What about non-elitists who criticize American Imperialism? Herve Bove, who led the French movement, was hardly some left bank pipe-smoking fop. He was an ordinary farmer.

A lot of Anti-American criticism is sour grapes, often older generations berating the fact that their youngers are leaving behind traditional ways, or impotent citizens venting anger at their own dictatorships to foreign governments westwards.

But some of the US' harshest critics come from countries with as open societies as the US and their views can't simply be attributed to dislike of open society. (See corruption, quality of life (beware pop-ups), and press freedom. It's misleading to equate "criticism of America" with "elitist assault on democracy." For starters, of the 18 regime changes forced by the United States in the 20th century, only 5 resulted in democracy. Secondly, some of the same criticisms about, for example, the corruption of big business are equally made by Americans within the system.

It's this kind of simplistic approach on both sides - making out that the differences between the US and its critics are uniformly ideological or cultural rather than political - that obscures the valid points each has to make.

You wrote: "But some of the US' harshest critics come from countries with as open societies as the US and their views can't simply be attributed to dislike of open society."

Sure you can. There are fifth columners all over the place, just as there was in Athens.

I'm not saying there aren't valid reasons to criticize the United States. I'm saying the charge of imperialism is without foundation and a clue to the true intentions of the people leveling the charge.

BTW: Looked at your links -- looks impressive, and I'm sure you've been happily duped by it all ... but it's all subjective and of dubious value. Talk about simplistic ...

And I've seen these links pop-up in various anti-American outlets and commentaries ... the implication always being because A, B, C, or D is bad/wrong, then the whole American system is corrupt and evil. Again, it's a veiled attack on open society by those who fear a dynamic (hence riskier) society. They need to crawl back into their caves.

I'm cautious about assigning motives to critics of America's policies as a group. I'm not shy about assigning motives to individuals, but I'm not convinced that we can paint "America's enemies" with such broad brush strokes.

Specifically, I'm not convinced that all those who criticize America's current war on terror are seeking power for themselves. While I'm sure that is true of some notable figures, it surely doesn't explain the behaviors of all, right?

That the criticism is broad enough to include members of the "Christian right" like Pat Buchanan as well as committed leftists seems like it ought to be the first clue that some refinement is in order. I have no doubt that there are many in the world who fear what an open society might bring. Any reasonable person has to realize that there might be some issues on which they are in the minority view. In a truly democratic society, where majority rule is the basis for order, the complacency of the many can trump the passion of the few.

Anyway, I believe that your diagnosis is almost certainly correct when it comes to interpreting editorials from many news publications in the Arab world right now, but I don't really see how it can adequately explain American leftists. In my experience, most American leftists have generally been convinced that if it were not for the rule of the few rich white privileged men, the country and the world would see things their way. Despite some evidence to the contrary, they seem to believe that a truly open society would benefit them. It is a belief in the inherent goodness of humanity that I do not share, but it would seem to counter your theory, I think.

Anyway, I've added Popper's book to my queue. To really understand your position, I must read the source on which it is largely based. After all, I don't want to be so ignorant as to completely ignore one side of the story. 8^)

Either you've looked at different links to the ones I posted or you are being deliberately obtuse. The three links come from three separate, non-linked non-governmental, non-partisan sources and show broadly the same thing.

I struggle to see how the methodologies of the UN (which takes straight socio-economic data) and Reporters Without Borders (which looks at state involvement in media, imprisonment of journalists and media monopolies) are subjective in the slightest. They're not Anti-American, either: the US scores consistently highly. Just not as highly as countries like Finland, Norway and Canada. More importantly, the data directly supports the ideas that some of the US' harshest critics have morally bankrupt governments with no press freedom. Perhaps you could explain your criticism of these sources in more detail.

Your comments and post display a keen desire to argue with strawmen and construct a vast anti-American conspiracy. If you feel the need to appraise information so lazily, and defend your comments only using a tenuous historical parallel, go ahead.

My post above is intended to reply to Howard Owens.

Howard,

You wrote:

I'm not saying there aren't valid reasons to criticize the United States. I'm saying the charge of imperialism is without foundation and a clue to the true intentions of the people leveling the charge.

