The Cherry Orchard

I don’t usually read Harper’s Magazine (though I usually mean to) but I was attracted to the June cover, which asks the question “How to Repair Eight Years of Sabotage, Bungling and Neglect?” under a photo of a smiling George W. Bush.

Since I tend to walk down the street pondering the exact same question these days, I picked up this magazine and was pleased to find a broad and well-considered set of essays on this question, including the following topics by the following authors: The Constitution by David Cole, The Courts by Dahlia Lithwick, The Environment by Bill McKibben, The Marketplace of Ideas by Jack Hitt and The Military by Edward Luttwak. Being generally a foreign policy minded kind of guy, I was most interested in Anne Marie Slaughter’s suggestions on Diplomacy.

How are we going to handle diplomacy after the failure known as George W. Bush waves his last goodbye? It’s a question every 2008 presidential candidate should be able to answer, for one thing, and voters are going to demand something more than the candy-coated sugar language most of the candidates have been delivering on this topic. In her Harper’s article Slaughter wisely sticks to specific instructions: close Guantanamo, get serious about nuclear disarmament, join the International Criminal Court, get serious about the United Nations, and get serious about fighting global warming.

I think these are all important suggestions, though I’d add one more and put it at the very top of the list: renounce torture as an intelligence-gathering technique (that is to say, renounce torture).

I’m less impressed with Earl Shorris on The National Character. Where Slaughter’s prescriptions are based on the existence of concrete objects (Gitmo, the United Nations), Shorris puts too much faith into the meanings of terms like “virtue”, “evil”, “courage”, “fear”. He quotes Immanuel Kant, but he needs to be doused with a bucket of Ludwig Wittgenstein, who would have reminded him that all of these words are ultimately chimeral entities, and really aren’t likely to serve any useful purposes in any discussions, debates or exchanges of ideas, because they are too easily co-opted by alternative meanings or willful misinterpretations.

But Harper’s has put together a good essay series overall, and I’m glad it hammers home the point that those of us who really can’t stand the sight of George W. Bush anymore aren’t necessarily obsessive Bush-haters, and are really not motivated by emotion or anger when we talk about him incessantly. The problem is rather that we feel a desperate need to begin recovering from George W. Bush … and it doesn’t help that this walking disaster is still in office. In other words, it really isn’t about George W. Bush at all. It’s about how the hell we’re going to clean up the mess this moron made, and how we’re going to save our great country once he’s gone.

I respect people who are willing to change their opinions. The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein is a good example. He established himself as a famous young follower of Bertrand Russell with the hyperactively rational “Tractacus Logico-Philosophicus”. He then realized everything he’d argued was wrong, and argued that the entire foundation of logic and rationality lacked concrete meaning. Some contemporary academics favor the conclusions of the early Wittgenstein, some favor the later Wittgenstein, and there is nothing they all agree on. I think this is the sign of a great philosopher.

What is an opinion, and why do we cling so tightly to our own? I think it’s a sign of intellectual maturity to stand up in public and declare: “I said this, I thought some more about it, I listened to your responses, and I now realize I was wrong.” How rarely this happens! More often, a person who loses an argument will put his head down and duke it out forever, undeterred by logic or evidence.

I try to never do that, and I am determined to make it my method and my practice, as I operate this blog, to always admit my mistakes when I make them. I hope I don’t make too many. And, in the interest of full disclosure, I’d like to log where I stand on some of the topics we’ll be covering here, so that if any of my beliefs ever change I’ll be able to mark the occasion.

First, let me introduce myself. I’m a New York Jew (though my own religion skews to Buddhism), and I’m generally a liberal moderate, though I sometimes find myself on a conservative side in an argument. Of course, any Jew will choose political philosophies with a sense of irony, since we tend to get fucked over by extremists of any belief. This fact is extra ironic because Jews also tend to be the extremists of many beliefs, and if you think too much about this whole thing your head starts to spin. What conclusions can you draw about my political heritage when my ancestors include both Karl Marx and Henry Kissinger?

I don’t have a great deal of respect for the way the Jewish religion is currently practiced (nor the way the Christian or Muslim religions are currently practiced), but I do take a lot of pride in my ethnic background. I’m pretty sure the greatest Jew of all time was Jesus of Nazareth, and I’m also pretty sure that Bob Dylan and Groucho Marx are tied for close second.

Economically, I’m a middle class 2nd and 3rd generation American, and I work hard (as a website developer and writer) so I can support myself and my three kids and still have enough left over to take my girlfriend on a date. I’ve been broke and I’ve been (dot-com) wealthy. Now I’m still basically broke but I’ve learned how to cook my own meals.

Enough about me. Please meet my opinions. I’m going to list eight issues that will probably be discussed within this site in the future, and I’m going to try to keep this punchy and short:

1. The Arab-Israeli Conflict

In 2002 I created a fake organization called The Committee to Give Jerusalem to Tibet, and that pretty much sums up how I feel today. I want the fighting to stop, and I have no patience for the idea that compromise is impossible; it is possible because it must be possible. There is an incredible amount of propaganda, cheap mythology and dubious history on both sides of this debate, and I would like to improve the quality of the discussion and find the moral center that seems, at this moment, to be completely lost.

Okay, that was neither punchy nor short. I’ll try harder with the next few:

2. George W. Bush and the War in Iraq

Terrible. I hate the destruction this has caused, and I do not believe the victory over Saddam has made the world more stable or secure. In strategic terms, I really think George W. Bush proved himself to be a bad poker player, since only an amateur overplays a big hand. We fell into a classic trap. Osama bin Laden’s best month wasn’t September 2001 … it was March 2003. I do believe in international activism to overthrow dangerous or genocidal governments, but the case must be made in international debate and there must be a much greater consensus.

Even less short and punchy. Okay, I’m doing the next six in one sentence each.

3. Is the U.S.A. a positive or negative force in the world?

Spotty record, but I’d give us a B- overall, which is better than a C+.

4. Is religion a positive or negative force in the world?

Positive.

5. What can prosperous peoples do about famine, poverty and economic injustice around the world?

Most people I know would like to do more but don’t believe that anything they can do will make a difference.

6. Should the nations of the world intervene to prevent genocide in Africa and other similar atrocities?

Yes, and I believe the United Nations should and can play a much bigger role than it currently does.

7. Should the U.S.A. have stronger gun control laws?

I would look for a compromise solution here — I have spent enough time in “red states” to know that it’s a waste of time and effort to try to separate a stubborn homeowner in Indiana from his private stash of rifles and pistols, so gun-control advocates should relax the rhetoric, try to find an effective middle path and get some useful laws pushed through.

8. Should the U.S.A. Supreme Court outlaw abortion?

I’m personally opposed to abortion, but I believe it would be a humanitarian disaster to deny pregnant women the right to make choices about their own bodies — I believe a woman’s right to choose is the most basic right here.

That’s about it … please feel free to start telling me where you completely disagree.