In a sole-searing exhibit of disdain, an Iraqi heel slung two shoes at President Bush during a news conference. To his credit, Bush displayed considerable polish in dodging the flying size 10s, utilizing the reflexes he’s developed in sidestepping criticism and blame for the previous eight years.
The shoe-thrower, an Iraqi journalist, is believed to be an Oxford graduate. Secret Service agents were momentarily caught loafing as he pumped both shoes at the outgoing president, but managed to cobble together their wits and sock him to the ground.
PAD
UPDATED 12/15: Here’s something to ponder. If other United States politicos hold press conferences in Iraq, are all Iraqi journalists going to be required by the Secret Service to remove their shoes and check them in a box outside the room. I mean, one nimrod years ago failed in an attempt to sneak explosives onto an airplane via his shoes and since then we all have to go in stocking feet through the metal detectors. So if shoes ARE being used as a means of expressing disdain, is that going to be accounted for in future Iraqi press gatherings?
• 
Well, that guy is an American. He just hates his current president. You were saying the big mystery was why anyone outside the US should care.
I find the appeal to law in thesematters, and espeially to international law, pointless. But, legally speaking, is it the president’s job to proecute people?
No, though I can see good potential in a TV show about a US president who solves crimes on the side. “McKinley and Wife”
Well, the President is the boss of the Attorney General, who is the boss of the US Attorneys who are the Federal prosecutors, so in a sense it’s the President’s job.
The interesting question is whether the President is immune from prosecution for acts he committed as President. I’m guessing the answer is “yes,” so Bush and Obama are both off the hook.
And at the risk of a lifetime ban on fruitcake, I’m taking the position that a scripted, choreographed, and predetermined sporting event is the paradigm of a fake sporting event.
If presidents can’t be prosecuted for acts performed as president, why did Ford feel the need to pardon Nixon?
For the same reason that Clinton could be sued while in office for preexisting torts: immunity only attaches for acts performed in the course of one’s duties. Breaking into DNC headquarters is not a function of the presidential office. Making war is.
“And at the risk of a lifetime ban on fruitcake, I’m taking the position that a scripted, choreographed, and predetermined sporting event is the paradigm of a fake sporting event.”
Not a fan of ‘Wrasslin’ myself. but perhaps your mistake is thinking of it and comparing it to a sporting event?
“Well, the President is the boss of the Attorney General, who is the boss of the US Attorneys who are the Federal prosecutors, so in a sense it’s the President’s job.”
But is it the job of the president to direct the Attorney General who to prosecute, or would that be overstepping?
We are not the bad guys. We never have been.
I would have missed this if it weren’t quoted…
Anyway, gotcha. America, and Americans, have never done anything bad. Ever. At worst it’s been innocent mistakes, “screwups” if you will, that have since been completely atoned for. Such atonement has set everything right again. This is why Native Americans and African Americans have no hard feelings whatsoever, and no reason to have any hard feelings.
Just because you can mention that things are worse in other parts of the world than in the U.S.A., that does not mean that the U.S. is perfect, or even wonderful. It does not mean that the U.S. is never the “bad guys.” (The U.S. absolutely WAS the “bad guys” when they forced people into slavery, making your “never have been” statement pretty ludicrous.) It simply means that the U.S. is BETTER…relatively speaking. There is, and always will be, plenty of room for improvement. This is something that those with patriotic blinders on cannot get through their skulls.
How batshit crazy are some if the people calling for Bush’s head? So batshot crazy they are talking about prosecuting Obama if he fails to prosecute war crimes charges against Bush.
I wouldn’t say that prosecuting Obama would be in order, but here’s the thing: he did indicate that he would investigate people in the previous administration and have them prosecuted if they were in fact guilty of crimes. (Skip to approximately the 9:00 mark for the relevant quote if you don’t want to listen to Keith’s whole comment.)
So I’d look at it as Obama going back on his word to hold these people accountable, possibly Obama playing Gerald Ford to Bush’s Richard Nixon and giving his predecessor a free pass. That wouldn’t be criminal as far as I know, but it would be incredibly disappointing.
