State of the State

The New York Times certainly didn't do Toni Negri and Michael Hardt's new book Multitude a favor by having Francis Fukuyama review it yesterday. How fair and balanced is that?

Still, I have to admit that I actually agreed with that smartest of neo-neocons on his concluding point:

They argue that instead of ''repeating old rituals and tired solutions'' we need to begin ''a new investigation in order to formulate a new science of society and politics.'' The woolliness of the subsequent analysis is hard to overstate. According to them, the fundamental obstacle to true democracy is not just the monopoly of legitimate force held by nation-states, but the dominance implied in virtually all hierarchies, which give certain individuals authority over others. The authors dress up Marx's old utopia of the withering away of the state in the contemporary language of chaos theory and biological systems, suggesting that hierarchies should be replaced with networks that reflect the diversity and commonality of the ''multitude.''

The difficulty with this line of reasoning is that there is a whole class of issues networks can't resolve. This is why hierarchies, from nation-states to corporations to university departments, persist, and why so many left-wing movements claiming to speak on behalf of the people have ended up monopolizing power. Indeed, the powerlessness and poverty in today's world are due not to the excessive power of nation-states, but to their weakness. The solution is not to undermine sovereignty but to build stronger states in the developing world.

To illustrate, take the very different growth trajectories of East Asia and sub-Saharan Africa over the past generation. Two of the fastest growing economies in the world today happen to be in the two most populous countries, China and India; sub-Saharan Africa, by contrast, has tragically seen declining per capita incomes over the same period. At least part of this difference is the result of globalization: China and India have integrated themselves into the global economy, while sub-Saharan Africa is the one part of the world barely touched by globalization or multinational corporations.

But this raises the question of why India and China have been able to take advantage of globalization, while Africa has not. The answer has largely to do with the fact that the former have strong, well-developed state institutions providing basic stability and public goods. They had only to get out of the way of private markets to trigger growth. By contrast, modern states were virtually unknown in most of sub-Saharan Africa before European colonialism, and the weakness of states in the region has been the source of its woes ever since.

Any project, then, to fix the ills of ''empire'' has to begin with the strengthening, not the dismantling, of institutions at the nation-state level. This will not solve the problems of global governance, but surely any real advance here will come only through slow, patient innovation and the reform of international institutions. Hardt and Negri should remember the old insight of the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci, taken up later by the German Greens: progress is to be achieved not with utopian dreaming, but with a ''long march through institutions.''

Although I was delighted to see Hardt and Negri's previous collaboration Empire become a near-bestseller in the wake of the massive anti-globalization protests inaugurated by the "Battle of Seattle" in 1999, I have to admit that I found large portions of that book to be as "woolly" as one of those baroque sweaters made on an island in the Irish Sea. While I will surely end up reading Multitude as well, I suspect that, though I may be periodically carried away by bouts of leftist rapture, I will reach a conclusion similar to Fukuyama's, if one more charitably framed.

Yes, I fervently believe that, "there is a whole class of issues networks can't resolve."

But recognizing that we aren't ready to do away with the nation state doesn't mean we have to accede to the neo-conservative fantasy of a state without welfare. Here's what the Left Business Observer's Doug Henwood -- one of my heroes, who was being a good skeptic back in the initial dot.com bloom -- said when I asked him about the state of the post-9/11 state for Joel Schalit's Anti-Capitalism Reader:

We're back to the model of primitive accumulation, in which the state does nothing but criminalize poverty and vagrancy, and privative property. Over the last twenty years, all of the more benign roles of the state have been cut back, but its more punitive roles have been increased. And that sucks! As a leftist, I'm looking for anything that's going to reduce the power of competition on people's lives. Welfare states do that. They take the sting out of unemployment and reduce the power of the boss. By contrast, punitive states increase the power of the boss. You're more likely to go to jail, more likely to be surveyed. So I'm all for jacking up the better functions of the state. And if you're talking about the poorer places of the world, they clearly need a state that's going to foster some planning and development scheme. A poor country can't get any less poor without an honest and competent government doing serious work for it.

I can't think of a better statement to kick off the Democratic Convention.

Now I Call That a Whipping!

People tend to be real fond of Senator John McCain here in Arizona. For my own part, I prefer him to most other Republicans, though that isn't saying much since I have never voted for a Republican and in all likelihood -- barring the emergence of a party to the right of the Republicans -- never will. It pains me, though, to watch the President's machine reel the otherwise recalcitrant McCain in, inch by agonizing inch:

Dear Charlie,

Today we face the greatest test of our generation, defending our nation from a depraved, malevolent force that opposes our every interest and hates every value we hold dear.  There was no avoiding this war but we will survive.  Our enemies must not.

In this challenging time, I am grateful for the leadership of President George W. Bush and his steadfast resolve in defending our nation.  He has led this country with moral clarity about the stakes involved and the strength to achieve unconditional victory.

Our President has not wavered in his determination to make this world a better, safer, freer place.  Our nation must not yield in this long, tough fight to vanquish international terrorism and with George W. Bush as our President, it will not.

My friends, this is the most important election of our lifetime and I wouldn't be writing you if I didn't firmly believe in President Bush's leadership and the need for his re-election in these challenging times. As Democrats gather in Boston, I am asking you to demonstrate your strong support for President Bush by making a contribution to his re-election campaign at www.GeorgeWBush.com/JohnMcCain/ today.

To the work of many American generations who protected our interests and championed our values abroad must now be added the defense of our freedoms here at home from a clear and present danger.  We are very fortunate that in these challenging days we have a President and Vice President that have demonstrated time and again the determined, clear thinking necessary to prevail in this global fight between good and evil.

With your continued support and hard work, I am certain that the President's campaign will prevail this November.

www.GeorgeWBush.com/JohnMcCain/
 
Thank you for your belief in our nation and your strong support of President George W. Bush.

Sincerely,

John McCain
U.S. Senator

P.S.  As the Democrats continue their attacks on our President, make sure you show your support for President Bush by making a contribution of $1,000, $500, $250, $100, or even $50 at www.GeorgeWBush.com/JohnMcCain/ today.

Karl Rove and his cronies must have paid very close attention to all those gangster movies, because they're doing it old style.

That's alright, though, because Gore, Carter, and Clinton really nailed their speeches tonight. I was particularly taken with Carter's. David Brooks, the "objective" counter-voice on the PBS coverage -- he's so smarmy -- complained that Carter had decided to cast off the mantle of post-political nonage to reassert his partisanship. But if you actually listened to Carter's speech, you could make a strong case that he was advocating that Americans elect Kerry precisely because he dreams of a better day when partisanship won't drive every square inch of policy-making. You go, Jimmy!