Politically Incorrect, Economically Justified: Why the Reagan Administration broke the rules with Iran-Contra to keep their empire together

March 14, 2012 at 11:11 PM

Politically Incorrect, Economically Justified: Why the Reagan Administration broke the rules with Iran-Contra to keep their empire together

Posted by Brandon Christopher in Real Politick

Members of the Reagan Administration including former Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North, and CIA DirectorWilliam Casey are, often in distaste, considered to be the architects and builders of the Iran-Contra affair in which the United States government engaged in the exchange of arms for hostages with nations who had ties with terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and funded Nicaraguan opposition factions(Weiner 2007) who used violent means in order to eliminate the growing political Left in the South American nation(Committee 1987). While the entire affair may be easily skimmed with seemingly perfect hindsight vision as a dirty stain in the United States’ history of international relations, it is important to note the rationality that went behind Iran-Contra and to consider the contemporary Institutions of that time period which facilitated the entire process. It is also significant to note that some of the acting agents of the affair were looking to serve their country’s best interests from an economic standpoint while others found exploitative paths toward serving their own financial interests (Walker 2003). In understanding the ends used to justify the means, this paper aims to portray the incentives that were at stake, the economic consequences of political deterrence, and how rational systems are inherently flawed given their need for perfect and dynamic inflows of information.

At the foundation, the dominant theme is the idea of rationality as dependent upon tangible and intangible Institutions. The prevailing paradigms such as the acceptance of Dependency Theory and the worldwide split in attitude towards Communism (Reagan 2007) were key variables as well as the global shift of wealthy nations towards Neoliberalism (Robinson 2008), and the inefficiencies created by Congress’ passage of the Arms Export Control Act. These factors shall be presented as drivers complementing other money and power incentives such as the speculated value of Nicaragua, which altogether led to the rationalization and coordination of the Iran-Contra scandal.

Setting the Stage: Initial Political and Economic Motives & Unintended Consequences of Arms Export Control Act

January of 1985, CIA Director William Casey was looking at two urgent demands from President Ronald Reagan. One was to free the American hostages taken in Beirut in 1984, including a CNN bureau chief, a CIA station chief, a reverend from a Presbyterian missionary, and a librarian working at American University in Beirut. The entire list totaled 14 missing persons who had vanished during that past year. The other message delivered to Casey requested him to find a way to preserve the contras. The contras were not only in league with the parties responsible for the kidnappings, they were a foothold of power for the United States within Latin America. Through a combination of soft and hard power, the U.S. hoped to arrange the release of U.S. hostages through appeasement of the Contra’s Iranian allies and simultaneously carry out a covert war in order to secure and preserve economic dominance within the Latin American region. The relationship between the CIA and the contras served as a loophole in which America could finance its war against leftist groups seeking independence in Central America all the while bypassing the funding and arms-export limits imposed by Congress in 1976.(Weiner 2007)

Here, it is integral to note the importance of the economic and criminal ramifications caused by Congress’ passage of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) in 1976. The bill essentially restricted the flow of arms from U.S. traders and manufacturers in the sense that they were barred from dealing with specified parties such as the conservative factions in Nicaragua as well as groups labeled as terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah, who also aided said Nicaraguan militias. Extensive documentation and paperwork was required of every transaction. The issue however was the creation of a surplus of demand in comparison to the legal supply quota. This movement away from market equilibrium created a notable incentive to illegally deal arms “under the table,” within a covert black market as the price of arms rose in response to the Act(Weiner 2007). Given the wake of Vietnam, Congress was also opposed to openly declaring war in Central America, especially with the American perception that the Soviet Union’s finger was on the trigger (Reagan 2007). Force and diplomacy would have to be carried out as covertly as possible with cloak and dagger. The very nature of this triangle relationship between the U.S., Nicaragua, and Iran as war raged on in Central America served as a prime catalyst for military corruption. Officer profiteering quickly became a reality, evidenced by a transaction in November of 1986 in which the American military scalped missile parts to Iran.

“The Iranians had been cheated. They were complaining, with good reason, that they had been overcharged 600 percent for the last shipment of HAWK parts.” (Weiner 2007, 472)

Nevertheless, these short-term profits were only a portion of the entire picture. The entire relationship between the U.S., Nicaraguan contras and Hezbollah became politically economic on a much larger scale. And after a skirmish culminated in a political an exchange in 1985 between Hezbollah leaders and the U.S., “the ordeal taught Casey a lesson: Reagan was willing to make deals with terrorists.” (Weiner 2007, 464)

Neoliberalism, Nicaragua, and the United States’ place in the world stage

The Reagan era was the backbone of the age of Neoliberalism, or the political movement to the Right where government was to be kept small and markets were to be kept free. The debt crisis in Latin America during the 1970s led Nicaragua into a general split in the mindset of its political economy. Nicaragua was commandeered by the Sandinista National Liberation Front (abbreviated as FSLN in Spanish) from 1979 up until 1990 (Walker 2003). Their goal was to break ties with imperialist powers such as the United States and Great Britain and generate development within their nation by becoming economically independent. This entailed socialist nationalization of numerous industries and manufacturing trades and the ousting of American capitalists. Rich in resources, the United States viewed this as one of their many resourceful piñatas being taken from them. In response, the U.S. sided with Nicaragua’s contra militias, labeling them as freedom fighters (Reagan 2007). The relationship would mean that the Right-winged opposition groups in Nicaragua would be militarily aided by U.S. resources as long as they invited American economic policy-makers and implement fiscal austerity and neoliberal measures in exchange. Proper execution would ease the perceived security threat of having Russian-aided Communist governments in the backyard of the U.S. Reagan wrote in his diary in 1981, “There is no question but that all of Central America is targeted for a Communist takeover.”(Reagan 2007, 50)

On top of that, the plan would also generate growth for American business looking to either expand their markets or cut costs of their labor forces (Robinson 2008). For the Reagan administration, that was more than enough political and economic incentive to justify their wars down south.So long as they supported the Nicaraguan contras, the U.S. stood to reap benefits that, in the eyes of the Reagan Administration, would outweigh the both total opportunity costs of warfare and the risks of the secret coming undone.

Dependency Theory: A paradigm of incentive & the effects of deterrence

Dependency Theory, first presented by Argentine economist Raul Prebisch German economist Hans Singer in 1949 and then promoted by German-American economist Andre Gunder Frank in the 1970s, purported that resources flow from periphery states such as those rich in natural resources and primary goods (i.e. Nicaragua) to a core of wealthy states (i.e. U.S. & Great Britain). While the relationship appears mutualistic, Dependency Theory asserts that a perpetual cycle is created in which poor states are impoverished and rich ones are enriched.(Ferraro 2008)

Thus, so long as the United States prevented Nicaragua from obtaining independent industrial growth, they stood to keep a steady influx of materials, goods, and wealth. A word of caution, however: Although the U.S. retained a valuable source of goods and resources so long as they maintained political control of Nicaragua, their incentive was less about reaping capital rewards from Nicaragua and more about maintaining a strong geopolitical presence(Walker 2003). The U.S. could substitute the goods and capital obtained from Nicaragua quite easily with goods and capital from another nation. Because of Nicaragua’s position on a thin stretch of land within Central America, the U.S. has a strong economic incentive to control the small country while the possibility of opening a trade canal exists (Walker 2003). A canal passing through Nicaragua would shorten the naval distance from New York to San Francisco by about 500 miles in comparison to the route passing through Panama. Just as Great Britain scored substantial profits by controlling the Suez Canal in Egypt, the U.S. would achieve a significant economic gain if they were to construct and control a Nicaraguan Canal, once gain providing enough incentive for the U.S. government to keep a noose around the government of Nicaragua.