Good people do bad things. The thing is that the US does try to learn from its mistakes. Nobody forced abolition down our throats; we did it ourselves. Abolition, the civil rights movement, both were purely domestic movements, Americans finally trying to live up to our own principles. I’ll admit when I wrote “never” I was thinking about the century and a half time frame I mentioned later in the paragraph; the slave trade was flatly inexcusable, so I’ll concede I let my rhetoric get carried away without that caveat. (Kind of similar to one of the problems I was criticizing; whoops.) For that matter, the Mexican-American War was a fairly blatant land grab, as were the Indian wars. I’d still challenge you to find another nation that has as consistently lived up to high principles over the last 200+ years. The running vilification of the US is still unjustifiable, which was my basic thesis. If I came across as though I played down slavery, I apologize.
It simply means that the U.S. is BETTER…relatively speaking. There is, and always will be, plenty of room for improvement. This is something that those with patriotic blinders on cannot get through their skulls.
Oh, I don’t know. Most of us will agree that that is exactly right. The issue though is what constitutes improvement.
Nobody forced abolition down our throats; we did it ourselves.
Um. There was a war over it. A big one. Something like half the country seceded because, for one thing, they were against abolition. They were defeated, reabsorbed into the Union, and DID have abolition shoved down their throats.
There’s also plenty that happened less than 100 years ago. One example: the internment of Japanese during WWII. Because hey, they might be spies, and why take that risk? The more things change, the more they stay the same…
When people brag that the U.S.A. is the “greatest country in the world” and “the greatest force for good” and so on and so forth, one of the natural reactions of people hearing it is that they expect the U.S. to live up to its own hype. They expect it to be a force for good instead of just calling itself that. And that is why people criticize the U.S. so harshly when it does something wrong. It is held to a higher standard.
Another of the natural reactions of people hearing that, incidentally, is to think that Americans are conceited.
“Um. There was a war over it. A big one.”
David’s point was that abolition wasn’t forced on us by another nation, and in that he is correct. A civil war is by definition a war between two factions in the same country.
It is worth noting that Western European nations and the U.S. are often blamed for slavery. A knowledge of history, however, reveals that those countries did not invent slavery, but were in fact the first to ban it.
Bill, the fact that they engaged in slavery at all is something to be ashamed of. That the issue of abolition had to be forced at gunpoint, that so many people died fighting over this instead of agreeing on it, is something to be ashamed of.
And in the present day, the fact that so much of the country is homophobic is something to be ashamed of. The fact that this is going on…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081220/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_lawsuits
…is something to be ashamed of.
The words “greatest country in the world” shouldn’t be thrown around lightly.
Rob Brown: “That the issue of abolition had to be forced at gunpoint…”
Completely misses the point. No one said abolition came peacefully through an easily reached consensus. David said no one forced abolition on the U.S., which is true.
I suspect that most countries of the time, were they confronted with the prospect of the Civil War’s costs, would have chosen almost any evil as an alternative.
More importantly, I have no shame at all over events that happened several generations before my life. Original Sin, the sins of the parents carried down upon their children (or onto the children of those who happened to immigrate to that country, these seem very old fashioned and superstitious.
And look at the quandry we Americans are put into–foreigners say that we must be held to a higher standard because of our greatness but if we agree we are conceited. Can’t win, I tells ya. Luckily the insults don’t sting much, though that probably just makes them angrier.
And while I wish the people of California (who, oddly, have not demanded to be now known as “The Hate State”–tis a puzzlement) had not embraced Prop 8, in a world where homosexuality is illegal in some 3 score plus countries and offically punishable by death in 6, I can still hold my head high.
But a lot of this is subjective. We need some quantifiable standard. How about this: the greatest Country on Earth is the one that the greatest number of people are trying to get into. How’s that?
And look at the quandry we Americans are put into–foreigners say that we must be held to a higher standard because of our greatness but if we agree we are conceited.
If a country insists on calling itself, over and over, the greatest country in the world, it should either live up to that title or stop calling itself that. That’s what I’m saying.
Paul Pierce is a very good basketball player, but he has never claimed to be the very best in the NBA right now. If he did go around making claims like that, people would expect him to score the most points per game and probably lead in a few other categories as well. If he failed to do that, if he fell short and other players were putting up better numbers than him–even if it were only five or ten players putting up better numbers–then fans and the media would not think he was the greatest, and they’d get tired of his constant boasting.
