THREE CHEERS FOR JAPAN
Japan: not a new US ally, but a US ally that deserves new appreciation. They have just sent troops to Iraq. Foreign Affairs magazine also recently had an article on "Japan's New Nationalism." Nationalism of the welcomest kind, that is, which is welcoming to immigrants, for example. Japan is turning a corner of late. The depression of the 1990s has been humbling, and has provoked a lot of introspection, and a gradual embrace of change, of liberalization, of globalization and the new world. Now the economy is recovering, the political opposition is getting stronger, the Self-Defense Forces are deployed abroad. America should strongly encourage Japan to take a proper role.

More generally, I think we should look for allies in Asia to replace the Europeans, who object to us for all the wrong reasons. I'm a fan of better relations with China, which I think will eventually be our successor as a world leader, but there's a catch: there's no way that a democracy-loving country with any conscience can tolerate the Chinese takeover of Taiwan which our present official "position" implies that we favor. Taiwan is an independent country, in fact; it should be so in law; and this is exactly the kind of lesson China needs to learn if it is to be a suitable next world leader. So three cheers for Japan, zero cheers for President Bush's continued kowtowing to Beijing.

WONK MOMENT:
I used to write the satire section of a student newspaper and every now and then I get the urge. Maybe my style has deteriorated; you be the judge...

PENITENT SADDAM TURNS HIMSELF IN
Bush's re-election chances were boosted today when a penitent Saddam surrendered to US troops in a small town near Tikrit.

"I'm so, so sorry for what I've done," wept Saddam before reporters, after US soldiers had transported him to Baghdad. "To think that I killed all those tens of thousands of people, every one of them someone's father, someone's mother, some- [unintelligible, smothered by sobs] wife. And what was it all for? What was it for?!"

A few hours later, calmer, though his earlier tears were still visible on his face, Saddam gave a more sober account. "You have to understand what power does to you. You're surrounded by people who flatter you and lie to you. Not only your own people, your advisers, citizens, the press, but also people from abroad, al-Jazeera, Jacques Chirac. You hear people reciting back to you the lies you tell, and you begin to believe them. Now it all seems like such madness, such horror, but back then, it made sense. You look at me and call me a monster. But I think a lot of people would have done something similar in my place."

While the capital was howling for Saddam's blood this morning, the former dictator's display of contrition was so moving that many Iraqis now oppose the death sentence which Saddam has pleaded that he deserves.

"I hated Saddam more than anyone in my life," says a young Iraqi dentist. "He killed ten members of my family. But to see him now, you know that there's been a real change of heart."

"Maybe we could keep him around, in prison somewhere," volunteers a 14-year-old girl. "He could write his memoirs and express his condolences to the families of the dead. It would be sad to see him die now."

Saddam expressed gratitude to the US for putting an end to the "madness."

"In the months since the liberation, I've become aware of how hated I was and how much evil I have done. I am grateful to Bush and to the courageous soldiers for opening my eyes to it all. But why did the US have to leave me in power for so long? There's got to be a better way, a way to protect people like me from getting so much blood on our hands. Maybe some other regimes should be changed, as well."

While some neocons have seen Saddam's words as vindicating their case, the reception of the news in many quarters in the West was cool.

Jacques Chirac, president of France, was indignant at Saddam's ingratitude. "France risked a tremendous amount of diplomatic capital to keep Saddam Hussein in power, and this is how he repays us!" Chirac added that if Iraq repudiated its foreign debt, France would hold Saddam personally responsible.

Tariq Ali was one of a number of opponents of the war to express dismay at the loss of a leader by the Iraqi resistance. "Saddam's authority was invaluable in coordinating the struggle against US imperialism. The Iraqi people looked to him to lead them in the fight for freedom. His surrender marks a sad day in history."

IS IT POSSIBLE TO IMPOSE DEMOCRACY?
An important question of late, and an interesting one to think about.

The question is often stated almost as a rhetorical one. If democracy means rule of the people, how can it be brought in by outside force? Indeed, how can we even know that the people want democracy? Surely you should not impose a democratic government if the people don't want it.

This objection sounds reasonable, but I think it is misconceived. The reason it sounds reasonable to say that there should not be a democratic government if the people don't want it is that, according to our democratic prejudices, the only legitimate source of authority is the will of the people, so if the people (to be exact, the majority) is anti-democratic, then their will should be recognized. But the way out of this paradox is not so easy. For if not democracy, then what? Whatever the people want. But how do we ascertain what they want, without an election? And if there is an election, voila-- a democracy, which the people don't want. If "all governments derive their legitimate powers from the consent of the governed," there seems to be no way to create a non-democratic and legitimate government, even if the people do want one.

Let me illustrate with another example. Suppose there is a club of computer geniuses who have become monarchists after reading too many fantasy books. They want to establish a monarchy in America, so they go back, deep into the genealogies of the kings of England, trace them down to the present day, and find out that the legitimate king of America is... you.

