Sunday, April 14, 2002

Among the Bourgeoisophobes Why the Europeans and Arabs, each in their own way, hate America and Israel. by David Brooks "Of all the great creeds of the 19th century, pretty much the only one still thriving is this one, bourgeoisophobia. . . . [It] is the major reactionary creed of our age." " . . . today, in much of the world's eyes, two peoples--the Americans and the Jews--have emerged as the great exemplars of undeserved success. Americans and Israelis, in this view, are the money-mad molochs of the earth, the vulgarizers of morals, corrupters of culture, and proselytizers of idolatrous values. These two nations, it is said, practice conquest capitalism, overrunning poorer nations and exploiting weaker neighbors in their endless desire for more and more. These two peoples, the Americans and the Jews, in the view of the bourgeoisophobes, thrive precisely because they are spiritually stunted. It is their obliviousness to the holy things in life, their feverish energy, their injustice, their shallow pursuit of power and gain, that allow them to build fortunes, construct weapons, and play the role of hyperpower. And so just as the French intellectuals of the 1830s rose up to despise the traders and bankers, certain people today rise up to shock, humiliate, and dream of destroying America and Israel. . . . [Some] are erudite Europeans who burn with humiliation because they know, deep down, that both America and Israel possess a vitality and heroism that their nations once had but no longer do." "The dispute over Palestine, which was once a local conflict about land, has been transformed into a great cultural showdown." "BOURGEOISOPHOBIA is really a hatred of success. It is a hatred held by people who feel they are spiritually superior but who find themselves economically, politically, and socially outranked. . . . This Manichaean divide between the successful, who are hideous, and the bourgeoisophobes, who are spiritually pristine, was established early in the emergence of the creed." "[In] 'Traders and Heroes,' [Werner Sombart] argued that there are two basic human types: 'The trader approaches life with the question, what can you give me? . . . The hero approaches life with the question what can I give you?' The trader, then, is the selfish capitalist who lives a meager, artificial life amidst 'pocket-watches, newspapers, umbrellas, books, sewage disposal, politics.' The hero is the total man, who is selfless, vital, spiritual, and free. . . . When bourgeoisophobes describe their enemies, they almost always portray them as money-mad, as crazed commercialists. And this vulgar materialism, in their view, has not only corrupted the soul of the bourgeoisie, but through them threatens to debase civilization itself and the whole world." " . . . no country in the world ever succeeded like America, and everybody knew it. And no people in the European experience ever achieved such sustained success as the Jews. So the Jews were quickly established in the bourgeoisophobe imagination as the ultimate commercial people. They were the bankers, the traders, the soulless and sharp dealmakers who crawled through the cellars of honest and noble cultures and infected them with their habits and practices. The 19th-century Teutonic philosopher Houston Chamberlain said of the Jews that 'their existence is a crime against the holy laws of life.'" "By 1904, people around the world were worrying about American cultural hegemony. . . . 'What is Americanization? . . . Americanization in its widest sense, including the societal and political, means the uninterrupted, exclusive, and relentless striving after gain, riches and influence.' . . . So by the time Osama bin Laden came along, hatred of America was well rehearsed, a finished product just waiting for him to pick it up." "FOR THE bourgeoisophobe, then, the question becomes, how does one confront this menace? And on this, the bourgeoisophobes split into two schools. One, which might be called the brutalist school, seeks to reclaim the raw, masculine vitality that still lies buried at the virile heart of human nature. The other, which might be called the ethereal school, holds that a creative minority can rise above prosaic bourgeois life into a realm of contemplation, feeling, art, sensibility, and spiritual grace." "The brutalist school started in Germany, more or less with Nietzsche. . . . Salvation . . .  