Has Nate changed your mind?

[Mycroft]

I think a good opening point for discussion would be to ask if Sharansky has changed anyone's position on any issues.

For myself, I don't know if I can say he changed my mind, but I think he did help me open my mind and see some things from a new perspective.

In particular, while reading the book I kept thinking of specific threads where BPSCG woudl ask those critical of US policy to suggest alternatives, most often with unsatisfying answers. Sharansky provides an alternaive that neither requires going to war nor tolerating oppresive dictators.

[CBL4]

I am not sure if changed my mind is the right phrase. I think he increased my own inclination not to tolerate tyranny and probably made me likely to take action against it.

I have always had reservations about supporting a tyrant in the name of a good cause. It has always seemed shorted sited but sometimes it has seemed reasonable. At this point I would only do it if there is a great gain to doing it or a great risk from not doing it.

Also, I would be much more likely to advocate economic sanctions against tyrannies especially if they are rich enough that it would not cause too much harm to the citizens. For example, I would advocate the free world slapping tariffs on all goods from China and Saudi Arabia unless they made some clear progress on human rights. This is probably a new direction of thought for me but, unfortunately, I realize that too much of the free world will never go along with it.

He also taught me a lot about the dissidents in the Soviet Unions and opened another view on Arafat. I always hated Arafat because he was murdering terrorist but now I realize that he was a tyrant to his own people as well.

CBL

[Mycroft]

Quote:

Originally posted by CBL4
I am not sure if changed my mind is the right phrase. I think he increased my own inclination not to tolerate tyranny and probably made me likely to take action against it.

That's a good way to put it. How important is Pakistan to out operations in Afghanistan, and is our relationship with Pakistan alienating us from India? Sharansky has good ideas if your only goal is to spread democracy, but what if you need or want something else in the short term?

Quote:

Originally posted by CBL4
I have always had reservations about supporting a tyrant in the name of a good cause. It has always seemed shorted sited but sometimes it has seemed reasonable. At this point I would only do it if there is a great gain to doing it or a great risk from not doing it.

I keep thinking of China. The idea now seems to be if we're involved with them enough in business and trade, their new middle class will eventually insist upon reform.

How reasonable is that? Maybe we need to be attacking more strings to our trade.

[punchdrunk]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mycroft
That's a good way to put it. How important is Pakistan to out operations in Afghanistan, and is our relationship with Pakistan alienating us from India? Sharansky has good ideas if your only goal is to spread democracy, but what if you need or want something else in the short term?

Sharansky points out that spreading democracy has, besides its obvious altruism, other, national benefits - increased security, democracies don't go to war with each other, etc. Plus economic opportunities increase between democracies. Playing book's advocate here, but what kind of short term needs are there that aren't built upon the illusion of trust with a totalitarian regime and its stability?

Quote:

I keep thinking of China. The idea now seems to be if we're involved with them enough in business and trade, their new middle class will eventually insist upon reform.

How reasonable is that? Maybe we need to be attacking more strings to our trade.

You know, I think this book resonates with people because it makes the case for some profound Truths which are usually hard to find in politics. But just like say any theorem, skeptically we try to deconstruct it to make sure it isn't more complex than appearance. Like for instance, what if detente with Soviet Union was actually a small spring-board, or primer for dissidents that only later could be fanned into revolution with the MFN status and its ties to domestic reform. I won't pretend I'm ready to make this argument yet though But I think you know what I mean.

And I think of what we're doing with China too and I don't disagree with it. Perhaps there has to be a certain amount of reform before there's a "no turning back point" - a critical mass. Or perhaps the increased use of markets in that country is its own type of revolution. I'm sure with Sharansky's unique insight on the matter he would disagree; I'm sure he's seen and had enough of absolute power's absolute corruption.

eta: find for fine

[punchdrunk]

re: detente as a spark, or perhaps as part of complex, shifting policy, for revolution: from the chapter entitled A Free Society and a Fear Society, section "Doublethink":

Quote:

In the 1930's, there were no dissidents in the Soviet Union, at least none that were known to the West. Were the more than 150 million people who lived under Stalin's boot in the 1940's all true believers? Or, more plausibly, was the lack of dissent due to the fact that in Stalin's time, dissidents would be summarily executed? Is it not logical that the number of dissidents in a fear society would largely be a measure of the risk of dissent? The USSR of the 1970's, for example, was a relatively less oppressive society than it had been in the 1930's and so a few hundred dissidents appeared. Had Mahatma Gandhi been facing the regime of a Stalin or Hitler, his struggle aginst foreign rule would have ended before it began. Fortunately for him, he confronted a British society that, while imperialistic, was also liberal and democratic.

