ry's got a beef. And in praise of Brothers

(Endless post warning. You've been warned.)
As we’re finding out around here, a brother’s love is a wondrous thing.

It’s no secret that I like Thomas Barnett and his work. I think he’s got a lot of the solutions to the current problems and some of the mid-term ones too in his Felix the Cat Bag of Tricks. I get the guy. I get what he says and why he says them. I get his motivations for his philosophy---as would Alan McLeod (definitely) and Trias (kinda sorta), but not Jack Grant (who would question it on many levels given what it calls for at times). Good guy. Good egg. Man with a heart of gold, most of the time, and the best interests of the world as his star to steer by.

But sometimes, only sometimes, I’d like to take a newspaper and smack him in the back of the head. Why? Well, he supports the kind of thing his brother wrote about neo-cons (me being a neo-con) that is just the usual tawdry list of ‘reasons why conservatives/republican are the devil’ with a neo stuck in front of it. I mean, it’s great that your brother gets that there’s a difference, a slight difference in the stream of things, between neo-cons, real neo-cons and not those who just have the tag hurled at them as an epithet, and neo-libs. That’s great. Having a brother have your back is great thing, and I’m happy for Dr. Barnett to have the backing of his brother. We all need that sometimes. And it’s good that where the distinction between the two was attempted (Writers at the New Republic, call your office!) But……

I wasn’t always a neo-con. At one point I was a crazy anarchist Punk (like mohawks, leather jackets with tons of safety pins in them, and listening to loud dis-harmonic stuff played allegro with bad lyrics by Gello Biafra Punk---though I still attended Mass and school (lettering in track and cross country), never cut my hair all weird and didn't wear the clothes that were part of the scene, and really worried about my Mom being mad. So I wasn’t really Punk. I just tried to be.). Then I woke up in my late teens. That chit just was not going to work and was the epitome of arrogance. Only we, the anointed few, who by listening to the same bands who hand fed us some really watered down philosophy, really knew what was going on and how to run the world? Baloney. We knew spit, less actually, and, worse, we knew it and just didn’t care. It’s just, well, rebellion is cool (though I still didn’t have my first date until I was a junior in HS while most of my punk buddies had lost their virginity by that age. Go figure.) and telling people they didn’t know anything while we of course knew everything made us feel good about ourselves.

So then I stopped that stuff.

I moved onto something else.

Call it isolationist populism. The world’s problems are their own. We had more than enough problems here at home. People matter first, philosophy a distant second. Helping people out is a good thing and the first good thing. Whatever does the job best is the solution regardless of ideological reasons--- though this last bit got modified a bit as I got older and learned more, the process often does matter.

But I differed in a lot of my friends on how to fix those problems. I asked the question: does gov’t intervention really help? Sometimes it did. Lots of times it didn’t. So I wasn’t for reflexive ‘gov’t solves it by throwing money at the problem’ type solutions, like Hillary Care. Growing up on Welfare like I did taught me something hard and true: gov’t programs have to toe a bottom line, but Father Scanal’s charity knew no bounds (and he could be viscous in getting the Parish to help us out); the gov’t would have to follow a schedule of payments regardless of our actual need, but the people my Aunt worked with at Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station or The Strand could be counted on to take collections, loan money, or bring us food whenever we needed it ( Another sign of charity of the Navy: Once some officer brought Disneyland tickets on Armed Forces Day because the guy felt bad that a family that lived no more than 10 miles away had kids that had never been in their entire lives while his kids had been several times. Ociffers. Such a weird lot.).

[If you want the rest of this essay, just hit the "Flash Traffic/Extended Entry" button there and all will be revealed]

And the world still had problems. I pooh-poohed going to Somalia because it was not the US’s fight. Ditto for Kosovo. That was what I thought at 22. Was not our fight and little real gain to be had by sending them there—like Vietnam, right(wrong, as I was to learn much later, like so many others when we began to find out how terrible the Vietnamese were doing, and much of SE Asia for that matter after the communists had their way with the region.)? So why did we do it?

