Kaplan's liberal realism - Warrior Politics discussion thread

[Cain]

This is for discussion of the book by US reporter Robert Kaplan, called Warrior Politics: Why Leadership demands a Pagan Ethos.

I've reviewed this before, but I'm reading it again currently, because it is an interesting book, and Kaplan does an interesting job in both explaining Realist thinking, and tempering it with a basic sense of morality.  Because it is quite different from usual Judeo-Christian interpretations of Christianity, I think his book is a good starting point for looking at the realist worldview, from a broadly classical position.

I call Kaplan a liberal realist, because that most closely mirrors his worldview.  He accepts the basic premise of realism, that of anarchy, the primacy of power over morality, self-interest trumping altriusm etc.  Yet he also believes institutions can be built at the international level to mitigate and manage this anarchy, much in the same way that government at the national level can balance various interests against each other in relative stability.

Next post will be some quotes from the book, in a roughly chronological order.

[Cain]

The evils of the 20th century arose from populist movements that were monstrously exploited in the name of utopian ideals and had their power amplified by new technology.  The Nazi Party began as a crusade for workers rights organized by a Munich locksmith, Anton Drexler, in 1919 before Hitler took it over in the following year.  The Bolsheviks also emerged amid emancipating political upheaval and, like the Nazis, exploited the dream of social renewal.  Once the Nazi and Bolsheviks were in power, the inventions of the Industrial Age became crucial to their crimes.

[...]

Populist rage is fueled by social and economic tensions, aggravated often by population growth and resource scarcity in an increasingly urbanized planet.  In the coming decades, 2 or 3 billion more people will live in the vast, impoverished cities of the developing world.  Global capitalism will contribute to this peril, smashing traditions and dynamically spawning new ones.  The benefits of capitalism are not distributed equitably, so the more dynamic the capitalist expansion, the more unequal the distribution of wealth that results.  Thus two dynamic classes will emerge under globalization - the entrepreneurial nouveau riches and, more ominiously, the new subproletariat: the billions of working poor, recently arrived from the countryside, inhabiting the expanding squatters settlements that surround big cities in Africa, Eurasia and South America.

[...]

The spread of information will not necessarily encourage stability.  Johannes Gutenburg's invention of movable type in the mid-fifteenth century led not only to the Reformation, but to the religious wars that followed it, as the sudden proliferation of texts spurred doctrinal controversies and awakened long-dormant greivances.  The spread of informatio in the coming decades will lead not just to new social compacts, but to new divisions as people discover new and complex issues over which to disagree.

[Cain]

This is, of course, the pretty much standard intro for all these kind of books.  Still, I appreciate not everyone reads them, so I am willing to set the scene, if you will.




In those cultures which fail to compete technologically, many young males may, like the warriors, rape and pillage in almost ritual style, wearign tribal insignia rather than uniforms, like Serb and Albanian paramilitaris, Indonesian militiamen, Muslim holy fighters in Kashmir, Chechen brigands and Russian soldiers.  Of course, places such as Serbia and Russia may recover politically and economically and their young men may become industrious.  Such blighted places will never form a majority of countries but will remain a periodically shifting minority - sufficient to create regional instability and constant crises with which statesmen must deal.

The media cliche the "global village" confers prestige on the very media which employs it; witness CNN.  But statesmen must grapple with difficult truths, not cliches.  Conflict and community are both inherent in the human condition.  While the postindustrial west may seek to deny the persistence of conflict, Africa, Asia, the Indian subcontinent and the Caucasus, among other places, demonstrate its survival as ethnic and religious groups seek to dominate rivals and create their own dominions by toppling existing elites.

It takes a shallow grasp of history to believe that solutions exist to most international problems.  Often there are no solutions, only confusion and unsatisfactory choices.

[...]

Foreign policy crises are like battles.  Domestic policy tends to emerge from statistical studies and drawn out negotiations between executive and legislative branches, but foreign policy frequently relies on sheer intuition to fathom the often violent, fast-moving events overseas, complicated by cultural differences.  In a world in which democracy and technology are developing faster than are the insitutions needed to sustain them - even states themselves are eroding and being transformed beyond recognition by urbanization and the information age - foreign policy will be the art, rather than the science, of peramement crisis management.

