

Grand Theft Auto: The Game

Grand Theft Auto: The Game: If there ever was a video game that resembled what English political philosopher Thomas Hobbes referred to as the "state of nature," then Grand Theft Auto (GTA) certainly qualifies. When Hobbes published Leviathan in 1651, England was on the verge of entering a de facto military dictatorship under the rule of Oliver Cromwell. The traumatic events of the English Civil War in the 1640s pushed Hobbes to question what would happen to a society devoid of government. As a result, he conducted a hypothetical thought experiment in which men proceeded to fight each other in the name of land and liberty (bellum omnium contra omnes). As for GTA, the idea of a "war of all against all" becomes a virtual reality when players are immersed in a world where objective morality ceases to exist. Players can steal cars, kill pedestrians, rob stores, and even copulate with hookers. Critics claim that the game's graphic imagery incites violence and sets a poor example for young children. But the game can also be considered a teaching tool with regard to the importance of having a strong central government, especially in a society of ruthless individuals.

On "Just War" Theory

On "Just War" Theory: American Protestant theologian, Reinhold Niebuhr (pictured above), advocated a theory of "just war" that eventually morphed into the Christian Realist movement. Originating with Catholic theologians like Saint Augustine of Hippo and Saint Thomas Aquinas, a just war is fundamentally conducted from a defensive standpoint. Basic requirements (jus ad bellum) include just cause, comparative justice, and legitimate authority. Yet with the advent of the Cold War in 1945, Christian Realism brought a hawkish attitude to American foreign policy. As a religiously rooted ideology, it helped Americans cope with the prospects of imminent war. And Niebuhr recognized that attempting to meet every stipulation for a just war would hamper the ability of the defender to prepare an adequate defense. Therefore, sometimes the best way to defend a territory involves going on the offensive. Preemptive war signifies an off-shoot of this kind of thinking. For example, the Bush Doctrine in Afghanistan and Iraq applied the principle of preemption to combat global terrorism. But it is never enough to strike preemptively and then leave one's opponent wallowing in the wake. A comprehensive plan for recovery (nation building) must be implemented in order to mitigate the potential for future aggression.

Politicizing through Ridicule

Politicizing through Ridicule: In 1971, the godfather of community organizing, Saul Alinsky, published his Rules for Radicals. It primarily addressed the New Left movements of the 1960s, which sought to broaden the ideological stance of the Old Left - where traditional Marxism (class-based oppression) and trade unionism reigned supreme. Although he despised labels and never officially joined any political organization, Alinsky's words and actions surely placed him in the liberal camp. By its very nature, community organizing is a left-wing phenomenon, especially since it focuses heavily on shared interests instead of self-interests. In effect, Alinsky admonishes his readers to attain power is by ridiculing the politics of those who already have it. That is, make yourself a victim of the Establishment or the ruling political structure. Victims garner sympathy and sympathy provides victims with social mobility. The cycle builds upon itself until the victim eventually becomes the perpetrator. Much of what Alinsky professes leads the reader to believe in the old Nietzschean aphorism that "might makes right." In a way, therefore, Alinsky's ethics are purely subjective, which is why community organizing often lacks a clear sense of purpose.

Thomas Jefferson's Utopian Experiment

Thomas Jefferson's Utopian Experiment: In what was perhaps the greatest sentence ever written, Thomas Jefferson composed the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom in 1779. When it later passed the Virginia General Assembly in 1786, after support from James Madison and a large constituency of Baptists, it marked the first law of religious freedom in all of Western civilization. In the statue, Jefferson put forth a simple, but effective argument for religious freedom in republican societies. Given that "Almighty God hath created the mind free," then it was only natural to make religious worship a free and open practice. He realized that the worst kind of tyranny occurred when religion and government worked hand-in-hand to create a theocracy. State-imposed religion curtailed man's free will. Now it is important to remember that Jefferson drafted this statute during the Revolutionary War. There was no guarantee that the American confederation would survive the British onslaught. Even so, after securing an alliance with France in 1778 and winning a mere three out of nine major battles, the Continental Army persevered on its way to eventual victory over Britain. Aside from the military campaign, Jefferson's statue represented an alternative course in the ideology of republicanism. It allowed for the creation of a wall that separated religion and government. Thus, Jefferson's statute was simultaneously a gateway to secularization and symbol of common sense.

