»Home | »Philosophy  | »Advocacy | »Weblog  | »Contribute Online
:: The Rule of Reason ::

Friday, September 17, 2004::

The War: The Real Bush Doctrine 

We all remember the "Bush Doctrine"--"you are either with us, or you are with the terrorists." Diana Hsieh points out the real Bush Doctrine at Noodlefood:

[T]he Bush Administration is floundering in its own moral fog. It refuses to identify its basic enemy as militant Islam. It defends Islamic values as morally equal to Western values. It often subordinates military victory to Muslim goodwill. It focuses on the violent methods of some militant Islamists rather than the more dangerous goals of the ideology. In order to avoid the charge of cultural imperialism, the Bush Administration is routinely lapsing into cultural relativism. As a result, America lacks a clear vision and purpose in this conflict -- and that undermines our capacity to eliminate the grave threat posed by militant Islam. The corresponding impression of weakness and self-doubt emboldens the militant Islamists' dreams of transforming America into an Islamist theocracy.
Unfortunately, well said.

::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 10:38 AM | donate | link | |

Thursday, September 16, 2004::

The Culture: Marion Barry wins primary for DC Council seat 

What's that sound coming form DC? Is it the sound of the money leaving?

::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 10:29 AM | donate | link | |

The Culture: Blaming Freedom 

You might not know it, but economic freedom is to blame for Russia's recent turn toward authoritarianism, at least according to Lilia Shevtsova, cochair of the Russian Domestic Politics and Political Institutions Project at the Carnegie Endowment Moscow Center. Shevtsova writes the following in a book review of Periferiiny Kapitalizm (Peripheral Capitalism) by Grigory Yavlinsky:

In Russia, the pro-market economic determinism of the 1990s created the illusion that capitalism’s benefits would eventually produce a country of staunch democrats. Instead, Russia’s experience proved that economic growth can trigger nationalist nostalgia for a long-past superpower role. Derailed en route to democracy, Russia now sits idle in a way station where strength mingles with impotence, powerful bureaucracies constrain authoritarian leadership, and thriving private businesses uneasily coexist with state-run enterprises. [FOREIGN POLICY]
I have a more plausible explanation for Russia’s current position: Russia left communism, but it never truly left authoritarianism. The fall of communism in Russia did not mean the embrace of the principle of individual rights. After the communism’s collapse, the Russian mafia first filled the power vacuum. Now Putin is. Through all this, one thing remains constant: in Russia, might always makes right.

How then does Shevtsova come to blame “pro-market economic determinism” for Russia’s problems? Easily. While seemingly advocating for capitalism, she nevertheless equates the power of the businessman with the power of the gun.

[M]ost transitional societies are hybrids of some kind. (Just look at China.) But precisely what kind of hybrid is Russia? What path does President Vladimir Putin envision for the country in his second term? Will he find the courage to undo the bonds between power and business, between those who make the decisions and those who influence them? And what fate awaits Russia if he does not?
Who are these businessmen with their fingers on power in Russia? Isn’t it the other way around? Shevtsova gives us a hint:

Unlike its Soviet predecessor, the Russian economy is tied to world markets, but in Yavlinsky’s view it survives only on the most distant margins of the global economy. Despite Putin’s first-term pledge to dismantle the oligarchic economic system, entire swaths of the Russian economy remain monopolized by tycoons, many with insider ties to powerful bureaucrats who dominate sectors such as agriculture, defense, oil, and natural gas. Little has changed since the Stalinist era, Yavlinsky observes. Instead of planning the economy, the government now manages business.
So the Russian state grants monopoly power to some businessmen. That’s not capitalism. Shevtsova admits as much, but again, given what she wrote in her opening paragraph, she still ends up blaming the victim:

Russian society is suffering from chronic reform fatigue after enduring countless initiatives that produced many losers and just a handful of winners. Among Russians, stability and order are the preferred options, suggesting the possibility of yet another reformist experiment in Russia—this time, with harsh authoritarianism. Without institutional reforms, Russia is destined to remain on the periphery, growing more disenchanted and hostile toward the West.
But are Russia’s “many losers” the product of a culture of laziness, or are they held back by their government? Is hard work seen as the path to wealth? Do the Russians believe money can be made if they are left free to make it? Do the Russians accept the principle of individual rights? These questions go unasked.

Yet one fact is certain: if Russia favors the boot over freedom, it is unfair to blame freedom.

::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 9:02 AM | donate | link | |

Tuesday, September 14, 2004::

The Culture: You knew it was only a matter of time . . . 

. . . before some editorialist would blame the recent spat of hurricanes on global warming.

I love this new "science." It gets hot, it's global warming. It gets cold, it's global warming. It rains, it's global warming. It doesn't rain, it's global warming.

I may be out on a limb on this, but it ought to be academic that when everything and anything can be linked to global warming, the theory is wanting in explaining reality.

::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 2:19 AM | donate | link | |

Monday, September 13, 2004::

The Culture: So which one is it? 

"Chides" or "rips"?

