This one’s for you, Liz
Liz has often spoken of Christopher Hithchens, a columnist at – among other magazines - Slate. Liz is a fan. Myself, I have read some of his columns, but has always found him wanting. He just doesn’t do it for me, and I’ve never really been able to figure out why, exactly. Maybe it would have been just too much of a chore, and I’m just too lazy myself. But today is a new day, and chalk it up to whatever it is that you will, but today I will try to refute what the man says.
In his new column, Hitchens takes issue with a line in John Kerry’s acceptance speech. The line is: “And we shouldn't be opening firehouses in Baghdad and closing them down in the United States of America.”. Before even getting into what Hitchens says, I do cringe a little bit at that comment myself. I read someone’s commentary about the increasing nationalist rhetoric coming from the Democratic Party. As it is, I haven’t heard a louder voice for keeping jobs out of the hands of other people than John Edwards’, and he’s a Democrat. Who knew that we’d be the ones saying that?
The commentary continued by asking how someone like Barack Obama can make such similar statements in light of the fact that his own father, potentially, could have been one of those same people that could have benefited from international outsourcing at the expense of his mother, a woman from Kansas. Does Obama really feel that his mother would have been – hypothetically, mind you – more deserving of a job than his father? I know, the converse can be asked with equal results. I do admit that it’s something of a crap question.
But it does speak to this current sentiment that Americans are more deserving of jobs than people in other countries. Meaning, Ford should manufacture more cars here just because. Now that Ford – and countless other countries – have realized that they can save costs by working in other countries, we get all up in arms. But why? It’s capitalism. It’s a free market. Companies want to lower costs and increase profits. Why should they be bothered to operate differently?
The bleeding heart liberal inside me replies, quite simply, because we owe to one another, in this world, to be the better person, or the better company. While a company doesn’t have to provide health insurance, I think it does make for a better world that they do (never mind the positive effect it can have on the employees themselves which then, probably and/or possibly, leads to a better worker). Regardless, in a world where profits and bottom lines are what matter, it makes sense that a company would choose to not give a shit about who it employs, and it how it treats said employees.
So it’s with some unease that I listen to the Democrats talk about creating incentives to bring jobs back. Yes, it is nice, I guess, that we can flex our economic muscle and compel, if not outright oblige, companies to bring jobs back to the US. But India needs jobs, too. And China. And plenty of other places. Why do Americans suddenly deserve those same jobs? This effort just reeks of a small child, unhappy with how his little game is going, suddenly screaming, “Unfair!” and demanding a rules change. We all know that type of kid.
Clearly, then, I’m already in a position to agree with Hitchens. And as he begins, he does seem to make a similar point: “In a recent article about anti-Bush volunteers going door-to-door in Pennsylvania, … the New York Times cited a leaflet they were distributing, which said that the president was spending money in Iraq that could be better used at home. The mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, recently made the same point, proclaiming repeatedly that the Bay Area was being starved of funds that were being showered on Iraqis.” So, it’s similar in tone, though it talks of money being spent abroad, rather than of jobs being sent abroad.
But then Hitchens begins to lose me, asserting that “The further implication is that this is a zero-sum game, and that a dollar spent in Iraq is a dollar not spent on domestic needs. In other words, that this hospital or school in New Jersey or Montana would now be fully funded if it wasn't for a crowd of Arab and Kurdish panhandlers.” He describes this as “short-sighted”, arguing that it is common fact that “failed states turn into rogue states, and then export their rage and misery”. Rather, Hitchens would see us build up Iraq, for example, so that it may one day become a profitable trading partner.
My first question is that why can’t we spend the $87 billion (and I’m only guessing that that’s the correct figure) at home instead of abroad? Yes, the red tape that exists baring funds from going from the Defense budget to anything else is a hurdle, but one that can be – I should hope – overcome. But I’ve been naive before. But also, do we know for sure that all rogue states necessarily become terrorist factories? Yes, a functioning civil government does seem to quell uncivil disobedience, but do we know that to be true, too? How many acts of terrorism have been committed in the US by our own citizens? I admit that that’s a backwards version of what he’s saying. But my point is that even a successful state (and there are those that would question the success of our own US) can breed terrorism. And while we haven’t really begun to export our terrorists to other countries, I don’t see that as an impossibility.