BTW: Looked at your links -- looks impressive, and I'm sure you've been happily duped by it all ... but it's all subjective and of dubious value. Talk about simplistic .

Any time you start ranking one country against another as to livability, press freedom, or what not, you are entering into an inherently subjective process. It can be no other way. The criteria you select is selected according to personal subjective standards, the weigh the criteria is weighted is based on subjective standards, on down the line. There is no way to compare data as complex involved in these rankings without making subjective decisions.

Reporters Without Borders has been roundly criticized, and rightly so, for its double standards. And I would not identify any of them as non-partisan, regardless of where the U.S. is ranked. For God Sakes, Ben even admits one comes from the U.N. -- how unbiased is that!!??

What I'm attacking is the tendency to broadbrush the United States as corrupt and evil through such statements as "18 regime changes forced by the United States in the 20th century, only 5 resulted in democracy." The implication is that because we have made mistakes, liberal democracy is of no value. To me, that is a line of thinking is a veiled attack on open societies. It is the kind of thinking that led to Bolshivism and Nazism ... "liberal civilization has made all of these mistakes, so we need to bring order and control to the world."

Instead of marshalling all of the past mistakes as some kind of indictment against liberal democracies, it would be far more productive to analyize each mistake individually and how they might be compared and contrested against current circumstances in order to arrive at some useful conclusion about how best to address current issues.

Howard,

Under your facile definition of "subjective" you can reject almost any fact you like. All research has a subjective element. The issue is whether the criteria have been selected and applied uniformly across countries, which they have. The indices on quality of life and press freedom are among the best measures there are for gauging open societies. You don't give any objective definition for an open society. Perhaps you could provide some evidence that criticizes the production of this data specifically, rather than throwing unsupported smears about.

Essentially, you disagree with the data because it shows your arguments for the falsehoods they are. Plenty of countries are as open, if not more so than the US. Within those countries, there are strong critics of US policy. Those critics are not motivated by envy of the US' open society. They actually disagree with US policy.

The point about the US having a poor record of fostering democracy, which seems to have entirely bypassed you, is that critics of the US actually might have good reason for opposing US interventions on the basis that they only have a success rate of about 28% in bringing about open societies. You then go off on some tangent of your own making, extrapolating opinions that support your view of an anti-US conspiracy, complete with your own little quotes, but which have no basis in what I actually wrote.

In terms of analysis of mistakes it's this simple. The US still supports countries that patently do not have open societies (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan) because it is politically expedient to do so. It has done so in the past. During the Cold War, an anti-Communist dictatorship was much more useful than a Communist or Pro-Russian democracy. The US is not alone in this. The UK, France and countless others have skeletons in their closets too. But in the past 50 years, as the dominant world power, the US has been much more prolific than any other country, hence why it attracts the most criticism.

You wrote:

"The issue is whether the criteria have been selected and applied uniformly across countries, which they have."

Are you sure? How do you know that? Were you on the committees drawing up the data?

"Essentially, you disagree with the data because it shows your arguments for the falsehoods they are."

I never said I disagreed with the data. I said it is not relevant to this discussion. The data does have some use within the confines it was intended, but to be used to prove that the US is an imperial power is absurd.

The arguement that we wouldn't fix Iraq because country XYZ is broken is one I've heard before and it doesn't hold water. If a child needs to clean his room, he can't straigthen his closet and make his bed at the same time. The neocon position, which seems to be the position of the current administration, is let's clean up one mess at a time.

I've got to laugh when you write about "communist pro-russian democrcy" ... you're joking, of course, right?

But again, what Popper's book is about, and what I'm writing about is the tendency to broadbrush criticism of the United States (or open societies, in Popper's case, since he doesn't discuss the US at all) as an indictiment of the entire sweep of liberal civilization. To call liberal societies a fraud and a lie because this or that U.S. policy has been wrong previously is a false comparison. To call the U.S. an imperial power because this or that previous policy was a mistake or failed is a false comparison. It seems you don't want to understand that one simple, basic point. And rather than deal with that point, you want to prove it by using the same broadbrush method I'm saying is a mistake.

Very sad.

What's sad is that you are so fond of the idea of an open society but reject that the term could apply to valid critics of US policy.

