Centerfield

Is a world leader who exercises world leadership acting unilaterally? How is a world leader defined? By what legitimacy does this world leader exercise leadership? Legitimate world leadership would necessarily be based on global consent, and therefore multilateral institutions.

The effort "to bring others along" does not sufficiently meet the requirement of consent. What is authority that is not based on consent? It is illegitimate. So, by definition, legitimate world leadership is not unilateral.

Consensus--general or widespread agreement among all the members of a group.

Leadership--the ability to guide, direct, or influence people.

Legitimate--well-reasoned and sincere.

"A lack of consensus is no excuse for a lack of leadership."--Margaret Thatcher

Something to think about anyway.

A leader who does not rule by the consent of those being lead is a tyrant. That is something to think about as well.

I thought I would use this comments sections to continue a non-debate with you.
Let me repeat my very SIMPLE point: freedom is meaningless without the economic wherewithal to exercise it. Is that simple enough? I don't know any easier way of saying it. So if you want you can try to refute it.

To simply say that it's wrong, or unconventional or laugable is not good enough. Because you are not saying anything, although you say it well. I am saying something and you are making noise. You evidently hope that you can drown me out with your noise. Examples? You made an irrelevant point regarding the ties between Saddam and Palestinian terrorists, when it was clear that the entire post was about the ties between Saddam and AL-QUEDA. When I argued that workers must sell their labor-power in order to survive, you mocked me. When I pointed out that leadership should be based on consent, which is a basic principle of just governments enshrined in the Declaration of Indepedence: "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed", you pretend to misunderstand my meaning of "leadership", "consent", and "legitimacy. So, it is clear that you are not interested in debate, or a search for the truth. But I give you one last chance. To actually make a real point, to make an argument.

So? This thread, this subject, an anatomy of a very brief reply into which you seemingly read volumes. Just this once, as I'm bored this eve. But watch carefully--I may have something up my sleeve!

You made flat dogmatic assertions about the "legitimacy" of ANY "world leadership" in the absence of "global consent," without defining the terms "leadership," "legitimate," or "consent." Because of this, you were (IMHO) offering a flawed argument based on hidden personal assumptions, reaching dubious conclusions while skipping almost all the linking reasoning. Since "global consent" would require the agreement of everyone on the globe, a rank impossibility, I made the (perhaps mistaken) assumption that you were actually referring to consensus between a plurality of governments and/or "multilateral institutions." Please note: We are not responsible for knowing how you define all those terms--if you are going to use definitions that differ from English Standard you should make them explicit.

I somewhat disagreed with your reasoning, mostly on the basis of those dogmatic assumptions. So I defined the terms (using this thing called a "dictionary," which is a big book about what words mean in our language) and noted that Margaret Thatcher had quite succinctly identified a difference between consensus and leadership, and the non-dependency of same. ("Legitimacy," of course, is in the eye of the beholder, and therefore not really debatable in objective terms. There's as many definitions of political legitimacy as there are people to hold opinions on them, or more so.)

And that's absolutely all I legitimately did. Obviously your mileage varies, but that's your vehicle, not mine. I didn't even say you were wrong--I said it was "something to think about."

As I've said previously, if you feel the urge to mock me and can do so with any semblence of wit, please feel free. We all enjoy a good laugh. But your inability to wrap your neurons around what I say, or to logically extract the meaning when you disagree with whatever it is you think I said, is your own problem, not anyone else's.

"Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony."

I have no desire to get involved in this debate, but I have to take issue with your definition of "legitimate" as "well-reasoned or sincere." If that definition did indeed come from a dictionary, I have to doubt it came anywhere in the first few definitions. While it may serve to validate your claims that you are making a "legitimate argument," it has very little to do with political legitimacy, which would have to be either "lawful" (in this case, international law, of course) or "accepted," which does indeed rely on consensus. Now I'll leave you two to argue what constitutes consensus, but have no doubt that it is what confers legitimacy.

The bloody peasant had it right. Political legitimacy derives from a mandate of the masses, not from some farcical concept of sincerity.

