April 1, 2003

THE NEOCONS' LEVIATHAN



When I told friends and family that "The Neocon's Leviathan" would be the title of the next installment on this site they had no idea what I was talking about. The terms are not yet household words especially in their juxtaposition. This article was prompted by one of the weekly phone conversations with my brother in Vienna, where we not only discuss family affairs but also the reasons why continental Europe has undergone such a seismic change in its opinions about America. On September 11, 2001 all of Europe and indeed the world grieved with us and today our policies are met with universal incomprehension and by some with fear and hatred. How did this come about?

As always there is no single cause for a given occurrence but a confluence of physical events which bring latent ideas to the fore. There can be no doubt that as Dr. Ullman (who has been credited with coining "shock and awe" as the method of choice in future wars) has written that if Saddam had exported bananas instead of oil we would hardly have undertaken the first Gulf War, of which the second is merely the continuation. Oil is, of course, a factor but not necessarily the only one because we could buy it and make sure that the prices stay reasonably low. But something else happened and that is the Euro. Petrodollars have to be converted into a genuine currency and up to recently the U.S. dollar ruled the roost. Lately, however, with the weakening of the American economy, the dollar has lost against the Euro so that prior to the onset of the war one needed $1.10 to buy 1 Euro (it rose temporarily at the beginning but is currently falling again). Thus the dollar seemed no longer entirely secure and people began shifting to the alternative. From an American point of view this is, of course, intolerable and since the only physical commodity which can prop up the economy is oil, its exploitation must be removed from the locals and placed into American hands. That was at least one assumption which led us into this war.

The other one is about the role America is supposed to play in the 21st century and this is where the "neocons" come in. Irving Kristol, father of the better known Bill Kristol, published in 1995 Neoconservatism. The Autobiography of an Idea in which he wrote:

"Is there such a thing as a 'neo gene? I ask the question because, looking back over a lifetime of my opinions, I am struck by the fact that they all qualify as 'neo.' I have been a neo-Marxist, a neo-Trotskyist, a neo-socialist, a neoliberal and finally a neoconservative. It seems that no ideology or philosophy has ever been able to encompass all of reality to my satisfaction . . . . One 'neo,' however, has been permanent throughout my life, and it is probably at the root of all the others. I have been neo-orthodox in my religious views (though not in my religious observance)[bold print was added in this and all subsequent direct quotes]."

These sentences are extremely revealing because they show that the neo-conservatives as opposed to those for whom it has been a life long creed are actually struggling against their religious beliefs which they transport into the social arena. I am saying this because of what Mr. Kristol had been taught in the yeshiva (the Jewish counterpart to the Muslim madrasa). "Discipline was strict - if we misbehaved in any way, the rabbi would order us to stand up and then give us a stinging slap in the face. He also taught us to hate the goyim and to spit whenever we passed a church." It is to Mr. Kristol's credit that he abandoned these practices, but as a Catholic I was never encouraged by our religion teacher to hate Jews or spit when we passed a synagogue.

This brings me to my brother's question "Who is Kagan?" I had never heard of the man but in my quest for the truth I headed for the Internet and found the article which had upset the Europeans. It was published in June 2002 in Policy Review by the respected Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace under the title "Power and Weakness." One needs to know furthermore that Robert Kagan is also the co-founder, with the mentioned Bill Kristol, of the "Project for the New American Century and he contributes not only to the neocon Weekly Standard and the New Republic but also to the more influential Washington Post. Furthermore, Kagan is a Senior Associate for the Carnegie Endowment and the Director of its "U.S. Leadership Project."

In the mentioned article Kagan polarized the world and the first sentences set the tone:

"It is time to stop pretending that Europeans and Americans share a common view of the world, or even that they occupy the same world. On the all-important question of power - the efficacy of power, the morality, the desirability of power - American and European perspectives are diverging. Europe is turning away from power into a self-contained world of laws and rules and transnational negotiation and cooperation. It is entering a post-historical paradise of peace and relative prosperity, the realization of Kant's 'Perpetual peace.' The United States, meanwhile, remains mired in history, exercising power in the anarchic Hobbesian world where international laws and rules are unreliable and where true security and the defense and promotion of a liberal order still depend on the possession and use of military might. That is why on major strategic and international questions today, Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus. They agree on little and understand one another less and less. And this state of affairs is not transitory - the product of one American election or one catastrophic event. The reasons for the transatlantic divide are deep, long in development, and likely to endure. When it comes to setting national priorities, determining threats, defining challenges, and fashioning and implementing foreign and defense policies, the United States and Europe have parted ways."

