I will update my blog very, very sporadically: during the academic year, unfortunately, I generally have precious little time to write new entries.

The following entries can be found on my Seoul Blog page:

Political Parties in Korea (July 24, 2007)

Divided Korea [book review] (April 17, 2007)

What is a Korean (September 29, 2006)

An Interview with Shakil (May 27, 2006)

The Filipino Community in Korea (May 16, 2006)

The Art of Diplomacy: Ambassador Vershbow and the Free Trade Agreement (May 2, 2006)

Tsunami or Ebb Tide? Soft Power and the Limits of the "Korean Wave" (May 1, 2006)

Hines Ward and the Redefining of Korean Identity (April 1, 2006)

A Small Store in Paju, Korea (March 27, 2006)

April 26, 2008
States or Markets? The Problem with Binary Thinking

While teaching International Political Economy this quarter (after a rather long hiatus) and watching John Stossel's interview of Arriana Huffington last night on ABC's 20/20, it struck me how binary thinking really does make otherwise intelligent people “stupid.” Stossel, who I've written about before, is similar to many pundits: he sees the world in stark black- and-white, binary or dichotomous terms. In particular, to Stossel and others, if the government is not the solution (and to Stossel, it's clearly not the solution) it must be the problem. There's no middle ground, no room for a more nuanced understanding of the role that governments (or states) must play in the modern world. It is not surprising, then, that Stossel's extols the virtues of the market: without exaggeration, he believes that only the market (or, perhaps more accurately, the logic of the market) can solve the most pressing problems of modern society. If the educational system is “broken,” it must be the government's fault and only market-based competition can fix it. If the welfare system doesn't work, again, it's the government's fault and the only solution is to subject “welfare recipients” to the efficient winds of market forces. Click here to read the rest.

January 28, 2008
Is Tiger Woods Black?

Recently, Golf Channel Anchor Kelly Tilghman make an ill-advised comment, saying that the only way young could beat Tiger Woods is to take him at to a back alley and "lynch" him. Not surprisingly, the comment drew widespread condemnation and resulted in a lot of hand wringing. Tiger Woods, many surmised, should have been outraged by the comment. But, he wasn't. In fact, the comment barely seemed to register with him, although he did make a point of accepting Tilgman's apology.

What is interesting about this episode, however, is not Woods' reaction per se, but that the media--and almost everyone else--assumed Woods would react as an African American. But why should this be the case? Woods' mother (pictured), after all, is Thai, so a big part of Tiger's "racial makeup" is Asian. Indeed, one could argue that Woods is Asian and not African American. Despite this, he's almost never identified as Asian or even part Asian; nor is his "Asian-ness" even acknowledged. To most of the world, Tiger is simply Black, in the same way that Halle Berry and Barack Obama are.

My larger point, however, is not to question whether Woods is "Black" or "Asian"; rather, it is to emphasize that race is very much defined through society--through social perceptions, norms, and institutionalized practices--and is not a biological fact. This is old hat in the academic world, which has long focused on the "social construction" of race and other supposedly genetic categories, including gender. But, the recent issue of Woods' reaction--as an African American--to the lynching comment does provide a nice reminder of how "race" is still considered an unproblematic category of identity. And, as any student of political science should know, identity is an important part of the political (and social) world. So, does it matter that "Black-ness" is still defined almost the same way it has since the days of slavery? On this point, just consider the one-drop rule, which defined an individual as African American if he or she had just "one drop" of African blood.

January 11, 2008
Dear Arnold ...

Across the board budget cuts represent a dangerous approach to solving fiscal problems. It assumes that all state services are equal and that all can absorb a 10 percent cut equally. Yet, this clearly is not the case. It is also an unacceptably lazy approach, for rather than do the hard work of actually figuring out what is essential spending and what is not, it takes the "easy" way out. It might be useful to follow--or at least consider--the model of Washington state, which implemented a priority-based budget process. 

