Apathetic America?

The first thought to pop into my mind with regards tot hat is, ‘of course’. However, there are certain points of elaboration used by many to highlight the public’s inaction, that I rather strongly disagree with. That is comparing the reform movements of the 60’s to the body politic of today.
In NYTimes column, Bob Herbert declares that ,

Americans have tended to watch with a remarkable (I think frightening) degree of passivity as crises of all sorts have gripped the country and sent millions of lives into tailspins. Where people once might have deluged their elected representatives with complaints, joined unions, resisted mass firings, confronted their employers with serious demands, marched for social justice and created brand new civic organizations to fight for the things they believed in, the tendency now is to assume that there is little or nothing ordinary individuals can do about the conditions that plague them.

The problem with apathy is that it is so easy when you don’t know the answer. As recent news has shown, when people strongly believe in a issue, organization does happen (the gay rights march, tea parties, Obama - yes, Colin, Obama). While there are certain issues that are currently rather black and white for me (gay rights), others are increasingly complex (education reform, afghanistan, the actual mechanisms of universal healthcare).

Compared to granting someone equality, reforming bloated institutions, figuring out the skein of military and political factors, or fixing THE ECONOMY, is infinitely more complex, and as such not only will opinions be that much more diverse but people won’t align themselves along a clear ‘for/against’ line. I think that one would find a lot of Americans care an aweful lot about current issues, but if you ask them how to solve them.. it becomes a whole new ballgame.

What I think people should be up in arms about is not the movements, but the tone of the discussion. People should be angry over how the leaders of our government use their time and how news stations cover national dialogue. However, this all comes back to the fact that people vote politicians into office, and people give tv shows their ratings. Perhaps, we’re just not a very smart nation. How do you solve that?

P.S. one thing I’m still rather confident about is that (aside from those who were really fighting for their rights, and putting their livlihoods and often lives on the line) there was a huge mass of privileged educated and dissillusioned youth in the 60’s with a lot of time on their hands. Correct me if I’m wrong.

At attempt at countering

Given the complexity of the situation in Afghanistan, a complexity that Lyons seemingly ignored, I am going to try to respond point by point and keep this as concise as possible.

“From the U.S. perspective, Afghanistan is the absolute end of the earth. Indeed, it’s not a nation at all. The idea that well-intentioned Westerners can create an efficient central government on, say, the Swiss model, where none has ever existed, much less one acceptable to Afghanistan’s many warring tribes, sects and ethnic factions, is almost certainly a delusion.”

Choose a point of history before the Soviet invasion and Afghanistan has had a series of functioning governments within and extending beyond its current borders. The concept that ‘warring tribes, sects and ethnic factions’ make it impossible to rule is more ignorant and delusional than the supposed ‘white mans burden’ the author alludes to  with this ‘well intentioned Westerners’. One could look to any number of examples throughout time and across the globe of perfectly capable governments rising out of diversity and factionalism. The argument being made for a military increase in Afghanistan (which was a state, ableit a taliban state, before we invaded) is that Afghanistan deserves the opportunity to create a state for itself, and that the people of Afghanistan can do so. Our presence stems out of necessity, we created a monstrosity of a situation by creating a power vacuum and then only did a half-assed job in our attempts to create a safe atmosphere for a government to be built.

“Almost nobody believes a recount would solve anything. “Even if every Afghan casts their vote for (runner-up) (Abdullah) Abdullah, he won’t be president because the foreigners don’t want him to be,” another man told her. “Nobody respected the people’s vote.””

Almost every foreign nation and organization involved has wanted the recount to exist, for the exact reason that it the nation of Afghanistan needs to make its own fair and just decision about its rulers. The above quote points to skepticism about the intention of the Western forces, not to the Afghanis commitment to or desire for a national government.

In the author’s following paragraph he provides no basis or evidence for reasoning in that an effort at a unity government would prove illusory. His mention of the Afghans distrust of the Karzai government says nothing about the ability to form a government or the effect that a military push could have.

