Category Archives: Foreign Policy

Updated: The Bow

Barack Obama, Britain, Democracy, EU, Europe, Feminism, Foreign Policy, Gender, Ilana Mercer, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Middle East

Barack bows a little too deeply to the king of Saud, and people go ballistic. (Don’t be nasty; neoconservatives are people too.) I don’t get it, but I’ll try and deconstruct it—as well as explain why I don’t give a tinker’s damn what gestures Barry makes, so long as he keeps his mitts off my wallet and doesn’t destroy my neighborhood (fat chance for both) .

The same people were mum when Bush and King Abdullah skipped through a field of delphinium (that’s what the romantic setting looked like) holding hands and smiling adoringly at one another. Puzzling to me is the inability of some to apply the same rules to all their leaders.

“Their leader“: therein lies the rub. I think people are upset because they identify with Barry; they vest in him all kinds of symbolism; they see in him a representative.

I don’t.

Maybe I’m just a hopeless individualist, but I don’t identify with any politician; I consider them all corrupt and tainted by virtue of having chosen to make a living through the predatory, political, coercive means, rather than on the voluntary market.

Barry doesn’t stand for me, so I don’t care whose keister he kisses. I objected over his “Gangsta Gift” to the queen, not because he disgraced me; he has nothing to do with me, but because, as a traditionalist, I believe in hierarchy and civility. The queen might be a member of the much-maligned landed aristocracy, but she has acquitted herself as a natural aristocrat would—Elizabeth II has lived a life of dedication and duty, and done so with impeccable class. (It was a sad day when she capitulated to the mob and to the cult of the Dodo Diana.)

But I digress.

The other reason I don’t invest The Leader’s every move with such significance is because I consider him to have a limited role de jure. That he has usurped it is another matter. Certainly being polite to other national leaders is a good thing.

In this context, radio host Laura Ingraham baffled me the other day (and on most days) when she too became so exercised over Barry’s civility to the Europeans. This batty bird was furious that her leader’s plan was rejected by the Europeans. I know Ingraham is incoherent on the economic front. But if she disagrees with the stimulus, surely she would not wish to see Europeans stimulating. Isn’t a principle supposed to hold steady across continents? For the life of me, I could not fathom why this broad was mad because Barry was not being tough with the Europeans and they were not prepared to stimulate as obscenely as he was.

Basically, Ingraham had succumbed to the “Our guy vs. their guys” group think. They all do.

And this is what this fury over The Bow is all about: group think. He’s our guy and he should not be appearing weak (read respectful) to their guys. Collectivists have invested in the political process and in Obama a bit of themselves.

Now, neocons hate China, Saudi Arabia and Russia more than they hate, say, Mexico. Given my foreign policy perspective—shared with our founding fathers—I want other nations to keep our overweening leaders in check. I explained how in “Thank You, Nancy Pelosi”:

Those of us who want the U.S. to stay solvent—and out of the affairs of others—recognize that sovereign nation-states that resist, not enable, our imperial impulses, are the best hindrance to hegemonic overreach. Patriots for a sane American foreign policy ought to encourage all America’s friends … to push back and do what is in their national interest, not ours.

Doug Powers, my WND colleague, has his own theory about The Bow. It’s very funny:

“The president was only somewhat stooped over because he was trying to show King Abdullah what was on the iPod he brought over for him as a present. Naturally, it ended up being little embarrassing and somewhat insulting to the Saudis due to Obama’s insistence on “keeping it real” with what was loaded into the King’s gift.” (Be sure to check out the customized iPod tunes Obama made up for Abdullah).

Speaking of the confused Laura Ingraham, a shout out to Patrick O’Hannigan of The American Spectator, for actually bothering to tease apart the difference between my thinking on the economics of “pay equity,” and that of pro-life feminists like the radio host and Sarah Palin. O’Hannigan is referring to “Barack Against the Boys“:

Columnist Ilana Mercer was not at the ceremony, but asked the kind of economically-informed question that rarely percolates up through discussions of pay equity: If women with the same skills as men were getting only 78 cents for every dollar a man earns, wouldn’t men have long-since priced themselves out of the job market? The fact that men haven’t done that might mean that different abilities and experiences are at work, Mercer guessed, “rather than a conspiracy to suppress women.”

Mercer’s glass slipper of a response to equity issues will not fit anyone in the Obama administration, but it still attracts more positive attention than Christina Hoff Summers’ argument that boys rather than girls need help, thanks to a culture that derides men as oafs, and an educational system that considers masculinity the root of intolerance.

Update (April 5): It’s time to despair of the discourse in this country when people get worked up over a man tilting his body toward another, but not about the bankrupting of the US by the man and his predecessor. Yes, columns dealing with the former routinely garner more fury than those addressing the latter.

Anyone who suggests Americans abhor signs of subservience because they are familiar with the Declaration of Independence cannot be serious, and if he is serious, should not be taken seriously. Reading so much into a tilt of the frame exemplifies a flight from reason and reality into empty symbolism–as Rome burns.

As to the notion that two men holding hands is less subservient than a fleeting bow–heavens! Two men rubbing flesh is way worse than a representative of the US showing respect to another with a quick bow. The Japanese are constantly bowing at each other. So what!

