Communitarian Letter #27
Ethics for Lawyers?
Talking does not make a foreign policy
A National Security Strategy for the Next Administration
McCain: Irresponsible
A Communitarian Candidate
Export Security, Not Democracy
Upcoming Events
Good Reads
Security First Copies
Endorsements
Ethics for Lawyers?
These days, in the court rooms and elsewhere, lawyers can be found simply making things up without any factual foundation, to keep their clients out of trouble. Floyd Abrams, an eminent lawyer, wrote in The New York Times that in our current climate, we should not be surprised when lawyers state things that "have nothing to do with the truth". It's like sitting down to play poker; one should expect the other side to bluff. But, courts are not a game. Lives, liberty, and fortunes are at stake. Where should a lawyer’s obligations lie? Is there a way of imposing a more rigorous code of ethics on lawyers? What would it entail and how would it be enforced?
We welcome feedback and will include it in future postings. Please send your responses to .
Talking does not make a foreign policy
I listened recently to three people who claim to advise Barack Obama on foreign policy. They all extolled the virtues of talking to our adversaries and allies. I have read a considerable number of blogs and op-eds arguing for and against Obama’s declaration that he will talk to friend and foe alike. I believe it is a good idea, under practically all circumstances, and a vast improvement over the Bush Administration’s bankrupt unilateralism. However, talking does not a foreign policy make. Neither does the very welcome call for more diplomacy and less saber rattling. Talking and diplomacy are merely means to an end. The question is: to what end?
The French philosopher Montesquieu wrote in the days of sailing ships that no wind will do for a boat that has no port it is seeking to reach. Take the most dangerous part of the world, Pakistan. No one is denying that it has nuclear weapons, and a lot of Taliban running around, and that they have friends and allies in the Pakistani intelligence services. What do Obama and company plan to tell Pakistan? And what if there is no one who can speak for Pakistan? And what if those who do, point out that they have other concerns than ours, for instance not to piss off the Taliban?
I am sure some progressive people will say, and not without merit, that it is ‘all our fault.’ If the CIA had not trained and armed Afghani troops, working with the Pakistani intelligence services; if American corporations… etc etc. But this is all water under the bridge. There is no way to rewind history. We now have a problem we do need to talk about, but first we must figure out what we are seeking, an outcome that will serve both us and Pakistan. I do not hear Obama and company talking about this thorny subject.
There are half a dozen others. Surely one should talk to Iran, Syria Russia, among others. But on the way to sitting down with them, one must note that—surprise, surprise—they have their own agendas and needs. I see no sign that all the good people who surround Obama, or for that matter McCain, have drafted a plan or envisioned a new international architecture that the US can promote in talking to these agitated parties.
Actually there is a model that President Clinton worked out and which has been recently revived. In dealing with North Korea, the US did talk to other nations, including China, Japan and South Korea, and to North Korea. However, it also had a plan. It was willing to forego any notions of regime change, indeed to shore up the last Communist tyranny in the world, by granting it fuel and food—in exchange for its giving up its nuclear weapons. We do not know yet if all will work out, but it is a clear policy. Talking is not the main point; what we are talking about is.
Originally posted by Amitai Etzioni on the Huffington Post, here.
A National Security Strategy for the Next Administration
A July 2008 report laying out a “Framework for a 21st Century National Security Strategy,” composed by a group of highly regarded foreign policy mavens, lifts the dialogue about post-Bush foreign policy to a new level. Instead of focusing on what must next be done on one or another specific front such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, or China, the report lays out a set of broad principles to guide U.S. military and diplomatic policy. Better yet, the report fully realizes that no state has unlimited resources and leverage, and accordingly, it sets clear priorities. Most significantly, the report recognizes that security can and must be promoted in failing states and in dealing with rogue states without first democratizing the regimes involved.
Some of the report’s authors (mainly Democrats) have served in key positions in previous administrations and some have been identified as advisers to the Obama campaign. I list them here in the same non-alphabetical order as the document: Anne-Marie Slaughter, Bruce W. Jentleson, Ivo H. Daalder, Antony J. Blinken (Majority Staff Director of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations), Lael Brainard, Kurt M. Campbell, Michael A. McFaul, James C. O’Brien, Gayle E. Smith, and James B. Steinberg. The report also includes a brief foreword by Susan Rice, senior foreign policy advisor to the Obama campaign.
I cannot stress enough, that although a good part of what follows spells out different ways we may march forward, there is no doubt in my mind that the report points us very much in the right direction…
To read the rest go here. “A National Security Strategy for the Next Administration” was published in the September-October 2008 issue of Military Review.
McCain: Irresponsible
Most of the media, including large parts of the progressive one, is dealing with McCain’s irresponsible choice of a running mate with kid gloves. The choice is called “surprising,” “edgy,” “maverick,” and at worst, a “gamble.” Actually, it reveals a dangerous streak of profoundly irresponsible conduct, a character flaw of the new leader of the GOP. The choice of the VP candidate is widely considered the first real test of the leadership capability of those who are aspiring to become President. Obama passed this test with flying colors. Even those who much preferred that he choose someone else agree that Biden is a perfectly reasonable choice. But what about Sarah Palin?
