The book makes an argument that really few can, I think, disagree with. The book has two parts really. The first argues why we need to promote democracy and the second part is how we can do that. Here's the summary:
Part 1:
Start with two observations: 1) Regimes that do not respect the rights of their own citizens won't respect the rights of those of other countries and 2) Dictatorial regimes require external enemies to maintain internal control. Therefore, supporting dictators doesn't bring peace but supporting democracy does.
Part 2:
Again start with two observations: 1) Many dictatorships (esp in Middle East) rely on the West. 2) Small freedoms make people want more and more. Therefore, do not offer aid to dictatorships unless they make measurable (even if small) improvements to freedom. Continue the process until the dictatorship collapses and is replaced with a democracy.
Showing posts with label book summary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label book summary. Show all posts
Sunday, 5 June 2011
Monday, 23 May 2011
Occidentalism by Ian Buruma and Avishai Margalit
A brief summary:
People who have fallen behind or victim to Western liberal democracies seek to make themselves feel better. The West is obsessed with the individual and therefore it is mechanical, soulless, greedy and overly rational. The anti-West is all about the community and its people are in touch with their human side. They are prepared to sacrifice everything for the greater glory of the community. This same basic approach applies whether the community is the working classes, the German race or the Islamic Umma.
The thesis fits well with Nick Cohen's central one (see my earlier post on his book). Essentially both believe that the major political positions in play are based on irrational reactions to the world. The rationalisations come afterwards. What if, though, all people form their political opinions first with irrational instincts and feelings and find the rationalisations later? That doesn't sound very unlike the way people behave really.
People who have fallen behind or victim to Western liberal democracies seek to make themselves feel better. The West is obsessed with the individual and therefore it is mechanical, soulless, greedy and overly rational. The anti-West is all about the community and its people are in touch with their human side. They are prepared to sacrifice everything for the greater glory of the community. This same basic approach applies whether the community is the working classes, the German race or the Islamic Umma.
The thesis fits well with Nick Cohen's central one (see my earlier post on his book). Essentially both believe that the major political positions in play are based on irrational reactions to the world. The rationalisations come afterwards. What if, though, all people form their political opinions first with irrational instincts and feelings and find the rationalisations later? That doesn't sound very unlike the way people behave really.
Sunday, 15 May 2011
What's Left by Nick Cohen
I've just finished reading What's Left by Nick Cohen. Here is a summary of the main thrust of the book as I see it:
Many people on the Left have expended such time and effort in opposition to Western democracy (in favour of some form of Socialist system) that they cannot bring themselves to accept that that same Western democracy is actually the best system. Doing so would imply that all their efforts had been in vain. This irrationality forces them to continue or strengthen their opposition to Western democracy and offer their support (tacit or otherwise) to fascism as the last remaining alternative.
I think that the same basic phenomenon can now be seen spreading through the advocates of free markets and less State intrusion. Why? Because of climate change. Anti-capitalists and anti-globalisation campaigners etc have obviously used the discovery of climate change to push forward their political agenda. And the world has largely swung behind them. The reaction from those who disagree with that agenda cannot be outright blanket denial fuelled more by irrationality than careful analysis. Yet for many that seems to be precisely what has happened.
Those who usually pride themselves on their scientific understanding and on their belief in the rational scientific method now see climate scientists as all part of some giant conspiracy. They deny not only that we are responsible for climate change but that it is even happening. We need to find ways to counter the political agenda of what we might call the Green-Left without turning to irrationality.
Many people on the Left have expended such time and effort in opposition to Western democracy (in favour of some form of Socialist system) that they cannot bring themselves to accept that that same Western democracy is actually the best system. Doing so would imply that all their efforts had been in vain. This irrationality forces them to continue or strengthen their opposition to Western democracy and offer their support (tacit or otherwise) to fascism as the last remaining alternative.
I think that the same basic phenomenon can now be seen spreading through the advocates of free markets and less State intrusion. Why? Because of climate change. Anti-capitalists and anti-globalisation campaigners etc have obviously used the discovery of climate change to push forward their political agenda. And the world has largely swung behind them. The reaction from those who disagree with that agenda cannot be outright blanket denial fuelled more by irrationality than careful analysis. Yet for many that seems to be precisely what has happened.
Those who usually pride themselves on their scientific understanding and on their belief in the rational scientific method now see climate scientists as all part of some giant conspiracy. They deny not only that we are responsible for climate change but that it is even happening. We need to find ways to counter the political agenda of what we might call the Green-Left without turning to irrationality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)