Free societies vs. fear societies

Am now almost done reading Natan Sharansky's The Case for Democracy in which he argues that free societies are more secure when freedom is more widespread, that fear societies need an external enemy to maintain their repression, which is therefore also a source of international and regional instability. He makes this case very strongly with a history of the situation between the Palestinian Authority and Israel.

I would like to see here a debate on that thesis. Though I certainly don't own the thread I hope that we will steer clear of tangential issues such as:

(1) a broader discussion of neo-conservatism beyond foreign policy, such as influences of Machiavelli and Leo Strauss.

(2) a focus on Iraq and whether our aims are being attained there, though I think Iraq as a good or bad example of this aspect of neo conservatism is well in line.

(3) since I mentioned Israel and the PA I should probably note I would rather not get into a discussion of the merits of the Zionist position, though the relationship between them as a good or bad defense of Sharansky's argument would be good.

And I want to thank Joe Botwinick for steering me toward Sharansky. I have picked this book up and put it down many times before buying it after JB praised it so highly. When I first skimmed through it and saw much of it devoted to the situation with Israel, I was disheartened that he would take his thesis as an excuse to do a history, but rather he uses that history very well to make his point. IMO, the book is very Reaganesque in his argument for Reagan's point that a nation which tyrannizes its own people can't be considered peaceful in dealing with its neighbors.

 

S&R,

A very poor climate for discussing various ideas have developed in America.

Please tell me how the PATRIOT Act has had ANY impact on the free discussion of ideas.

 

Though I strongly support the foreign policy ideas being labeled as neo-con, as argued by Sharansky, I do admit there are problems. We stood by while the Shah was overthrown by a democratic, albeit theocratic Muslim revolution. We are now far less secure in that region and the world. There is also a problem with the argument he made that "as with the Soviet Union" if we will use linkage and make Muslim countries pay a price for their human rights violations that we will see results. There are a couple of problems with that argument:

(1) the Soviets can at least be said to have been reasonable; i.e., that they would respond rationally to pressures when they saw the price for not doing so. Given the fundamentalist religious nature of Islamism, that appeal may not hold. The counter to that is that they can still be made to pay the price rather than looking the other way as we did until Reagan's response to the Soviet system. The "paying the price" side of that also has a price, though. Sharansky argues that the Mideast is dependent on us, as was the Soviet Union. The difference is that we were not dependent on the Soviets as we have become on Muslim oil.

(2) Related to number one is the theocratic underpinning for human rights violations under Islam and particularly Islamism, where radicals believe it their duty to behead innocents and to strike at civilian targets. We will not so easily persuade those so motivated.

Joe, help me out before I sink my own argument!

 

KJ,

ftr...isn't that one of the main goals? Infringing on the right of free discussion of ideas? Nowadays, just to disagree with the government's policies is grounds for charges of anti-patriotism and "supporting terrorists". If you don't believe the Patriot Act will have a negative impact I don't know what to say. Could you tell us why it won't have a negative impact?

I don't have a duty to disprove a negative. S&R made a statement, which you have supported, that it will impact free discussion. Y'all have made the assertion, I'm just asking you to back it up. The PATRIOT Act has no design of deterring or impairing debate, only to assist in investigating terrorist threats. Is there any aspect of that act that will have an effect on debate? Sure, people may make accusations that a particular position makes someone else pro-terrorist, but what in the world does that have to do with the PATRIOT Act?

 

KJ,

Let's take this one post at a time. See if you can keep up:

---My OP: nothing said about PATRIOT Act.
---Daisy's post: nothing said about the PATRIOT Act.
---S&R post: "Repression of ideas opposing those of the government comes not only who have supported this this administration but also formally through law enforcement acting on laws like the Patriot Act." Look at it closely. You'll see that I am reviewing these chronologically.
---My response: "Please tell me how the PATRIOT Act has had ANY impact on the free discussion of ideas." As you can see, I challenged the assertion made.
---Your first response: "Could you tell us why it won't have a negative impact?" If you can't support the assertion made by S&R just say so.
---My next post: posted before I had seen yours.
---My next post: "The PATRIOT Act has no design of deterring or impairing debate, only to assist in investigating terrorist threats. Is there any aspect of that act that will have an effect on debate? Sure, people may make accusations that a particular position makes someone else pro-terrorist, but what in the world does that have to do with the PATRIOT Act?"

As you can see, S & R made the assertion, not me. Just for the record.

---Your last post: Aha, an answer (well, sort of)! " The Patriot Act will infringe on the free exchange of ideas because it gives the government free access to your PERSONAL life...what you read, what you buy, what you SAY. How can it NOT infringe on the free exchange of ideas? This basically goes against the freedom that you Americans believe in, does it not?" So what IMPACT (your word, not mine) does this access have on free discussion? What discussions have not been had, what statements have not been made due to government's access? I say again, you want to ask how it can not have an impact on free exchange, I simply ask you to tell me how it HAS. I've seen PLENTY of discussion. Hey, I think we have some discussion going on here. When the FBI busts into your house tonight because you have dared to question the government's authority, drop me a line. Now when you or anyone else start making threats to carry out a terrorist act or carry out violence against someone, then I HOPE they come after you. But if you equate such threats with free discussion then it's not just that your right has been taken away, I don't know of anyone who will WANT to spend time in such discussion.

 

So who is your master, bill?

 

'producer,

I disagree with Sharansky's claim that the Middle East is dependent on us, however, we are very dependent on their oil. Could the War in Iraq be Bush's way to accomplish what could not be done in Iran in the 70's? I just wonder if the whole thing will eventually backfire. Case in point, Latin America.

I agree with you (in your disagreement with Sharansky's point), though I think it is perhaps arguable that they are dependent on our money, as Sharansky argues. The problem with taking that too far is that we aren't the only market for their oil; China's demand is growing strongly. I do disagree with the cynical view that Iraq was simply about money and access to oil, though.

 

KJ,

'Sorry 'bout that. I was not the one who first mentioned the PATRIOT Act. Sure, I mentioned it--in response to S & R. Again, you seem to be implying that I first mentioned it. I talked down to you because the posts are very clear that I didn't first raise the issue of the PATRIOT Act.

In any event, I'm through discussing who first mentioned it. The posts are there. I'm assuming we can now move on to the actual assertion that it impacts free discussion and look forward to your post tomorrow.


FP,

As far as Iraq is concerned. I agree that Iraq was not only about money and oil, but it can be argued that a free Iraq will benefit American corporate interests. Hence, the saying, "industrialized nations rotate on the axle of oil that is the Middle East". The war may not have been simply about oil and money, but I think it played a strong interest, just not the only one. IMO, China is another reason. As you mentioned, China's demand for oil is increasing daily. It can only benefit us to have an ally in Iraq.


I won't deny that it played a strong part in the decision, but proceed on the assumption, unless reliable evidence otherwise comes forward, that our reason for entering the war was as stated. Though I don't deny the importance of an ally in Iraq I don't think it was necessarily for the reason of countering China though, as you stated, there is geopolitical reasoning for doing so. Personally, I do believe that our goal should include encircling China, as they assert is our intention. But I don't think it should be for the purpose of military confrontation but rather to serve as a check on their reach into the South China Sea and the Pacific.