Lessons from the Weimar Republic (updated)

I think somebody needs a hug.

Remember, without your contribution to the debate, things would certainly be worse (i.e. an attack on Iran would have already happened)

I disagree that we're wasting bandwidth on Park51. This seemingly insignificant event has shown the deep-rooted racism still prevalent in America people thought was wiped out when Obama was elected. Obama really needs to make another big speech on race regarding this issue, similar to the one after Rev Wright. Isn't it funny that all the people who think Obama is muslim all remember who Rev Wright is?

“And yet we are burning up bandwidth
on manufactured controversies like the Park 51 issue, mostly because
a bunch of out-of-town and out-of-power politicos
decided they could exploit the issue for their own selfish agendas.”

It seems to me that
those who control what appears in the media
are, guess what, the media itself.
The media can ignore or feature anything and anyone.
Just ask Ron Paul and Ralph Nader about that :-)

The media controls our national debate, such as it is,
as well as setting its agenda..
Nicht wahr?

Unfotunately, those who might defend liberal values appear, for now, to have left the field to the nutcases

We've become a nation of Good Germans. Liberals may not have the knowledge or perhaps cojones for the fight. I never trusted Obama because he was always too vague. Now we did have three candidates that were earnest and challenging, Mike Gravel, Ron Paul and Dennis K. But, alas as Tolstoy describes in his "Letter to Liberals" an honest man can't get elected in a world of sophistic liars.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/snyder/snyder14.html

For instance my wife has an opportunity to work for the Tower Center here at SMU. I am wondering if it's worth it. Will they allow her to make the tough arguments I make here? Will they consider the notion that Machiavellian machinations undermine our national security, or are they seeking any advantage at any cost. I notice you're not working at the CFR, or the Heritage Foundation.

But, do liberals, in Tolstoy's sense of the word, have the knowledge of economics and politics and of the street fight? We've been brainwashed with the Chicago School of Economics theory of Free Markets. I've argued elsewhere that we have 3 Markets not Free Markets. I've persuaded Paul Craig Roberts of this but haven't been able to convince libertarians yet.

There is a free market. I am in it as a landscape designer/installer. The customer has all the power since there is ample alternatives and competition. Again, the apt slogan is "the customer is always right." After a meal at a restaurant, visit to the cleaners or any other free market transaction both parties say, "thank you," and mean it. All the bromides celebrating the free market are true.

Next we have the professional market. Here there is no alternative but there is competition. Doctors have a gov't guaranteed lock on Medicine, lawyers, legal practice and accountants tax filing. Ben Franklin famously said, "a country boy between two lawyers is like a fish between two cats." In professional markets the customer isn't so called but is a client, patient or somesuch. This is indicative of the special (fiduciary) relationship. Ironically most libertarians are professors (among the weakest of professions regarding fiduciary duties) and yet don't appreciate that they are in a special market. Fiduciary responsibilities or laws of agency govern this market and is intended to protect the client. In these markets the customer CAN'T be right, he's buying expertise after all.

The third market is the Monopoly/utility market. (Monopolies are relevant only in essential goods/services otherwise they don't really matter) But in these markets the gov't assists these providers in ways they don't aid other markets. (If one knows the history of the rail roads, Ayn Rand's John Galt is likely the greatest beneficiary of Socialism in all of literature. Making that work such a fairy tale it can be celebrated only by ignorant fools.)

If we consider electricity, gov't often commission these powerplants, ordering the very wattage and amperage of out put. The powerlines that permit delivery require the access only gov't granted easements allow. Further, gov't subsidies will assist the poor and gov'ts use of these services and defense contractors. It doesn't make sense to have competing powerlines from competing providers and finally externalities are generally borne by the gov't as well. Yet, we're told these "titans of industry" should be free to charge whatever the market will bear.

We saw in the Summer of 07 when gas rose to $4/gallon that demand only fell by 5%. The pricing power of these monopolies/utilities are essentially infinite. This is anything but a "free market." Other utilities include gasoline, water, roads, the military, and commercial (retail) banking and health care.

The latter two are special amalgamations; professional utilities. I wrote about fiduciary duties, where the principle or client's interest must be protected. But when the payer and the client are separated this gets messy. Conventionally the professional represents the payer. So, in the case of healthcare, that is the insurer in our market or in some cases the gov't. So, the agent may be conflicted as to who to serve.

