Chicago Boyz

Go to the White Flag website here and click on “video” for a super-cool version of the great, trippy, rockin’ psychedelic hit “White Rabbit” — with Ronnie from the Muffs playing bass and Kim Shattuck from the Muffs singing. A most excellent, solid, respectful version. Kim has the pipes to pull it off, though Grace Slick’s faux epic style is nothing like her usual approach to a song. Ms. Shattuck looks a little uncomfortable not having a guitar to hide behind, but she has a commanding stage presence, guitar or no guitar. (The thought inevitably occurs that the Muffs could do a shatteringly good version of “Somebody to Love” — and Kim is capable of outdoing Jorma Kaukonen’s blistering guitarwork. I’d sure like to hear that. But, alas, I suppose this is all too much to hope for.)

Pretty good, located here. It is a good synopsis of his book Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How it Changed the World. Of course, Mead introduced the term “Jacksonian”, which gets slung around a lot in blogspace these days, in that book. It is like Cliff Notes, if you aren’t going to get to the book — though you really should read the book.

Sometimes a news story has a way of bringing you back down to earth. This timely poll helps us political junkies keep our perspective: “Two-thirds of voters — including two-thirds of Democrats — were unable to name any of the Democratic candidates for president.” (Via Drudge.)

First there was this, saying, “hey, she‘s getting in”. Then she denied it. Then we saw stuff like this saying she is being urged by the Donk leadership to run. Or this talking about the fact that she is raising buckets of money. Mark Steyn lays out the reasons she ought to run. The key paragraph:

The way to look at it is like this: What does she have to gain by waiting four years? If Bush wins a second term, the Clinton aura will be very faded by 2008. And, if by some weird chance Bush loses to a Howard Dean, she’s going to have to hang around till 2012. Logic dictates that, if Hillary wants to be president, it’s this year or none. In her reflexive attacks on Bush over the war and the blackout and everything else, she already sounds like a candidate. The press will lapse into its familiar poodle mode (”Do you think you’ve been attacked so harshly because our society still has difficulty accepting a strong, intelligent woman?” etc.). And, more to the point, when the party’s busting to hand you the nomination, you only get one opportunity to refuse.

You got that right. Especially the line about the party wanting her to do it. My bellwether is my Democrat wife. She wants Bill back, but she’ll gladly take Hillary. Hillary would get the nomination in a walk. Bill struck in ‘92 when it was supposedly impossible. That’s the Clinton way, brass balls. If Hillary changed her mind after all her vociferous denials? That would be no less than we’ve come to expect from the Clintons, either: say one thing, do another, i.e. lie. Just like the good old days. Watch, she’s going to “listen to America” the way she did to New York, and she is going to hear America calling her to the presidency.

Nothing has happened yet to make me waver (much) in my prediction made last December that Hillary will run, get the nomination, and that Wesley Clark will be her running mate.

(Unfortunately, with Labor Day upon us, my prediction that the Donnas would be huge this Summer is already disproven. My wife suggests that we may be so out of it that they were and we didn’t notice. Naaaah.)

I will at some point put up in detail why I don’t think that what America is in the process of building or becoming is an empire.

But, whatever you call it, Robert Kaplan’s essay, “Supremacy by Stealth” on the subject is insightful. (It came out in July but has not been on the Net very long, so maybe it is not ancient news to all our readers.) This passage sounds typical of much that one finds on the conservative/libertarian side of the blogsphere:

The purpose of power is not power itself; it is the fundamentally liberal purpose of sustaining the key characteristics of an orderly world. Those characteristics include basic political stability; the idea of liberty, pragmatically conceived; respect for property; economic freedom; and representative government, culturally understood. At this moment in time it is American power, and American power only, that can serve as an organizing principle for the worldwide expansion of a liberal civil society.

This, less so:

Two or three decades hence conditions may be propitious for the emergence of a new international system—one with many influential actors in a regime of organically evolving interdependence. But until that time arrives, it is largely the task of the United States to maintain a modicum of order and stability. We are an ephemeral imperial power, and if we are smart, we will recognize that basic fact.

Near the end he re-emphasizes this point:

In many ways the few decades immediately ahead will be the trickiest ones that our policymakers have ever faced: they are charged with the job of running an empire that looks forward to its own obsolescence.

Kaplan also notes that liberal empires undermine their own power:

Precisely because they foment dynamic change, liberal empires—like those of Venice, Great Britain, and the United States—create the conditions for their own demise. Thus they must be especially devious. The very spread of the democracy for which we struggle weakens our grip on many heretofore docile governments: behold the stubborn refusal by Turkey and Mexico to go along with U.S. policy on Iraq. Consequently, if we are to get our way, and at the same time to promote our democratic principles, we will have to operate nimbly, in the shadows and behind closed doors, using means far less obvious than the august array of power displayed in the air and ground war against Iraq.

Problem here is that acting deviously is even more antithetical to democratic practices. So, you can’t do what Kaplan says you need to do to keep a real empire going, if you have to answer to a democratic electorate back home. But, putting that insurmountable issue aside, Kaplan provides a comprehensive “users manual” for US global power.

Oh yeah, in case you were wondering, the ten “Rules for Managing the World” are:

1. Produce More Joppolos
2. Stay on the Move
3. Emulate Second-Century Rome
4. Use the Military to Promote Democracy
5. Be Light and Lethal
6. Bring Back the Old Rules
7. Remember the Philippines
8. The Mission is Everything
9. Fight on Every Front
10. Speak Victorian, Think Pagan

And if that still leaves you scratching your head, you are going to have to read the whole thing.

Kaplan has been all over the place and seen a lot and talked to everybody. He focuses on the mechanics rather than the ethics of global governance by the USA. I don’t think he’s always right, but he is never wrong for light or trivial reasons.

Kaplan’s interview regarding the article is also good and adds further interesting details.

As noted above, the great defect in Kaplan’s vision is that democracies don’t like devious, hard-nosed world empires enforced by small cadres of tough, professional legionaries and operatives. Democracies don’t like to run such empires, and they don’t like it when other people do. The public gets suspicious, or sentimental, or has moral qualms or worries about its civil liberties, etc.

War Nerd,provides a good counterpoint to Kaplan on Joe Sixpack’s willingness to bear the burdens of empire, or hegemony, or whatever it is. As usual, he minces no words: “You Pussies!” To paraphrase: First you are baying for blood, now you are whimpering about losing a soldier a day, make up your minds, if you want an empire, face what it takes to have an empire. But no synopsis can do him justice. Don’t let the sarcastic or nihilistic or jeering tone fool you. War Nerd always raises real issues.