Comments for Jeremi Suri http://jeremisuri.net Sat, 10 Mar 2012 04:38:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 Comment on After Super Tuesday: Bigger is Better by Bruce http://jeremisuri.net/archives/982/comment-page-1#comment-820 Bruce Sat, 10 Mar 2012 04:38:36 +0000 http://jeremisuri.net/?p=982#comment-820 Do you truly think that the present slate of Republican candidates has either the ability or the desire to address the questions you pose? These are candidates who are running because they: 1. want a book and/or speaking contract on the back end; 2. Have an organization of special (business) interests behind them who want it even more; or 3. Their mother told them to run for President. In short, their motives are transparently suspect and that's why they have not and will not offer any substantive answers to any legitimate policy questions. Unfortunately for us all, elections are bought and those elected are beholden. Just ask Barney Frank why he retired. Do you truly think that the present slate of Republican candidates has either the ability or the desire to address the questions you pose?
These are candidates who are running because they: 1. want a book and/or speaking contract on the back end; 2. Have an organization of special (business) interests behind them who want it even more; or 3. Their mother told them to run for President. In short, their motives are transparently suspect and that’s why they have not and will not offer any substantive answers to any legitimate policy questions. Unfortunately for us all, elections are bought and those elected are beholden. Just ask Barney Frank why he retired.

]]> Comment on Lost Leaders and Bold Alternatives by jeremi http://jeremisuri.net/archives/945/comment-page-1#comment-608 jeremi Fri, 18 Nov 2011 15:24:27 +0000 http://jeremisuri.net/?p=945#comment-608 I agree fully, Bruce. We cannot simply wait for a heroic leader to emerge and "save" us. That is not feasible. Heroic figures are always flawed and filled with shortcomings. My point is that we need figures who come from the people with a vision that helps to mobilize, focus, and inspire broader society. Leaders cannot (and should not) make change. What leaders do is bring focus and some structure to a forward-looking vision that we need so desperately. Great leaders reflect the people and help to organize them as a whole. I agree fully, Bruce. We cannot simply wait for a heroic leader to emerge and “save” us. That is not feasible. Heroic figures are always flawed and filled with shortcomings. My point is that we need figures who come from the people with a vision that helps to mobilize, focus, and inspire broader society. Leaders cannot (and should not) make change. What leaders do is bring focus and some structure to a forward-looking vision that we need so desperately. Great leaders reflect the people and help to organize them as a whole.