In Banking the gov't creates the money, insures the market and provides other assistance that makes this market function like a utility. Yet, in some cases we have truth in lending and other fiduciary restraints, but we've yet to cede this market to fiduciary law.

Our economic crisis, the "shitty deals" would be easily adjudicated in court if fiduciary law governed rather than regulators who can be bought off, undermined with legislative loopholes or other corruptions where power and money can pervert the regulation. This would be far cheaper, more effective and an example of smarter and smaller gov't.

This paradigm can be used to analyze our agriculture policy. Food stamps preserve supply and demand, there's very little graft or waste as the subsidies are small and given to individuals. Compare that with WIC, maker of "gov't cheese and butter" This can only happen with giant corporations, meaning consolidation where there should be competition. In food after all, we have ample alternatives, wheat, corn, rice, soy... but our farm policy has created a few monopolies, Con Agra, ADM, Monsanto. We have a very few strains of these grains, where many should exist. We've completely abandoned anti-trust regulation, favoring the lucre and "campaign contributions" that these megaliths offer. Another example is our dreadful, physics defying corn ethanol program which is just a kickback to ADM and our farm vote.

How many liberals have played contact sports. I dare say my Rugby experience has given me more insight into foreign policy than you can get from a book. With just one ref, the tone of a game is determined largely by players. Sometimes it's worthwhile to cheat, or take an advantage the ref won't notice. But, the other team will, and will likely try to beat the crap out of the offender. Sometimes this is worth it, but you learn to pick your spots. No American, Israeli, or Western soldier living has been in a fair fight. (I don't want our boys in a fair fight) But, this doesn't mean that we are above consequences for our actions. Terrorism is one way blow back settles these scores.

One quickly learns the limits of violence. Force won't dissuade me of my arguments, nor you yours. But, our WIMP politicians, and liberals were likely intimidated by bullies. Eventually, the bully will get taken down. I've taken down two who confronted me. I've only once sought to start a fight and felt like an ass for doing it--though I pummeled the poor fellow. I just doubt the NE elite has had these experiences. (I was drinking straight from a 1.75 liter bottle of gin and wanted to do something to remember.)

For whatever reason I've never held strong loyalties, but to the truth. I resent the elitism of Jargon where someone with a few special words believes they are smarter than others. This is a sophistry all it's own that hides a cowardice. I'm a fan of the Socratic method, and want others to think for themselves.

Finally, I have a degree in philosophy. It was logic in Summer school that hooked me. I too planned to go to Law School, but my atty father discouraged me from doing so my senior year. My next inclination was to go into the ministry. I applied to Union where my mentor studied under Paul Tillich, Niebuhr, and those heavyweights from Columbia. My conundrum here was that I no longer believed in the Trinity. My final paper was on Voltaire's Candide, coupled with skeptical Epistemology. (Hence my disdain for your defense of "Realism" as an abstraction) I concluded that logic was too rigid a system to offer real guidance, that skeptics don't have the force of their convictions as they look both ways when crossing the street--"All I know is that I have to go work in the Garden." Which I've done for 20 yrs now (I'm 41.)

I'm drawn to political economics and foreign policy. Yet, no one wants an earnest voice. Ciphers are much more employable. I don't have an agenda short of developing systems/paradigms that capture and show the balance of forces that describe our world. Again, it seems only self serving sophists are in demand. Perhaps you've noticed I enjoy pantsing these BS artists.

I appreciate your commentary, it appears earnest to me. Though, it's not rocket science either. That's the thing about the truth, it's not all that special, it doesn't serve anyone, or comport to any agenda. That's why, considering our political climate no one is interested in honest, earnest assessments. The clowns at the CFR can be embarrassed, shown up and crushed in a debate, but good luck getting a venue that matters.

The Democrats are unwilling to challenge the defense dept. Republicans keep insisting they won't cut Medicare. Everyone's a coward. Where does real reform come from?

America, it's often said, is a big ship of state. It takes a long time to turn it around. I wish conservatives could be made to read Glenn Greenwald and liberals Ron Paul and the better libertarians. But, few do this, few are earnestly weighing and balancing the arguments. Are they too stupid? or, are they taking orders?