Furthermore, the subjugation of Nicaragua would serve as a deterrent to other nations in Latin America. Although the U.S. could sever ties with Nicaragua on the trading market and still continue to economically thrive, the U.S. government considered the political and subsequent economic implications if Nicaragua were to shake themselves free from being under the thumb of the U.S. The Reagan Administration assumed that if a small nation such as Nicaragua was able to break free amidst Leftist revolution, then it would serve as a model for other Latin American nations in which the U.S. had higher stakes into sever ties from them(Weiner 2007). Reagan’s Administration was doing all it could to maintain their status at the top of the chain in structure outlined in Dependency Theory and the means to justifying this end was encouraging neoliberalism. To do this, the U.S. sided with the contras and thus rationalized that there was enough incentive on multiple levels to circumvent congress and engage in illegal dealings of arms.(Reagan 2007)(Weiner 2007)

Conclusion

While the Reagan Administration received huge backlash in response to the uncovering of the Iran-Contra affair, it is undeniable that the prevailing Institutions, both physical and ideological, were primary drivers in shaping the entire operation as a rational response. Congress’ passage of the Arms Control Export Act as well as their opposition to openly declaring war (Reagan 2007)created market inefficiencies which encouraged military corruption. Neoliberalism also had generated enough of a following both in the United States and in Nicaragua to make the Contras viable (Robinson 2008). The acceptance of Dependency Theory among economists reinstated the idea that nations such as the U.S. would gain create a perpetual cycle of economic benefits by asserting themselves over smaller States such as Nicaragua and its neighbors (Ferraro 2008). Finally, the Western perception that Communism was an explicit danger (Reagan 2007) to the values, security, and liberty of the United States further increased the utility of partaking in the Iran-Contra plot. An alternative the United States had would have been to stand by the FSLN although in the midst of the Cold War with Russia, this would be viewed as a political misstep on the world stage. As it stands, the greatest folly of the Reagan Administration was creating a static function of utility “that grossly overestimated their ability to keep this a secret” (Bonham 2007) and was not fluid enough to adapt to the dynamic nature of warfare and media response. The Reagan Administration’s implementation of Iran-Contra was rational given the information they had, yet because they could not account for the unseen amount of incomplete information, the subsequent result was a firsthand experimentation with Murphy’s Law and an illustration that the rationality model is far from perfect.

Bibliography

Bonham, Matthew G. “The” Gold Standard”: Rational Actor Model.” MGIMO University, 2007.

Committee, Americas Watch. Human Rights in Nicaragua: 1986. Human Rights Watch, 1987.

Ferraro, Vincent. “Dependency Theory: An Introduction.” In The Development Economics Reader, edited by Giorgio Secondi, 58-64. London: Routledge, 2008.

Reagan, Ronald. The Reagan Diaries. Edited by Douglas Brinkley. New York City: Harper Perennial, 2007.

Robinson, William I. Latin America and Global Capitalism. The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008.

Walker, Thomas W. Nicaragua: Living in the Shadow of the Eagle. New York City: Westview Press, 2003.

Weiner, Tim. Legacy of Ashes. New York City: Anchor Books, 2007.

No Comments Tags: Bill Casey, CIA, Communism, Contras, Hezbollah, Iran, Neoliberalism, Nicaragua, Nicaragua Canal, Oliver North, Reagan, South America |

January 17, 2012 at 2:51 AM

The Martyrdom of Black History Month

Posted by Brandon Christopher in Real Politick

“Why do black people get a month but white people don’t? Why don’t they make a white history month?”

These are loaded questions which are sure to spark heated discussion under the right circumstances. I’ve heard one side argue that Caucasians don’t have a singular history to trace given the mixture of ethnicity (Lebanese, French, and Irish people are all technically “white” despite decidedly dissimilar backgrounds) under the umbrella label. There’s also the argument that creating a white history month comes off as racist, and then proponents for a WHM use this as firepower against Black History Month. And so it goes until each side is blaming the other of being racist and/or ignorant of one another’s background and the questions that set off the whole scene never get resolved.

The problem is that the perspectives taken by either side seem to focus on divisive points of the matter rather than the underlying purpose of unification. Black History Month was never meant to be a source of fracturing, rather it was observed as a means of bridging the gap between the white majority and the growing population of African-Americans.

But really, why do we have a Black History Month and why should it matter?

Over a quarter of a century before the explosive civil rights movement, historian Carter Woodson initiated Negro History Week within elementary schools. Woodson recognized that racial issues were perpetuated by a continuing misunderstanding and miseducation, in turn perpetuating negative stereotypes and engendering hatred and bigotry. By dedicating a week towards studying the work and contributions of prominent African-Americans as well as their cultural background, young students were given a different picture than they were classically brought up with.

While BHM has served to unify society, it may eventually have to give way in order to preserve everything it previously accomplished

Whether it immediately resonated with the students or not, the fact remained that the ball started rolling on the road toward successful racial integration. Some may cite Woodson as planting the seeds for racial tolerance, but his dream went beyond that. Rather, Woodson envisioned racial acceptance and harmony. To be tolerant of one another would be the equivalent of passively maintaining a negative view. To illustrate, mere tolerance would mean that a world could exist where lynching would be done away with, but the underlying anathema would remain, therefore leaving racial tensions and ignorance in place. Yet, acceptance would entail a route to understanding, a more welcoming environment and one of willfulness. Picture the difference between tolerating an unwanted guest in your home and accepting a welcome friend to stay. Both guests receive room and board but the ambiance of each situation is vastly distinct. An environment of acceptance was the dream Woodson had for America as Negro History Week was implemented. And while Negro History Week was no Civil Rights Movement, it was certainly a proper overture.

Of course, even after America had made progress following the work of begun by notable figures such as Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr, the nation still held on to remnants of racist undertones and faced race-driven outbreaks of violence and injustice. By the 1970s, the paradigm of thought had already shifted substantially since 1926 witnessed the advent of Negro History Week, allowing for the U.S. to effectuate the observance of an entire month dedicated to educating the American people about Black History. The goal at this point was to reach even further than acceptance and continue the cultural enrichment of Americans and to bring them closer together.

So how is it that an observance meant to unite a nation ends up dividing people?

The answer may reside in a somewhat prophetic remark made by Historian John Hope Franklin, saying that “[Woodson] continued to express hope that Negro History Week would outlive its usefulness.”

In reality, Negro History Week evolved into Black History Month, but perhaps BHM has reached the point where it has already exceeded its maximum output of utility. The mode of thought has been greatly altered since 1926 where “white” was often seen as superior and was socially and politically dominant as a class. Here in 2012, not only has the concept of “white” lost the bigotry-riddled eminence it once held, its been filled in with other colors. With the proliferation of ethnic acceptance throughout the 20th century, a greater number so-called “mixed” couples have been a result. This changed the genetic landscape across America, mitigating the hold Caucasians had as the major population. This is where the concept of “colorblindness” begins.

From a philosophical perspective, the United States is generalized to be race conscious. Everything is somehow related to one’s ethnic background, from portrayals of stereotypes in media to the roots of one’s economic standing, to statistics explaining why some people are ticketed more often than others. However, Latin America is deemed to be more class conscious instead. The generalization is that ethnicity or color really isn’t an issue to be hammered on and that the matter is overlooked altogether. While the U.S. possesses a history of being ignorant of ethnicity and color, Latin America tends to plain ignore ethnicity and color, and the latter circumstance is possibly the direction in which we’re currently headed. The cultural blend will eventually evolve into an inseparable genetic mixture of not only black and white, but Asian, Latino and other backgrounds as well. Identifying oneself by ethnicity may become irrelevant and in that case, Black History Month’s utility will dissipate as well as it molds into a larger picture of “colorblindness” and the observance will simply be known as American History Month with an emphasis on various cultural idiosyncrasies instead of any singular “race.”

Essentially, the defense and prosecution of Black History Month has been asserted. To its merit, the observance serves, and is still serving to a degree, as a necessary educational tool for society as it progresses towards an idealistic unity. However, as society evolves, it will eventually reach the point where such an observance would only create more harmful divides than good, and perhaps the ongoing debate over whether the U.S. should have BHM, heated though it may be, is actually the prelude, or rather the intermediary concept.

To create a “White History Month” during this time may be viewed as fair by some, but it would only generate another gap to be bridged and essentially undo everything Woodson’s brainchild has accomplished.

The road towards “racial” harmony is still far off and may never arrive during this lifetime, but evidence of a paradigm shift within society is promising. Conflict over ethnicity may very well subside, and Black History Month is but a proper means to this end.

Woodson had a dream as too, although barriers were placed. Nevertheless, one mustn’t forget the words of Martin Luther King Jr. himself,

“We shall overcome.”

No Comments Tags: carter g. woodson, ethnic divide, martin luther king jr., negro history week, racial tensions, racism |

December 24, 2011 at 11:44 PM

Jon Huntsman: When a long-shot is the GOP’s safest bet

Posted by Brandon Christopher in Real Politick

“No one likes a long shot more than a gambler.”

Arnold Rothstein, Boardwalk Empire

Politicking is a funny business they’ll tell you. It’s a conglomeration of cut-throat marketing, social prescribing, and involves transforming the complex into edible morsels appropriate for mass consumption. And in the age of globalized rapid-fire commercialism where a single phrase can circle the globe just as soon as it’s been uttered, maintaining appearances and content output is a 24/7 job.

