Paul Craig Roberts was a supply side economist supporting the Reagan Administration.
Mr. Roberts associates with Americans who have extreme right wing opinions a la Pat Buchanon and the VDARE site whose name stems from Virginia Dare, the first European born of English parentage in what would become the USA and who disappeared with the Roanoke colony in Virginia—presumably wiped out by native Americans. The site identifies demographics as history ie they fear the “great replacement” of white people by irrational immigration policies and strive for a national identity as it has been identified, traditionally.
No controversy re the company he keeps.
To his credit, when writing on the Ukraine in 2014 he accurately predicted a major war with Russia and the Western powers as a proxy to Ukraine; he even raised fear about atomic war. People that do that sort of predicting catch my attention as I believe we (most of us) were caught flat footed when it actually happened. He identified the specific issues that would likely set the war in motion ie the notion of EU integration and NATO membership for Ukraine. His language becomes troubling and reminds me of the Marxist literature I was introduced to in college re the point of supporting the Ukraine and its revolution of 2004 was to allow the "cabal" of leaders in the USA and EU to “rape” the Ukrainian people of their natural resources. He predicted that Ukranians would go back to the Russians for support when they saw this happening, their economy in ruins. So he is one for two on the predictions in 2014.
I stopped reading when I came to specific points of view that confound my understanding of the world, not to mention the name calling of government officials which has now become the norm.
I jumped ahead to his more formal work at the end of the book and here, I actually find some common ground and ask that you consider some of this with an eye on, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure……”
He quotes Putin identifying that Gorbachev and the fall of the USSR were a catastrophe for the world and for Russia. It is easy to understand this if you are a Russian. Their world really did fall apart with the dissolution of the USSR. Why the world? Putin points out that there was only the USA to fill the world power vacuum. I think there is truth to that being a problem. The review from a couple months ago, Uncertain Ground asks similar questions: why 800 bases around the world? Why war after war with no coherent strategy to complete them with an end point that justifies the costs? Given that we switch the political orientations of our Executive every 4-8 years, is there an underlying philosophy carried by both parties that feeds this problem? And what was the point of NATO once the Soviet Union and "international communism" failed?
The Neo Conservative foreign policy holding us captive through Clinton, Bush, and Obama, he states, is hypocritical. We don’t help, “the little guys.” We go to war in third world countries over and over and over. He points out the damage in lives. He points out how aggressive this looks to the Russian state—former Warsaw countries now aligned with NATO after assurances to Gorbachev this would not happen, etc.
As I watched the news and saw Zelenski seeking NATO membership, I see this man’s distorted vision having elements of truth and are worthy of debate (he would call me a fool and naive to debate the issue, so sure is he of his Truth).
And then he dives in again: “Thoughtful” Americans consider that the Pentagon masterminded 911. The Israeli government manages our foreign policy. He notes that the Patriot Act in fact took many liberties away —liberties we all assume are still there. People are put in jail without due process! We assassinate our own citizens! He notes that the Executive has almost absolute control over the government. I don’t like the Patriot Act either and see his concern as well founded. But these realities are true in the states he holds up as the only virtuous states in the world: “Russia, China, and perhaps four or five South American Countries.....” which he does not name.
At this point, I am done. Think carefully when you vote this Fall and let’s give some thought to supporting a third centrist party as things unfold………..the choice between an election denier who think Putin is not that bad and Diane Feinstein (elected last round) is really not much of a choice at all.
I agree with Gorbachev that the fall of the USSR was a catastrophe for the world in that it allowed the US to fill the power vacuum. I regard this as something no country in our position could have easily avoided, and I fault our own system for not pulling it up short.
The author is correct in that the Neo Conservative approach to international relations has penetrated the thinking of both major parties and allowed for irrational foreign policy. Our economy both supports this effort and pays the price. The military industrial complex was real in 1970 and it is real now. I cannot understand how we think as taxpayers, much less citizens of the world why we support over 800 military bases throughout the world.
