gdi 15 - cointelpro neg 2.0

7/24/2019 Gdi 15 - Cointelpro Neg 2.0

1/64

COINTELPRO NEG 2.0


2/64

Fugitivity Neg 2.0


3/64

Fugitivity FailsBlackness is always alreay !y"er visi#le $ t!e a%r&ative

&isses t!e "'int $ s'&e #'ies will never !ave t!e

access t' an'ny&ity #ecause '( t!e #lack aest!etic$ t!e a%r&ative all'ws ('r w!iteness t' re&aininvisi#le an reners #lackness as an attract'r t'vi'lence

)ancy *+, Ge'rge )ancy is a "r'(ess'r '( "!il's'"!y at -cnulty C'llegew!' ('cuses "ri&arily 'n issues '( s'cial /ustice, 1alking 1!ile Black int!e 1!ite Ga3e45 http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/walking-while-black-in-the-white-gaze/?_r=0, NNy point here is to say that t!e w!ite ga3e is gl'#al an !ist'rically&'#ile. "n# its origins$ while %rom &'rope$ are #eeply seate# in the makingo% "merica.( Black #'ies in &erica c'ntinue t' #e reuce t' t!eir

sur(aces an t' stere'ty"es t!at are c'nstricting an (alse, t!at'(ten ('rce t!'se #lack #'ies t' &'ve t!r'ug! s'cial s"aces inways t!at "ut w!ite "e'"le at ease. )e %ear that o'r black bo#ies incitean acc'sation. 1e &'ve in ways t!at !el" us t' survive t!e"r'crustean ga3es '( w!ite "e'"le. 1e rea t!at t!'se w!' see us&ig!t (eel t!e irrati'nal (ear t' stan t!eir gr'un rat!er t!an6ning c'&&'n gr'un$* a re%erence that was ma#e by +ernice ,ing asshe spoke abo't the legacy o% her %ather at the steps o% the incolnemorial.(he white gaze is also hegemonic$ historically gro'n#e# in materialrelations o% white power: it was #eeme# #isrespect%'l %or a black person toiolate the white gaze by looking #irectly into the eyes o% someone white. hew!ite ga3e is als' et!ically s'li"sistic7 wit!in it 'nly w!ites !ave t!e

ca"acity '( &aking vali &'ral /ug&ents.8&en with the'nprece#ente# )hite o'se brieng$ 'ur nati'nal isc'urse regaringTrayv'n -artin an 9uesti'ns '( race !ave (aile t' "r'uce acritical an !ist'rically c'nsci'us isc'urse t!at s!es lig!t 'n w!atit &eans t' #e #lack in an anti:#lack &erica. % historical prece#entsays anything$ this %ail're will only contin'e. Trayv'n -artin, like s' &any#lack #'ys an &en, was uner surveillanceetymologically$ 4to keepwatch*5. Little i !e kn'w t!at 'n Fe#. 2;, 20*2, t!at !e w'ul entera s"ace '( s'cial c'ntr'l an #'ily "'licing$ a kin# o% +enthamianpanoptic nightmare that wo'l# tr'ncate his being as s'spicio's6 a s"acew!ere !e was, "ara'


4/64

n'ny&ity all'ws w!iteness t' re&ain unc!allenge w!ile"e'"le '( c'l'r are c'ntinu'usly eearDolleag'e etterssay that 'niersities hae a responsibility to han#leiolence an# harassment %rom st'#ents on camp's$ een i% the iolence

occ'rs online. +y ignoring an# %ailing to acknowle#ge inci#ents o% harassmentan# iolence$ theyFre breaking the law. &en i% theyFre 'nable to track #ownwho is responsible %or partic'lar threats$ they can at least make an attempt toacknowle#ge the problem. his highlights the problem o% anonymity. )henpeople 'se anonymity$ it can either be 'se# %or innoc'o's or o'trightnegatie p'rposes. n ik akFs case$ as has been note# across the co'ntry$itFs 'se# mostly %or negatie p'rposes. n its short history$ ik ak has been'se# to make bomb threats$ target specic st'#ents who were alrea#ys'riors o% se;'al iolence$ target entire races o% people$ an# threaten sai#
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201010.pdfhttp://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201010.pdfhttp://www.dailydot.com/technology/yik-yak-bans/http://www.dailydot.com/technology/yik-yak-bans/http://www.dailydot.com/technology/yik-yak-bans/http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201010.pdfhttp://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201010.pdfhttp://www.dailydot.com/technology/yik-yak-bans/http://www.dailydot.com/technology/yik-yak-bans/


5/64

people with iolence. n each o% those e;amples$ with the e;ception o% only a%ew$ not only #i# those posts remain$ they got 'pote#. "n# they #i#nFt get

I'st one or two 'potes$ they got #ozens o% 'potes. ost yaks #onFt eenget 'potes. +'t they got #ozens. A';tapose that with statements ma#e byone o% its creators. +rooks +'Jngton claime# the app was ma#e %or the4#isen%ranchise#*. )ith iolent yaks not being remoe# an# a constant

stream o% racist yaks$ who really is #isen%ranchise# to them? )ho really ismarginalize# to them? )ho are the real ictims? he answer is simple. heictims are the white bros who 'se that app$ in their own min#s. hen$ whatp'rpose #oes anonymity K especially in terms o% this partic'lar app K sere?"nonymity seres as a weapon %or the patriarchy. )hy? +eca'se theyFre nothel# acco'ntable %or their wor#s. )hen someone posts an anti-black$ racist$an#/or misogynistic yak$ the people who iew it K incl'#ing the people incharge o% mo#erating those posts K s'pport it. hey 'pote it. &en i% peoplereport the post$ itFs probably not gonna go #own. n other wor#s$ it seres asa weapon %or the patriarchy beca'se the a'#ience o% that post$ %rom top tobottom$ s'pports that iewpoint. "n# thatFs more than I'st within the app$since this app was targete# at college st'#ents$ so the a'#ience then

incl'#es a#ministration beca'se itFs ineitable that theyFll get inole#.Ls'ally$ 4inole#* only means that they acknowle#ge that itFs happeningan# then nothing happens %rom there. >espite their responsibility to protecttheir st'#ents %rom iolence$ partic'larly iolence base# on race$ gen#er$etc.$ they re%'se to act. hey protect an# enable the stat's H'o: iolencetowar#s gen#er/se;'al minorities$ people with #isabilities$ an# oppresse#racial gro'ps. )ith the e;cl'sion o% inci#ents that go iral$ s'ch as the C"&chant$ this stat's H'o is neer challenge# by a#ministration$ here is an'nspoken agreement between the powers that be an# the st'#ents thatiolence against oppresse# people is okay. In an ieal w'rl, an'ny&ityw'ul "r'tect t!e '""resse an serve as a &eans ('r us t' su#vertt!e negative t!ings ('rce 'n us. A'wever, t!at is n't t!e w'rl welive in an w!ile t!ere are t!'se w!' !ave use an'ny&ity ('r t!at"ur"'se, it4s &'re c'&&'n t' run int' racists an &is'gynists usingan'ny&ity as a s!iel t' kee" t!e&selves (r'& #eing acc'unta#le('r t!eir w'rs an acti'ns. n this worl#$ an'ny&ity an t!e e


6/64

T7 @'cial eat!@'cial eat! t!e'ry is wr'ng $it ign'res #lack insurrecti'n

an cultural !eritage $ "r'ves vi'lence is c'ntingent

an re('r& is "'ssi#leBa **, @aer -aty Ba is a "r'(ess'r at P'rts&'ut! university, T!e H@ecentre Fr'& Black @'cial eat! t' Cultural Trans('r&ati'n5http://epress.lib.'ts.e#'.a'/Io'rnals/in#e;.php/csrI/article/iew/230N/2NN, NNRe, 1!ite an Black is "articularly uner&ine #y 1ilers'n4s"r'"ensity ('r 8 e


7/64

cae&ic C'l'nialis&ec'l'ni3ati'n ign'res t!e #lack #'y an cann't #e

integrate int' a (ra&ew'rk #ecause it /usti6es

w!ite su"re&acyTuck an )ang, @tate Hniversity '( New )'rk, 20*2,4>ecolonization is not a metaphor* le:///Lsers/kalyani/>ownloa#s/1RS30-N32S3-1-7+.p#%-,"5"longsi#e this work$ we hae been thinking abo't what #ecolonizationmeans$ what it wants an# reH'ires. Ene tren# we hae notice#$ with growingapprehension$ is t!e ease wit! w!ic! t!e language '( ec'l'ni3ati'n!as #een su"er6cially a'"te int' eucati'n an 't!er s'cialsciences, su""lanting "ri'r ways '( talking a#'ut s'cial /ustice,critical &et!''l'gies, 'r a""r'ac!es w!ic! ecenter settler"ers"ectives. ec'l'ni3ati'n, w!ic! we assert is a istinct "r'/ect

(r'& 't!er civil an !u&an rig!ts:#ase s'cial /ustice "r'/ects, is (art'' '(ten su#su&e int' t!e irectives '( t!ese "r'/ects, wit! n'regar ('r !'w ec'l'ni3ati'n wants s'&et!ing ierent t!an t!'se('r&s '( /ustice. Cettler scholars swap o't prior ciil an# h'man rightsbase# terms$ seemingly to signal both an awareness o% the signicance o%n#igeno's an# #ecolonizing theorizations o% schooling an# e#'cationalresearch$ an# to incl'#e n#igeno's peoples on the list o% consi#erations - asan a##itional special ethnic5 gro'p or class. "t a con%erence on e#'cationalresearch$ it is n't unc'&&'n t' !ear s"eakers re(er, al&'st casually,t' t!e nee t' ec'l'ni3e 'ur sc!''ls,5 'r use ec'l'ni3ing&et!'s,5 'r ec'l'ni3e stuent t!inking.5 )et, we !ave '#servea startling nuer '( t!ese iscussi'ns &ake n' &enti'n '(

Inigen'us >ecolonization is not a metaphor 3 "e'"les,o'r/their1struggles ('r t!e rec'gniti'n '( 'urt!eir s'vereignty, 'r t!ec'ntri#uti'ns '( Inigen'us intellectuals an activists t' t!e'riesan (ra&ew'rks '( ec'l'ni3ati'n.ecolonization: n#igeneity$ 'cation$ U Cociety$ we wantto be s're to clari%y that #ecolonization is not a metaphor. 1!en &eta"!'rinvaes ec'l'ni3ati'n, it kills t!e very "'ssi#ility '( ec'l'ni3ati'nit recenters w!iteness, it resettles t!e'ry, it eecolonize a erb5 an#ec'l'ni3ati'na no'n5 cann'teasily #e gra(te 'nt' "re:e


8/64

appropriation. )hen we write abo't #ecolonization$ we are not oTering it as ametaphor6 it is n't an a""r'ecolonization is not a swappable term %or other things wewant to #o to improe o'r societies an# schools. >ecolonization #oesnFt haea synonym.

