I got this in the email. I did not volunteer for it (i.e., I did not leave a comment saying "Interview me"), but, since the request came from someone whom I greatly respect and like, when asked if I would participate, I indicated that it would depend on what the questions were. Following are the questions that were submitted to me. I'm not sure whether I am supposed to divulge who is asking these questions; if you, Interviewer, intend to be known, please leave a comment for all to see. The directions are blue, the questions are red; all other words are my responses and thoughts.
DIRECTIONS FOR THE INTERVIEW MEME
1. Leave a comment saying, “Interview me.”
2. I will respond by emailing you five questions. Please make sure I have your email address.
3. You will update your blog with the answers to the questions.
4. You will include this explanation and offer to interview someone else in the same post.
5. When others comment, asking to be interviewed, you will ask them five questions.
Five Questions for Yankee Doodle
You put a great deal of time, thought and energy into your blog. You speak often in parables, and sometimes in riddles. What response are you hoping for?
I want people to think, to question, to disagree, to debate -- that is the opposite of what our enemies want.
Democracy is messy.
I have high standards, and I expect Americans to live up to them.
Read on....
You are clearly someone with extensive experience and inside knowledge of how governmental and other institutions [mal]function. Do you optimistically think that their present degenerate state can be remedied, or are you pessimistic that 21st century ‘democracy’, US and Western style, is incurably corrupt and cancerous?
Foremost, I make no comment regarding your statement: "You are clearly someone with extensive experience and inside knowledge of how governmental and other institutions [mal]function."
Beyond that, let me focus on the United States. The United States of America is NOT a "democracy" -- the United States of America is a republic.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the...."
The US is a republic with certain democratic principles. That means that democracy is not to run rampant, but rather is to be exercised with constitutional safeguards.
By means of contrasting example, if you go to certain places in the Middle East (not all!), and give those people a democracy, I believe they will quickly vote in a totalitarian, fundamentalist Islamic regime, which will take away their democracy.
That itself is hilarious, since some interpretations of Islam would hold that an elected Islamic government is not legitimate; it must be instituted by the will of Allah, that is, by force.
In the US, however, what we can vote to do or not to do is supposed to be kept within certain boundaries. For example, in theory, just because everyone "knows" that a US citizen is a terrorist, that is not adequate legal cause to deny that person his Constitutional right to a writ of habeas corpus while the civilian court system is still functioning; this was done to Jose Padilla. What the Bush Administration did was wrong.
But, to the point of your question:
The conquest that we face, conquest threatened not only by certain elements of the Islamic world, certainly does not mean an end to history, or even to our history. America's best days are ahead of her; an American more optimistic than I you will not find.
How do you think that the irrational hostilities currently being spread around the world by fundamentalist Christian, Jewish, and Islamic beliefs can be rendered less dangerous?
Irrationality is in the eye of the beholder.
Fundamentalist Christians are a very minor player, and then only on a local level.
Fundamentalist Jews are significant only because they hold disproportionate power in Israel. I should further point out that a major reason they hold this power is because Israel is so threatened by such incredibly hostile neighbors, and because the world does not seem to want to defend Israel. It is not necessary to agree with Israel; merely to insist that the terrorist and other attacks against Israel cease, and that differences be resolved peacefully. In the absence of that, it is a time of perpetual crisis for Israel, and in times of crisis, people give an ear to more extreme viewpoints.
All of which leaves us with fundamentalist Muslims....
And that brings us to the title of this blog.
Read on....
You believe – as many do – that these opening years of the 21st century are a time of extreme danger for the USA, the West, and the world as a whole. One danger you repeatedly refer to is that of hostile nuclear weapons already on site in American cities, and maybe elsewhere. Without revealing your sources, can you say how likely you believe this to be?
I am not saying whether hostile nuclear weapons are in American cities; they may be. I am saying they are in America.
If you were US President, what [a] national and [b] international policy changes would you make?
1) I would abide by the law. In situations where I felt that to do my job I could not abide by the law, I would explain what I was doing and why. I would try to pro-actively make my case to the American people and to our Congress. I would make sure Congress understood its job of oversight of the Executive Branch, and I would prompt them to do it where I felt such prompting was necessary.
