The War of Worldviews November 10, 2006

Make no mistake dear reader. We are going to witness a major power and worldview struggle here in the United States now that the democrats have take power of congress. The neoconservative Robert Kagan put it nicely when he said, in his work “Of Paradise and Power,” that:

“Europe is turning away from power, or to put it a little differently, it is moving beyond 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 Immanuel Kant’s ‘perpetual peace.’ Meanwhile, the United States remains mired in history, exercising power in an 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.” (1)

I do not think I am overstepping his quote to state that this worldview difference also exists between the progressives and the conservatives where the progressives would equal Europe in this equation, and the conservatives would take the place of the United States. Like Kagan, I am oversimplifying the issue, to be sure. However, this oversimplifying of issues is not entirely off the mark. The difference between those who hold a cosmopolitical view (many progressives) and those who promote a nationalistic ideal of military might (many neoconservatives) are in a tug of war for supremacy of their worldview here in the U.S. The question is which worldview best suits American interests and American ideology?

Because of this ensuing struggle*, an internal type of war is likely. Of course, both sides of the coin believe they are correct in their assertions. This is why G.W. Bush is trying to push through Bolton’s appointment, as well as the authorization of a domestic surveillance program—both of which can be said to symbolize his worldview. I have no doubt that Bush believes these are the correct steps to take, but I also firmly believe he is wrong. Again, it is a worldview, philosophic, difference. The neocons firmly believe in preemptive action, unilateral action (when others do not see things their way) and force. In a sense, they believe that one must control all contingencies in order to maintain the status-quo or to enact a “fix.” The progressives do not rule out these types of actions, however they believe in deliberation and dialogue first and force the very last. They also tend to believe that although it is good to be prepared for contingencies, and anticipate those contingencies, that you cannot control all contingencies—to think you can is not only a mistake but a dangerous mistake. Because of this, it is imperative to be flexible and receptive and not ridged. These two philosophies are two very different ways to tackle a problem with two very different underlining approaches.

As a progressive, I find myself more than frustrated that Bush in his address after the elections offered the lip service of bipartisanship but demonstrated, still, an inflexibility of action. Yes, Rumsfeld is leaving but I truly believe that if the elections would have gone the other way, he would still be with us. Bush stated that he had this planned earlier, but that he did not want to negatively hurt the troops or the elections with the discussion. He also protested that he could not make a statement about Rummy leaving until he had his replacement. Yet, the announcement came swiftly after the election went bad for the conservatives. Now he wants to push through his agenda even though voters have sent a clear message that they are not behind his agendas and want different tactics. But, as Bush has said in the past, he is not interested in what the “populists” say, he will do what he thinks is right. I often think that when not campaigning, he forgets that he is living in a democracy.

Eugene Robinson from the Post today ended his column, “Now the Decider Must Listen,” by stating that “Democrats were restrained during the campaign, which was smart. But now it’s time for them to ask those hard questions — and use their new power to compel answers. Even if they have to be unfashionably partisan about it.”

Robinson is partly right as the democrats must demonstrate that their worldview better suits American interests and American ideology. However, to be “unfashionably partisan” about it, to, in effect, utilize the tactics of the neocons and the neocons’ philosophy, would be a mistake. I am not suggesting that the democrats should be weak or should concede easily on important issues—that would be counterproductive indeed! What I am saying is that if we behave like the conservatives have behaved over the last 6 years (and more), we will not be demonstrating our worldview philosophy but theirs. The lack of flexibility, the adherence to straight party-line partisanship, is part of the reason the conservatives were voted out and the democrats voted in. We must, therefore, avoid lip service. We must act as befits our worldview. We must demonstrate through our actions and statements that our philosophy is not only effective, but beneficial for relations in the United States and relations with the rest of the world.

*this struggle is not new, to be sure, but because of our current circumstance, because we are at war, because there has now been an historic change in the senate, we will see this struggle more plainly and more in the open than before.