It is important to understand, too, that many state-funded institutions, such as universities and colleges, are already operating on a bare-bones budget. I'm a professor at Cal State LA. I went for three or four years without a general salary increase. Until very recently, I sat at a 25-year old desk on a "vintage" chair (I finally had to buy my own). The rest of my office furniture is composed of hand-me-downs. My office is never cleaned because there's not enough money for janitorial services. My classes are getting progressively larger, meaning I have less and less time to work with students, to provide them meaningful feedback on their papers, or even to remember all their names (and this is for upper-division courses). Meanwhile, we are increasingly being burdened with administrative work because the university has no money to pay for advising and other critical student services.This is not to say that there isn't some fat in the system. The fat, however, exists at the upper-administrative level--especially in the Chancellor's Office, but also in the offices of most campus presidents. Unfortunately, when the university system is told to cut its budget, it's the Chancellor and the presidents who decide how money is cut. Will they cut their own office budgets? Will they cut their generous housing and car allowances? Will they lead by example? Probably not, and it is precisely because they don't have to. Instead, we get an all-too-predictable response: high salaries, fancy offices, and other perks are necessary to attract and keep the "best" talent. Funny that same logic doesn't apply to the faculty that actually define what a university is and does.

Please don't talk about wanting a world-class educational system if you're only willing to fund a third rate system, which is what things are coming to. 

Arnold, you need to lead, not simply say, "Well, things are bad and we all have to sacrifice." That's not leadership, it's capitulation

August 16, 2007
Cheney and the Limits of Realism

Realism tells us that individual- and state-level factors--e.g., the interests of major economic actors, the perceptions and cognitive processes of individual political leaders--are largely irrelevant to understanding signifcant foreign policy decisions. This short interview with Dick Cheney, however, gives us an indication of the limits of realism. Cheney's analysis of the reasons against removing Saddam Hussein from power after the first Guf War are a textbook example of realist logic: the US had no compelling national interest in removing a dangerous dictator largely because the strategic costs of doing so outweighed the benefits. That is, without support from Arab allies, without a reliable method of maintaining stability in the region and political coherence within Iraq (which would lead to bigger problems), and so on, it simply made no "strategic" sense for the US to go further. Of course, in 2003 (and even before), Cheney's tune changed completely. Yet, and this is the important point, the strategic environment of decision-making remained largely the same. In 2003, there was still no support from Arab or Islamic allies, there was still no viable political alternative to the Baathist regime, and there was even less support from the international community at large, including the UN and major powers (France, Russia and China). As we know now, too, there was no imminent danger from the Hussein regime itself--that is, there were no weapons of mass destruction. (Indeed, even if Hussein had WMDs, from a strict realist perspective, this would not have mattered since Hussein could not have used the weapons against the US without fear of total obliteration--a point that Condoleezza Rice made quite clearly when she, too, was still espousing realist principles.)

Despite all this, the United States launched a "pre-emptive" invasion to remove Hussein from power. It is clear, to repeat, that the international strategic environment did not necessitate this action, as realism claims. Instead, the key motivating factors almost certainly had to be domestic in nature. Whether these were economic/class interests or products of individual needs, interests or perception is, of course, important. But, the larger theoretical point is simply that realism cannot adequately explain this extraordinary foreign policy decision. To put it bluntly, this is a major flaw in the realist framework, and one that students of international relations cannot afford to ignore.

August 15, 2007

Just "Imagine" a New World Order

Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace.

John Lennon's "Imagine" (1971), while immensely popular, is considered idealistic at best; indeed, even people who embrace the message of "Imagine" may think that it is naively utopian. Certainly, when one looks at the hard "reality" of the world we live in--especially the international world--it's not hard to concur. From a different perspective, however, Lennon's "utopianism" reflects the very simple belief that "ideas" matter--that ideas can and do have a profound impact on the world in which we live. Surprisingly, perhaps, this is a belief shared by many hard-headed, no-nonsense neo-conservatives. Neo-conservatives, however, believe that only hard power can be used to reshape reality--a point I discuss in my entry on the Bush Administration's View of Reality" below.