Assuming that 1) the relatively less oppressive society was in some part caused by detente and 2) dissidents played a determining role in the collapse of the Soviet empire (any other assumptions I'm making?), it seems to me that Sharansky is acknowledging the role detente played. Does it take time for these monolithic giants like the USSR and China to become rotten in its core? Or would have Reagon's and Jackson's policies worked in the 70's? Sharansky's desciption of Gorbachev's begrudging attitude towards reforms seem to indicate that it was a last choice.

I guess Sharansky would say that last choice could have been given much earlier if we had played hardball with them instead of the detente and giving them technology, goods, etc. But I wonder if Sharansky would be able to say anything to us at all without detente. And he's right, despite the fact that I was young when the USSR collapsed, it still was a complete shock to me and it seemed to be to others too. Maybe it was a house of cards for much longer than anyone ever expected. But when did we actually start giving any kind technology or goods or have any kind of relationship with them before the 70's? What good would linking trade to reforms do against a Stalin?

[CBL4]

Quote:

Assuming that 1) the relatively less oppressive society was in some part caused by detente

Stalin's death was the big difference in what Sharansky is saying. Stalin had no qualms about killing millions of people and certainly had no qualms about killing any individual perceived as a threat.

Having said that, I do not know if detente helped lessen an already lessened repression.

CBL

[CBL4]

Quote:

I keep thinking of China. The idea now seems to be if we're involved with them enough in business and trade, their new middle class will eventually insist upon reform.

I keep thinking of China too. Is it better to build a middle class via trade or to have a carrot and stick approach towards building freedom?

If freedom were the only goal, I think the best way would be to help them become moderately rich via trade (as we have been doing) and then start a carrot and stick approach of tarriffs. Unfortunately, if the stick is large, this could easily bankrupt companies who have been dealing under the current laws. I would lean to a small stick for now e.g. low tarriffs unless the human rights situation improves.

CBL

[BPSCG]

Quote:

Originally posted by CBL4
I keep thinking of China too. Is it better to build a middle class via trade or to have a carrot and stick approach towards building freedom?

China concerns me; I think if there is a nation on earth to which Sharansky's ideas wouldn't apply, it's China.

Here's why: Central to Sharansky's thesis is the idea that fear societies need free societies more than vice versa. That gives free societies the whip hand, if they want to use it; they can tell the fear socieities, "Recognize your people's basic human rights, or we won't sell you wheat, we won't give you most-favored-nation trade status, we'll make your life a living hell in every way we can." The fear societies have to cave in because they're almost always economically backward (even the Soviet Union was nothing more than a second-rate economic power, with a first-rate military and big bombs).

But China is becoming more and more prosperous, while still repressing its people. I hate buying Chinese stuff for just that reason (even though it's largely unavoidable). I wonder if China is in the position where it can say, "We don't care about your huff and puff; we'll buy our wheat elsewhere, because we have the money. And in a couple of years, we'll be the biggest manufacturer of computers in the world. And we're going to be selling cars in the U.S. in ten years. We're getting richer every day, and with our money, we're going to build modern fighters and bombers and aircraft carriers. And our people won't care, because as long as they're prospering, they don't care if they can't vote."

"By the way, after we have our new fighters and bombers and carriers, we're going to invade Taiwan. We're prepared to lose two or three cities when you come to Taiwan's defense. How many are you prepared to lose?"

Someone explain to me why this scenario won't happen.

[Mycroft]

I think Sharansky also presumes that free societies act together. If the United States boycots China, but Europe doesn't, what's the point?

[Giz]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mycroft
I think Sharansky also presumes that free societies act together. If the United States boycots China, but Europe doesn't, what's the point?

I think thats getting back to Sharansky's precondition for his ideas to work - moral clarity. All (or a majority) of the free nations have to decide that it's worth confronting tyranny rather than trying to reach an accomodation.

One of the problems with Sharansky's (uplifting) vision is that I can't see Old Europe being a part of it...