is found in the will to power. The Ubermensch possesses force of will. . . . [The brutalists] looked for [a]hero to emerge today, a virile warrior who would demolish the stale encrustations of an overcivilized world and revive the raw energy of the species." " . . . the ethereal bourgeoisophobes were emerging in Paris and later London and the United States. They argued that people in decaying cultures should not try to reclaim their former economic and military power. It was wiser to accept the decline of their worldly power and embrace the contemplative virtues. . . . Europe's virile, self-assertive days were over. Europeans would have to choose between spending their money on comfortable welfare states and spending it on militaristic 'war-making states.' They could not afford both." " . . . to anybody familiar with the history of bourgeoisophobia, it is striking how comfortably Muslim rage meshes with traditional rage against meritocratic capitalism. The Islamist fanatic and the bourgeoisophobe hate the same things. They use the same words, they utter the same protests. . . . an essay . . . called 'Occidentalism,' Avishai Margalit and Ian Buruma listed the traits that enrage al Qaeda and other Third World anti- Americans and anti-Westerners. First, they hate the city. Cities stand for commerce, mixed populations, artistic freedom, and sexual license. Second, they hate the mass media: advertising, television, pop music, and videos. Third, they hate science and technology--the progress of technical reason, mechanical efficiency, and material know-how. Fourth, they hate prudence, the desire to live safely rather than court death and heroically flirt with violence. Fifth, they hate liberty, the freedom extended even to mediocre people. Sixth, they despise the emancipation of women. As Margalit and Buruma note, "Female emancipation leads to bourgeois decadence." Women are supposed to stay home and breed heroic men. When women go out into the world, they deprive men of their manhood and weaken their virility. If you put these six traits together, you have pretty much the pillars of meritocratic capitalist society, practiced most assertively in countries like America and Israel. " "Contemporary Muslim rage is further inflamed by two additional passions. One is a sense of sexual shame. . . . The second inflaming passion is humiliation . . . in the 1960s and 1970s, many Arab and Muslim nations tried to join this bourgeois world. They tried to modernize, and they failed. . . . The Islamist response to humiliation has been worship of the Muslim man of force. Islamist extremists romanticize the brutal warrior . . . " "Europeans . . . are bourgeois themselves, even more so in some ways than Americans and Israelis. What they distrust about America and Israel is that these countries represent a particularly aggressive and, to them, unbalanced strain of bourgeois ambition. No European would ever acknowledge the category, but America and Israel are heroic bourgeois nations. The Israelis are driven by passionate Zionism to build their homeland and make it rich and powerful. Americans are driven by our Puritan sense of calling, the deeply held belief that we Americans have a special mission to spread our way of life around the globe." "Europeans . . . simply can't remember what it's like to be imperially confident, to feel the forces of history blowing at one's back, to have heroic and even eschatological aspirations. Their passions have been quieted. Their intellectual guides have taught them that business is ignoble and striving is vulgar. . . . the imperial confidence is gone, along with the youthful sense of limitless possibility and the unselfconscious embrace of ordinary striving." "To European bourgeoisophobes, America is the radioactive core of . . . 'The Other Axis of Evil' . . . It controls the IMF and the World Bank, the institutions that reward the rich and punish the poor . . . The American military provides the muscle to force-feed economic liberalism to the world. . . . They see us as a mindless Rambo, a Mike Tyson with rippling muscles and no brain. Where the Islamists see us as a decadent slut, the European etherealists see us as a gun-slinging cowboy. The Islamists think we are too spoiled and comfortable, the Europeans think we are too violent and impulsive. . . . each side's vision springs from a deeper bourgeoisophobia--the prejudice that people who succeed in worldly affairs must be morally and intellectually backward. This article of faith governs the way even many sophisticated Europeans and Muslims react to us." " . . . to many Europeans, who must believe in our mindless immaturity in order to look themselves in the mirror each morning . . . [Europeans believe] the American doesn't see the deeper causes of terrorism, the poverty, the hopelessness. America should really be spending more money on foreign aid . . . When the [European] bourgeoisophobe goes to practice politics, he instinctively dons the pinstripes of the diplomat. Diplomacy fits his temperament. It demands subtlety instead of clarity, self-control instead of power, patience instead of energy, nuance instead of restlessness. Diplomacy is highly formal, highly elitist, highly civilized. Most of all, it is complex. Complexity is catnip to the etherealized bourgeoisophobe. It paralyzes brute action, and justifies subtle and basically immobile gestures, calibrations, and modalities. Bourgeoisophobes have a simple-minded faith that whatever the problem is, the solution requires complexity. Any