But Lennon, too, is talking about power: he is talking about the power of millions, tens of millions, even hundreds of millions of people imagining a more peaceful world. Imaginiing a world in which international borders and religious cleavages did not exist. Can such thing simply be wished away? Well, probably not. But one point is that international borders and religions are, in essence, little more than ideas. Yes, it is true that borders have an objective existence, yet the significance we attach to borders exists within our heads. That is, borders have meaning through the ideas of nationalism or citizenship. Certainly, this is even clearer in the case of religion: religion is simply a set of beliefs and values that exists within our collective heads. To change the world, then, requires changing our ideas about how the world should work or how it should be organized.

On this point, it worth remembering that democracy and individual freedom are ideas. The Bush administratiion believes, we are told, deeply in the idea and power of democracy. The Bush administration believes that spreading democracy will bring a fundamental change to international relations, and in particular, will bring peace to the Middle East. Is Bush a utopian? Perhaps. But, if he is, he has a lot of company.

The issue, needless to say, is much, much more complex than what I presented here. Suffice it to say, then, that we--as students of political science--need to consider seriously the significance of ideas in the "real world." Do ideas have power? If so, how is this power manifested and under what conditions? Can ideas--shared among whole populations--reshape the world in a fundamental way? I am not offering an answer here, only an "idea" to ponder.

August 3, 2007
The Bush Administration's View of Reality

A few years back an unnamed Bush official told reporter Ron Suskind, "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality--judiciously, as you will--we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." Now, I know it's a bit late to be commenting on this statement (first reported in 2005), but I was reminded of it when I heard and wrote about Ann Coulter's quote, "I'm more of a man than any liberal." Ironically, both quotes reflect a post modernist or reflectivist perspective, which understands reality as socially constructed. I say ironically because most conservatives see post modernism as mushy, leftist thinking associated with such strange foreigners (even worse, Frenchmen!) as Foucault, Derrida, and Lyotard.

Yet, from a post modern or reflectivist perspective, the idea that powerful governments--even more, hegemonic powers--create their own realities is not at all far-fetched. Indeed, in many respects, this is the starting point of analysis, a fundamental assumption. Certaiinly, as we look at the what the Bush administration has done--and what it is doing--it is not difficult to conclude that it is creating and recreating realities, some of which, to be sure, are very tenuous. (But, in a post modern world, we have to accept the "truth" that reality is not a fixed, objective fact.) Today, for example, the new reality is that we live in an inherently dangerous world populated by irrational terrorists who "hate freedom." In this reality, we have to fight the terrorists "over there" so that they cannot bring death and destruction "here." In this new reality, moreover, the United States is largely, if not entirely, an innocent target; the US--even as an empire--is certainly not responsible for creating the conditions that breed terrorists and terrorism. Of course, not everyone accepts this reality, but perhaps this is because the power of the American empire is under seige.

In sum, the idea that the Bush administration has the literal capacity to reshape reality should not be dismissed out of hand. For critics of the Bush administration, too, it is a lesson to take to heart. For while the present administration is not producing a more peaceful, more socially just world, one could argue that it possesses capaciity to do so. Social constructivists (such as Alexander Wendt), in fact, would argue that powerful states--especially acting under the influence of a hegemonic power--can, through their actions and understanding, construct a peaceful world order.

July 21, 2007
It's the Institution, Stupid! A Note on the California Budget Gridlock

It's summer in California again and that can mean only one thing: budget gridlock. With California's requirement for a super-majority vote to pass the state budget, both in the state Assembly and Senate, it is (much) more common than not that passage of the budget will be late, despite a June 15 constitutional deadline.

