I've been thinking a great deal about Henry Kissinger lately.  Kissinger is truly a towering figure in the history of American foreign policy and is probably THE embodiement of the foreign policy "establishment."  So many future foreign policymakers began their careers under Kissinger and so many Presidents (including the current one) have solicited his advice, that it is imperative to examine his career and his philosophy in detail.

With this in mind, I just completed reading a book that sought to make sense of his philosophy of history and have been listening to reenactments of now declassified transcripts of his conversations with leaders like Brehznev, Mao, and Deng Xiaoping. 

A quick primer on his views on contemporary events can be found in this Der Spiegel interview.  Several interesting sections below highlight his views about how the intrnational system should operate:

SPIEGEL: The Treaty of Versailles was meant to end all wars. That was the goal of President Woodrow Wilson when he came to Paris. As it turned out, only 20 years later Europe was plunged into an even more devastating world war. Why?

Kissinger: Any international system must have two key elements for it to work. One, it has to have a certain equilibrium of power that makes overthrowing the system difficult and costly. Secondly, it has to have a sense of legitimacy. That means that the majority of the states must believe that the settlement is essentially just. Versailles failed on both grounds. The Versailles meetings excluded the two largest continental powers: Germany and Russia. If one imagines that an international system had to be preserved against a disaffected defector, the possibility of achieving a balance of power within it was inherently weak. Therefore, it lacked both equilibrium and a sense of legitimacy.

SPIEGEL: In Paris we saw the clash of two foreign policy principles: the idealism embodied by Wilson who encountered a kind of realpolitik embodied by the Europeans which was above all based on the law of the strongest. Can you explain the failure of the American approach?

Kissinger: The American view was that peace is the normal condition among states. To ensure lasting peace, an international system must be organized on the basis of domestic institutions everywhere, which reflect the will of the people, and that will of the people is considered always to be against war. Unfortunately, there is no historic evidence that this is true.

SPIEGEL: So in your view, peace is not the normal condition among states?

Kissinger: The preconditions for a lasting peace are much more complex than most people are aware of. It was not an historic truth but an assertion of the view of a country composed of immigrants that had turned their backs on a continent and had absorbed itself for 200 years in its domestic politics...

Kissinger: Cynics treat values as equivalent and instrumental. Statesmen base practical decisions on moral convictions. It is always easy to divide the world into idealists and power-oriented people. The idealists are presumed to be the noble people, and the power-oriented people are the ones that cause all the world's trouble. But I believe more suffering has been caused by prophets than by statesmen. For me, a sensible definition of realpolitik is to say there are objective circumstances without which foreign policy cannot be conducted. To try to deal with the fate of nations without looking at the circumstances with which they have to deal is escapism. The art of good foreign policy is to understand and to take into consideration the values of a society, to realize them at the outer limit of the possible.

I wrote on some of these themes last year after reading Kissinger's doctoral thesis which was turned into a book: A World Restored that focused on the post-Napoleonic balance of power.  In this book, now nearly 50 years old, Kissinger hits on the theme of prophets and statesmen as he does in the Der Spiegel interview,

"But the claims of the prophet are sometimes as dissolving as those of the conqueror. For the claims of the prophet are a counsel of perfection, and perfection implies uniformity. Utopias are not achieved except by a process of leveling and dislocation which must erode all patterns of obligation. These are the two great symbols of the attacks on the legitimate order: the Conqueror and the Prophet, the quest for universality and for eternity, for the peace of impotence and the peace of bliss.

But the statesman must remain forever suspicious of these efforts, not because he enjoys the pettiness of manipulation, but because he must be prepared for the worst contingency."

This ongoing concern with the distinctions between "prophets" and "statesmen" is a recurrent theme within Kissinger's corpus of written and spoken work.  Why?

Kissinger is different from most major American policymakers because he views the world through a different lens than practically any other leader of his stature (we are talking about the only person to serve as both Secretary of State and National Security Advisor contemporaneously). 

Kissinger was Jewish and born in Germany.  Indeed, he was deeply scarred by the Holocaust, having lost family members in the concentration camps of the Third Reich.  This left Kissinger seemingly cold to providence and faith in the transcendent, at least of a "cosmic" transcendence.  These quotes from his undergraduate thesis reinforce this pessimistic strain,

"Life is suffering, birth involves death...

