StephenKMackSD's Blog

Where else but the Wall Street Journal, a Murdoch publication, would Neo-Conservatism’s reclusive intellectual pontiff, Francis Fukuyama be given space to opine on his own essay of 1989, ‘The End of History’? From a small essay to a intellectually bloated best seller, one might compare it, in a retrospective look at the intellectual history of American reactionary ideas, to the 1996 phenomenon of Samuel P. Huntington’s ‘Clash of Civilizations’. You might even say that they bookend the decade of the 90’s, in a kind of asymmetric way. Let me begin with the opening paragraphs of Mr. Fukuyama’s essay: Continue reading →

Mr. Leslie Gelb in his essay at the Daily Beast titled Old Flaws in Obama’s New Foreign Policy begins his piece with these four paragraphs: Continue reading →

It’s seems as if Mr. Beinart has not read very carefully the President’s May 28, 2014 address, nor it’s precursor, the speech of December 1, 2009, both delivered at West Point. Or more pointedly he reads them ideologically, with his re-imagined Eisenhower as central rhetorical actor. The themes of the 2009 and 2014 speeches reflect many of the same points, only the passage of time and events separate them. In both speeches the President clearly demonstrates that he is a captive to his own faith in the notion and practice of American exceptionalism, and all that that entails in policy terms. The President simply commits to a more modest version of that pernicious idea. Continue reading →

David Frum in his Atlantic magazine essay titled Obama at West Point: A Foreign Policy of False Choices has this to say about the West Point address and his interpretation of how the President views his office:

Obama might personally think that America’s relative loss of clout is a trend beyond his control or correction. He would not be the first statesman to guide the foreign policy of a declining power. He would not even be the first American president to believe that such was his lot. Under adverse conditions, the responsibilities of leadership become even heavier than when times are easier. Yet embedded in the president’s West Point speech is a remarkably passive view of his office.

Continue reading →

There really isn’t much here except the usual hectoring Frum Chatter. Mr. Frum gets great mileage out of reminding/lecturing the President of the political reality of a vocal opposition. But is utterly disingenuous about the nihilist Republican opposition’s destructive vendetta against the President. That is so pervasive an idee fixe that the Party has abandoned governance, for active sabotage of legislation, that might help the victims of the still stalled economy: an extension of Unemployment benefits. Although they managed to pass the Ryan Budget- call this ‘budget’ public relations chicanery!
Mr. Frum does mention Ukraine, which has been one of the great successes of his political fellow traveler Victoria Nuland, in alliance with the EU and ‘Yats’ and his Right Sector and Svoboda allies. This victory for American political adventurism fully supported by the President, rhetorically framed in the reality of a New Cold War, as virulent Russo-phobia and Putin as the New Stalin. The success of the American backed Ukrainian Coup, must remain, for reasons of Frum’s political convenience and opportunism, unexpressed.
From both President Obama’s 2009 and 2014 addresses delivered at West Point, he remains an unapologetic imperialist, expressed as the notion and practice of ‘American Exceptionalism’. The President reaffirms that faith without apology, but that faith isn’t quite enough for Mr. Frum, he prefers a more bellicose expression of the cult of American mastery. President Obama is too gentile, too reserved, too measured an imperialist. Drone murder is not quite enough to slake Mr. Frum’s appetite for war, after all he is a Neo-Conservative, with no military experience: a perfect policy adviser in the Kissinger mold, or armchair general?

Political Observer

Read first the concluding portion of the President’s speech from 2009, and then read excepts from the 2014 address and compare not an evolution of American Imperial thought, but the tired recitation of  American Exceptionalist cliches.

President Obama December 1, 2009 West Point. Continue reading →

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/what-putin-wants/361622/

‘The Axis of Evil’ was once the signature hysteria mongering calling card of Mr. Frum. Now, he and his new political ally, of the moment, Mr. Ben Judah, have a more historically relevant propaganda campaign to wage, the revival of the Cold War, with it’s lead character, Putin as the New Stalin. Mr. Frum quite convincingly reiterates Mr. Judah’s reportage. And it is damming, yet should we as readers of this essay be very cautious about the political motives of Putin, but most especially of Mr. Frum who frames his Russo-phobia with the aid of the reportage of Mr. Judah? To put the readers qualms to rest , Mr. Frum assures his readers that Mr. Judah is a highly credentialed ‘reporter’ of the Putin phenomenon. It’s not so much that I doubt that Putin is a corrupt ,self-seeking politician, capable of multiple outrages, political and ethical. But that Mr. Frum resembles the Putin described by Mr. Judah, as utterly without scruple.
The political machinations of Victoria Nuland, the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the Right Sector remain off stage in this carefully messaged essay. The active American and EU support for the Ukrainian Coup, for Coup it was, are inconvenient background information that might thoroughly undermine the case Mr. Frum, with the aid of Mr. Judah’s through demonizing of Putin, might have made possible. A potted history serves the purpose of propaganda, in this case pertinent but inconvenient facts are elided from this essay, Mr. Frum can, at the least, manufacture coherent propaganda.