These are indeed remarkable statements, especially when one considers that they were published in June of 2002 a time when our Secretary of State, Colin Powell, tried to elicit European support for disarmament of Saddam Hussein. Thus it is clear now that he was undercut at the same time by the neocons (Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan, Norman Podhoretz, to name just a few of the most important ones) who had gotten the ear of Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and President Bush and who demanded regime change. This fundamental difference of opinions manifested itself outwardly in what the world regarded as the incoherence of American foreign policy. At that point the Europeans balked. Although they agreed with disarmament, thereby removing a potential threat, they did not want to enter on the slippery slope of regime change, because who decides what regime needs to be changed when, and how.

But let us return to Mr. Kagan, his polarization of the world and the attribution of his views to all Americans. At this point I have to admit that I had no idea what he meant with "anarchic Hobbesian world" and "Kant's "Perpetual peace." In order to correct this ignorance one has to go back to the 17th and 18th century for what Hobbes and Kant had really said. Since their writings are voluminous and in part difficult to understand I also had to rely on my old stand-by Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy. The following was taken for Hobbes from the Encyclopedia Britannica's Great Books of the Western World, while the original German language Kant article resided in the Marriott library of the University of Utah.

Thomas Hobbes, the son of a Protestant Vicar, was born in 1588 and it has been reported that his mother had been so frightened by the impending invasion of the Spanish armada that she gave birth prematurely. This is why Hobbes commented later that he was born "a twin with fear" and why he "abominated his country's enemies and loved peace." This is not irrelevant for current circumstances because a person whose life is dominated by fear is also likely to hate and the political views will be flavored by these emotions. Hobbes was a convinced monarchist but by 1640 it was obvious that the position of Charles I had become untenable and Hobbes fled to France. While there he published his claim to enduring fame, Leviathan, an exposé of how the state resembles an artificial man, and the rules that should govern the commonwealth. Since he vigorously attacked the Catholic Church in the fourth part of his book he was forced to flee from France in 1651, return to England and submit to the hated parliament which ruled the country at that time. This about face found its repercussion in his book. Nevertheless by 1666 he was persona non grata again and parliament threatened action against the Leviathan. Hobbes was no longer allowed to publish on political subjects so he devoted himself for the rest of his life to his other hobbies: the translation of Homer as well as geometry. In the latter field he managed to come up with a theorem which squared the circle. He was serious about having solved the unsolvable which brought him ridicule rather than renown. By the way, squaring the circle is still figuratively attempted by his followers. Hobbes died at the ripe old age of 91 and these aspects of his life must be known to understand Leviathan.

Leviathan is long, the language somewhat archaic but the central tenants are contained in his "Review and Conclusion" as well as in the chapter by Bertrand Russell. They can be summarized as follows: Man is brutish and desires only self-preservation. War is, therefore, decreed by nature and in it force and fraud are the two cardinal virtues. For the sake of protection, people form a commonwealth (or state, as we would say today) and choose their sovereign. Once he is established he is no longer responsible to the citizenry because they are his subjects who have to obey his will for the greater good. Peace results from submission to authority and since the prime reason for a commonwealth is to protect the individual citizen it is indeed in his best interest to submit. Property rights pertain only to the people among themselves but the sovereign is not subject to the civil law. Since anarchy is the only alternative it has to be avoided even by stringent measures and all attempts at revolution must be suppressed. If, however, a sovereign has been deposed he is no longer in a position to protect the individual and obeisance to the new sovereign has to be made, because even civil authority comes from God as the apostle Paul had declared. There is no difference between sovereignty and tyranny. Tyranny is simply another name used by those who hate the sovereign and thereby the commonwealth because he is its soul. As long as a Christian sovereign does not compel his subject to forego his faith in Christ all his actions are lawful and have to be obeyed. If the sovereign were to forbid the faith the subject has two options: one is to dissemble by submitting in public but not in private, and the other to accept martyrdom. Dissembling is lawful because a biblical precedent exists in the Old Testament.