Transitoriness is the fate of existence. No civilization has yet been permanent, no longing completely fulfilled. This is necessity, the fatedness of history, the dilemma of mortality."

Some have argued that the Kissinger that survived the Holocaust and emigrated to America was a doom and gloom "Spenglerian." This view holds that he was desperately attempting to keep America afloat after the debacle in Vietnam in order to stall a general "Decline of the West."  While the above quote offers some solace for this view,  I believe this has been debunked by any careful reading of Kissinger's cirticisms of Spengler. 

Rather, Kissinger's superficially cynical attempts to maximize power seem to be an effort of will and nearly artistic creation.  In this sense, he strikes me as a somewhat Romantic German, alomst Nietzschean.  He seems to to have found meaning in self transcendence and used the stage of international diplomacy as a canvas.  He wanted to be a true architect of a long lasting (though as I am sure he would admit limited) international system.  His disdain for "prophets" was his understanding of their innately destructive characteristics.  They destroy the existing order in a messianic fervor that leaves no room for stability and the erecting of a structure that can withstand the passage of time beyond that which occurs in the mere blink of an eye.

Evidence that Kissinger appreciated a statesman's ability to find freedom of action within themself, can be found in his undergraduate thesis,

"An analysis if historical phenomena reveals but the inevitability inherent in completed action.  Freedom, on the other hand, testifies to an act of self-transcendance which overcomes the inexorability of events by infusing them with its spirituality.  The ultimate meaning of histoy- as of life- we can find only within ourselves."

So Kissinger desired to be a statesman to discover meaning in a world where meaning was difficult to find through the ashes of a devastated Europe and in the midst of a contest between two superpowers with the ability to reduce the rest of the world to ashes as well. 

I think there is more to transcendence than an act of human will as reflected in creativity.   I believe creating a stable world order, one underwritten by power, is a moral act in a grand sense.  I believe this is so even if the roads travelled towards this objective are poorly illuminated and murky.

Kissinger offers many lessons, many of which are essential for a nuanced understanding of diplomacy behind the obligatory facades.  But I think we must ulimately find transcendence and the meaning to history outside of ourselves, lest we be forever trapped in a historicist prison with no key. 

I wonder, is this where Kissinger still finds himself today?

This interview with James Poulos, whi is a doctoral candidate in political theory at Georgetown University and founding editor of obne of my new favorite blogs,  Postmodern Conservative, is the kind of reading all thoughtful conservatives should do.  It confronts a very serious dilema that we face- how do we live as individuals in the current modern and "Liberal" with a big "L" (as opposed to a classical liberal of the Burke or even Adam Smith variety).

Several interesting quotes

"The big challenge today, I think, is convincing people—especially younger people—that a life in which political liberty has been readily surrendered in exchange for great cultural or “personal” freedom is not a good life, either individually or socially. The willingness to be carried along to that destination, particularly under the impression that it’s basically inevitable, ought to be something that everyone with anything at all nice to say about NR’s (National Review) editors should unite against...

Conservatives are at great pains to convince themselves and one another that their vision of the good or virtuous life is not a mere lifestyle choice. Conservatives don’t just want to experience happiness or individuality—they want assurances, reliable enough that their souls may rest in them, that their progeny will be able to live, indefinitely, more or less as they do. If there’s no reason to live that way outside idiosyncratic personal choice, they’ll fail to inculcate their way of life, and lifestyle-choosing liberals will turn their children and grandchildren into individuals who could be just anyone."

This piece got me thinking about many different things, not only those specific issues raised by the interview itself.

So what do we "conserve" as "conservatives?"  There is much more to this than just being a "fiscal conservative."  After all a "fiscal conservative" can be an amazingly selfish and greedy person who does not care about anything outside of their own self-fulfillment.

If being fiscally conservative, however, is married, so to speak, with an overall cultural renewal, then, that fiscal conservatism is no longer a means only to one's self satisfaction, but is a morally responsible position that can allow us to give more to our family, our friends, and our community.

So, we conserve money for a greater good than oneself.  But what else?  Isn't conservation about saving things that are vitally important to us, possibly even necessary for life itself?  Isn't that what the "conservation" movement is all about when it comes to "saving the planet?"

So isn't being "conservative" about saving  something that will sustain us, not only materially, but spiritually?  Isn't it about maintaining a connection to our roots, our family, and our cultural heritage that has historically shaped, though not determined, what and who we are?

