On Mon Jul 03 2000, Brad DeLong wrote
> If my precis is not what you meant to say
If I may be allowed to intervene in the interests of civility, I believe Tim's strong claim is that US actions in Japan post-47 made the country less democratic then it was at that time trending to be. His second claim is that this was not necessary to the the economic growth that ensued -- we acted differently in Germany, for example, and they boomed just fine.
Do you disagree Brad?
Tim's third claim is that this was true throughout Southeast Asia -- that throughout the region countries ended up with much more repressive governments than they were trending toward when we intervened, and that intervening to make them more repressive was not necessary to the economic growth that ensured. It was convenient to our anti-communist strategy, however, to which democracy was were sacrificed, in some places more than others, but overall, quite an awful lot.
I believe -- and please stop me if I am overreaching -- that your (Brad's) counterclaim is that the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Indonesian anti-communist reaction, etc. were all necessary to keep the region from even more repressive governments. And that thus the sum total of governmental corruption and repressiveness that was fostered by the cold war was less than it would have been without the cold war.
True?
Lastly, you, Brad, seem to think that the democracy we find in South Korea today should be credited to the American account for coming eventually, rather than debited, for arriving 40 years late. And where Tim thinks Kim Il Sung's government might have developed differently had there not been a Korean War, you think it was predetermined to be dreadful by both his character and his alliances, and that as bad as South Korea might have been in its worst days, North Korea was always worse, not only in the 90s.
Is that a fair summary?
I think I express the sentiments of the majority of LOBsters when I say that I wish the two of you would mutually promise never to call each other racists or stalinists again, and would both make the heroic effort to overlook the times when you have succumbed to temptation in the past. We all know it isn't true; even the two of you know it isn't true. It just makes you both mad, which neither of you seem to enjoy. You both strongly disagree, and feel this to be as much a moral as an intellectual argument. All the more reason to take each other seriously and not stoop to insult.
Michael
__________________________________________________________________________ Michael Pollak................New York City..............mpollak at panix.com