Plus, saying you’re the “greatest” anything is pretty dámņëd arrogant even if it’s true, and that’s not an admirable quality. Most music fans agree that Kanye West is talented, and they also agree that his ego is way too big. They’re not impressed by the latter, and it even turns them off somewhat.
If you didn’t read the link I posted, by the way, here’s the latest: there is now a chance that California will not only stop allowing same sex couples to get married, but that it will stop recognizing marriages that were performed prior to the passage of Prop. 8. So things are actually getting WORSE.
Finally, ever since the economic crisis hit fewer people have been trying to get into the States because there is less opportunity for employment there now.
Sorry for the double post, but Bill Mulligan’s right; it IS subjective. How do you determine what the “greatest” country in the world is?
You could go by military strength.
You could go by which country has the lowest crime rate, the fewest people in prison.
You could go by which country has tbe best health care.
You could go by which country has the lowest unemployment.
You could go by which country has the best human rights record.
You could go by which country has the biggest population.
Or which one has the most Olympic gold medals.
Etc.
There are all kinds of things to look at about a country. Some of them are good, some of them are bad.
There is no single thing that makes a country the best in the world, or the worst.
If somebody says that the U.S., or any country, is “the greatest”, then yeah, it IS conceit. Muhammad Ali used to say he was the greatest. Was he right? Maybe. Was he conceited and full of himself for saying he was the greatest? Absolutely.
Rob is half right and David and Bill are half right.
“When people brag that the U.S.A. is the “greatest country in the world” and “the greatest force for good” and so on and so forth, one of the natural reactions of people hearing it is that they expect the U.S. to live up to its own hype. They expect it to be a force for good instead of just calling itself that. And that is why people criticize the U.S. so harshly when it does something wrong. It is held to a higher standard.”
It is a natural but stupid reaction. It is silly to buy into such acartooinsh image of reality, even if some Americans buy it about themselves. And it is arrogant. Countries should try to live up to their own ideal images instead ofheaping expectuations on the US while they languish in their self-rightousness while not doing that much good themselves. Only Americans have the right to hold themselves to high stadards.
“Another of the natural reactions of people hearing that, incidentally, is to think that Americans are conceited.”
That’s true. Americans are also guilty of having a cartoonish image of themselves. The US is like most countries with its fair share of sins and acheivements. It has acheived great wealth and power, and as a result the sins and the acheivements have great magnitude, in perception and sometimes in reality as well. Like most democracies and some non-democracies it has self-improved over time. It can claim the honor of being the first modern democracy — a great acheivement no doubt. As a democracy it is certainly better than non-democracies, and I do find it very sympathetic even with relation to other democracies, but that’s maybe because I know the US better.
“It is worth noting that Western European nations and the U.S. are often blamed for slavery. A knowledge of history, however, reveals that those countries did not invent slavery, but were in fact the first to ban it.”
True. Neither slavery, nor racism nor mistreatment of natives are unique to the US. Slavery is certainly not an American invention. It has existed for a very long time before. I think the US was a little late in abolishing it compared to France and England. I’m not sure about Spain. It abolished slavery earlier than Brazil, I think. I think the US is unique in the dramatic way in which slavery was abolished. I don’t think it makes it better or worse than other countries that abolished slavery (and other negative institutions) with less fanfare. Maybe in some ways it is worse and in others better in that regard.
“David’s point was that abolition wasn’t forced on us by another nation, and in that he is correct. A civil war is by definition a war between two factions in the same country.”
David is wrong. He sets for the US a convenient goal post and then congradulates himself for meeting it. Changes in most countries are the result of internal forces. And even when external forces are involved, it is only combined with internal forces that change occurs. The image of the US as the country invading and liberating other less able countries while itself being able by force of will the improve itself is an idealized image to say the least. The US’s democratic society certainly allows it to claim the credit of change coming from society, so long as it does not forget how hard and how bitter these changes were, and also as long as it does not forget that other countries (cetainly democracies) went through their own changes, by themselves, sometimes under more or less difficult circumstances.
“I’d still challenge you to find another nation that has as consistently lived up to high principles over the last 200+ years. The running vilification of the US is still unjustifiable, which was my basic thesis. If I came across as though I played down slavery, I apologize.”
“I’d still challenge you to find another nation that has as consistently lived up to high principles over the last 200+ years.”