So conservatives must "conserve" more than their individuality, they must conserve those instituions that transcend, otherwise, do we not lose touch with any sense of eternity?

In this respect, I think the "virtuous life" is much more than a mere "lifestyle choice."  It is a life that attempts to raise our horizons to something much higher than ourselves, and even higher than mere man.  For youth that seek the stimulation of "personal" freedom, conservatives must offer a more comprehensive vision, a vision of greatness, transcendance, and the eternal.  These are that which should be "conserved" because they are what give us true inspiration and bring us closer (if not into the direct presence of) Truth.

Faith, family, and community are where these senses of the transcendent reside and those, even more than the fiscal arena, is what we must conserve.

How we do this is another question.

I came across two articles today that firmly encapsulate in my mind the direction our nation is moving in and I found myself deeply troubled.  I am troubled at a level that is visceral and almost makes me ill because I fear that the problems of the moment, as bad as they undeniably are, will usher in not a better world, but a worse one. 

The first article is from Newsweek.  The headline proclaims it all- "We Are All Socialists Now."  Rather than explain the full piece let me leave a quote from the piece that sums it well:

"A decade ago U.S. government spending was 34.3 percent of GDP, compared with 48.2 percent in the euro zone—a roughly 14-point gap, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. In 2010 U.S. spending is expected to be 39.9 percent of GDP, compared with 47.1 percent in the euro zone—a gap of less than 8 points. As entitlement spending rises over the next decade, we will become even more French...

Now comes the reckoning. The answer may indeed be more government. In the short run, since neither consumers nor business is likely to do it, the government will have to stimulate the economy. And in the long run, an aging population and global warming and higher energy costs will demand more government taxing and spending. The catch is that more government intrusion in the economy will almost surely limit growth (as it has in Europe, where a big welfare state has caused chronic high unemployment). Growth has always been America's birthright and saving grace."

The second article comes from an author that I have always been deeply fond of, the Classical military historian, Victor Davis Hanson.  As I read his concluding paragraphs and thought about them in conjunction with the Newsweek story my fears of the past came back to me.  Hanson makes explicit how the post-modern, secularized man that refuses to reproduce and looks only for the pleasures of this world has led to statism.  Below is the relevant section.

"I had a conversation (an argument) recently with a European, about contemporary culture. I tried to explain the mutually reinforcing elements of socialism, atheism, utopianism, pacifism, and statism (he was giving America a second chance to morph into Euros under Obama). But if one believes in no transcendence, that there is nothing other than the present, then for too many satisfying the appetites becomes the prime directive. Childlessness, living at home in one's 30s, dependence on the state, all that derives from a system that ensures equality of result, and substitutes Logos and Ratio for any notion of a deity that sees sin and sacrifice, and reminds us that our souls are immortal and affected by their brief residences in our flesh. In other words, that Euros expect free health care, free care for their elderly parents, free schools, free defense from the USA, harbor little hopes for rising above the station of anyone else, find housing and jobs scarce, and don't feel they can or want to leave behind something for their children larger than what they inherited-- are all interrelated phenomena. European postmodern man offers mostly platitudes that he thinks please those who might be dangerous to him, and finds psychological recompense and solace by gratuitously trashing those who aren't. Note how such constitution peoples favor Hamas over Israel--and usually almost anyone over the US. Were Hamas a successful democracy that took no European aid and offered it in turn no threats, and Israel a failed fascistic terrorist movement that depended on Europe for aid and comfort, while engaging in terrorism and voicing postmodern platitudes about oppression, then we would expect Israel to be a strong European ally. (I think many Europeans are more sympathetic to the Palestinian Authority or Syria or Iran than the incipient democracy in Iraq)."

So how is "post-modern" man different from Nietzsche's terrible vision of the "Last Man."  Compare for yourself as Nietzsche's prophet, Zarathustra speaks:

"I say unto you: one must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star. I say unto you: you still have chaos in yourselves.

Alas, the time is coming when man will no longer give birth to a star. Alas, the time of the most despicable man is coming, he that is no longer able to despise himself. Behold, I show you the last man.

'What is love? What is creation? What is longing? What is a star?' thus asks the last man, and blinks.

The earth has become small, and on it hops the last man, who makes everything small. His race is as ineradicable as the flea; the last man lives longest.

