catapult magazine

Cuba:

We already can’t buy good cigars here anymore. What more do you want? How much more must we sacrifice??

Thanks for the slap and the backslap! I’ve been enjoying the exchange. I might agree with grant’s posing of the three way conflict if we used different wording. I’d be more comfortable with:
1. Spirit of American capitalism (which includes a good dose of certain kinds of freedom)
2. Spirit of Islamic fundamentalism
3. Spirit of the rest of the world

I have the most trouble defining the third, because the opposition to the first two spirits ranges from European envy of American muscle, to the non-fundamentalist quasi-democratic Muslim world; from Ethiopians who are this year facing a worse famine than in 1984 (it’s their bad luck that Iraq is grabbing all the headlines this year), to the Chinese who certainly don’t support a worldwide egalitarian order.

The first two spirits represent to me two kinds of fundamentalisms. The first with a fanatical belief in the ‘free market’ and hatred of any voice which disagrees. The second with a fanatical belief in God and hatred of American idolatry of the free market. It’s an ugly setup and an uneven one. The Muslim fundamentalists have a whole lot more people on their side. The American fundamentalists have bigger bombs.

But I’m not sure how Iraq fits into this. I suspect they are the victim, not only of Hussein’s brutal regime, but also the victim of America’s frustration about having really big bombs but not knowing who to drop them on.

Excellent summary, dan. But then you throw in that last comment—just for the fun of it, I suppose—which might suggest that Bush named three enemies because he’ll end up having several bombs left over after a war with Iraq and is gonna need some other places to blow them up. I guess it sort of makes sense.

I am not doubting there are some selfish motivations involved. But when much of the argument is built around the idea that America’s leader is a moron or that the U.S. just likes to flex its muscles or that Bush is only trying to make war with Iraq to gain control of its oil, as many people in the world believe, then I think we are not challenging ourselves to talk about what’s really at stake. Instead, we’re stopping at mere caricatures of the people involved and the situation as a whole.

And the reason I chose “the spirit of renewed Moslem domination” is because this applies to Saddam Hussein as well as to Islamic fundamentalists. This spirit is what fundamentalist Islam might have in common with a more “secular” Islam like that of Hussein.

And though I agree that American democracy can be defined as capitalistic democracy, I’m not sure that I would call capitalism a kind of fundamentalism. Why do you see it that way?

I agree with dan. There is a certain sexiness associated with war — flasely of course. Hussien is slowly gaininng the midaged weight and cellulite that cause unsexiness. Bush — well he was unsexy from the beginning. This is all about money. Money is relatable to sex. Money is sexy. But all this is not. War is the epitome of all things droopy and stinky. Unsexy. Veeeeeeeery unsexy. Instead of latching on the to ideals of these “noble” politicians — we should strive to follow someone a little more loving, kind, and concerned with more important things. Well done Austin!

The cover story of Friday’s Chicago Tribune quoted Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge as saying, “Duct Tape has become overpoliticized.”

First of all, I can’t believe I live in a world where that statement makes sense to me. Second, was Duct Tape under-politicized before? Or just politicized?

Sorry for the side track, but after all … duct tape

grant, I chose to use “spirit of Islamic fundamentalism” because the only thing that unites a socialist dictator like Hussein with a holy warrior like Osama bin Laden is their hate for America. I don’t think that is enough to group them together as a “spirit.” They represent wildly different spirits and will never be able to work together for anything, not even America’s demise.

I realize that you can’t just boil this down to capitalism versus Islam, but I’ll argue that capitalism is the spirit that has allowed America to become powerful, and continues to be the dominant spirit eminating from America to the rest of the world. When Bush defines the current struggle in terms of freedom versus tyranny, most of the world rolls its eyes. Outside of US borders, America is known first for its promotion of capitalism, often at its exploitative worst.

Here’s what I’d say are the characteristics of fundamentalism:
1. Religious belief system based on certain dogmatic principles.
2. Characterized by a moral scheme that sees no greys, only black and white.
3. Focused on proselytizing.
4. Requires a general feeling of vulnerablity — the notion that the rest of the world is against us.

American capitalism under Bush fits all these criteria.
1. The current administration believes the free market is the truth, the way, and the life.
2. Bush’s moral scheme includes no greys.
3. The democracy/capitalism/freedom package is feverishly marketed around the world using economic carrots and sticks.
4. Perhaps most importantly after Sept 11, capitalism has come to be associated with freedom, both of which are supposedly under attack. This feeling of “us against the world” is what makes all fundamentalisms essentially dangerous, capable of producing martyrs; and capable of compelling an intelligent population to accept a president who insists on making the world a more dangerous place, especially for Americans. “Fools for Bush” would be the apt fundamentalist biblical allusion, no?

I heard a commentator on BBC today suggesting that there are again two superpowers in the world—the United States and world public opinion. Does this seem acurate?

World public opinion doesn’t have as many bombs as we do. Unfortunately, that means we win.

Yes, this is definitely all about competing for power. Part of the reason I hate France and Germany’s take on the U.S. is that it seems hypocritical. At the heart of France and Germany’s “concern” that the U.S. has too much power on the world scene is their own desire to establish authority and power as leaders of the infant E.U. The U.S. (represented by Bush’s claims that we can go it alone if need be) undermines the authority of the potentially “up-and-coming” E.U., and therefore poses a threat to France and Germany who want to establish themselves in positions of leadership in Europe and the world.

France and Germany realize they don’t have the power of bombs, but they think they can combat such influential power with the strength of world opinion. This is a fundamental difference between much of the world and the U.S. Since the U.S. has a strong military, it trusts that the military can bring peace, but much of the world cannot compete with this military might and puts its hope in the power of public opinion and diplomacy instead. If France and Germany win this battle for the hearts and minds of the rest of the world and the U.S. fails to achieve its coveted “stability in the mid-East” by going it alone militarily, “old Europe” wins the argument and proves to have the greater power (world opinion) on its side. Now I also believe with France and Germany that there are greater powers in this world than guns and bombs, but I don’t think this is the proper time for them to try to assert their authority.

And I agree with dan’s summation of fundamentalisms, excepting the first point. Religious dogmatism exists just as much in moderatism as it does in fundamentalism. My philosophy professors are as “open-minded” as they come, yet this open-mindedness itself becomes its own open-mindednessism (dogmatism).

I really appreciate this way of trying to articulate the issue at hand, though, i.e. as a conflict involving major movements between certain spirits of the age. For anyone who’s interested and/or able, PBS’s Frontline will be talking about the present conflict in terms of the major differences between the opposing groups. The program (which airs Thursday night here in Chicago) illuminates the way Bush’s administration sees itself now, i.e. in a new Cold War. I’m not sure that’s entirely accurate, but it beats the arguments I keep hearing (not necessarily on *cino) about the dummy in the White House. Everything I’ve seen and heard from Bush makes me think that America’s president is a huge idealist with great faith that the world can be made a safer place in the long run. There’s a major difference, of course, between the way he thinks such a goal will be accomplished and how others think it will be achieved.