It's sad that even though you talk about it, you are unable to define an open society. When presented with well-accepted facts that define it for you, you reject them because they don't fit your argument, which itself rested on a parallel with an empire of 2,500 years ago.

It's sad that whereas a tenuous historical parallel is good enough to justify your construction of a strawman who broadbrushes the US, actually holding the US record from the past 50 years to the light proves nothing because each situation is different, right?

It's sad that I've addressed your specific point that the US is not criticized out of some envy of its open society numerous times, but you still don't get it. Even people with open societies criticise the US, and its record on promoting democracy is poor. Even Americans, who live in an open society, criticize American policy.

It's sad that while the data on press freedom etc was used to show that critics of the US also came from open societies, in your addled reasoning this becomes "used to prove that the US is an imperial power."

It's sad that though I specifically mention the poor foreign policies of other countries, acknowledge the unfounded prejudice against the US and explain why the US has come in for criticism due to its foreign policy record and global prominence, you still see fit to trot out some line that I'm broadbrushing the US.

Oh, and a democratic, Communist government? That'll be Chile, 1973. The US (and UK) backed the military coup of Pinochet, the right wing dictator later indicted as a criminal for his genocidal policies. It's sad that you don't have a basic grasp of modern history.

Is it bad to be elite? If I play with Maxfli Elites, should I switch to Titleists?

Fascinating Howard, you have become our classical philosophy scholar. I too have concerns about painting with too broad a brush, as Phillip menioned, but that doesn't detract from the importance of the large swath to which this theory does seem to apply.

No, smacking elites about with a large club is just fine..

What's sad is that you are so fond of the idea of an open society but reject that the term could apply to valid critics of US policy.

It's sad that even though you talk about it, you are unable to define an open society.

When presented with well-accepted facts that define it for you, you reject them because they don't fit your argument, which itself rested on a parallel with an empire of 2,500 years ago.

It's sad that whereas a tenuous historical parallel is good enough to justify your construction of a strawman who broadbrushes the US, actually holding the US record from the past 50 years to the light proves nothing because each situation is different, right?

It's sad that I've addressed your specific point that the US is not criticized out of some envy of its open society numerous times, but you still don't get it. Even people with open societies criticise the US, and its record on promoting democracy is poor. Even Americans, who live in an open society, criticize American policy.

It's sad that while the data on press freedom etc was used to show that critics of the US also came from open societies, in your addled reasoning this becomes "used to prove that the US is an imperial power."

It's sad that though I specifically mention the poor foreign policies of other countries, acknowledge the unfounded prejudice against the US and explain why the US has come in for criticism due to its foreign policy record and global prominence, you still see fit to trot out some line that I'm broadbrushing the US.

Oh, and a democratic, Communist government? That'll be Chile, 1973. The US (and UK) backed the military coup of Pinochet, the right wing dictator later indicted as a criminal for his genocidal policies. It's sad that you don't have a basic grasp of modern history.

Brian wrote: "Oh, and a democratic, Communist government? That'll be Chile, 1973. The US (and UK) backed the military coup of Pinochet, the right wing dictator later indicted as a criminal for his genocidal policies. It's sad that you don't have a basic grasp of modern history."

I wouldn't accuse others of not knowing history with the pasta you're throwing against the wall. Allende got around 35% of the vote. He misused his powers as President and tried to enforce his agenda against the vast majority of the country. Allende's actions lead to the Chilean military stepping in and tossing him and his Castroite gang out. Yes, Pinochet and the military killed people. The test is, how many would have been killed if Allende had been successful in installing a Castroite regime. Just the past week, Castro was murdering people and that's 40 years after he took power.

Today Chile is free. Pinochet was arrested under the orders of a leftwing Spanish judge. The Left never forgets and never learns. When are they going to arrest Castro?

Allende destroyed Chilean democracy. He's the responsible party. Pinochet left a free and democratic Chile after him. Name one Commie, who's done that?

"Pinochet left a free and democratic Chile after him. Name one Commie, who's done that?"

Gorbachev?

If you consider Russia a democracy.

Personally, I think the jury's still out on that one, especially have some of the recent murders and such in Moscow.

Looking back at this post, Ben wrote:

"When presented with well-accepted facts that define it for you, you reject them because they don't fit your argument, which itself rested on a parallel with an empire of 2,500 years ago."

