New Award: Moron Reporter Who Is The Best Argument Against His Own Point!

Let me describe this "reward" thing a bit. I've decided that, because there is a huge disparity between good journalists and sucky journalists, to hand out awards to some who best represent their category.
This particular category is for journalists who propose something, but are so moronic that they serve as the greatest example of why their proposal would fail miserably. This award goes to some of the worst journalists, and is one of the most insulting rewards to receive, being only marginally more respectable than the “Functionally Illiterate Award” (for journalist who simply can not write, and almost certainly use horrendous grammar), “Can’t Quite Understand Alphabet Soup Award” (very similar to the previous, but implies partial literacy with complete idiocy), “Jason Blair Award For Fiction” (for journalists who systematically fabricate or plagiarize their articles), and, finally, the “Pyrotechnic Appreciation Reward” (for journalists who go down in flames).


Now, time to get to the article that warrants the “Self-Defeating Argument Award” (name subject to change) for Jonathan Freedland. His abhorrent article is, Still no votes in Leipzig.

(Who) could honestly describe the 2004 contest of George Bush and John Kerry as a domestic affair? There's a reason why every newspaper in the world will have the same story on its front page on November 3. This election will be decisive not just for the United States but for the future of the world.
Anyone who doubts it need only look at the last four years. The war against Iraq, the introduction of the new doctrine of pre-emption, the direct challenge to multilateral institutions - chances are, not one of these world-changing developments would have happened under a President Al Gore. It is no exaggeration to say that the actions of a few hundred voters in Florida changed the world.
So perhaps it's time to make a modest proposal. If everyone in the world will be affected by this election, shouldn't everyone in the world have a vote?… (Shouldn't) the men who want to be president win the support of Liverpool and Leipzig as well as Louisville and Lexington?
It may sound wacky, but the idea could not be more American. After all, the country was founded on the notion that human beings must have a say in the decisions that govern their lives. The rebels' slogan of "No taxation without representation" endures two centuries later because it speaks about something larger than the narrow business of raising taxes. It says that those who pay for a government's actions must have a right to choose the government that takes them.

-Underlining done by me

Now, I’m sure most sensible readers see just how bad this proposal is. I am, admittedly, very understanding when reading this article, because I know that British humor often goes unnoticed. That sense for humor is set off by the words “modest proposal”, which was the title of one of the best British satire pieces ever written (it suggested that children should be eaten to solve hunger and overpopulation, and suggested this act in an intellectual and persuasive manner. At first, people didn’t actually realize it was satire, thus immortalizing the article for its effectiveness in proving the errors of British society).




Now, here are the quotes that prove the journalist is undoubtedly a moron:

By this logic, it is not a declaration of independence the world would be making. On the contrary, in seeking a say in US elections, the human race would be making a declaration of dependence - acknowledging that Washington's decisions affect us more than those taken in our own capitals. In contrast with those founding Americans, the new declaration would argue that, in order to take charge of our destiny, we do not need to break free from the imperial power - we need to tame it.

Again, underlining done by me.
Time to analyze this quote a bit. Freedland wants to “tame” America. But, that’s not much of a political problem because I want France to sink into the ocean, but it won’t happen (sadly). However, the problem lies in one little thing that Europe has been bickering about for several years: sovereignty. America’s sovereignty is defined, in part, by the right of its citizens, and only its citizens, to pick the leaders of the nation. Such requirements are imbedded in America’s founding, because America wanted to appoint many of its leaders, rather than obey laws set by king George and the parliament which cared little about colonies.
The desire to tame America has been around since the start of the Cold War. Europe may delude itself into thinking that America could be restrained with international bodies such as the UN, but that’s whimsical thinking. Europe’s power was due to one thing: it was the fulcrum on which the US-Soviet balance of power rested. If Europe didn’t like the US, it could lean a bit to the Soviets. If Europe didn’t like the Soviets, it could lean a bit more to the US. Thus, if the US really ticked Europe off, our former allies could join the soviets and destroy the balance of power.