Not surprisingly, it has become almost de rigueur to blame individual legislators for budget gridlock. Consider, for example, one reader's comment made in response to the Sac Bee's online article, "Budget Stuck in Senate": "And just think, these people are being paid for this outlandish behavior! I think from now on some sort of an intelligence test should be applied to anyone seeking office ...". Here's another: " ... Any group of citizens could balance the state's budget with real cuts and/or selected tax increases. But apparently our legislators don't have the courage to do what's right and necessary. They ought to lget a clue from Supervisors and Councilmembers in every County and City who balance budgets with genuine means every year."

The frustration is understandable, but wrong-headed. Certainly, there is plenty of individual blame to go around, but as students of political science, it is important to remember that individual action is almost always constrained and shaped by "environmental" factors as well. In California politics, the institutions of state governance (which include rules, norms, and day-to-day practices) are important environmental factors. The super-majority vote is, perhaps, the most salient example of an institutional constraint, but it is not the only one. Indeed, one key constraint is the democratic process itself, which encourages legislators to stay beholden to abstract principles (e.g., "no new taxes"), but which also imposes specific spending criteria (e.g, how much of the budget must goes towards education).

To understand the significance of institutional constraints, one need only hark back to the Governor's vows to "blow up the boxes" in Sacramento and to not take a dime from "special interests." His intentions may (or may not) have been pure, but they were definitely unrealistic. Why? Quite simply because even "The Terminator" is not strong enough to overcome institutional constraints all by himself. This is not to say that institutions cannot be changed. They can. But, it is naive to think they can be ignored.

July 10, 2007
Ann Coulter: A Feminist Post-modernist?

In an interview with Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter pronounced, "I'm more of a man than any liberal." Now, I'm sure Coulter would be the last women in the world to claim allegiance to feminist post-modernism, but her pithy statement reflects beautifully a key concept in post-modernist thought. This thought is the idea that gender is a socially constructed concept. What this means, in more simple terms, is that what we think of as "masculine" and "feminine"--as male and female--has as much do with societal norms and values as it does with supposedly fixed biological categories. Ann Coulter is "more of man than any liberal" because, supposedly, she personifies masculine traits: she's aggessive, tough, rational, and so on. She is telling us that women who embrace such traits are, for all intents and purposes, men. On the other hand, men who adopt supposedly feminine traits cease being "true men" and become something else, something less than men.

Note, though, a clear implication of Coulter's statement, which is that maleness is "naturally" superior to femaleness, that feminine traits are essentially undesirable and inferior. So, Coulter, after all, isn't a feminist, nor is she a post-modernist. For she essentializes "maleness": she tells us that maleness can only be defined, understood or interpreted as a binary opposition to femaleness and, that by definition, maleness is superior to femaleness, at least in the world of politics.

April 12, 2007
Forget about Imus, What About Chino Hills?

[NOTE: This entry is a little outside what I normally discuss, but the article on which my comment hit a nerve.] With all this blather about Don Imus, we sometimes forgot the more mundane and more pernicious forms of racism that are obviously still alive and well in our own towns. The article, "An ethnic shift is in store," (Los Angeles Times, April 12, 2007) certainly makes this clear. Some, presumably white, residents of Chino Hills object to plans to open a 99 Ranch Market because they don't want to see "little Chinatowns all over the Hills." Others are against the construction of a Hindu temple because it would turn Chino Hills into a "Third World city" and haven for terrorists. Apparently, some residents of Chino Hills feel perfectly comfortable making these sorts of outrageous statements; certainly, they were not afraid to air them publicly. Yet, to assert that a Hindu temple is a symbol of poverty and underdevelopment, that it is associated with terrorism, is the worst kind of racism. To suggest that the opening of, what is really nothing more than a specialized supermarket, will degrade an entire city is almost as bad. But, nowhere did I detect a sense of outrage. Perhaps this is because racism directed toward Asians is still acceptable in American society, even in southern California. I don't know.