As future crises arrive in steep waves, our leaders will realize that our world is not "modern" or "postmodern", but only a continuation of the "ancient": a world that, despite its technologies, the best Chinese, Greek and Roman philosophers might have been able to cope with.  So too, would those like General Marshall, who maintained the ancient tradition of skepticism and constructive realism.

[Golden Applesauce]

The spread of information will not necessarily encourage stability.  Johannes Gutenburg's invention of movable type in the mid-fifteenth century led not only to the Reformation, but to the religious wars that followed it, as the sudden proliferation of texts spurred doctrinal controversies and awakened long-dormant greivances.  The spread of information in the coming decades will lead not just to new social compacts, but to new divisions as people discover new and complex issues over which to disagree.

I don't think sure we'll see another Reformation-like event, at least in the West.  My (limited) understanding of the violence attending the Reformation was that a lot of it was due to the fact that the Church ruled through ideology/theology; people who disagreed with that ideology could not do so without also challenging the power structure.  Now that Western governments (and by 'Western' I mean North America and Europe) have variations on constitutional democracies, the ruling class is not tied to ideology.  Every couple of election cycles, the ideology in power shifts; there's nothing revolutionary in disagreeing with the current ruling ideology anymore.

[hashishi]

I don't think sure we'll see another Reformation-like event, at least in the West.  My (limited) understanding of the violence attending the Reformation was that a lot of it was due to the fact that the Church ruled through ideology/theology; people who disagreed with that ideology could not do so without also challenging the power structure.  Now that Western governments (and by 'Western' I mean North America and Europe) have variations on constitutional democracies, the ruling class is not tied to ideology.  Every couple of election cycles, the ideology in power shifts; there's nothing revolutionary in disagreeing with the current ruling ideology anymore.

Thats just the two man con. Two faces of the same coin.

Take the vast swathes of what both major parties (In pretty much any 'democratic' country) agree on. Economics over environment, engagement in stripping away civil liberties under the guise of the war on terror, looking after major financial backers of their parties (Corporations, many of them the nastiest), Pro copyright, pro-prohibition, Nationalism, the list goes on.

Election of left of field candidates usually spur the secret services into action. We elected a Greens politician to the Australian parliament, and the CIA sent a team into my town to investigate. When South Americans elect left wing governments, its usually followed by a coup. (Fortunately Bush has taken his eye off that one). It doesnt usually have to be that overt. Being ignored by the corporate media is usually enough to stop any alternate candidate, although the space is opening up there.

The spread of information opens up the ability to criticise and poke fun at the powers that be, (e.g. the two-man con meme) and may well start to undermine it. Thats what I hope anyways.

[Cain]

The spread of information will not necessarily encourage stability.  Johannes Gutenburg's invention of movable type in the mid-fifteenth century led not only to the Reformation, but to the religious wars that followed it, as the sudden proliferation of texts spurred doctrinal controversies and awakened long-dormant greivances.  The spread of information in the coming decades will lead not just to new social compacts, but to new divisions as people discover new and complex issues over which to disagree.

I don't think sure we'll see another Reformation-like event, at least in the West.  My (limited) understanding of the violence attending the Reformation was that a lot of it was due to the fact that the Church ruled through ideology/theology; people who disagreed with that ideology could not do so without also challenging the power structure.  Now that Western governments (and by 'Western' I mean North America and Europe) have variations on constitutional democracies, the ruling class is not tied to ideology.  Every couple of election cycles, the ideology in power shifts; there's nothing revolutionary in disagreeing with the current ruling ideology anymore.

In the West, I would agree, although I would argue that the range of acceptable dissent has expanded, rather than there being no ideology per se.

I think Kaplan is talking about the Third World more, though.  Throwing in mass urbanization, a scramble for resources, megacities with their attending slums and massive, cheap advances in communications technology and you do likely have a recipe for trouble.  Especially in the context of Islam and Chinese Communism, not to mention the divided states of sub-Saharan Africa.

[Requia ☣]

The two man con comes and goes.  Sometimes you get a con replaced.  The politicians that get elected are all basically the same for a reason, centrists get votes, assuming they make token gestures to the bases.

Edit: The point there is supposed to be that if the average view shifts, the two man con will too.