T!eir reaing '( t!e a an asking ('r t!e #all'tre"r'uces t!e c'&&'i6cati'n '( t!e lives '( t!e'""resse #y e&C G &>LD"EG$ 2003$ BE.1S$ GE. 1$ K29Xn#ee#$ Dollins n#s it s'spicio's that black %eminism is 4so well receie# by )hite women.*20 C'chs'spicions are prompte# by the history o% whitesF appropriation o% black an# brown bo#ies$ wor#s$ songs$

an# symbols. "s Gell rin 7ainter obseres$ w!ite w'&en !ave l'ng taken u" #lackw'&en4s te t!e vein t!at !a "r'uce !er #lackc!aracters in Hncle T'&4s Ca#in.5)riting %or the prestigio's "tlantic onthly$ Ctowe4ma#e r'th into a H'aint an# innocent e;otic who #is#aine# %eminism.*22 ater$ in a reersal o% hersymbolic %ort'nes$ r'th was appropriate# %or white %eminist p'rposes. n the white %eminist re%ormliterat're$ CoIo'rner r'th became a s'Tragist more than an abolitionist symbol$ %amo's mostly %or haingsai# 4an# arFnFt a woman?* K a line that ana age$ a white woman$ compose# an# attrib'te# to

r'th.23 ike Ctowe an# age$ w!ite acae&ics w!' take u" t!e tealy might be aske# o% white %eministsan# white progressies in general: 4ae yo' rea# my work$ an# the work o% other +lack women$ %or whatit co'l# gie yo'? Er #i# yo' h'nt thro'gh only to n# wor#s that wo'l# legitimize yo'r* own claims abo't

race an# racism?2S 1!en w!ite sc!'lars strategically 9u'te &aterial #ysc!'lars '( c'l'r t' su""'rt an alreay:c'nceive iea,5 wec'l'ni3e t!e w'rk '( t!e Ot!er t' enric! 'ur writing an en!ance 'uraut!'rity. ike Ctowe$ we &ine t!e lives an writings '( "e'"le '( c'l'r t'"r'uce a &'re &arketa#le c'&&'ity.2 n#ee#$ een when we are tr'e to thework we st'#y$ w!ites &ay "r'6t in ways w!'lly 'ut '( "r'"'rti'n t' 'ur!ist'rical c'ntri#uti'n t' t!e 6el. ong be%ore the aca#emy began to accept whitenessas a #istinctie area o% research$ it ha# been the s'bIect o% co'ntless works o% theory$ ction$ art$ an#Io'rnalism by people o% color. "ltho'gh some o% the contemporary scholarship on whiteness by whitea'thors recognizes o'r in#ebte#ness to classic an# pathbreaking work by Aames +al#win$ Bine >eloria$ oni

orrison$ an# others$ whiteness theory neertheless seems to be 4o'rs.* T!e veryackn'wlege&ent '( 'ur racis& an "rivilege can #e turne t' 'uravantage.


9/64

T!e ('cus 'n raciali3e surveillance #ec'&es an ali#i ('rac9uiescence '( class struggles $ t!ey '#scure t!e l'gic '( ca"italan ensure re"etiti'n '( '""ressi'n?avar3ae! as[L#$ he Ct'pi#ity hat Dons'mption s A'st as7ro#'ctie as 7ro#'ction\: n the Chopping all o% the 7ost-al e%t$\ Dollege

iterat're$ Bol. 21$ Go. 3$ he 7olitics o% eaching iterat're 2 Ect.$ 199N5$pp.92-11N57ost-al logicis marke#aboe all byits eras're o% \pro#'ction\ as the #etermining%orce in organizing h'man societiesan#their instit'tions$ an# its insistence on\cons'mption\ an# \#istrib'tion\ as the #riing %orce o% the social.hearg'mento% the post-al le%t brie]y5 isthat \labor$\ in a#ance# in#'strial \#emocracies$\ iss'perse#e# by\in%ormation$\ an#conseH'ently \knowle#ge\ not class str'ggle oer therate o% s'rpl's labor5 has become the #riing %orce o% history. he task o% the post-al le%t isto #econstr'ct the \metaphysics o% labor\ an# conseH'ently to anno'nce the en# o% socialism an# with itthe \o't#ate#ness\ o% the pra;is o% abolishing priate property that is$ congeale# alienate# labor5 in thepost-al moment. nstea# o% abolishing priate property$ an enlightene# ra#ical #emocracy which is tos'pplant socialism as acla'$ o'Te$ "ronowitz$ +'tler$ an# others hae a#ise#5 sho'l# make propertyhol#ers o% each citizen. he post-al le%t reIects the global obIectie con#itions o% pro#'ction %or the local

s'bIectie circ'mstances o% cons'mption$ an# its master trope is what 8-N Y


10/64

an# not class str'ggle-is the #ynamics o% social change6 that tr'th as 8-l YillZ writes5 is an\epistemological g'lag\? a constr'ct o% power an# th's any %orm o% \i#eology critiH'e\ that raisesH'estions o% \%alsehoo#\ an# \tr'th\ \%alse conscio'sness\5 #oes so thro'gh a iolent e;cl'sion o% the\other\ tr'ths by$ in Y)illiams[Z wor#s$ \staking sole legitimate claim\ to the tr'th in H'estion. ien theinI'nction o% the post-al logic against binaries tr'th/%alsehoo#5$ the proIect o% \epistemology\ is #isplace#in the l'#ic aca#emy by \rhetoric.\ he H'estion$ conseH'ently$ becomes not so m'ch what is the \tr'th\o% a practice b't whether it \works.\ 8hetoric has always sere# as an alibi %or pragmatism.5 here%ore$Y. %rom ale Lniersity$ Ccenes o% C'bIection$ "ccesse#: N/2/1NX


11/64

+y making the s'Tering o% others his own$ has 8ankin ameliorate# in#iTerence or only conrme# the

#iJc'lty o% 'n#erstan#ing the s'Tering o% the enslae#? Can t!e w!ite witness '( t!es"ectacle '( suering a%r& t!e &ateriality '( #lack sentience 'nly#y (eeling ('r !i&sel( 'es t!is n't 'nly e


12/64

heir call %or co'nternarraties rely on empathetic i#enticationby conI'ring the I'#ge/#ebaterFs liberal sel%-worth to get aballot. his reinscribes s'Tering by making %'ngible thee;perience o% the other an# sim'ltaneo'sly #estroyingtheir e;perience K t'rns the case by recreating colonialism

Aart&an, Q VCai#ya artman$ Cai#iya artman is a pro%essor atDol'mbia Lniersity specializing in "%rican "merican literat're an# history.Che grew 'p in +rooklyn an# receie# her +.". %rom )esleyan Lniersity an#7h.>. %rom ale Lniersity$ Ccenes o% C'bIectionXn an epistle to his brother$ Aohn 8ankin ill'mine# the \ery #angero's eil\ o% slaery in a #escription o%the coQe$ #etailing the obscene theatricality o% the slae tra#e: \Ln%eeling wretches p'rchase# aconsi#erable #roe o% slaes how many o% them were separate# %rom h'sban#s an# wies$ will notpreten# to say-an# haing chaine# a n'mber o% them together$ hoiste# oer the ]ag o% "merican liberty$an# with the m'sic o% two iolins marche# the woe-worn$ heart-broken$ an# sobbing creat'res thro'gh thetown.\ 1 8ankin$ aghast at the spectacle an# shocke# by \seeing the most oppressie sorrows o% s'Teringinnocence mocke# with all the lightness o% sportie m'sic$[[ #ecrie#: [[y so'l abhors the crime.[[ heiolation o% #omesticity$ the paro#y o% liberty$ an# the callo's #eance o% sorrow #ene the scene in whichcrime becomes spectacle. he \ery #angero's eil\ o% slaery an# the \agonizing groans o% s'Teringh'manity\ ha# been ma#e m'sic.2 "ltho'gh 8ankin conce#e# that the cr'elty o% slaery \%ar e;cee#Ye#Zthe power o% #escription$\ he nonetheless stroe to ren#er the horrors o% slaery$ "n# in so #oing$ 8ankin

makes apparent that t!e cri&es '( slavery are n't 'nly witnesse #utstage.his is a res'lt o% the reco'rse to terms like \stage$\ \spectacle$* an# \scene* in coneyingthese horrors$ an#$ more important$ beca'se the 4abominations o% slaery\ are #isclose# thro'gh thereiteration o% secon#han# acco'nts an# circ'lating stories %rom \'nH'estionable a'thorities\ to which8ankin m'st act as s'rrogate witness. n the eTort to \bring slaery close$\ these circ'lating reports o%

atrocity$ in essence$ are reenacte# in 8ankin epistles. T!e gr'tes9ueries enu&erate in'cu&enting t!e in/ustice '( slavery are intene t' s!'ck an t'isru"t t!e c'&('rta#le re&'ve '( t!e reaers"ectat'r. By "r'viingt!e &inutest etail '( &aca#re acts '( vi'lence$ embellishe# by his own %antasyo% slaery[s bloo#staine# gate$ 8ankin hope#t' r'use t!e sensi#ility '( t!'seinierent t' slavery #y e

a'#ience o% rea#ers.In t!is case, "ain "r'vies t!e c'&&'n language '(!u&anity it e


13/64

mysel% was a slae$ an# with my wi%e an# chil#ren place# 'n#er the reign o% terror. began in reality to %eel%or mysel%$ my wi%e$ an# my chil#ren-the tho'ghts o% being whippe# at the pleas're o% a morose an#capricio's master$ aro'se# the strongest %eelings o% resentment6 b't when %ancie# the cr'el lash was."pproaching my wi%e an# chil#ren$ an# my imagination #epicte# in liely colors$ their tears$ their shrieks$an# bloo#y stripes$ eery in#ignant principle o% my bloo#y nat're was e;erte# to the highest #egree. S5he nat're o% the %eelings aro'se# here is rather complicate#. )hile this ]ight o% imagination enables aicario's rsthan# e;perience o% the lash$ e;coriates the pleas're e;perience# by the master in this br'tal

e;ercise o% power$ an# 'nleashes 8ankin[s ery in#ignation an# resentment$ t!e "!antas&icve!icle '( t!is ienti6cati'n is c'&"licate, unsettling, anistur#ing. lt!'ug! RankinSs (antasy cul&inates in inignant'utcries against t!e instituti'n '( slavery an, clearly, t!e "ur"'se'( t!is ienti6cati'n is t' !ig!lig!t t!e cri&es '( slavery, t!is Vig!t'( i&aginati'n an sli""ing int' t!e ca"tiveSs #'y unlatc!es aPan'raSs #'< an, s'rprisingly, w!at c'&es t' t!e ('re is the #iJc'lty an#slipperiness o% e&"at!y. 7roperly speaking$ e&"at!y is a "r'/ecti'n '( 'nesel(int' an't!er in 'rer t' #etter uner stan t!e 't!eror \the proIection o%one[s own personality into an obIect$ with the attrib'tion to the obIect o% one[s own emotions.\N)ete&"at!yin important respects c'n('uns RankinSs e'rts t' ienti(y wit!t!e enslave #ecause in &aking t!e slaveSs suering !is 'wn, Rankin#egins t' (eel ('r !i&sel( rat!er t!an ('r t!'se w!'& t!is e


14/64

#etweenW"'werXw!ic! eserves a enuing, inee "etri(yingscrutinyXan "e'"le"tthe same time$ as %ra'ght as research is in its complicity with power$it is one o%the last places %or legitimate# inH'iry. t is at least still a space that proclaims tocare abo't

c'riosity. n this essay$ we t!e'ri3e re(usal n't /ust as a n',5 #ut as aWty"e'( investigati'n int' w!at y'u nee t' kn'w an w!at I re(use t'write in5Cimpson$ 200$ p. 25. here%ore$ we "resent a re(usal t' ' researc!,

'r a re(usalWwit!in researc! , as a way '( t!inking a#'ut !u&ani3ingresearc!ers.W)e hae organize# this chapter into %o'r portions. n the rst three sections$we layo't three a;ioms o% social science research.