Updated: Will Europe Resist The Voodoo Child’s Magic?

Barack Obama, Debt, Economy, EU, Europe, Foreign Policy, Free Markets, Iraq, Israel, Regulation, War

I’m still coming to grips with the reality of Europe being more fiscally prudent than the US. An American (who else?) think-tank head has framed the European opposition to Obama’s obscene deficit/bankruptcy/inflationary spending, with reference to “a certain backlash against the American economic model,” hubris I find difficult to parse. Such “vulgar Keynesianism” is not a model; it’s a crime!

I worry that Obama will work his magic on Merkel and the rest and convince them to adopt his voodoo economics. Then there really will be no place to run. A pied piper will have enticed the world over a cliff … (And I have family in Europe.)

Chancellor Angela Merkel, to her great credit, has said “Nein” to stimulus and bailouts. Disparagingly, American diplomats put it down to combined “profound German instinct against debt – and its accompanying inflation – with a widely held sentiment here that the US and Wall Street are to blame for creating the global crisis.”

Can’t argue with the Chancellor, can you?!

Obama departed today for London, in advance of the Group of 20 Summit there. Reports The Christian Science Monitor:

“The White House recently signaled it has all but given up hope that the leaders Obama meets this week will make major commitments along the lines the US would like to see – either in terms of big spending packages for the economy or of additional troops or resources for Afghanistan.”

“Obama is expected to encounter an adoring public but a deep skepticism – even resistance – among heads of state.” …

“How well Mr. Obama can parlay his personal popularity into convincing leadership is a key question hanging over his global coming-out party. With many leaders blaming the United States for planting the seeds of the first global recession since World War II, America’s ability to continue as the world’s unrivaled power, whether in economic or other matters, is likely to be an undercurrent of meetings with the G-20 leaders, NATO, and in bilateral meetings with his counterparts.”

[SNIP]

As to “A War He Can Call His Own”; that’s old. Obama has always wanted to “maintain a meaty presence in Afghanistan, and “may even be conjuring up new monsters and new missions” we don’t know of yet. Europeans don’t like that; Demopublican globalists stateside do.

Update (April 1): Naturally, realize we must that, while Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel must be lauded for not wishing to take their respective countries down the road to ruin Obama has set us upon; the two European leaders are still only half as bad as Obama.

Both are working from the premise that unbridled capitalism, the system that has almost never been tried—the Unknown Ideal in Ayn Rand’s words—is the culprit in the meltdown.

The man who married a bimbo said he aims “to give capitalism a conscience, because capitalism has lost its conscience.” “This is a historic and unique opportunity to build a new world,” he added.

Brother Obama is down with that fallacy. So while Europeans will not heed him in as much as spending goes, they will find common grounds “on tax havens, hedge fund regulation, banking transparency and a worldwide cap on bankers’ pay.”

However crippling to capital markets and to financial freedom these and other draconian measure agreed upon in Europe will be—they do not rival the damage of bankruptcy.

Thanks to The Leader the American people elected, here in the US, we’ll be the beneficiaries of a double dose of poison: international regulation, with its attendant implications for national sovereignty, and bankruptcy.

Joy!

Note: Obama is hip to the fact that “United States was unlikely to return to its role as a ‘voracious consumer market.’” That much is true.

The Death Of The Mighty Dollar

China, Economy, Federal Reserve Bank, Foreign Policy, Individual Rights, Inflation

The trashing of the dollar by Bush/Barack is worrying those to whom we’ve been exporting our inflation. The US’s relationship with China is another fiasco. We’ve relied on that country to finance our debt, but kept up the sanctimonious preaching. (Search BAB’s “China” archive for details.)

How do you like that for hypocrisy, to say nothing of a performative contradiction? Preaching about human rights and individual rights while simultaneously fleecing your own people without flinching!

The patient Asians took what we dished, but now, they’re getting nervous about their finances.

From the FT.com:

China’s central bank on Monday proposed replacing the US dollar as the international reserve currency with a new global system controlled by the International Monetary Fund.

In an essay posted on the People’s Bank of China’s website, Zhou Xiaochuan, the central bank’s governor, said the goal would be to create a reserve currency “that is disconnected from individual nations and is able to remain stable in the long run, thus removing the inherent deficiencies caused by using credit-based national currencies”.

Analysts said the proposal was an indication of Beijing’s fears that actions being taken to save the domestic US economy would have a negative impact on China.

“This is a clear sign that China, as the largest holder of US dollar financial assets, is concerned about the potential inflationary risk of the US Federal Reserve printing money,” said Qu Hongbin, chief China economist for HSBC.

Although Mr Zhou did not mention the US dollar, the essay gave a pointed critique of the current dollar-dominated monetary system.

Update II: Rush To Judgment: Limbaugh’s CPAC Speech

Conservatism, Constitution, Foreign Policy, Free Will Vs. Determinism, IMMIGRATION, Inflation, Republicans, Ron Paul

We want to give credit where it’s due. Rush Limbaugh at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C. was charismatic, well spoken (he even corrects his mistakes mid-sentence, which points to a welcome fastidiousness about the language), passionate, and sincere.
As opposed to most pundits, Limbaugh doesn’t require lengthy de-Nazification efforts; he needs only a few weeks at the feet of Congressman Ron Paul.