Zion and Its Elders

Zion and Its Elders: Pictured above is Theodor Herzl, the man who is often considered the primary founder of modern Political Zionism. He was a Austro-Hungarian Jewish journalist living in the latter half of the nineteenth century. At the time, Europe saw the rapid growth of anti-Semitism in numerous countries like Germany, Austro-Hungary, and Russia. Even France could not eradicate its virulent anti-Semitic forces, as it plunged into a decade-long dilemma known as the Dreyfus Affair. It was this incident in France that caught the attention of Herzl. As a result, he decided to dedicate his time and effort to the creation and promotion of a back to Palestine movement (Zionism) for the Jewish peoples around the world. Such a concept was not new, it had existed ever since the days of the Jewish diaspora. However, the most novel feature of this movement was the fact that it contained vast socio-political implications for the European Jewry. As the rise of nationalism swept over Europe throughout the nineteenth century, the Jews were consistently set apart from any sort of grandiose nationalistic vision, which tended to be vaguely "Christian" in nature. And since they were frequently seen as a nation within a nation, European Jews needed a refuge where they could be free from the persistent persecution that they faced in the form of pogroms. Unfortunately for Herzl and other Zionist leaders, securing a place for the Jewish people in an area that was dominated by Muslims of the Ottoman Empire would prove quite difficult.

Defense or Healthcare?

Defense or Healthcare?: In the United States today, there is an overgrown elephant in people's living rooms that nobody is discussing. This elephant is draining the economic resources of the country at an increasingly rapid pace. But who is this elephant and when did he arrive in Americans' living rooms? Well, his name is the War on Terror and he showed up shortly following the attacks of September 11, 2001. Back then, the U.S. economy was thrown into a recession, and some economists would argue that the increase in defense spending after 2001 helped the economy to recover by early 2003. Nevertheless, as this national security crisis lingers over the U.S., there looms another major dilemma and it is called healthcare. Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements to hospitals, doctors, and drug companies are dropping on an annual basis. Millions of Americans cannot afford adequate health insurance. So, how should the U.S. arrange its priorities in the not-so-distant future? Should it choose a strong national defense or a strong healthcare system? Is national security the best way to ensure freedom or is good health the greatest form of wealth?

The Banality of Evil

The Banality of Evil: The concept of evil is rather banal by its very nature. On the whole, man seems to consistently fail at recognizing the commonplace and mundane features of evil in the postmodern world. In her 1951 masterpiece entitled The Origins of Totalitarianism, political philosopher Hannah Arendt coined the phrase "the banality of evil." Arendt argues that the political ideology of totalitarianism was essentially born out of an unfortunate combination of anti-Semitism and imperialism. Taking this novel thesis one step further, Arendt demonstrates how the second-class stature of German imperialism led to the development of anti-Semitism as a viable political option. In effect, Germany became jealous of the vast foreign empires built by the British and the French. As a result, she looked for a scapegoat to placate her imperial woes. The Protestant Nationalists in Germany naturally pointed to the Jews as the reason for the country's problems. The German Jews were for the most part seen as a nation within a nation. This idea was especially prevalent in the southern German state of Bavaria where the National Socialist (Nazi) movement began during the 1920s.

On the "Realpolitik"

On the "Realpolitik": And hence, I say, the Realpolitik is the manner in which all countries pursue their respective national interests! Basing public policies on power rather than ideals is the only practical response to the issues of the postmodern world. The Realpolitik gives man a clear sense of reality, which in turn, provides workable solutions to problems facing societies at large. The political ideology of realism (Realpolitik) has been around since the beginning of human civilization. In particular, the Romans represented a prime example of how realism worked in ancient times. Whenever they wished to achieve a collective goal, the Romans simply used brute force. Octavian and his Pax Romana reigned over the Roman Empire with realist policies. And yet, probably the best modern example of the Realpolitik was Bismarck's Germany in the late nineteenth century. Bismarck skillfully employed realism to pursue the German national interest while simultaneously providing a bulwark against chaos in the general European theater. His diplomatic endeavors, such as the Congress of Berlin in 1878, were central to the prospects of peace in Europe. Today, Germans remain heavily indebted to Bismarck for the privileges they enjoy on the world stage, as the country started its path toward acquiring the greatest concentration of wealth in the world.

