"You may disagree, on the grounds that we are always the good guys."
No reasonable person could look at the last 25 years and conclude that we are the good guys. This doesn't mean the opponents are the good guys, but we clearly aren't.
How many dead Iraqis, Syrians, Libyans, Afghanis would agree with you? How many live ones?
How many Ukrainians do you think would be alive today if we had kept our noses out of Ukraine altogether for the last 20 years? We are elephants in a china shop compared to the rest of the world. Since the turn of the century, we have brought foreigners almost nothing but death and destruction.
How many Ukrainians would be alive today instead of being victims of invasions by Russia if "we" had made a comprehensive alliance with Ukraine? (Hard as NATO, due to Russian meddling in Hungary and Erdogan's schemes. Hard as EU as not-military and not to keen on reaching out to the East after all the trouble with Hungary et al - Putin bought not only German, French and Italian "politicians" - and premature admission of Bulgaria/Romania. Still, the US, France, UK et all are still allowed to make bilateral alliances, or? )
Thus, if talking western engagement with Ukraine, I see: too little too late did not deter the "meddling" of the Kremlin. Sure, there are NGO/NPO and even GO in the liberal democratic western world going out to inform about the upsides of liberal western democratic values and practices. Even assistance for those who want to build them in their countries. Sorry if that was shocking news. (fun fact: the west "wins" mostly as its standards/quality of living et al is so obviously better.)
So are you suggesting we caused Russia to invade Ukraine and that those Ukrainians would be alive today if we’d stayed further away?
Or are you saying that in “good wars” that only the bad people will be killed?
That there are many innocent deaths is a tremendous tragedy, but it’s not the or the only metric that ought to be used to evaluate whether America’s actions on the international stage are good or bad.
Nope. Putin invaded on his own free will. But instead of even trying to deter him, western politicians instead signaled: we shall not interfere. Offering any bilateral alliance to Ukraine was not even discussed. Instead ridicule: as in Germany sending 5000 HELMETS to Ukraine and our (now fired) defence minister calling that " a strong signal". Well, it was, kind of.
People get killed in all wars, all kind of people, that is why wars are bad. At times they may still be justified (ending a brutal dictatorship in defiance of UN-resolutions is one example where one might pause to think there might be some justification - also harboring Osama-bin-Laden after 9/11) - Putin's invasion of Ukraine is not justified at all. Even if - horror of horrors - democracy advocating western NGOs were active in Ukraine. Sure they were, I worked for some. And very well so.
Indeed, dividing the world between good guys and bad guys is counterproductive and leads to bad politics and policy. It eliminates, for example, even considering cost-benefit analysis. You're either good and want to save the planet from climate change by whatever means necessary, or you're bad, wanting to destroy the planet by disagreeing with the "good." Russia must be wholly bad, Ukraine must be wholly good. One must not negotiate with the other party, for they are bad. You are good if you support "gender affirming" (sterilizing) surgeries for children, or you're bad, wanting children to commit suicide. And you can flip each of these binaries by flipping perspective. This polarized non-thinking will more surely destroy our civilization than any external enemy.
The US & most NGOs have been about 60% good, 20% neutral, and 20% bad. Yet even if you think these proportions are too generous, the others are worse. It's good to choose a lesser evil if one must choose.
Since Woke has become the elite religion, the good is going down & the bad is going up. Most people really do want more freedom & economic advancement, but also status & respect for their own beliefs. Especially their loves, like in loving their own country and loving their own religion.
The opponents of the US have been more often the inverse, about 20% good, 20% neutral, 60% bad.
In Slovakia, I'd say Meciar was 30% good (nationalism & nominally Christian), 20% neutral, and 50% bad - due to crony capitalism & corruption. All new Democracies are subject to corruption. Meciar DID allow free & fair elections, with votes hand counted at the precinct and reported that night, and strict Voter ID - and the anti-Meciar group of parties won a majority.