The computer geniuses create a virus that infects all the computers in the country, including those of the military, and gives them total power. Then they knock on your door and inform you that you are king. They explain to you that they have taken over the country and have total power at their command, which they offer to you.

You are a sincere democrat and reply that you do not believe in their monarchist principles, and that, if you really have total power, your first decree is to restore authority to the country's elected democratic government.

Now the monarchist computer geniuses are in a bit of a quandary. They can't exactly tell you no, for to defy your authority would violate their own principles. And yet in their view, that democratic government can never have any true legitimate power, except inasmuch as it is carrying out your will.

So the monarchist computer geniuses do as follows: They summon the president back to the White House, re-summon Congress, and let the federal government go back to work. But they still stay in touch with you. You have their business card, and anytime you need anything, all you need to do is call. "What is Your Majesty's will?" they ask, and using their computer-virus-enabled omnipotence, they will get it for you.

Sooner or later, you'll probably yield to the temptation. You get a parking ticket that you think is unfair. Dimpled chads in Florida are spoiling the election and you really want to get Gore into office. You think global warming is a real hazard and Bush is doing nothing about it. And so on. Or, even if you are very principled and you DON'T use your power, your potential power will still change things. Bush, knowing that you have the ability to shut him down at any moment, starts trying to ascertain your views to pre-empt your ousting him. Political parties do the same thing. Over time, an element of monarchy will surely creep into the constitution in spite of your reluctance.

It's the same way with democracy. Like the monarchist computer geniuses, even if populations are against democracy, we just don't really accept any other legitimate form of power; or rather, only the will of the people can legitimate other forms of power.

Suppose we argue that a country should be democratic, and the elite says: "Not us, we don't want democracy." Who doesn't? "Nobody here does. We don't, and the people don't either." Why should we believe you? "If you don't believe us, hold a referendum. You'll see, they'll vote against democracy."

So we organize a referendum, and sure enough, 94% of the population votes against establishing a democracy.

"Are you satisfied?" Sure, for now. But what if the people change their minds. "They won't. We hate democracy here, and we always will." Well, maybe, but we're not just going to take your word for it. "How do you want to prove it then?"

Well, how about this. Every four years, you can hold a new referendum on whether or not to establish a democracy. There will be freedom of speech and the press during that time, so that people can form opinions freely. If you win the referendum, the status quo continues. If not, we establish a democracy and the people can elect whoever they want.

Now you see the trick, right? Even if the elite is right that the people don't want a democracy, it has to proved somehow, and in the process of proving it via referendum, a democracy is established.

So the idea that "the [fill in the blank; Arab, for example] people don't want democracy" is more confused than it appears, and ultimately lacks force. The principle of legitimacy, and thence the form of government, is *prior* to the ascertaining of the will of the people. It doesn't matter whether the people want a democracy; our principles compel us to establish one, as far as it is in our power, nonetheless.

Fortunately, the real situation is not so convoluted as this hypothetical example. Polls show that Muslims and Arabs *do* want democracy; and under those circumstances imposing it is not so problematic. All you need is a constitution (no easy thing, of course) and the force to keep anyone from violating it. We have lots of practical problems imposing democracy in Iraq; but when it comes to principles and legitimacy we are on relatively firm ground.

DONKEY OR CHAMELEON?
I think the Democrats need a new animal. Republicans are living up to the elephant pretty well: BIG government, BIG military, charging ahead, afraid of no one; also the image of British imperialists that an elephant conjures up is apt. But forget the Democratic donkey: the animal that describes the best of the Democrats is the chameleon.

This insight is inspired by David Brooks' interesting take on Howard Dean. Brooks points out that Dean is so eager to please whatever crowd he's talking to at the moment that "at each moment, he appears outspoken, blunt and honest, but over time he is incoherent and contradictory." No content, but lots of charm, and a way with words: who does this remind you of?

You might think, reading this blog, that I hate Clinton. I don't. I kind of like the way he personifies an age: confusion becomes complacent and evolves into a form of confidence; a mind accustomed to moralistic language yet unencumbered by moral content, and therefore wonderfully flexible; selfishness and amorality carried to a cheerful postmodern extreme. It was fascinating, even beautiful.

It was this moral vacuum that made him such an excellent chameleon. Thus after the electorate revolted against what Clinton really wanted to do, by punishing the Democrats in the 1994 mid-term elections, he did not have the weight of a conscientious mind to hold him back from going where the American people wanted to go. He was an excellent executor of the people's will because he had no real will of his own (except in private life).

Lately the Democrats have been drifting to the "left," a term whose meaning I have trouble figuring out nowadays-- it obviously doesn't stand for freedom, like it used to-- but which seems to involve hating a lot of things, hating Bush mostly but also hating business, corporations, commerce, pollution, war, globalization, I don't know what all. So it cheered me up to get a picture of Dean as an unprincipled, Clintonesque Master of Spin-- a chameleon. Maybe President Dean wouldn't do too much harm, with a good Republican Congress to keep him in check.