It should be noted that the supreme law of this land is the US Constitution. Congress should make every effort to not pass bills that are unconstitutional; as President, I would not sign or enforce laws that I felt were unconstitutional.
This could lead to some crises over constitutionality. However, they would be no worse than the crises that we currently face, wherein the Constitution is all-too-often abided by only when convenient in the politics-as-usual atmosphere that pervades Washington.
2) I would be honest. I would tell Americans the truth about issues, and expect them to face it as adults.
3) I would clean up corruption in Washington, DC.
In answer to a):
4) I would insist on a low, flat income tax, and eliminate as many other taxes as possible. This would create an economic boom which would get America producing, and that lower tax rate, multiplied by a more productive economy, would yield more tax dollars. I would use those tax dollars to rebuild our military, rebuild our space program, and rebuild our infrastructure, all while retiring our federal debt (currently what? $9,000,000,000,000 or so?). I would cut subsidies for those who choose not to work, and encourage them to take a more active working part in our improved economy.
5) I would stop stealing from the Social Security Trust Fund, like they all do in Washington, and I would start getting the money that has been "borrowed" from it paid back to it. I would also stop requiring working Americans to contribute to Social Security, but rather give them the freedom to opt out. (How did we get into this situation where that freedom was taken away to begin with?)
Transitioning from a) to b):
6) I would secure our borders (both northern and southern -- I'm planning a post on this). I would ensure that immigration laws can be complied with, and that those who did not comply with them were removed from our country.
7) I would immediately begin a program to get us off petroleum-based fuels, and moving towards a variety of renewable energy sources. I would transition government vehicles to use fuel made from crops grown in the American heartland, rather than fossil fuels imported from countries that sponsor terror. I would also push for fusion energy, which, unknown to the American public, is knocking on a door that certain elements in our country are trying to keep closed.
In answer to b):
8) The War on Terror is a mistake. "Terror" is an abstract noun; it is a political strategy. We need to deal with those who employ it, and we need to identify them by the ideology they seek to impose forcefully on the world. We are battling radical Muslims, and we need to say so. I am not talking about a war on Islam; there are many Muslims who consider themselves devout, orthodox believers, and who sincerely disavow the violence that threatens them as well as us. Those peaceful Muslims, and the rest of civilized humanity, have a common enemy, and that common enemy needs to be identified openly and stopped, dead in its tracks!
Specifically: I would go after terrorist funding, worldwide; and I would go after the source of much of the funding, and of much of the hatred that radicalizes the world's Islamic community, and that is in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would understand what it means to face the wrath of a superpower. I would get bin Laden, and, if I got him alive, he would be treated humanely and well, in accordance with international standards of conduct, whether or not such standards technically apply to him; he would stand trial for his actions, and his trial would be fair. Under the Doodle Administration, US Special Operations Command would take the lead from US Central Command in the war against Islamic extremists, and there would be no safe havens for our enemies.
9) I would seek better relations with China and Russia, relations based upon mutual respect, while maintaining a defensive and economic posture adequate to ensure American security and allow American prosperity. That concept of mutual respect would apply as well to countries that are smaller geographically and population-wise, and weaker militarily and economically; it's a matter of principle.
Would anyone else care to be interviewed? I will feel obligated to interview only one commentator, but may opt to interview more than one; I reserve the right to choose whom I interview, and when (it might take a while). Should I choose to interview more than one commentator, I reserve the right to do so at separate times.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
[As your British interlocutor I am sincerely grateful to you, Yankee Doodle, for the time and trouble you have taken to answer my questions.
As I am sure you appreciate, matters of common interest can look very different from opposite sides of the Atlantic. In Europe, and especially in Britain, there is a great fund of good will and affection towards the United States but this first decade of the 21st century has also seen growing unease, and some mistrust, of American motives and actions. We live in an age of menace, and in the world crisis that we jointly face misunderstandings are unacceptably costly. It is in order to open a dialogue which I hope may address some of these misunderstandings that I have asked my questions. Your answers are of great interest, and I offer the following comments (in square brackets) on them:]
You are clearly someone with extensive experience and inside knowledge of how governmental and other institutions [mal]function. Do you optimistically think that their present degenerate state can be remedied, or are you pessimistic that 21st century ‘democracy’, US and Western style, is incurably corrupt and cancerous?