Good reforms, including joining the EU, joining NATO; and later joining the Eurozone. [I recall debating Nobel winning Gary Becker about the advantages to Slovakia in using the Euro - Becker wanted more competitive currencies. This would have resulted in far less investment, and ... a political return of nationalist anti-market populists].
As usual, good reforms result in better long-term growth, but most voters want faster short term econ improvements. Plus, even the fairly good guys often include some corruption - and corruption can rapidly destroy a coalition gov't.
Many voters keep looking for a way to vote for a good Philosopher King strongman. Orban in Hungary fits that mold, and tho the US & EU elites, and most NGOs are anti-Orban, he's remains very popular, and mostly good. Rod Dreher, among others, argues more US conservatives should support, and to some extent emulate Orban.
That whole East Asia concept is being flipped on its head in Korea at the moment due to American influence. As a Korean myself, I see it in full view. Through US-Korea University partnerships, American left wing politics is being mainlined into every head of university age student in Korea not to mention the lax immigration policies that have introduced numerous foreigners into the country (used to be simply military but the influx of english teachers + multi-national companies has brought in cultural destablization along with it). The whole East Asia can withstand cultural pressures is going to be tested (and probably disproven) as the pressure of Korea as a US satellite will be too difficult to withstand.
As an American this is an understandable view but what is the alternative? If Korea is not a satellite of the US it will become a satellite of China.
On the military point - much of it has been withdrawn and the former barracks in Seoul is being returned. I suspect many Koreans will yearn for the days when the US sent its rednecks there rather than its professors.
I don't think its rednecks per se but simply conservative people. Korea is very culturally conservative but its elites are trend followers since being Western is a marker for high status (for obvious reasons, the US is the imperial state). The left wing attaches its entire existence on creating disruptions therefore sowing chaos is just a blip on the road to utopia in their eyes. Unfortunately, these cultural changes are effectively reducing the Korean population to extinction (at least the South) with a less than half of replacement rate levels. North Korea has 2.4 children whereas South Korea is .87 today. The peninsula may stay Korean just not the Korean the South thinks its going to be.
Re: "The Right sees everyone as having poor executive control, and society as a whole develops norms and institutions to address that. These norms and institutions include the assignment of blame, so that crime is punished."
Arnold's insight here reminds me of David Hume's normative theory of checks and balances in constitutional design, in his essay, "Of the Independency of Parliament."
Therein, Hume explains that social norms ("honour") can check self-interest in small, close-knit groups, but not among large groups. (Compare Arnold's essay on Dunbar's Number, and Robert C. Ellickson's essay about "order without law" among close-knit groups., at links below.)
Let me quote Hume's remarkable essay:
"Political writers have established it as a maxim, that, in contriving any system of government, and fixing the several checks and controuls of the constitution, every man ought to be supposed a knave, and to have no other end, in all his actions, than private interest. By this interest we must govern him, and, by means of it, make him, notwithstanding his insatiable avarice and ambition, co-operate to public good. Without this, say they, we shall in vain boast of the advantages of any constitution, and shall find, in the end, that we have no security for our liberties or possessions, except the good-will of our rulers; that is, we shall have no security at all.
It is, therefore, a just political maxim, that every man must be supposed a knave: Though at the same time, it appears somewhat strange, that a maxim should be true in politics, which is false in fact. But to satisfy us on this head, we may consider, that men are generally more honest in their private than in their public capacity, and will go greater lengths to serve a party, than when their own private interest is alone concerned. Honour is a great check upon mankind: But where a considerable body of men act together, this check is, in a great measure, removed; since a man is sure to be approved of by his own party, for what promotes the common interest; and he soon learns to despise the clamours of adversaries. To which we may add, that every court or senate is determined by the greater number of voices; so that, if self-interest influences only the majority, (as it will always do) the whole senate follows the allurements of this separate interest, and acts as if it contained not one member, who had any regard to public interest and liberty.