Um, that's the point ... Athens WASN'T an empire. And neither is the United States. But both are accused of it. Thanks for proving my point.

Howard,

Try actually reading the posts. See if I mention imperialism once. I don't. So when you assert that I've made some comment on imperialism ("You made the arguement, not me. In order to counter my position that there is something amiss in calling the U.S. an Imperial Power, you try to marshall facts that you think PROVES the U.S. is flawed beyond repair and is THEREFORE is an Imperial Power"). Once again, the points I've shown are that a) the US is no more open than some of the societies that criticise it b) the US has a poor record of promoting democracy and therefore discussion of its foreign policy is entirely valid.

""The charge of imperialism has nothing to do with any actual fault of the United States". Untrue. It's an explicit criticism of US foreign policy.

It's in your first post: "Never mind that the U.S. program is intended to develop self-rule in these regions." The US has consistently failed (5/18) to do just that. Its foreign policy, especially during the cold war years was pretty execrable. Particular highlights might be choosing to train and fund the mujahadeen, direct precursor of Al-Qaeda, and the Iran-Contra scandal.

It's ironic that you ascribe your words, "imperialism" and the characterisation of the US as "flawed beyond repair" to me but whine about being misread. To repeat about strawmen: it will make your argument easier to simply make up all these views I'm supposed to have, but I don't have them. I offer no forecast on the future of US democracy, say nothing of imperialism, or beyond repair.

Your first line was "The next time you hear some elitist spout rhetoric about American imperialism or American empire, don't trust him"

Your point was "It's a charged leveled by people who want the power for themselves and their kind".

The charge didn't stick to numerous other people. Quite simply, lots of people make the charge of Imperialism but neither envy the power nor are elitist. You disputed the sources, somehow requiring that I had to be on the committee of an international, well-respected journalist organisation for their methodology to be acceptable. ????

In my first post, I listed two ways in which unfounded attacks were made on Americanism. You've simply ignored this. I've also specifically written "some of the US' harshest critics have morally bankrupt governments with no press freedom" but you've ignored this too.

You wanted proof that the US had knocked out a communist democracy: you had it. It seems a stunning revision of history to have preferred Pinochet over Allende. This point goes to Jabba too. Pinochet was a dictator who caused catastrophic genocide. It's pointless to make the assertion that he left democracy (at some price!) and that Allende might, could have, maybe killed people. Allende was voted in. He was killed in a brutal coup that ended up causing mass genocide. Pinochet is simply indefensible. "Democracies do not attack democracies." The US did, through support for a coup.

Your premises are basically false. "The charge of imperialism has nothing to do with any actual fault of the United States" is false. Some, not all, critics have entirely valid points. The US has a poor record of promoting democracy through intervention. Some of its closest allies in the Middle East (e.g. Saudi, Pakistan) are not democracies. "We will continue to push for self rule the world over" is simply not true. The US does not push for it where it disrupts strategic alliances. It's that simple.

As for your tenuous historical parallels (Athens - modern US, neither as an imperial power) if you can't see that you are making the parallel ("please make sense") then you must have written a half of your original post on autopilot. This would help explain why it is so badly argued.

We're going in circles. You have no interest in what I have to say, so what's the point. Goodbye.

FYI, When I saw Howard Owens' comments re ancient Athens over on Instapundit, I sent
Glenn Reynolds the following response.
**************
1) Re Howard Owen's comment about ancient Athens: "In Athens, it was the oligarchy, displaced by
the democrats who trumped up the imperialism charge, then conspired with Sparta to war against Athens"
-- Mr Owens is very much error, as was recorded by the Athenian historian Thucydides who lived
during the Peloponnesian War.

Let's not emulate Bellesiles and make things up. Let's look at the historical sources.

2) In Chapter One,section 24 of "The Peloponnesian War"[Crawley translation], Thucycides notes that
"The real cause [of the war] I consider to be the one which was formally most kept out of sight. The
growth of the power of Athens, and the alarm which this inspired in Lacedaemon[Sparta] made war inevitable".
3) The nature of Athens was described in Chapter XVII, concerning the fate of the island Melos. Thucydides
notes that Melos wished to remain neutral in the war and argued with Athenian envoys that it had a right to be left alone.
The Athenians replied: "...we hope that you, instead of thinking to influence us by saying that you did
not join the Lacedaemonians, although their colonists, or that you have done us no wrong, will aim at what
is feasible, holding in view the real sentiments of us both; since you know as well as we do that right, as the
world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak
suffer what they must."

