From Tomgram:

The United States remains by far the world’s leading proliferator of conventional arms, accounting for some 50% of all global sales and 48% of all sales to the developing world. During the 2011-2014 period alone, U.S. weapons deliveries included a wide array of advanced weapons technologies: 104 tanks and self-propelled guns, 230 artillery pieces, 419 armored personnel vehicles, 48 supersonic aircraft and 58 other aircraft, 835 surface-to-air missiles, and 144 anti-ship missiles, much of that to the volatile Middle East. Skeptics would say that such transactions are motivated less by an urge to enable recipient countries to defend themselves than by the desire to buy influence abroad while aiding and abetting arms manufacturers at home. The result of such massive sales is, of course, the creation of yet more instability where stability should be.

Garrisoning the planet: The military maintains up to 800 bases in more than 70 countries and stations more than 200,000 active-duty personnel in some 150 countries. This global presence represents the geostrategic equivalent of Parkinson’s law: operational and social entanglements expanding exponentially to fill the space created by these far-flung outposts.

The nuclear black hole: The military remains the permanent keeper and executor of the world’s largest nuclear arsenal: an estimated 4,700 nuclear warheads on some 800 delivery systems, as well as another 2,340 “retired” but still intact and presumably usable warheads. A three-decade, trillion-dollar upgrade of this already monstrous arsenal is now underway. The Economist has called this Washington’s “unkicked addiction.” It should be clear, but apparently isn’t, that these are weapons of disuse. Other than for destroying the planet if used, their only value is as a measure of muscularity against mirror-image peers. They deter nothing at other levels of muscle-flexing but do feed an insatiable thirst for emulation among jealous non-possessors of such weaponry.  (by Gregory D. Foster is a professor at the National Defense University in Washington, D.C., a West Point graduate, and a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War.)

And yet the United States seems unable to win a war, and any success against, for instance ISIS, comes at the cost of untold devastation of ancient cities and displacement of huge number of people.  Trump says he “ain’t gonna do nation building”, so these people are on their own, unless they can find their way to Europe. What is the point in these military empires?  At least the British brought with them a common language, railways, education and orderly government, even if sometimes corrupt.  No, the United States has many good things to its name, but as a hegemon it hasn’t a clue, and is wasting treasure while the country, its environment, infrastructure and education itself ( to name a few things) are falling to pieces.

Trump won the 2016 Republican Primary for a myriad of reasons, some of which I’ve looked at here http://hanrott.com/blog/how-the-republicans-should-respond-to-trump/. But a crucial factor was the fact that he distinguished himself from other Republicans. Partly through his straight-talking manner. Partly through his support for entitlements, in contrast to a Republican establishment that wants to reduce them. Partly due to his opposition to free trade. But the most significant different between Trump and the his opponents was that Trump presented himself as a realist in regards to foreign policy. He eviscerated the other candidates for their support for the Iraq War, Jeb Bush especially. He wasn’t a non-interventionist per se, promising to ‘bomb the shit out of ISIS.’ But he vowed to put the national interest first, not spend billions of American dollars on fruitless foreign adventures.

It’s long been obvious that the war in Afghanistan can’t be won, simply because as soon as America withdraws, there’s nothing to guarantee the country won’t be taken over by the Taliban because they enjoy protection in Pakistan. Laurel Miller, who was until recently America’s leading diplomat in Afghanistan and Pakistan, agrees. Her explanation can be read in this excellent interview with Vox’s Sean Illing https://www.vox.com/world/2017/8/1/16049272/afghanistan-war-donald-trump-mattis-military. Yet Trump has backtracked on his past support for a realist foreign policy. As Miller points out, his new Afghanistan policy is little different from the neoconservatism/liberal internationalism that has defined America’s approach since the war started in 2001.

Trump’s u-turn on Afghanistan is yet another example of how his presidency is a complete failure, even on his own terms. The typical Trump voter wanted: proper job security, a substantial increase in the number of manufacturing and energy jobs, the repeal of Obamacare with ‘something ‘fantastic’, an America-first foreign policy and a considerable reduction in immigration. So far, none of those things have happened, or even are likely to happen between now and 2020. So what was the point in voting for Trump? Perhaps only the certainty that a Hillary Clinton presidency would be a continuation of the status quo. If neither Trump nor Hillary Clinton were serious about reforming a badly divided and indebted country, then American politics is truly broken.

A member of the Society of the Friends of Epicurus has the following to say about the Robert E. Lee monument that served as a lightning rod for recent Charlottesville violence:

“To everyone who is claiming that the secession and Civil War wasn’t about slavery, the following speech was given by the VP of the Confederacy, Alexander H. Stephens of Georgia, who served under President Jefferson Davis of Mississippi from February 18, 1861 to May 11, 1865. The speech was delivered three weeks after Lincoln was elected and three weeks before the first shots of the war:

“The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away…

Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the “storm came and the wind blew, it fell.”

