George W. Bush Was Right

Given that the above title is likely to annoy or amuse all 20 of my readers, I'll quickly explain why I believe it: part of the "Bush Doctrine" included efforts to reform authoritarian governments in the Arab world and to get them to grant more freedoms to political opposition in their countries. He was specifically targeting Egypt, the nation that now finds itself embroiled in large-scale demonstrations by its citizens.

The argument runs this way: America has involved itself in the affairs of the Middle East because of our need for the petroleum there. Political stability = economic stability because uprisings, terrorism, and the like make the price of oil head for low-Earth orbit. To ensure this stability, administrations both Republican and Democrat have tolerated "strong men" like Mubarak (or, once, Saddam Hussein) if they kept the oil flowing. This toleration has been especially important in Egypt because they are the only Arab nation to officially recognize the State of Israel. They're a major military power in the region. And, like Mubarak after him, Anwar Sadat for the most part kept the more radical elements in his nation under control. The fact that that control included a lot of very harsh prisons and torture was overlooked. Those who cling to a Wilsonian view of foreign policy believe that the U.S. should not just protect its own interests, but be a force for good, making the world "safe for democracy." As such, we should insist on good conduct from our allies--that they should behave like us.

Furthermore, there has been a view in some circles (especially just after 9/11) that the reason "they hate us" is that we have supported repressive regimes like Egypt or Saudi Arabia or (the pre-1979 Shah of) Iran. The first nation to take Bush's rhetoric about reform seriously was Lebanon, which had its "Cedar Revolution" in 2005, throwing out the repressive Ba'ath regime sponsored by Syria. Admittedly, it was another five years before another similar uprising occurred, this time in Tunisia, but happen it did, and the calls for freedom have been expanding elsewhere in the Middle East, most recently Egypt.

This will be an interesting and difficult test case for the Obama administration. Despite campaign rhetoric to the contrary, Obama has continued George W. Bush's foreign and anti-terrorism policies, albeit under a different "brand." American troops remain in Iraq and Afghanistan to support legitimate, if tenuous, elected governments. Perhaps lovers of freedom in the Arab world have gotten the message that the U.S. is not leaving anytime soon. This is why Iraqis started helping American troops openly: they didn't fear that they'd be killed by their enemies as soon as America left, as happened in Vietnam, because we aren't leaving. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has had the lead on this one. She has, probably wisely, taken a wait-and-see attitude toward the demonstrations, calling on restraint from the protestors and Mubarak alike. Tanks are in the streets as I type this, so odds are that Mubarak will take some sort of direct action soon. A violent crackdown is likely, as happened in Iran in 2009. However, unlike Iran, Egypt is a major--if not the most important--American ally in the region. Mubarak's actions reflect on the U.S., as the "Arab street" believes, perhaps rightly, that he does whatever America allows him to do.

But going back to my title here, George W. Bush had good reason to press for moderate reform among our regional allies after 9/11. We did not and do not need another radical state like Iran in the region, especially right next door to Israel. If moderate freedoms are not granted to the citizens of our allies, America will continue to be seen as a conquerer and tyrant, regardless of the freedoms now enjoyed in Iraq. Governments that continue to resist reform ultimately face revolution. We will see what happens next, but the lessons of history are there to be learned, from Louis XVI to Czarist Russia to the Shah's Iran to Tunisia. Whether authoritarians learn them or not remains to be seen.

Critique: Rule-Breaking from Creativity to Illegality



I found this essay on Facebook, and found the title sufficiently interesting (and the content refreshingly short) enough to read. I also found myself identifying a couple of flaws/fallacies and disagreeing with a couple of the authors’ “trans-disciplinary” arguments. Fair warning: I’m about to head off into Philosophical Geek Land. You also might need to take the time to read the referenced article to understand what I'm griping about and to see whether my gripes are reasonable.


To save the reader of this blog a little time and to clarify the fundamental argument with the paper, I will attempt to summarize the authors’ thesis and my disagreement(s) with it. The authors equate creativity—specifically paradigm-breaking ideas or ideas that fundamentally change how human beings interact with or perceive the world around them—with “breaking the rules,” in effect a form of illegality. They then argue that the difference between creativity and illegality depends on the long-term end results (positive/negative) and the legitimacy of the laws/rules being broken.