Thucydides then goes on to note that ,when the Melians refused to submit, the Athenians laid seige to their
city, took it, and that the Athenians then "put to death all the grown men whom they took, and sold the women
and children for slaves, and subsequently sent out five hundred colonists and inhabited the place themselves."

As a result of the Athenian aggression, the other city states allied with Sparta and ultimately conquered Athens.
Athens was so weakened that she remained the subject of Sparta, then Macedonia, later Rome, and then others
for the next 2400 years.

4) I argue for historical accuracy because, as Jared Diamond noted in "Guns, Germs, and Steel"; everyone
has theories about political questions but history provides evidence on what actually happened when
similar policies/governments were tried in the past.
When our Founding Fathers created our Republic, they depended heavily on the Greek and
Roman classical historians for guidance. See Carl Richards' "The Founders and the Classics". The Founders
had to look to the experience of ancient Greece and Rome because (a) Republics have been very rare in 7000
years of history --most have not lasted for very long -- and (b) after the Roman Republic fell to Augustus
Caesar circa 25 BC, most of humanity lived under one form of dictatorship or another for the next 1800 years
-- until the geography of North America allowed the colonists to cast off the chains of George III.

Thucydides is regarded, rightly so, as a great historian, but his history must be read in context for what it was -- a history written by a man who favored Sparta in the war. He came from the ruling families of Athens and sided with them against the Democrats. When he speaks of this or that group as opposing Athens, he is not necessarily speaking of "the demos" but rather of the ruling class, of which he had been a part.

I happen to agree with this interpretation, but it is also the interpretation put forth by Popper.

Oh, and I should mention, that Thucydides himself says that Athens own oligarchy conspired with Sparta to defeat the democrats in Athens.

My understanding is that the Peloponnesian War began circa 431 BC, that Thucydides was ELECTED to be be one of 10 Athenian generals for the year of 424 BC, that he failed to prevent the capture of the city of Amphipolis by the Spartans, that as a result he was condemmed to 20 years exile from Athens, and that he was accepted back into Athens after the war (404 BC). In his defense, note that Athens was harsh in action against generals who lost battles. In his history, Thucydides tried to set a high standard of truth because of what he saw as the importance of history -- and most modern historians I've read believe that he largely met that standard.

Thucydides was correct in noting that: a)Athens set up a system during the war with Persia whereby she built/operated a Navy and her allies contributed money
b) That Athens continued to demand tribute from her allies AFTER the war with Persia ended and that she exacted those taxes by force. The tribute money was used by Pericles to build the Partheon as a public works project -- to relieve unemployment (as was noted by Plutarch in his biography of Pericles)
The allies were unable to resist because Athens controlled the Navy they had funded --something our European Allies are starting to remember

I would not disagree that Thucydides set a high standard for truth, but all historians retell history according to their own prejudices. If Thucydides thought democracy was bad, wouldn't that color his interpretation of events?

When Thucydides returned to Athens, after the war, after the Athenian defeat, Athens was ruled by the 30 tyrants -- democracy had fallen.

Athens, as Popper notes, was far from perfect, and left much to be desired as a liberal society (they still maintained slaves, for example). I'm merely saying, Thucydides should be read as an acknowledge opponent of Athenian democracy. Where he is harsh on Athens should not just merely be accepted as fact.

Or how about modern historians?

In "The Oxford History of Greece and the Hellenistic World" (1991), Simon Hornblower (Oriel College, Oxford) contributes an article "The History of the Classical Period". In that article he states (p. 152):
"That the fifth-century Athenia Empire (despite the protection which it offered to the more uncomfortably placed Greeks against Persia and, we should add, pirates) was, or became, an oppressive instrument should not be disputed. The strongest argument, against desperate efforts to see it as a benevolent and generally popular institution, is to be found in an important inscription in the year 377, which sets out the terms and aims of a second Athenian naval confederacy and explicitly repudiates for the future a number of fifth-century practices --tribute, territorial encroachments, garrisons, governors, and so forth --which were clearly felt in retrospect to have been abuses...Neverthe less, formulae do get more candidly imperialistic even in the period for which inscriptions survive in numbers , and from the Tribute Lists it is plausible to reconstruct a period of crisis after the Peace of Callias in 449. Late payment and nonpayment of tribute in those years suggest disaffection due to a feeling that the originally anti-Persian organization had lost its justification."