decisive effort to change the status quo--to topple Saddam, to give up on Arafat, to foment democracy in the Arab world--will only make things worse." "The events of the past several months have cast doubt on a century of mostly bourgeoisophobe cultural pessimism. . . . it has become abundantly clear since September 11 that America has ascended to unprecedented economic and military heights, and it really is not easy to explain how a country so corrupt to the core can remain for so long so apparently successful on the surface. If we're so rotten, how can we be so great?" "President Bush . . . has framed the challenge in the most ambitious possible terms: as a moral confrontation with an Axis of Evil. He has chosen the most arduous course. . . . This is not the predictable reaction of a decadent, commercial people. This is not the reaction you would have predicted if you had based your knowledge of America on the extensive literature of cultural decline. Nor would you have been able to predict the American reaction to recent events in the Middle East, which also differs markedly from the European one. . . . Most Americans can see the difference between nihilistic terrorism and a democracy trying fitfully to defend itself. And most Americans seem willing to defend the principles that are at stake here, even in the face of global criticism and obloquy. In this, as in so much else, George Bush reflects the meritocratic capitalist culture of which he is a product. While the rest of the world was lost in a moral fog, going on about the "cycle of violence" as if bombs set themselves off and the language of human agency and moral judgment didn't apply, the Bush administration, by and large, has been clear." " . . . the conflict against terrorism, which is really a struggle against people who despise our way of life." "Maybe it is now time to put intellectual meat on the bones of our instinctive pride, to acknowledge that the American way of life is not only successful, but also character-building. It inculcates virtues that account for American success: a certain ability to see problems clearly, to react to setbacks energetically, to accomplish the essential tasks, to use force without succumbing to savagery. Perhaps ordinary American life mobilizes individual initiative, and the highest, not just the crassest aspirations." ... [more] ... [Part 2] 3:03:48 PM  Google It!  comment  []

Oil and The Middle East: Why U.S. Foreign Policy Has To Change "Petroleum contributes . . . about two-fifths of the world's total energy output, and natural gas (which is in some ways related to oil) more than another one-fifth. . . . the United States used in the year 2000 almost 100 quadrillion Btu's . . . of energy. But of those 100 quadrillion Btu's, the U.S. had to import close to 30 percent. . . . the U.S. imported in the year 2000 almost two-thirds of the oil that it used." " . . . Saudi Arabia has the largest installed but unused rapid production capacity . . . In any emergency that cut off oil supplies from anywhere else in the world, Saudi Arabia would one of very few, and maybe the only, nation that could easily and quickly increase its oil production without a waiting period . . . " " . . . another characteristic of the global oil industry that we should all understand. It is an industry dominated by a half-dozen extremely large, global corporations . . . the companies continue to manage most of the oil production and global oil trade, while the governments, and OPEC, make the basic decisions on how much oil to produce. . . . the companies no longer shun government regulation, because most of the regulations imposed on them are supportive of, and increase the profits of, the companies themselves. The regulations fall more into the area of corporate welfare than into the area of inducing the corporations to become better citizens." "[In] February 1945. . . . President Franklin D. Roosevelt, while returning from the Yalta Conference, met with King Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia on a U.S. warship in the middle of the Suez Canal. . . . an agreement was reached under which the United States guaranteed for the indefinite future the security and stability of the Saudi monarchy. In return, the Saudi King guaranteed U.S. access to, and joint development of, the massive Saudi oil reserves, also for the indefinite future. These mutual guarantees were later, implicitly at least, extended to apply to the other, and smaller, Gulf state monarchies . . . these guarantees still today form the basis of U.S. oil policies in the Middle East." " . . . one of the root causes behind the terrorism of September 11 was this very U.S. policy of supporting for the past half-century and more these authoritarian and often corrupt Arab and Muslim governments. There exists a high degree of anger among many Muslims with their own governments, which have for so long been supported by the U.S." " . . . another foreign policy problem that the