One term bandied about is that the choice reveals McCain’s “maverick” character. However, being a “maverick” is a charming personality trait. It describes someone who is willing to break with tired conventions, is not held back by mindless conformity, willing to try something off the trodden past. However, by choosing a running mate who is not qualified to take the reigns if the red phone rings in the VP office -- as it did for Lyndon B. Johnson in 1963 and Harry Truman in 1945-- McCain acted irresponsibly. You would not call jumping out of an airplane without a parachute a “maverick” act, but would correctly see it as one that raises serious questions about one’s judgment.
Others chuckled and called the selection of Palin, after a very brief meeting with her, a “gamble,” reminding us that John McCain likes to play craps. Some suggested that it is a hi-risk hi-gain move; a choice that seems almost courageous, showing a willingness to choose a course that has long odds but will bring a great reward. However, one does not gamble with the future of a nation. One does not turn over the bridge of a ship to someone whose very limited experience is sailing toy boats in a bath tub.
Many have pointed out that McCain’s judgment is clouded in regard to specific policy issues, including his support of the invasion of Iraq, his bellicose attitude toward Russia, and his blindness to matters economic. The issue here runs deeper. At issue are not policies that can be modified, but acts that are cast in stone. McCain’s selection of an utterly inexperienced running mate-- after making experience the litmus test for leadership-- is his first act as the presidential candidate of the GOP. And one cannot but hope, one of his last ones as well.
Originally posted by Amitai Etzioni on the Huffington Post, here.
A Communitarian Candidate
We have highlighted in the past the communitarian beliefs of the American Presidential candidate Barack Obama. Last Thursday, at the Democratic National Convention, he showcased those beliefs again, talking at length about both the rights of the American people and the responsibilities that they must follow through on.
“That's the promise of America - the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation; the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper… we must also admit that fulfilling America's promise will require more than just money. It will require a renewed sense of responsibility from each of us to recover what John F. Kennedy called our ‘intellectual and moral strength.’”
John McCain, too, has spoken with a communitarian message. He has used the catch-phrase “a cause greater than self” and has said that instead of encouraging Americans to spend money after the terrorist attacks on September 11, leaders should have asked Americans to serve their country. He also believes in asking Americans to do more for their communities, and has pushed to expand voluntary national service organizations like AmeriCorps.
Export Security, Not Democracy
By Jonathan Rauch, National Journal
"'Six years after September 11,' wrote Krauthammer, 'there is still no remotely plausible alternative to the Bush Doctrine for ultimately changing the culture from which jihadism arises.'
If that ever was true, it ceased to be as of last summer. That was when Amitai Etzioni published an important book called Security First: For a Muscular, Moral Foreign Policy..."
To read the rest of this review visit www.securityfirstbook.com
Upcoming Events
“Education for ‘national’ citizenship in the context of devolution and ethno-religious conflict”
Seminar Series Opening Lecture
October 31, 2008
Birkbeck College
University of London
London, United Kingdom
“Asian Social Protection in Comparative Perspective”
January 7-9, 2009
Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy
National University of Singapore
Singapore
Association of American Law Schools Annual Meeting
January 6-10, 2009
San Diego, California
Law and Communitarian Studies Section: “Community as a ‘Third Force’ in Domestic and International Relations”
For more information, contact Professor Linda C. McClain at .
Good Reads
Jane Mayer's newly published book, The Dark Side, is an important read best read with two other new and significant books, Ben Wittes' Law and the Long War and Philip Bobbitt's Terror and Consent. Mayer convinces the reader that the Bush Administration, especially Cheney and associates, shredded the Constitution and utterly unhinged the check and balance system, all in order to allow an unprecedented, abusive concentration of power in the hands of the president. However, she leaves it to the other two books to answer this question: given that the United States does face a new kind of threat, how should the next administration deal with terrorists within the framework of the Constitution and a well balanced democracy? All three books are much richer than can be laid out here. However they all point to the same general conclusion: between mechanically applying pre 9/11 percepts and going wild, lies a world largely yet to be charted. It is a world of carefully modified laws and institutions that take into account the new kind and level of terrorism, without sacrificing our basic commitments to freedom and rights.
SECURITY FIRST COPIES
Those seeking a copy of Security First, which is at the moment out of print, can get the hard copy for $16.50 from the Communitarian Network. Please send a check, payable to the Communitarian Network, to:
Communitarian Network
2130 H St NW
Suite 703
Washington, DC 20052
Endorsements
The Responsive Communitarian Platform can be found here. We invite all people who agree to endorse it here.
The Diversity Within Unity Platform is here. We invite all people who agree to endorse it by sending an email to with the subject “endorse DWU.”
We welcome your thoughts, feedback, and communitarian news. Send them to .
Edited by Radhika Bhat
________________________________________________________________________
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE COMMUNITARIAN NETWORK MAY
PUBLISH ALL SUBMITTED COMMENTS AND FEEDBACK.
To read over several decades of Communitarian thinking, please visit our e-storage facility D-Space at http://dspace.wrlc.org/handle/1961/137
We apologize if you have received this letter in error. To be removed from this listserv, please reply to this email with the subject “remove listserv.”