I think Few countries present themselves in such idealizd terms as the US, so there’s less measuring involved. Well, have to compare to countries that presented themselves as paragons: France, England, Germany to a degree, the USSR. The US certainly wins against the last two. I’m not sure about France and England. Comparison is difficult. Each country is unique.
The US sometimes lives up and sometimes disappoints when it comes to its ideals. It seems to have been the pattern from the day you were founded. I don’t think it should be held aginst the US more than other countries that had their bad days and good days. But if you present your counry as aparagon of virtue, you open yourself up to criticism.
England went though a relatively more gradual and quiet process of improvement than tthe US. But t lead more or less to the same place as modern democracies. France had a lot of ups and downs to get to where they’re now. Spain had a major set back but picked themselves up nicely. India was able to free itselfusing non-violence, which is pretty impressive. China went through major changes, athough still not democratic.
“The running vilification of the US is still unjustifiable,”
In all fairnss Rob only vilified Bush, not the US. Although vilification is not somethingI recommend in general. I certainly oppose it in the case of the US. The scariest country in the world is North Korea. I feel sad for them. They are tapped in an actual Orwellian reality. This reality is enough without need of vilification.
“
“I suspect that most countries of the time, were they confronted with the prospect of the Civil War’s costs, would have chosen almost any evil as an alternative.”
Since civil wars are not an uncommon phenomenon I would have to disagree.
“More importantly, I have no shame at all over events that happened several generations before my life. Original Sin, the sins of the parents carried down upon their children (or onto the children of those who happened to immigrate to that country, these seem very old fashioned and superstitious.”
If you want to partake in the greatness of previous generations (as well as the present one) you must also partake in the sins. But only to a reasonable rational degree. There is a line between pride and arrogance as betwen responsibility and abject guilt.
“How about this: the greatest Country on Earth is the one that the greatest number of people are trying to get into. How’s that?”
Let’s not idelize things too much. People are drawn first to America’s wealth. Freedom is nice too, especially since it is hard to make money without some of it. There is a large population movement from poor to rich areas beyond the US. People are desperate.
I think we’re beginning to lose sight of the forest here. The U.S. is the most powerful nation on earth and has a lofty opinion of itself. Naturally, we’re going to be held to a higher standard than other nations.
At the same time, many outside the U.S. who revile us reveal in themselves a smallness of spirit, a pettiness that says more about them than it does about us. They pillory the U.S. for evils they themselves commit, and refuse to give us credit for our achievements.
In the U.S. we’ve prosecuted military personnel for humiliating prisoners at Abu Ghraib, and there has been a huge national outcry over the torture of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. On the other hand, radical Islamic terrorists have beheaded journalists on video which has been broadcast on Al Jazeera, and people on the “Arab street” respond with cheers.
If a country insists on calling itself, over and over, the greatest country in the world, it should either live up to that title or stop calling itself that. That’s what I’m saying.
Let’s remember what we are actually talking about here; a country does not call itself anything. A country has no mouth, no opinion, no soul, no thought. There are Americans who saythey belong to the greatest country on Earth. They don’t even speak for other Americans. Critisizing America for being arrgant for saying it is the greatest country on Earth is like someone saying they hate France because it is rude. France isn’t rude. France is dirt.
The French aren’t rude either. Standing on a particular piece of dirt doesn’t make you rude.
One can say that the went to france and were treated rudely but that has little weight beyond the anecdotal. Putting broad characteristics onto a people (and then taking it one step further and Anthropomorphising plots of dirt) seems to me to be seven degrees of silly.
I’ll admit to happily making jokes along those lines–who can resist a good crack at the French?–but if I ever took it seriously I sure don’t now.
Finally, ever since the economic crisis hit fewer people have been trying to get into the States because there is less opportunity for employment there now.
that’s probably true. Now, is there a country that now has more people trying to get into it than the United States. I mean, if, even with this severe downturn there were more people trying to come in than anywhere else on Earth…wow, how great would a country have to be to be in THAT situation?
Ultimately, it’s impossible to call one country “the greatest”. It’s entirely subjective. Entirely dependent on the wants and needs of the person making the call. But I would suggest that if it really bothers someone when someone else makes the call for their counrty, person #1 probably isn’t too satisfied with their own situation. personally, I think my family is the best one on Earth. Could not imagine growing up in another one. I know that others would probably disagree. Bothers me not a bit.