15/64

to in%ormation$ to knowle#ge$ to theintellect'al commons is controlle# by the people who generate thatin%ormationYparticipants in a research st'#yZ$ it can be seen as a iolation o% share# stan#ar#s o%I'stice

an# tr'th. Cimpson$ 200$ p. N5By ('rwaring a (ra&ew'rk '( re(usalwithin an#to5 research in this chapter$ weare not simply prescribing limits to social science research. 1e are&aking visi#leW invisi#ili3e li&its, c'ntain&ents, an sei3ures t!atresearc! alreay stakes 'ut.

It is necessary t' rec'gni3e t!e in!erent lack '( sa(etyw!en w'rking wit!in acae&ic s"aces as well as itsin!erent c'l'nial ('unati'n t!at &ust #e a#'lis!einstea '( survive in

R'rigue3 in *2K chair o% the >epartment o% &thnic Ct'#ies at theLniersity o% Dali%ornia V>ylan. 8acial/Dolonial enoci#e an# the \Geoliberal"ca#emy\: n &;cess o% a 7roblematic\$ "merican W'arterly. Bol'me SN.G'mber N. >ecember 2012Xy place o% employment re]ects how t!e H.@. acae&y re&ains c'nstitute #y itsgenere racist, a"art!ei, c'l'nial ('unati'ns. "s seeral st'#ents an#colleag'es remin# me$ the #esecration o% n#ian b'rial gro'n#s has g'i#e# the constr'ction an# e;pansiono% the lan# grant instit'tion at which work$ the Lniersity o% Dali%ornia$ 8iersi#ethat is$ #esecration isnot an inci#ental an# ]eeting moment in the camp'sFs creation$ it is the contin'al con#ition o% LD8Fse;istence as s'ch.1 Cecon#$ recent LD8 police practices are sat'rate# with antiblack racism an# 4racialproling$* lan#marke# by a set o% early-2000s e;changes between renowne# "%rican "merican historianCterling Ct'ckey an# then Dhancellor 8aymon# Erbach. Ct'ckey #etaile# the LD87>Fs yearlongharassment o% one black gra#'ate st'#ent in partic'lar #etaine# m'ltiple times by camp's police whilewalking to the library5$ remarking that 4circ'mstances at LD8 YhaeZ ma#e it impossible %or me to go on

recr'iting black gra#'ate st'#ents.*2 hese local e;amples e;press t!e acae&y4s"araig&atic 'rering '( #'ies, vulnera#ilities, an intellectual!ierarc!ies. hat is$ s'ch everyay e!u&ani3ati'n illustrates t!esyste&ic l'gics, instituti'nal tec!ni9ues, r!et'rics, ane"iste&'l'gies '( vi'lence an "'wer t!at unergir t!e acae&y4sracial an c'l'nial ('unati'ns evenXes"eciallyXas t!ey resur(ace

in 'ur current w'rking an t!inking c'niti'ns.hese #eh'manizing iolencese;cee# the eTects o% the aca#emyFs neoliberalization6 they reH'ire an 'rgent$ strategic$ m't'al centeringo% the analytics o% racial/colonial genoci#e.


16/64

"ris'n inustrial c'&"le


17/64

sustenance an re"r'ucti'n wit!in li#erati'nist geneal'gies,"articularly w!en we are w'rking an stuying in c'lleges anuniversities.S am 'n#eci#e# as to whether the 'niersity is capable or worthy o% being4trans%orme#* %rom its #ominant historical p'rposes$ or i% it o'ght to be completely abolishe#.


18/64

"'wer t' "'se t!e 9uesti'n is t!e greatest "'wer '( all. &lsewhere$ haewritten abo't this 'n%ort'nate t'rn o% eents (Incognegro: A Memoir of Exile and Apartheid), so [ll notrehearse the #etails here. C'Jce it to say$ this book germinate# in the many political an# aca#emic#isc'ssions an# #ebates that was %ort'nate eno'gh to be a part o% at a historic moment an# in a placewhere the wor# revolution was spoken in earnest$ %ree o% H'aliers an# irony. o'glass wrote: % a slae ran away an# s'ccee#e# in getting clear$ or i% aslae kille# his master$ set re to a barn$ or #i# any thing ery wrong in the min# o% a slaehol#er$ it was spoken o% as the%r'it o% abolition. earing the wor# in this connection ery o%ten$ set abo't learning what it meant.30 here$ in the aboepassage %rom >o'glassFs narratie o% his li%e$ we rea# o% the call that became his calling$ 4abolition$* b't slaes cannot becalle#. 'cation is the call an# abolition is the same call 4 set abo't learning what YabolitionZ meant*315. 'cationreH'ires abolition. "bolition reH'ires e#'cation.


19/64

w'ul teac! !i& t!at i( !e intens t' #e =an ault>, !e &ust at 'nceecie t!at !e is str'nger t!an t!is c'ns"iracy an t!at !e &ustnever &ake !is "eace wit! it. n t!at 'ne '( !is wea"'ns ('rre(using t' &ake !is "eace wit! it an ('r estr'ying it e"ens 'nw!at !e ecies !e is w'rt!.3S D..8. Aames$ writing on the reol'tion in aiti$ obsere# o% thesmall$ priilege# class o% slaes that while most slaishly imitate# their masters$ albeit in a lesser key$ a %ew 'se# theirpositions to become #angero's$ to become the reol'tionaries who wo'l# later b'rn #own eery plantation: 7ermeate#with the ices o% their masters an# mistresses$ these 'pper serants gae themseles airs an# #espise# the slaes in theel#s. . . . +'t a %ew o% these 'se# their position to c'ltiate themseles$ to gain a litt le e#'cation$ to learn all they co'l#.

he lea#ers o% a reol'tion are 's'ally those who hae been able to prot by the c'lt'ral a#antages o% the system theyare attacking$ an# the Can >omingo reol'tion was no e;ception to this r'le.3 he lea#ers o% the reol'tion in aiti wereslaes who$ like >o'glass$ took an# ate o% the %orbi##en %r'it o% 4abolition.*3R he lea#ers o% that reol'tion$ in otherwor#s$ were slaes who ha# e#'cate# themseles.39 Aames +al#win 'n#erstoo# this an# warne# the post-+rown schoolchil#ren o% arlem an# their teachers that the instit'tions within which reol'tionaries 4m'st neer make . . . peace.*N0 tis with e#'cation$ then$ that the st'#y o% memory an# %orgetting begins. D..8. AamesFs #escription o% the aitianbeginning is 'se%'l in 'n#erstan#ing the beginning o% white-oer-black in the Lnite# Ctates: omingo$ where consi#eration was achiee# at so cheap a price$ money ]owe# an# opport'nities o%#eba'chery abo'n#e#.N1 )hite-oer-black is a calling 4 !as arig!t t' is"'se '( his ='ne4s> 'wn la#'ur$was the reply o% this'nknown anarchist.NR The slaves burned everything because everything was

against them. Everything was against the slaves, the entire order that it

was their lot to follow, the entire order in which they were ositioned as

worse than senseless things, every lantation, everything.N9 4#eavenothing white behind you,*sai# o'ssaint to those #e#icate# to the en# o% white-oerblack. 0 4o#gae Goah the rainbow sign. Go more water$ the re ne;t time.*1 he slaes b'rne# eerything$ yes$ b't$ 'n%ort'nately$they only b'rne# eerything in aiti.2 heirs was the greatest an# most s'ccess%'l reol'tion in the history o% the worl#b't the %ail're o% their re to cross the waters was the great trage#y o% the Gineteenth cent'ry.3 "t the #awn o% the

wentieth cent'ry$ ).&.+. >' +ois wrote$ 4he colorline belts the worl#.*N >' +ois sai# that the problem o% the wentiethcent'ry was the problem o% the colorline. he problem$ now$ at the #awn o% the wenty-rst cent'ry is the problem o%

the colorline. he colorline contin'es to belt the worl#. n#ee#$ t!e slave "'wer t!at ist!e Hnite @tates n'w t!reatens an entire w'rl wit!t!e eat! t!at it !as #ec'&e an s' t!e slaves '(yesteray, t'ay, an t'&'rr'w, t!'se wit! n't!ing


20/64

#ut t!eir c!ains t' l'se, &ust, i( t!ey w'ul #e (ree, i(t!ey w'ul esca"e slavery, win t!e entire w'rl.B.

8"GG 1e #egin as c!ilren. )e are calle# an# we become o'r response to the call. Claes are notcalle#. )hat becomes o% them? )hat becomes o% the broken-hearte#? he slaes are #ii#e# so'ls$ they arebrokenhearte#$ the slaes are split as'n#er by what they are calle# 'pon to become. he slaes are calle# 'pon tobecome obIects b't obIecthoo# is not a calling. he slae$ then$ #'ring its loneliest loneliness$ is #ii#e# %rom itsel%. his isschizophrenia. he slaes are not calle#$ or$ rather$ the slaes are calle# to not be. he slaes are calle# 'n%ree an# th's

the liing can neer be an# so the slaes b'rst apart an# #ie. he slaes begin as #eath$ not as chil#ren$ an# #eath is not

a beginning b't an en#. here is no progress an# no e;it %rom the 'n#iscoere# co'ntry o% the slae$ or so it seems. We

are trained to think through a rogress narrative,a grand narrative, the

grandest narrative, that takes us u from slavery. There is no u from

slavery. The rogress from slavery to the end of history is the rogress from white"over"

black to white"over"black to white"over black. The rogress of slavery runs in the

oosite direction of the ast"resent"future timeline. The slave only becomesthe erfect slave at the end of the timeline, only under conditions of total juridical freedom.

$t is only under conditions of freedom, of bourgeois legality, that the slave can erfect itself

as a slave by freely choosing to bow down before its master.he slae per%ects itsel% as a slae by

oTering a prayer %or eH'al rights. T!e syste& '( &arks is a "lantati'n. T!e syste&'( "r'"erty is a "lantati'n. T!e syste& '( law is a "lantati'n. T!ese"lantati'ns, all "art '( t!e sa&e syste&, !ierarc!y, "r'uce w!ite:'ver #lack, w!ite:'ver:#lack 'nly, an t!at c'ntinually. he slae per%ects itsel%as a slae thro'gh its prayers %or eH'al rights. T!e "lantati'n syste& will n't c'&&it

suiciean# the slae$ as state# aboe$ has knowing non-knowle#ge o% this %act. T!e slave 6nsits way #ack (r'& t!e unisc'vere c'untry 'nly #y#urning 'wn every "lantati'n. 1!en t!e slave "rays ('re9ual rig!ts it &akes t!e (ree c!'ice t' #e ea, an it &akes t!e

(ree c!'ice t' n't #e.Education is the call. We are called to be and

then we become something. We become that which we make of

ourselves. We follow the call, we ursue a calling. Freedom is the onlycalling%it alone contains all ossible directions, all of the choices that

may later blossom into the fullness of our lives. We can only be free.

Slavery is death. &ow do slaves die' Slaves are not born, they are made. The slave mustbe trained to be that which the living cannot be. The only thing that the living are not free to

be is dead. The slave must be trained to follow the call that is not a call. The slave must be

trained to ursue the calling that is not a calling. The slave must be trained to objecthood.

The slave must become death. Slavery is white"over"black. White"over"black is death.

White"over"black, death, then, is what the slave must become to ursue

its calling that is not a calling. ((((((-'i6e ('r Genere Language.