I was still arrogant at 22 and had little idea of how the world worked; and even less about how to get ahead in it. So this HS drop out went back to school. First I went to a junior college and then on to a four year to earn a Bachelor of Arts in Chemistry, where I met my Fair Jessica (not to be confused with the Blog Father’s---mine’s better, but I’m biased.).

At the junior college I ran into things that started to put other earlier experiences into context. My Cambodian born friend, who had a shrapnel scar of his calf and a chunk of meat missing where the scar was, gave me a little perspective. And the African students who spoke French better than they did English gave me an education about the world too. Seeing Vietnamese girls with the same scar on their throats I’d seen ever since grade school started to make sense---a little boy doesn’t understand rape and so can’t connect the evidence to the crime.

I started to learn something cold, hard, disturbing, and utterly unforgiving: there are Wolves out there and if we let them have their way they’d eventually spread their disease where ever they could; they’d wreck things simply to make themselves big chits (even if being big chit didn’t amount to much at all). So, I gave isolationism the deep six.

It just was not realistic. Particularly when I started studying how people around the world blamed us (The West, the US, and the Anglo-sphere. Take your pick.) for what ailed them (and to be honest, sometimes they were right as we did do wrong by them, but other times they were wrong). We couldn’t pretend that if we just stayed home and left the world to themselves we wouldn’t be placing a crosshairs on our chest. We already had one, sometimes earned and sometimes not. As Barnett himself would say: we can’t just firewall them off. It just wasn’t realistic anymore.

So we went to Somalia. It was a good thing (something hard to accept for those who lost loved one’s there and in light of recent events). So went go to Kosovo. It was a good thing ((except for those who had to go on those long, boring flights in the webbed chairs of Starfrogs, got hurt, or had to do the actual heavy lifting)). We were exporting security and connectivity to these parts of the world. We were making their lives better. We were giving them fewer reasons to reach for a gun and more incentive to reach for a lawyer to settle their problems, and thereby making ourselves safer. We were living up to our ideals, but it was costly. Oh so very costly to live up to them.

Vietnam started to make sense to me seeing as how I grew up around the thousands of refugees who came here, continue to come here, and I listened to the horror stories the old ladies with the black teeth, wore the black aoi dai, and had breath that smelled of hoc nam had to tell about how their oldest sons were slaughtered by the followers of Ho Chi Minh. How it was done long after the war was over. How the drug trade and human trafficking were the best ways to make a buck and get ahead in SE Asia became very real to me when I had to see it, and the even worse aftermath, up close and personal. It made sense to me why we went to that far of land then, even if others around here agree with David Drake that going there didn’t do the Vietnamese, or those who went to fight, and damn good at all (You guys did do them some good. You really did, and those that were the people you were helping appreciate it---I’ve met them, I've eaten cross legged in their homes. Never let anyone steal that from you. You’d be kings for a day if you weren’t such humble bast-turds and contacted the folks in Westminster, CA.) We’re idealists here in the US. We’re the brother of the world, part of our multi-ethnic heritage. And a brother’s love is a wondrous thing. A brother’s love is something that’ll get a brother to fight in fights that really aren’t his own or of his choosing; and make him fight harder than he probably should. We’d done it before. We continue to do so. It costs us big. It ruins the lives of some of those very dear to many of us. But still we send them. We’re idealists. We want a better world than we woke up to today. Making that world better costs mega, and not in dollars and cents. A future worth creating has an immense human cost, for us and for those we aim to help. Getting the killing over fast keeps the cost down, but it doesn’t ever make the cost disappear.