Politicking is also known to grow its fair share of characters and lately the GOP has been churning them out in a way that would have made Henry Ford proud. Recent history will conjure up cringe-inducing memories of any one of Michele Bachmann’s gaffes, or Herman Cain’s lightning-quick rise which is only rivaled by his fiery crash. Throw in several eyebrow-raising soundbytes by Ron Paul and Rick Perry and even Salvador Dali would be hard-pressed to create a picture even more outlandish than the one painted by the Republicans vying for the primary.

Cue primary hopeful Jon Huntsman, former Governor of Utah and U.S. Ambassador, and currently sitting deeply behind rivals Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. In an era where any presidential candidate is judged by their personality and charisma just as much as their handle of public policy and possession of government know-how, Huntsman has his work cut out for him.

So far, he’s approached the GOP primary race with an emphasis upon policy driven rhetoric rather than flamboyant showmanship centered around inflammatory sound bites.

Jon Huntsman is taking a few notes from Obama's 2008 campaign. Just as Obama won over liberal Republicans, Huntsman is looking to appeal to conservative Democrats in his bid tp win the Republican Primary.

Maybe that’s why he’s trailing so far back in the polls. Personal anecdotes include episodes where yours truly eavesdropped upon a few “political discussions” regarding current events and the Republican “gameshow.” Even among the self-proclaimed political in crowd where complaints run amok regarding the Republican hopefuls’ belligerent conservatism (see Gingrich on Judicial Branch), the question “what about Jon Huntsman?” virtually never fails to arouse, in Pavlonian fashion to say the least, the quizzically scrunch-faced response, “who?”

And if you’re among the latter group, well it’s about time to run through the introductions and get everybody acquainted.

One angle of Obama’s critics during the 2008 election was to attack his lack of experience, especially on the international stage. While the President has overseen the deaths of many of Al-Qaeda’s members in addition to his noticeable presence in the realm of foreign affairs, some will still argue against him and derisively suggest that his upright stance in the global arena is paper thin.

This is where Huntsman finds an opening. His service as an U.S. Ambassador to China as well as his experience relating with Singapore and Taiwan are key highlights to his résumé. Plus, the media has projected that China will become the two-page centerfold special Americans should keep their eye on in the near-future as the red and gold clothed nation is not only gathering steam, but is looking to trade in for a sturdy profit-driven economy. Who better to send to the front-lines of the battlefield littered with negotiating tables than Huntsman?

Yet, as much as magazines and news shows portray China as a looming specter, the voting public may have already sold their attention to the predominating spectacles created by Bachmann, Cain, and Perry, aka BCP. Say it quickly enough out loud and one may mistake you for mentioning the substance we may refer to as angel dust. Coincidence though it may be, BCP represent a sort of pleasurably dangerous addiction America has to political celebrities.

Huntsman asserts that he is qualified to deal with China as the Red & Gold is set to become a key heavyweight on the international stage in the near future.

This is where Huntsman has failed to garner attention. Although one can argue that the cliché “nice guys finish last” is often misused and abused in utter misrepresentation of the pseudo-altruistic and disguised chauvinists, it’s certainly appropriate to be used in summation of Huntsman’s campaign. Rather than take a page from Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Terminator-esque and testosterone-soaked modus operandi (read: calling fellow politicians “girly-men”) or develop a flashy alter-ego like John McCain’s “Maverick,” Huntsman sticks to role of playing diplomat. He certainly had one of his best chances to take a couple licks at his rival Newt Gingrich during a debate modeled after those held by Lincoln and Douglass, yet he instead chose to form a middle ground with his opponent, and in some instances exchanged complimentary political viewpoints with the former Speaker. Dropping names is certainly not Huntsman’s forte, despite the fact that there’s a thriving market for it.

But we’re looking a the universe through a microscope right now.

Retreat a few meters away from the image and now Huntsman’s long term strategy becomes apparent. It’s an age-old battle strategy: stand aside in observance and let one’s rivals bitterly try to kill each other until the moment arrives when it’s prudent to strike down the bloodied foes at their weakest state.

Herman Cain is but the latest victim in the plan and now Romney and Gingrich are left to slug it out. As December comes to a close, Romney is running short on funds and Gingrich is stirring up feathers with especially rightist remarks, specifically regarding the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Huntsman has been biding his time, placing all of his eggs into the basket of New Hampshire, where the first primary election is to be held. And while Huntsman hasn’t been anywhere close to being the Republican party’s voted “Most Charismatic,” he has proven to be its “Most squeaky-clean and scandal-free.” Let the jocks duke it out until they’re out cold and low-profile Huntsman will swoop in and get the girl left behind in the power vacuum. It seems like she has already taken notice: Huntsman is showing a surge in numerous polls and has garnered endorsements from several New Hampshire newspapers. He’s even noted the situation himself, alluding to historical data showing that getting out of the blocks slowly is never an automatic sentence to political failure. A dosage of the “Tortoise and the Hare,” anyone?

And so it seems that while Jon Huntsman is still trailing in the polls with a recent surge narrowing the gap, he is set up to become both the GOP’s longest shot and safest bet. Huntsman vows that one of his strengths lies within his appeal to conservative Democrats and Independent voters and his track record in Utah attests to this claim. Huntsman’s career has placed him within Presidential administrations from both parties and Huntsman stands to be the one Republican candidate who is most capable of stealing would-be Obama voters.

President Obama’s past may very well haunt him in the upcoming election. He acknowledged that if one over-promises and underwhelms voter expectations, resentment and bitterness would become a formidable factor come re-election time. With the Occupy movements sweeping across the nation and consumers grumbling even with an economy showing signs of life following federal defibrillation, Huntsman is looking to utilize his trusted cannon by displaying his achievements. ”During Huntsman’s tenure, January 2005 to August 2009, Utah had the best overall job-growth rate of any state in the nation,” his résumé reads. Obama promised a romantic sort of hope in his 2008 election campaign; Huntsman is formulating a more empirical incarnation of hope.

A trusted member of Obama's Administration, Huntsman may be the Republican doppelganger of the current President with a few integral tweaks thrown into the mix

Niccolo Machiavelli or Mary Shelley, take your poison. Jon Huntsman is a student of President Obama, working under him in recent years and now the Republican is looking to overtake his master by tweaking the Democrat’s centrist game plan. Huntsman is searching for every possible chink in the armor Obama used in his journey to the White House. He is using his experience working under multiple presidents along with his governorship and stint as an ambassador in order to exploit what is essentially his blue-tinted image in the mirror. That’s where it would be wise for the GOP to nominate Jon Huntsman as their presidential candidate. Long shot though he may be, in a time where many cite hyper-partisanship as a plague to Capitol Hill, Huntsman may very well be the safest bet to get his party into the Executive Office. Hope and Change were the keywords in 2008. Maybe in 2012 Huntsman’s words will be Unity and Progress.

No Comments Tags: China economy, Democrats, election 2012, GOP, Herman Cain, John McCain, Jon Huntsman, Machiavelli, Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Obama, Republican primary, Rick Perry, U.S. ambassador, Utah governor |

December 16, 2011 at 2:54 PM

Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011): Popular contrarian and embodiment of the walking paradox

Posted by Brandon Christopher in Coffee break

“Christopher Hitchens is a remarkable commentator. He jousts with fraudulence of every stripe and always wins. I regret that he has only one life, one mind, and one reputation to put at the service of my country.”

Joseph Heller

The first time I read Christopher Hitchens, I didn’t even realize who he was. Our acquaintance began around 2007 with his introduction to Huxley’s Brave New World. It wasn’t until around 2009 or 2010 when I caught another glimpse of him in his discussion on religion and atheism as part of the Four Horsemen of New Atheism segment. Then, it was near the Spring or Summer of 2011 when I picked up his autobiographical memoir. Upon receiving a taste of his seemingly effortless ability to conjure up incisive quotes from a vast literary library while also eloquently expressing scathing political viewpoints, I was hooked. Next I consumed his work on Thomas Paine and then it was Letters to a Young Contrarian. I discovered many of his interviews and while I may not have always found myself on his side, I was still drawn to Hitch’s methods of breaking down the endemic of a sheep-like society.

Read any biographical account or introductory article about Christopher Hitchens and it’s always the same pattern: “Oh, he’s the guy who made a name for himself by going after the big four, Henry Kissinger, Bill Clinton, Mother Theresa, and God Almighty.” As heavy as his targets were, this narrow summation of his work does Hitchens severe injustice. Instead, he should be noted for his witty essays, his thought provoking and inflammatory interviews, his tenacious debates, and his incessant pursuit of a humanistic society built upon rationality.