What Hobbes in fact is telling us that, to put it into a modern context, my fellow Viennese citizens behaved correctly on the morning of March 11, 1938 when they supported the Schuschnigg government because it was lawful at the time, but they behaved equally correctly when they welcomed the new rulers on March 12, because the power had shifted. Hitler was also correct in his actions because the sovereign is supreme and has no obligations to his subjects. According to this view George Washington and the other "founding fathers" of our republic should have been hanged, but once they were victorious they were to have obeyed. This Hobbseian concept found its most recent counterpart in President Bush's remark as quoted by Bob Woodward, "I'm the commander - see, I don't need to explain. I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." Students of history will, of course, immediately remember Louis XIV and "L'état c'est moi" (I am the state). But if we endorse this point of view why should we condemn "the butcher of Baghdad?" He is the lawful ruler of Iraq and for Hobbes it is irrelevant how the sovereign got to where he is. The ruler has no one to answer to any more except his god who has put him into power. For Hobbes gaining and holding power is all that counts!

Now on to Kagan's counterpart. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was born in Koenigsberg, East Prussia, and was in his thirties during the Seven Years War when the city was occupied for a time by Russia, a fate which has befallen it again since 1945. This event as well as the subsequent European disasters led Kant to believe that there must be a better way than perpetual war. The article, Zum ewigen Frieden, to which Kagan refers was published in 1795 and should be seen in the context of the French revolution. By 1792 Europe was at war again with France on one side and a coalition of Britain, Austria, Spain and Prussia on the other. In France Louis XVI was beheaded on January 21, 1793 as part of what was then called le terreur instigated by the Jacobins, which also consumed to some extent the original leaders of the revolution like Marat and Danton. By 1794 even Robespierre had shared the fate of all the numerous others whom he had sent to the guillotine. In 1795 the "directorate" was appointed in Paris which paved the way for Napoleon who kept Europe in perpetual war until 1815. What should intelligent people, who were either conscripted into these wars or had to stand by helplessly, have done but suggest possible means to end all this useless bloodshed?

This was the political background to Zum ewigen Frieden. It is also obvious that translations cannot do justice to multiple meanings of what Kant called "A philosophical Entwurf." The word defies accurate translation but tends to mean a first draft of a project, or idea, which one wants to put up for debate. The first sentence of the introduction indicates that the inspiration came from a satirical panel over the entrance of a Dutch Inn "Zum Ewigen Frieden" which portrayed a cemetery. The intended pun tends to be lost unless one knows that the German word for cemetery is Friedhof, courtyard of peace. Kant also requested that his little treatise should not be used for bösliche Auslegung, evil misconstruction, a request which Mr. Kagan's article ignores.

Kant is difficult to read and at times impossible to properly translate but the following key elements deserve to be highlighted:

A peace treaty should be designed only as a treaty of peace if it does not contain the idea of revenge. Otherwise it is just an armistice. For wars to be avoided countries should have a republican form of government. Standing armies should be abolished. States should not incur internal debts to settle external strife. No state should forcefully intervene in the constitution and government of any other!!! No state should allow itself during war those means which make subsequent peace impossible (e.g. assassination of leaders, instigation of treason etc.). Kant recognized the Bösartikeit der menschlichen Natur, the evil inherent in human beings, and for this reason universally agreed laws have to be put in action to keep the beast in check. These laws should be subscribed to by a federation of states. "If a powerful and enlightened nation can form itself into a republic (which by nature has to be inclined to constant peace), it can provide the center for a federal type union of other states [Völkerbund], around which they can gather and thereby guarantee the freedom of the states in accord with international law. and expand thereby gradually farther and wider."

Thus Kant was in fact the father of the defunct League of Nations and now its successor the moribund United Nations because Völkerbund was indeed the German name for the League of Nations.

This gets us back to Mr. Kagan's article. Like Hobbes he seems to be "a twin of fear" and sees power as the only solution to the world's ills. This power has to be wielded by the United States who is responsible to no one. America is currently the strongest military power on earth, therefore, every effort has to be made that this remains so. Since multilateral international agreements hinder rather than enhance, the use of power America should not be bound by them. Europe on the other hand is weak and can, therefore, find its security only in a system of laws which protect the weak. Since Kagan's view of power is strictly military Europe should rapidly re-arm. Inasmuch as American military power is used only for the good of the world it would behoove the Europeans to contribute their share. With other words Europeans should see themselves as an additional resource for American might. Kagan ends his article by saying, "their [America's and Europe's] aspirations for humanity are much the same, even if their vast disparity of power has now put them in very different places. Perhaps it is not too naively optimistic to believe that a little common understanding could still go a long way."