(Or another example–if Ðìçk comes home from the Office Christmas party fuming about how Joe in marketting was bragging about how great his (Joe’s) wife is, I would suggest that Ðìçk is not entirely happy with his own choice for a spouse. Happy people are usually not at all bothered by others being happy, even if they disagree with the logic behind the others reasons for happiness. Misery loves company but not as much as happiness does. It’s only reasonable that this be the case.)
Since civil wars are not an uncommon phenomenon I would have to disagree.
hëll, I’m not so sure WE would have had the Civil War if people on both sides had any idea how bloody long and painful it was going to be. Most thought it would be over quickly.
If you want to partake in the greatness of previous generations (as well as the present one) you must also partake in the sins.
Well, I would suggest not being proud of anything you yourself had no hand in. I didn’t march with Dr. King or airlift food to besieged Berlin, or storm Normandy or wrest control from the hijackers of Flight 93. So I take no persoanl pride in those actions even as I admire the men and women who did the deed. To do otherwise is like those people who endlessly brag about the long line of greatness they decended from, which only makes everyone think “and what a shame it is that all that led to you, a blowhard douchebag.”
I don’t think America is great because I’m here. I just think that it’s great that pure happenstance resulted in my being born in America. A lucky break, entirely underserved by anything I did (in fairness, I was a fetus. What was I supposed to do?)
Let’s not idelize things too much. People are drawn first to America’s wealth. Freedom is nice too, especially since it is hard to make money without some of it. There is a large population movement from poor to rich areas beyond the US. People are desperate.
And great indeed is a place that can give hope to the desperate. I only wish there were more countries doing something to give the desperate more options.
Then what’s all this crazy-talk about the president needing permission from congress to declare war? By definition of the word “immunity,” how are you not saying it’s completely at the discretion of the president to authorize an invasion?
I suspect that most countries of the time, were they confronted with the prospect of the Civil War’s costs, would have chosen almost any evil as an alternative.
Hard to say. Most countries would shrink away from the costs of most wars had they the prior knowledge of the costs. Lincoln’s take on the Civil War was a bit different. From his Second Inaugural Address:
On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, urgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.
There’s an ongoing debate about to what extent the war was fought over slavery, and to what extent over states’ rights. Given that the only state’s right that seemed to be threatened by Lincoln’s election was slavery, I’ve always thought that something of a false dichotomy. Both sides interpreted limiting the geographical scope of slavery to be a slow road to emancipation. In any event, once the US Government was left more or less uncontested in the hands of abolitionists, the Republicans certainly embraced the opportunity to purge the nation of slavery. As early as 1862, the Republicans took the opportunity to ban slavery in DC. Lincoln, at least, acknowledged that the cost of the war might be one that needed to be borne.
One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. “Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.” If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”
I have a problem accepting the argument that, because the losing end of the Civil War resisted abolition, the US didn’t voluntarily choose abolition. The 13th Amendment didn’t have to be enacted. A peace treaty could have been negotiated to end the war without abolishing slavery; it was not. This is additional evidence of the policy change between 1861 and 1865– in 1861 Lincoln and Seward were willing to consider a constitutional amendment protecting the state’s right to determine slavery for itself, in an attempt to negotiate reunification with the secessionists, but by 1865 abolition was a condition for a truce, and after Lincoln’s death ratification of the 13th Amendment became a condition for readmission. Lincoln saw abolition as a nonnegotiable demand at the Hampton Roads Conference, and stated– openly, in his Inaugural, not just in private– that the war might be the cost of purging the nation of slavery. My interpretation is the exact opposite of Rob’s: the fact that the United States government pursued abolition through a flipping big war is further evidence of my point that the US chose to end slavery. “Something like half the country” did oppose it, but for that matter, something like half the country voted for McCain, and yet it doesn’t make sense to say that the US didn’t just choose Obama to be President.
I sort of disagree with Bill Mulligan’s “France is dirt” argument. Political cultures and nations are real things. Intangible things, and not people so some anthropomorphization is misplaced, but real nonetheless. The United States does not have opinions, but it does have attributes and it does perform actions.