I can agree with their thesis in the specific instance they mentioned—paradigm shifting. Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions offers an excellent history of scientific paradigms and how they change (for example, the unchanging Earth vs. plate tectonics or a Newtonian vs. Einsteinian understanding of physics). In the case of scientific paradigms, the creativity of Einstein had to overcome established systems, beliefs, and interests; all of these might be treated as social conventions or “rules,” but are not precisely laws. Indeed, Einstein was not attempting to undo Newton’s theories, but to amplify them and give them a slightly different interpretation. In the long run, his theories were validated by empirical evidence, experimentation, new technology, and social acceptance of the new theory. Kuhn’s theories on scientific revolutions constitute of culture shifts and maybe disregarding the social currency or ascendancy of particular theories, but that’s quite a stretch from “illegality,” unless one considers E=mcˆ2 to violate the laws of nature. Einstein and his later adherents were certainly not breaking any social, civil, or criminal laws in presenting a new view of reality.




That said, my arguments with their thesis are as follows:


1. Creativity is not always a case of “breaking the rules.” Creativity in the arts can be unique without breaking any fundamental rules. Indeed, many art forms have conventions (vanishing points in the visual arts, meters or rhyme schemes in poetry). One can be “creative” in those situations without breaking rules or causing harm to others.


2. The authors blur the functional differences between civic or criminal laws and social conventions or rules. For one thing, civic laws are concerned with preventing and punishing harm to others or society. Social guidelines (mores, manners) serve approximately the same purpose, but usually do not carry legal or criminal penalties if you break them.


3. The authors have a really far-out definition of what it means to be a “creative” entrepreneur: “The innovator entrepreneur combines available resources in a new way that challenges conventions of human behavior, even imposing conceptual and empirical challenges for commercial laws.” I’ll buy the part about combining resources in a new way; but to say that every innovator is challenging human conventions or creating challenges for commercial laws is quite a stretch. You might make a case for automobiles, telephones, or computers, which fundamentally changed our society, but would you describe canned tuna, office staples, or electric fans as creating “conceptual and empirical challenges for commercial laws?”

4. The authors head into shaky territory when they start to take on “perverse legality, positive illegality, and perverse creativity.” Perverse legality they describe as a situation like “the whole Nazi project” (a violation of Godwin’s Law right there) “protected actions that were later recognized as social perversions,” the end result being that behaving morally/creatively in that society would constitute breaking the laws of that society.

5. The authors posit another scenario "in which illegality does not imply social damage, [but] it is also possible to find a scenario in which creativity is oriented to cause social damage." Their specific example is when a nation-state's legal mechanisms are co-opted by some alleged criminal enterprise, ostensibly like a drug cartel taking over a nation in South America or the kleptocracy that gradually took over post-Soviet Russia. I will return to this issue in my own conclusion.

6. They create some unnecessary acronyms and then make the situation worse by mistyping or not explaining one of those acronyms. They have “one mind that is breaking a rule (MBR),” “minds that are evaluating that rule breaking process (MVRB),” and “informal rule (IR).” What, then, is MVBRP? I wouldn’t make much of a big deal about this, except that they used MVBRP twice, when presumably they meant MVRB. This is not a logical argument on my part, I admit, merely an aesthetic one.


7. Where I parted company from the authors almost completely is regarding their statement that “Today, almost no one would consider revolutionists of centuries XVIII and XIX as criminals.” If they mean the leaders of the American Revolution, I would agree. If they mean the leaders of the French Revolution, I would take exception on the following grounds:


a. They utterly destroyed the state, leading to such instability that France has not had an enduring republic since then (they are now on their Fifth Republic). And, in fact, the Revolution led directly to the dismantling (and killing) of nearly all legitimate authority, including the King, Church, aristocracy, civil servants, and eventually the revolutionists themselves.

b. The power vacuum and bloody chaos thrown up by the French Revolution made the ground fertile for a Bonaparte to seize control. The end result of his rule was 20 years of war that tore apart Europe and imposed “liberty, equality, fraternity” at the point of the bayonet.

c. The fervent atheism of the Revolution undermined Christianity, one of the fundamental strengths of European culture, for the last two centuries.

d. Note: Lest anyone think I am completely insensitive to the historical plight of the French peasantry under the Ancien Régime, I am not. I am suggesting that there were other ways the grievances of the people could have been redressed that need not have demolished French society or resulted in guillotines on the Champs-Élysées. I am also suggesting that the King, Church, and aristocracy might have learned the British lessons about accommodating the will and needs of the people before the situation became that desperate.


8. In their second "Conclusions and Explorative Issues," the authors state, "Since the psychological rule-breaking process underlying illegality and creativity is the same, it is therefore needed to pay attention to other criteria when defining both illegality and creativity." I would submit, based on my points 1-3 above, that the authors have not made their case on this argument conclusive.

9. In the authors' point 9, they state that "The judicial branch is also considered a moral tribunal because this branch sometimes creates laws through production of jurisprudence." This might, in fact, be the case, but that was not (in my view) the intention of the American Founders, nor is it necessarily a given in most justice systems: courts of law are there to adjudicate situations where the law is unclear; not to write new law, as has become the custom in American federal courts in the XXth and XXIst centuries. Be that as it may, their point is regrettably true, as moral and legal matters are now settled in the courts rather than in the legislatures, where the true will of the voters might better be expressed.