When there offers, therefore, to our censure and examination, any plan of government, real or imaginary, where the power is distributed among several courts, and several orders of men, we should always consider the separate interest of each court, and each order; and, if we find that, by the skilful division of power, this interest must necessarily, in its operation, concur with public, we may pronounce that government to be wise and happy. If, on the contrary, separate interest be not checked, and be not directed to the public, we ought to look for nothing but faction, disorder, and tyranny from such a government. In this opinion I am justified by experience, as well as by the authority of all philosophers and politicians, both antient and modern."
Sources:
David Hume, "Of the Independency of Parliament" (1741):
Authority "hoarding" by PH officials. I agree 100% that CDC/FDA did not even try to give the public and local policy makers the tools and information so that THEY, not CDC/FDA could make cost effective decisions about the response to CIVID (and the media failed to call them out for this). But is this new or just especially visible in the case of COVID? Has "hoarding" gotten worse?
Re: "I do not want to return to the “old-time religion” of standard economics, which ends up dealing with social norms by trying to stuff them into utility functions. But neither do I want to be forced to rely on Marxist sociology, seeing power relations, exploitation, and repression everywhere."
A generation ago, Robert Sugden, Jon Elster, and Robert C. Ellickson blazed a trail:
Yes- that is exactly what I am suggesting about Ukraine. If we hadn't pushed NATO right up the Russian borders, there wouldn't be a Ukraine-Russia War today.
Re: "Practices concerning premarital sex, divorce, and child-bearing have changed dramatically. What caused all of these changes? What economic impacts did they have? How did they reshape society? [... .] These questions strike me as interesting and important. I see neither standard economics nor Marxist sociology raising them, much less proposing interesting answers." -- Arnold Kling, essay at embedded link above, "The Road to Sociology Has Promises and Pitfalls."
There are incisive exceptions.
1) See, for example, the explanation in terms of "technology shock" (the pill and legal abortion), by George Akerlof and Janet Yellen (1996):
2) And see David D. Friedman's essays in chapters 13 ("Human Reproduction") and 14 ("The More You Know ...") of his fascinating book, *Future Imperfect* (2008):
Soldo: Maybe we should just amend Westphalian norms to legitimize soft interventions. Russian interference in US elections OK, invading Ukraine not OK. Ditto US support for color revolutions OK, invading Iraq not OK.
I don't disagree with Soldo on the grounds that "we" (I don't identify with the US government, which is generally malicious) are always the good guys; I disagree with him on the grounds that he's wrong. Russian (in Russia, not diaspora) writer Devcroix, (who has a good Substack here: https://devlin.substack.com/archive), briefly explained why on Twitter. https://twitter.com/devarbol/status/1636702793250623488
Depending on the study, Blau and Kahn is one, after correcting for known variables women make 90 to 98% as much as men. Is the other ~5% discrimination or unknown/unmeasured choices by women? IDK? If there were no discrimination and the affect of choices made by women all known and accounted for, would incomes be equal? Again, IDK but I suspect in our knowledge economy with a high value for social skills, women might make more than men after correcting for other variables.
"You may disagree, on the grounds that we are always the good guys."
No reasonable person could look at the last 25 years and conclude that we are the good guys. This doesn't mean the opponents are the good guys, but we clearly aren't.
As it pertains to America and the rest of the world, respectfully, I think I’ll dissent from this one.
I think a reasonable person could conclude that we are the good guys, and the last 25 years does demonstrate it.
How many dead Iraqis, Syrians, Libyans, Afghanis would agree with you? How many live ones?
How many Ukrainians do you think would be alive today if we had kept our noses out of Ukraine altogether for the last 20 years? We are elephants in a china shop compared to the rest of the world. Since the turn of the century, we have brought foreigners almost nothing but death and destruction.