What I do know, however, is if the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons of the world really are concerned with racism in the US, they need to address it everywhere and for everyone. Ditto for the LA Times. The reporter for "An ethnic shift" should have asked some pointed questions about the racist attitudes of some Chino Hills residents; the editors should have raised the issue in the article's title. At the least, the Times should allow readers to raise the issue. (Note: I sent a copy of this entry to the LA Times, but it was never printer or even acknowledged.)

September 28, 2006
PHOTO BLOG • The Migrant Workers' Hospital and Foreign Migrant Workers' House

Pictures taken in Summer 2006 • The Migrant Workers' Hospital (MWH) and Foreign Migrant Workers' House are two of many organizations set up to assist foreign migrant workers in Korea. The MWH, however, is the first and only hospital established specifically to treat foreign workers. It is the product of a great deal of hard work and dedication on the part of Rev. Kim Hae-sung. Rev. Kim was kind enough to sit for an extended interview with me; he also provided a tour of his facilities and encouraged me to take many pictures. I am reproducing some of the photos via an online photo album. Click on the link to see the pictures: Migrant Workers' Hospital and Migrant Workers' House (Sep 27, 2006 - 28 Photos)

May 5, 2006
Is John Stossel Stupid? How a Lack of Good Comparison Makes for Shaky Analysis

In his ABC report, Stupid in America: How a Lack of Choice Cheats Our Kids Out of a Good Education, John Stossel makes a compelling and purposely provocative case. His argument is encapsulated in the subtitle of his report: "How a lack of choice cheat our kids out of a good education." According to Stossel, the basic problem facing American schools is that they are insulated from competition. As he puts it, "American schools don't teach as well as schools in other countries because they are government monopolies, and monopolies don't have much incentive to compete." His reference to "other countries" is an important part of his argument. Indeed, much of his argument hinges on a type of comparative analysis, in which he ostensibly reveals the fundamental flaws of the American educational system through comparison with other cases. For example, to "prove" his basic claim, he focuses on Belgium, where the government forces schools to compete for students by funding students as opposed to schools. In other words, education money "follows" children to whatever school they decide to attend. It is, as Stossel is careful to point out, a kind of voucher system. Stossel peppers his report with a number of other international comparisons as well. He says, for instance, "The longer kids stay in American schools, the worse they do in international competition. They do worse than kids from poorer countries that spend much less money on education, ranking behind not only Belgium but also Poland, the Czech Republic and South Korea." Significantly, he implies, but does not explicitly state, that Poland, the Czech Republic and South Korea must also have schools systems premised on the same competitive principles that exist in Belgium. Indeed, based on Stossel's basic comparative argument, we should expect every country in the world that scores better than the U.S. to have a "competition-based" school system. We don't know, however, because Stossel doesn't tell us. His use of "facts" (and comparative cases) in other words, is extremely selective. Is he hiding something? Or is he simply too stupid to know that that sort of selective analysis is inherently flawed? Click here to read the rest.

March 14, 2006
Democracy after Democratization: The Korean Case

The following entry is a review of Democracy after Democratization: The Korean Experience by Choi Jang-jip. (Translated by Lee Kyung-hee. Seoul: Humanitas press, 2005. Pp. 329.)

Korean democracy, according to Choi Jang-jip, is in a deep crisis. Indeed, despite the remarkable and even wondrous transition to democracy achieved in 1987, Choi contends that the momentum for democratization has not only been lost, but is in danger of reversing itself. This is not to say that Korea will slide back into authoritarianism, or at least not the explicit authoritarianism of the Park Chung Hee or Chun Doo Hwan regimes. The danger, instead, is far subtler. The danger, in fact, has already been manifested in the development in South Korea of what Choi calls “conservative democratization.” To Choi, conservative democratization is a democracy largely without substance. It preserves the formal procedures and institutions of democracy—such as regular elections, competition among parties, and universal suffrage—but it fails to provide a basic function of strong democracy, which, as the author explains it, “is to politically express and represent a variety of social conflicts and interests, and thereby organize alternatives to both expand the foundation of public participation and contribute to the stabilization of the political system” (21). With the crisis of Korean democracy as his starting point and central theme, Choi goes on to identify and analyze the basic reasons for the enervation, if not complete evisceration, of South Korea’s democratic hopes and dreams. Click here to read the rest of the review.