Foremost, I make no comment regarding your statement: "You are clearly someone with extensive experience and inside knowledge of how governmental and other institutions [mal]function."
[I rather thought you would not rise to that one, but I can say with confidence that you are an attentive listening ear to many well-informed sources of information.]
Beyond that, let me focus on the United States. The United States of America is NOT a "democracy" -- the United States of America is a republic.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the...."
The US is a republic with certain democratic principles. That means that democracy is not to run rampant, but rather is to be exercised with constitutional safeguards.
[I used ‘democracy’ as shorthand for government that is responsible to the people and subject to pluralistic choice of rulers and some legal constraints.]
By means of contrasting example, if you go to certain places in the Middle East (not all!), and give those people a democracy, I believe they will quickly vote in a totalitarian, fundamentalist Islamic regime, which will take away their democracy.
[The vitally important subject of ‘democratic deficit’ is comprehensively addressed in Fareed Zakaria’s book ‘The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad [2003] – a topic I hope we can return to in future blogs.]
That itself is hilarious, since some interpretations of Islam would hold that an elected Islamic government is not legitimate; it must be instituted by the will of Allah, that is, by force.
[Are the will of Allah and force always synonymous?]
In the US, however, what we can vote to do or not to do is supposed to be kept within certain boundaries. For example, in theory, just because everyone "knows" that a US citizen is a terrorist, that is not adequate legal cause to deny that person his Constitutional right to a writ of habeas corpus while the civilian court system is still functioning; this was done to Jose Padilla. What the Bush Administration did was wrong.
But, to the point of your question:
The conquest that we face, conquest threatened not only by certain elements of the Islamic world, certainly does not mean an end to history, or even to our history. America's best days are ahead of her; an American more optimistic than I you will not find.
[By ‘incurably corrupt and cancerous’ I was referring to the state of Western democracy – not to external threats.]
How do you think that the irrational hostilities currently being spread around the world by fundamentalist Christian, Jewish, and Islamic beliefs can be rendered less dangerous?
Irrationality is in the eye of the beholder.
[Isn’t this a bit question-begging? I think we both know what is meant.]
Fundamentalist Christians are a very minor player, and then only on a local level.
[This may be so from your perspective, but to many friends of America in Europe the growing – until recently, at any rate - political power of fundamentalist US Christians is highly alarming.]
Fundamentalist Jews are significant only because they hold disproportionate power in Israel. I should further point out that a major reason they hold this power is because Israel is so threatened by such incredibly hostile neighbors, and because the world does not seem to want to defend Israel. It is not necessary to agree with Israel; merely to insist that the terrorist and other attacks against Israel cease, and that differences be resolved peacefully. In the absence of that, it is a time of perpetual crisis for Israel, and in times of crisis, people give an ear to more extreme viewpoints.
[Zionist Jewry also holds disproportionate influence over American policymaking, does it not?]
All of which leaves us with fundamentalist Muslims....
And that brings us to the title of this blog.
Read on....
You believe – as many do – that these opening years of the 21st century are a time of extreme danger for the USA, the West, and the world as a whole. One danger you repeatedly refer to is that of hostile nuclear weapons already on site in American cities, and maybe elsewhere. Without revealing your sources, can you say how likely you believe this to be?
I am not saying whether hostile nuclear weapons are in American cities; they may be. I am saying they are in America.
[If that is so, what is being or needs to be done about it?]
If you were US President, what [a] national and [b] international policy changes would you make?
1) I would abide by the law. In situations where I felt that to do my job I could not abide by the law, I would explain what I was doing and why. I would try to pro-actively make my case to the American people and to our Congress. I would make sure Congress understood its job of oversight of the Executive Branch, and I would prompt them to do it where I felt such prompting was necessary.
It should be noted that the supreme law of this land is the US Constitution. Congress should make every effort to not pass bills that are unconstitutional; as President, I would not sign or enforce laws that I felt were unconstitutional.