The latter statement is laudable but needs to be seen in the context of another article Kagan published jointly with Bill Kristol in the Weekly Standard on September 3, 2001 a scant eight days before the 9/11 catastrophe. The title was, "A Green Light for Israel." In the article the authors argue that the way to end the Israeli-Palestinian war is for America to give up its "evenhandedness." The authors raise the rhetorical question, "What if we made it clear that, far from pressuring Israel, we planned to back its right to defend itself, and trusted our ally to do the right thing in the very difficult situation in which it finds itself?"

Thus the two articles really complement each other and explain Kagan's view of the world. Israel is the country which lives in the "Hobbesian anarchic world" against which it needs to defend itself to the utmost, by massive military power. The tragedy of 9/11 has subsequently been used to convince Americans that Israel's dilemma is now their own and that they should behave like the Likud government. This stance ignores that the Likud policies, which America is supposed to adopt for the world at large, have been a dismal failure. Israelis are less secure now and their economy is in worse shape than in 1996 when some of our neocons under the leadership of Mr. Perle wrote a position paper for incoming Prime Minister Netanyahu. The title was "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm." As far as foreign policy is concerned the article advocated regime change in Iraq and Syria as well as Iran because the latter two countries support Hezbollah which fires intermittently rockets upon targets within Israel. This objective was to be achieved with at least tacit approval if not overt help of the United States. A missile defense system has to be pushed because, "Not only would such cooperation on missile defense counter a tangible physical threat to Israel's survival, but it would broaden Israel's base of support among many in the United States Congress [italics in the original but not bold print] who may know little about Israel, but care very much about missile defense. Such broad support could be helpful in the effort to move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem." Furthermore, "Prime Minister Netanyahu can formulate the policies and stress themes he favors in language familiar to the Americans by tapping into themes of American administrations during the Cold War which apply well to Israel. If Israel wants to test certain propositions that require a benign American reaction, then the best time to do so is before November, 1996."

Thus there was to be no "peace dividend" but Americans were to become part and parcel of Israel's perpetual war against its neighbors and the Palestinians. One year later some members of the same group founded "The Project for the New American Century" which pursues the policies outlined in "The Clean Break," and the two Kagan articles, right here in our midst, where Perle, Wolfowitz and Feith have risen to leading positions in the Bush administration. Mr. Perle was forced to hand in his resignation to Secretary Rumsfeld this week (conflicts of commercial interests), but the Secretary would also have done well to follow the advice of his friend Jude Wanniski. On October 9, 2001 Wanniski, founder of Polyconomics, wrote a letter to Rumsfeld "re: The Monkeys on your Back" under the headline "Fire Paul Wolfowitz." The letter is available on the Internet and deserves to be read in toto. As we now know from Bob Woodward's book the 9/11 tragedy was literally a gift from heaven for Perle, Wolfowitz and their friends. Wanniski concluded his letter with Wolfowitz "is a menace and one of the most dangerous men in the world as long as you [Rumsfeld] let him play Defense Secretary. HE MUST BE FIRED [bold print and caps in original].

This is how our administration and the American people were literally "conned" into the Iraq war and Mr. Rumsfeld is likely to be the "fall guy" when the war does not go according to plan. One can also feel genuinely sorry for Mr. Carnegie and past-President Hoover that parts of their Foundations have been hijacked from their noble purpose of achieving peace through laws. Americans now have the choice which of these two visions they want to follow: the Kantian system of laws or the Hobbseian autocracy and perpetual war. Maybe the choice will be easier if we return to the origin of Leviathan. I don't know why Hobbes chose that title but it is a reasonable guess that as the son of a Protestant minister he was steeped in the fire and brimstone rhetoric of the Old Testament. In the King James Version the name leviathan shows up four times. Once in Job, twice in Psalms, and once in Isaiah. Leviathan does not make an appearance in the New Testament and that is why Catholics are largely unaware of the properties of this animal apart from the fact that it's supposed to be big and swim in the ocean. I shall leave Job for later because of the extensive description of this mythical beast. In Psalm 74:14 we are told, "Thou breakest the heads of leviathan in pieces, and gaveth him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness." On the other hand in Psalm 104:26 he tends to be more benign, "There go the ships, there is that leviathan, whom thou hast made to play therein." But in Isaiah 27:1 we are confronted with evil again, "In that day the Lord with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea." Admirers of the Old Testament like to believe that the Lord who does the slaying is Yahveh but the biblical authors simply cribbed from an older Ugaritic text which says, "If thou smite Lotan, the serpent slant, Destroy the serpent tortuous, Shalyat of the seven heads." In this instance the slayer was Baal and although it may seem a stretch from Lotan to Leviathan the names become easier to reconcile when one recognizes a) that ancient Hebrew has no written vowels and b) that Leviathan is merely the English rendering of livyatan where the lot morphed into liv while the yat remained. But this is a minor point except that it emphasizes again: only the names change while phenomena and myths remain constant.