February 19, 2006
Rallying for Migrant Worker Rights

Seoul • For longer than a decade, foreign workers in South Korea have been struggling to carve out a decent life. It has been a long struggle, but not a completely empty one. Indeed, since the early 1990s—when “unskilled” foreign workers first started to come to Korea in large numbers—some meaningful change has occurred. Legally, at least, foreign workers in Korea have achieved several important rights, including, with some exceptions, the same basic labor rights as native Korean workers. This applies equally to “illegal” and legal workers. One of the most recent changes occurred in August 2004 with the implementation of a “guest worker” program known as the Employment Permit System (or EPS). Click here to read the rest of this posting.

October 9, 2005
Peace is not the answer? A reply to William Shawcross

On Sunday, October 9, 2005, William Shawcross wrote, “It seems unlikely that many of the so-called peace marchers who trooped through Washington and London two weekends back listened on Thursday—at least not with an open mind or sympathy—to George Bush’s cogent explanation of why coalition troops are fighting and dying in Iraq. You did not see in those demonstrations, after all, many banners reading, ‘Support Iraq’s New Constitution,’ ‘No to Jihad,’ or ‘Stop Suicide Bombers.’ The crimes committed daily against the Iraqi people by other Arabs who wish to re-enslave them seem to be of little interest to Michael Moore, Jane Fonda and their followers. Raging against the daily assaults on children, women, anyone, by Islamo-fascists and other ordinary national fascists is not fashionable. Only alleged American crimes are cool to decry” ("Peace is not the answer," Los Angeles Times)

This is a typical argument made by supporters of the Bush administration. The logic, in some respects, is very compelling. Unfortunately, it is based on a lie, which makes Shawcross little more than a apologist for a regime that has shown little shame when it comes to lying to the American people. So what is Shawcross' lie? Simply that the reason for American involvement in Iraq is fundamentally premised on bringing freedom, rights, and democracy to the Iraqi people. As any student of the International Relations and foreign policy should know, the primary motivation for the use of American military power--especially when it involves a commitment of combat troops--is US "national" interests. American foreign policy, by its very nature, operates on a dual moral standard, one in which "national" interest trumps all other concerns. And the current Bush administration is certainly no exception to this rule, despite its rhetoric to the contrary.

Shawcross may personally believe in using US military power to achieve moral ends--as some of this other writings indicate. But, if so, his energy should not be devoted to condemning peace marchers. The marchers may be naive, but they are not stupid. If they really believed that the Bush administration was genuinely committed to promoting freedom, rights and democracy in Iraq and other places, they might very well be willing to stand with the administration. But they know that Bush is no more sincere about these things than he was about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. They know that if Iraqi "freedom" were to someday threaten American "national" interests--say in the global energy market--that Bush would have no compunction in supporting a repressive, even murderous non-democratic elite. Or, have we all forgotten about Saudi Arabia? Most importantly, perhaps, the peace marchers most likely abhor the violence in Iraq today, and they are almost certainly no friends of the Islamo-fascists of which Shawcross speaks. Yet, they understand--obviously better than the disingenuous Shawcross--that achieving "democracy" through violence, deceit, and cynicism is not, in the long- or short-run, a viable policy for the United States to follow.

Lest I be condemned as a supporter of “Islamo-fascists” myself, let me say that I largely agree with the sentiments expressed by Shawcross, which is that the promotion of democracy and freedom abroad—by the United States—is a good thing. It is also, it is important to recognize, a "liberal thing." I agree, moreover, that we need to condemn and prevent the type of violence that wracks Iraq today. The problem, however, is when this is done in a highly selective and cynical manner. For this tends to exacerbate rather than ameliorate problems. It also weakens American authority and legitimacy, which ultimately weakens American power.