On Mutual Liberty

On Mutual Liberty: And hence, I ponder, what is meant by the term mutual liberty? It would appear on the surface that mutual liberty goes hand-in-hand with republican ideals. Mutual liberty is when every individual in a community has the opportunity to take part in its civic activities. Another way to look at the concept of mutual liberty is by accounting for the collective free-wills of every rational being in a community. But can mutual liberty occur in reality? Well, the most proper occasion for mutual liberty is in a community governed by the consent of the governed, i.e., a republic. And it is only in a republic where members of all political factions can participate. It has been said that a republic is the form of government which divides people least. This statement pertains greatly to mutual liberty. Unlike positive and negative liberty, mutual liberty encompasses all citizens. It makes no distinction between political preference and social status. Mutual liberty pervades all sectors of society, from the homeless man on the street to the premier of the state. It is the process through which a general sense of morality gets exerted on the widest range of people in any given communal setting.

Rawls and Justice

Rawls and Justice: Published in 1971, A Theory of Justice remains one of the foremost works concerning the abstract notion of justice. John Rawls' idea of "justice as fairness" seems to be the primary concept that he intended to convey in his book. For the most part, one can consider his theory of justice as being heavily rooted in morality. It is distributive justice in is most basic form. That is, equal access to resources ought to be the primary concern of any just society. Ergo, Rawls' conception of justice is essentially a moral philosophy with hints of political liberalism. With his justice theory, Rawls also attempted to justify the main reason why citizens ought to follow the laws created by states. In a sense, Rawls claimed that citizens have consented to the will of the lawmakers by vesting power in them through a "social contract." This notion of a "social contract" between the government and its respective citizenry was born during the Enlightenment era. Thinkers like John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau contemplated the relationship of man and government, and thus, they concluded that man emerged from his self-imposed triviality through reason.

Maoism and China

Maoism and China: On the whole, Maoism can be seen as a Chinese ideological adaptation of both Marxism and Leninism. Its origins essentially date back to October 1949 when Mao Zedong, leader of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), defeated Chiang Kai-shek and the Nationalists during the Chinese Civil War. Yet where Maoism fundamentally differs from the ideas of Marx and Lenin is when considering what defines the proletariat. For Marx and Lenin, the proletariat signified an urban working underclass that became dehumanized and oppressed by the capitalist bourgeoisie during modern industrialization. But for Mao, the proletariat could only be found in the rural peasantry class. This distinction in identifying the proletariat is necessary insofar as China was not as industrialized as Russia. Therefore, when Mao sought to adopt communist policies for China, he turned to the Chinese peasant to legitimize his claim to power. Even so, given that the Chinese people were deeply ingrained with Confucian ideals, their transition to Maoism required a rather short leap of faith.

Saddam and Gomorrah

Saddam and Gomorrah: As Saddam Hussein waits to be executed, it becomes fitting to address the contentious questions surrounding the War in Iraq. A basic question on many people's minds is how long will it take to secure the country and begin the nation building process? One of the biggest mistakes of the U.S. military was the systematic dismantling of the Iraqi Army. As a result, the U.S. Army had to keep the peace and root out terrorists largely on its own. With the various suicide bombings that occur on almost a daily basis, it is clear that the United States cannot maintain its current course much longer. Either a troop surge ought to happen or a comprehensive framework for withdrawal should be instituted. Training a new Iraqi Army has taken time and cost lives. During this time, terrorists have plotted and carried out numerous counter-attacks. If American politicians wish to construct a timetable for the ordered removal of U.S. forces, it should be based on the number of capable officers in the new Iraqi Army. Otherwise, Saddam's imminent demise will coincide with Gomorrah's (Baghdad) sustained turmoil. At the same time, setting a withdrawal date can embolden the enemy, as insurgents will simply lay low until the level of occupying troops declines.

Italian Fascism

Italian Fascism: With his infamous "March on Rome" in 1922, Benito Mussolini sought to ingrain the Italian populace with the concept that the greater good of the community always came before the individual. In other words, the state became the highest form of socio-political reality for all Italians under Mussolini's regime. And yet, it is fair to say that World War II brought about the demise of Italian fascism as an effective political ideology. The idea of the Italian people being governed by the strength of a few was nothing new. Tracing its roots to the feudal societies of Medieval Europe, Italian fascism embodied the notion that individuals detracted from the common good, and thus, absolute unity was required for the survival of the state. Having taken away certain civil liberties in the name of the greater good, Mussolini challenged the Italian people to live by the codes of a communal or collective morality; a morality that was heavily rooted in the rhetoric of Italian nationalism and devoid of attention to most, if not all, Catholic/Vatican principles.