This could lead to some crises over constitutionality. However, they would be no worse than the crises that we currently face, wherein the Constitution is all-too-often abided by only when convenient in the politics-as-usual atmosphere that pervades Washington.
2) I would be honest. I would tell Americans the truth about issues, and expect them to face it as adults.
3) I would clean up corruption in Washington, DC.
[A US President who abides by the law and respects the separation of powers would certainly be a welcome change.]
In answer to a):
4) I would insist on a low, flat income tax, and eliminate as many other taxes as possible. This would create an economic boom which would get America producing, and that lower tax rate, multiplied by a more productive economy, would yield more tax dollars. I would use those tax dollars to rebuild our military, rebuild our space program, and rebuild our infrastructure, all while retiring our federal debt (currently what? $9,000,000,000,000 or so?). I would cut subsidies for those who choose not to work, and encourage them to take a more active working part in our improved economy.
5) I would stop stealing from the Social Security Trust Fund, like they all do in Washington, and I would start getting the money that has been "borrowed" from it paid back to it. I would also stop requiring working Americans to contribute to Social Security, but rather give them the freedom to opt out. (How did we get into this situation where that freedom was taken away to begin with?)
[I don’t have sufficient knowledge of US domestic politics to comment on the above.]
Transitioning from a) to b):
6) I would secure our borders (both northern and southern -- I'm planning a post on this). I would ensure that immigration laws can be complied with, and that those who did not comply with them were removed from our country.
7) I would immediately begin a program to get us off petroleum-based fuels, and moving towards a variety of renewable energy sources. I would transition government vehicles to use fuel made from crops grown in the American heartland, rather than fossil fuels imported from countries that sponsor terror. I would also push for fusion energy, which, unknown to the American public, is knocking on a door that certain elements in our country are trying to keep closed.
[6) and 7) are both excellent points.]
In answer to b):
8) The War on Terror is a mistake. "Terror" is an abstract noun; it is a political strategy. We need to deal with those who employ it, and we need to identify them by the ideology they seek to impose forcefully on the world. We are battling radical Muslims, and we need to say so. I am not talking about a war on Islam; there are many Muslims who consider themselves devout, orthodox believers, and who sincerely disavow the violence that threatens them as well as us. Those peaceful Muslims, and the rest of civilized humanity, have a common enemy, and that common enemy needs to be identified openly and stopped, dead in its tracks!
Specifically: I would go after terrorist funding, worldwide; and I would go after the source of much of the funding, and of much of the hatred that radicalizes the world's Islamic community, and that is in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would understand what it means to face the wrath of a superpower. I would get bin Laden, and, if I got him alive, he would be treated humanely and well, in accordance with international standards of conduct, whether or not such standards technically apply to him; he would stand trial for his actions, and his trial would be fair. Under the Doodle Administration, US Special Operations Command would take the lead from US Central Command in the war against Islamic extremists, and there would be no safe havens for our enemies.
[The ‘War on Terror’ is an idiocy. We are confronted by small gangs of international terrorist criminals, maybe loosely linked, but in no way an enemy to be defeated in pitched battle. The whole post-9/11 strategy should have been conceived as an international police operation, instead of a gung-ho Hollywood-style wild Western shoot-out.
I vividly recollect George W. Bush in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 bragging that he would get bin Laden dead or alive, and stop all the terrorists’ funding. Both these objectives were sensible and attainable – yet neither of them has been achieved. Those responsible for this fiasco are criminally negligent, and should be impeached.
The ‘Saudi Connection’ has deep tentacles not only in the USA but also in Britain, where the abandonment of the British Aerospace corruption investigation at the beginning of this year marked the nadir of Blair’s premiership. Why do the Saudis have so much influence over the West?]
9) I would seek better relations with China and Russia, relations based upon mutual respect, while maintaining a defensive and economic posture adequate to ensure American security and allow American prosperity. That concept of mutual respect would apply as well to countries that are smaller geographically and population-wise, and weaker militarily and economically; it's a matter of principle.
[This is urgently necessary. G.W. Bush missed a ‘window of opportunity’ here, as elsewhere. Thanks to his belligerent ineptitude, we seem to lurching into a new Cold War.