My long, odd, and oft times unconventional education has also shown me that at times corporations weren’t evil incarnate, most times actually. They have their moments of duplicity, but often times they’re motivations are misunderstood because people use lenses and prisms to interpret what they’re doing, a sort of circular logic game people play to justify hating Big Business regardless of the good they actually do (we on the right often do the same for NGO’s). Does anyone actually think the guys in the lab at Pfizer just want to bilk joe avg? Does anyone think I went into chemistry because I had illusions of being a millionaire living in Malibu with a 40’ yacht? I went into chemistry a) because I was pretty good at it and b) because when my grandmother died in my arms there weren’t drugs cheap enough to prevent what happened to her (brain aneurysm) or pain meds to prevent her from suffering more than she should have, farkin’ entropy. I sure wasn’t going to find the next super cheap anti-clotting medication on my own in a garage lab (sorry, chemistry does not work like the tech industry does where decentralization is better or even preferred.). But with a contract at Pfizer, or Eli Lilly, or some other pharma firm I just might (unfortunately kerataconus reared its ugly head and put the end to that little plan). Corporations are peopled with individuals who aren’t jackals by and large, even the executives (Not as sure about the marketing and accounting departments though. I think they really are jackals.). Unfortunately, the rules, gov’t implemented rules to protect people who have invested their pensions in these companies or to protect you from when we well intentioned scientist types make mistakes in the lab, prevent them at times from being charities. Like gov’t, businesses have a bottom line they have to toe. That’s an angering but true little factoid.

So that’s how I got to be a neo-con, a living breathing neo-con with a conscience and a desire for a better world than I found. Not just some caricature of one. Not some nebulous thing you can demonize out of fear. Not something you can hate simply because you don’t or won’t attempt to find out what my motivations really are and instead toss everything and the kitchen sink at.

I wanted, and still want, the same world Dr. Barnett and Andy Barnett want. A just, fair, and free one full of plenty for all and little need for people to wage wars over things. I just disagreed, and continue to disagree, on how to get there. That meant there was only one party for me. The GOP since the Dems really weren’t that interested in this kind of thing when I was getting started. They were still bashing Reagan for trying to bring down the Sov Union---that jerk who was upstaged by a monkey, war-mad cowboy who, and dolt . They were still calling the ‘buy American’ plan jingoism and fascism (only now they use that very same thing, in a modified form, to bash off shoring---except Dr. Barnett. He sees how this pushes us toward the end zone.). They were making fun of a man who’d had his arm shattered by machine gun fire fighting real fascist bast-turds in Italy over his infirmity. They were pushing platforms that called for the worst, least efficient, least actionable on the personal level and operational level plans I’d ever heard for helping the greatest number of people. Father Scanal’s plans worked and he wasn’t buying their plans. Their plans couldn’t and wouldn’t work as I’d seen from the worm’s eye view. They were for interventionism only when their guy sat below Damocles’ Sword, but called anyone else doing it the worst names imaginable. They thought Vietnam was the worst thing possible and a stain on our national honor; but I’d seen, first hand, that the real horrors of Vietnam were living next door to me and in Westminster, with broken bodies, stolen virtue, ravaged minds, broken hearts, and a home they could never go back to. I had no choice but to become a Republican. The Dems had no freakin’ clue (welfare reform’s done pretty good, even if there are problems with it, ain’t it? And Clinton was forced into that.), even if they won back then.

Odd that I'm a neo-con since I would’ve voted for JFK had I the chance to do so.

So, I sit here wondering, why is Dr. Barnett’s brother calling me Beelzebub? I mean, I want the same things (90% homology) as he and Dr. Barnett do. So what gives?

Largely, it’s an election year. Hyperbole is bound to happen. That’s what happens during silly season. As Chick Hearn used to say, ‘No harm, no foul.’

Then there’s that Andy Barnett has two sons serving in the Gulf and a third seems to have retired from the Reserves of one of the Services (May they come home sound of mind, body, and spirit. May the Lord protect and guide them home to you soon, sir.). Hey, worrying about your kids is a fine reason to be mad at any president by me. I just wish he understood our, we neo-cons, motivations a little better before he hauled out his rhetorical claymore. Or had better aim.

But, man, don’t insult my intentions or my intelligence. Don’t pretend you and yours alone hold the keys to virtuousness. Don’t pretend you alone have our nation and world’s wellbeing at heart. Don’t pretend that you alone have the fair treatment of our retired or injured service people as an imperative. Don’t do that just so you can climb up on a soap box to bash us with a Nerf hammer for political gain. Mostly, don’t do that because it is not true, not by a long shot. We're willing to work with you and not against you on quite a few things if you'd stop to find out who we are and what we're about.