Hornblower then goes on to describe seven ways in which Athens oppressed her allies. He concludes (bottom of p 154):
"When Sparta, in 431, responding to pressure from Corinth, agreed to liberate Greece, we are told that the goodwill of the Greek world inclined to the Spartan side. The tight methods of control enumerated above show that there were indeed grounds for resentment of Athenian power."

Don, I would say Hornblower offers more than interpretation, but some actual facts, and since I can in no way dispute those facts, I would say your position carries the day.

The details are, of course, more complex than we have discussed. Athens' leaders may have felt that the Ionian islands were free-loading and letting Athens handle the burden. Nevertheless, there are several accounts of Athenian warships attacking some of the smaller city states.

The most important thing is not an academic argument but that our leaders remember the fate of Athens and not be overcome by hubris due to our military power. If France/Germany conclude that the US is bent on world domination via veiled aggression --that they are next on our list -- then they may form covert alliances with Russia and China. Because of US power, any strike against us needs to be massive, nuclear ,and without warning.

We don't need another Pearl Harbor -- and we are too much in debt , with the baby boomer generation appraoching retirement in 10 years -- to fight another prolonged Cold War if necessity does not demand it.

Good night.

No doubt the details are complex, but if there were legitimate complains of imperialism against Athens (as your post #26 strongly indicates) then the central point of my thesis -- that charges of Athenian imperialism was false then, and we should suspect the motivation of those who leveled the charges; and so we should, by way of historical comparison, suspect the charges of U.S. imperialism -- falls to pieces. That is not to say that the charges of U.S. imperialism are any less specious, just that this particular thesis is pretty much useless.

I do have a question, though -- what if Athens attacked those smaller states because of one or both of the following reasons: 1) people in those states asked to be delievered from their tyrants; 2) those cities were plotting aggressive (and had the means to do it) against Athens? Would it still be properly called imperialism?

I want to put a little update on the actual post, as I have done on my own site, but for the moment Blogcritics won't let me log in.

this is interesting. I'd like to know if you yourself have a view of the US in its current state (independent of this argumnet) such as pro-US, anti-US or somewhere in between.
I myself, am not anti-any-particular-nation, but what i see when i look at our (the uk, where i live, and to a lesser extent bcos obviously i don't live there and so don't know exactly what it's like, the us, france, and so on) version of democracy, makes me want to explode with rage. The whole way our countries work is a joke, but most of the public is quite happy to live in their own dream world where there's almost no corruption and there's such a thing as fairness. The most distressing thing is just how many people would rather pretend things don't happen, then face them. Probably i shouldnt be surprised at this but it can't be a good thing in the long run.

There were several currents/forces involved. Thucydides noted that the Athenians tended to install democratic governments in the cities that they conquored whereas Sparta promoted an aristocratic/oligarchic government. Both Athens and Sparta had slaves although Sparta seemed more firmly based upon a military aristocracy supported by slaves from neighboring communities. However, the democracy of Athens was not always a benign force.

The Greek historian Polybius (circa 120 BC) explained why despotism tends to inevitably arise --due to corruption -- in all forms of government , whether government is of the one, of the few (aristocracy/oligarchy) , or of the many (democracy). The history of ancient Athens is replete with incidents in which the "tyranny of the majority" was used by demagogues to commit unjust acts -- the execution of Socrates, for example.

Polybius explained why liberty is best promoted by "mixed government" which has elements of the three basic forms (one, few, many) --set up to check and balance each other. (See his book "The Rise of the Roman Empire", Chapter Six, section 3--"On the Forms of States" ). Note that Polybius' analysis was an elaboration of observations by Aristotle and that Machiavelli later copied Polybius' analysis almost word for word in his "Discourses".