Lyons goes on to describe the account of David Rohde, and use his first hand experience as a glimpse at the motivations of the insurgency. However, he lacks a point. In fact by expanding upon the rationality of the insurgents, and highlighting the fact that only “Ten percent are hardcore ideologues fighting for the Taliban.” Lyons lays out the very reasons for the possibility of success. The remaining ninety percent are not people we have to be fighting. With the ability to provide safe development, an accountable and legitimate government, and a change in strategy, NATO forces should be able to focus on those who truly pose a threat to America and to Afghanistan.

“Who in the world would be angry with him except the Washington war lobby and Osama bin Laden?”

The author fails to even discuss what would happen upon an American withdrawal. Presumabely he might believe that facing the issue of sovereignty the ‘nice’ ninety percent would create their own state entities of some sort, no longer have a reason to band with the terrorists, and perhaps turn on them? Creating a quiet state that doesn’t care about its neighbors? Perhaps, this failed to be the case in the past.

Even people who harbor passionate hatred for Americans can act rationally. What possible incentive would the extreme militants have for not ‘liberating’ Afghanistan? The Taliban government ruled in the past, and provided a safe haven for the terrorist attack that ignited this whole conflict.  

An even larger reason for the threat posed to America by the conflict in Afghanistan (not the Afghani people) is the collapse of an Afghani state and its effect upon Pakistan. To ignore this issue ignores the very heart of the debate.

Wonderful new inventions…

I love electric cars, I kind of like the idea of cars which are really quiet.. I also agree that might be rather dangerous given how little I trust the intelect and judgement of America. Either way.. the ending of this article on electric cars really stood out for me. I couldn’t tell if I was reading sarcasm or not.

Mr. Scott, vice president of the advocacy group Plug In America, said he would prefer giving drivers control over whether the motor makes noise, unlike, say, the Fisker Karma, which will make its warning noise automatically.

“Quiet cars need to stay quiet — we worked so hard to make them that way,” he said. “It’s the driver’s responsibility not to hit somebody.”

Mr. Scott has already warmed up to the idea of a car ring tone.

“It should be a manually operated noisemaker, a button on the steering wheel triggering a recording of your choice,” he said. “It could play ‘In-a-Gadda-Da-Vida,’ or anything you like.”

Two things. Frist, cars have horns. Second, what kind of person, who values quietness and serenity, would want to allow your average public citizen the ability to choose their own noise for a horn, let alone a song.

China’s impact upon the international world : An example

Update: The deal has been finalized

So this article in the New York Times touches upon what i’ve been meaning to write on for a very long time. I lightly addressed the political effects of China’s trade with Africa in a paper on the environmental impacts. The increasing role of China in the global economy, especially with developing nations may have a deleterious effect on international norms. China’s position as a leading developing nation, combined with the aid and trade policies it conducts in its search for natural resources, bring a very real possibility of establishing a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy with domestic politics and freedoms.

This engagement with Guinea, if still a possibility, is an example of that. Not only does it exemplify China’s disregard for its partners domestic politics, but points to the distabilizing effect such a policy can have upon the international community. It provides a norm of total sovereignty, where the standards of a global society are put on a backburner or ignored. 

First, it helps prop up a regime which shouldn’t exist in the first place. Providing financial backing and development aid for a government which has no accountability to its people and actively oppresses oposition.

Secondly, it creates a new international norm, establishing a behavior of total sovereignty, where a country’s internal politics and actions are entirely its own business. The Chinese government considers any act which may be seen as a criticism of its internal policies, or is even remotely related to its domestic politics, as meddling in internal affairs. Take for example the recent outcry over the recognition of the Dalai Llama’s humanitarian efforts. The government believes that what it does within its own borders is of no consequence or the business of any other state or organization. By extending aid with no strings attached China is extending such a policy to other countries.

One theory for the growth of democracy and governments is mutual recognition. A form of government grows in strength as it grows in existance. If a government declares its own form of government legitimate, and another country adopts a similar regime type, the former must recognize the later or else risk losing its own legitimacy. China recognizes corrupt regimes, ignoring politics for the sake of trade. Subsequently, government’s which normally would have a hard time seeking international recognition, can find it with China.

I’m still trying to flesh out the rest of my argument on the potential destabilization of norms in the international community. But in the meantime let this serve as an example of what I am trying to get at.