[BPSCG]

Quote:

Originally posted by Giz
I think thats getting back to Sharansky's precondition for his ideas to work - moral clarity. All (or a majority) of the free nations have to decide that it's worth confronting tyranny rather than trying to reach an accomodation.

One of the problems with Sharansky's (uplifting) vision is that I can't see Old Europe being a part of it...

You mean they might decide that China isn't an imminent threat, and they do too much business with the Chinese and...

Hmmm... we've heard this before, ahven't we?

China keeps its bad behavior to a simmer until they're both economically rich and a dangerous military power. They'll wait; they have a well-earned reputation for great patience.

[CBL4]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mycroft
How important is Pakistan to out operations in Afghanistan, and is our relationship with Pakistan alienating us from India? Sharansky has good ideas if your only goal is to spread democracy, but what if you need or want something else in the short term?

This is the problem with universal truths - they sometimes are not so true when we need to implement them. We used the Soviet Union to help destroy Nazi Germany. We used China to help isolate the Soviet Union. We used Pakistan to help invade Afghanistan.

In each case, we used a tyrant to help defeat a greater tyrant. I think that each one was the proper decision but led to trouble later on. If we had not aided Stalin, there would not have been a cold war. If we had not aided China, we would not need to worry about them invading Taiwan. I am sure there will bad results from aiding Pakistan. I totally agree with the first two and tentatively agree with the third.

CBL

[IllegalArgument]

Quote:

Originally posted by BPSCG
China concerns me; I think if there is a nation on earth to which Sharansky's ideas wouldn't apply, it's China.

Here's why: Central to Sharansky's thesis is the idea that fear societies need free societies more than vice versa. That gives free societies the whip hand, if they want to use it; they can tell the fear socieities, "Recognize your people's basic human rights, or we won't sell you wheat, we won't give you most-favored-nation trade status, we'll make your life a living hell in every way we can." The fear societies have to cave in because they're almost always economically backward (even the Soviet Union was nothing more than a second-rate economic power, with a first-rate military and big bombs).

But China is becoming more and more prosperous, while still repressing its people. I hate buying Chinese stuff for just that reason (even though it's largely unavoidable). I wonder if China is in the position where it can say, "We don't care about your huff and puff; we'll buy our wheat elsewhere, because we have the money. And in a couple of years, we'll be the biggest manufacturer of computers in the world. And we're going to be selling cars in the U.S. in ten years. We're getting richer every day, and with our money, we're going to build modern fighters and bombers and aircraft carriers. And our people won't care, because as long as they're prospering, they don't care if they can't vote."

"By the way, after we have our new fighters and bombers and carriers, we're going to invade Taiwan. We're prepared to lose two or three cities when you come to Taiwan's defense. How many are you prepared to lose?"

Someone explain to me why this scenario won't happen.

Two things to keep in mind, global media and trade, both will work against the current goverment. As the population is exposed to more and more external media, it should have an effect in promoting dissent. Dissent which will make it much harder for the goverment to toss away cities and their trade. Imagine how disruptive a few cruise missles would be to any major Chinese port. You don't have to flatten a city to cripple a country, just cut off it's supplies. Grant the Chinese a little more sublety.

I don't believe modern large scale economies can afford to war with each other. Look how expensive the Iraq war is and it's a small scale war.

As for Natan, completely changed the way I look at these issues. I was ping-ponging between the left and right until I read his stuff.

[CBL4]

I am sure Sharansky's idea would work on China if we could get the EU and Japan on board. Without western money and technology, China's economic miracle would quickly go into reverse. They would have the choice of poverty and backwardness or respect for human right. Unfortunately, this scenario is a fantasy.

I am in favor of slight US unilateral action against China - 1 or 2% tariffs on their goods. The tariffs would go down 0.1% each year depending on actions in regards to human rights. It would not be a big deal to US or China but it sends the right moral message. Perhaps some other countries (Eastern European?) might even join. Sometime it is proper to do the right thing even without much expected payback. It would have a limited impact on China but it would be a constant thorn in their businesses. It would also give a slight boost to less tyrannical countries.

BTW, I think this would violate WTO agreements but I am not sure.