John Adams noted the basic influence of Polybius on the design of the US government, as set forth in the Constitution.

Our government has the One (President) to provide the unity and rapid decision-making needed in war. It has the Few (Senate and House) for reflective decision-making by men of merit and a counterweight to perserve civil rights against the "tyranny of the mob". It has elections by the many to ensure that the One and Few do not degenerate into self-interested despotisms.

In his discussion (Book VI, section 43, "The Roman Republic Compared with Others" )Polybius dismissed Athens' democracy as inherently unstable --her success the temporary result of able leaders like Themistoceles. In section 48, Polybius praises the long term strength and stability of Sparta and noted that it arose from the mixed constitution created by Lycurgus. However, Polybius noted that the very institutions that made Sparta strong as a small city state -- socialism (equal division of landed property, measures against private accumulation of great wealth, strong nationalism) crippled Sparta's attempts to expand into an empire. Sparta's basic economic institutions, which promoted social harmony by distributing wealth equally and emphasizing universal military service to the state vice private interest, could not generate the surplus needed to fund expansion -- whereas Athenian hard-driving, free-market capitalism did.

It is true that Athens was permeated by a struggle between the orders -- between the oligarchs and the democrats. However, there was struggle between the democrats as well.

One of the reasons Pericles continued to levy taxes on the allies after the war with Persia ended was the need to maintain his popular support by dealing with widespread post-war unemployment (during the war, many commoners gained employment as rowers in the Athenian galleries.)

In his biography of Pericles, Plutarch (writing roughly 500 years later circa 100 AD)notes that Pericles dismissed criticism for using the Treasury of Delos (containly the money deposited by allies for the common defense) to build the Partheon as a public works project to bring some of the riches of empire to the commoners.

In Book II, Chapter VI, section 64, of his "History of the Peloponnesian War" ; Thucydides noted the arguments that Pericles later presented to the Athenians when they began to rebel against the losses being suffered in the Peloponnesian War:

" You should remember also that what you are fighting against is not merely slavery as an exchange for independence, but also loss of empire and danger from the animosities incurred in its exercise. Besides , to recede is no longer possible , if indeed any of you in the alarm of the moment has become enamoured of the honesty of such an unambitious part. For what you hold is, to speak somewhat plainly, a tyranny; to take it perhaps was wrong but to let it go is unsafe"
************
Saddam addressing the Republican Guards couldn't have said it any better.

Fascinating Howard, you have become our classical philosophy scholar.

Whether you agree with this particular opinion or not, Brian, it is a matter of fact that Howard has been going to the original classical sources for important ideas lately. I don't see this as a particularly controversial statement.

There seems to be something in the air today leading to a particularly nasty edge to the disagreements.

I also tell you when I think you have done something particularly noteworthy whether I agree with it or not.

whether you agree with Howard's opinions or not, he makes a good argument and there is a very good reason to look to historical literature; whilst nothing is guaranteed, there are certain patterns and truths about the human race in general that change little over the ages. I don't necessarily agree with what he says, but the use of examples from even the quite distant past is no less relevant than, say, the use of examples from a year or two years ago.

I would agree that criticism of Mr Owens is unfair. When was the last time you saw Peter Jennings or Tom Brokaw make reference to the Peloponnesian War -- those airheads (and many US voters) are lucky if they can remember what happpened last week.

We often don't know all the details of what happened 2500 years ago but hopefully the broad picture is correct ( although I still confused over what happened at Whitewater .)

History may not necessarily repeat but it is our collective memory and hopefully we learn from experience --or at least are more aware of possible negative developments that we might not think of if we were solely focused on the details of the here and now.

Looks like the Spartans and Corinthians are starting to band together. From
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030429/wl_nm/eu_defence_dc_2
*******
Four EU States Agree on Force HQ; U.S. Critical

By Paul Taylor and Bart Crols

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Four European Union (news - web sites) countries that opposed the U.S.-led war in Iraq (news - web sites) agreed on Tuesday to create a multinational force headquarters next year, in what they called a drive to boost European defense integration.

The leaders of Belgium, France, Germany and Luxembourg also said they would establish the nucleus of a joint planning and command unit for military missions where NATO (news - web sites) was not involved. ...