And finally, Hitchens says that it is in our interest that Iraq become a prosperous trading partner, to generate income for us and them alike. A problem with that, I think, is that we have no idea how long that could take. And while we’re struggling to enforce a peace in Iraq, there are fires to fight here. I do get what Kerry was saying, I think, is that Americans want firefighters in their towns to fight their fires, rather than funding a drive to build firehouses in Iraq. There was an article in the New York Times about how police forces across the US are downsizing their forces due to budget cuts. Is that in our national interest?
Never mind that perhaps there are bigger fights to fight than where to build a new firehouse in Iraq. Maybe, instead, a priority would be to cement the Kurd’s approval of the goings-on, lest they move to take over Kirkuk, and bring part of Turkey along with it. Maybe the focus should be on involving Moqtada Al-Sadr and his militia in the proceedings so that he doesn’t lash out for fear of marginalization or exclusion. Maybe it should be an exit strategy, so that the Iraqi’s can legitimately feel as though their country belongs to them, and that they are in charge.
Regardless, clearly, it’s a complicated issue, with valid points on all sides. Was Kerry right to suggest that it’s better for America to keep firehouses open here or in Iraq? Hitchens, though, leaves his critique of that sentiment to what I described above, saying that yes it is, so that we may have a strong trading partner one day.
What he then goes on to do over the remaining three paragraphs is really what gets to me, though. Instead of actually creating an argument, Hitchens just resorts to name-calling. Reminding everyone of all the liberals that bemoaned the Hussein dictatorship, citing the extensive human rights abuses and atrocities, it’s now clear – keeping in mind that these same liberals are for firehouses in Iraq – that “all the protest about dead and malnourished Iraqi infants was all for show”. Liberals are just hypocrites. Clearly. I wonder if my sarcasm showed through there.
Yes, Hussein was a bad, bad man who did plenty of horrible, horrible things. I don’t think anyone was actually for him staying in power. But to move forward without a real plan to oust him, and leaving Americans as the sole responsible party to clean up afterwards? That was something that people were against. I mean, I think that there could have been, and should have been, a greater international role. I don’t think it’s right for the US to be the only nation contributing to Iraq’s rebuilding. It’s not just in our best interest for a stable Iraq, but it is in the interest of the entire world. So it does not demonstrate hypocrisy that someone could have been against Hussein as well as against the unilateral approach to removing Hussein that Bush for which Bush has called.
In his conclusion, Hitchens asks, “And why is Kerry so keen on attracting our ‘allies’ to share the burden in Iraq—or to ‘reduce the cost to American taxpayers,’ as he inelegantly put it—if not to help put out the fire that might otherwise consume more than a point in the budget?” The implication is that the cost of the Iraqi occupation doesn’t really amount to much, and while I will admit to taking not a single economics class while at the University of Chicago, I would still maintain that $87 billion, in this one year alone, is pretty sizable. Yes, some of these costs may be recouped once, and if, Iraq becomes a valuable trading partner (which, by the way, is a role that is based on the assumption that an Iraq, once truly democratic, will have anything to do with the US and won’t, instead, turn into a more hostile country, not unlike it’s neighbor Iran), but still, to say that the costs would amount to the tiniest of fractions in the overall budget? I just don’t quite believe that.
More than anything, I think that that’s why Hitchens bothers me. It’s not really the content of what he’s saying, as, clearly, I am inclined to agree with him that this latent xenophobia within the Democratic Party is disturbing, but rather it’s how he approaches his ideological opponents. Instead of any sort of thorough analysis, he goes for the easy out – name-calling and unfair characterizations. He seems to draw conclusions from the ether, for all their worth. I find his writing substantively wanting for the points he’s trying to make. Sadly, though, I must praise his penchant for ending on a terribly witty and biting comment; but to both praise the man and find fault with him would surely demonstrate my hypocrisy, and would therefore stand to reason that I hate all Iraqis, and consider the whole lot of them worthless and disposable. And so for fear of being labeled as such, I rescind my compliment to Hitchens, with my humblest apologies.
xoxo,
ddm
email me
Liz has often spoken of Christopher Hithchens, a columnist at – among other magazines - Slate. Liz is a fan. Myself, I have read some of his columns, but has always found him wanting. He just doesn’t do it for me, and I’ve never really been able to figure out why, exactly. Maybe it would have been just too much of a chore, and I’m just too lazy myself. But today is a new day, and chalk it up to whatever it is that you will, but today I will try to refute what the man says.