21/64

Instituti'nalis&T!e state is n't a &'n'lit!ic a""aratus. Engaging wit! it

critical t' c!allenge !ege&'nies an "r'uce

c!ange $ any alternative cees t!e "'litical an (ails-'ue, Pr'(ess'r '( P'litics an Internati'nal Relati'nsat 1est&inster, 0 Dhantal$ 2009$ )hat is 8a#ical 7olitics o#ay?$4he mportance o% &ngaging the Ctate*$ http://m.%rien#%ee#-me#ia.com/e%12S39S0910cS9N2N3a9a9R293b%a1e102TMpage=2N$/9/1$ CB5

he way we enisage social criticism has ery important conseH'ences %orra#ical politics. Raical "'liticsto#ay iso%ten c!aracterise in ter&s '(eserti'n$ e;o#'s an re(usal t' engage wit! e


22/64

the rst phase o% capitalist acc'm'lation$ comman# is constr'cte# thro'gh#iT'se networks o% apparat's. hese pro#'ce an# reg'late c'stoms$ habitsan# pro#'ctie practices with the help o% #isciplinary instit'tions like prisons$%actories$ asyl'ms$ hospitals$ schools an# others. he society o% control$ incontrast$ is a society in which mechanisms o% comman# are less obio's. hesociety o% control is #ominate# by the many mechanisms o% the globalise#$

postmo#ern capitalist society$ which seek to #irectly organise the brain an#bo#y %rom the internet$ thro'gh to comple; global systems o% tra#e5. )hat is#irectly at stake is the reg'lation o% li%e itsel%. his is what they callObiopowerF. N. ar#t an# Gegri pro#'ce new terms to help e;plain thissit'ation. hese are Omass intellect'alityF$ Oimmaterial laborF an# OgeneralintellectF. he central role preio'sly occ'pie# by the labo'r-power o% mass%actory workers in the pro#'ction o% s'rpl's-al'e is to#ay sai# to beincreasingly lle# by intellect'al$ immaterial an# comm'nicatie labo'r-power.


23/64

Birno proposestwo key terms to #escribe the type o% political action which hethinks is necessary. hese are Oe;o#'sF an# Ociil #isobe#ienceF. "n# %or me$they again ill'strate what call OcritiH'e as with#rawalF: something which isan important an# in]'ential tren# in ra#ical politics to#ay beca'se e


24/64

emocratic 7oliticsacla' an# o'Te$ 20015. )hat want to stress is that many %actors haecontrib'te# to this transition %rom


25/64

e;ample o% what ramsci calle# Ohegemony thro'gh ne'tralisationF orOpassie reol'tionF. his re%ers to a sit'ation where #eman#s whichchallenge the hegemonic or#er are rec'perate# by the e;isting system$ whichis achiee# by satis%ying them in a way that ne'tralises their s'bersiepotential. )hen we apprehen# the transition %rom


26/64

'( "'wer relati'ns. T!is is a (urt!er reas'n w!y criti9ue inv'lvesengage&ent, rat!er t!an isengage&ent. t is clear that the #iTerent#eman#s that e;ist in o'r societies are o%ten in con]ict with each other. hisis why they nee# to be artic'late# politically$ which obio'sly inoles thecreation o% a collectie will$ a OweF. his$ in t'rn$ reH'ires the #etermination o%a OthemF. his obio's an# simple point is misse# by the ario's a#ocates o%

the 'ltit'#e.


27/64

('unati'n ('r trans('r&ing instituti'ns t!at !ave "r'ven resistantt' c!angethro'gh the political process. T!is ('unati'n can #e lai ant!e "araig& s!i(t su" : "'rte 'nly i( lawyers &ake&ultiinstituti'nal argu&ents an e&'nstrate t!e c'&"le< layers '(instituti'nal #e!avi'r creating s'cial an racial ine9uity."#eH'acye#'cation cases s'ch as CheT . E[Geil$ ean#ro . Ctate o% Gorth Darolina$

an# "bbott . +'rke #emonstrate this approach$ an# )alker an# hompson inthe conte;t o% ho'sing$ as #isc'sse# below.S Over t!e years av'catesan researc!ers !ave #een evel'"ing &any strategies t' create&'re c!'ice an greater '""'rtunity ('r l'w:inc'&e "e'"le '( c'l'ran t' attack structural uner"innings '( ine9uity an i&"r've t!estructural s'unness '( t!e nati'n. T!is re9uires, in 'ne way 'ran't!er, legal eiscrimination$ n#ii#'al 8acism$ an# 'rricane ,atrina$* pg.11-11S$http://www.yale.e#'/intergro'p/enkel_>oi#io_aertner_"C"7_200S.p#%5"ltho'gh m'ch o% the p'blic #ebate abo't t!e evastating c'nse9uences'( Aurricane Yatrina, "articularly ('r Blacks in New Orleans, !as

('cuse 'n w!et!er racis& was inv'lve$ we hae attempte# to showthat a %oc's on ol#-%ashione#$ oert racism likely misrepresents the #ynamicsin the sit'ation. Eert racism might hae playe# a role$ b't s'btle an#'nintentional biases seeme# to be a m'ch more signicant in]'ence.oreoer$ t!e acti'ns '( 1!ites an Blacks #'t! c'ntri#ute t'varying egrees an in vari'us ways t' t!e lack '( res"'nsivenesst!at c!aracteri3e t!e "re"arati'n ('r t!e !urricane an t!eres"'nse in its a(ter&at!.Cpecically$ t!ree key "r'cesses t!at weienti6e are instituti'nal racis&, su#tle c'nte&"'rary "re/uice,an racial istrust. 1e (urt!er "r'"'se t!at unerstaninghow t!ese('rcesshape# the way both )hites an# +lacks respon#e# to the threat an##amage o% 'rricane ,atrina can !el" t' guie "'licies t!at can

(acilitate eective rec'very an en!ance e&ergency e'rts in t!e(uture.Ene o% the most basic implications o% o'r analysis is that t!ecircu&stances '( Blacks in New Orleans at t!e ti&e AurricaneYatrina &ae lan(all, w!ic! &ae t!e& es"ecially vulnera#le t'V''ing an w!ic! c'ntri#ute t' racial istrust, were t!e result '(!ist'rical iscri&inati'n an instituti'nal racis&.+eca'se race wascentral to these circ'mstances$ interentions to a##ress the conseH'ences o%'rricane ,atrina an# policies %or %'t're emergency sit'ations cannot be


28/64

colorblin#. Eective interventi'ns an "'licies s!'ul c'nsier t!ei&"'rtance '( !ist'rical an c'nte&"'rary racial is"arities t' t!esusce"ti#ility '( ierent c'&&unities t' !ar&, !'w racial #iases&ay unintenti'nally inVuence t!e acti'ns '( ecisi'n &akers, an!'w race relati'ns &ig!t inVuence t!e res"'nses '( vulnera#legr'u"s t' e'rts t' !el".hat is$ t!e "r'cesses relate t' !'w New

Orleans g't t' t!is "'int nee t' #e c'nsiere in a "lan t' reverset!e evastating c'nse9uences '( t!ese "r'cesses.)e ill'strate theapplication o% these principles with a recoery strategy that co'l# meet thesereH'irements.


29/64

P'licy COINTELPRO


30/64

e&'cratic Peace [ 1r'ngT!e iea t!at e&'cracy causes "eace is (alse an

"reicate ' '( western su"re&acy, it ('rces war

t' #ec'&e inevita#le $ It /usti6es '&inati'n '( t!e"eri"!ery an treats anyt!ing 'utsie '( t!ewestern states as savages t!at nee t' #esu#/ugate

Grays'n 0+ ,yle$>octoral Dan#i#ate >epartment o% 7oliticalCcience ork Lniersity$ >emocratic 7eace heory as 7ractice:8e58ea#ing the Cignicance o% iberal 8epresentations o% )aran# 7eace p. -95 2003$ accesse# /9/1$


31/64

uncivili3e, war:&'ngering, an aut!'ritarian. >emocratic peace theory alsoai#s in the I'stication o% the "merican/)estern worl#-iew which perceies both #emocracy an# war in apartic'lar %ashion. n t'rn$ these conceptions o% #emocracy an# war help to hi#e m'ch o% the sor#i# pastan# present o% the international relations o% western liberal #emocratic states. hey help to I'sti%y therayson g >emocratic 7eace heory as 7ractice / R 'nI'stiable an# to legitimate the illegitimate. E%'tmost importance is the ontological basis o% these international relations practices sanctione# by#emocratic peace theory an# its associate# #isco'rse within the pop'lar political realm. his is the %oc's o%the %ollowing section which e;amines the e;istence o% one o% the empirical silences within #emocratic

peace theory research an# the conseH'ences o% ignoring these important eents. >emocratic 7eaceheory an# the Entology o% )ar an# 7eace n Biolent Dartographies: apping D'lt'res o% )ar$ ichaelChapiro tries to e;amine 4the ways that enmity-relate# global geographies an# ethnoscapes emerge ascollectiities$ an# how they try to achiee$ stabilize$ an# repro#'ce their 'nity an# coherence*.N3istorically$ the practice o% war has emerge# as one the most en#'ring metho#s to attempt to ; nationali#entities an# ontological %o'n#ations. Bictory in war conrms all the positie s'bIectie iews o% the Osel%Fwhile at the same time proi#ing Oproo%F o% the s'bIectiely perceie# in%erior nat're o% the OotherF.Donersely$ #e%eat not only lea#s to geo5strategic losses$ b't also to a reappraisal o% the national i#entityan# #eep H'estioning o% the %o'n#ations that helpe# #ene national i#entity. he "merican #e%eat in theBietnam )ar proi#es an e;cellent e;ample o% these i#entity/%o'n#ation cas'alties. here%ore$ Chapiroarg'es that war is not I'st geo5strategic$ b't is also abo't the con%rontation between competingontologies. "s mentione# earlier$ #emocratic peace theory an# its s'rro'n#ing #isco'rse iews war as anactiity wage# by state actors in p'rs'it o% geo5strategic spoils e.g.$ territory$ reso'rces$ wealth5$ as wellas an actiity arising oer #isp'tes o% OownershipF o% spoils an#/or perceie# iolations o% soereignty. "sAohn BasH'ez has arg'e#$ 4the sit'ation that states in the mo#ern global system are most likely to #ealwith by the 'se o% %orce an# iolence is one in which their territory is threatene#....territorial #isp'tes

proi#e the willingness to go to war*.NN >emocratic peace theorists beliee that liberal #emocracies canpeace%'lly manage these kin#s o% #isp'tes amongst themseles6 howeer$ in circ'mstances o% #isp'tebetween a liberal #emocracy an# a non-liberal/#emocracy$ war is seen as almost ineitable.Donentionally$ this has been attrib'te# to the inherently aggressie nat're o% the Oa'thoritarianF state$which preents liberal #emocracies %rom tr'sting these states to a#here to peace%'lly negotiate#

settlements. et$ w!en e&'cratic "eace t!e'ry is viewe as are"resentati'nal "ractice, war #ec'&es inevita#le #etweenis"uting li#eral e&'cratic states an n'n:li#erale&'cratic statesn't #ecause '( t!e aggressive nature '( aut!'ritarian regi&es #ut#ecause t!ese situati'ns are viewe as an '""'rtunity ('r li#erale&'cratic states t' engage in a civili3ing4 &issi'n an rea%r&t!eir nati'nal ientity an 'nt'l'gy #y e&'nstrating t!eirsu"eri'rity in #attle.his imperatie becomes especially clear i% we aban#on the tra#itionaliew o% war containe# within #emocratic peace theory an# look at #emocratic non-state/liberal #emocraticstate #isp'tes an# the 'n#erlying ontological contestations that %'elle# them.N +arkawi an# aTey hae

arg'e# that c'rrently4('rce is use in t!e service '( e(ening ane


32/64

#ase 'n a (aulty e6niti'n '( e&'cracy. n 191$ ale Lniersity 7ro%essor$ 8obert>ahl$ posite# two ery basic attrib'tes o% the system: competition an# participation. he rst state thatgrante# %'ll participation by way o% 'niersal s'Trage an#$ as a conseH'ence$ met >ahlFs reH'irements %ora #emocratic society$ was 'ring the years 1R99-1999, e o%t!e w'rl4s current &'st "'wer(ul Me;presse# in terms o% military potential6 #etermine#'sing H'antitatie troop$ aircra%t$ an# n'clear arms leels5#emocracies K the Lnite# Ctates$ n#ia$ the

Lnite# ,ing#om$


33/64

g' t' war wit! 'ne an't!er $ is si&"ly wr'ng. he Dontin'ance o% 8aison #FtatCince it is possible to proe by care%'l e;amination that #emocratic states lack the so-calle# 4c'lt're o%peace* emanating %rom the trans%ormatie process o% the system$ an# that the #emocratic peacehypothesis is not ali# beyon# that which is e;amine# on the s'r%ace$ the only possible logical concl'sionis that #emocratic states hae engage# in con]ict with each other less %reH'ently than they hae with non-#emocracies simply beca'se #oing so 's'ally r'ns co'nter to the 'ltimate national interest o% s'rial.