U.S. faces in the Middle East, one that has become more tightly intertwined with U.S. oil policies since September 11. Ever since shortly after World War II, the U.S. has had not one but two fundamental foreign policies in the Middle East. . . . The other policy . . . has been to provide strong support to Israel and to guarantee the security of Israel as a Jewish state, also for the long term." "The Arab-Israeli war of 1973, and specifically the U.S. response of resupplying Israel with large amounts of new military equipment, precipitated the embargo . . . a perfect example of the fact that there are indeed real conflicting interests involved in the two basic U.S. foreign policies in the Middle East." " . . . Washington has allowed the tensions to grow, more or less ignored by U.S. policymakers, to a point where they are going to be exceedingly difficult to deal with in the future. . . . the position of the monarchies has become more precarious . . . The George W. Bush administration is undoubtedly reassuring them that the U.S. security guarantee is still in effect, but they cannot help but be worried about its permanence when they see public opinion in this country changing. This puts pressure on the monarchies to pay more attention to the opinion of their own Arab 'street.'" ... [more] 2:07:03 PM  Google It!  comment  []

Islam Anti-Islam Discussion with Tariq Ali, editor of London’s New Left Review Editors Note: By "fundamentalisms" Ali means an arrogant, rigid, world-dominant American imperialism–"the mother of all fundamentalisms"–on one side, and the equally rigid, regressive Islamic fanaticism on the other. He depicts much of current world events, including the attacks of Sept. 11 and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as the American empire’s chickens come home to roost. He also, shockingly, opines that because Sept. 11 did the Islamic fanatics no lasting good and caused the U.S. no real systemic harm, the event will sink into "obscurity in the future. It will be a footnote in the history of this century. Nothing more. In political, economic or military terms it was barely a pinprick." He also says that whether Americans care to know this or not, much of the world’s peoples–including some recent immigrants right here in New York City–rejoiced on Sept. 11. "What happens if Musharraf is killed? Other generals will take over. What their orientation will be depends very much on what the United States is prepared to pay. I’m afraid it’s the cash nexus which now accounts for loyalty. Even the generals hostile to Musharraf say, "Leave him alone. He’s bringing in money and weapons." But when the time comes he’ll go or he’ll be got rid of. It’s a very grim situation. The one thing the army has been able to do in the past is restore law and order in the country. This guy has not been able to do that. And the reason is that to do it means taking on the forces of religious fundamentalism inside the army, and that’s a dangerous operation. The thing to do is to disarm these groups– which were created by the military." "Meanwhile, just across the border, the alliance that’s been set up to run Afghanistan is obviously a short-lived fiction. Totally. Hamid Karzai–I honestly think his future is very limited. Either the poor guy will be bumped off, or they’ll have to take him out and find him a job as a fashion model in New York and Rome. He’d be very good at it. He could walk the runway, show the latest shawls and caps. But I don’t think he’s got a future in Afghanistan. What’s the feeling about this in Pakistan? Well, they’re feeling, "We told you so." They warned the Americans behind the scenes what would happen if the Taliban was dislodged. This was a regime we could have controlled. Now there’ll be Russian influence, Iranian influence, Indian influence, no one power will be able to control the situation and it’s going to lead to chaos and intra-fighting. Basically, the struggle–if one’s being utterly straightforward and cynical–has been between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance regarding who runs the drug trade through which part of the world. The Taliban–until the United States paid them some hundreds of millions of dollars to stop in 2000–used to smuggle drugs out of Pakistan, through Peshawar and Karachi to come to Europe. The Northern Alliance drug trade came through the Russian mafia, Central Asia–Kosovo was the big base, and from there it went all over Europe. With the defeat of the Taliban, the Northern Alliance people are openly laughing. "We’ve now got the monopoly on the drug trade." The Russian mafia will be having a field day. Pakistani heroin traffickers are going to lose a lot of money now." "You say in the book that what’s needed in Saudi Arabia is a revolution. My own feeling is that the monarchy, this sort of Mafia-type family which the United States gave the franchise to run that part of the world, their days are numbered. And they know it. Which is why