'We have invented happiness, 'say the last men, and they blink. They have left the regions where it was hard to live, for one needs warmth. One still loves one's neighbor and rubs against him, for one needs warmth...

One still works, for work is a form of entertainment. But one is careful lest the entertainment be too harrowing. One no longer becomes poor or rich: both require too much exertion. Who still wants to rule? Who obey? Both require too much exertion.

No shepherd and one herd! Everybody wants the same, everybody is the same: whoever feels different goes voluntarily into a madhouse.

'Formerly, all the world was mad,' say the most refined, and they blink...

One has one's little pleasure for the day and one's little pleasure for the night: but one has a regard for health.

'We have invented happiness', say the last men, and they blink."

I see little difference.

Nietzsche said that God is Dead, by which he meant that WE have killed him in our desire to be "enlightened" during our push to become masters of our own fate in this world without transcendance.  Nietzsche saw that without God, nihilism, a lack of faith in anything, was inevitable.  He tried to replace God with a Godlike man- the notorious Ubermensch or Overman.

He may have been wrong in his solutions, but he clearly diagnosed the malady of modern man.  Today more than ever we stand on the precipice of America joining Europe and becoming "post-modern" which is really nothing more than becoming "Last Men."

The greatness of spirit that was such a constant through most of human history is intentionally being homogeneized with the vague, but discernable desire to enforce equality of outcome.  "Greatness" is scoffed at, ridiculed, and referred to as "selfish", "narrow-minded", and contrary to the communitarian ideals that supposedly will save this planet from our own evil born of ignorance.

There will not be a levelling up, there will only be a levelling down.  From where will come the next Plato, Aristotle, Alexander, Cicero, Augustine, Aquinas, or Dante?  Where will even be the next Washington, Lincoln, or Churchill?

Socialism breeds sloth.  I know that there is a need for government to restrain the excesses that are inherent in flawed man.  However, we are taking steps that go far beyond the necessary restraints and limited assistance that is needed to assure people don't "fall through the cracks."  We are choosing to make the world that our children (if we choose to have them) are born into a world of bland mediocrity that denigrates what has been so noble about humanity.

Yes, its true, the price for greatness and nobility is some instability, some danger, but the desire to eradicate that can only lead to a sterility that saps man of what has made him human. 

The religious societies are vastly more human than the experiment we are attempting to consolidate.  Ironically, there is disorder in those societies, but they are human.  Perhaps, that is not as bad a thing as so often we think it is.  Perhaps, we'll look more deeply before setting sail for a destination that is preordained to destroy our very souls and leave us empty husks that will over time be easy pickings for those that still understand how to be humans.

The Romans largely failed to do that and they became history.  America is not yet doomed for a repeat performance, but our Attila and Alaric is out there waiting for an opportune moment to strike at our cracked foundations.  We should defend those foundations and not become the "Last" Post-Modern Man.

Given the season, I decided to be reflective on Christian thinking and decided to read a famous work by Reinhold Niebuhr, the Irony of American History.  Given how many American politicians claim to be inspired by Niebuhr, from President- elect Obama to his opponent Sen. McCain, it seemed wise to see what he says.

While this book is by no means an exhaustive look at his overall corpus, it was illuminating.  Written during the tumultous early years of the Cold War when nuclear annihilation was a possible outcome of the conflict, Niebuhr eloquently points to the serious flaws and dangers of Marxist-Leninism.  Yet, while defending America from much criticism (and generally supporting America in its conflict with Marxist-Leninism), he finds flaws in America.  He finds "irony" abounding throughout history.  He notes that man can transcend nature, but by being a creator as well as a creature of history, he finds it difficult to find ultimate meaning.

This can facilitate situations where even those who believe themselves to be doing the morally correct thing can actually become imperious and distrusted by their friends due to their blindness and unwillingness to examine their own limitations.  Niebuhr is clear that human life should not be seen as "tragic" where the great hero is evemtually toppled due to a conscience decision born of hubris, nor is he "pathetic" or trapped completely within a prison of circumstance wholly beyond his control.  Rather, man is "ironic" in that he is capable of transcendence, yet he often has his wings clipped as result of decisions made not so much through willful calculation, but almost by organic movement growth.

Unsurprsingly, he calls for humility and makes clear this is the cornerstone of Christian faith (though he wisely refuses to make the humility of the poor the be all and end all of morality, recognizing that the resentments of the poor are often as self-interested as the conceit of the rich).