34/64

wit! electe g'vern&ents, I &ig!t a en/'ye great "'"ularsu""'rt an w'n a !uge &a/'rity in t!e Y!aki5 electi'n t!at('ll'we. s l'ng as it g'es well an 'esn4t !ave t'' &any c'sts,war can #e 9uite "'"ular, an even i( t!e war is c'stly it &ay still #e"'"ular i( it is ('ug!t ('r nati'nalist reas'ns t!at a""eal t' a&a/'rity '( t!e "u#lic. I( t!e "u#lic is w!i""e int' t!inking t!at

t!ere is an int'lera#le ('reign t!reat 'r i( t!ey #elieve t!at t!eirc'untry can gain s'&et!ing at relatively l'w c'st #y g'ing t' war,t!e ty"e '( g'vern&ent t!ey !ave really is irrelevant. Hnless ae&'cratic "u#lic #elieves t!at a &ilitary c'nVict will g' #aly ('rt!eir &ilitary, t!ey &ay #e reay t' welc'&e t!e 'ut#reak '( a wart!at t!ey e


35/64

H'antitatie e;planation an# contest the #enition o% #emocracy that hasbeen 'se# in the thesis. Cecon#$ this paper will H'estion why #emocraciescan lea# peace. his part will criticize some ca'sal e;planations gien %or thethesis. he na#eH'acy o% the &mpirical >ata T!e ierence #etweene&'cratic "eace t!e'ry an 't!er t!e'ries in internati'nal "'liticslies in t!e attenti'n it "aying t' link wie ranging e&"irical ata

a#'ut war an t' eoyle 199S5. 8'mmel 199N$ cite# in 7eterson 199R5 shows thatthere hae been 19R wars between non #emocracies$ an# 1 between#emocracies ers's non #emocracies b't there were no wars among#emocracies. +abst 7eterson$ 199R:1035$ %o'n# that o% 411S maIors wars%rom 1R9 to 19N1$ with N3R participating co'ntries ...no wars hae been%o'ght between in#epen#ent nations with electie goernment*. "ll o% theseinstances o% wars show that wars happen only in non #emocratic co'ntries or

between #emocracies an# non #emocracies$ b't rarely or neer occ'r among#emocratic co'ntries. h's$ "r'"'nents '( e&'cratic "eace are n't'nly trying t' generali3e t!at wars 'ccur #ecause s'&e c'untries aren't e&'cracies #ut als' t' i&"ress t!e accuracy '( t!e e&'cratic"eace t!esis, t!at t!is t!esis !as #een erive (r'& t!e universalcases.WA'wever, t!'se ata "ur"'se t' su""'rt e&'cratic "eacet!esis !ave #een s!'wn t' #e inae9uate. ayne 199N:S5 says T!estatistical evience t!at e&'cracies ' n't 6g!t eac! 't!er see&si&"ressive #ut in (act, it is inc'nclusive...* " n'mber o% critics s'ggestthat t!e aggregate ata is insu%cient ('r t!e t!e'ry, sincee&'cracy is a relatively new "!e:n'&en'n an interstate wars aregenerally rare 'ccurrences.Layne199N:395 e


36/64

t!an '&estic regi&e ty"e w'rke t' "r'uce "eace #etween e&':cracies. F'r e


37/64

peace beliee that it is %aile# to be categorize# as a #emocracies war bypointing a'tocratic aspect o% mperial erman. En the other han#$ thepossibility always e;ists that a #emocracy will reert to an a'thoritarianstate$ beca'se there is relatie power among liberal #emocracies ershmeir$1990:05. T!ere('re$ it is a "r'#le& in t!e argu&ent '( t!e "r'"'nent'( e&'cratic "eace t!e'ry t' treat t!e c'ntinuity '( e&'cratic

(eatures. oreoer$ t!e restricti'n '( t!e e6niti'n '( war all'ws t!e"'ssi#ility t' eay )ar o% 19S$ ebanon participate# in combat only by sen#ing a%ew aircra%t into srael airspace. h's$ these cases are e;cl'#e# %rom thecriteria o% 1000 battle o% %atalities. oweer$ accor#ing to Cpiro 199N:95#ening war in this way allows #emocratic peace proponents to omit thecase. his is beca'se highly s'bIectie I'#gments by which ariables areco#e# in #ata sets hae signicant an# important eTects on the res'ltsyiel#e# by analysis o% those #ata. In su&, e&'cratic "eace "r'"'nents

are ar#itrary in t!eir is&issal '( cases t!at t!e'ry (ails t' acc'unt('r.WLnclear >enitions o% >emocracy >enition o% concepts in theory sho'l#gie sec're criteria %or what is a#missible or releant. e&'cracy is a keyc'nce"t '( t!e e&'cratic "eace literature, #ut !as n't always #eene6ne clearly. "nalysts hae not generally #iTerentiate# between thei#eas o% rep'blicanism$ liberalism$ an# pop'lism Dhan$ 199:SN5. Cho'l# the#enitions o% #emocracy emphasize or incl'#e mass wel%are$ #istrib'tie

I'stice$ pop'lar soereignty$ personal liberty$ or political participation?heinterpretation o% the #emocracy as gien in the thesis seems too broa# orlimite# an# elements o% the #enition are not relate# with each other. ,antiews rep'blicanism --#ene# as a r'le o% law that is respect%'l o% peopleFsbasic %ree#oms-- as the basis %or interstate peace. >oyle 199S5 regar#s#emocracy as liberalism which is base# on %ree#om o% the in#ii#'al%ree#om o% speech$ social an# economic rights$ #emocratic participation an#representation5 an# %o'r instit'tion I'ri#ical eH'ality o% citizen an# %ree#omo% religion an# the press6 r'le by representatie legislat're6 priate property6an# market economy #rien by s'pply an# #eman#5. )eart )altz$ 199R5re%ers only to the #emocratic rep'blic which he #enes as a state where atleast two-thir#s o% the citizens enIoy %'ll political rights. oyle$ 199S5. oweer$ Cpiro 199N:N5 points o't that many scholars 'se#enitions o% #emocracy that hae little in common with ,antFs ision o% apeace%'l rep'blican goernment. )hile the proponents o% #emocratic peacetheory insist on maIority r'le$ ,ant was rather skeptical$ an# in#ee# wo'l#not hae consi#ere# himsel% a #emocrat i% #emocracy were #ene# as the


38/64

r'le o% pop'lar will Dhan$ 199:SN5. oreoer$ the proponents ten# tooerlook the probability o% rep'blicanism oercoming anarchy 'ntley$199S:N05. n#ee#$ the s'bIectiity o% the #enitions allows a'thors to a#opt#enition o% key ariables so that #ata analysis yiel#s the res'lts they seek. Cimilarly$ t!e c'nce"t '( e&'cracy t!at !as #een use #y"r'"'nents '( e&'cratic "eace is n'r&ative an 'es n't relate t'

its !ist'ry.Eren 199:1N5 arg'es that e&'cratic "eace t!e'ry'verl''ks t!e (act t!at t!ese values !ave c!ange 'ver ti&e.e alsoclaims that the thesis sho'l# 'n#erstan# the meaning o% #emocracy not as#emocracy per se$ b't sho'l# be 'n#erstoo# as a special case o% anarg'ment abo't peace among polities that are similar relatie to somenormatie benchmark. Eren 1995 arg'es that "merican lea#ers haeten#e# to interpret 4#emocracy* to mean co'ntries like the Lnite# Ctates.D'rrent meas'res o% #emocracy ten# to 'se 4obIectie* meas'res that areact'ally in#icators o% whether a co'ntry resembles the Lnite# Ctates or not.n other wor#s$ e&'cracy can #e &erely a t''l ('r t!e H@ t' ienti(y('es an (riens 'n t!e #asis '( regi&e ty"e.Whe oyle$ 199S:105. >oyle 199S5 e;plains that m't'al respect acco'nts %or the%act that 4constit'tionally sec're liberal states hae yet to engage in war withone another*. Ether proponents o% #emocracy$ like Ewen 199N5$ arg'e howliberalism ca'ses #emocratic peace: liberals will tr'st states they consi#erliberal an# mistr'st those they consi#er illiberal. Ethers like 8'ssett 19935arg'es that there are two ways in which #emocracy might acco'nt %or thee;istence o% #emocratic peace. he rst is what he calls thec'lt'ral/normatie mo#el. e arg'es that #ecision makers in #emocracies%ollow a norm o% peace%'l con]ict resol'tion that re]ects #omestice;periences an# al'es. he secon# e;planation %or how #emocracy lea#s toa #emocratic peace is the str'ct'ral/instit'tion mo#el. 8'ssett 19935 arg'esthat those #omestic instit'tional constraints incl'#e checks an# balances inseparation o% powers$ an# the nee# %or p'blic #ebate. "lso$ lea#ers in#emocracies will recognize that other #emocratic lea#ers are similarlyconstraine#. "s a res'lt$ #emocracies will ten# to resole #isp'tes peace%'llyan# hae less %ear o% s'rprise attack. A'wever, any causal e


39/64

&ilitary ca"a#ilities an use t!reats w!en t!eir vital interest were/e'"ari3e.