Christopher Hitchens, noted for his adroit journalism and polemic style

Hitchens transcended talk of being leftist or rightist and rather preferred to carry on without a categorization of his political views. While originally painted as a leftist and an associate of Marxism during his tenure among les soixante-huitards, his stance on Saddam Hussein and the war in Iraq sparked some analysts to mark him as a neocon. To this sort of talk, Hitchens scoffed and brushed his shoulders. He preferred to be noted as one who was a rationalist, a thinker who believed in what is humanely correct and just regardless of the politics involved and the preconceived labels. Contrarian that he was, maybe the fact that he did away with the pastime of senselessly bickering over partisan politics is a testament to the sort of example we all should aspire to follow.

A self-proclaimed contrarian, Hitchens went against the grain not in the shallow fashion of flamboyant media whores such as Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, but rather in the vein of Socrates, to call attention to and correct the unnerving sheeplike tendencies of society. He encouraged his supporters to take a critical approach to even his own work, pointing out the pitfalls of mindless adherence to any one man’s words.

Hitchens was also a well known Atheist, or in his own description, anti-deist. He was a member of the intellectual society known as the Four Horseman of Atheism, along with Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett. Together they sought to unveil the moral wrongs and negative impact religion has upon society and human history.

Yet, whether one agrees with Hitchens or not on his take of religion and politics is negligible, and perhaps that’s whats most impressive about him. His words are simply captivating and his work is diverse. His last two books published before his death, the autobiographical Hitch-22 and the compiled anthology, Arguably expose the broadly colored life of an intellectual, often living among two different worlds and in between, from a student revolutionary with a lengthy rap sheet to a proper English journalist with Oxford credentials. He was often seen both in handcuffs following one of many social protests as well as in suits with the who’s who of the political and literary world at, as he would probably have agreed, mawkishly high class luncheons.

The career and lifelong work of Hitchens was anything but meretricious showmanship. His ventures to Cuba, numerous Soviet states, Beirut, and anywhere between London and Berkeley offer clues as to the depth of his enormous footprints across the globe. An advocate for human rights and a detractor of unjust and inane rulers, Hitchens craftily penned his words in proper Orwellian style.

He is both a person and an intellectual who will be missed with the highest regards. Even critics must admit that there will never be anybody quite like Hitch, nor as especially formidable as he was. Hitchens worked to provide a voice to those silenced by barbaric oppression and paranoid imprisonment. He wrote so that the public would be sufficiently wary of their leaders as well as their peers. In a world where the truth is often sugar coated, muffled, or downright done away with, Hitchens was never afraid to speak up, even in the face of lethal opponents, as was the case with Salman Rushdie’s “Satanic Verses” controversy.

His life was as diverse as his subjects. Hitchens in Kurdistan with opponents of Saddam Hussein circa the Gulf War

Of course, Hitch’s influence and words will still carry on in the absence of his physical presence here, and suffice to say, he has left behind a treasure trove of inked paper and documented videos. Vanity Fair has certainly lost one of its most prolific writers, but they, just like the world over, know that Hitch’s legacy is not nearly complete. He embodied an era of hands-on journalism, personally interviewing the likes of Hugo Chavez, Argentinian General Videla, Paul Wolfowitz, and so on. Somehow he was able to gain the insider’s perspective even among his ideological enemies: the ethic of a proper journalist. At one point he went so far as to subject himself to a round of water-boarding, all in the name of his profession.

Journalists such as Nicholas Kristoff from the New York Times carry on the example set by Hitchens, often heading out into the world in first-person in order to find the real story behind closed-door politics and affairs.

It would be easy to dismiss Hitchens as merely a social gadfly, bent upon the destruction of celebrity fetishism, but his writing goes far beyond. His prose was elegant, his rhetoric fiery and significant, and his intentions benevolent. He took an unorthodox approach toward achieving society’s idea of not the greater good, but rather the greatest good.

You had a swell run, Hitch, and they won’t ever make them like you again, whoever “they” may be to you.

A pint to your memory, mate.

No Comments

at 2:04 AM

Regarding The Muslim Question

Posted by Brandon Christopher in Energy Politics

American society has its share of imperfections and it certainly has its own bloodied history of social injustice and corruption. But with the first decade of the 21st century behind in the rear view, one would hope that we’re at least approaching a state with less hatred among us.

Cue national television broadcaster TLC and one of their newest programs, “All American Muslim (AMM).” The program’s intent is to educate Americans and provide an accurate perspective of what an ordinary Muslim’s life may resemble while living in the U.S. The show also aims to eliminate misconceptions of Islamic practices and highlight how strikingly similar Muslims and non-Muslims really are.

TLC's new show All American Muslim draws controversy from conservative watchdog for the absence of violent extremism

Despite their educational efforts, TLC has still drawn controversy and is being blamed for inaccurately portraying common Muslim lifestyles. The Florida Family Association (FFA), front runners of the assault upon TLC’s new program, herald the show as “harmful, education wise, to the belief structure and memories of millions of Americans who will look at this and say, ‘well, all Muslims are like that,’ when it’s not accurate.” This from David Caton, executive director of FFA. He also cites concern over the show for the absence of radical Islam and that it “riskily hides the Islamic agenda.”

FFA has started a media crusade against the show for painting a picture that they feel is too sympathetic towards Muslims. Nearly one million e-mails have been amassed by FFA calling for advertisers such as Home Depot, Lowes, and Sweet n’ Low to disassociate themselves from All American Muslim by pulling the plug on their TV spots during the show’s airtime.

Enough congeniality and niceties here, let’s get to the bottom of this.

It would be a severe understatement to say that Caton and FFA are guilty of blatant hypocrisy. FFA’s About Us page posits the following agenda: “Educate people on what they can do to defend, protect and promote traditional, biblical values.”

What they ignore is the significant overlap between the Islamic Qu’ran and the Christian Bible. The FFA is also ignorant of the fact that the very people they oppose and refer to as “radical Muslims” and “Islamic fundamentalists” are actually a small minority of a 1.3 billion member religion who seek to preserve their perception of Islamic fundamentalism and return to the moral nature of the Prophet Muhammad’s message. At the heart of this Islamic minority is a call for reactionary-grade conservatism to essentially promote traditional, Islamic values. Sound familiar?

FFA’s website purports that the cast on TLC’s offering are “nice people.” Yet, FFA writers proclaim that “All-American Muslim would be much more interesting if it tracked one of its secular, attractive nominal Muslims as he decided to get more serious about his faith, and ended up participating in jihad activity or Islamic supremacist efforts to demonize and marginalize those who resist that activity.” If TLC were to be consistent with this rationality, then another one of their programs, 18 Kids and Counting should be targeted for misrepresenting Christianity as well. ”18 Kids” portrays a Christian family who promote strong family values and conservative lifestyles, yet doesn’t it also hide the other face of Christianity which is responsible for the violent subjugation of American Indians as well as the Spanish Inquisition? To suggest that the show would be interesting under this format could be argued for. To suggest that it would be an accurate depiction of Christians would be severely off-base. Caton and FFA ignore the implications of their message and march on with their anti-Muslim banter and boycott.

Media & music mogul Russell Simmons sided with TLC against FFA and bought up ad space in support of All American Muslim

But wait, we’re labeling them as anti-Muslim?! According to FFA, that’s just going way too far and getting it all wrong. Amid serious backlash from readers and viewers who caught a glimpse of Caton in one of his televised interviews on the matter, FFA rescinded their original position and proclaimed that they have no issue with the people on the show or non-practicing Muslims, rather they want to focus on the violent forces of Islam. This sidestep appears sensible until one realizes that it’s only a pathetic ploy from FFA to protect their own fifth point of contact. If they truly didn’t take issue with the Muslims on the show, then why bother boycotting it and appealing to advertisers to pull the plug on All American Muslim to begin with? Caton and the FFA’s rhetoric leads one to believe that they desire a blood-stained program and that they would be all the more pleased if TLC aired a show which tracked Muslims engaged in cannibalistic slicing and dicing and perpetuated inaccurate stereotypes. The fact is, FFA has no problem with Muslims so long as they don’t act like Muslims, which according to them, tend to be prone to violent fundamentalism. FFA seems to be fishing for portraits of brutality in their support of what they call “education.” So much for protecting and promoting biblical values, eh?