More important is the description of the animal in Job 41 where the entire 34 verses are devoted to it in order to demonstrate the power of God over such a loathsome and powerful beast. The chapter is too long to be reproduced here but should be read in toto by those who believe in raw power as the solution to the world's ills. Some samples will have to suffice, "his scales are his pride . . . . out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out . . . . out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron . . . . his heart is as firm as stone . . . . when he raiseth himself up the mighty are afraid . . . . he esteemeth iron as straw and brass as rotten wood." Verses 33 and 34 are the punch line, "Upon earth there is not his like, who is made without fear. He beholdeth all high things; he is a king over all the children of pride."

Yes indeed and one is reminded of the last sentence in Perle's position paper for PM Netanyahu, "Israel - proud, wealthy, solid and strong - would be the basis of a truly new and peaceful Middle East. This was the vision which was sold to the Bush administration and they bought it. Now is the time when the rest of America is supposed to chime in. But this vision is born of fear and its adherents would be well advised to remember another passage from Job 3:25, "For the thing which I greatly feared is come upon me." When, and I am not saying if, the neocons' policies begin to unravel scapegoats will be sought and since a great many of them are Jewish, all Jews will be blamed. This is also part of Kant's "evil residing in human nature."

This is your choice America: you can puff yourself up like leviathan, or you can recognize that pride is a sin and that genuine security results from cooperation rather than domination. Nothing is fore-ordained, the future still remains to be written; but those who place their faith in the leviathan's military might would do well to remember that he was always subject to the Lord, whose ways are mysterious and inscrutable. They should also remember that if there is only one God, as we have come to believe, it doesn't matter by what name different people refer to Him: Baal, Yahveh, Zeus, or Allah.

America is, however, not only a place on a map it is her citizens - you and I - and it is up to us to make this choice, each person individually. There is a story that when Thomas Jefferson left the Constitutional Convention a passer-by asked him, "Mr. Jefferson; what kind of government do we have? A Monarchy or a Republic?" Jefferson answered, "A Republic, if you can keep it!"

Personally I feel that this should be our primary duty. We should re-establish the separation of power between the three branches of government and reject an Imperial Presidency or Imperial Supreme Court. We should demand of Congress to be genuinely responsible to "We the People," rather than special interest, and become transparent as well as accountable to the taxpayers. Senators and Congressmen, rather than their secretaries, should meet with their constituents and listen to their suggestions. We should also demand a stop to the secrecy that surrounds government, in the name of national security, which has made us less secure than at any time in our history. Above all we should relinquish the failed Israeli Likud model of Might Makes Right. In this effort to reclaim our republic we also need the help of those of our Jewish citizens who reject the siren songs of their current spokesmen and opt for a saner, more just, world. Examples to follow might be the editor of Tikkun, Rabbi Lerner, whose central creed is "Love thy Neighbor," or those orthodox rabbis who started a protest by burning the Israeli flag which currently represents oppression instead of freedom. Our Jewish citizens, in order to avoid the looming fate outlined above, should publicly dissociate themselves from their pride-, fear- and hate-mongers and thereby destroy the false monolithic image of "the Jews." If this were done we could have a genuine regime change right here at home in November 2004 and the world might become a better place to live in for all of us.
 
 
 
Feel free to use statements from this site but please respect copyright and indicate source. Thank you.
 
 

Please E-mail this article to a friend

Return to index!