In his new column, Hitchens takes issue with a line in John Kerry’s acceptance speech. The line is: “And we shouldn't be opening firehouses in Baghdad and closing them down in the United States of America.”. Before even getting into what Hitchens says, I do cringe a little bit at that comment myself. I read someone’s commentary about the increasing nationalist rhetoric coming from the Democratic Party. As it is, I haven’t heard a louder voice for keeping jobs out of the hands of other people than John Edwards’, and he’s a Democrat. Who knew that we’d be the ones saying that?
The commentary continued by asking how someone like Barack Obama can make such similar statements in light of the fact that his own father, potentially, could have been one of those same people that could have benefited from international outsourcing at the expense of his mother, a woman from Kansas. Does Obama really feel that his mother would have been – hypothetically, mind you – more deserving of a job than his father? I know, the converse can be asked with equal results. I do admit that it’s something of a crap question.
But it does speak to this current sentiment that Americans are more deserving of jobs than people in other countries. Meaning, Ford should manufacture more cars here just because. Now that Ford – and countless other countries – have realized that they can save costs by working in other countries, we get all up in arms. But why? It’s capitalism. It’s a free market. Companies want to lower costs and increase profits. Why should they be bothered to operate differently?
The bleeding heart liberal inside me replies, quite simply, because we owe to one another, in this world, to be the better person, or the better company. While a company doesn’t have to provide health insurance, I think it does make for a better world that they do (never mind the positive effect it can have on the employees themselves which then, probably and/or possibly, leads to a better worker). Regardless, in a world where profits and bottom lines are what matter, it makes sense that a company would choose to not give a shit about who it employs, and it how it treats said employees.
So it’s with some unease that I listen to the Democrats talk about creating incentives to bring jobs back. Yes, it is nice, I guess, that we can flex our economic muscle and compel, if not outright oblige, companies to bring jobs back to the US. But India needs jobs, too. And China. And plenty of other places. Why do Americans suddenly deserve those same jobs? This effort just reeks of a small child, unhappy with how his little game is going, suddenly screaming, “Unfair!” and demanding a rules change. We all know that type of kid.
Clearly, then, I’m already in a position to agree with Hitchens. And as he begins, he does seem to make a similar point: “In a recent article about anti-Bush volunteers going door-to-door in Pennsylvania, … the New York Times cited a leaflet they were distributing, which said that the president was spending money in Iraq that could be better used at home. The mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, recently made the same point, proclaiming repeatedly that the Bay Area was being starved of funds that were being showered on Iraqis.” So, it’s similar in tone, though it talks of money being spent abroad, rather than of jobs being sent abroad.
But then Hitchens begins to lose me, asserting that “The further implication is that this is a zero-sum game, and that a dollar spent in Iraq is a dollar not spent on domestic needs. In other words, that this hospital or school in New Jersey or Montana would now be fully funded if it wasn't for a crowd of Arab and Kurdish panhandlers.” He describes this as “short-sighted”, arguing that it is common fact that “failed states turn into rogue states, and then export their rage and misery”. Rather, Hitchens would see us build up Iraq, for example, so that it may one day become a profitable trading partner.
My first question is that why can’t we spend the $87 billion (and I’m only guessing that that’s the correct figure) at home instead of abroad? Yes, the red tape that exists baring funds from going from the Defense budget to anything else is a hurdle, but one that can be – I should hope – overcome. But I’ve been naive before. But also, do we know for sure that all rogue states necessarily become terrorist factories? Yes, a functioning civil government does seem to quell uncivil disobedience, but do we know that to be true, too? How many acts of terrorism have been committed in the US by our own citizens? I admit that that’s a backwards version of what he’s saying. But my point is that even a successful state (and there are those that would question the success of our own US) can breed terrorism. And while we haven’t really begun to export our terrorists to other countries, I don’t see that as an impossibility.
