Empire of Straw

Akhilesh Pillalamarri, writing in The Diplomat, offers an unusually balanced response to a recent post by Robert Kaplan at Foreign Policy which now appears under the title “The Ruins of Empire in the Middle East,” but whose original click-baity title is still visible within its URL: “its-time-to-bring-imperialism-back-to-the-middle-east…” Yet even like those peremptorily denouncing Kaplan – voices from across the entire foreign policy spectrum from neo-isolationist to liberal-internationalist to ultra-left (and anarchist, too) – Pillalamarri frames his response as a response to a straw man argument.

With creditable dispassion, but little Lenin, Pillalamarri asserts that “[t]he phenomenon of imperialism itself is amoral, as opposed to the actions of individual empires, which can be good or bad,” but he begins with a version of the same claim that appears at the beginning of Juan Cole’s “What’s Wrong With Robert Kaplan’s Nostalgia for Empire.” Pillalamari characterizes “The Ruins of Empire” as a “defense of imperialism.” Cole goes further: “[Kaplan] thinks that what is wrong with the Middle East is a lack of imperialism, and he urges that it be brought back.”

Kaplan does provide a relatively brief appraisal of the reigns of various historical empires, contrasting episodes of imperial order with current conditions in the Middle East, but neither in this piece, nor even in earlier, more openly provocative writing on the virtues of “imperial-like” policy (see, e.g., “In Defense of Empire” (2014)), does he ever call for restoration. Instead, he specifically declares the old ways obsolete – or, as per his title, ruined. He writes, rather clumsily but all the more emphatically, of the “final end” of imperialism. He isolates major impediments to a revival of American or Western “imperial influence.” He does not hesitate to describe the implication of the old imperialism or of those finally-ended imperial policies in new or seemingly new burnt, blasted, and blood-drenched problems. His conclusion puts forward an argument for “order” as pre-conditional for “freedom” and “democracy,” but pointedly not in a “retrograde” form. He describes a “challenge,” and the most that he advocates – here, at least – is a realistic and non-prejudicial confrontation with that challenge. He never proposes even the outlines of a new imperial project.

I won’t attempt to characterize the diverse – or one might say combined and uneven – motivations of Kaplan’s critics, but I doubt that their approach does as much to advance the discussion, or the potential of any interesting and useful discussion at all, as his does, or as it might in some other intellectual world under a different ideological regime.

Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution. 

2 comments on “Empire of Straw

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

    • Was just going to tweet that I’d linked you.

      I can’t answer your question. I don’t think he’d presume that order being “imposed” by “outsiders” would necessarily be worse than the current situation in the ME, which some might characterize as disorder being aggravated by outsiders, but I’m not sure how one meaningfully defines “outsider,” or for that matter “influence” or “impose” or even “order,” in the world today or ever.

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



Noted & Quoted

TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

Comment →

Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.

Comment →

[E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

Comment →
CK's WP Plugins


Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins