Chalmers Johnson, R.I.P.
Chalmers Johnson, prominent in this past decade mostly as a critic of expansionist American foriegn policy, has died at age 79.
For more details on his past career as an East Asian expert (and critic of the current global neoliberal market consensus), see this lengthy obituary at Common Dreams. While the book Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire in which he popularized the phrase "blowback" was written before 9/11 and concentrated almost entirely on the East Asian nations in which he specialized (and in many cases on the global economic, rather than military, issues on which he also specialized), it did contain some interestingly presceient statements such as "to guess exactly how blowback may play itself out in the twenty-first century is, at best, a perilous undertaking…present American policy is seeding resentments that are bound to breed attempts at revenge."
In a new post-9/11 introduction to a later edition of Blowback, he wrote: "I foresee that we are embarked on a path not so dissimilar from that of the former Soviet Union…It collapsed for three reasons--internal economic contradictions, imperial overreach, and an inability to reform….It is nowhere written that the United States, in its guise as an empire dominating the world, must go on forever. The blowback from the second half of the twentieth century has only just begun."
Prominent voices against U.S. foreign policy madness are too few, and Chalmers will be missed by those who also hope to see America make a needed retreat to constitutional and affordable relations with the rest of the world.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
He also was a complete protectionist and spent the entire decade of the 1980s telling the world how the free market economy was dead and the Japanese model was going to rule the world.
Is there any peacenik dog you whores won't sleep with?
WHY WON'T THE LEFT LOVE US?
Well, his protectionism was based on what he observed - that Japanese officials in the 1980s were trying to game the system to promote native companies over US/European companies that were trying to compete fairly and that US officials and academics were acting as lobbyists for Japan while pretending to be independent. He wasn't wrong about that. Johnson's fault was that his grasp of the economic big picture was faulty - he didn't realize that most attempts to exploit free markets usually bite the "exploiter" in the ass over the long run - which is exactly what happened to Japan.
Wait a minute. After the Uruguay Round, didn't Japan liberalize ease some of its protectionism? That didn't seem to lead to economic growth during that time. Also, S. Korea, China, and now Vietnam all have boomed with the use of tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade.
delete "liberalize" there.
John, those meds you forget to take every now and again are there to adjust your brain chemistry so that you do not confuse Reason with Townhall or Redstate.
not
*giggle*
Hi, John!!! Let's go kill some Iraqis together!
*wink*
*giggle*
Hi, John!!! Let's go kill some Iraqis together!
*wink*
Chalmers Johnson was a nearly solitary voice in the wilderness, warning about the abuses and excesses of U.S. foreign policy. It's more than a little sad that the current administration in Washington is continuing the aggressive and interventionist policies of Bush, Cheney, et al. Chal will be missed by many of us, but unfortunately his message will not be heeded by our political leadership.
Chalmers is so much more credible on foreign policy than that boring old racist fuck and notorious loon Ron Paul.
Good of you to stop fellating Jamie Kirchick long enough to post this afternoon.
There now that's a good boy.
His stupid book still doesn't explain why the Muslims hate us.
Because America is an "empire" silly!
according to his book Nemesis, bin Laden was quoting as saying something along the lines of America will not have peace because of our support for israel, troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, and sanctions in Iraq durring the ninties.
And we all know Osama would never lie for propaganda purposes.
Denmark's statement stands.
Maybe it's because "we" are there?
You have to actually READ the books. You didn't think of that, did you?
Wait, I thought if you believed in blowback the Mayor of 9/11 would be mean to you.
Did Rudy G. rub out Chalmers Johnson?
Really? There's less vagary in a typical Panda Express fortune cookie. And this is what the actual 'blowback' in East Asia looks like
(see also http:(double slash) www .atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/HG21Ae02.html
Yes, Asia suffers terribly under the yoke of American imperialism, except for a few bright lights like North Korea, who somehow rejected our imperial advances. Still, I think we can all agree that the word "blowback" is pretty cool, even though he didn't invent it, or even the concept behind it.
...or that there is no concept behind a meaningless word like 'blowback'.
Well it's a cool word, nevertheless.
Is "retaliation" any more meaningful to you?
One general meets another. I got your point.
^Lot's of hostility here
It's because they cut me off after two links 🙂
A guy comes out and says that the U.S. foreign policy has been nothing but an abismal failure, and that the governments actions will cause all of us harm; and some of you want to jump on his case because he is not F.A. Hayek?
Really?
They must all have federal government jobs.