Several snippets below I fond particularly insightful as we continue to struggle with determining how best to wield the power that we have. 

"Ironic contrasts and incongruitites have an element of the comic in them in so far as they exhibit absurd juxtapositions of strength and weakeness; of wisdom through foolishness; or foolishness as the fruit of wisdon; of guilt arising from the pretensions of innocency; or innocency hiding behind ostensible guilt.  Yet contrasts are ironic only if htey are not merely absurd, but have a hidden meaning.  They must elicit not merely laughter but a knowing smile.  The hidden meaning is supplied by the fact that the juxtapositions and contrasts are not merely fortuitous.  They are related to each other by some foible of the person who is involved in both.  The powerful person who is proved to be really weak is involved in an ironic contrast only if his weakness is due to some pretension of strength.  If 'pride cometh before the fall,' the fall is ironic only if pride contributed to it...

The Biblical interpretation of the human situation is ironic, rather than tragic or pathetic, because of its unique formulation of the problem of human freedom.  According to this faith man's freedom does not require his heroic and tragic defiance of the forces of nature.  He is not necessarily involved in tragedy in his effort to be truly human.  But neither is he necessarily involved in evil because of his relation to the necessities and contingincies of the world of nature.  His situation is, therefore, not comprehended as a pathetic imprisonment in  the confusion of nature.  The evil in human history is regarded as the consequence of man's wrong use of his unique capacities.  The wrong use is always due to some failure to recognize the limits of his capacities of power, wisdom and virtue.  Man is an ironic creature because he forgets that he is not simply a creator but also a creature."

I come away believing that one cannot ignore the power they have and turn inward, hoping to be merely "left alone" and allowed to return to the tranquility of times past.  This means, we must be engaged. 

I also recognize that we, in America, often do not appreciate how we are perceived by others.  This lack of appreciation yields anger and resentment when we are called to account by other nations and people for actions we take to be virtuous and necessary. 

We cannot escape our position and we cannot escape our condemnation for being in such a position.   The truth is we are not as noble as we wish to believe, though we are simultaneously far more noble than we are typically accused by others of being.  I suspect an ironic smile and acknowledgement of this would help us to not ignore the opinion of our fellow man, yet also not flagellate ourselves ceaselessly as some are so desirous of doing.

A great philosophical examination of this summer's runaway hit, the Dark Knight.  Very interesting and worth looking at in depth.

I think we need a Batman to face down the threats of instability.  However, in now way is a "Batman" a "good" thing, it is merely that which is necessary.   Chaos can lead to nothingness, let us not be nihilists...

"Here, the Joker's violence is aimed at proving a very clear point: that deep down, we're all the same as him — "only as good as the world allows (us) to be". "I've demonstrated there's no difference between me and everyone else!" boasts the Joker in Alan Moore's classic comic The Killing Joke, on which Nolan's rendering of the villain is based. Hence the Joker's claim that those who proclaim rules and institute order, such as politicians or police officers, are simply hypocrites who pretend to uphold moral codes, which are promptly "dropped at the first sign of trouble". Far better to be consistent: "The only sensible way to live in this world is without rules." It is in this sense that the Joker is "an agent of chaos". Not mindless chaos, but the idea that those who would control society are contemptible.  They're schemers trying to control their worlds … I show the schemers how pathetic their attempts to control things really are."

He explicitly does not want to kill Batman ("What would I do without you?"), but he certainly wants Batman to kill him. This would violate Batman's "one rule" and prove the Joker's point. That is why Harvey Dent, the promised "White Knight" is so central. The Joker kills Dent's fiancee, not because he wants her dead, but because he wants to drive Dent to darkness. If he can transform the incorruptible district attorney into a murderer, the argument is won. Recall the Joker's delight as he hands Dent a loaded gun and presses it against his own head, enticing Dent to shoot him. When Dent leaves this decision to the toss of a coin, then exclaims: "Now you're talking!" he knows Dent has fallen.

Is that a political cause? In a very broad sense it is, though not in the sense we often use the phrase. He does not seek any clearly identifiable, concrete political outcomes. His politics are far more abstract, philosophical, even artistic. He argues not for a world ruled by him, but for one without rules altogether. Ideologically, he is not so much an anarchist as a nihilist. He is a terrorist, then, but one who advocates a belief in nothing."