From the WSJ Opinion Journal
_________________________________________
Cometh the Hour . . .
The American Empire needs a general in the White House.
BY HAROLD BLOOM
Tuesday, October 14, 2003 12:01 a.m.
Lincoln, confronting the South's rebellion, first established our imperial presidency. Since then we have become increasingly a plutocracy. Like such precursors as Benjamin Harrison, William McKinley and Warren Harding, the current possessor of the White House sincerely believes in making the rich richer, while expressing the hope that somehow all of his constituents must eventually benefit from this benign process. Our nation has long invested in this hope, with our territorial expansion (mostly at the expense of Mexico, and of the Native Americans) and also overseas extensions fueling the investment. At this time, we occupy all of Iraq, and rather less of Afghanistan. These irrealistic adventures, while expensive in money and in blood, are more venturesome than most of our past incursions, but otherwise not radically new. What is different are the provocations. Fundamentalist Islam conducts a world-wide terror onslaught, much of it financed by Saudi Arabia. Israel and the Arabs continue to fight a Hundred Years War, going back to the earliest Zionist emigrants, and we are now well along in the first decade of a religious war that could endure for another century. All this is piously denied by nearly everyone, yet all the deniers know better. The American Empire, like the Roman before it, seeks to impose a Roman peace upon the world.
I have been rereading Edmund Gibbon's "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," which I recommend to anyone in search of wisdom relevant at this moment. Gibbon attributes decline and fall to many varied factors, but the characters of specific Roman emperors--good, bad and indifferent--are viewed by him as crucial in the self-destructiveness of Rome. It is not at all clear whether we are already in decline: bread is still available for most and circuses for all. Still, there are troubling omens, economic and diplomatic, and a hint or two from Gibbon may be of considerable use. I trust it is clear that I am not deploring our deposing of Saddam Hussein, though its motivations remain obscure. Our decimation of the Taliban, and continued pursuit of bin Laden, are inevitable responses to Islamic terrorism. But our wars with fundamentalist Islam will continue, and will broaden; others will be attacked. We have no option except imposing a Roman peace. The question I bring forward is: What is the proper training for our imperial presidents?
We need, at just this time, a military personage as president, one who is more in the mode of Dwight Eisenhower than of Ulysses Grant. In Wesley Clark, we have a four-star general and former NATO commander who is a diplomatic unifier, an authentic hero, wise and compassionate. That Gen. Clark saved tens of thousands of Muslim lives in Bosnia and Kosovo is irrefutable, despite current deprecations by worried supporters of the president. They are accurate only in their anxieties. Gen. Clark is highly electable for 2004; the other Democratic candidates are not. Even should our economy worsen considerably by a year hence, Howard Dean and John Kerry cannot win, unless the terrorists again bring down American temples as vital as the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Most of the electorate will vote for the incumbent, because of their national security concerns.
Our most vital interest is to persuade as much of Islam as possible not to join in what the Muslim fundamentalists consider to be a Counter-Crusade. Who is more qualified than Gen. Clark to render such persuasion plausible? His leadership of international forces is Bosnia and Kosovo was precisely calibrated, and prevented Serb paramilitaries from even more dreadful slaughters of Muslim innocents than those already performed as "ethnic cleansings."
In recent interviews, Gen. Clark has reminded us that our allies in Europe are our permanent friends, however divergent our interests may become at particular times. Our current president has appealed to our allies for help in our Iraqi quandary, but few will give him either troops or money. Gen. Clark is highly likely to reconcile our friends, even as he will not augment our enemies.
I am not suggesting that all our future presidents must be generals. Yet the time and the person have come together in Gen. Clark. There is potential greatness in him: realism and hope intricately fuse in his character. As a lifelong Democrat speaking to other Democrats, I urge his nomination. To Republicans and independents, I put the question: Weigh Gen. Clark's qualifications against President Bush's performance, and who seems likelier to lead us effectively in the years of trouble ahead of us?
Mr. Bloom is Sterling Professor of Humanities at Yale.
Copyright © 2003 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
___________________________________________________
Wow.
Aside from a fuzzy understanding of "paragraph", this guy has been hitting the medicinal marijuana a little hard. By the way, is "irrealistic" even a word?
"The American Empire, like the Roman before it, seeks to impose a Roman peace upon the world."
The author does not have an adequate understanding of how Pax Romana was created. He has even less understanding how Pax Americana has been made. Roman peace was build on the blood of the legions, and scaring the crap out of all Rome's enemies. States joined the Empire to avoid being conquered and being sacked. States join Pax Americana because it is economically advantageous. People became Romans so that they could avoid the sharp end of the sword. People want to be Americans because they like CocaCola, TV, and want a really big car.
Gibbon was writing about a dead empire from the perspective of the 18th century, not about a dynamic state in the 21st. Let the past stay there and do not be so obsessive about history that you cannot escape it.
So far as Clark goes, how can he defeat the Enemy when he has both feet in his mouth? Clark is doing a better job of discrediting himself in front of Democrat forae than any 'right-wing' conspiracy could ever do. Additionally, why in hell would I want to vote for a guy simply because he would make the best imperial president--isnt that even more of a reason to *not* vote for the man? Go back to whatever dustbin of history that you crawled out of, Professor Bloom; we do not need petty sycophants heralding the cause of a man who is not a Caesar or a Sulla, but more a Commodus or a Nero, a Prince John, a George McClellan, or an Ian Hamilton.
