On the Southside, White Sox fans and Cardinals fans get along pretty darned well. There are few discernable differences between two groups with regard to their backgrounds & philosophies. When not following baseball, we tend to eat the same foods, practice the same politics, engage in similar professions and worship the same God (or Gods, sometimes). There are far greater differences within the groups than between the groups. And, on top of all those similarities, White Sox & Cardinals fans can both talk about how much we hate the Cubs.
That's a clear example of this foreign policy concept: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. However, you can take that concept too far. Groups with the same enemy may be so different, their interests may be so inimical to each other that they really can't be allies in any meaningful way. I wish the Neocons understood that.
A united Middle East would threaten our hegemony, so we've long benefited from letting Arabs and Muslims fight among themselves, spurring them on at times. Yet, the Neocons seemed to believe that, because Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were both enemies of the United States, they were also allies for each other. Al Qaeda is composed of religious fanatics and Hussein was a secular leader; they were bitter enemies.
Nor should the fact that we're enemies with Al Qaeda and that Israel is enemies with Al Qaeda necessarily lead to the conclusion that we should be lockstep with Israel. Our support of Israel should hinge on a range of factors concerning our national interest.
The worst Neocon fallacy brings the war home. Republicans have tried to argue that since Al Qaeda is our enemy and since Democrats are Republicans' enemies, then Democrats are somehow helping Al Qaeda. Here we have Dick Cheney trying to drive home that argument:
And when [our enemies] see the American government caught up in arguments about interrogations, or whether foreign terrorists have constitutional rights, they don't stand back in awe of our legal system and wonder whether they had misjudged us all along. Instead the terrorists see just what they were hoping for-- our unity gone, our resolve shaken, our leaders distracted. In short, they see weakness and opportunity.
That statement made me furious. He's a deposed Vice-President who's wandering around the country telling anyone who'll listen that the sitting, newly-elected President is making us less safe. Yet, he's asking for unity. The audacity of his hypocrisy is staggering. By "unity", of course, he means adopting his policies without argument.
Even if he were correct about how terrorists view our "disunity"-- and I'm skeptical-- the argument's a red herring that illlustrates the Neocon's central mistake. They seem to spend every waking moment thinking about what our behavior will mean to terrorists who have already resolved to strike at us with whatever means are at their disposal. They're basically unpersuadable. Why even waste our time worrying about what terrorists think of us?
But there are huge numbers of people in the Middle East who are persuadable. If we can change their perception of us, the terrorists would have fewer allies, fewer resources. What perception of America appeals to the persuadable-- the United States as a Borg-like race of unified citizens with single-minded resolve? Or would we appear less threatening if we appeared to be a bickering collection of people who confront many sides of an issue and then take turns (with elections) executing policy? Maybe it all comes down to how you view the persuadables in the Middle East. Which is more compelling-- threats or outreach?
The University of Chicago has never been a Borg-like institution. Attracting & keeping the best faculty means treating them like colleagues. Policy changes go thru stages of review with a wide variety of points of view considered, even if they're ultimately disposed of. The University's policies concerning the surrounding neighborhoods should follow the same path and probably do (though sometimes I worry).
By the time the University publicly outlines a neighborhood initiative, it's usually gone thru internal discussion stages. Then the administrators have to listen to many of the same arguments from the community that they heard internally. It doesn't have to work that way. Much of the internal discussion could happen in public, at forums, with University officials publicly arguing different points of view.
There's nothing we like better in Hyde Park than a good argument and, even if we disagree with someone's conclusion, we often appreciate a well-reasoned argument supporting that conclusion. Even if the University decides to act against a group's interests on one initiative, they'll be far less likely to reflexively oppose the University in the future if they believe their side got a fair hearing, that all sides were considered before the University put its considerable weight behind an issue.
I have a feeling that the lessons of Dick Cheney will often be applicable for decades to come. Granted, it'll almost always be a lesson of what not to do.
Recent Comments