CBL

[rikzilla]

Well you guys already know how Sharansky changed my outlook. In the days after 9/11 I came to know myself a great deal better than I did before. I had thought myself a liberal, but found that I could not stomach their idiotic response to the stimula of the attacks. I still believed in many liberal causes, yet knew in my gut that we had to respond to an act of war by waging it and thus disrupting the enemy so that he could not regroup and do this to us again.

Before Sharansky I had only the dimmest, unformed opinions about the regimes and ideologies that spawned A-Q. I knew the Iraqi people had suffered terribly under Saddam, but thought that they should take care of the problem by internal revolt. I was a cheerleader for the invasion only because of my belief in the WMD argument. The terrifying idea that Saddam may pass WMD to A-Q terrorists in order to make 9/11 look like amateur hour.

Upon reading Sharansky, my dim ideas became clarified, even vivid. Sharansky pulls back to basics in perspective and gives us moral clarity in the debate. He postulates a human axiom that he builds his philosophy upon;

• Given a choice between freedom and slavery, most humans will choose freedom.

Everything else springs from this. Arab Islamic people are no different in this from anyone else. Emerging from this axiom is the realization that a fear society can never be as stable or just as a free society. We find that we cannot any longer delude ourselves into rationalizing support or even meaningful diplomacy with a tyrant. He cuts though the BS of the left/right debate...because a lefty and a righty can fundamentally agree that without real freedom there is no debate that they can freely partake of.

Sharansky's a hell of a guy. His ideas are subtle and elegant, but not brillant. In fact they're so simple that I had to smack myself on the head several times and say "Of Course!" out loud while reading him.

I can imagine a brilliant guy like Chomsky running rhetorical circles around Sharansky,...and then Sharansky vanquishing him with a word, a phrase, or a lifted eyebrow. Such is the power of Sharansky's insight.

It's obvious to me now that GW Bush came to understand Sharansky after the fact of the invasion of Iraq. I think he saw in Sharansky a way out of the WMD debacle he'd mistakenly mired himself in.

In my view Iraqi courage on election day was easily predictable from Sharansky's human axiom. The people of Iraq did choose freedom over the slavery promised by the Islamofascists. They were courageous because they saw the starkness of that choice. With every inked finger they proved Sharansky right, and helped GWB out of his political hole.

Now we see it starting to spread....I hope it spreads far and fast!
-z

BTW: I'm so very glad to see that you guys took my advice and read this book. It's an important work, and needs a constituency to help spread the word. I was lucky to be the first of us to stumble upon it,...but if any of you had read it first I bet you'd have promoted it to the JREF kids with equal vigor. Thanks guys!

[CBL4]

Quote:

Sharansky's a hell of a guy. His ideas are subtle and elegant, but not brillant. In fact they're so simple that I had to smack myself on the head several times and say "Of Course!" out loud while reading him.

I totally agree.

Once I read his ideas, they are obvious and I wonder why I never thought of them. But then I realize that I did think of his ideas but could never express them or take them where they should go. He has simple prose and simple ideas but has clarified the ideas of freedom vs. tyranny.

BTW, I like you use of the phrase "changed my outlook." I do not think he has changed my mind about anything. He just organized them in a manner that changed my outlook.

CBL

[CBL4]

Quote:

It's obvious to me now that GW Bush came to understand Sharansky after the fact of the invasion of Iraq. I think he saw in Sharansky a way out of the WMD debacle he'd mistakenly mired himself in.

I disagree. I think that Bush truly believes that he believes in "freedom." Bush's problem is that he does not really understand what freedom is. He does not see any conflict in restricting freedom in the cause of freedom.

I think this is one problem with Sharansky's views. They can sincerely be adopted by people who lack his moral vision. People like Bush can co-opt a truly ethical idea and implement immorally.

BTW, by "problem" I do not mean that Sharansky's views are incorrect only that they can misused in the same way that Social Darwinists misused Darwin's ideas.

CBL

[rikzilla]

Perhaps, but I still have the feeling that GWB came late to Sharansky's work. If not, then at the very least he still doesn't seem to "get it".

Case in point; Pakistan. GWB cozied up to Musharraf right away for concrete help in the search for UBL. A Sharanskyist worldview would have precluded such a grasp for the short-term goal at the expense of the long-term goal of democratizing and therefore freeing the Pakistani people. This was clearly anti-Sharansky and came pre-OIF.