In medicine, we learn the biology of positive feedback systems: if your cancers is burning calories and you eat more calories to make up for it, the cancer grows faster, and you die sooner……it is an unstable system and our foreign policy is not unlike this. Drones breed militants as do bases in Saudi Arabia. I could have told you the Saudi’s would not be reliable allies to us since the Gas Crisis of 1973. It is not in their interest to align with us automatically
We in the US are hypocrites. He uses the word talking about our foreign policy, “helping out the little guy” when we walk all over the little guys. It is not just the government though, we citizens do this too. IN casual conversation, we read the papers and are happy to walk on whatever…….because we are “special” or “exceptional.” I agree with his assessment re our involvement with “little countries” like Syra, Libya, Iraq, and drone use. I can make an argument for interventions as we had in Serbia; that ended a decade long slog of criminality and allowed for a regional security that holds. We did not need 800 bases to make that so.
I remember when it was Russians and Chinese who took that label on and were going to revolutionize the world. I remember how we reacted to that. I watched them fall apart. The China today is not leading a world revolution for communism. They are like us, spreading their influence with both conservative (resources) and aggressive (dominate neighbors and world options) in mind. Both those countries paid terrible prices for the vision their leaders had back then as I think we will for the same reasons.
Where he drives me crazy is his willingness to accuse us of the things that have been the rule in other countries forever—it is as if he is disappointed by our unexceptionalism. To say the government masterminded 911 to allow for aggression in the Middle East is to me obscene. He says, “thoughtful” Americans suspect this. He notes that the Patriot Act in fact took many liberties away we all assume are still there. People are put in jail without due process! We assassinate our own citizens! He notes that the Executive has almost absolute control over the government. These realities are true in the states he holds up as the only virtuous states in the world: “Russia, China, and perhaps four or five South American Countries,” which he does not name.
Even with a reasonable analysis of the post Soviet era, how can I take this guy seriously with ideas like that? He is not a fan of Israel. I am not either. They do have disproportionate influence on our “ineffectual” congress and very effective executive powers but are we a slave to the Israelis? Do they direct our foreign policy? I see reasons to think not.
If we spend money we have to influence old Eastern Block countries to come into our fold or at least destabilize old relationships, do the Russians not do the same to us though with less money to spend? Hence the emphasis on the virtual world they seem to excel in? As in WWII, we used bombers and the Germans used submarines …….It is an old game and I accept it as not easily controlled.
What is more easily controlled is hard lines; I would not have included the old Warsaw countries into NATO. Not one. I might have partnered with them to teach military doctrine and tactics. I might have sold them equipment. I would definitely have tried to integrate them into the EU. NATO was an unnecessary provocation that even a rube could have seen the broken down soviet union could rally back to confront over time. And yes, Ukraine is a special case.
Russian colonized Ukraine in the 1700’s. Ukraine always saw itself as a colony. Ukraine was horribly abused by the Bolsheviks and Stalin. Many did welcome the Nazi’s until they figured they were just as bad. But culturally and historically, they are a country and will prove it. Where the borders go?????That is over my pay grade and the war will undoubtedly muddy those waters.
He makes a lot of the EU and USA “raping” the Ukraine over time so that Ukrainians would go back to the Russians for solace and relief. So while he predicted the war in 2014, he went pretty wide of the mark there. Raping…..so all this military support may well come with a price tag. It is hard to know how the Ukrainians will pay it back. I don’t expect they will. And the world will keep turning. I don’t see us sending gun boats to take resources. We may demand austerity measures as has been done in S America, Greece, etc. And still those countries plod along and sometimes improve. My analysis of that and as you know I am no economist, is that one either has faith in Capitalism or not. If you have faith in it, “raping” ie using business relationships to garner yourself advantage is how the game is played and if hat is raping, then I guess that is what we should call it. But obviously there is a different view and for myself, what we lack in this country that might temper our aggressive capitalistic tools is a consciousness in the population that there are warts on what otherwise works for us at the local level, and that a counter to unbridled capitalism was a powerful labor force which only materialized in the USA when there was adversity and it is very weak now. I don’t like labor unions because of the corruption they represent but they are a counter to the corruption we are all talking about in Corporate America and the government institutions. Again, over my pay grade but big business gets a pass as does the military industrial complex given their weight in the economy and ability to contribute to elections. And we fall for it every time……..
No wonder an “enlightened” dictatorship looks good to so many people…….
ความคิดเห็น