FFA also attempts to posture as a non-prejudiced organization and chides Muslims for purportedly inciting supremacist ideology via Islamic law, or Shariah law. The issues they take with Islamic teachings are misguided and are centered in a severe misreading of passages within the Qu’ran. The Qu’ran posits that non-Muslims shall be judged accordingly by Allah, or God, alone. It asks not of Muslims to take the lives on non-Muslims and Christians into their own hands. Yet, Caton and FFA crudely associate cultural stereotypes with religious codes and thus generate rash and inaccurate generalizations about 1.3 billion people. Caton and FFA ignore the misogynistic motifs within the Christian bible and try to paint Islam as a religion which deprives women of rights, freedom, and justice. Yet, if they were to actually read the Qu’ran, notably its passages regarding marriage, contracts, and family life, Caton and FFA would find that Islam sought to empower women and that more than anything, it went against the patriarchal archetype which dominated during the time of the Prophet Muhammad.

Caton and FFA also fallaciously generalize the concept of jihad, or struggle. Modern media outlets have. in libelous fashion, tied the term “jihad” together with the term “holy war.” To a Muslim, jihad stands for “struggle,” often referring to the personal battle to maintain a life free of moral corruption and sin, not one bent upon the destruction of “non-believers.” The latter is a view carried by a fringe of society, akin to those who justify polygamy with religion as well as that small faction of Zionists who violently subjugate the people of Palestine. One must be prudent to separate the core of the religious message from its overzealous contamination by humans.

FFA also highlights the idea of “honor killing,” where a parent takes the life of their own child if they feel that the child has ventured onto a hopeless path of sin, and depicts it as a normal practice among Muslims. This generalization is the equivalent of saying that all Christians and Jews adhere to the example set by the biblical Abraham who was more than willing to sacrifice the life of his son upon an altar by the voiced will of God.

Caton ignores the key truth of religion: they are mostly products of their time and are handled by the imperfect hands of humankind. Rather than looking at the progressive nature of Islam and its followers, Caton views the religion’s texts out of context and through a narrow straw. He dismisses the positive actions and characteristics of Muslims portrayed on TLC’s program as a misrepresentation and a harm to one’s belief structure. Apparently, Caton views ignorance as a trophy to be preserved.

The sad part of this story is the underlying bigotry. FFA, with all of its talk of eliminating supremacist thinking, would much rather endorse a world without the practice of Islam in which Christianity dominates. FFA attacks TLC for opening the door to even a “tolerant” perspective. Tolerance is within the close vicinity of prejudice and is a far-cry from pluralistic harmony and open-mindedness. The fact that FFA is taking a stance which is even more closed minded than one of “tolerance” is disconcerting and carries the foul smell of supremacist beliefs.

To make matters worse is FFA’s suggestion that Islamophobia is a “fictional construct.” Ironic how a website that vilely spews out Islamophobic messages manages to state that the whole affair is a schizophrenic figment of one’s imagination. The website cites that “hate crimes against Muslims are at the lowest since 9/11.”

Hmmm, maybe because America has finally begun to educate themselves about Islam and shows like All American Muslim are serving to reduce this figure even further. When 9/11 occurred, the amount of unfamiliarity typical Americans had for Islam was significant, thus sparking the outbreak of hate crimes against not only Muslims, but those with any sort of Middle Eastern background who were stereotyped as Muslims, be it that they were Christians or even non-religious. The onset of hate crimes is correlated with the amount of misunderstanding between the perpetrating group and the victimized group. Genocides and ethnic cleanses across the globe attest to this fact. FFA is only acting to continue this disconnect by malignantly seeking to prevent the education of people.

The issue here goes beyond All American Muslims and lost advertising dollars. Instead it enters the realm of continued bigotry and hatred being instigated among American citizens. FFA is criticizing TLC for its lack of violence, and its absence of extremism. The hypocrisy of this reactionary Christian organization is disgusting. Remember, the Prophet Muhammad embraced the example of Christ and the Qu’ran professes the teachings of Jesus and Islamic law adheres to the guidelines set forth by self-proclaimed Prince of Peace. Islam itself was created because of the growing concern that people were becoming too caught up in war, social injustice, and it sought to reverse atrocities encouraged by cultural norms by means of religious correction.

To Caton, I leave you with the words of Ghandi, ”I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

No Comments Tags: all american muslim, caton, christianity, florida family association, ghandi, islam, islamophobia, koran, qu'ran, TLC |

December 13, 2011 at 2:09 PM

Wisdom in Blues

Posted by Brandon Christopher in Coffee break

A little about myself, I am not a jazz aficionado in the sense that I live, breathe, and sleep Jazz. Rather, I’m an appreciative passerby, willing to break from my everyday bustle on the way to work to stop for a few moments to soak in a few finely crafted notes produced by a solo trumpeter or three piece ensemble. I’m down to “Take Five” for the genre if you may.

With that said, I was giving Miles Davis’ “So What” for a spin because frankly, I just felt like it. I’ve heard the track before and I could always attest to its quality, yet I could never reach the level of awe that my more musically inclined peers seemed to hold for it. Yet, as I fired it up on Youtube, I read a couple of the top comments as the track was buffering (I hate having that lengthy simulation of a CD skipping) and there were two that caught my eye. One said something that I’m sure I’ve felt along with everyone else, that “you can just hear the horns saying ‘SOO what.’”

The other made the subjective assertion that it’s “probably the most lyrical song without any lyrics ever.”

And that had my wheels turning. It brought back the age-old argument between proponents of mainstream and pop music versus those who prefer underground and indie. The latter group can invariably be found constantly deriding mainstream music culture for its lack of creativity and quality. Search up any given song on YouTube by an artist living on the fringe of music culture and you’ll be sure to find derisive remarks about Justin Bieber, Drake, Ke$ha, Flo-Rida, T-Pain (I’m not making these names up, I swear), and Skrillex. These names always seem to change with the times of course. A decade or so ago names like Britney Spears and N*Sync were catching the flak. But I digress.

Miles Davis, as popular as his music, name, and persona is, wouldn’t be classified as “mainstream” these days. The whole genre of Jazz and more specifically, Blues was historically always outside of the center, closer to the fringe. I think it’s a common perception that those who strictly adhere to Jazz are more of the snobbish type, that their music is inherently too sophisticated for the general public to understand. That could be argued either way, but there’s a bit of truth to be found in there.

Miles Davis gives us the chalk to write with, yet gives us an empty slate and allows us to fill it in for ourselves

From its early ventures, Jazz was typically instrumental with no vocalist and with no spoken lyrics. It solely utilized instrumentation to convey the mood, the feel of the track, the entire medium of ambiance. No lyrics were necessary. The horn for instance, was made to resemble the human voice. The stream of modulations, fluctuations in rhythm and inflection all were meant to emulate the production of a vocalist. And perhaps that’s where the schism between the Jazz connoisseurs and mainstream followers initially opened, in the lyrics.

Drake’s success can be attributed for his ability to lyrically express what’s on the mind of many people across the globe. He explicitly outlines social affairs, situations and thought processes that many have found themselves in. And it’s not only Drake. Browse through many Newsfeeds on Facebook and one could find an assortment of people quoting their favorite songs which somehow reflect a piece of their own lives. The song itself doesn’t even have to be considered mainstream, so long as its lyrics somehow connect to someone. In a way, lyrical music functions like literature providing an insightful reflection of our everyday dealings. But at one point does one stop mindfully create connections and start mindlessly parroting? At what point do we rely too much on others to do the thinking for us? I recall, rather ironically you’ll find, a fitting piece from Aldous Huxley’s “Point Counterpoint as one fellow observes his wife with growing distaste,

“…she had read the books, she remembered them. But did she understand them? Could she understand them?…And when she did break her silence, half of her utterances were quotations…It had taken Walter some time to discover the heavy, pathetically uncomprehending stupidity that underlay the silence and the quotations.”

For Walter’s wife, her cultured maturation ultimately retarded her ability to critically think and engendered a shallow reliance upon the words of others.

This is where I return to Davis’ “So What” and the two quotes which sparked this whole process. (Striking how I employ the usage of quotes to build an attack upon the whole system itself!)

