Poll Pot – Anatomy of a Nightmare

As long as I’m doing posts on books, I thought I might put up a few thoughts about Pol Pot, Anatomy of a Nightmare, by  Philip Short.  The immediate impetus for putting something up, i(though not for reading the book, )was this gem:

“The Republicans are rewriting history," Hoffa said, according to The Detroit News. "There was no recession. There were no wars. Nothing ever happened during those eight years." 

He continued: "It's like Pol Pot -- basically start (from) the Day One, the new calendars." 

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/14/teamsters-president-likens-republicans-to-pol-pot/#ixzz27dAbgl8N

What’s the matter, are trivializing, inappropriate Hitler references becoming old hat? 

Pol Pot became less obscure than other third world tyrants in part because of the critically popular 80s movie the Killing Fields.  Besides the movie, he deserves to be known for the particular brutality of the regime he headed, which in the four years it was in power is estimated to have been responsible for roughly 750k to 1.5 million deaths, or about twenty percent of Cambodia’s population.  Today, in Cambodia itself, which has a notably young population, he and his murderous history are apparently fading from memory; know or fully believe the history.

The ideological origins of the Khmer Rouge are from the European continental collectivist Marxist utopianism.  However, the author also points to certain particularly Cambodian characteristics, which might have contributed to the nature of the regime.    In fact, because Pol Pot was a relatively indifferent student and found orthodox Marxism difficult to relate to, he posits that these may have had a very significant impact.  Cultural factors include the importance of saving face, which inhibits incremental conflict resolution.  Instead, conflict is avoided until it is unavoidable, at which point there can be an explosion of violence; the inability to bend leading to violent breaks.

There’s also a centuries long bloody history of regional conflict between the Southeast Asian nations.  A significant element of Cambodian identity is there otherness from their neighbors, particularly Thailand and Vietnam, with a particular animosity for the Vietnamese.  Short contrasts the Buddhist tradition in Cambodia to Vietnamese and Chinese Confucianism.   Interestingly, Short attributes some of the brutality of the Khmer Rouge to the Buddhist tradition, which is counterintuitive to Buddhism’s pacific reputation.  Specifically, he cites the rote memorization, strict hierarchy, and the doctrine of abrogation of self. 

The tactical and ideological hyper fluidity of the Khmer Rouge is notable.  In geopolitics, it is not so anomalous.  The US allied with the USSR when it needed to, and lined up with the PRC when it became mutually advantageous, and so on.    However, the ideological shifts fluidity of Pol Pot was striking. The Khmer Rouge arguably orchestrated the most radical implementation of communism in any state (with honorable mentions to DPRK, which took on a more mystical, racist and quasi religious tone, also related to the history and culture of that country).  Starving subjects were executed for attempting to survive from wild growing fruits, since this was more individualism than the regime could accept.  Yet shortly after losing power, Pol Pot abandoned socialism altogether, noting that his none of his actual or potential backers were Communist, and rather presciently noting that, with the defeat of the Ultra Leftists following Mao’s death in China, the PRC would too soon become more capitalist.

How the US came to tacitly back what was one of the most brutal communist regimes was also interesting.  Short points out the parallels between the relationship between China and Vietnam and between Vietnam and Cambodia.  They are historical rivals, with long standing animosity which necessarily makes any alliance tactical, whatever its underlying ideological basis.  When Vietnamese-Cambodian relations completely fell apart and Vietnam invaded Cambodia, it had simultaneously thrown it’s lot in with the USSR in the Sino-Soviet rivalry.  When the US established diplomatic relations with the China, we got tacit support of the Khmer Rouge as part of the deal.  So when we made a display of storming out of the UN for a Khmer Rouge speech in the early 1980’s, the US was still working behind the scenes to keep official UN representation in Khmer Rouge hands as long as possible.

Short doesn’t shy away from the horrors of this history, and provides both sticks and illustrative anecdotes.  They are dealt with unflinchingly but without sensationalism or devolving into prurient interest.

So do I recommend the book?  Though well written, it’s not a quick read.  There are over 400 pages of pretty dense text.  The list of important figures (Dramatis Personae) helps immensely; it’s something I wish more histories included.  If you have a particular interest in the region, in Cambodia, or this aspect of the Cold War, it is probably indispensible. 

Conscience of a Conservative - a couple of thoughts

Goldwater's (ghostwritten, per Wikipedia) Conscience of a Conservative is an important read.  Unlike man books that could be said of, it is also concise, clear and brief.  It essentially served as a manifesto for his '64 campaign against Johnson, and despite the latter success in characterizing Goldwater as a dangerous extremist, the book generally reveals a moderate and well considered view of the role of the state in the US and the US in the world.   

In domestic policy, he makes the case for a market economy, and warns against both direct state control and against crony capitalism, or subsidies for private businesses.  He saw a role for unions in the private sector as a necessary counterweight to concentrated corporate power, especially in one industry towns, as often happens, for example with coal mines, but was opposed to public sector unions, correctly seeing them as effectively organizing with politicians against the public.  He opposed both corporate and union contributions to political campaigns.  Though clearly religious and believing the policy should be inspired by faith, he was already critical of the conflation of church and state, a stance which would subsequently become more prominent as evangelicals made inroads into the GOP in coming years.  In foreign policy, Goldwater, not surprisingly advocated a muscular approach.    However, he appears to have either been unaware of or to have not believed in the Sino-Soviet split.  He, like many conservatives, considered the entire communist bloc to operate as a single, entity, which, as for a long time it mostly had.  It would have been pretty far seeing to determine otherwise in 1964, and publicly Chinese and Soviet communists concealed their differences, but within five years there would be border skirmishes between the two.  In less than a decade, Nixon and Kissinger would exploit the split in furtherance of Western interests.

The other criticism is that Goldwater considers his vision to be ultimately a piratical one, in contrast to socialist materialism.  Goldwater is too quick to cede material primacy to the socialists, arguing that their success not withstanding, it is not worth the spiritual costs.   It is true that freedom is good in and of itself, but he underestimates it's economic utility.  Again, in the context of the time the book was written, this is understandable.  It was only 8 or so years since sputnik, and a half-decade before the moon landing.  North Korea was generally seen as the more prosperous and stable of the two.  Khrushchev had recently proclaimed, "we will bury you" banging his (conspicuously well made) shoe for emphasis at the UN.  Yet, over time, it became increasingly clear that the ability of planned economies to mobilize resources could never match the capacity of free economies for generating wealth.  Today, progressives, who address it by emphasizing other priorities, often concede this point.  In other words, Goldwater allowed for socialist material success prematurely, and argued accordingly.

Still, this is a compelling book.  As it nears 50 years old, some allowances need to be made for the era in which it was written, and an understanding of the prevailing perceptions and concerns is helpful.  In all though, title notwithstanding, it provides a compelling vision of a more liberal society.