How many Ukrainians would be alive today instead of being victims of invasions by Russia if "we" had made a comprehensive alliance with Ukraine? (Hard as NATO, due to Russian meddling in Hungary and Erdogan's schemes. Hard as EU as not-military and not to keen on reaching out to the East after all the trouble with Hungary et al - Putin bought not only German, French and Italian "politicians" - and premature admission of Bulgaria/Romania. Still, the US, France, UK et all are still allowed to make bilateral alliances, or? )
Thus, if talking western engagement with Ukraine, I see: too little too late did not deter the "meddling" of the Kremlin. Sure, there are NGO/NPO and even GO in the liberal democratic western world going out to inform about the upsides of liberal western democratic values and practices. Even assistance for those who want to build them in their countries. Sorry if that was shocking news. (fun fact: the west "wins" mostly as its standards/quality of living et al is so obviously better.)
So are you suggesting we caused Russia to invade Ukraine and that those Ukrainians would be alive today if we’d stayed further away?
Or are you saying that in “good wars” that only the bad people will be killed?
That there are many innocent deaths is a tremendous tragedy, but it’s not the or the only metric that ought to be used to evaluate whether America’s actions on the international stage are good or bad.
Nope. Putin invaded on his own free will. But instead of even trying to deter him, western politicians instead signaled: we shall not interfere. Offering any bilateral alliance to Ukraine was not even discussed. Instead ridicule: as in Germany sending 5000 HELMETS to Ukraine and our (now fired) defence minister calling that " a strong signal". Well, it was, kind of.
People get killed in all wars, all kind of people, that is why wars are bad. At times they may still be justified (ending a brutal dictatorship in defiance of UN-resolutions is one example where one might pause to think there might be some justification - also harboring Osama-bin-Laden after 9/11) - Putin's invasion of Ukraine is not justified at all. Even if - horror of horrors - democracy advocating western NGOs were active in Ukraine. Sure they were, I worked for some. And very well so.
Indeed, dividing the world between good guys and bad guys is counterproductive and leads to bad politics and policy. It eliminates, for example, even considering cost-benefit analysis. You're either good and want to save the planet from climate change by whatever means necessary, or you're bad, wanting to destroy the planet by disagreeing with the "good." Russia must be wholly bad, Ukraine must be wholly good. One must not negotiate with the other party, for they are bad. You are good if you support "gender affirming" (sterilizing) surgeries for children, or you're bad, wanting children to commit suicide. And you can flip each of these binaries by flipping perspective. This polarized non-thinking will more surely destroy our civilization than any external enemy.
The US & most NGOs have been about 60% good, 20% neutral, and 20% bad. Yet even if you think these proportions are too generous, the others are worse. It's good to choose a lesser evil if one must choose.
Since Woke has become the elite religion, the good is going down & the bad is going up. Most people really do want more freedom & economic advancement, but also status & respect for their own beliefs. Especially their loves, like in loving their own country and loving their own religion.
The opponents of the US have been more often the inverse, about 20% good, 20% neutral, 60% bad.
In Slovakia, I'd say Meciar was 30% good (nationalism & nominally Christian), 20% neutral, and 50% bad - due to crony capitalism & corruption. All new Democracies are subject to corruption. Meciar DID allow free & fair elections, with votes hand counted at the precinct and reported that night, and strict Voter ID - and the anti-Meciar group of parties won a majority.
Good reforms, including joining the EU, joining NATO; and later joining the Eurozone. [I recall debating Nobel winning Gary Becker about the advantages to Slovakia in using the Euro - Becker wanted more competitive currencies. This would have resulted in far less investment, and ... a political return of nationalist anti-market populists].
As usual, good reforms result in better long-term growth, but most voters want faster short term econ improvements. Plus, even the fairly good guys often include some corruption - and corruption can rapidly destroy a coalition gov't.
Many voters keep looking for a way to vote for a good Philosopher King strongman. Orban in Hungary fits that mold, and tho the US & EU elites, and most NGOs are anti-Orban, he's remains very popular, and mostly good. Rod Dreher, among others, argues more US conservatives should support, and to some extent emulate Orban.