See, one could take the observation of Mile’s horn in passing and accept the idea that it vocalizes the words “So What.” Maybe raise an eyebrow, give a chuckle or levy a smirk and return to duty in the real world. Yet this is where I prolong my pause from the bustle. While Miles’ horn pronounces the track’s title, what about the rest of it? What I’m working towards here is what I believe to be the core of instrumental Blues. Davis gives us the training wheels with those two words, but as the song develops, he lets us ride freely. It’s really up to us to translate his notes into our own language and formulate our own syntax from it. In today’s popular music in which the singer’s words are emphasized, the words are prefabricated. Going in the direction away from this, there is also the sort of lyrical style which relies upon symbolism and metaphor. Still further, we arrive at scat singing where musical gibberish is at the forefront of the style. Notice the pattern here as the artist entrusts us more and more to fill in the blanks which they left for us. Following this path from today’s mainstream style to scat singing to instrumental Jazz, we see where the enthusiasts for the latter genre base their argument as to why it’s more sophisticated and intellectually driven.

Unlike Drake’s chart topping singles or John Grisham’s latest novel, Miles Davis doesn’t provide us with the whole story. He gives us a concept or a backdrop and entrusts the listener to formulate their own auditory literature, thus pressing the audience to spark their own creativity. Although today’s pop songs may be original and listeners may relate to them in their own way, the fact remains that the overall journey is still predetermined. On the contrary, Davis gives us a pack of supplies and leaves us to embark on our own adventure. Some may reach enlightenment, others may very well segue onto unforeseen paths. The unaccustomed listener, taken by what J.R.R. Tolkien refers to as ones “Tookish side” could protest in vain, “But I’m not sure I know where I’m going exactly!” To which Miles Davis gently replies with a shrug, “So what?”

No Comments Tags: aldous huxley, Blues, drake, indie, j.r.r. tolkien, Jazz, mainstream, Miles Davis, music, point counterpoint, pop, so what, underground, youtube |

December 12, 2011 at 4:24 PM

Fire Over Amazon

Posted by Brandon Christopher in Real Politick

Amazon recently rolled out a new Price Check app for mobile phones. It allows users to scan virtually any UPC on items and the app searches Amazon.com and finds the lowest prices. It also conveniently allows users to quickly make a purchase through Amazon right then and there. To top it off, Amazon has also unveiled a new price incentive by discounting up to five dollars off of many items (excludes books) purchased through the website after being scanned with their Price Check app.

So what’s the uproar about? Amazon’s app isn’t so different from previously existing smart phone applications such as Google Shopper which displays nearby prices on products from brick and mortar shops along with results from Ebay.com, Wal-mart.com and Amazon.

But small “mom and pop” booksellers are crying foul and perceive Amazon’s recent initiative as “predatory” upon their business. Their notion is that while consumers will still take to their shops, overall sales would decline as would-be buyers opt to utilize the Price Check app and turn bookstores into mere “showrooms.”

Screenshot of Amazon's new Price Check smartphone application

America’s Bookseller Association along with numerous booksellers across the nation have fired back at Amazon with letters, calls to boycott the website, and have offered more aggressive incentives to their buyers.

Amazon faces heavy fire from book dealers over "predatory practices"

It seems like a classic David versus Goliath scenario as small business vie to keep a hold on their market share. Nevertheless, there’s more to the story.

Borders, formerly a large national book-selling chain before shutting down operations, cited a changing market with the advent of the digital book and the growth of sites such as Amazon as a reason for their decline. What isn’t noted is the rise of used booksellers and small discounters who offer a cheaper alternative to consumers caught up in the wake of America’s recent economic recession. As far as consumer spending goes, Americans have sought out better deals and more effective ways of stretching their dollars. It is a verifiable fact that libraries see increased usage during times of recession as well.

The point is, Amazon read recent market trends and saw an opening. Buyers were looking for a deal more than ever and the website became more aggressive with their prices. However, what must be observed is that Amazon works in close relation with small retailers and mom and pop shops as well. Search many well-known classic works and the results are sure to display used offers at better prices from local dealers who use Amazon as a means of reaching a broader range of consumers. Oftentimes even books sold under the label of “used condition” arrive on the doorsteps of buyers in new and even mint condition, giving consumers more of a reason to bypass the higher priced book chains in favor of dealing with smaller shops. Amazon is the middleman who connects the two while taking a cut (15 percent for books). The practice is similar to E-bay’s “buy it now” process.

In essence, small bookstores are knocking Amazon by saying the site is hurting their business, yet they utilize the site to reach larger swathes of potential buyers and increase their product turnover by doing so. By rolling out the Price Check app, Amazon has greatly reduced the size of the market sphere, pitting the small dealers against each other in a tighter price war. Detractors point the finger at Amazon accusing the giant of engaging in predatory practices designed to monopolize the market. Rather, Amazon has created a system akin to the globalization process, intensifying the effects of market saturation.

Booksellers fear for their ability to survive and it is certainly well-founded. Not every business will make it. However, the closure of local dealers will be the result of the cannibalistic capitalistic purging found among over saturated market sectors. It’s an inevitably of the Internet Age that the world will steadily shrink. For the mom and pop book dealers, their true enemy isn’t Amazon, the Price Check app, or any other proverbial market giant. Their true enemy reflects a face identical to their own.

1 Comment

December 10, 2011 at 1:51 PM

A Critique of John Rawls’ Difference Principle

Posted by Brandon Christopher in Political Philosophy

John Rawls justifies unequal distribution of “material x,” for all intents and purposes, amongst any given number of people in a given society or network through an argument he refers to as “the difference principle.” According to this principle, inequality between members of the society at hand is permissible and in fact may be beneficial, so long as those at the bottom of this distribution table comparatively receive the most possible benefit. In other words, “the material position of the worst-off class is maximized.”

Rawls perceives such a system to be fair and ties it in with his idea of implementing a “veil of ignorance” in the formation of policy and social structure. Picture a round table meeting where you sit and try to decide upon a proper form of government. What programs should you implement? What benefits, opportunities and restrictions, if any, will you permit? The veil of ignorance, according to Rawls, requires those coming up with this structure for society to be blind to their future position in the final incarnation of the round table’s architecture, thus manipulating human self-interest to a degree where all classes, with any one of them being a possible reality in the future for these agents, are given an equal playing field and are equally protected from injustices. You may enter the boardroom as a middle aged white Protestant male and exit into society as an Indian atheist or a black lesbian with a preference for Scientology.

The point is, you don’t know the type of person you would end up as and under these circumstances, it would be prudent to cover all of the bases. Rawls asserts that logical rationality manifests itself within human decision making as a maximin approach, or a preference to minimize risk since the agent considers the worst possible scenario for themselves regardless of actual probability. So long as a chance of being among the most disadvantaged class is greater than zero, no matter how miniscule this probability is, the agent will assume the worst case scenario and, out of their self-serving tendencies, will seek to improve the absolute position of the lowest class as much as possible. This minimization of risk acts as the foundation of the structure created under the veil of ignorance and Rawls perceives this method of creation as fair since all classes are believed to have been given equal consideration under the pretense that no one class was specifically targeted to receive exclusive advantages relative to the other classes.

Rawls assumes that equality in its purest form, where all classes hold and maintain an equal amount of “material x,” is an impossibility in the scheme of reality and that implementing the difference principle engenders the best guarantee of negating injustice. This negation of injustice, according to Rawls’ logic, translates to the proliferation of justice which finally is equated with fairness.

Akin to the story of the Liberty Bell, while it initially appears solid, a quick hammer of reality reveals the cracks in Rawls’ bell of fairness. The problem lays not so much in the process of creating this structure of justice, but rather in its maintenance. Competent humans consensually engage in transactions with each other and sometimes it may be the case that one individual gains an extremely large sum of money in relation to his/her peers as a consequence of these transactions. Robert Nozick was a detractor of Rawls and utilized the position of basketball player Wilt Chamberlain. Individual fans willfully chose to pay a sort of tax to go see him play, and the accumulation of every fan’s individual payment over the course of the year amounted to a figure which greatly eclipsed the nation’s average income. In line with Rawls positing that whatever transactions people freely choose to engage in is a fair ordeal, Nozick presses that Chamberlain’s position is just.

Yet, at this point in time, the structure of society is already set and the veil of ignorance is permanently removed. Now the door is open for Chamberlain, along with many others situated in a similar vantage point, to further their position, upsetting the balance of “just” distribution initially set in place.
Another portrait: a Rawlsian model may distribute 100 guns to 10 people in a way where the least well-off person has at least 1 gun more than they would have had under an “unfair” structure which allocates to them one single gun while their nine peers hold 11 guns each. Yet, once the “fair” structure is set loose, the person with the least amount of guns may choose to exchange all of their guns to hear a joke from another member.
Now the least well-off person has zero guns under this seemingly fair structure, making them worse off than the “unfair” structure. In order to maintain “fairness,” an outside body such as a governing state would have to encroach upon the liberties of the people and prohibit certain choices and transactions, robbing people of their autonomy.
Given the real-world preference many societies hold for the ability to pursue liberty and autonomy (See Post-Enlightenment political models such as British Constitution, American Constitution and Bill of Rights, etc.), a full-fledged application of Rawls’ difference principle would come apart under the fire from advocates for freedom as well as those for the idea of human flourishing, where the reduction of people to machine-like beings is abhorred.