Then what’s all this crazy-talk about the president needing permission from congress to declare war? By definition of the word “immunity,” how are you not saying it’s completely at the discretion of the president to authorize an invasion?
1) There’s a school of thought that says exactly that. It’s unclear how much control Article I gives Congress through the power to declare war, as clearly the President has some authority to use force without Congressional approval. There was never a declaration of war in Korea, but I’ve yet to see a claim that Truman should have been impeached for exceeding his war powers by going to war. The Youngstown opinion implied the opposite, really; Truman had war powers, but nationalizing the steel industry wasn’t among them. The constitutionality of the War Powers Act is, shall we say, contested.
2) Even under the War Powers Act, the President doesn’t have to ask Congress before initiating hostilities; he just needs to have permission or withdraw after 60 days.
3) Once a President has an authorization to use military force, which Bush had in Iraq, the President is the commander-in-chief and Congress controls only the purse strings. The conduct of the war is within the President’s discretion. All of the “send him to prison” criticism of Bush has been how he prosecuted the war, and how he lobbied for authorization. Both are clearly his official actions.
We should keep things in perspective. The US is homophobic? Yes, for a Western country, it’s very much so. But when you think that there are about 70 other countries out there that criminalize homosexual acts, and a half dozen that apply the DEATH PENALTY to it, the US is indeed a gay paradise.
India, if I’m not mistaken, punish gays with prison for life.
The greatest country? I dunno. Personally, I think I’d prefer to live in Scandinavia, Holland, or Canada. But from those countries that still have a great deal of influence in the world stage, the US remains the one most aligned to my own ideals.
Soon after 9/11, I remember that a guy that works with me, that hates America (a very typical attitude among some Brazilian youths that consider themselves “politically aware”) told me that if there was a final war between the US and the Islamic States, he’d like to fight on the side of Islam. He asked me which side I’d fight on.
My answer: “Are you kidding? I’d NEVER fight for countries that don’t even let you hear the kind of music you want. I’d be with the US all the way.”
And so I think I have some right to criticize the US. Because I see the US as “my side”. The side of personal freedom. And when “my side” does a bad thing, the disappointment is greater. That is why I so dislike President Bush. He is a bad player in the team I root for.
That kind of obvious contradiction is too slick to base a credible argument “We are not the bad guys. We never have been.” It’s the kind of obvious contradiction that advertises the truthiness of its own virtue.
By definition, if a law has the required votes, and as long as the supreme court hasn’t struck it down (like the WPA), it’s legal, yes? Your guess acts of the president are immune from prosecution is not only scary, but it doesn’t seem to be at all faithful to the relevant, basic facts of your profession.
I sort of disagree with Bill Mulligan’s “France is dirt” argument. Political cultures and nations are real things. Intangible things, and not people so some anthropomorphization is misplaced, but real nonetheless. The United States does not have opinions, but it does have attributes and it does perform actions.
That’s true. As a matter of practical reality we have to deal with countries in an artificial way–we have to treat the leaders as though they represent the people, even when that is not the case. I just wish we would all step back now and again and see the situation with a bit more clarity, even if it doesn’t really change what we do.
North Korea is not a bad place. It’s a place with very bad leaders leading a population of people who, if they had the fortune to have been born almost anywhere else, would probably be living better lives and contributing to the advancement of our species. If China and the USA bombed North Korea into a thermic mist tomorrow the world would probably be a better safer place…but what a monstrous set of circumstances it is that allow a mere handful of lunatics to make that true.
And you have to think there but for the grace of God, or fate, or random blind luck.
BTW, Rob, next time some American hits you with “america is the greatest country on Earth” don’t disagree with him. There’s no real way to win that argument. Just ask him what exactly he’s done to make that true. the answer, unless you are talking to the guy who invented saran wrap or pepcid AC, will be nothing much, so you can safely tell him that there’s nothing to be proud about being a tick on a tiger’s testicle or the metaphor of your choice. No, that’s not entirely fair, but he started it.
That kind of obvious contradiction is too slick to base a credible argument “We are not the bad guys. We never have been.” It’s the kind of obvious contradiction that advertises the truthiness of its own virtue.