10. In the authors' point 10, they state that "Pointing out that both criminals and creative people have a similar psychological process does not mean that criminals should be rewarded or that creative people should be punished." Good.

11. The authors conclude point 11 with "The longer of the time-scale use to evalue the rule-breaking process, the most accurate that evaluation will be." This seems to be saying that, "the longer your historical perspective, the more likely it is that your judgment of whether someone was creative or merely a law-breaker is correct. Science fiction writer Larry Niven would put this more succinctly: "Hindsight is 20/20."

12. The authors' point 12 explains how law-breaking is defined based on the legitimacy and correctness of the laws.

13. The authors' final point 13 states that "simulation and prospective analysis tools are required when evaluated the social effects of a law or an informal institution." I would restate this as "You need more than the laws themselves to determine whether they are both rightly executed and morally good." I would tend to agree.

But, but, but...I kept turning over in my head exactly what the point of this essay was. Were the authors trying to provide moral sanction to people fighting "creatively" against corrupt laws? Or, more disturbingly, were they trying to provide moral justification to people who are trying to "be creative" or "change the rules" (a more modest phrase) in societies the authors find "co-opted" somehow--and let "history" decide if they'd made the right/moral choice?

I asked questions like this partially because at least one of their sources (Law and the Rise of Capitalism) is written by a Marxist scholar, and Marxists have a rather creative view of what they consider a "legitimate" government. And partially I questioned their thesis because they seemed to be unnecessarily (and somewhat inaccurately) blurring the definitions of "creativity," "paradigm shifting," lawbreaking, and political revolution to the point where someone subverting a government that others see as legitimate might come across to readers of this document as merely a creative rule-breaker, if you're willing to wait around a couple of centuries to see the end result.

Anyhow, these are the sorts of thoughts that wander through my mind when I'm confronted by murky philosophy--or clear philosophy with murky results. Philosophy matters, so I took the time for this dissection. Make of it what you will.

I Want Capitalism Back

This article on the Obama Administration's follow-up to TARP is worth reading, particularly this:

But wait, it is now not just the recipients of Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) money and other taxpayer funds who are to be regulated. According to "sources," the White House is considering salary controls for "all financial institutions" and "publicly traded companies," not just those receiving "federal bailout money."
What's more, the feds intend to impose this by fiat, meaning regulations not legislation. When the government controls your salary, control over your financial compensation is not far behind.

Workers at GM think they're being treated worse under the Obama administration than they were under straightforward GM management.

*

I wrote this in response to a reader, but apparently it needs to be repeated. Those of you who hate the "power of big business" need to remember that said power, however financially impressive, is nothing compared to the power of the government. Businesses are nothing if they don't provide goods and services that customers want. On the flip side of this, government had more direct control over people because they control the laws, and those laws are enforced by regulations, police, courts, taxes, and when all else fails, the point of a gun. Businesses cannot do any of these things legally.

Occasionally I get retorts like, "Big business runs the government because they've got money and lobbyists and they 'own' senators." This requires re-explaining as well. Yes, businesses have lobbyists. Yes, those lobbyists make contributions to various members of Congress and Senators' campaign funds. But they cannot enforce their wishes. A member of Congress can accept a donation one day, and then turn around and vote for a bill that harms the donor's interests the next. And if the government really was so beholden to big businesses, then why are those businesses subject to the highest corporate taxes in the Western world? Why must they spend money for things like ADA, OSHA, EPA, FICA, benefits, etc.? All of those are huge expenses that interfere with profits. If businesses' lobbyists "control" the government, then they should be fired, because they're doing a poor job of it.

And then there's this angle: up until the 1930s, business lobbyists weren't really necessary because Washington didn't control that much of the economy. There was no need to have high-powered lawyers and professional persuaders in $1,000 suits walking the halls of Congress to protect their interests. Government power has since centralized in Washington, and that's why the lobbyists were necessary--as protection.

A liberal friend just posted on Facebook,

[X] thinks that firing Wagoner was just the start. In every revolution, heads gotta roll ...

To which I responded, "Revolutions are great until it's your ox being gored." Obviously I didn't vote for Obama. But I'm willing to bet that even people who voted him did not vote for a revolution, just a change in policies. And to follow on to my response, revolutions can consume their own. It's always cool to "get even" with whoever the revolutionaries think is the bad guy until suddenly YOU'RE the one labeled as the bad guy. For examples of this sort of behavior, see the history of the French Revolution and Russian Revolution.