]]> Comment on Lost Leaders and Bold Alternatives by Bruce http://jeremisuri.net/archives/945/comment-page-1#comment-589 Bruce Wed, 16 Nov 2011 03:07:00 +0000 http://jeremisuri.net/?p=945#comment-589 Like a great many Americans I am mysteriously drawn to the "heroic" view of history, and find it harder to explain and configure the "social" (societal?) view. Heroes and fixers are convenient problem solvers. Ideally, they ride in on a white horse and rescue the distressed. They are the cavalry, the philosopher king, and they are adored by a grateful nation. The problem is they are also flawed, both personally and by the environment in which they operate. You mention Roosevelt and Reagan as examples of courageous (heroic) leadership, and I will agree that, in their moment, for a particular problem, they catalyzed a change that wouldn't have happened without them. But in each case there was collateral damage from that heroism that needed (and lacked) another hero's touch. Roosevelt has long been a lightening rod for conservative criticism, and an argument could be made that the reaction to 4 terms of his social welfare policies was a direct cause of McCarthyism. The radicalization of the Republican Party, starting with McCarthy, is as great an internal problem today as the threat of the spread of global Communism was in the three decades following WWII. Similarly, Reagan's dismantling of federal regulatory authority has been proven misguided (to be kind), and, worse, given rise to a mind-set of reactionary economic policy making that is naif and dangerous ("I was wrong". Alan Greenspan). In short, unless we have an endless supply of charismatic, bold, heroic leaders, there will always be a period of recovery from the fallout that ultimately comes. The "social" view, where change occurs due to movements in the collective social consciousness ("Ban The Bomb", "Civil Rights", "Anti-Vietnam", "Occupy Wall Street", "Arab Spring", etc), while harder to define and predict, has an element of public empowerment that offers an even greater, and potentially more sustainable catalyst for change. If we wait for a hero to appear, or try to create one out of desperation, we will, in all probability, be wasting our time. If instead we vote, boycott, sue, demonstrate, and nurture and galvanize the humanity that is supposedly within us all, change will come and be better rooted. Who knows, a heroic figure might even emerge as a bonus. Like a great many Americans I am mysteriously drawn to the “heroic” view of history, and find it harder to explain and configure the “social” (societal?) view. Heroes and fixers are convenient problem solvers. Ideally, they ride in on a white horse and rescue the distressed. They are the cavalry, the philosopher king, and they are adored by a grateful nation. The problem is they are also flawed, both personally and by the environment in which they operate.
You mention Roosevelt and Reagan as examples of courageous (heroic) leadership, and I will agree that, in their moment, for a particular problem, they catalyzed a change that wouldn’t have happened without them. But in each case there was collateral damage from that heroism that needed (and lacked) another hero’s touch. Roosevelt has long been a lightening rod for conservative criticism, and an argument could be made that the reaction to 4 terms of his social welfare policies was a direct cause of McCarthyism. The radicalization of the Republican Party, starting with McCarthy, is as great an internal problem today as the threat of the spread of global Communism was in the three decades following WWII. Similarly, Reagan’s dismantling of federal regulatory authority has been proven misguided (to be kind), and, worse, given rise to a mind-set of reactionary economic policy making that is naif and dangerous (“I was wrong”. Alan Greenspan). In short, unless we have an endless supply of charismatic, bold, heroic leaders, there will always be a period of recovery from the fallout that ultimately comes.
The “social” view, where change occurs due to movements in the collective social consciousness (“Ban The Bomb”, “Civil Rights”, “Anti-Vietnam”, “Occupy Wall Street”, “Arab Spring”, etc), while harder to define and predict, has an element of public empowerment that offers an even greater, and potentially more sustainable catalyst for change. If we wait for a hero to appear, or try to create one out of desperation, we will, in all probability, be wasting our time. If instead we vote, boycott, sue, demonstrate, and nurture and galvanize the humanity that is supposedly within us all, change will come and be better rooted. Who knows, a heroic figure might even emerge as a bonus.

]]> Comment on Contact by Bruce http://jeremisuri.net/contact/comment-page-1#comment-568 Bruce Thu, 10 Nov 2011 18:51:58 +0000 http://jeremisuri.net/?page_id=420#comment-568 Professor Suri, I recently read "Liberty's Guardian" and enjoyed it very much. I was unable to enter a review with some questions and other comments on the book's web site, however (I tried twice). Perhaps there is a time lag involved, but I would enjoy hearing your response to some of the points I raised regarding present day nation-building. Best of luck in Austin, Bruce Professor Suri,
I recently read “Liberty’s Guardian” and enjoyed it very much. I was unable to enter a review with some questions and other comments on the book’s web site, however (I tried twice). Perhaps there is a time lag involved, but I would enjoy hearing your response to some of the points I raised regarding present day nation-building.
Best of luck in Austin,
Bruce

]]> Comment on Gadhafi”s Death and Middle East Rebirth by Jeremi Suri http://jeremisuri.net/archives/931/comment-page-1#comment-533 Jeremi Suri Fri, 28 Oct 2011 18:56:45 +0000 http://jeremisuri.net/?p=931#comment-533 Excellent points, Bruce. As you say, the US must remained closely engaged but also cautious and careful in it's Libyan actions. We must emphasize partnership and process above all else. Political or corporate desires for quick results must be resisted by the president. That is what leadership means in this context. I am optimistic because I think the economic crisis and Occupy Wall street have tempered the most aggressive instincts. Austerity and humility have strategic value. Elections might not be intellectual, as you lament, but policy-making requires real skills. Excellent points, Bruce. As you say, the US must remained closely engaged but also cautious and careful in it’s Libyan actions. We must emphasize partnership and process above all else. Political or corporate desires for quick results must be resisted by the president. That is what leadership means in this context. I am optimistic because I think the economic crisis and Occupy Wall street have tempered the most aggressive instincts. Austerity and humility have strategic value. Elections might not be intellectual, as you lament, but policy-making requires real skills.