Jeremy, I am an editor.The ordered listing of various shadings of definitions of a word are not meant to imply that the first definition is the most "legitimate," only the most commonly found overall, and the most common meaning may differ depending on the particular context.

I have the American heritage dictionary in front of me. Tully's def'n is 3rd. the First two are 1)lawful and 2) in accordance with accepted practices and standards. Consider that the specific meaning of a word like legitimate can be expected to be largely context-based.

Political legitimacy derives from a mandate of the masses, not from some farcical concept of sincerity.

Aren't you conflating political legitimacy with democratic legitimacy and/or moral legitimacy?

Bo seems to be relying on the idea of "legal" when he uses legitimate, suggesting some sort of global referendum granting permission is required. Theoretically, this is not so fantastical. But in the context of the real world, it strikes me as likely that in a time of crisis, such a lengthy bureaucratic process may not be the best course. Instead, someone needs to lead the populace based on sincere and well-reasoned viewpoint.(Tully's take)

Note that if everyone knows what the right thing to do is, and agrees on it, what do you need a leader for? The whole idea of leadership is in some sense incongruous with the idea of universal consensus. Generally, a populace is heterogenous and almost never in universal consensus about much of anything. This is why in a crisis, leadership is so important. And in such an instance, leadership needs to take the form of a well-reasoned and sincere and forceful view.

I can't help but laugh at the image of a house on fire, and one guy wants to lead everyone out, but the bearded guy in the khaki shirt wants to convene a board and reach a consensus first.

The problem with consensus based governing, as everyone knows, is that the more controversial the situation, the more likely there is stalemate. Now stalemate is not always bad, but in some instances it is foolish and deadly. Sometimes inaction is worse than any action. When a bullet is headed for you, getting out of the way is tantamount, the exact direction of avoidance irrelevant.

And I'm not trying to suggest that it's always possible to determine instances when any action is better than inaction, or that we were necessarily in such a spot regarding Iraq when Bush chose to invade. (I'd say we weren't, but we were close.) The point I want to bring out is simply that it's an open argument as to whether or not purely democratic consensus-based governing is always the most appropriate or best form of considering, deciding, and acting. You and Bo seem to be taking that for granted, and I just don't think it's so.

As most specifically noted, Jeremy, there are as many definitions of "legitimate" as there are people to define it, especially in an international political context. In politics "legitimacy" is little more than a buzzword used to dispute and condemn the other side's actions. Just ask the Israelis and Palestinians about "legitimacy." For example, self-defense of one's own borders is always "legitimate," regardless of any opposing "multilateral consensus." Which is why I specifically said I wasn't going to argue the point about what "legitimacy" is in an international political context. Thus, the contrasting of leadership and consensus instead. Leadership and consensus are not the same thing, and they are not co-dependents.

"Supreme executive power" applies only within nations, not between them, as all rulers are supreme executive powers. The subject wasn't rule within countries, but the interactions of nations. The ruler acts on behalf of the nation. See the distinction? The "legitimacy" of a nation's rulers has little or no bearing on the legitimacy of that nation's relations and interactions with other nations. (That's a blatant attempt to bring the dialogue back to the subject of international leadership versus unilateralism, BTW.)

Bo's been trying to hijack every thread he's posted in to some kind of general debate on radical socialism vs. Misesian capitalism, using paraphrased polemic from the collected works of VI Lenin, ignoring the actual specific points in discussion to grab at truly tangential issues for steerage. Non serviam. I posted some food for thought, he bridled at what he thought I meant, and went immediately defamatory. Not the first time. So I'll repeat--I am not responsible for his misinterpretations of my words, or his tangential and diversionary straw man responses. They're all his own.

My offering quotes from Python no more consitutes calling him a "bloody peasant" than my offering quotes from Margaret Thatcher constitutes calling him a Tory. It's selective quotation for the purpose of illustration. He is certainly free to offer selective quotation in return. He chooses not to, apparently preferring to go straight from argument to abuse, taking any disagreement as a personal affront. C'est la vie. His nickel.