they’re squirming. If you ask which country in the world was most seriously shaken by Sept. 11, the answer is Saudi Arabia." "The book’s called The Clash of Fundamentalisms. In the U.S. we’re used to hearing 'fundamentalism' applied to Christians here, or more recently to Islamic fanatics. You say "American imperialism" is 'the mother of all fundamentalisms.' Explain that. Well, I just thought that if we’re talking about an outlook of the world which is incredibly rigid and refuses to see reason or think rationally, then, even though it’s secular, the imperial outlook can be categorized as such. Also, it was an attempt to rap Huntington on the knuckles. . . . This is not a civilizational clash. This is a clash between an imperial power and religious fundamentalisms which are nothing in terms of power compared to the imperial fundamentalists." " . . . compared to the power of the United States, Islam is nothing. This Al Qaeda group is 3000, 4000 people at most. The thing is how to cut off the flow of young, middle-class professional kids to it. That requires a political solution. Such as? Two things. One, lay off Iraq. If they go after Iraq it’ll just exacerbate the situation. I’m really frightened by that. Some group of martyrs will want revenge and try to outdo the Sept. 11 people, and God knows what they’ll do. But the most important thing that’s driving people crazy is the Palestinian situation and the fact that the United States is openly backing Israel. There I think the only long-term solution is a sovereign Palestinian state. This is the last colonial struggle of the 20th century, and the Israelis just have to bite the bullet and move on." " . . . I think the hardcore of young believers, curiously enough, is in the West, in Europe and North America. I think one of the problems here is that being a hardcore believer has become part of identity politics. 'This is our identity.'" " I think that the only way the Palestinians can get somewhere is by winning over a sizable core of Israelis to their cause. Which will happen." " . . . [Sept. 11] did focus the Bush administration on an ongoing war on terrorism. But they’re just using the events of Sept. 11 to remap the world. Well I think that’s historically significant! But the question is, were they doing this in any case, and did this just accelerate the process. I believe that’s the case." ... [more] 1:49:55 PM  Google It!  comment  []

Enough Already! Time to stop the war on terrorism. "I'm really beginning to believe we should stop the war on terrorism. Not because I'm against the fighting. And not because I don't think there are individuals, groups, and states deserving of a firsthand tutorial on the efficacy of the arsenal of democracy. No, I simply think the war on terrorism may be the wrong war. Terrorism isn't an "ism" like Communism, fascism, socialism, capitalism, etc. To the extent the suffix "ism" suggests a body of thought or system of belief, "terrorism" is a misnomer. Terrorism is a means — the intentional use of violence against civilian populations in order to achieve political ends. We're at war with the people seeking those ends." "The simple fact is that we are not at war with terrorism, we are at war with a brand of Islam. . . . This ideology is not purely religious, it's tied up with various flavors of tribalism, pan-Arabism, and nationalism (hence all the talk about Crusaders, imperialism, etc.). Why this ideology justifies terrorism is actually a fascinating question with complex historical, religious, and military aspects. Hit-and-run raids are a staple of Arab warfare going back to Bedouin days. Islam allows for the total destruction of your enemies . . . And, most obvious, neither these specific groups nor the Arab world in general can hold a candle to the West militarily. They use terrorist techniques because they cannot hurt us using conventional ones. As the Palestinians are so fond of pointing out, they "have to" use suicide bombers against Israel because they don't have the planes and tanks the Israelis have. In other words, if they had planes and tanks they would use them, because they are at war with Israel." "Listening to President Bush chew on his tongue trying to explain why Arafat isn't a terrorist is simply embarrassing. Watching the United States hold a fire sale on its moral authority in order to win the applause of the Saudis and the E.U. is depressing. . . . We ought to be able to declare that we are at war with a kind of Islam without saying we are at war with all of Islam. I don't know what it should be called, but I do know that "terrorism" doesn't do the trick. Providing such clarity would help Americans understand what this war is and isn't about. Such clarity would show that we take our enemies seriously. Such clarity would allow the world to choose sides. And such clarity would also make it more difficult for people to use fatuous phrases like 'One man's terrorist…'" ... [more] 12:14:25 PM  Google It!  comment  []