David Brooks - intellectually lazy
Wed Apr 13, 2005 at 10:52:36 PM PDT
RE: Brook's column "
Loudly, With a Big Stick" on John Bolton and the U.N. I searched dailykos and didn't see an entry on it so I decided to write one myself. Unfortunately I can't really devote enough time on it to thoroughly rip him to shreds because I have too much class.
(Edit: as in too much class work. Not that I am too classy. That is certainly not the case.) But I figure I'd start it and you all can join in and finish the job.
Now as a disclaimer, I would say I still haven't made up my mind on whether or not sending Bolton to the UN is a good idea or not. I know all the reasons why he isn't right for the job, however nobody Bush is willing to nominate will be right for the job. It's not like Bush is going to
worsen the perception the world has of him, and shipping Bolton to the UN will make it harder for him to screw up here at home. Anyway. I have some serious problems with Brooks' sweeping generalization.
They seek to foment a social atmosphere in which positions taken by multilateral organizations are deemed to have more "legitimacy" than positions taken by democratic nations.
This is already the case. Who doesn't think that the decisions of the Danish monarch in WW2 was more legitimate than those of Hitler? The international legitimacy of positions and decisions isn't purely decided by the form of the governments, but by a variety of factors, including popular support, which is not the sole possession of democratic regimes.
Instead, they [global government] look like meetings of unelected elites, of technocrats who make decisions in secret and who rely upon intentionally impenetrable language, who settle differences through arcane fudges.
Let's see. Unelected elites... check. Technocrats... check. Decisions made in secret... check. Intentionally vague language... check. The Founding Fathers! (snark)
Second, we will never accept global governance because it inevitably devolves into corruption. The panoply of U.N. scandals flows from a single source: the lack of democratic accountability. These supranational organizations exist in their own insular, self-indulgent aerie.
Apparantly Brooks hasn't read the news lately, nor has he talked to any real people. Political and corruption scandals aren't only in the UN, and the UN is not the only organization which exists in an insulated world, apart from its constituents.
Now to the real juicy parts.
We will never accept global governance, third, because we love our Constitution and will never grant any other law supremacy over it. Like most peoples (Europeans are the exception), we will never allow transnational organizations to overrule our own laws, regulations and precedents. We think our Constitution is superior to the sloppy authority granted to, say, the International Criminal Court.
First - we have indeed granted or attempted to grant laws supremacy over the Constitution, most recently in the Terri Schiavo debacle, but also all through history. From the Patriot Act to Japanese internment to suspending the writ of habeus corpus in the Civil War, one could argue that the Constitution has really provided more of a general framework for the functioning of the country, suspending by (perceived) necessity.
Second - Any generalization that states "Like most peoples except those people who don't fit my theory" is laughable.
Third - One of the main reasons the ICC is sloppy is precisely because of the lack of American involvment. Because we're scared of our soldiers being prosecuted for war crimes we allow war crimes to be perpetrated all around the world, thus making a mockery of the ICC. Brooks attributes the cause to the symptom, rather than the other way around.
Fourth, we understand that these mushy international organizations liberate the barbaric and handcuff the civilized. Bodies like the U.N. can toss hapless resolutions at the Milosevics, the Saddams or the butchers of Darfur, but they can do nothing to restrain them. Meanwhile, the forces of decency can be paralyzed as they wait for "the international community.
Again, just like the ICC, this is primarily because America does not become involved. Brooks' argument here could be restated as "because America does not support "hapless" UN resolutions, America should not support "hapless" UN resolutions." Intellectually lazy.
We will never grant legitimacy to forums that are so often manipulated for partisan ends.
Wow. Clearly Brooks believes that forums which can be manipulated for partisan ends are illegitimate! I guess he is still waiting around for Plato's philosopher kings to show up and take over. Brooks' unwillingness to critically examine his own arguments makes it plainly obvious that he just doesn't care about the facts. Why should he? The NYT has given him his column and his weekly paycheck, he has a big name, and he's safe. He'll have a nice career and a nice retirement, earning it through writing useless drivel like this.
Postscript: please excuse the poor grammar. It's 2am where I am and, unlike Brooks, I really doubt that my opinion has much "legitimacy".
Permalink | 13 comments