Essentially, Rawls’ difference principle faces the same fate as many utopias where the gestation period of theory moves along without a hitch. The difference principle appears to be fair and just and one may very well quip, “why these are fine qualities for a society to propagate, why not plant these seeds?” Nevertheless, the transition from the difference principle’s birth to maturation is never able to come to fruition as the political realities of the world suffocate Rawls’ brainchild. Liberty and freedom are not viewed by societies as weeds to merely be removed in haste, and certainly without a fight (See French Revolution). Alas, for the fate of the difference principle, its lungs were simply built for a different paradigm that doesn’t exist outside of Rawls’ womb.

No Comments Tags: difference principle, fair society, income distribution, john rawls, justice, maximin, robert nozick |

December 9, 2011 at 2:16 PM

Contrary to Universal Values…

Posted by Brandon Christopher in Political Philosophy

On universal values outlined by Martha Nussbaum’s capabilities approach from Women and Human Development.

“Why should we follow the local ideas, rather than the best ideas we can find?”-Martha Nussbaum

Indeed, this is a significant question as Martha Nussbaum advocates the formation of universal values across national and territorial borders throughout the world. She takes the position that formulating and applying a set of universal values is a proper means to the end of guaranteeing, in her own words, “central human functional capabilities,” including the ability to maintain a healthy life, bodily integrity, practical reason, and so on. Nussbaum asserts that all humans possess irrefutable rights and that these rights must be allowed to manifest themselves through this set of functional capabilities.

But why does Nussbaum argue that universal values are necessary to achieve the goals set within her list of functional capabilities? Humans, the political animals they are, form structures of entire societies based upon accepted political ideology, laying the foundation so to speak. Nussbaum’s view is that all humans inherently desire a life in which they can “flourish” and also seek social and political freedom or capability.

To this question Nussbaum posits that the creation of a universal code would transcend cultural norms, especially those steeped in a sort of paternalism that perpetuates the subjugation of women. Nussbaum argues that these cultural norms are often exploitative; they are a product of one class exercising their power over another class and too frequently rob the disadvantaged group of certain rights which should have been guaranteed to all humans in the first place. Nussbaum often refers to cultural norms tightly wrapped into the fabric of religion as a method by which one class domineers over another. According to her, this is a product of an ungrounded rationale. The philosopher that she is, Nussbaum seeks universality as an approach to setting “constraints on implementation,” or that universal measures are “designed to offer the philosophical grounding for constitutional principles.” Not to say that Nussbaum is trying to dehumanize people, by all means she seeks the entire opposite, but one could visualize the workings of a computer where it utilizes a universal language (binary code) to achieve and carry out all of its processes, functions, and capabilities. So long as a nation has universal values to abide by, it has a single language necessary for unlocking the functions and capabilities of its people.

A problem with Nussbaum’s argument is the fact that it attempts to bring two cords together in the middle when the fact is, they just won’t reach each other. On one hand, the creation of universal values cements a list of guidelines in stone yet, it’s a fact of nature that social and political systems are dynamic. Any sort of values outlined as universal would only be a subjective suggestion, vulnerable to obsolescence in the event of a paradigm shift. As far fetched and ridiculous as it may sound, perhaps a masochistic society may form in a distant future where the infliction of bodily harm upon others becomes a normal method of achieving spiritual, emotional, and sensory nirvana and that this nirvana is the goal of everyone. This society would certainly contrast with Nussbaum’s idea that everyone’s ability to maintain bodily integrity should be protected.

On the other hand, Nussbaum portrays universal values as being compatible with various societies and political bodies, or multiple realizability. Under this format, universal values are more liquid and can mold to the shape of numerous paradigms, requiring that some ideas and values take precedence over another. The universal values set in today’s society thus become compatible with our masochistic model since spiritual, emotional, and sensory nirvana take priority over bodily integrity. Even so, this opens up a few pitfalls. Who exactly decides the priority of these values? While it may be the case that somehow everyone in a society accepts the same guidelines, it’s extremely improbable that everyone’s order and measurement of these values will be identical. Aldous Huxley envisioned for us what life would be like under a complete uniformity of values in Brave New World.

So the picture is set. One side of universality produces a set of values that would prove to be too conservative and narrow to apply to every possibility of reality. The other side of universality, which Nussbaum argues for under multiple realizability is too liberal as it could very well allow a state to infringe upon the autonomy of humans just to maintain an abidance to these universal values. Yet, Nussbaum argues that well, if the people choose to restrict themselves in a manner portrayed by Huxley, then the situation is entirely up to them and is thus acceptable so long as these people have the capability of escaping these restrictions, a volunteer deportation to the “Savage Reservation.” A woman is free to choose a life where she is subservient to her husband and it would be acceptable that she would consequentially be faced with limitations of movement so long as society allows her to be capable of enjoying autonomy. Yes, but at what cost would she have to endure to enjoy the latter? This takes on a saying from the feminist movement, “the personal is political,” which, subsequent to the implementation of universal values, must be true. Of course, this weds government with the private life and builds a precarious slope, the likes of which Huxley explored.

No Comments Tags: aldous huxley, capabilities approach, human development, justice, Martha Nussbaum, universal values, women |

November 11, 2011 at 1:44 AM

Why Occupy & What Can Be Done?

Posted by Brandon Christopher in Real Politick

Frigyes Karinthy was the journalistic author who posited that we are all tied together in some way with usually up to only six degrees of separation between us. Although the late political philosopher John Rawls wasn’t born until nearly two years after the death of steel magnate and philanthropist Andrew Carnegie, reviewing each man’s written work surprisingly reveals an underlying connection. Furthermore, the rise of Occupy movements on an international stage has brought about newfound relevance to Carnegie’s Gospel of Wealth and Rawl’s Theory of Justice.

While media outlets portray the Occupy protests, particularly Occupy Wall Street, as a disorganized amalgamation of unemployed workers, disadvantaged laborers, financially pinched students without a cohesive goal, one does not need to dig deep to find what it is the “99 percenters” are seeking. Occupytogether.org depicts their rally as thus:

“On September 17th, men and women of all races, backgrounds, political and religious beliefs, began to organize in nonviolent protest. These men and women represent the 99% with the goal of ending the greed and corruption of the wealthiest 1% of America.” (Rawls, 1972, emphasis mine)

Scathing words to the one percenters who have undertaken tremendous efforts toward improving living conditions and systems experienced by the impoverished, yet the Occupy movement has reason to buck against a system where the wealthiest few, the contemporary bourgeoisie, have abused their rights and privileges.

There are many factors involved here, many of them stemming from the Great Recession the United States recently experienced in tandem with the burst of the housing bubble. One may very well argue that individual irresponsibility and mismanagement of personal finances was the cause of the market’s undoing and that the blame should be removed from “big banks” and “corporate devils.” After all, guns don’t kill people, people murder people right?

Of course, yet as John Rawls pointed out, it is inevitability for human behavior to reflect the allowances of the system they live in. Another analogy can be made extending upon the gun: People may very well kill others and it is coincidental that they just so happen to use guns. The very fact that these guns are available to such a violent population should be the focus. The governmental State, lauded in America as a protector and preserver of human rights and welfare, should play the role of the responsible parent and keep the tools of death out of the hands of its child-like constituents. Granted, there’s another can of worms on the debate of gun control and I’m merely formulating a descriptive metaphor and not advocating a stance for either end of this other issue.

The point is that Rawls formulated the notion that “generators” of political systems exist, such as constitutions and so forth. The United States has a generator in the form of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. According to history, these documents were formed under a more or less fair system requiring popular approval and implementation. And, when reviewing Rawls, one may surmise that the creation of a “just and fair” generator would likely result in a just and fair society. This is more or less true. Again, referring to the guns, while everyone in a given society of 100 may initially be furnished with equal guns, the system in practice may result in one person holding 100 guns while the other 99 have nothing. This reveals a flaw in the generator rather than the people even if the people were personally responsible for their losses. The fact alone that such a disparity arose represents a tendency for inequality and injustice which requires either an augmentation of the generator or perhaps an inquiry into the conception of fairness itself.