Particularly don’t dis me and all the other neo-cons with the same slander that the left has hurled at the right when we’re on the same side for all intents and purposes of working for a future worth creating; and with that future looking very, very similar. There’s so much more that could be accomplished if neo-libs didn’t see domestic political profit in taking a pound of flesh out of us moderate conservatives or neo-cons. RINO’s and neo-cons really aren’t that much different than neo-libs. If you really look at the nuts and bolts of what we’re about we really aren’t that different than Tom, even if there is a need, which I don’t deny, for you to show where such difference lays.

But you know what? I proll’y could get along with you Andy Barnett. He sounds like a good man, really. Kind of like John’s sister the liberal teacher. Good people with their hearts in the right place but different ideas of where the end zone is and how to get there. Seeing as how Mom grew up in backwoods Wisconsin and raised her two boys as if it was 1964 and a healthy diet of sports (well, for my flesh and blood older brother it really the Sixties. For me it was the 1980’s.) I think I could get along with the guy just fine as he and Tom are Wisconsinites from a middling sized town and raised on sports. Right up until he pisses in my soup, insults me, and tells me that I’m the closest thing to Satan there is on this planet (which he would proll’y say if I was a paleo-con, or any other con for that matter) we’d get along great. But hey, we get you Andy. We get the anger. We get the why of it. We get you and your brother both on an intellectual level. We get what it is you’re trying to create and the reasons behind it. We here at Castle Argghhh! by and large want the same things, just disagree about how to get there or where the there is.

So, just try not to stick that knife so deep into the back of those of us who you really should consider your allies instead of political hacks like Kos who’d drop you the instant they saw political advantage doing so in the future, okay?

But yeah, as we’re learning around here, a brother’s love is a wondrous thing. To all the Big Brothers out there: salut! The world’s on its way to becoming a great place thanks to you guys.
ry

10 Comments

Just to clear up one little thing (and show I read the Whole Thing) - my sister is a liberal psychologist who works for an Enormous State University on a contract with the VA studying pain management and providing services in that regard. My brother-in-law is the liberal teacher....
 
Masochist.
 
Ry, I'm a little older than you--was in on that first wave of punks in the late '70s-early '80s, but have experienced a lot of the same transitions. I thought Communism was the big answer, workers owning the means of production, equalized income, blabbety blah. I'm happy to say, like you, I've kept my eyes open and paid some attention to why people struggle to leave where they are in the world--risking their very lives to do so--and come to America. The only logical conclusion was to give up the Blame America First stance, and take a good look at what makes America attractive. Not Mcdonald's, not Levis, but the opportunity to make an honest living and be relatively unfettered. Lost some friends over it, but that's the way it goes. I'm still not taking on the neocon label--probably more neoliberal, but as you note, they aren't that far apart. But the point is, I think a lot of our generation, as we've aged past the twenties and then the thirties, have experienced the same growth as you. I find it encouraging.
 
You gotta practice your report writing skills especially the Executive Summary part. I can't say I like labels that much. I even tried labeling myself as a liberal on my first few blog posts and that didn't work all that well. Any queer guy with even the inkling of a conservative thought is supposed to be a paradox which is another example of labels. Maybe it's better Ry just to be you. That's label enough for anyone :P Screw the neocons and neolibs and neonazis punks vamps republicans and democrats and preferably the press as well. You are hardly a conformist no point starting it now is there? There is a kind of socialist view that one should understand a 'wolf' and look at their childhood abuse etc. I agree and if they are too dangerous to go ahead and shoot them anyway. There are plenty of wolves in corporations I have no doubt. Yet people sometimes forget a corporation is really just a collective of people, most of whom are like any other. I have no brother often wondered how they get along.
 
Ry, that was quite good--I AM impressed (and somewhat awed, really). In fact, I am going to share that with my classmates and with a couple of the professors... Who knows, you might just get attention in some lofty places (not as lofty as at Argghhh, of course, but you know)... I can't begin to tell you how close to the bone that one strikes (nor how close it comes to some of the conversations I've had the past few months!) In a word, Nice, very nice.
 