… I don’t even know what that paragraph means. 42?
next time some American hits you with “america is the greatest country on Earth” don’t disagree with him. There’s no real way to win that argument. Just ask him what exactly he’s done to make that true. the answer, unless you are talking to the guy who invented saran wrap or pepcid AC, will be nothing much, so you can safely tell him that there’s nothing to be proud about being a tick on a tiger’s testicle or the metaphor of your choice. No, that’s not entirely fair, but he started it.
Unless of course you’re talking to a doctor, civil rights lawyer, cop, fireman, soldier, teacher, foreign aid worker, nurse, paramedic, artist, pharmaceutical researcher, scientist, or any one of the several million other people in this country who make positive contributions and try to make this country and/or the world a better place. If I were really feeling cheap I’d point out that a hundred million or so Americans vote regularly, maintaining one of the world’s oldest and most stable democracies. The fifty-odd million Americans who voted for Obama seem to think they made the world a better place, and most of the world agrees with them. You’re right, that argument isn’t entirely fair. It’s seriously a stacked deck– unless you’re having this discussion in a prison, the odds are pretty decent that any random person is making at least some contribution to society. You must be fun to play softball with.
Yeah but anyone who is randomly tossing out the “We’re so great” card to foreigners (unless provoked by said foreigner’s America bashing, in which case all bets are off) is probably not talking about the normal everyday decency that goes into making this country great but rather the bigger stuff–“If it wasn’t for us your kids would be speaking German and eating raw fish heads with rice.” Which may in fact be true but you don’t have to tell them that. One of the attributes of greatness is that you don’t need to tell anyone you’re great. Just be great. The guys I’ve known who were in WWII, the ones who could actually have played the “Hey, we stormed the beaches of Normandy for your áššëš.” hardly ever talked about the war and then only after considerable prodding. That made then all the greater (I, conversely, would have printed up T shirts advertizing my noble deed and handed them out to all my friends)
David: “Unless of course you’re talking to … any one of the several million … people in this country who make positive contributions and try to make this country and/or the world a better place.”
Nevertheless, Bill Mulligan’s point is accurate. To use a baseball metaphor, most of us in the U.S. are born on third base. If we make it to home plate that’s certainly a contribution, but let’s not fool ourselves into thinking we’ve hit a home run.
Police and lawyers in the U.S. today didn’t create the justice system of which we are justifiably proud; that happened more than two centuries ago. Foreign aid workers have an easier time working in a nation that is capable of providing foreign aid. Civil rights lawyers are fortunate to live in a nation whose Constitution recognizes certain basic civil liberties. Most doctors don’t come up with ground-breaking discoveries; they benefit from them. Artists and writers who fight to preserve the First Amendment are blessed to have such law to defend. The list could go on and on.
Heck, even the people who created this nation were beneficiaries of circumstance. Without the help of the French, I tend to doubt our revolution against Great Britain would have succeeded. We were lucky that another country perceived (wrongly) that helping us was in its self-interest. History is filled with stories of revolts that failed because there was no outside help.
I’m not trying to minimize what this nation has accomplished. We shoud be proud to live in the U.S. Nevertheless, we should have the humility to recognize we were born on third base.
David: “You must be fun to play softball with.”
There’s no need for that kind of condescension. It’s the sort of thing that contributes to the sort of incivility that led me to stop posting here for awhile. It would be nice if you’d consider toning it down, and I’d ask Rob Brown to consider that as well.
Oh… and I’m not going to argue about this. It’s not my blog and I can’t impose restrictions, but I can decide with whom I will converse. Conversing with angry and uncivil people was making me angry and leading me to reflect their incivility. So going forward, I will not converse with people who cannot be civil. There are far too many thoughtful, articulate, and civil people who post here to bother with those who cannot or will not be polite. Period, paragraph, and end of story.
Good Lord, with my last remark I’ve probably just created fertile ground for the very kind of crap I detest. I really shouldn’t have phrased that so confrontationally.
Rob Brown and David, I realize I’m not the headliner here, and if I stop responding to you it won’t be the end of your world. I realize you can post whatever PAD will allow you to post. Nevertheless, I ask you to please at least consider toning things down. I find incivility upsetting, and it makes it harder for me to consider the worthwhile things you say (and yes, I believe both of you have said some very worthwhile things).