To use another picture, one may visualize themselves distributing a cake to two siblings. How do you go about assuring that they’ll split the cake evenly? One method would be to let one sibling cut the cake while the other chooses their piece. Under this process, one assumes that the cutter believes that if they cut one piece larger than another, then their sibling would take it, so the cutter would do well to halve it as cleanly as possible so as not to be disadvantaged. Yet, nine times out of ten, the cutter ends up with the larger piece. The process was supposed to be just, yet it generated inequality nearly time, leaving you with two options. You could think of another way to guarantee equal distribution among the two siblings or you could evaluate what is really fair?

Perhaps the pieces of cake with frosting are superior to the larger area of non-frosted cake by a factor of 200,000 to 1, meaning that it takes 200,000 slices measuring a standardized unit of unfrosted cake to equal a single standard slice of frosted cake. The cake itself is comprised of only 16 standard slices with unequal application of frosting. Therefore, no matter how the cutter moves the knife across the cake, they have no way of creating equally valued portions even though they may be equally sized. Thus, you must alter your previous perception of fairness based on size and devise a plan which caters to fairness based on value.

One must take note that Rawls allowed for the tolerance of a level of injustice and this is where his relation to Carnegie occurs. Rawls asserted that injustice is something to be accepted so long as the least advantaged receive the greatest benefit, thereby improving their position under a system of injustice versus their previous position under complete fairness. For example, Rawls’ notion accepts a situation where one person has 100 guns and 100 cakes while the other 99 people have 10 guns and cakes each on the grounds that the only alternative system would be a society where all 100 people only had one gun and half of a cake each. They are all equally outfitted and fed, yet their situation is worse than even the most disadvantaged of people within the “unfair” society.

This is the basis of Carnegie’s defense of capitalism over communism. “The poor enjoy what the rich could not before afford. What were the luxuries have become the necessaries of life. The laborer has now more comforts than the farmer had a few generations ago…the landlord has books and pictures rarer, and appointments more artistic, than the King could then obtain.” (Carnegie, 1889)

Nevertheless, journalist Malcolm Gladwell observed a common event known as the tipping point. This could represent many ideas, though in this case the tipping point is the line drawn between tolerance and the nation becoming fed-up (pun not intended), culminating with the beginning of Occupy Wall Street and possibly into something else. Disparity has been growing since the 1970s, yet the economic downturn within the last five years most likely catalyzed the journey toward the tipping point.

Continuing with this, protesters are lashing out against a large consensual perception of injustice occurring in America’s current market system. Since the 1970s, the State’s has seen growing productivity and GDP yet wages and labor compensation has stagnated, even when adjusted for inflation (real wages).

Real Wage Compensation vs GDP Growth

Productivity rises yet laborers receive a successively smaller portion of the growing pie

As the gap between compensation and productivity widens, economic disparity between social classes increases as well, enhancing the view of social and economic injustice. Detractors of the Occupy movement may claim that capitalism rewards those who work and that those at the top deserve every last cent they receive as compensation for their work, a direct relationship. What is the explanation then to counter the fact that the lower and middle classes have been working more than they ever have, yet their compensation does not reflect that? The argument for direct relationship between wages and work in market systems dissolves in the wake of the truth.

Carnegie most likely realized this, and although he was certainly no Socialist (he in fact making disparaging remarks about the party and ideology), he recognized a need to provide for the less fortunate. He called for the distribution of effective charity, or, rather than mindlessly donating money to impoverished folks who would quickly squander it on empty commodities, he proposed the donation of institutions such as public libraries so that society as a whole would benefit from the education of the disadvantaged.

To some extent, this is reminiscent of Adam Smith’s concept that if the economic pie only grew larger, everybody in society would benefit. Or as Robert Reich described it, a rising tide which carried all boats. To counter Smith, and one may believe that Carnegie believed this as well, the growing pie certainly did not benefit everybody. Inefficiencies of the “invisible hand” required remediation which Carnegie was advocating by way of philanthropy. The problem with Carnegie’s thinking is that not every wealthy mogul or magnate would be as benevolent as he was. And with no state enforced obligation to do so, “why should we give our money away to those who simply cry that they need it?” say the wealthy.

And this is where we arrive at a Prisoner’s Dilemma with uneven distribution where protesters argue that that the political machine is too willing to sell them out.

Prisoner\’s Dilemma: Uneven Payout

Sketch depicting that equal tradeoffs are not always possible, even resulting in a party losing in relation to another party even if both parties act identically

As the table suggests, sometimes making the supposed “right’ move results in less than favorable results relative to the other party. The self-interested actions of large business carries significantly heavier weight in the political arena by way of lobbying compared to the power of a dispersed majority. The public may wish to “cooperate” with the State, yet the benefits they receive would be paltry compared to the benefits obtained by larger corporate groups. Simple and plain, money talks. Also, it is this dispersal of the people which is used as “evidence” to prove that the Occupy movement is disorganized.

Claims have been made stating that the current political atmosphere is too polarized and that the two-party system has divided America. America has been divided, certainly, although it’s between the 99 percent and the upper one, remember? Much can be said about Democratic leaders being more conservative when in office. Also, the majority of Americans range from moderate to conservative. Party bickering can be highlighted with every color Sharpie produces, the fact is that American voters are in greater ideological concurrence than they realize. It would certainly be fallacious to venture a statement suggesting that the majority is in the right however, especially since the majority is in the same collective boat more or less.

Political Stance of America

Table depicting the political and ideological alignment of Americans

How is it then that if three quarters of Americans hold such similar views in relation to each other, they are described as a “polarized” nation and that the 99 percenters are too divided from within? And how is it that if only about a quarter of Americans describe themselves as liberal, the 99 percenters are mostly associated with a liberal viewpoint? Looking at the differences differently:

Political Ideology Representation

82 percent of Americans hold political views which are concentrated toward the center

There’s an 82 percent majority here with the bridge between major edges representing over a third of the U.S. population. Journalistic instigation rather than journalistic investigation has pushed false perceptions of the reality of the political stage.

That being said, the arena reveals a proper setting for a paradigm shift to take place. There is certainly a formidable majority which may be formed and mobilized into overthrowing the current system. With election year approaching, the time is growing as ripe as ever to build upon the momentum of the Occupy movement and implement the change people desire.

A few details must be understood however. If the people seek more provisions from the government, the State will ultimately require increased revenues to do so. This would necessitate a larger public sector. Small government proponents may cry foul at this, yet they must pause and look at the possibilities. Nationalization of alternative energy could very well be a wise long term investment. The nationalization of energy resources such as oil worked quite well for nations like Venezuela. If solar, wind, and hydrogen power was developed and nationalized, the State would receive a major boost in revenue which would be pumped back to the people. Privatized business may balk, but similar systems have already been implemented on State levels with utilities. Look at the benefits of market barriers in those markets. Public control of energy works and domestic jobs will be created as a result.

Additionally, tax codes and SEC regulations must be augmented. The latter was altered as a result of trends related to Enron and similar scandals so as to prevent future abuse of the system. The invisible hand simply brought about the market collapse culminating in a government bailout proving that it simply does not work. America’s founding fathers recognized a need to keep government power in check so as to protect the rights, liberty, and welfare of the people. James Madison is quoted from The Federalist #51:

”But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”

Substitute the word government with regulation and we find a proper take on business control. Similarly, the separation of church and state may be a model as well. Keep the hands of private enterprise out of the pockets of Congress (whether business is stuffing their pockets or fleecing them) and level the playing field. This would require a revamp of campaign and political funding codes as well, although I trust in the arrival upon a proper synthesis.

A complete severance of business and State is not advised since regulations and checks on regulations must be established.

The above is certainly not all-encompassing and it is also by no means an assertion of an absolute resolution. Rather, this piece should be viewed with thoughtful consideration as a simultaneous thesis and antithesis to current proposals found in the newspapers, in the streets, in the local coffee shops, the senate floor, top story conference rooms and corner offices, and among classrooms across the nation.

Now to annotate Karl Marx with my own insertions of relevance, I leave you with this message:

“In short, [the 99 percent] everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.

In all these movements they bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the [justice] question, no matter what its degree of development at the time.

Finally, they labor everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries.

The [99 percent] disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the [political] overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the [lobbying] classes tremble at a [Democratic] revolution. The [99 percenters] have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

[Public citizens] of all [states], unite!” (Marx, 1848)

No Comments Tags: andrew carnegie, economy, government, john rawls, justice, karl marx, occupy, protest, wall street |