Perhaps he only did so because the need to free Afghanistan was a priority? No, he never to my memory mentioned anything other than nailing the regime that hosted the group that planned and executed 9/11. Afghanistan was an exercise in swift national revenge, and threat elimination. It was only much later that "freedom" became the great cause.

With the goal of neutralizing Afghanistan as a terrorist base completed there was a kind of "oh by the way" feeling to the democratization and freeing of the Afghani people. If you disagree well,... it seems to me that if GWB was really following Sharansky as a policy, we'd be seeing overt pressure for Pakistani political reform. We're in a hell of a good possition to apply this pressure. Instead we're providing F-16's to this dictator! In the meantime he's been fumbling the chase for UBL, maybe because once the chase is done he knows we'll go Sharansky on his a$$?? I think that's a decent disincentive to ever see UBL behind bars, which is why it's folly to trust the dictator.

Honestly, I like GWB. He is tough and his word about fighting the terrorist element is pretty good. However an overview of his actions and inactions in regards to NK, Cuba, Saudi, and Pakistan show that he is only really overtly Sharanskyist in regards to Iraq, Egypt, Syria, and Iran. This makes me suspicious that he 's using Sharanskyist ideas for political cover instead of as his principle purpose.

For whatever reason he's doing this though, he could not fail to see how well Sharansky's model works! It's had it's greatest success to date in the Iraqi elections, and the subsequant popular movement to oust Syria from Lebanon. If Bush was dubious about Sharansky before, he cannot miss the message now!

This puts his anti-Sharanskyist policy towards Pakistan in question in my mind. Why would a guy who believes Sharansky,...and cannot fail to see how well his ideas work in practise,...so blatantly turn his back on these ideas when it comes to Musharraf!??

Like I said, I like GWB, but I think any future terrorist group emanating from Pakistan that attacks US interests is clearly a foreseeable danger of ignoring Sharansky. (Saudi Arabia as well)

Anything like that happens and it's going to be awful hard not to blame Bush's leadership directly. If Sharansky has actually articulated a human axiom (and I think he has) then ignoring it will create a double-edged sword that's going to end up cutting us over and over again until we get it!

-z

[IllegalArgument]

I think that Bush is trying to be Reagan II. Reagan directly confronted the USSR, though I'm not sure how credit needs to be given to who over the USSR's fall. Bush is directly confronting countries the same way.

Natan provides a clear explaination of what Bush is thinking, as we know Bush isn't very good at expressing himself. Bush may have had these ideals all along, but he lacked a good way to express them, which Natan has provided him.

I wonder what kind of side-channel pressure, if any, is being put on our less than free and open "allies".

[IllegalArgument]

One other thing about reading TCFD, Christopher Hitchens make more sense to me now. I would love if Hitchens would review TCFD.

[CBL4]

Quote:

Perhaps, but I still have the feeling that GWB came late to Sharansky's work. If not, then at the very least he still doesn't seem to "get it".

To be fair, Sharansky did not publish the book until 2004. There was no way that Bush could have gotten immediately after 9/11. Also, a pro-freedom idea does not play well with the American people. It generally is number one or two on my reasons for invasion but it rarely gets mentioned by politicians because we as country don't really care about other people.

Quote:

Honestly, I like GWB. He is tough and his word about fighting the terrorist element is pretty good. However an overview of his actions and inactions in regards to NK, Cuba, Saudi, and Pakistan show that he is only really overtly Sharanskyist in regards to Iraq, Egypt, Syria, and Iran. This makes me suspicious that he 's using Sharanskyist ideas for political cover instead of as his principle purpose.

Honestly, I hate GWB. I think Bush "knows" too much that is wrong (because of his zealotry for Christianity, the US and democracy) to evaluate things on their merit. I do not think he could restate Sharansky's ideas without mentioning God or the United States. They are all a mixed jumble in his head.

His advisers are a mixed of Sharansky-like neocons and pragmatists. I think Bush veers back and forth but is more likely to promote freedom by any means necessary. I also think he shares the fundamental Christians view of the importance of the Middle East for religious reasons.

Like IllegalArgument, I think Bush is trying to be appear to be Reagan II. Whether he is sincere or posing, I am not sure. I think he is sincere but lacks Reagan's goodness. GWB appears to be intolerant to me. He has a heck of lot of people who do not believe in human rights, the Bill of Rights or the Geneva Convention around him. I find this very scary and a good way to discredit his good actions.