40/64

structural reas'ns !ave li&ite eamian$ +" in )ar Ct'#ies$ ,ingFs Dollege on#on$ 4Ctrengths an#weaknesses o% the #emocratic peace theory: " critical eal'ation*$ pgs. 3-$B)5

he rst two points %or the #emocratic peace theory rely on its parsimonyan# empirical basis. Lpon closer inspection howeer$ the apparent simplicitybecomes more an# more #eceptie. T!e &a/'r issue '( t!ese as"ects ist!e 9uesti'n '( e6ning e&'cracy anW li#eralis&.1it!'ut auniversally agree e6niti'n '( t!ese c're ter&s t!e t!e'ryweakensW signi6cantly. En the one han# it #ec'&es tangi#le an l'sest!e clarity anW straig!t('rwarness w!ic! are s' a""ealing. En theother han# it l'ses &erit in ter&s '(W crei#ility, as it is i&"'ssi#le t'

ecisively "r've 'r (alsi(y t!e !y"'t!esis wit!'ut "reciselyW e6neset '( ata. Dhristopher ayne goes so %ar as to arg'ing t!at lack '( clear:cutW e6niti'ns is t!e saving grace '( e&'cratic "eace t!e'rists.S N

Aohn . Ewen$ 4ow iberalism 7ro#'ces >emocratic 7eace$* in nternationalCec'rity$ Bol. 19$ Go. 2$ "'t'mn$ 199N$ p. R9 +ill Dlinton$ 4199N Ctate E%

he Lnion "##ress$* he )ashington 7ost iahttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-sr/politics/special/states/#ocs/so'9N.htm$ accesse# on 2Sth Goember2011 S Dhristopher ayne$ 4,ant or Dant: he yth o% the >emocratic7eace$* nternational Cec'rity$ Bol. 19$ Go. 2$ "'t'mn$ 199N$ p. N06 he 'ses

Aames . 8ay$ \)ars +etween >emocracies: 8are$ or Gone;istent?\ innternational nteractions$ Bol. 1R$ Go. 3$ 1993$ p. 21-2S as an e;ample o%

this. +" in )ar Ct'#ies$ ,ingFs Dollege on#on$ >amian Ctr'glioski Ctrengthsan# weaknesses o% the #emocratic peace theory N n't!er &a/'rweakness '( t!is n'ti'n als' ste&s irectly (r'& t!e lack '( uni6eWunerstaning '( li#eralis& an e&'cracy. 1!at e&'cratic "eacet!e'ry (ails t' take int'W acc'unt is !u&an "erce"ti'n. T!e iea t!ate&'cracies ' n't g' t' war wit! eac! 't!er isW #ase ar'un tw'c're e


41/64

ghting other #emocracies as 'nI'st in iew o% liberal i#eals. B't! '( t!e&!'wever rev'lve ar'un t!e rec'gniti'n '( 'neW state as e&'cratic#y t!e 't!er 'ne, an vice versa. )et wit!'ut a universally, 'r atleastW &utually agree e6niti'n '( a e&'cracy it #ec'&es i%cultt' esta#lis! a #enc!&ark ('rW suc! a state. Furt!er&'re, even i( suc!an agree&ent is s'&e!'w ac!ieve, t!ere is n'W guarantee t!at sai

states will necessarily su#/ectively see t!e 't!er as a!ering t''#/ectiveW stanars. s a result, a clear t!e'ry #ec'&es weakenean "r'ne t' inter"retati'n.his problem #eepens when analysing othercirc'mstances as well. amian Ctr'glioski Ctrengths an#weaknesses o% the #emocratic peace theory n't #een a#le t' a'"tt!eir 'wn ieals '( c'nVict res'luti'ns internati'nally.R "s a res'lt$arg'ing that intra-state #ynamics are a part o% the theory becomes more#iJc'lt. Cimilarly$ it can be arg'e# that s'pra-national part o% the theory isalso irreleant$ since in t!e'ryW internati'nal law 'es n't istinguis!#etween e&'cracies an n'n:e&'cracies.W


42/64

Cimilarly$ the I'stication %or the war in "%ghanistan in 2001 an# in raH in2003 proi#e# by eorge ). +'sh an# ony +lair #'ring the later stages o%the con]icts incl'#e# arg'ments o% 4bringing #emocracy to "%ghanistan* an#stating that . ). +'sh 4has got great %aith in #emocracies to promotepeace.* 10 T!is, inW c'inati'n wit! t!e su#/ective inter"retati'n '(w!at is a e&'cracy, can #e use t' valiateW aggressi'n.

e&'cratic Peace T!e'ry is wr'ng $ Launry list '(reas'ns an e&"irics

R'sat', P!. . in P'litical @cience, 0+ Cebastian$ Goember2003$ he "merican 7olitical Ccience 8eiew$ 4he emocratic 7eace heory*$ http://www.Istor.org/stable/39302?seH=1Mpage_scan_tab_contents$ /9/1$ CB5he ca'sal mechanisms that comprise the normatie logic #o not appear to operate as stip'late#. he

aailable ei#ence s'ggests that$ contrary to the claims o% #emocratic peace theorists$ e&'cracies' n't relia#ly eoyle 199$ 25 notes$ \Li#eral wars are 'nly ('ug!t ('r "'"ular, li#eral"ur"'ses.\ T!is 'es n't &ean t!at t!ey will g' t' war less '(tent!an 't!er kins '( states it 'nly &eans t!at t!ere are (ewerreas'ns availa#le t' t!e& ('r waging war. >emocracies are certainly I'stie# inghting wars o% sel%-#e%ense. ocke Y1S90Z 19RR5$ %or e;ample$ arg'es that states, like &en in

t!e state '( nature, !ave a rig!t t' estr'y t!'se w!' vi'late t!eirrig!ts t' li(e, li#erty, an "r'"erty2S9-25. here is consi#erable #isagreement amongliberal theorists regar#ing precisely what kin#s o% action constit'te sel%-#e%ense$ b't re"ulsing aninvasi'n, "ree&"ting an i&"ening &ilitary attack, an 6g!ting int!e (ace '( unreas'na#le e&ans all "lausi#ly (all uner t!is!eaing. )aging war when the other party has not engage# in threatening behaior #oes not. n short$#emocracies sho'l# only go to war when \their sa%ety an# sec'rity are serio'sly en#angere# by the

e;pansionist policies o% o'tlaw states\ 8awls 1999$ 90-915. n't!er /usti6cati'n ('r t!euse '( ('rce is interventi'n in t!e aairs '( 't!er states 'r "e'"les,eit!er t' "revent #latant !u&an rig!ts vi'lati'ns 'r t' #ring a#'utc'niti'ns in w!ic! li#eral values can take r''t.


43/64

evience t!at li#eral e&'cracies !ave '(ten wage war ('r reas'ns't!er t!an sel(:e(ense an t!e inculcati'n '( li#eral values. "ltho'ghthere were only a han#%'l o% liberal #emocracies in the international system #'ring this perio#$ t!eywere inv'lve in ;; '( t!e *0J wars liste in t!e C'rrelates '( 1arDE)5 #ataset o% e;trasystemic wars Cinger an# Cmall 199N5. E% these SS wars$ 33 were \imperial$\%o'ght against preio'sly in#epen#ent peoples$ an# 33 were \colonial$\ wage# against e;isting colonies. t

is har# to I'sti%y the \imperial\ wars in terms o% sel%-#e%ense. Ceeral cases are clear-c't: T!ee&'cracy (ace n' i&&eiate t!reat an c'n9uere si&"ly ('r"r'6t 'r t' e


44/64

restatement$ we sho'l# not be s'rprise# to obsere &'ropean #emocracies ghting non-&'ropeans an# thenormatie logic can there%ore accommo#ate the imperial ei#ence. his alternatie presentation o% thelogic is$ howeer$ a# hoc. " more satis%ying logic$ an# the one p't %orwar# by most #emocratic peace

theorists$ is more comple;: e&'cracies rarely 6g!t eac! 't!er #ecause t!eytrust an res"ect 'ne an't!er, an t!ey are a#le t' ' s' #ecauset!ey kn'w t!at t!eir e&'cratic c'unter"arts will act 'n t!e #asis '(e&'cratic n'r&s, t!at is, t!ey will 'nly 6g!t in sel(:e(ense 'r t'e&'crati3e 't!ers. T!e key t' t!is l'gic is t!at e&'cracies &ustrelia#ly e


45/64

&erican:#acke ictat'rial regi&es. Cecon#$ in each case t!e clas! '(interestsbetween )ashington an# the target goernments was n't "articularlysevere. T!ese s!'ul, t!en, #e easy cases ('r e&'cratic "eacet!e'ry since trust an res"ect are &'st likely t' #e eter&inativew!en t!e is"ute is &in'r. Gone o% the target goernments were comm'nist$ an# altho'ghsome o% them p'rs'e# le%tist policies there was no in#ication that they inten#e# to impose a comm'nist

mo#el or that they were actiely co'rting the Coiet Lnion. n spite o% the limite# scope o% #isagreement$respect %or #emocratic %orms o% goernment was consistently s'bor#inate# to an e;pan#e# conception o%

national sec'rity. hir#$ t!ere is g'' evience t!at su""'rt ('r e&'cracywas '(ten sacri6ce in t!e na&e '( &erican ec'n'&ic interests. "tleast some o% the impet's %or interention in Irancame in response to the nationalization o% t!e 'ilinustry$ the Hnite Fruit C'&"anypresse# %or action in Guate&ala,Internati'nal Tele"!'ne an Telegraph 'rge# s'ccessie a#ministrations to interene inBra3il an C!ile$ an#lleneSs eTorts to nationalize the c'""er inustry%'ele##eman#s that the Gi;on a#ministration #estabilize his goernment. n s'm$ the recor# o% "mericaninterentions in the #eeloping worl# s'ggests that #emocratic tr'st an# respect has o%ten been

s'bor#inate# to sec'rity an# economic interests. e&'cratic "eace t!e'ristsgenerallyagree that these interentions are e;amples o% a #emocracy 'sing %orce against other #emocracies$ b't

they 'er tw' reas'nswhy coert interentions sho'l# not co'nt against the normatie logic.

he rst reason is that t!e targetstates were n't e&'cratic en'ug!to be tr'ste#an# respecte#


46/64

e&'cratic states inv'lve was "re"are t' g' t' war..... In eac! '(t!e ('ur crises, war was av'ie n't #ecause '( t!e Slive an let liveSs"irit '( "eace(ul is"ute res'luti'n at e&'cratic "eace t!e'rySsc're, #ut #ecause '( realist (act'rs\ ayne 199N$ 3R5. Cimilarly$ R'ck 6nslittle evience t!at s!are li#eral values !el"e res'lve any '( t!ecrises #etween Britain an t!e Hnite @tates in t!e nineteent!

century. n a##ition$ his analyses o% the t'rn-o%-the-cent'ry \great rapprochement\ an# naal armscontrol #'ring the 1920s show that een in cases where liberal states resole# potentially #iisie iss'es ina spirit o% accommo#ation$ share# liberal al'es ha# only a limite# eTect. n both cases peace wasoer#etermine# an# \liberal al'es an# #emocratic instit'tions were not the only %actors inclining +ritainan# the Lnite# Ctates towar# peace$ an# perhaps not een the #ominant ones\ 8ock 199$ 1NS5.R n s'm$

the tr'st an# respect mechanism #oes not appear to work as specie#. @!are e&'craticvalues "r'vie n' guarantee t!at states will #'t! trust an res"ect'ne an't!er. nstea#$ an# contrary to the normatie logic[s claims$ when serio's con]icts o% interestarise between #emocracies there is little ei#ence that they will be incline# to accommo#ate each other[s#eman#s or re%rain %rom engaging in har# line policies. 8epaire# Gormatie ogic ien that #emocracies

hae not treate# each other as the normatie logic pre#icts$ e&'cratic "eace t!e'rists!ave trie t' re"air t!e l'gic #y intr'ucing a new causal (act'r7"erce"ti'ns. n the reise# ersion o% the logic$ #emocracies will only tr'st an# respect one anotheri% they consi#er each other to be #emocratic. his a#I'stment can only improe the logic[s e;planatorypower i% we can pre#ict how #emocracies will categorize other states with a high leel o% con#ence an# i%this categorization is relatiely stable. he aailable ei#ence s'ggests$ howeer$ that policymakers[personal belie%s an# party aJliations$ or strategic interest$ o%ten precl'#e coherent$ acc'rate$ an# stableassessments o% regime type$ thereby lessening o'r con#ence that Ioint #emocracy enables #emocracies

to remain at peace. &l'sie Donsens's. T!ere is rarely agree&ent, even a&'ngwell:in('r&e "'licy&akers, a#'ut t!e e&'cratic status '( a ('reign"'weran# we are$ there%ore$ 'nlikely to be able to pre#ict how #emocracies will classi%y other states[regime type with a high leel o% con#ence.9 Owen M*Q !as e