]]> Comment on Gadhafi”s Death and Middle East Rebirth by Bruce http://jeremisuri.net/archives/931/comment-page-1#comment-511 Bruce Tue, 25 Oct 2011 06:50:23 +0000 http://jeremisuri.net/?p=931#comment-511 To quote your book, "Nation-building can work only when the people own it.". It's way too early to judge, but the current administration's response to the Arab Spring has been cautious and devoid of many of our usual pitfalls (or am I not seeing them). I assume the US has "elements" on the ground that are actively engaged in understanding, assessing and influencing, but the lack of ground troops or other quasi-military security personnel is most reassuring. I do worry, however, that our economic interests in the area (oil) will soon dictate our diplomatic focus. It certainly has in the past. Understandably, US business interests play an important role in the nation-building process as partners in government assistance and other "targeted investments", and US foreign policy has often stressed economic bargaining ahead of military intervention. But lately I sense a more urgent and aggressive influence on policy making by corporate interests that characterize not only their survival but also their ability to turn massive profits as crucial to national security and strength. This I feel is a dangerous direction, especially given the tender emotions in the Middle East. I think the Occupy protesters sense this as well. I would qualify Chad's "politics is unintellectual" by arguing that while the political process and design is very much an intellectual pursuit, elections themselves seem silly and simple-minded. It often seems that a candidate is elected because either he/she can convince the under-informed and under-educated or his/her opponent has been disgraced. Good looks and an authoritative voice also helps. To quote your book, “Nation-building can work only when the people own it.”. It’s way too early to judge, but the current administration’s response to the Arab Spring has been cautious and devoid of many of our usual pitfalls (or am I not seeing them). I assume the US has “elements” on the ground that are actively engaged in understanding, assessing and influencing, but the lack of ground troops or other quasi-military security personnel is most reassuring.
I do worry, however, that our economic interests in the area (oil) will soon dictate our diplomatic focus. It certainly has in the past. Understandably, US business interests play an important role in the nation-building process as partners in government assistance and other “targeted investments”, and US foreign policy has often stressed economic bargaining ahead of military intervention. But lately I sense a more urgent and aggressive influence on policy making by corporate interests that characterize not only their survival but also their ability to turn massive profits as crucial to national security and strength. This I feel is a dangerous direction, especially given the tender emotions in the Middle East. I think the Occupy protesters sense this as well.
I would qualify Chad’s “politics is unintellectual” by arguing that while the political process and design is very much an intellectual pursuit, elections themselves seem silly and simple-minded. It often seems that a candidate is elected because either he/she can convince the under-informed and under-educated or his/her opponent has been disgraced. Good looks and an authoritative voice also helps.

]]> Comment on Contact by jeremi http://jeremisuri.net/contact/comment-page-1#comment-507 jeremi Mon, 24 Oct 2011 02:00:31 +0000 http://jeremisuri.net/?page_id=420#comment-507 Dear Barbara, Thanks for your kind words. We love Austin and the kids are adjusting very well. We do miss our friends from Madison. So far, we are rooting for both the Longhorns and the Badgers. Above all, we support the Packers. Go Pack!! I hope to see you soon. Please come and visit us in Austin. Stay well and please send our warm regards to Colette and your entire family. Yours, Jeremi Dear Barbara,
Thanks for your kind words. We love Austin and the kids are adjusting very well. We do miss our friends from Madison. So far, we are rooting for both the Longhorns and the Badgers. Above all, we support the Packers. Go Pack!!

I hope to see you soon. Please come and visit us in Austin. Stay well and please send our warm regards to Colette and your entire family.