Clearly I need to start using more smileys in my posts. My final sentence was not meant to define political legitimacy in Marxist terms nor to imply Tully was calling Bo a bloody peasant. It was intended to riff off the Monty Python quote in what I hoped, given the original source, would be taken humorously. Just another object lesson in the way things don't always translate into the written word as well as one would hope.

Nor was it my intent to take Bo's side in an argument that is clearly veering away from reality and plunging headlong into hypothetical territory in which neither side can possibly gain any ground. If the only two options are absolute consensus or damn-the-consequences-go-it-alone unilateralism as leadership, you aren't talking about the reality of any situation. I was sincere (though that sincerity is perhaps not legitimate, considering I felt the need to post anyway) in saying I did not want to join the debate. I merely wished to criticize the definition of legitimate, which I believe has no relevance to the sense in which it was being used. Legitimacy is conferred by legality and acceptance. That acceptance may not be conferred at the time, and in such cases strong leadership may be demanded, perhaps even at the cost of violating the spirit (if not the letter) of the law, and legitimacy may come after some have had the opportunity to reflect and judge whether the response was correct. But if the reasons given for those actions never achieve acceptance, then we can never call the actions which were undertaken legitimate, no matter how "well-reasoned" and "sincere" the intent of the leaders. And if those actions are also deemed illegal, then the necessity of gaining acceptance is all the more difficult and all the more important.

By your definition of legitimacy, as long as Bush wasn't actively attempting to make Iraq into the mess it has become, then he isn't responsible for his actions, because his heart was in the right place and he thought about it before hand. I certainly don't think this is what you are arguing, but since the question of whether Bush's actions were "well-reasoned" and "sincere" hinges on the choice of reasons we are given that we went to war, I am inclined to think that is not the best standard by which to judge.

You're right--we do need smileys. I want one with a maniacal grin, a curly moustache, and veined red eyes! Oh, yeah, Groucho glasses and eyebrows and a big cigar would be cool too.

If Iraq did not pose an imminent threat to the national security of the U.S. by what right did the U.S. led coalition of the willing have to invade this country?

The "grave and gathering" threat, which is not an imminent threat, does not, in my view, represent a threat which would justify war as a last resort. War as a last resort would be in self-defense, to pre-empt an imminent threat or after an attack has begun. Notwithstanding Saddam's uncooperativeness, the UN weapon's inspections could have continued, and appropriate force could have been employed to ensure his compliance. By appropriate force I mean however much is necessary to complete the weapon's inspections. This could have established whether, Saddam did indeed possess WsMD, if he did, they could then be dismantled, and then the U.N. could establish appropriate measures to prevent him from ever acquiring them again. If this process was allowed to continue, there would've been a much greater chance that American and Iraqi blood would not be needlessly shed in a war.

The socalled moral argument that Saddam violated human rights, and therefore, should be deposed assumes that a nation-state can act as a moral agent. This is a very dubious claim. The U.S. has pursued its foreign policy, in terms, of its self-interest, and when this end conflicted with human rights, the latter was sacrificed to the former. Indeed, Saddam's regime was supported during the 1980's even tho he was a brutal dictator. There are many, many more examples. The protection of human rights is important and necessary, but this should rely on relatively neutral institutions, like the ICJ or the new ICC. The temptation to use human rights violations as a pretext for interested aggression is too great.

Why should a leader, either a person or a person acting on behalf of a nation have the right to interfere, absent consent, with another nation, if that nation does not present any threat? Would there be any time that it would be acceptable for another nation to interfere with the U.S.?

Q.E.D.

Okay, what so many of you fail to understand is that for the past few decades, Europe has had a federal structure that has enforceable law. The European Union's decrees are, in fact a form of international law. France and Germany are forced to obay this version of international law all the time.

Thus when they are talking about the concept of international law, this is what they are talking about. The US doesn't isn't bound by this sort of thing, although Texas and Montana are. Federal law, and interstate compacts are a form of "international law" as far as those two states are concerned, although EU decrees are not.

So when the Europeans complain about international law, they are used to unelected international beaurocrats telling them what to do and cannot understand why the US and Israel tend to ignore their opinions and decrees.

Also, for much of the world, Islamic Dhimmi law, which is a form of exreme racism, is considered international law.