::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 9:22 PM | donate | link | |

Intellectual Activism: The Threat of GMU’s Faith-Based Crusaders 

Since I bit the bullet and have gone back to college, I've been itching for an opportunity to be an intellectual activist on campus. To achieve my goal, I've taken on the job on opinion columnist for the George Mason University campus paper. Here's the text of my first column:

The Threat of GMU's Faith-Based Crusaders

By Nicholas Provenzo

There is a lot of faith on campus this semester. On the first day of classes, a gauntlet of recruiters for a Christian missionary group passed out flyers to students stating that while we may aim to improve our lives through education and hard work, such efforts are ultimately meaningless. According to this group, only one?s faith in God truly matters and only His grace can sustain us.

Another group, ".Cru" or the Campus Crusade for Christ was more covert about their beliefs. ".Cru" set up a table in SUB II where they offered students a school planner in exchange for taking a survey. Since nothing indicated to me that ".Cru" was even remotely a religious group, I took their questionnaire. I was little more than surprised when the first question asked me if I wanted a relationship with Jesus. Since I've been an atheist for over ten years, I filled in the "no" bubble and went about my business.

It was later that day that I had my "miracle" moment. I ran into an acquaintance of mine who has cerebral palsy. She used to use a motorized wheelchair for movement. Yet when I saw her, she walked. Yes, clumsily, but by the power of her own muscles and the strength of her own will. Seeing her walk left me speechless--I've never seen someone I know do something so astounding in all my life.

Think for a moment what it took to give this woman the ability to overcome her disease. It took years of painstaking research for scientists to understand the nature of cerebral palsy and outflank its effects. These discoveries were not made possible by faith in God. That's not how discovery works. They were made possible by the ruthless application of the scientific method.

Yet in the face of all years of excruciating mental effort that made this woman's reclamation possible, how many of us would describe her recovery as a "miracle"--an act of divine rather than human intervention? Even if not literally (the religious might argue that God moved the researchers, for example) there is more reverence in our culture for God's will than humanity's ability. I see this as our undoing.

It is no secret that the United States is engaged in a life or death struggle with the forces of Islamic totalitarianism. Like the Christian totalitarianists of the Dark Ages who suppressed reason and science, they too are unable to deliver "miracles" such as my friend being able to walk. As committed advocates for faith, militant Islamists hate our freedom and prosperity and the secular foundation that makes our world possible. Our nation is the living refutation of their faith. They detest us for it.

Yet as a people, we have not refuted the Islamist's indictment against us. Even as our solders engage this enemy on the battlefield, we have not made clear the impossibility of their faith over our reason in every field and in every realm. I think that is because most of us don't understand the difference ourselves. Too many of us are animated by the same core belief in the divine that animates our enemy--and in this kind of battle, it's the more consistent force that wins.

Universities such as George Mason are a home for ideas. All ideas, even those animated by faith are welcome, but for ideas to have true currency, we must be able to prove them. A university is a place for reasons. Yet faith, the cornerstone of every religion and every religious moral code is the exact opposite of proof. And of all the ideologies and worldviews that exist, it was the ones animated by faith that made the strongest showing on our campus last week.

I hate to say it, but that's not a good sign.

::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 8:28 PM | donate | link | |

 

» Recent Posts

» Archives


» Capitalist Book Club
Purchase the essential texts on capitalism.


» Feedback
Send us a comment or ask a question—we want to hear from you!


» Contribute
The Center's advocacy programs are not free—we depend on you to support our efforts. Please donate today.


Blogs We Love:
» Acid Free Paper
» Alexander Marriot
» Andrew Sullivan
» American Renaissance
» ARI MediaLink
» Armchair Intellectual
» Best of the Web Today
» Conspiracy to Keep You Poor & Stupid
» Charlotte Capitalist
» Cox & Forkum
» d'Anconia Online
» Daily Dose of Reason
» Dithyramb
» Dollars & Crosses
» Ego
» EnviroSpin Watch
» GMU Objectivists
» Gus Van Horn
» How Appealing
» i, Egoist
» Illustrated Ideas
» Intel Dump
» Instapundit
» Letters From An Enthusiast
» Liberty and Culture
» Literatrix
» Little Green Footballs
» Mike's Eyes
» NoodleFood
» Oak Tree
» Objectivism Online
» Outside the Beltway
» Overlawyered
» Political State Report
» Quent Cordair's Studio
» Reclaim Your Brain
» Sandstead.com
» SCOTUSBlog
» Scrappleface
» Separation of State and Superstition 
» Southwest Virginia Law Blog
» The Dougout
» The Objective Standard
»
The Secular Foxhole
» The Simplest Thing
» The Truth Laid Bear
»
Thrutch
» Truck and Barter
» Truth, Justice and the American Way
» Washington Re-Post
» Witch Doctor Repellent

» Link Policy

 


SPONSORED LINK


» RSS Feed

» Comments RSS


 

Copyright © 1998-2006 The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism. All Rights Reserved.
Email: 
info-at-capitalismcenter.org · Feedback · Terms of Use · Privacy Policy · Webmaster