« Bush and Imperialism | Main | Don't Fear The Meter »

More Judis

29 Oct 2007 06:22 pm

Apropos the post below, John Judis has a solid piece on the threat of a Rudy Administration that concludes with this great observation:

The centerpiece of Giuliani's claim, however, is the suggestion that his approach to fighting crime provides a model for conducting foreign policy. In a recent essay for Foreign Affairs, he wrote: "I know from personal experience that when security is reliably established in a troubled part of a city, normal life rapidly reestablishes itself: shops open, people move back in, children start playing ball on the sidewalks again, and soon a decent and law-abiding community returns to life. The same is true in world affairs. Disorder in the world's bad neighborhoods tends to spread. Tolerating bad behavior breeds more bad behavior."

This is a foolish analogy. In policing the world, the United States cannot claim to be enforcing its own laws; we lack legitimacy to do so, as we found after invading Iraq. When the NYPD went into poor neighborhoods, it was not an occupying force; when the U.S. military took over Baghdad, it was, and it suffered the consequences. Some of the "neighborhoods" Giuliani wants to clean up, such as Iran, possess their own armies and can call on other "neighborhoods," such as Russia and China, to deter an attempt to punish them for bad behavior. In short, the world is not New York writ large, and the trade-offs between authority and liberty look very different from the White House than from Gracie Mansion. But these distinctions seem lost on the man who aspires to be the next mayor of the United States.

Right. Trying to treat the entire world as if it were the sovereign territory of the United States is going to produce catastrophic results. The observation that the world needs forces to try to help bring order to some "bad neighborhoods" has a lot of truth to it, but insofar as that order is brought it's going to need to be done by institutions and through mechanisms — first and foremost, the UN but also regional groups in their own back yards where appropriate — that are capable of doing so in a reasonably legitimate manner. Just having the President dictate to the rest of the world, however, isn't going to fly.

Share This

Comments (20)

"When the NYPD went into poor neighborhoods, it was not an occupying force"

Many communities DID feel the NYPD was an "occupying force".

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C03EFD9173BF934A15750C0A96E958260

Oh, great - the broken window theory of geopolitics.

Suddenly I'm having a vision of the President of Iran aggressively cleaning my windshield with a dirty rag and squeegee . .


Although perhaps that should read: The President of the U.S.?

God help us if some poor country happens to possess Ferrets of Mass Destruction.

Another Republican hypocrisy--when Kerry said that the fight against al-qeada-like-terror was basically a policing matter, he was ridiculed as soft on terror and not getting it. Now Rudy says essentially the same thing and it's evidence of his toughness.

Zaleriana, what you have to understand is that there's 'policing' and there's 'policing'. Republicans saw Kerry's kind of 'policing' as detectives in suits trying to solve crimes. They see Giuliani's kind of 'policing' as shoving a nightstick up somebody's ass. And yes, they think the latter is a good thing.

insofar as that order is brought it's going to need to be done by institutions and through mechanisms — first and foremost, the UN

The UN. Snicker.

Sorry, that was kind of drive-by-ish. But the idea of the UN bringing order to anywhere is pretty funny. The UN is pretty effective at passing resolutions. Bringing order to disorderly countries? Not so much.

Anyway, I continue to find it heartening that the left-wing finds Rudy so terrifying. Something about haveing the right enemies... One of the things about Fred that worries me is that the left couldn't care less about him.

A quote I just read from "Governing Through Crime" (page 161)

"As one of [Gray] Davis's aides described his vision of parole power: 'He's deadly serious about stopping crime' ... [and] The general public [are the] intended beneficiaries of Davis's 'deadly serious attitude.'"

This sentiment sure sounds "very serious." Again, it's a stand-in for actual debate because it "feels right." The book makes the case that, in the absence of consensus issues, being obsessed with crime policy allows you get things done by appealing to the left (we shouldn't ignore victim rights!) and the right (security).

It seems impossible to break the reliance of governors and prosecutors on crime as the go-to issue (death penalty is always good, no sentence is too short, etc) If we start down that path for foreign policy, it would be a very scary political environment.

Simon should redo this book by making connections to wiretapping, foreign policy, etc --> it's all the same thing.