And finally, Hitchens says that it is in our interest that Iraq become a prosperous trading partner, to generate income for us and them alike. A problem with that, I think, is that we have no idea how long that could take. And while we’re struggling to enforce a peace in Iraq, there are fires to fight here. I do get what Kerry was saying, I think, is that Americans want firefighters in their towns to fight their fires, rather than funding a drive to build firehouses in Iraq. There was an article in the New York Times about how police forces across the US are downsizing their forces due to budget cuts. Is that in our national interest?
Never mind that perhaps there are bigger fights to fight than where to build a new firehouse in Iraq. Maybe, instead, a priority would be to cement the Kurd’s approval of the goings-on, lest they move to take over Kirkuk, and bring part of Turkey along with it. Maybe the focus should be on involving Moqtada Al-Sadr and his militia in the proceedings so that he doesn’t lash out for fear of marginalization or exclusion. Maybe it should be an exit strategy, so that the Iraqi’s can legitimately feel as though their country belongs to them, and that they are in charge.
Regardless, clearly, it’s a complicated issue, with valid points on all sides. Was Kerry right to suggest that it’s better for America to keep firehouses open here or in Iraq? Hitchens, though, leaves his critique of that sentiment to what I described above, saying that yes it is, so that we may have a strong trading partner one day.
What he then goes on to do over the remaining three paragraphs is really what gets to me, though. Instead of actually creating an argument, Hitchens just resorts to name-calling. Reminding everyone of all the liberals that bemoaned the Hussein dictatorship, citing the extensive human rights abuses and atrocities, it’s now clear – keeping in mind that these same liberals are for firehouses in Iraq – that “all the protest about dead and malnourished Iraqi infants was all for show”. Liberals are just hypocrites. Clearly. I wonder if my sarcasm showed through there.
Yes, Hussein was a bad, bad man who did plenty of horrible, horrible things. I don’t think anyone was actually for him staying in power. But to move forward without a real plan to oust him, and leaving Americans as the sole responsible party to clean up afterwards? That was something that people were against. I mean, I think that there could have been, and should have been, a greater international role. I don’t think it’s right for the US to be the only nation contributing to Iraq’s rebuilding. It’s not just in our best interest for a stable Iraq, but it is in the interest of the entire world. So it does not demonstrate hypocrisy that someone could have been against Hussein as well as against the unilateral approach to removing Hussein that Bush for which Bush has called.
In his conclusion, Hitchens asks, “And why is Kerry so keen on attracting our ‘allies’ to share the burden in Iraq—or to ‘reduce the cost to American taxpayers,’ as he inelegantly put it—if not to help put out the fire that might otherwise consume more than a point in the budget?” The implication is that the cost of the Iraqi occupation doesn’t really amount to much, and while I will admit to taking not a single economics class while at the University of Chicago, I would still maintain that $87 billion, in this one year alone, is pretty sizable. Yes, some of these costs may be recouped once, and if, Iraq becomes a valuable trading partner (which, by the way, is a role that is based on the assumption that an Iraq, once truly democratic, will have anything to do with the US and won’t, instead, turn into a more hostile country, not unlike it’s neighbor Iran), but still, to say that the costs would amount to the tiniest of fractions in the overall budget? I just don’t quite believe that.
More than anything, I think that that’s why Hitchens bothers me. It’s not really the content of what he’s saying, as, clearly, I am inclined to agree with him that this latent xenophobia within the Democratic Party is disturbing, but rather it’s how he approaches his ideological opponents. Instead of any sort of thorough analysis, he goes for the easy out – name-calling and unfair characterizations. He seems to draw conclusions from the ether, for all their worth. I find his writing substantively wanting for the points he’s trying to make. Sadly, though, I must praise his penchant for ending on a terribly witty and biting comment; but to both praise the man and find fault with him would surely demonstrate my hypocrisy, and would therefore stand to reason that I hate all Iraqis, and consider the whole lot of them worthless and disposable. And so for fear of being labeled as such, I rescind my compliment to Hitchens, with my humblest apologies.
xoxo,
ddm
email me
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home