Political Cynic

Click to access Programme_Public_EN.pdf

Timothy Snyder, Leon Wieseltier,Bernard-Henri Levy were the head line acts for this propaganda fest, probably sponsored by The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, or from Victoria Nuland’s spare change, left over from the five billion spent on the overthrow of the legitimate Ukrainian regime. Add to that the ‘moral support’ of fellow travelers Michael Ignatieff and Samantha Power, notorious R2P zealots. With an assist from the Daily Beast’s Lake/Rogan/Kirchick Neo-Conservative chicken-hawk coterie of hysteria mongers.
The New York Review of Books has been Mr. Snyder’s publisher of choice since he began writing his essays about the Ukrainian Coup. It’s not so much about the decline in political standards at the NYRB, but about the historically exercised bad judgment in the choice of Isaiah Berlin as intellectual/moral standard bearer. Whose Liberalism based on the historical reality i.e. facts of political/ethical incommensurables, led to a kind of political fatalism or even paralysis, in the face of the political status quo, as an acceptable inevitability. While Sir Isaiah’s had a penchant for currying the favor of the powerful, he blocked the academic appointment of Isaac Deutscher, so much for the ‘Liberal’ notion of freedom of thought.

http://standpointmag.co.uk/books-october-13-feud-of-the-cold-warriors-robert-wistrich-isaac-and-isaiah-cold-war

Political Observer

https://www.nytexaminer.com/2014/05/the-aptly-named-anne-marie-slaughter/

Five possible influences on Ms. Slaughter’s career seem evident:

In the Law: in the paradigmatic figure of Holmes. Misogynist,misanthrope and committed Social Darwinist, via his reading during one of his convalescences, of Spencer’s Social Statics and Darwin’s Origin. One could safely say that the Civil War was the ruination of the man. His standards of conduct: careerism, political opportunism and a stunted or even non-existent moral sensibility.

In the History of American Foreign Policy: The figures of Kissinger and Brzezinski. Both men ruthless, murderous and unapologetic. Add to this a bit of the anguished melodrama that George F. Kennan can provide, to Ms. Slaughter’s acts of public contrition.

In current Foreign Policy: the Rice/Nuland Neo-Conservative alliance that financed the Ukrainian Coup. And very importantly, U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power, R2P zealot and her ally and intellectual mentor Michael Ignatieff .

This is just a sketch of a possible set of arguments in the examination of the influences in Ms. Slaughter’s public career. Although Mr. Breyman’s devastating polemic does not need comment, it got me to thinking about what those influences might be. Congratulations to Mr. Breyman on a powerfully argued and superbly written essay!

StephenKMackSD

You might begin your exploration of the ‘Piketty Panic’ by beginning with the book itself, or short of that, you could begin with the ten part essay at the Economist posted by R.A. of London. This is really worth the time to read and study, if you are not going to read the book. This set of essays is of the highest caliber . The first part of this essay cycle:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/02/book-clubs

After you’ve read this enlightening cycle of essays you might consult this essay, again from The Economist, that reflects a frontal attack  on the policies that Capital advocates:

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21601512-thomas-pikettys-blockbuster-book-great-piece-scholarship-poor-guide-policy

You might also read this from the Financial Times by Robert Shrimsley titled ‘ The Nine Stages of the Piketty bubble’, a satire that utterly misfired, or insult laden polemic, hard to tell which:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/2d492786-cf90-11e3-bec6-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=intl#axzz30aJuZqpT

You must read the Krugman essay at the New York Times:

And the essay that Krugman links to, in his NYT essay, by James Pethokoukis at National Review titled The New Marxism:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/374009/new-marxism-james-pethokoukis

But the piece de resistance of the ‘Piketty Panic’  is this David Brooks essay from the New York Times titled The Piketty Phenomenon. In it the panic transforms itself into ugly political paranoia. A marvel, of it’s kind.

Political Observer