Well, this big ship of state is on a collision course with disaster. And, it will take a while to turn around. But, are we gonna turn right or left? We've yet to decide which way to go, or better still to separate the wheat from the chaff. The chaff get political contributions, the wheat is what's essential.

I consider myself a progressive libertarian. I wish we had a debate between Ron Paul and Ralph Nader. Sadly, no one is funding that, no one is voting for that. We did have Gravel, Kucinnich and Paul on the ballot but those who pander to the voter got the votes. I think we're bound to bust up on the rocks. And, our politicians, and the system of spoils are all enjoying the concerto on the deck, drunk and bloated with greed.

Harvard has given some intrepid fighter like Nader a platform, but they too are marginalized. If you don't have that pedigree, you get to dig ditches for a living.

Want to sponsor me for a scholarship?

I see that the consequences of 9/11 are still playing themselves out, and that bin Laden's plan is working and might yet succeed.

I enjoyed reading your post. One of the most intelligent responses i have seen in quite a while. I especially enjoyed your description of the 3 markets, the existence of a professional market is something not known by many. Have you ever thought of starting a blog??

You should see the interview of Ron Paul on Internet, sharp: if we are to blame a religion for 9-11, let's blame cristianity for Timothy McVeith. Is also as stupid as to oppose to the construction of a Basque Cultural Center for the terrorists attacks of ETA.

Steve Walt wrote:

"The lesson I took from Craig's lecture was that when intellectuals abandon liberal principles, disengage from politics, and generally abdicate their role as "truth-tellers" for society at large, it is easy for demagogues to play upon human fears and lead a society over the brink to disaster."

Seems to me a somewhat inapt comparison when in the U.S. at present the groves of its academy clearly tilts heavily Left/liberal, the major media does likewise (albeit to a lesser extent than in the recent past), and the Presidency and both houses of Congress are controlled by Democrats.

The better analysis to me would at least start with what can seem the hijacking of traditional conservatism as regards foreign policy and the Mideast especially, and while traditional conservatives might be faulted for allowing that hijacking, the principal guilt still has to rest on those who have done the deed and their ideology. And, needless to say, to a startling degree those folks have come not from the ranks of conservatism but instead possess pedigrees going back to the hard Left, including Trotskyism.

Kinda convenient for liberals to now be blaming conservatives not only when it is they who are running the show, but when also its their former bedfellows who got us into this show in the first place.

In addition then to the Weimar experience what might be called the Kerensky experience ought to be remembered to get a fuller understanding of the dynamic: Traditional conservatism being subject to being hijacked by radicals in the case of the first, but traditional liberalism being shown as also somehow being constitutionally incapable of countering radicalism ... in both.

The lesson then is that except perhaps for academic purposes it's a mistake to try to differentiate "Right" radicalism from "Left" radicalism: It's both that ought to be feared equally.

This mosque [red herring] sideshow has shown that even the great city of New York with all it's aims at an international city, is willing to bring to light a group of bigots so we can be distracted with this worthless drivel from Pam Gellers of the world. The UN is only fifty blocks away.

And the media is complicit, as they rarely say Islam in not a culture of hate. They've also had a tester 'hate' campaign in Staten Island and Brooklyn regarding the construction of a mosque in the past three months. But, this Mosque controversy was the big enchillada. One that would make it national.
Now you got these echo chambers throughout the country of these rubes sending money to oppose the Sufi Mosque. It's Sufi also, which is even more incredible.

This 'controversy has gone on for 3 weeks now and it illustrates how the media can create issues like this to stir up emotion and fear in society. They say be sensitive, but they are the ones that have Muslims afraid to live here. Does anyone consider their emotions?

Ron Paul in an article yesterday, said the Neocons 'never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for ill-conceived preventative wars'. In part he is correct. It's sad that Bloomberg is one of the few to voice his opinion in favor of this project, while so many Anthony Weiner's start becoming very transparent about their intentions. The want a free society, but only for some.

...and one lecture -- on the role of intellectuals in the Weimar Republic -- finally tipped the balance for me.

In that particular class, Craig argued that one of the many forces that doomed the Weimar Republic was the irresponsible behavior of both left-wing and right-wing intellectuals.

Steve sees the role intellectuals played in Germany's descent into Nazism, and this tips the scales and causes him to pursue the "intellectual" path.