Don't knock the Levi's and McDonald's. To the world, these are the figurative representations of the "streets paved with gold". This is a sign of our prosperity and ability. It may seem trivial or shallow, particularly to those of us who have lived with them for so long and have the luxury of viewing outward signs of prosperity as shallow while philosophizing on the inner or psychological ideology/feelings of "success", but, to a man who plows a field with a lone oxen and a push plow our ancestoral farmers haven't used in almost two centuries, these business are the proverbial gold ring: the ability to leave the plow and feed and clothe your family above subsistence without working yourself to death by time your 40 (better yet,if you are industrious, you can actually be the owner of such a business). We have time to chat on the internet and talk about the Zen of plowing a field of corn on a john deer tractor. The farmer in vietnam or India sees the field to be plowed as another day of subsistent existence. that's why we're called "the land of opportunity". For all the carping about big business and off shoring and things of that nature, Ry makes the point in a round about way: the way to end wars is prosperity. Prosperity does not come at the point of a barrel or through political machinations alone though it requires political stability and security. It requires money and businesses; jobs and opportunities. Viewing these basics of our political and economic structure as inherently evil has always seemed inherently stupid to me. And,it is my personal view that the cold war was not won by Ronald Reagan, nuclear arms, political ideology or all the proxy wars from WWII on but that the Cold War was won by exactly those things that we view as shallow representations of our prosperity: McDonald's and Levis. Throw in some blackmarket Michael Jackson cassettes, cosmetics and a few other items that might make the idealist cringe and you have the recipe for collapsing the Soviet Union. Simply put, at the lowest street level, the lowest worker with rubles to spend, that worker preferred dollars and the products he could buy with it; the USSR could not compete with us economically thus they could not compete politically, socially or militarily. It was really that simple. We have debate endlessly on why the terrorists struck us on 9/11 and what we should have done in response. Why would they strike at innocent civilians and two towers representing our financial success? Was it simply because they saw this financial success as supporting our political and military abilities? When President Bush talks about how the terrorists "hate our freedom", the people on the left don't get it. That's why they continue to insist that he is oversimplifying the issues and that it is about our involvement in Israel or other political or military endeavors and why some on the right tend to see it in terms of our "political" freedom. Every good religious fundamentalists/takfiri knows that the destruction of his way of life is not at point of a barrel or from political agreements: it starts the minute a McDonald's opens; the minute one teenager wears Levi's; the minute some guy is driving his landrover listening to 50 Cent talking on his blue tooth technology cell phone (actually, by then, it's too late and the jihadists is fighting a losing battle). Why do rioting Muslims in the Middle East burn KFC right after they burn the American Flag? Not because it represents our political or military efforts, or because it directly causes a woman to lose her chador/abaya/burkah or a man to forsake Friday call to prayers, but because it represents economic freedom. When a man or woman has economic freedom (ie, freedom from traditional methods of making money and feeding himself and his family), they have the ability, time and resources to gain social, intellectual and political freedom. In closed societies where economic control depends on fuedal tribal allegiances and religious structures, economic freedom is a volcano they can't stop. Further, Islamic religious leaders, organizations, mosques etc are not different than the Roman Catholic church throughout medieval times or even up to and including the French revolution where the French revolutionaries basically destroyed the church and executed many priests along with aristocrats. The Russian Orthodox church did the same thing during the Red Revolution. In short, while these organizations minister to the common man, they tend to support the political or social structure that provides them with power and money, even if that structure is ultimately destructive to the masses they minister to or consistently maintains those masses in ignorance and poverty. In the end, I don't support the military action in either Iraq or Afghanistan as the final solution to the over all war, but see them as necessary to the need for immediate change as well as to attrit military and political ability to wage war in the immediate future. The long term "war" I do not see as never ending military conflict. The long term war includes economic and political actions. Not simply sanctions, but trade agreements and development of business, creations of jobs, etc. bin Laden and everyone of his compatriot groups understands that the war will be long and why the political and, most importantly, economic destruction of the United States is necessary. He knows that their end does not come from an M-16 or daisy cutter bomb, but from an all beef patty on a sesame seed bun. Thus, as long as western businesses are able to, want to and continue to propagate in places like Lahore, Pakistan, they will feel threatened in their way of life and we will be at war (whether it is high or low intensity). A change in foreign policy (that is so generic it is laughable, but people still insist on making such wide reaching statements), the end to our efforts in Iraq, some bizarre change in stance that abandons Israel as an ally or places them in an untenable position, will not end this war. At best it will buy short term good will that has unforseeable destructive consequences for the future.
 