That whole East Asia concept is being flipped on its head in Korea at the moment due to American influence. As a Korean myself, I see it in full view. Through US-Korea University partnerships, American left wing politics is being mainlined into every head of university age student in Korea not to mention the lax immigration policies that have introduced numerous foreigners into the country (used to be simply military but the influx of english teachers + multi-national companies has brought in cultural destablization along with it). The whole East Asia can withstand cultural pressures is going to be tested (and probably disproven) as the pressure of Korea as a US satellite will be too difficult to withstand.
As an American this is an understandable view but what is the alternative? If Korea is not a satellite of the US it will become a satellite of China.
On the military point - much of it has been withdrawn and the former barracks in Seoul is being returned. I suspect many Koreans will yearn for the days when the US sent its rednecks there rather than its professors.
I don't think its rednecks per se but simply conservative people. Korea is very culturally conservative but its elites are trend followers since being Western is a marker for high status (for obvious reasons, the US is the imperial state). The left wing attaches its entire existence on creating disruptions therefore sowing chaos is just a blip on the road to utopia in their eyes. Unfortunately, these cultural changes are effectively reducing the Korean population to extinction (at least the South) with a less than half of replacement rate levels. North Korea has 2.4 children whereas South Korea is .87 today. The peninsula may stay Korean just not the Korean the South thinks its going to be.
Re: "The Right sees everyone as having poor executive control, and society as a whole develops norms and institutions to address that. These norms and institutions include the assignment of blame, so that crime is punished."
Arnold's insight here reminds me of David Hume's normative theory of checks and balances in constitutional design, in his essay, "Of the Independency of Parliament."
Therein, Hume explains that social norms ("honour") can check self-interest in small, close-knit groups, but not among large groups. (Compare Arnold's essay on Dunbar's Number, and Robert C. Ellickson's essay about "order without law" among close-knit groups., at links below.)
Let me quote Hume's remarkable essay:
"Political writers have established it as a maxim, that, in contriving any system of government, and fixing the several checks and controuls of the constitution, every man ought to be supposed a knave, and to have no other end, in all his actions, than private interest. By this interest we must govern him, and, by means of it, make him, notwithstanding his insatiable avarice and ambition, co-operate to public good. Without this, say they, we shall in vain boast of the advantages of any constitution, and shall find, in the end, that we have no security for our liberties or possessions, except the good-will of our rulers; that is, we shall have no security at all.
It is, therefore, a just political maxim, that every man must be supposed a knave: Though at the same time, it appears somewhat strange, that a maxim should be true in politics, which is false in fact. But to satisfy us on this head, we may consider, that men are generally more honest in their private than in their public capacity, and will go greater lengths to serve a party, than when their own private interest is alone concerned. Honour is a great check upon mankind: But where a considerable body of men act together, this check is, in a great measure, removed; since a man is sure to be approved of by his own party, for what promotes the common interest; and he soon learns to despise the clamours of adversaries. To which we may add, that every court or senate is determined by the greater number of voices; so that, if self-interest influences only the majority, (as it will always do) the whole senate follows the allurements of this separate interest, and acts as if it contained not one member, who had any regard to public interest and liberty.
When there offers, therefore, to our censure and examination, any plan of government, real or imaginary, where the power is distributed among several courts, and several orders of men, we should always consider the separate interest of each court, and each order; and, if we find that, by the skilful division of power, this interest must necessarily, in its operation, concur with public, we may pronounce that government to be wise and happy. If, on the contrary, separate interest be not checked, and be not directed to the public, we ought to look for nothing but faction, disorder, and tyranny from such a government. In this opinion I am justified by experience, as well as by the authority of all philosophers and politicians, both antient and modern."