47/64

always reVect t!e actual e&'cratic attri#utes '( t!'se states. OrenM*D c'nucts an in e"t! stuy '( t!e Hnite @tatesS c!angingrelati'ns!i" wit! I&"erial Ger&any "ri'r t' 1'rl 1ar I an 6nst!at &erican '"ini'n leaers st'""e e6ning Ger&any as ae&'cracy as t!e tw' c'untriesS strategic relati'ns!i" #egan t'eteri'rate. T!is '#servati'n leas !i& t' c'nclue t!at e&'cracy

is n't a eter&inant as &uc! as it is a "r'uct '( &ericaSs ('reignrelati'ns7 T!e reas'n we ' n't t' 6g!t S'ur kinS is n't t!atSlikenessS !as a great eect 'n war "r'"ensity, #ut rat!er t!at we(r'& ti&e t' ti&e su#tly ree6ne 'ur kin t' kee" 'ur sel( i&agec'nsistent wit! 'ur (riensS attri#utes an inc'nsistent wit! t!'se '('ur aversaries\ Eren 199$ 1N5. n other wor#s$ contrary to the e;pectations o% the normatielogic$ perception o% regime type is an o'tcome rather than a ca'sal %actor. iberal states appear especiallyprone to this practice o% reinterpreting who sho'l# be tr'ste# an# respecte#. n the nineteenth cent'ry$non-&'ropean peoples co'l# be p't 'n#er a'tocratic imperial r'le %or their own goo#. n the earlytwentieth cent'ry$ as Eren has note#$ the bar was raise# higher an# mperial ermany was I'#ge# worthyo% neither tr'st nor respect. +y the en# o% the cent'ry$ een liberal #emocratic Aapan co'l# not co'nt on'nH'estioning "merican %rien#ship. n each case$ prestige$ sec'rity concerns$ or economic interestsshape# perceptions o% regime type.10 hese e;amples raise serio's problems %or any ca'sal logic base#on perceptions. >iscerning whether perceptions matter ineitably becomes a H'estion o% si%ting thro'gh

the statements o% policymakers an# opinion lea#ers #'ring a crisis or war. "t the same time$ p'blic g'reswill try to #isting'ish their own state %rom the enemy in these sit'ations$ both %or their own cognitieconsistency an# to rally the p'blic. Cince people in the mo#ern worl# generally i#enti%y themseles asmembers o% a nation state$ these #istinctions will ten# to %oc's on political str'ct'res. Ccholars willthere%ore always be able to n# \ei#ence\ that the other state was not perceie# to be s'Jciently\#emocratic\ as lea#ers go abo't #emonizing the enemy. am not arg'ing that this represents amisrea#ing o% the ei#enceperceptions o% another state are bo'n# to change in crisis sit'ations- am onlys'ggesting that these perceptions are ca'se# by %actors other than the obIectie nat're o% %oreignregimes. n s'm$ proponents o% the normatie logic hae #one little to strengthen their case by intro#'cingperceptions as an in#epen#ent ariable. E%ten states #o not hae a 'nie# perception o% the liberalattrib'tes o% a %oreign power an# it is there%ore #iJc'lt to arg'e that perceptions o% regime type aTect

policy. -'re'ver, t!ese "erce"ti'ns &ay c!ange ine"enently '( t!e'#/ective nature '( t!e 't!er regi&e, suggesting t!at it is entirely"'ssi#le ('r li#eral states t' 6g!t 'ne an't!er.


48/64

e;pect to be p'nishe# seerely in the 'nlikely eent that he is in %act remoe#. here%ore$

eter&ining w!et!er aut'crats 'r e&'crats are &'re acc'unta#lean, c'nse9uently, &'re cauti'us a#'ut g'ing t' war rests 'nanswering t!ree 9uesti'ns7 re l'sing e&'crats 'r l'sing aut'crats&'re likely t' #e re&'ve (r'& "'wer re l'sing e&'crats 'rl'sing aut'crats &'re likely t' #e "unis!e severely an re

e&'crats 'r aut'crats &'re likely t' #e re&'ve an'r "unis!e('r inv'lve&ent in c'stly wars, regarless '( t!e 'utc'&e? o answer theseH'estions hae 'se# a mo#ie# ersion o% oemans[s 2000b5 #ataset. E'r analyses #iTer in one%'n#amental respect: )hile he co'nts the remoal o% lea#ers by %oreign powers as e;amples o%p'nishment$ #o not. his #ecision is theoretically in%orme#. he p'rpose o% the analysis is to #eterminewhether lea#ers[ #ecisions %or war are aTecte# by their #omestic acco'ntability$ that is$ i% there issomething abo't the #omestic str'ct're o% states that aTects their chances o% being p'nishe#. 7'nishmentby %oreign powers oTers no ei#ence %or or against the claim that #emocrats or #ictators hae a higher orlower e;pectation o% being p'nishe# by their citizens %or 'npop'lar policies$ an# these cases are there%oree;cl'#e#. hae also ma#e two minor changes to the #ata that #o not aTect the res'lts: hae a##e# 19wars that appear in the DE) #ataset b't not in oemans[s #ataset an# co#e# 11 regimes that oemanse;cl'#es.12 he res'lts appear in able N. "ltho'gh #emocratic losers are two times more likely to beremoe# %rom power than a'tocratic losers$ this ei#ence is not strong. his is beca'se there are only %o'rcases o% #emocratic losers in the entire #ataset$ making it impossible to #raw any rm concl'sions abo'tthe likelihoo# that losing #emocrats will be remoe#. 7rime inister enzies o% "'stralia$ %or e;ample$resigne# early in the Bietnam )ar$ b't his resignation may hae ha# more to #o with the %act that he was

in his seenties than the e;pectation o% #e%eat in Co'th &ast "sia a #eca#e later. % this case is reco#e#$ asit probably sho'l# be$ #emocratic losers hae only been remoe# %rom power 0f o% the time an# the#istinction between #emocrats an# a'tocrats is small. osing a'tocrats are more likely to s'Ter seerep'nishment than their #emocratic co'nterparts. Gone o% the %o'r losing #emocrats was p'nishe#$ whereas

29f o% a'tocratic losers were imprisone#$ e;ile#$ or kille#. h's, w!ile e&'cratic anaut'cratic l'sers !ave si&ilar c!ances '( #eing re&'ve (r'& '%ce,aut'crats see& t' #e &'re likely t' suer severe "unis!&ent inaiti'n t' re&'val. T!e evience (r'& c'stly wars, regarless '(w!et!er t!e leaer was 'n t!e winning 'r l'sing sie, c'n6r&s t!ese6nings. Dostly wars are #ene# as wars in which a state s'Tere# one battle %atality per 2$000pop'lation$ as the Lnite# Ctates #i# in )orl# )ar .13 Aist'rically, aut'crats !ave #een&'re likely #'t! t' l'se '%ce an t' #e "unis!e severely i( t!ey#ec'&e inv'lve in a c'stly war. ut'crats !ave #een re&'ve +D^

'( t!e ti&e an "unis!e 2Q^ '( t!e ti&e, w!ile e&'crats !ave'nly #een re&'ve 2Q^ '( t!e ti&e an "unis!e Q^ '( t!e ti&e.*In s!'rt, t!ere is little evience t!at e&'cratic leaers (ace greatere


49/64

they hae been inole# Cinger an# Cmall 199N5. oreoer$ mo#ern #emocracies hae ten#e# to hae

pro%essional stan#ing armies. embers o% t!e &ilitary$ then$ Ioin the arme# %orces ol'ntarily$acce"ting t!at t!ey &ay iein the serice o% their co'ntries. his in t'rn means thatt!eir (a&ilies an (riens$ that is$ those who are most likely to s'Ter the costs o% war$ areunlikely t' s"eak 'utagainst a goernment that chooses to go to war or are at least less likelyto #o so than are the %amilies an# %rien#s o% conscripts. n short$ the general p'blic has little at stake inmost wars an# those most likely to s'Ter the costs o% war hae %ew incenties to organize #issent. Cecon#$

any "u#lic aversi'n t' incurring t!e c'sts '( war &ay #e'verw!el&e #y t!e eects '( nati'nalis&. n a##ition to the growth o% #emocracy$one o% the most striking %eat'res o% the mo#ern perio# is that "e'"le !ave c'&e t' ienti(yt!e&selves$ aboe all$ wit! t!e nati'n state. his i#entication has been so power%'l thator#inary citi3ens !ave re"eately e&'nstrate a willingness t' 6g!tan ie%or the contin'e# e;istence o% their state an# the sec'rity o% their co-nationals. here are$then$ goo# reasons to beliee that i% the national interest is tho'ght to be at stake$ as it is in mostinterstate con]icts$ calc'lations o% costs will not g're prominently in the p'blic[s #ecision process. hir#$

e&'cratic leaers are as likely t' lea as t' ('ll'w "u#lic '"ini'n.Cince nati'nalis& iues "e'"le wit! a "'wer(ul s"irit '( sel(:sacri6ce$it is actiely c'ltiate# by "'litical elites in t!e kn'wlege t!at 'nly !ig!ly&'tivate ar&ies an "r'uctive s'cieties will "revail in &'ern

war(aree.g.$ 7osen 19935. >emocratically electe# lea#ers are likely to be well place# to c'ltiatenationalism$ especially beca'se their goernments are o%ten perceie# as more representatie an#legitimate than a'thoritarian regimes. "ny call to #e%en# or sprea# \o'r way o% li%e$\ %or e;ample$ is likelyto hae a strong resonance in #emocratic polities$ an# in#ee# the historical recor# s'ggests that wars haeo%ten gien #emocratic lea#ers consi#erable %ree#om o% action$ allowing them to #r'm 'p nationalistic%eror$ shape p'blic opinion$ an# s'ppress #issent #espite the obligation to allow %ree an# open #isc'ssion.


50/64

e&'cracy FailsEven "er(ect e&'cracies always (ail $ &ulti"le warrants

t!ey 'n4t s'lve ('r, incluing !u&an stu"iity,

!u&an nature, an irrati'nalis& $ !e cites &ulti"le9uali6e aut!'rs an e&"irics, Greece an Italy"r've

C'!en *2>ae$ .". in theoretical ling'istics an# was working on a 7h.>. be%oreleaing he Lniersity o% e;as at "'stin in 19R$ 3.R.12$ >ecline o% the&mpire$ 4>emocracies "lways


51/64

"arty allegiance an v'ting !ave #ec'&e "ri&arily e&'ti'nal"r'cesses. "n# o% co'rse %or can#i#ates or those working #irectly %or thepolitical parties or those b'ying their allegiance$ there[s a pot o% gol# at theen# o% the rainbow. T!e issues are uni&"'rtant, #eing &erelye&'ti'nal t'uc!st'nes ('r unin('r&e v'ters. T!ereSs !arlyanyt!ing rati'nal a#'ut it ('r &'st '( t!ese u"es. T!e avent '(

-ass -eia in t!e 20t! century c!ange t!e ga&e in a "r'('unway. E&'ti'nal &essages can n'w #e isse&inate (ar an wie in+0:sec'n 'r ;0:sec'n s"'ts 'n TZ 'r rai'. Certainly it is n't"'ssi#le t' intelligently aress a real issue Me.g. ta< "'licy 'rg'vern&ent e6cits in suc! a s!'rt "eri' '( ti&e. @'un#ites, n'trati'nal t!inking, g'vern t!e electi'n "r'cess (r'& #eginning t'en.Wh's the scientists H'ote# aboe hae committe# the %allacy calle#the mp'tation o% 8ationality in my post 'mans "re Got 8ational 7roblemColers. % \lack o% e;pertise\ incompetence5 was the real problem$ we mightconcl'#e that e&'cracies always (ail #ecause v'ters can n'tistinguis! #etween g'' ieas an #a ieas. T!e &'stinc'&"etent a&'ng us serve as canaries in t!e c'al &ine signi(ying

a larger 9uanary in t!e c'nce"t '( e&'cracy truly ign'rant "e'"le&ay #e t!e w'rst /uges '( caniates an ieas, unning sai, #utwe all suer (r'& a egree '( #linness ste&&ing (r'& 'ur 'wn"ers'nal lack '( e