Well along that path, having his PhD and now tenure, his obsessive cause is a theory that paints most Jews as part of some "Lobby" that has used its great influence (including, in Steve's own words, a "stranglehold on Congress") to derail US foreign policy to everyone else's great detriment.

Just saying.

"a theory that paints most Jews as part of some "Lobby" that has used its great influence"

I think he'd say some Jews and supporters of Israel. The Christian Zionists give the Israel lobby it's critical mass. Or perhaps David, you should come down to San Antonio and get a hug from Pastor Hagee.

And you chicken shit Ippon, you're quite the coward, why don't you come say that to my face, I'll "hug" you too. Remember the ethic I mentioned earlier, eventually you'll find yourself under someone's boot. You shouldn't lightly stir up enmity, you might need the mercy of the fair minded among us. You petty name calling won't engender you any friends. Pretty ungrateful for someone on the American dole.

Hey, keep it up, you're doing a great job of winning hearts and minds in this country. The nastier you get, the more us Israeli critics smile. You did see this Haaretz article from Aug 18th?

"One of the questions that the poll presented was "Does the U.S. need to support Israel?" In August of 2009, 63% of Americans polled said that the U.S. does need to support Israel. In June of this year, 58% of respondents shared the same view; by July only 51% of respondents said the U.S. needed to support Israel."

"Another question posed by the pole was "Is the Israeli government committed to peace with the Palestinians?" In December of 2007, 66% of respondents said that the government, then led by Ehud Olmert, was committed to peace with the Palestinians. In June of 2009, a month after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited the White House, only 46% of Americans said they believed the Netanyahu government was committed to peace."

Maybe we'll redeem this country after all.

is that you have a temper.

I have been plugging away at Richard Evans's tripple decker history of the Third Reich, and just decided to go back to Vol 1 (Weimar Republic). And, O, how it screams out for analogies with contemporary U.S.! What's missing so far in the U.S. is the amount of violence that characterised the Weimar Republic. But that can be fixed pretty quick, given that we're talking about civilian America, armed to the teeth. Weimar should be taken as the paradigm case of the breakdown of a civilized country, cuz after all, the Nazi state was a terminal state. If Jeb Bush tried to take the presidency from Obama, he could well win. And that would be the terminal condition.

The difficulty liberal intellectuals face is that you cannot combat emotion with reason. It is like trying to extinguish a blaze with fire regulations; it is too late. Reason can be employed quite deliberately to arouse emotions, as in the case of the decision to put the picture of the lady sans nez on the cover of Time, or the Administration’s Iraq pre-invasion cultivation of fear. Once aroused, however, only satiety or some other emotion can douse it.

It as an unfortunate fact, but US society in increasingly motivated by emotion. There are a whole lot of probable reasons for this, none of which may even occur to those who exploit the phenomenon for political, personal, and often dangerous reasons. Regimes that put controls on this type of demagogy are demonised as aggressive but you cannot have the wife drunk and the bottle full, as the Italians so indelicately put it; untrammelled freedom also means the freedom to be led by the heart and the nose.

America is going through the GROWING PAINS of the ROMAN REPUBLIC . The established elite is forced to come to terms with the new reality that there are others that seek a piece of the AMERICAN / ROMAN PIE. The rise of a Latin Underclass indicate that the existing world order is in danger of being overturned. This is a natural consequence of unbridled capitalism which require cheap and abundant foreign labor. An enlightened foreign policy which encourage growth and development within Latin America will decrease the pressure on the border and within the American society . A stalled economy can easily be restarted with significant Civil Engineering Work in Central America, the kind that profit the investor and reward the laborer. The prospect of earning a reasonable living in there own homeland is the only solution to the social problems we all face. The alternative is in your history book, read it and weep.

after all the NSDAP was in effect a "centrist" party that poached ideas from the socialist left and nationalist right to gain popular support. With it's people incensed about Reichstag's burning, Germany failed to see monster they were putting chancellor's office.

Randolph Bourne in his essay THE WAR AND THE INTELLECTUALS made the same point. He was writing about World War I. I'll guess his point (and the point that SMW is citing) is timeless.

Re-reading that essay always pays a good dividend ... here it is:

http://www.bigeye.com/thewar.htm