Freedland shows his illusion that Europe actually controlled the US with this:

Such a request would also represent a recognition of an uncomfortable fact. It would be an admission that the old, postwar multilateral arrangements have broken down. In the past, America's allies could hope to influence the behemoth via treaties, agreements and the UN. The Bush era - not just Iraq, but Washington's disdain for Kyoto, the test ban treaty, the international criminal court and the rest - suggests that the US will no longer listen to those on the outside

All underlining is still by me.
In truth, America has no interest in following the mandates of international bodies. Of course, the US will go along when those mandates suit the US. But, every nation will always act in its own interest, even if that includes blatant violations of every international body ever formed. Iran keeps working on nukes because they are the only deterrent to US power, no matter what the UN says. Saddam wouldn’t give up Iraq, even though he knew he could lose his life and country, because surrender would put Iraq under control of the US and/or UN. North Korea will never follow the advice of any power that wants to disarm the dictatorship, because nukes are the only things keeping foreign troops out of North Korea. Similar goes for every nation on earth.

Being the world’s sole superpower, no nation can actually rival the US in terms of military, economics, or plain political influence. However, most nations want to handcuff the US to the UN, which will follow the whims of the majority of nations, in which case the US is grossly outnumbered. France has even advocated a UN tax, paid only by the wealthy nations (the US), so the money can be distributed to poorer nations. Such receiving nations may include Iran, Liberia, Sudan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, and the many others who may or may not have committed crimes against humanity or attempt to harm the US or rather brutal ways.
By handcuffing the US, or forcing it to redistribute wealth until its own destruction, our nation would lose its free will and, therefore, its sovereignty. A paralyzed US means that Europe, and every other nation on earth, will not be subject to American scrutiny. Also, without the American superpower, Europe becomes the most powerful body on earth. This is what Europe desperately wants. After nearly 500 years of undisputed global leadership, and another 50 of Cold War fantasy, Europe has suddenly realized that it no longer is the center of the world.
Europe’s desperateness for power may be a ‘withdrawal symptom’ or a predictable act of great power politics (according to Realist international theory), but it certainly is unmistakable.

So, non-US citizens voting in US elections would be a violation of US sovereignty. That violation of sovereignty is, in fact, desirable for Europe according to major theories of international relations. Time to go back to an earlier quote: “If everyone in the world will be affected by this election, shouldn't everyone in the world have a vote?” Freedland is saying that, because the US affects the rest of the world, the rest of the world should have a hand in US sovereignty. His argument, however, is based on the presumption that these affects interfere (ever so slightly) with the sovereignty of every other nation on earth, whether the US wants to make ripples with each action or not. Thus, the argument boils down to “we will interfere with the US’s sovereignty so the US won’t interfere with our sovereignty”. I need not mention that the US barely interferes with the sovereignty of any nation, except in a few circumstances such as Iraq and Afghanistan, which are very removed from Europe. Now, interfering with the US so the US doesn’t interfere with the rest of the world can only mean one thing: preemption. But, Freedland argues that preemption is one of the major changes in the nature of international relations caused by the US. In fact, I believe it’s the only ‘change’ in international relations that I haven’t debunked thus far (I went through the ‘power’ of international bodies already).

Now, Freedland’s argument comes down to “I want to preempt the US before it preempts us”. This is a rather clear violation of the argument and reasons that Freedland claims to support. However, it is in keeping with realist political theory, which only the US admits that it follows. Every Western nation uses Realist theory, but few will admit that they do so.



I know this article is long-winded, and I could have picked any of several contradictions, such as sovereignty, which I pointed out but didn’t elaborate, but I wanted to go with preemption. Mainly, because it’s fun to prove that a socialist-sounding UK reporter uses the theory of preemption to justify his beliefs. Also, I enjoy explaining the rarely-mentioned basic of US-European relations.

Those relations are probably best described by Robert Kagan in his book Of Paradise and Power, which I highly recommend. He explains the relations far better than I.