Sources:
David Hume, "Of the Independency of Parliament" (1741):
https://davidhume.org/texts/emp/ip
Arnold Kling, "Dunbar's Number" (20 December 2022):
https://arnoldkling.substack.com/p/dunbars-number
Robert C. Ellickson, "Of Coase and Cattle: Dispute-Resolution among Neighbors in Shasta County" (1986):
https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/4171/Of_Coase_and_Cattle___Dispute_Resolution_Among_Neighbors_in_Shasta_County.pdf
Authority "hoarding" by PH officials. I agree 100% that CDC/FDA did not even try to give the public and local policy makers the tools and information so that THEY, not CDC/FDA could make cost effective decisions about the response to CIVID (and the media failed to call them out for this). But is this new or just especially visible in the case of COVID? Has "hoarding" gotten worse?
Re: "I do not want to return to the “old-time religion” of standard economics, which ends up dealing with social norms by trying to stuff them into utility functions. But neither do I want to be forced to rely on Marxist sociology, seeing power relations, exploitation, and repression everywhere."
A generation ago, Robert Sugden, Jon Elster, and Robert C. Ellickson blazed a trail:
Robert Sugden, "Spontaneous Order" (JEP, 1989):
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.3.4.85
Jon Elster, "Social Norms and Economic Theory" (JEP, 1989):
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.3.4.99
Robert C. Ellickson, "The Market for Social Norms" (2000)
https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/3480/Market_for_Social_Norms__The.pdf
Academe has lent a deaf ear, mostly. I don't know why these ideas about norms haven't gained traction.
Yes- that is exactly what I am suggesting about Ukraine. If we hadn't pushed NATO right up the Russian borders, there wouldn't be a Ukraine-Russia War today.
RE: Richard Hanania, how does he explain then that nearly all of those countries are basket cases of governance?
Would he really prefer to live in China or North Korea, or would he just prefer for himself to be turning Japanese?
Re: "Practices concerning premarital sex, divorce, and child-bearing have changed dramatically. What caused all of these changes? What economic impacts did they have? How did they reshape society? [... .] These questions strike me as interesting and important. I see neither standard economics nor Marxist sociology raising them, much less proposing interesting answers." -- Arnold Kling, essay at embedded link above, "The Road to Sociology Has Promises and Pitfalls."
There are incisive exceptions.
1) See, for example, the explanation in terms of "technology shock" (the pill and legal abortion), by George Akerlof and Janet Yellen (1996):
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/new-mothers-not-married-technology-shock-the-demise-of-shotgun-marriage-and-the-increase-in-out-of-wedlock-births/
Full QJE article at the link below:
http://public.econ.duke.edu/~vjh3/e262p/readings/Akerlof_Yellen_Katz.pdf
2) And see David D. Friedman's essays in chapters 13 ("Human Reproduction") and 14 ("The More You Know ...") of his fascinating book, *Future Imperfect* (2008):
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Future_Imperfect.html
Moral Dyad. Clearly the correct answer is somewhere between the extremes, and that point depends on the issue.
Gender economics "ends up dealing with social norms by trying to stuff them into utility functions."
I'd guess it has been a long time since that was "standard economics. :) It's more like a Leftist straw man.
Soldo: Maybe we should just amend Westphalian norms to legitimize soft interventions. Russian interference in US elections OK, invading Ukraine not OK. Ditto US support for color revolutions OK, invading Iraq not OK.
I don't disagree with Soldo on the grounds that "we" (I don't identify with the US government, which is generally malicious) are always the good guys; I disagree with him on the grounds that he's wrong. Russian (in Russia, not diaspora) writer Devcroix, (who has a good Substack here: https://devlin.substack.com/archive), briefly explained why on Twitter. https://twitter.com/devarbol/status/1636702793250623488
Depending on the study, Blau and Kahn is one, after correcting for known variables women make 90 to 98% as much as men. Is the other ~5% discrimination or unknown/unmeasured choices by women? IDK? If there were no discrimination and the affect of choices made by women all known and accounted for, would incomes be equal? Again, IDK but I suspect in our knowledge economy with a high value for social skills, women might make more than men after correcting for other variables.