April: heh. I hear ya. But Kat does have a point. Consumerism isn't a bad thing in and of itself.It's the over indulgence in it. Same with agression. Below some thresh hold level agressiveness is a good thing. Above that it's a disease. Really, Al McLeod is the guy to talk to about this. Him and The Flea. Heh. I toss something out and I get Trias, Kat, and Sanger to comment. Now if I could just figure out what it was that brought them out of lurkerdom I'd do that more often. Glad to hear from all of you. Trias: Executive summary? I don't do executive summaries. I don't do introductory paragraphs, except when writing fiction, well at all. I've had to pay a colleague to write, and re-write, the introduction of my thesis with pumpkin cheesecake(16 of them). I simply am not very good at it. But being part of a political movement does kind of sort of matter. There is strength in numbers. Not that one has to surrender their individuality to be part of it. I fall under the broad penumbra of conservative, and quite a few conservatives around here probably think I'm barking at the moon mad. Then there is the ability to quickly describe to someone what one's beliefs and motivations are. It beats spending thirty minutes laying out one's philosophy when there's a name that tells people, quickly and accurately, what you're thinking is. There's always wiggle room. It's not like progressivism is a monolith with a single script to follow either. But it's a good starting point. I'm sure you have felt this at times too: it'd be nice just to blend it once in a while. So I don't mind joining a crowd that happens to be going to the same place as me. Sanger: Glad to hear from you! Don't care if I get talked about. Hearing you say you liked it, that you found in it something of value, that's high praise enough for me. But, most of all, glad to see you're not being driven bonkers from your studies and you've still got time to lurk. YOu can have the Rant Mantle back any time you want.:0) Ket: Very Barnettian. He describes exactly what you talk of here "Ry makes the point..." in much more detail in his own works. Much better than I can. He's a genius. I just can follow his genius. Security/Law/Economics rule sets. Adopting a good set of those are the troika that leads to prosperity. Read Barnett(I'm kinda sure Kat does on occassion since he's on her blogroll, or I thought I saw him on her blogroll). He's worth the effort. Even if he's a neo-liberal who isn't above taking pot shots at us neo-cons.:) Horizontal thinking is hard to do, Kat. It doesn't come natural to me either. But, 'seeing the whole mosaic' *does* matter when you're making grand strategic decisions. Believe it or not, teaching the meaning of the Eact graph to undergrads lead to a lot of things falling into place for me. It's an analogy I like to use a lot.
 
But Ry 'Neocon' *is* an Executive Summary :)
 
Yeah, but I don't write executive summaries. I just use them when I talk.:0) (snarky bast-turd, grumble, grumble)
 
Ry, Look, you don't need MY approval. You do just fine ...really. Way better than I've done for a long while. As for the so-called rantmeister crap, well I've got a lot of other things to focus my ire on lately--and to keep me way too busy. I can't even keep my own site up to date worth spit, let alone come here and aggravate John. Anyway, this week has been grueling. Wanna know anything about exchange rate risk in international transactions? If you do, get a book, 'cause I can't seem to get my braincells to give a damn about it, no matter how many times I reread the stuff. I guess I'm not cut out to be an economist or a financial wonk... As if THAT was ever a thing that crossed my mind. Bleh! Anyway, what you wrote was god if for no other reason than it was sincere. A lot of more polished stuff is crap because it doesn't sound sincere. That's part of what I like about your stuff. -- V/R