*Thank you again, Yankee Doodle. In conclusion, may I urge all your fellow citizens to vote DOODLE FOR PRESIDENT.]
wow applause applause applause!..YD for President!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks, gang.
"YD for President!"
I almost labeled this post under "Funnies" just for that reason.
I'll get back with you on the debate here in the next few days, Anticant.
Excellent thoughts on democracy, Yankee. It's something I've been tossing around in my head for a while and wondering how a true republic would play out as opposed to democracy. What would be the practical day to day electoral practices or how would you determine the leaders?
I've been convinced for some time that democracy isn't working but it's the only system I know. The word 'democratic' in itself holds such fundamentally positive connotations that its opposite also holds true. To be undemocratic is anathema. It would be interesting to see some elaboration on the whole concept from a pragmatic point of view.
The book which I mentioned by Fareed Zakaria [editor of 'Newsweek International'], "The Future of Freedom", is a very interesting recent survey of democratic practices and deficits in the USA and around the world. He is very alive to the dangers of populism and the new phenomenon of freely elected dictatorships and tyrannies. I hope to write a review in 'anticant's arena' when I get round to it.
We should never forget that Hitler came to power in 1933 through perfectly legitimate means under a constitution - that of the Weimar Republic - which was the most democratic that Germany had ever had. [See "Hitler's Thirty Days to Power" by H.A. Turner Jr.]
YD as President would be a far better joke than the present incumbent!
As you so kindly and promptly jumped through the hoop I held up to you, YD, I'd be happy to answer five questions from you if you care to email them to me.
You know, Anticant, I was wondering if you might be interested....
I did a similar exercise for Aphra Behn in 'anticant's burrow' on 10th July. You might like to look at this post so that your questions don't overlap with any of hers.
"[I rather thought you would not rise to that one, but I can say with confidence that you are an attentive listening ear to many well-informed sources of information.]"
Thanks! ;)
"[I used ‘democracy’ as shorthand for government that is responsible to the people and subject to pluralistic choice of rulers and some legal constraints.]"
Yes, but we need to make sure our words facilitate, rather than hinder, communication. CAIR & Co. are about hindering; Sheikh bin Mahfouz & Co. are about shutting it down altogether when they disagree with it.
"[Are the will of Allah and force always synonymous?]"
Certainly insofar as Saudi Wahhabism is involved, or so it seems.
"[By ‘incurably corrupt and cancerous’ I was referring to the state of Western democracy – not to external threats.]"
As I stated (emphasis now added):
"conquest threatened not only by certain elements of the Islamic world"
"[Isn’t this a bit question-begging? I think we both know what is meant.]"
No, I think this is at the very heart of the matter.
"[This may be so from your perspective, but to many friends of America in Europe the growing – until recently, at any rate - political power of fundamentalist US Christians is highly alarming.] "
On the contrary, I think this is your perspective.
If the fundamentalist Christians had so much power in the US, how come abortion is still legal?
"[Zionist Jewry also holds disproportionate influence over American policymaking, does it not?]"
What holds disproportionate influence over American policymaking is domestic business interests, especially the military industrial complex, and foreign lobbies, which include Turkey, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, as well as Israel.
"[If that is so, what is being or needs to be done about it?]"
What's being done? Nothing, it seems. Bush's head is stuck in the sand (or maybe somewhere else), because the trail leads inconveniently back to his Saudi friends.
What should be done? Inform the American people, first of all.
Beyond that, go after Bin Laden and his Saudi buddies, both in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan; get on them and stay on them, before they light those things off. But, Saudi Arabia has Bush in its pocket, and Pakistan is very much Saudi Arabia's friend and nuclear proxy. Some of Pakistan's nukes have Saudi identification, and are presumed to be subject to Saudi control.
"[...Why do the Saudis have so much influence over the West?]"
Oil, which brings money; then, money. Influence peddling, organized crime (narcotics, arms and slave trafficking)....
Also, too many people naively buy into the foreign policy of several administrations to try to work behind-the-scenes to change Saudi Arabia, and the Saudis astutely manipulate us because of it.
Post a Comment