CBL

[IllegalArgument]

Quote:

Like IllegalArgument, I think Bush is trying to be appear to be Reagan II. Whether he is sincere or posing, I am not sure. I think he is sincere but lacks Reagan's goodness. GWB appears to be intolerant to me. He has a heck of lot of people who do not believe in human rights, the Bill of Rights or the Geneva Convention around him. I find this very scary and a good way to discredit his good actions.

CBL [/b]

I was pretty young but I do remember Reagan being accused of lot of things durning his tenure. He sat on hands for a long time as AIDS became more of problem. I imagine he propped up a few dictators also.

[CBL4]

Quote:

I was pretty young but I do remember Reagan being accused of lot of things durning his tenure. He sat on hands for a long time as AIDS became more of problem. I imagine he propped up a few dictators also.

I was not a Reagan fan at the time but I did not doubt his sincerity or basic decency. He was obsessed with the Soviet Union and believed we had the ability to destroy it. It was a laughable sentiment but one that was true. He did a lot of not so good things in order to fight communism. I commend him now. I ridiculed him then.

Reagan was a big picture man and let his aides do most of the work. It is quite likely that Reagan never knew much about AIDS and other thing that he is credited with doing/not doing.

BTW, I think that Bush's apparent stupidity is modeled on the fact that Reagan was mocked for his stupidity. I think Reagan was a barely above average intelligence man whose brain was starting to deteriorate. I think Bush is a fairly intelligent man who chooses his aides for their loyalty to him and his ideas.

CBL

[rikzilla]

Quote:

Originally posted by CBL4
To be fair, Sharansky did not publish the book until 2004. There was no way that Bush could have gotten immediately after 9/11. Also, a pro-freedom idea does not play well with the American people. It generally is number one or two on my reasons for invasion but it rarely gets mentioned by politicians because we as country don't really care about other people.

Yeah, but Sharansky has been around alot longer than his book. Remember the part in his book about Wye? How Clinton agreed to demand that Arafat remove the parts of the Palestinian Charter which referred to the destruction of Israel in return for a summit in Ramallah between Arafat and Clinton? Clinton caved in to pressure to give Arafat the summit trip in return for...nothing!

See? Sharansky has been expounding on his ideas for years, the real difference now is that GWB has the power and the inclination to give Sharansky's ideas a real shot. The book is secondary really...the ideas have been out there, just not with a powerful patron who actually believes in their possible effects.

Quote:

Honestly, I hate GWB. I think Bush "knows" too much that is wrong (because of his zealotry for Christianity, the US and democracy) to evaluate things on their merit. I do not think he could restate Sharansky's ideas without mentioning God or the United States. They are all a mixed jumble in his head.

I don't hate GWB at all. I think I've come to understand him though. I think you have too. Your assessment is valid, as are your criticisms. I would like to be able to vote for a guy with Kerry's stated goals and ideas...but I do not trust Kerry or the dems to do anything but pander to the left. Perhaps someday they'll pull their heads out and run a domestically liberal but internationally Sharanskyite, and all-around trustworthy candidate? But maybe that's too utopian?

Quote:

His advisers are a mixed of Sharansky-like neocons and pragmatists. I think Bush veers back and forth but is more likely to promote freedom by any means necessary. I also think he shares the fundamental Christians view of the importance of the Middle East for religious reasons.

In other words, in a fundamental way GWB still isn't getting Sharansky. The sale of F-16's to Pakistan is distinctly supportive of the dictator. It seems that for the time being the hopes of the Pakistani people for freedom are being crushed by the same guy who engineered the inked fingers of Iraq. Seems a tad schizophrenic to me.

Quote:

Like IllegalArgument, I think Bush is trying to be appear to be Reagan II. Whether he is sincere or posing, I am not sure. I think he is sincere but lacks Reagan's goodness. GWB appears to be intolerant to me. He has a heck of lot of people who do not believe in human rights, the Bill of Rights or the Geneva Convention around him. I find this very scary and a good way to discredit his good actions.

CBL

Yes, I'd bet the farm that he wants to be remembered as the Reagan of the 21st century....and to his credit I think he'll come close. But if his uneven policies end up promoting (as Sharansky envisions) something like Pakistani or Saudi mega-terrorism (WMD) against US targets, then he'll be remembered more for his failure in implementing the very ideas he's busy championing elsewhere!