Yours,
Jeremi

]]> Comment on Gadhafi”s Death and Middle East Rebirth by jeremi http://jeremisuri.net/archives/931/comment-page-1#comment-506 jeremi Mon, 24 Oct 2011 01:20:53 +0000 http://jeremisuri.net/?p=931#comment-506 I agree with much of what you say, Chad. Modern politics require a certain degree of public charisma - the ability to influence and attract large audiences. I also agree that the Arab Spring represents a search for increased political participation in the Middle East, not the return of a caliphate or anything similar. I would only quibble with your claim that politics is non-intellectual. The articulation of a vision, the strategy for implementing that vision, and the ability to manage a complex government bureaucracy - those are the true markers of intellectual leadership. Unfortunately, those qualities are too rare today. We must nurture more leaders and citizens with those qualities. Thanks again for your comments. I agree with much of what you say, Chad. Modern politics require a certain degree of public charisma – the ability to influence and attract large audiences. I also agree that the Arab Spring represents a search for increased political participation in the Middle East, not the return of a caliphate or anything similar. I would only quibble with your claim that politics is non-intellectual. The articulation of a vision, the strategy for implementing that vision, and the ability to manage a complex government bureaucracy – those are the true markers of intellectual leadership. Unfortunately, those qualities are too rare today. We must nurture more leaders and citizens with those qualities. Thanks again for your comments.

]]> Comment on Gadhafi”s Death and Middle East Rebirth by Chad http://jeremisuri.net/archives/931/comment-page-1#comment-502 Chad Sun, 23 Oct 2011 15:41:59 +0000 http://jeremisuri.net/?p=931#comment-502 I can easily see why Gadhafi remained in power for 42 years, he is a very charismatic leader. I actually found him really interesting, but in the end he's a crony. Nationalism is such a powerful force, every politician reaches in their toolkit and uses it. It seems that there are certain characteristics that every politician has to have, depending on the country you're in. I wonder if these politicians legitimately have these characteristics or whether they are fake and manufactured. Where do people go that don't have these characteristics? I wonder if these characteristics are actually what is actually best for the country and society at large. In America, you have to be Christian and you have to claim that America is the best country in the world. Is America the greatest country in the world? I think this leads to a lot of backwards notions and prevents progress in society. Politics is fundamentally non-intellectual. I have no idea what will become of Libya or other countries in the Arab Spring, but Glenn Beck and other conservatives I have read think that there will be Islamic caliphates. It doesn't seem like the right time or place for a caliphate and it seems like the people want democracy and their tired of certain repressive, backwards Islamic customs. It seems as if they have looked around at other countries in the world and compared them and have come to the conclusion that these countries are superior in a lot of measurable ways. I don't think a caliphate is going to happen. I can easily see why Gadhafi remained in power for 42 years, he is a very charismatic leader. I actually found him really interesting, but in the end he’s a crony. Nationalism is such a powerful force, every politician reaches in their toolkit and uses it.

It seems that there are certain characteristics that every politician has to have, depending on the country you’re in. I wonder if these politicians legitimately have these characteristics or whether they are fake and manufactured. Where do people go that don’t have these characteristics? I wonder if these characteristics are actually what is actually best for the country and society at large. In America, you have to be Christian and you have to claim that America is the best country in the world. Is America the greatest country in the world? I think this leads to a lot of backwards notions and prevents progress in society. Politics is fundamentally non-intellectual.

I have no idea what will become of Libya or other countries in the Arab Spring, but Glenn Beck and other conservatives I have read think that there will be Islamic caliphates. It doesn’t seem like the right time or place for a caliphate and it seems like the people want democracy and their tired of certain repressive, backwards Islamic customs. It seems as if they have looked around at other countries in the world and compared them and have come to the conclusion that these countries are superior in a lot of measurable ways. I don’t think a caliphate is going to happen.

]]> Comment on The Arab Spring and American Foreign Policy by J Suri http://jeremisuri.net/archives/921/comment-page-1#comment-488 J Suri Mon, 10 Oct 2011 05:32:55 +0000 http://jeremisuri.net/?p=921#comment-488 You raise an excellent point, Bruce. Our dysfunctional relationships with Saudi Arabia and Israel seriously limit our leverage in the region. As part of a broader strategy in the region, we need to become less beholden to Saudi Arabia and Israel. We should not cut off relations, but we should balance our support for these regimes with broader efforts to engage other societies in transition more deeply. This will be difficult, but it must be done. We need better and more friends in the region. You raise an excellent point, Bruce. Our dysfunctional relationships with Saudi Arabia and Israel seriously limit our leverage in the region. As part of a broader strategy in the region, we need to become less beholden to Saudi Arabia and Israel. We should not cut off relations, but we should balance our support for these regimes with broader efforts to engage other societies in transition more deeply. This will be difficult, but it must be done. We need better and more friends in the region.

]]>