Wretchard — if Bobbit cannot state his ideas simply and understandably, then they are not ideas, but rather trendy observations. Bobbit to me sounds like an updated version of Faith Popcorn, and that is not a flattering statement. Or if you prefer, Thomas Friedman.
Extrapolating current trends into broad generalities.
Anyone reading through Wright’s “Looming Tower” can see how AQ builds on first and foremost, the long history of Islamic entities that were NOT part of the modern nation state. The Caliphate, historically, was NEVER part of any nation state, something Kemal Ataturk knew well, and thus abolished it so that his idea of Turkey as a nation state could live (for a while, the Islamists in Turkey now are bent on extinguishing that nation-state and resurrecting the Caliphate).
If anything, Bobbit has the constant flaw of Westerners in assuming that for non-Westerners, history began in 1945, or 1968. Indeed if you look at the writings of Islamists, their complaints date back to Ferdinand and Isabella. AQ is not a “precursor” or anything of that nature to the fantasy of the “market state” but rather a return to the only model that has ever worked for Islamic peoples — the Caliphate and Conquest. Of non-Muslims.
Moreover, the idea that the Market State would embrace opportunity rather than Welfarism is laughable and reason enough to reject his theories outright — if he gets THAT wrong, which is easily provable — he’s obviously not able to construct a model even conversant with current political and demographic reality.
EVERY Western state has moved towards greater and greater provision of Welfare. Europe has totally ceased spending on military or any other spending other than welfare spending, and that trend shows up in the US, which being wealthier can still afford a military (somewhat). But even in the US, the “progressive” forces and particularly the social and economic elites want to cease as much military spending as they can, and spend it instead on social welfare.
Bobbit fails to grasp two essential facts about Western Nations (which includes Japan and China): they are getting older, much older, and their elites hate risk.
Older people hate risk. Risk brings them little upside and much downside. Older people crave security. Physical security first and foremost, then financial security. Then ending change. Risk is a young man’s game, not an old man’s game. Older populations demand their government manage and reduce risk above all, which leads to greater and greater welfare states. Along with fewer young men to be soldiers, sailors, airmen, and the like. The greater likelihood of simply bribing enemies to leave one alone.
Next, the elites, particularly in the West, but even in China, are one-time “lucky” participants who have no appetite for any more risk. The early micro-chip, personal computer, and Dot-com billionaires might all have gotten lucky once, but you don’t see Steve Jobs, or Larry Ellison, or Jerry Yang, wanting government to create new “opportunities” instead they lobby to preserve their gains, and engage in social climbing like in a Henry James novel. Even in China, the billionaires know that there will be no more great opening of opportunities, that their way forward DEPENDS on closing down risk, so they don’t lose a great part of their wealth. Moreover, they are unwilling to share their social/political dominance. This is true of the Refrigerator Manufacturing tycoon in Shanghai, and the Screen Saver billionaire in Berkeley.
Nancy Pelosi represents Dot-Com and Silicon Valley billionaires. Do you honestly think she wants to allow her constituent billionaires to lose part of their wealth just so some other group can get rich? Or even modestly wealthy?
Please, let’s return to the realm of believable human behavior.
It is quite true that the Pelosi types seek to free-ride on the Nation-State, dismissing it when convenient, seeking it’s protection when their wealth/security is threatened. Ultimately, however, their elite status is tied to their wealth, which absent new opportunities will start to slowly erode, and pass into foundations and/or children without the ability to hold the wealth and muster political influence. Meanwhile, technology allows the AQ dream of the Caliphate to look more and more realistic, given that a single man can potentially kill millions with anthrax or something along those lines.
