Huntington on Today's Global Upheaval

[Valin]

Real Clear World:

Robert Kaplan

8/1/13

 

In 1968, Harvard political scientist Samuel P. Huntington published * Political Order in Changing Societies. Forty-five years later, the book remains without question the greatest guide to today's current events. Forget the libraries of books on globalization, Political Order reigns supreme: arguably the most incisive, albeit impolite, work produced by a political scientist in the 20th century. If you want to understand the Arab Spring, the economic and social transition in China, or much else, ignore newspaper opinion pages and read Huntington.

 

The very first sentences of Political Order have elicited anger from Washington policy elites for decades now -- precisely because they are so undeniable. "The most important political distinction among countries," Huntington writes, "concerns not their form of government but their degree of government." In other words, strong democracies and strong dictatorships have more in common than strong democracies and weak democracies. Thus, the United States always had more in common with the Soviet Union than with any fragile, tottering democracy in the Third World. This, in turn, is because order usually comes before freedom -- for without a reasonable degree of administrative order, freedom can have little value. Huntington quotes the mid-20th century American journalist, Walter Lippmann: "There is no greater necessity for men who live in communities than that they be governed, self-governed if possible, well-governed if they are fortunate, but in any event, governed."

 

Institutions, therefore, are more important than democracy. Indeed, Huntington, who died in 2008, asserts that America has little to teach a tumultuous world in transition because Americans are compromised by their own "happy history." Americans assume a "unity of goodness": that all good things like democracy, economic development, social justice and so on go together. But for many places with different historical experiences based on different geographies and circumstances that isn't always the case. Americans, he goes on, essentially imported their political institutions from 17th century England, and so the drama throughout American history was usually how to limit government -- how to make it less oppressive. But many countries in the developing world are saddled either with few institutions or illegitimate ones at that: so that they have to build an administrative order from scratch. Quite a few of the countries affected by the Arab Spring are in this category. So American advice is more dubious than supposed, because America's experience is the opposite of the rest of the world.

 

(Snip)

 

 

 

* Political Order in Changing Societies

[Valin]

2 from the comments....

 

BrennusBains

19 hours ago

 

Kaplan's piece is a compelling example of 'Raising Huntington's Banner to Oppose Huntington's Forces'. It is a cynical defense of U.S. imperialist foreign policy and is more a 'marketing treatise' for the military-industrial complex than a thoughtful examination of Huntington's thinking.

 

It ignores 'The Clash of Civilizations' (his later thinking on the importance of culture as the determinant of global conflict). Why is this important? Because the warping of traditional American mass culture inside the United States is our greatest strategic vulnerability.

 

Take the Fort Hood shooter for example. How is this kind of individual able to operate inside a U.S. military 'institution' (to use Kaplan's term)? Answer. The neutering and erosion of American identity in the military in favor of 'imperialist man', i.e. politically correct man who doesn't want to offend any of his 'cultural minority brothers' in the military.

 

Take Benghazi under Obama. In this case it is Obama's 'blackness' that protected him during the 2012 election process. Liberal whites in the media, corrupted by their enabling cultural outlook relative to all things 'black community organizer', defended and continue to defend and cover up for Obama.

 

Take 'gays in the military'. Another warping of U.S 'institutional culture' in the armed forces that is eating away at military readiness by telling the white heterosexual warfighter---you're unit cohesion doesn't matter to us.

 

In other words, as the culture in the 'home country' of the empire decays, the inability of those institutions to 'mature' or evolve decays too. Huntington knew that and would not bless this shameless distortion of his world view.

 

I don't know what Kaplan's real agenda is here......short of undermining the Bush/Obama doctrines of active intervention......(no problem there---they need to be undone)....but his use of Huntington to prove his point is corrupt and hypocritical in the extreme.

 

If Samuel Huntington re-incarnated today, he would rightfully become a white American cultural nationalist, argue for the restoration of the healthy aspects of traditional American culture vs. all corrupting 'infection' by multicultural deviance in all forms---black power/gay power/mass porn---all products of the corporate New Left of the 60's.

 

If Samuel Huntington re-incarnated today, he would forcefully argue to close the southern border at all costs, expropriate the wealth of corporations that foster and encourage illegal immigration, and provide massive tax breaks to bring U.S. manufacturing back from China.

 

Lastly, if Stratfor's 'strategic thinking' in any way resembles the above mush, it's game/set/match for the U.S. governing class. Following this kind of nonsense is a formula for disaster. As it was in Rome and London before.

 

Kaplan is just laying the foundation for more U.S. expansionism. Rand Paul needs to pay attention. The keys to winning the white house in 2016 are all here in Kaplan's essay. The difference is this. Be like George Costanza on Seinfeld and 'do the opposite'.

 

 

 

MoreFreedom2

18 hours ago

 

"The most important political distinction among countries concerns not their form of government but their degree of

government."

 

Kaplan apparently fails to see this is something the libertarians know, and our founders, knew. The countries with less government are generally more prosperous (I exclude countries without functioning governments like Somalia). This is simple to see. If you are choosing between two products that are similar except for a 2% price difference, which are you going to buy? Thus a country that taxes its businesses 2% more will create a disadvantage for its businesses.

 

Government that goes beyond keeping the peace (finding, prosecuting and incarcerating criminals that harm others) into "regulating" commerce or other acts where people aren't harmed, is using force to benefit some at the expense of others. And by doing that, it's acting contrary to protecting individuals from criminals, and instead becomes criminal itself, even if the stated purpose is to protect us or ensure fairness of one sort or another.

 

Having a legal monopoly on the use of force, government will use force. Let's limit it to protecting our freedoms, and not allow it to take the fruits of our labor to benefit others.

 

The Chinese and Arabs see that those in government, getting wealthy while their opportunities and living conditions decline relative to them. That injustice exists because of excessive government power, which is used to the benefit of those in power at the expense of citizens. The pushback in Arab states and China is only a natural desire for justice and equality before the law. Law that doesn't provide advantages to those in political power.

[Draggingtree]

Epitaph for a Foreign Policy

August 6, 2013 By Bruce Thornton

If you still doubt that Barack Obama has disastrously bungled our foreign policy, check out this video. In it Egyptian singer Salma Elmasry brutally insults Obama for supporting the Muslim Brothers and Islamists in general, her vulgar insults laced with an image of our President sporting a bin Laden cap and beard, and another of him with thickened nose and lips, no surprise to anyone familiar with traditional Arab racism. Meanwhile, Russian president Vladimir Putin is on his way to Cairo. According to Debka, “Putin hopes to come away from Cairo as champion of the war on radical Islam in two important Arab countries and the most reliable ally of forces for moderation.” Next on his itinerary is Tehran, where “the Russian leader will use the double exposure to underscore Moscow’s solid presence at the power centers of the Middle East – in striking contrast to Washington.”

 

Things are pretty bad internationally when Putin, the butcher of Muslim Cechnyans, is seen as a “moderate,” and the enabler of genocidal Iran and Syria a stauncher warrior against jihadist terror than the land of the free that lost 3000 citizens and billions of dollars on 9/11. That’s how badly Obama has damaged our interests and security, http://frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-thornton/epitaph-for-a-foreign-policy/