The Previously Unknown Lasting Impact Of The U.S. Civil War

Is it time to give Mr. Bush credit for his effort in Annapolis to forge a Middle East peace? Maureen Dowd doesn't think so:

After subverting diplomacy in his first term, now W. does drive-by diplomacy, taking a playboy approach to peace. He wants to look like he’s taking
the problem of an Israeli-Palestinian treaty seriously when his true motivation is more cynical: pacifying the Arab coalition and holding it together so that he
can blunt Iran’s sway.

So that's what Bush is up to! Silly me, I thought for a minute that had Dubbya had actually changed and has finally realized that U.S. presidents are supposed to use their power to help make peace in the world, and not start new wars.

Now, I've always wondered why socialist ideas have never had much of a chance here in America, in spite of all the inequality that has existed in various eras. I think that the band aid approaches that have been applied at various times in our history, e.g., during the Progressive era and the New Deal, have managed to keep any possibility of socialist reforms at bay. However, here's a new theory that is certainly novel:

I believe that the American Civil War, with its huge number of casualties, left
a collective cultural sense that tended to place beyond the pale views that
departed much from the middle. For example, although no doubt there were many
reasons why socialist ideas never made much headway in this country, I’m
inclined to think that an important obstacle was that a great many Americans saw
them as “extremist,” or even “un-American,” a view that in time played into the
hands of demagogues like Joseph McCarthy.

This is from noted political scientist Robert Dahl, writing in a book review in today's New York Times. Humm, the Civil War is responsible for cementing the American anti-progressive mindset, and even for the rise of demagogues like McCarthy...and, by extension, what we have as president today, a fellow who thinks he's on god's mission to save America and the world. Sheesh!

PHOTO: The Philadelphia Zoo's observation balloon aloft.

Jim

Do We Have A Biased Middle East Policy?

Today's New York Times has a review of a controversial book entitled The Israel Lobby And U.S. Foreign Policy suggesting that the US government is too much under the sway of the powerful Israel lobby. The authors argue that American ought to return to a more neutral stance in the Middle East, as had existed prior to the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, but that the Israel Lobby prevents any rational discussion of the issue in this country. Charges of anti-semitism have already been directed at the authors, which seems to prove their point. Former President Jimmy Carter got in hot water not too long ago for suggesting much the same thing - that US foreign policy is wrongly heavily biased in favor of Israel.

From the Times Book review:

Coolly, not to say coldly, Mr. Mearsheimer and Mr. Walt mount a
prosecutorial brief against Israel’s foreign and domestic policies, and against
the state of Israel itself. They describe a virtual rogue state, empowered by
American wealth and might, that blocks peace at every turn, threatens its
cowering neighbors with impunity, crushes the national aspirations of the
Palestinians and, whenever the opportunity arises, bites the hand that feeds it.

The author's main argument is that we would be much better off with a more neutral policy in the Middle East, and that such a policy would have many benefits for America. Why is it so controversial to even bring up the possibility that we need to change our approach in the Middle East?

Jim