Obviously there must be reasons, and or pressures for the policies he's pursuing....but I honestly can't think of what they may be. Much less whether they're good reasons or not. I hope he knows what he's doing, but in the meantime he's giving ready ammo to the people who think he's stupid. He looks stupid in this regard to me...and I like the guy!

-z

[CBL4]

Quote:

Yes, I'd bet the farm that he wants to be remembered as the Reagan of the 21st century....and to his credit I think he'll come close.

If (and its a big if), the Arab world turns democratic this decade, he will be remember as a great force for freedom a la Reagan. If Iraq descends into chaos, Iran gets nuclear weapons and the rest of the middle east continues in tyranny, he will be remembered as incompetent.

But there are lot of other possible downside for his historical reputation. If he and his successors destroy the US relationship with Europe, he will be remember as a fool. If the true facts come out about torture and illegal detention, this decade will be compared to the red scares and he will be compared to McCarthy. If the deficits continue unabated, his economic policies will be compared to Nixon's price fixing.

My guess is that the middle east will be better than it was in 2000 but still pretty bad. Our reputation for freedom will be damaged significantly and our relationship with Europe will recover. His economic policies will depend a lot on the fiscal policies of his successor.

In other words, his reputation will depend on your political viewpoint. Revered by conservatives, despised by liberals, panned by economists and barely competent by neocons.

CBL

[CBL4]

Quote:

See? Sharansky has been expounding on his ideas for years, the real difference now is that GWB has the power and the inclination to give Sharansky's ideas a real shot. The book is secondary really...the ideas have been out there, just not with a powerful patron who actually believes in their possible effects.

As Mycroft pointed out, Sharansky's ideas are very similar to the neocons' foreign policy. The neocons have been pushing their ideas for a while and Bush has listened to them.

I think Sharansky will be remember more as someone who codified a policy rather than a new thinker. He will have more effect on the populace than politicians. He stature as a dissident gives him moral standing that the neocons lack.

CBL

[Mycroft]

Quote:

Originally posted by CBL4
As Mycroft pointed out, Sharansky's ideas are very similar to the neocons' foreign policy. The neocons have been pushing their ideas for a while and Bush has listened to them.

I think the neocon method is more aggresive while Sharansky favors more of a passive approach. Perhaps Aerocontrols should be consulted, he says he's a neocon.

[CBL4]

Mycroft,

Does Sharansky favor a passive approach? I cannot recall anything in his book about a passive vs. aggressive approach. I also think he was a supporter of war in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

BTW, I could easily be wrong about everything I have said in this post.

CBL

[Mycroft]

Quote:

Originally posted by CBL4
Mycroft,

Does Sharansky favor a passive approach? I cannot recall anything in his book about a passive vs. aggressive approach. I also think he was a supporter of war in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

BTW, I could easily be wrong about everything I have said in this post.

CBL

His presmise is that a fear society is unstable, and can be brought down by external pressure that requires granting civil rights to its citizenry in exchange for participation with the world, technology exchange, trade etc.

I call this "passive" as opposed to the "aggresive" action of going to war, like GWB did with Afghanistan and Iraq.

[CBL4]

Quote:

His presmise is that a fear society is unstable, and can be brought down by external pressure that requires granting civil rights to its citizenry in exchange for participation with the world, technology exchange, trade etc.

I agree with this assessment of Sharansky's ideas and that it is passive. However, I do not think Sharanky believe in onlypassive means. I think he is amenable to agresssive ones as well. As I said, I seem to recollect that he was in favor Bush's wars.

CBL

[Mycroft]

Quote:

Originally posted by CBL4
I agree with this assessment of Sharansky's ideas and that it is passive. However, I do not think Sharanky believe in onlypassive means. I think he is amenable to agresssive ones as well. As I said, I seem to recollect that he was in favor Bush's wars.

CBL

I read him as being similar to you and I, that is he's not so much for war, but not against it if it leads to freedom for millions of people.

It may be splitting hairs, but I see him as being similar to the neocons only in having similar goals, but very different in the proposed methods.

Then again, part of the confusion may be that "neocon" isn't a clearly defined term, used mostly by critics to smear people who may not identify themselves as neocon. If there were an actual neocon party, Sharansky might fit in as head of his own faction.