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”

For some mentally embattled people things never do change.  Epicurus, on the other hand, believed in treating everyone equally.  So do all decent, fair-minded people today.

This post marks the return of my  Modern Philosophy series, in which I talk about the most prominent ideas facing the modern world from an Epicurean perspective. After this post, I have at least three more Modern Philosophies to cover, which I’ll be writing on weekly instead of fortnightly, so look out for that! 

After World War 2, it was assumed that far right ideology and its racist underpinnings had lost all credibility. The Holocaust had exposed the horrific consequences of such thinking. The philosophical roots of Nazism- anti-Semitism, social Darwinism and extreme nationalism- had all lost any merit in the eyes of the world. While authoritarian regimes continued to exist, such as Francoist Spain, they became increasingly isolated. The world became divided between the liberal capitalist West and the Communist countries. Following the fall of the Berlin wall, the latter too had lost respectability, leading to the liberal international order we see today.

However, there is a radical movement in the United States that regrets the dominance of liberal internationalism worldwide. Like Plato, they believe democracy is inherently flawed because it leads to mob rule. In Platonic terms, they want government by autocratic philosopher-kings. They draw inspiration from the writings of Nietzsche in their rejection of our society’s norms of morality and their embrace of post-modernism. For the most part, they reject Christian teachings of altruism and the believe in the equality of all men before God. But they defend Christianity insofar as they see it as a key component of Western civilisation, which they contrast with the inferior cultures of the non-Western world, particularly the Islamic world. They also reject Jewish culture for being non-Western. In terms of policy, they want the creation of an ethno-state, with an almost exclusively non-Hispanic white population. This movement has come to be known as the Alt-Right- a loose coalition of Trump supporters, internet trolls, neo-Confederates, neo-Nazis and KKK members. As ideologically diverse as they may seem, they are all united in their rejection of mainstream conservatism for capitulating to the notion of America as a diverse and pluralistic nation.

A week ago in Charlottesville, Virginia, Alt-Right protestors gathered to demonstrate against the removal of statutes of generals who had fought for the Confederacy. In theory, this should have been uncontroversial. A plurality of Americans support keeping Confederate-era statues as part of remembering the past. But the Alt-Right used the occasion not only to demonstrate the removal of their statues, but to publicise themselves and their radical beliefs.  Confederate flags, swastikas and KKK-style white hoods were on full display. Phrases like ‘Jews will not replace us’ and ‘white lives matter’ were chanted. The protest soon became violent due to clashes with counter-demonstrators. A car drove into the counter-demonstrators, killing one person and injuring at least 19 others. At first, Trump’s response was equivocal, condemning violence on both sides, but he later condemned the far-right extremists explicitly. Nevertheless, his response was praised by the Alt Right, including outspoken Klansman David Duke.

It goes without saying that the Alt-Right’s values are totally incompatible with Epicurean notions of equality and justice. But it would be a grave mistake to condemn the Alt-Right as if it exists in isolation. The truth is that although ultimate responsibility for the Alt-Right’s existence lies with its members, mainstream America has made choices that have contributed to the rise of right wing extremism in what is meant to be a post-fascist world order.

Republicans have been far too tolerant of right wing extremism, even if they aren’t extremists themselves. Conspiracy theories like Obama not being American have been allowed to fester. Anti immigration rhetoric hasn’t been rebuked sharply enough in conservative circles.  Too many conservatives believe that ethnic minorities are responsible for their own problems. They don’t accept there are actions the government and society can take to improve things for them. It’s this kind of neglect, along with the underlying belief that racism isn’t much of a problem anymore, that has contributed to the rise of the Alt-Right. Many conservatives believe that white people are just as discriminated against as blacks. The route from white victimhood to overt racism is a short one.

Democrats are nowhere near as much to blame for the Alt-Right as Republicans, but they aren’t guiltless either. By creating a culture of political correctness, and by not making the case for liberal values properly, the Left has created a demand for a reactionary anti-liberalism. If you create a taboo, some people will inevitably want to break it. At some universities, discussing any potential drawback of immigration and/or multiculturalism is viewed as racist. Social conservatives, feeling alienated from mainstream society, may become radicalised online. As a society we should debate matters more openly, instead of shutting people down all the time.