I optimized the time Limbaugh talked by both listening and mopping the wooden floors. Here are some of the problems I have with Limbaugh’s impassioned CPAC speech. Feel free to add to them:

• I didn’t hear a word about the reliable role of Republicans as engines of government growth. And Bush, in particular. Bush set the scene for Barack. Bush began what BHO is completing. Stimulus, bailouts, a house for every Hispanic—these are programs Bush developed, or signed on to, as I and other libertarians have documented. For an account of the Republican’s “inglorious tradition” of growing government, I recommend “Republicans and Big Government,” by my pal Jim Ostrowski.

• Rush failed to religiously pair the need for tax cuts with a ruthless slashing of government. Bush grew government while, at the same time, cutting taxes. Deficit spending, however, is financed by borrowing or inflating the money supply. The latter is the most vicious and insidious of taxes. (Read why.) Until conservatives get beyond piss-easy populism and stretch their minds to learn some REAL economics, beyond the “tax cut” mantra, there is no hope for them. Rush mentioned von Hayek; why not read his work on the business cycle?

• When it comes to his view of human nature, Rush is a big egalitarian. What do I mean? As an impediment to individual achievement, he cited the disabling and crippling role of the welfare state. Fair enough. However, that is not a qualitatively different argument than the one advanced by left-liberals.
In the nature-nurture debate, liberals reduce man’s plight to adverse social conditions: Crime, they say, is because of poverty, patriarchy, powerlessness (I’ve lots count of the “P”s). Rush is merely rendering his deterministic complement to that of the liberals: they say too little intervention; he says too much of it. The conservative truth is that people differ in potential. Live with it! Phenotype or genotype: our genes encode both the way we look and, to a large degree, how well we can think. Once again, Rush’s view of human nature doesn’t depart significantly from the view his liberal foes hold.

Egalitarianism is the enemy of liberty. As I’ve said, just as most of us can’t aspire to Heidi Klum’s countenance, no amount of freedom will imbue us all with an equal standard of living, which is a function, to a large extent, of out abilities.
A conservative view of nature is one that acknowledges the kind if differences that make the reality of poverty and other evils inescapable. Capitalism may amplify differences in wealth as it allows the able to fully express their abilities. But it also reduces levels of poverty. The poor are richer under capitalism because employment and opportunity are optimized.

• Not a word did Limbaugh say about the Warfare State, which is every bit as corrupt and corrupting as the welfare state. We spend over a trillion annually on empire. What kind of a nation neglects its own borders while defending borders not its own? A nation of cowards. There is a war on the border with Mexico. It’s spilling over. Where is the brave military? This is quintessential neo-conservatism as I defined it on January 16, 2004 (mentioned here by Larry Auster): “Inviting an invasion by foreigners and instigating one against them are two sides of the same neoconservative coin.” Rush did not denounce this borderless, expansionist agenda.

• I have news for Rush: contrary to his assertion, freedom is not the natural condition of the human heart. That’s liberal/neoconservative claptrap. All people want freedom for themselves, that much is true. But not everyone is willing to let his adversaries enjoy their freedoms. I wish Republicans would try thinking beyond clichés–the kind that led to their invasion of Iraq.

Update: Speaking of Larry Auster, this is what the traditionalist commentator writes under the heading, “This is our leader?”:

Rush Limbaugh is addressing the C-PAC conference. Am I supposed to care? Am I supposed to see this loud-mouth as the leader of conservatives against Obama’s attempted socialist takeover of America? Where was El Slowbo for the last eight years? I’ll tell you where he was. He was, with all the energy and devotion of which he is capable, carrying George W. Bush’s water while Bush advanced such proposals as the “American Dream Down Payment Plan,” which landed us in our current situation.

Update II (March 2): Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, trashed Rush Limbaugh. Steele called the Talker an entertainer, and his show incendiary, ugly entertainment.

Ann Coulter has expressed her disappointment. The Conservative Queen Bee also spoke favorably about Steele being good on TV. I guess she meant eye candy, because she immediately launched, on the Glenn Beck Show, into a paean to the babes of the Republican Party. (Here is the story of one such brassy babe.)

In any event, I say let Limbaugh and Steele have at it. I’ve listened to Steele; he’s utterly eager to pacify, placate and attract the ethnic vote. This is a black John McCain. The Republicans have a deficit in principles, not diversity. Yet Steele keeps carping about the need to “appeal” to those voracious minorities. With what? More stolen stuff?

Yes, stealing Steele is among the cadre of Republicans (a Rovian) calling for a more upbeat and diverse GOP, when in fact that GOP has gone all out for minorities (to no avail) and stuck it to the base.

I hope the two men smart for some time to come, and that more chasms open up like gashes in the GOP. Out of chaos maybe some order will come, by which I mean an articulation of a rightist, ordered liberty. Let the rightist faction break away, recapture the base and then the Party.