I meant "no sentence is too long." oops.

Good book though, lots of Giuliani stuff in there.

I keep being surprised that Giuliani's claims to why New York improved as it did in the mid-90's aren't even being challenged, though of course even if he deserved as much credit as he takes it would indeed still be a stupid analogy.

But the argument that Giuliani's "broken windows" attitude was really a major contributor to the decline in crime and other social problems during his tenure in New York is highly debatable. Of course the major counter-argument is the Freakonomics analysis that infamously points to abortion as the most major cause in the crime drop-off. And even if you're wanting to be skeptical of the abortion argument without personally engaging the regressional math, you can still notice that New York was hardly alone in this turn-around. Indeed, there was a tremendous nation-wide reversal of crime problems, and so the nation is really quite overflowing with recent ex-mayors who can claim similar crime-fighting talents, and I'm sure quite a lot of them would credit their successes to quite different strategies than Giuliani.

When the NYPD went into poor neighborhoods, it was not an occupying force

Per Tp, who's kidding who?

The observation that the world needs forces to try to help bring order to some "bad neighborhoods" has a lot of truth to it

Uh. Huh. Let's not forget that Rudy's policing strategy was 'dump 'em outside Manhattan, and outside the five boroughs if possible.'

They see Giuliani's kind of 'policing' as shoving a nightstick up somebody's ass. And yes, they think the latter is a good thing.

Ding ding ding. Want to know his appeal in the South? Showing the n-----s who's boss. Want to know what your average white male Republican in South Carolina knows about Giuliani's NYC? Abner Louima and Patrick Dorismond.

Note how Rudy' "broken window" theory of international relations is exactly the theory on which the neocons got us into Iraq--we were going to go in there, remake Iraq into a shining example of peace and order, and the whole Middle East would be so impressed that everyone would be spontaenously transformed into pro-American, pro-Zionist, pro-foriegn investment milquetoasts . . .

Of course, that was the serious reason to go into Iraq; there were other reasons as well . . .

His policy smacks of White Man's Burden and jingoism all mashed up in a delicious cocktail.

Hey, I can go along with this analogy!

See, I think the only good cop is a dead cop.

By extension, the only good US state is a dead US state.

[Note: "state", not everybody who lives in it.]

But then, I'm just restating the basic principle of anarchism anyway, so why bother with the analogy?

Basically, Giuliani is just restating his "I'm tougher than anybody" and "war is peace" bullcrap, so analyzing his analogy really isn't worth the effort.

Anyone find it odd that three articles with the same theme about Rudy appeared within days of one another? I agree with them all, but the frequency with whichthis kind of thing happens looks weird.

"Rudy a Lefty? Yeah, Right." in Washington Post (Oct 28)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/26/AR2007102601808.html

"Authority Figure: The childhood roots of Giuliani's strange views of liberty" in The New Republic (Oct 29)
http://tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=77ee1fa2-4331-41dd-9129-90b0fa0213ed

"Rudy Awakening" in Washington Monthly (October)
"As president, Giuliani would grab even more executive power than Bush and Cheney. His mayoralty tells the story."
http://www2.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0711.morris.html

One of the first myths we'd really want to retire, as it's a constant fallback position of unilateralist militarists, is that the US Navy keeps the sea lanes safe for international trade. Obviously, where there are no pirates, the US Navy isn't keeping anything safe; where there are pirates (Straits of Malacca), they're fought by local navies and coast guards, not the US Navy; and where there are pirates and no local navies (Horn of Africa), the US Navy does little to stop pirates and isn't very good at it, and shipping mainly tries to avoid the area.

We need to tie Rudy more strongly to Podhoretz, who did not acquit himself well on Newshour against Fareed Zakaria last night.

In this analogy, the Middle East is Times Square, and terrorists are sex shops, right?

Tom H.: Oh, I understand. But I live in Chicago--the city that proves that Democrats can support a (sometimes) brutal, overreaching police force just as well as Rudy did. I'm just tired of the Republicans beating up Dems for Idea A and then later proposing Idea A as their own and the Dems letting them.


Comments closed November 12, 2007.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.