The socialist belief in the Alt-Right as a byproduct of capitalism’s failings is a very shaky one in my view. Members of the Alt-Right are no more likely to be poor than anyone else; in fact because they are white, they are more likely to be rich. They are no more likely to be unemployed or face any other hardships. The Alt-Right are not the result of capitalism or neoliberalism. Rather, their appeals primarily comes from a disillusionment with the broadly liberal consensus that has dominated politics across the developed world since World War 2. Having said that, it’s vital that we do not compromise on our values in order to appease the Alt-Right, in the hope that by becoming slightly less liberal, they will go away. If we give them an inch, they will take a foot. The Alt-Right will only be defeated by making the strongest possible case for a free society. We have to defend our record, not run away from it.

To end on a positive note, the Alt-Right may be frightening, but they only command the support of a tiny minority of Americans. Casual prejudice is all too common in the world, America included. But very few Americans want an ethno-state, believe that whites ought to have de jure superiority over non-whites, or view Nazism with anything other than total disgust. Thankfully, anti-Semitism is increasingly rare.  Just like with Islamic terrorists, the Alt-Right will only win if we lose our nerve. Epicurus may have advised not participating in politics, but a defence of basic human rights is needed now more than ever.

Before the most recent French elections, I recommended that French people vote for Emmanuel Macron in what was my first ever post for this blog http://hanrott.com/blog/why-epicurean-frenchmen-should-vote-for-macron/. Having won the election by a greater than expected margin, I thought I would examine how his presidency has gone so far. I should start by saying that I do not regret endorsing him. Governing France, a divided country with a cynical and hypercritical electorate, is a thankless task. I view Macron’s recent declining approval ratings as inevitable, because any attempt at meaningful reform is bound to be opposed by someone.

This week’s article comes from Nabila Ramdani in the Independent. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/emmanuel-macron-france-french-president-politics-first-100-days-scandal-2024-olympics-a7893926.html. She argues that Macron is fulfilling the promises he made during his campaign. For instance, he is pushing ahead with reforms to the labour market despite opposition from unions, and the increasingly likely prospect of mass strikes in September. This is because France’s unemployment rate remain stubbornly high, caused partly by strict regulations that keep people in their jobs, which makes employers less inclined to take on new staff. Macron wants to adopt the Nordic ‘flexicurity’ model, where employers have freedom to hire and fire who they want, but reasonable unemployment benefits prevent the temporarily jobless from falling into poverty. However, the French left view Macron’s reforms as free market fundamentalism; for the left, job security is a privilege that cannot be compensated for by the welfare state.

The French right is also becoming dissatisfied with Macron. He wants to cut France’s military budget, which as a proportion of GDP is amongst the highest in Europe. The fact is, spending on conventional weapons and vehicles does very little to keep a country secure in the modern age. For far less money, investment could be made in cybersecurity and intelligence, which would do far more to prevent terrorism. But many conservatives regard having  a sizeable armed force as both a strategic advantage and a part of the country’s greatness as a key player in world affairs. The military aside, Macron is too pro-European for some conservatives. Unlike liberal politicians in Britain, Macron makes the positive emotional case for the EU, rather than simply talking about the adverse consequences of European disintegration. During a time of poor economic growth across Europe, making such a case is commendable. It’s important the nations of Europe don’t retreat into the parochial nationalism of the past. And despite Europe’s economy not doing especially well at the moment, EU disintegration would only make the continent even poorer than it already is. If companies who want to do business across the EU have to comply with 27 different regulatory codes instead of just 1, they will face a crippling amount of bureaucracy.

Overall Macron’s presidency has been far from perfect. Like Ramdani, I really didn’t appreciate his comments about Africa having civilisational problems, even though he’s right about some African countries’ high birth rates holding them back. Sometimes he comes across a bit too showy, and could take himself more seriously. I’m very Northern European- I like my politicians boring. Although I approve of Macron standing up to Putin and proposing a diplomatic solution in Syria, I wish he were more critical of Trump. His most controversial comments have been regarding the Euro: he wants a Eurozone budget. It’s understandable that he wants to help poorer Eurozone countries like Spain and Greece, while maintaining the benefits of currency union. But Germany and other rich Eurozone countries would lose out from such a proposal, so it’s hard to see it coming to fruition.

But overall, like Ramdani, I think he’s done a pretty decent job considering the circumstances. So far, he’s successfully struck a balance between support for the free market while protecting social insurance. He’s stood up for gay people, refugees and asylum seekers- even promising to ease immigration restrictions for American scientists who feel disillusioned with Trump. On the world stage, he’s far more respectable than Sarkozy, and certainly more charismatic than Hollande. He isn’t belligerent, rash or petty. He is far better than any of his rivals would have been. I would recommend that whatever personal reservations they have about him, the French should give him the benefit of the doubt until the end of his term. If by then he has been an absolute failure and there is an obvious replacement candidate, then he should go. But given the generally sleazy and corrupt nature of French politics, it’s hard to see that happening. Macron has been both a safe pair of hands and a committed reformer. We can only hope he continues to be.