September 8, 2005
The following entry is an eyewitness account by two survivors of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. The original account has been forwarded through a number of listservs. It is not only a compelling account of how events unfolded in New Orleans, but provides information that has not, to date, been well represented in the mainstream media

Fwd by Phil Gasper ...

Hurricane Katrina-Our Experiences by Larry Bradshaw, Lorrie Beth Slonsky

Two days after Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans, the Walgreen's store at the corner of Royal and Iberville streets remained locked. The dairy display case was clearly visible through the widows. It was now 48 hours without electricity, running water, plumbing. The milk, yogurt, and cheeses were beginning to spoil in the 90-degree heat. The owners and managers had locked up the food, water, pampers, and prescriptions and fled the City. Outside Walgreen's windows, residents and tourists grew increasingly thirsty and hungry.

The much-promised federal, state and local aid never materialized and the windows at Walgreen's gave way to the looters. There was an alternative. The cops could have broken one small window and distributed the nuts, fruit juices, and bottle water in an organized and systematic manner. But they did not. Instead they spent hours playing cat and mouse, temporarily chasing away the looters.

We were finally airlifted out of New Orleans two days ago and arrived home yesterday (Saturday). We have yet to see any of the TV coverage or look at a newspaper. We are willing to guess that there were no video images or front-page pictures of European or affluent white tourists looting the Walgreen's in the French Quarter.

We also suspect the media will have been inundated with "hero" images of the National Guard, the troops and the police struggling to help the "victims" of the Hurricane. What you will not see, but what we witnessed, were the real heroes and sheroes of the hurricane relief effort: the working class of New Orleans. The maintenance workers who used a fork lift to carry the sick and disabled. The engineers, who rigged, nurtured and kept the generators running. The electricians who improvised thick extension cords stretching over blocks to share the little electricity we had in order to free cars stuck on rooftop parking lots. Nurses who took over for mechanical ventilators and spent many hours on end manually forcing air into the lungs of unconscious patients to keep them alive. Doormen who rescued folks stuck in elevators. Refinery workers who broke into boat yards, "stealing" boats to rescue their neighbors clinging to their roofs in flood waters. Mechanics who helped hot-wire any car that could be found to ferry people out of the City. And the food service workers who scoured the commercial kitchens improvising communal meals for hundreds of those stranded. Most of these workers had lost their homes, and had not heard from members of their families, yet they stayed and provided the only infrastructure for the 20% of New Orleans that was not under water. Click here to read the entire posting.

August 23, 2005
Osama bin Robertson?

Religious fanaticism, as should now be readily apparent, knows no demoninational bounds. Pat Robertson's recent statement that the U.S. should assassinate the president of Venezuela--to "take him out," as he bluntly put it--has sparked widespread criticism among other Christians. Still, Robertson's remarks reflect an all-too-common process of how religious beliefs and values can be manipulated to justify almost any action, even actions that seem entirely at odds with the core tenets of a religion. In this regard, there is little to no difference between Robertson and the "Muslim fanatics" he so often decries. For example, in the same way Robertson blissfully ignores a basic Christian value against intentional murder, some radical Muslim clerics and scholars have been able to ignore (or manipulate) Islamic teachings on, say, suicide. In Islam, suicide is a sin just as it is in Christianity. But, this has not deterred some clerics from qualifying the prohibition against suicide in an effort to provide a religious justification for suicide bombings. It is important for students of politics to understand and be aware of ways in which religion or culture more generally can be manipulated and used to mobilize support, whether for positive or negative purposes. Indeed, it would not be an exaggeration to say that "religion" or culture is one of the most powerful political forces in the world today.

August 17, 2005
Will the Gaza Pullout Work?