_________________________________________
Cometh the Hour . . .
The American Empire needs a general in the White House.
BY HAROLD BLOOM
Tuesday, October 14, 2003 12:01 a.m.
Lincoln, confronting the South's rebellion, first established our imperial presidency. Since then we have become increasingly a plutocracy. Like such precursors as Benjamin Harrison, William McKinley and Warren Harding, the current possessor of the White House sincerely believes in making the rich richer, while expressing the hope that somehow all of his constituents must eventually benefit from this benign process. Our nation has long invested in this hope, with our territorial expansion (mostly at the expense of Mexico, and of the Native Americans) and also overseas extensions fueling the investment. At this time, we occupy all of Iraq, and rather less of Afghanistan. These irrealistic adventures, while expensive in money and in blood, are more venturesome than most of our past incursions, but otherwise not radically new. What is different are the provocations. Fundamentalist Islam conducts a world-wide terror onslaught, much of it financed by Saudi Arabia. Israel and the Arabs continue to fight a Hundred Years War, going back to the earliest Zionist emigrants, and we are now well along in the first decade of a religious war that could endure for another century. All this is piously denied by nearly everyone, yet all the deniers know better. The American Empire, like the Roman before it, seeks to impose a Roman peace upon the world.
I have been rereading Edmund Gibbon's "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," which I recommend to anyone in search of wisdom relevant at this moment. Gibbon attributes decline and fall to many varied factors, but the characters of specific Roman emperors--good, bad and indifferent--are viewed by him as crucial in the self-destructiveness of Rome. It is not at all clear whether we are already in decline: bread is still available for most and circuses for all. Still, there are troubling omens, economic and diplomatic, and a hint or two from Gibbon may be of considerable use. I trust it is clear that I am not deploring our deposing of Saddam Hussein, though its motivations remain obscure. Our decimation of the Taliban, and continued pursuit of bin Laden, are inevitable responses to Islamic terrorism. But our wars with fundamentalist Islam will continue, and will broaden; others will be attacked. We have no option except imposing a Roman peace. The question I bring forward is: What is the proper training for our imperial presidents?
We need, at just this time, a military personage as president, one who is more in the mode of Dwight Eisenhower than of Ulysses Grant. In Wesley Clark, we have a four-star general and former NATO commander who is a diplomatic unifier, an authentic hero, wise and compassionate. That Gen. Clark saved tens of thousands of Muslim lives in Bosnia and Kosovo is irrefutable, despite current deprecations by worried supporters of the president. They are accurate only in their anxieties. Gen. Clark is highly electable for 2004; the other Democratic candidates are not. Even should our economy worsen considerably by a year hence, Howard Dean and John Kerry cannot win, unless the terrorists again bring down American temples as vital as the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Most of the electorate will vote for the incumbent, because of their national security concerns.
Our most vital interest is to persuade as much of Islam as possible not to join in what the Muslim fundamentalists consider to be a Counter-Crusade. Who is more qualified than Gen. Clark to render such persuasion plausible? His leadership of international forces is Bosnia and Kosovo was precisely calibrated, and prevented Serb paramilitaries from even more dreadful slaughters of Muslim innocents than those already performed as "ethnic cleansings."
In recent interviews, Gen. Clark has reminded us that our allies in Europe are our permanent friends, however divergent our interests may become at particular times. Our current president has appealed to our allies for help in our Iraqi quandary, but few will give him either troops or money. Gen. Clark is highly likely to reconcile our friends, even as he will not augment our enemies.
I am not suggesting that all our future presidents must be generals. Yet the time and the person have come together in Gen. Clark. There is potential greatness in him: realism and hope intricately fuse in his character. As a lifelong Democrat speaking to other Democrats, I urge his nomination. To Republicans and independents, I put the question: Weigh Gen. Clark's qualifications against President Bush's performance, and who seems likelier to lead us effectively in the years of trouble ahead of us?
Mr. Bloom is Sterling Professor of Humanities at Yale.
Copyright © 2003 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
___________________________________________________
Wow.
Aside from a fuzzy understanding of "paragraph", this guy has been hitting the medicinal marijuana a little hard. By the way, is "irrealistic" even a word?
"The American Empire, like the Roman before it, seeks to impose a Roman peace upon the world."
The author does not have an adequate understanding of how Pax Romana was created. He has even less understanding how Pax Americana has been made. Roman peace was build on the blood of the legions, and scaring the crap out of all Rome's enemies. States joined the Empire to avoid being conquered and being sacked. States join Pax Americana because it is economically advantageous. People became Romans so that they could avoid the sharp end of the sword. People want to be Americans because they like CocaCola, TV, and want a really big car.
Gibbon was writing about a dead empire from the perspective of the 18th century, not about a dynamic state in the 21st. Let the past stay there and do not be so obsessive about history that you cannot escape it.
So far as Clark goes, how can he defeat the Enemy when he has both feet in his mouth? Clark is doing a better job of discrediting himself in front of Democrat forae than any 'right-wing' conspiracy could ever do. Additionally, why in hell would I want to vote for a guy simply because he would make the best imperial president--isnt that even more of a reason to *not* vote for the man? Go back to whatever dustbin of history that you crawled out of, Professor Bloom; we do not need petty sycophants heralding the cause of a man who is not a Caesar or a Sulla, but more a Commodus or a Nero, a Prince John, a George McClellan, or an Ian Hamilton.