52/64

/ust ask a Greek 'r an Italian. Ne


53/64

to#ay than they were a year ago$ are har#ly g'arantee# to replace theira'tocrats with real #emocracies.5 n its most recent ann'al s'rey$ themonitoring gro'p emocracy$ t!at it n' l'nger see&s "lausi#le t' regar =t!isc'niti'n> si&"ly as a te&"'rary stage in t!e "r'cess '( e&'cratictransiti'n.5Er as an actiist %rom +'rmalong one o% the worl#Fs mostrepressie co'ntriestol# me a%ter moing to hailan# an# watching thatco'ntryFs #emocratic system #isintegrate$ 4he other co'ntries weres'ppose# to change +'rma. ... Gow it seems like they are becoming like+'rma.* Twenty 'r even ten years ag', t!e "'ssi#ility '( a gl'#ale&'cratic recessi'n see&e i&"'ssi#le. It was wiely assu&et!at, as states grew wealt!ier, t!ey w'ul evel'" larger &ileclasses. n t!ese &ile classes, acc'ring t' e&'cracy t!e'ristslike @a&uel Auntingt'n, w'ul "us! ('r ever:greater s'cial, "'litical,an ec'n'&ic (ree'&s. Au&an "r'gress, w!ic! c'nstantly &arc!e('rwar, w'ul s"rea e&'cracy everyw!ere.W F'r a ti&e, t!is r'syline '( t!inking see&e warrante. n 1990$ #ictators still r'le# most o%"%rica$ &astern &'rope$ an# "sia6 by 200$ #emocracies ha# emerge# acrossthese continents$ an# some o% the most power%'l #eeloping nations$incl'#ing Co'th "%rica an# +razil$ ha# become soli# #emocracies. In 200D,('r t!e 6rst ti&e in !ist'ry, &'re t!an !al( t!e w'rl4s "e'"le liveuner e&'cratic syste&s.WT!en, s'&et!ing ' an une


54/64

t!e&selves see&e t' ac9uiesce in t!eir c'untries4 slie away (r'&(ree an '"en g'vern&ent. n one st'#y by the 7rogram on nternational7olicy "ttit'#es$ 'nly *; "ercent '( Russians sai it was veryi&"'rtant5 t!at t!eir nati'n #e g'verne e&'cratically. he reg'lar"%robarometer survey '( t!e (rican c'ntinent !as ('un eclininglevels '( su""'rt ('r e&'cracy in &any key c'untries. n in

Guate&ala, Paraguay, C'l'ia, Peru, A'nuras, an Nicaragua,eit!er a &in'rity 'r 'nly a s&all &a/'rity '( "e'"le t!ink e&'cracyis "re(era#le t' any 't!er ty"e '( g'vern&ent. Even in East sia, 'ne'( t!e &'st e&'cratic regi'ns '( t!e w'rl, "'lls s!'w risingissatis(acti'n wit! e&'cracy. n %act$ several c'untriesin the regionhae #eelope# what '-tz'ng Dhang$ 'nhan `h'$ an# Dhong-min 7ark$ whost'#ie# #ata %rom the reg'lar "sian +arometer s'reys$ !ave ter&eaut!'ritarian n'stalgia.* 4Few '( t!e regi'n4s ('r&er aut!'ritarianregi&es !ave #een t!'r'ug!ly iscreite$* they write$ noting that t!eregi'n4s average sc're ('r c'&&it&ent t' e&'cracy,I'#ge# by arange o% responses to s'reys$ !as recently (allen. But w!at a#'ut t!e&ile class? &en i% large segments o% the pop'lation were 'nintereste# in

liberal #emocracy$ werenFt members o% the mi##le class s'ppose# to act asagents o% #emocratization$ as 'ntington ha# enisione#? "ct'ally$ the storyhas t'rne# o't to be H'ite a bit more complicate#. n co'ntry a%ter co'ntry$ a%amiliar pattern has repeate# itsel%: he mi##le class has in#ee# reacte#negatiely to pop'list lea#ers who appeare# to be sli#ing intoa'thoritarianism6 b't rather than work to #e%eat these lea#ers at the ballotbo; or strengthen the instit'tions that co'l# hol# them in check$ t!ey !aveene u" su""'rtingmilitary co'ps or other une&'cratic &easures.T!ailan 'ers a clear e


55/64


56/64

4+'t to see it %rom n#ia$ it was so m'ch more #isappointing.* ike yo$&any 1estern '%cials !a ealai ama$ met with +'sh in 200R b't %o'n#hersel% sh'nte# oT to low-leel Ctate >epartment oJcials by the Ebamaa#ministration. ore s'bstantiely$ t!e a&inistrati'n !as s!i(te t!e('cuso% the %e#eral b'rea'cracy. ho'gh it has maintaine# signicantb'#get leels %or #emocracy promotion$ it eli&inate !ig!:level "'siti'ns'n t!e Nati'nal @ecurity C'uncil t!at$ 'n#er +'sh$ !a #een ev'tet' e&'cracy. he a#ministration also appointe# an assistant secretary %or#emocracy$ h'man rights$ an# labor who in his preio's work ha# been


57/64

mostly %oc'se# on cleaning 'p "mericaFs own ab'ses. his was not a ba#thingthe +'sh a#ministration in#ee# le%t maIor iss'es to resoleb't itmeant that he ha# %ar less e;perience than many o% his pre#ecessors with#emocracy promotion abroa#.o be %air, t!e 1!ite A'use !as t' gra""lewit! an increasingly is'lati'nist &erican "u#lic. In 'ne "'ll taken in200D, a &a/'rity '( &ericans sai t!at t!e Hnite @tates s!'ul

"lay a r'le in "r'&'ting e&'cracy elsew!ere. By 200Q, 'nly +Q"ercent t!'ug!t t!e Hnite @tates s!'ul "lay t!is r'le. In asu#se9uent stuy, release in late 200, nearly !al( '( &ericanst'l t!e Pew Researc! "'lling 'rgani3ati'n t!at t!e Hnite @tatess!'ul &in its 'wn #usiness5 internati'nally an s!'ul let 't!ernati'ns w'rk 'ut t!eir c!allenges 'r "r'#le&s t!e&selves. T!is wast!e !ig!est "ercentage '( is'lati'nist senti&ent rec're in a "'ll '(t!e &erican "u#lic in ('ur ecaes.W T!ere is an '#vi'us a""eal t't!e c'nstantly t'ute n'ti'n t!at t!e &arc! '( !u&an (ree'& isinevita#le. Butnot only is it simple-min#e# to treat history as a story with apreor#aine# happy en#ing6 it is als', ('r t!'se w!' truly want t' seee&'cracy s"rea, eeelopment$ 4)hy >emocracies


58/64

Zene3uela an Euar' C'rrea in Ecua'r.Whir#$ e&'cratic statest!at are et!nically (rag&ente (ace severe c!allenges '( instituti'n#uiling t!ey &ay #e una#le t' 'verc'&e. @uc! s'cieties are '(tenc!aracteri3e #y insier5:'utsier5 tensi'ns t!at are n't easilyres'lve. s t!e insiers5Xt!e et!nically '&inant gr'u"Xcentrali3e "'litical "'wer, t!e 'utsiers5 &ay 6n t!ey !ave n'

alternative #ut t' try an 'vert!r'w t!e regi&e.W


59/64

Pr'tests 'n4t -atterPr'tests aren4t as eective t'ay as t!ey were years ag'.Pa3ien3a$ "'thor$ 20*+Dhez$ ai#Dross #oes an entire bit abo't it. +'t no matter how o%ten itFs repeate#$ thereare still those o't there on the le%t who lie in their own little epistemicb'bble an# #onFt seem to get something: t!e ;0s are 'ver an c'ntinuingt' "r'test like it4s *;Q will get y'u a#s'lutely n'w!ere in t!e year20*+. )es, it4ll gra# y'u a little attenti'n, #ut ulti&ately n't t!e kiny'u want. It4s an ineective &'el '( activis& in t!e new &illenniu&an# the pre#isposition to %all back on it nee#s to be shele# once an# %or all.

ester#ay$ in a scene as pre#ictable as it was pointless$ members o% Do#e7ink crashe# the conrmation hearing o% D" chie% nominee Aohn +rennan.

hey stoo# 'p with their posters emblazone# with pithy cracks like 4>onFt>rone e$ +ro^* wae# han#s that theyF# painte# pink$ an# sho'te# at thetop o% their l'ngs abo't how +rennan was a m'r#erer an# how they stoo# %ormothers whoF# lost loe# ones oerseas in "mericaFs #rone campaign against"l Wae#a. Ene o% them een bran#ishe# some kin# o% p'ppet or #oll that g'ess was s'ppose# to be a baby. hey #i# this oer an# oer again 'ntil>iane


60/64


61/64

i#eas %rom #eelope# to less #eelope# co'ntries$ proi#es the greatestmechanism %or economic betterment in the thir#-worl#. )hile there are'n#eniably losers %rom %ree tra#e$ these are primarily in the less #eelope#worl# an# waning in#'stries. Eerall$ %ree tra#e makes all co'ntries better oTan# specically improes the lies o% workers in the less-#eelope# worl#. Cecon#$ by proi#ing loans to the less-#eelope# worl#$ the < is at least

trying to gie them a leg-'p an# a chance to better themseles. 7rotestersmight hae a ali# arg'ment that these non-goernmental organizations an#the )estern worl# sho'l# %orgie part or all o% the thir#-worl# #ebts$ it is alsoan imperatie that the )estern worl# e;cersice control oer %'t're loans an#grants to ens're that these monies #o not go solely %or the p'rpose o% liningthe pockets o% #ictators.

@urveillance 'esn4t !urt "u#lic trust: 'nly *Q "ercent '(&ericans say t!ey4re very c'ncerne a#'utg'vern&ent surveillance.

8ainie$ arar# ra#'ate an# has a masterFs #egree in political science %romong slan# Lniersity$ 201 ee$ arch 1S$ 201$ "mericansF Biews onoernment C'reillance programs$http://www.pewinternet.org/201/03/1S/americans-iews-on-goernment-s'reillance-programs/$ A'ly 9$ 201$ 8)5n this s'rey$ *Q^ '( &ericans sai t!ey are very c'ncerne5 a#'utg'vern&ent surveillance '( &ericans4 ata an electr'nicc'&&unicati'n3f say they are 4somewhat concerne#*6 33f say theyare 4not ery concerne#* an# 13f say they are 4not at all* concerne# abo'tthe s'reillance. hose who are more likely than others to say they are eryconcerne# incl'#e those who say they hae hear# a lot abo't the s'reillanceeTorts 3Nf e;press strong concern5 an# men 21f are ery concerne#5.

1!en aske a#'ut &'re s"eci6c "'ints '( c'ncern 'ver t!eir 'wnc'&&unicati'ns an 'nline activities, res"'nents e


62/64

T7 CON@TITHTIONLI@-C'unterintelligence '"erati'ns are c'nstituti'nal.Brenner, F'r&er Aea '( H.@. CI, 0Q Aoel


63/64

H"ate


64/64

gdi 15 - cointelpro neg 2.0

Documents