There is, not surprisingly, a great deal of debate about the advisability of Israel’s unilateral decision to pull out of Gaza. One commentator, for example, asserts that the pullout will “likely throw gasoline [rather] than water on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” Others—including, of course, the Israeli political leaders who engineered the pullout—believe it will help improve Israeli-Palestinian relations and reduce the intensity and seriousness of terrorism on the part of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Unfortunately, there is no easy answer. Nor do I pretend to know whether the Gaza pullout will or can achieve the goals of its proponents, or whether it will lead to utter disaster.

The only thing that is certain is that the pullout will, as many skeptics charge, embolden some Palestinians to engage in more terror and violence. At the same time, however, it will lead other Palestinians to moderate their views, and perhaps redouble their efforts toward building a more peaceful relationship with Israel. To others still, the pullout may have little or no affect on their attitudes and actions, at least in the short run. My point is not simply that the pullout will spark a range of different responses, but that it is dangerous to assume a more or less monolithic response on the part of any political community. Such assumptions can lead to overly simplistic analyses, which ignore important—and often highly contingent—political dynamics.

In the case of the Gaza pullout, in short, we really cannot know what will happen (at least right now), because we don't know how it will impact the political situation within Palestine or in Israel. Will it undermine the legitimacy of Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad if both groups continue to engage in violence (leading to violent reprisals from Israel)? Will it empower moderate groups in Palestine? Will it lead to a more conservative government in Israel?

None of this is to say that the consequences of the pullout are impervious to informed, even "predictive" analysis. They are not. But it is necessary to temper one's analysis with a recognition that (1) within both the Palestinian and Israeli communities there are a diversity of often conflicting interests and motives, and (2) one can not always know whiich interests will dominate the political process until things have played out a bit.

July 8, 2005
" ... then the terrorists will win"

On ABC’s Primetime Live (July 7, 2005), the commanding officer of Los Angeles’ counter-terrorism bureau, John Miller, asserted people shouldn't be afraid “because if we wake up in the morning and are afraid, then the terrorists have won.” Miller, of course, was speaking about the recent terrorist bombings in London, which so far have claimed more than 50 innocent lives. Such statements, which have become de rigueur since 9-11, are intended, I assume, to provide reassurance to the public and to demonstrate resolve. They are certainly understandable. Unfortunately, they can also be dangerous. And they are especially dangerous coming from a prominent public official whose job is to understand and deal with terrorist threats. The problem, in part, is that Miller is almost assuredly wrong about the specific motives of the attack. Whoever carried out the attacks may or may not care whether ordinary people wake up “afraid” in the morning.

This is not to say that the terrorists who planned and carried out the attacks are not interested in instilling fear. Of course they are. After all, by definition, terrorism is premised on the deliberate creation of fear through the use or threat of violence. But it is not the creation of a sense of fear per se that is the likely motive for attacks; rather, the terrorists are most probably interested in provoking certain types of responses on the part of both the public and public officials—responses that are ultimately based on fear. If the attacks against innocent civilians provoke, for example, an anti-Muslim backlash in Britain, Europe, and the United States, then we might say that “the terrorists have won.” If the attacks provoke the United States and Britain to redouble their military efforts in Iraq and other parts of the Arab and Muslim world, then the terrorists will have won. If the attacks compel the western democracies to further chip away at civil liberties and protections on their own soil, or to continue the use of torture and other problematic interrogation techniques against suspected terrorists, the terrorists will have won.

Herein lies the greatest danger with the type of statement made by Miller: it discourages us from thinking clearly and deeply about the underlying motives for the attacks, In a similar vein, it discourages us from thinking about the primary objectives of the terrorists. And unless we understand what the terrorists really hope to achieve, we run the risk of doing exactly the wrong things, of playing right into their hands. It may well be that Miller and other public officials understand this—I certainly hope they do—but they do the public a disservice when they make vacuous, but reassuring statements on national television.