You supported the assertion that “We are not the bad guys. We never have been….” with a statement on the US position on abolition you later literally contradicted:
If you accept a paycheck for enforcing the law and don’t understand what constitutes a contradiction, I don’t see either how the shame for failing to be clear to you is casual, or how it belongs to me.
“If it wasn’t for us your kids would be speaking German”
To which the French should reply: If it wasn’t for us you’d be speaking English.
Seriously, things should be taken in proportion. Americans should be proud of their country in proportion, and without ignoring the faults, but neither should they bow their heads in shame. foreigners in turn might have reason to criticize the US, but not demonize it, nor should the criticism itself come from a place of exaggerated arrogance in one’s own country. It’s not that complicated really.
“Unless of course you’re talking to a doctor, civil rights lawyer, cop, fireman, soldier, teacher, foreign aid worker, nurse, paramedic, artist, pharmaceutical researcher, scientist, or any one of the several million other people in this country who make positive contributions and try to make this country and/or the world a better place.”
There are people like that all over the world. We certainly can all be proud of our own, while not looking down on those in other countries (except Lichtenstein).
I’ve realized that beneath my lapse into irritation, there was a worthwhile point to be made.
Awhile back I realized that too many of my comments here were laced with sarcasm, irritation or outright anger. Too often I was getting drawn into personality conflicts rather than sharing ideas. I believe I had some worthwhile thoughts during those discussions, but they were getting lost in the din I was helping to create. So I decided to take a break for awhile.
I came back resolved not to lapse into old habits. It seems those habits are harder to break than I anticipated.
It’s not like I’ve never been uncivil here so I’ll step off of my high horse. Nevertheless, David and Rob Brown, I don’t believe it is arrogant of me to share some observations about what I’ve read from each of you.
Rob Brown, I don’t know why you’re so angry and I don’t want to know, but I can only tell you that your anger is obscuring some interesting thoughts. For instance, the question of whether and how much a press secretary should be blamed for supporting the policies of a corrupt administration (assuming you believe the administration they serve is corrupt) is an interesting one. It’s certainly something to which I haven’t given much thought. It could have provoked a very useful discussion. Instead, you made a callous and hateful remark about Tony Snow that touched off salvo upon salvo of personal acrimony between yourself and others. Had you phrased your remarks more dispassionately, we could have focused on the content rather than the way you said it.
David the Lawyer/Amused/Not a Big Shot, during more than one of our exchanges you were the “winner,” having more and better facts at your command. You’re obviously well-read and well-educated, and your knowledge extends far beyond the laws relevant to your job as a prosecutor. I’m not sure why you don’t let your knowledge and intellect speak for itself, rather than phrasing your responses to me in a condescending way. All that does is make me angry, and make it harder for me to see that sometimes you’re right… and I’m not.
Bill, our thoughts can guide how we condition ourselves, but it sounds like you’re instead trying to think through things that can’t be thought through, like the anger you refer to. You also seem like you’re allowing for guiding others how to condition themselves to act as some kind of gateway for you to frame your thoughts to condition yourself, when that notion is perhaps an enabler of your situation.
Do you remember that Dr Who episode where the Daleks and the Movelans (?sp) try to hijack the Doctor and Davros because they were deadlocked in their war? The Doctor and Davros kept from them that the first side to make a mistake would have the element of surprise and break the deadlock. Go out and commit to a big mistake. As Rabbi Schulman said, “When you don’t know where you’re going, any road will take you there.”
Nevertheless, I ask you to please at least consider toning things down. I find incivility upsetting, and it makes it harder for me to consider the worthwhile things you say (and yes, I believe both of you have said some very worthwhile things).
I’m sorry about that, Bill.
One of the attributes of greatness is that you don’t need to tell anyone you’re great. Just be great.
We’re in agreement on that.
To which the French should reply: If it wasn’t for us you’d be speaking English.
It is true that the French played a key role in ensuring that the British lost the Revolutionary War.
In all fairnss Rob only vilified Bush, not the US.
The truth is that I see any country as the sum of its people. The type of people in a country is always changing with new ones being born and old ones dying, new ones immigrating and others leaving. So to me, America is in a constant state of change. To say that it was always good is not accurate. To say that it was always bad is not accurate.
So I never said that America sucked and always did suck, never meant to imply that either, and that’s not what I think. I do think that the Bush Administration has done a lot of harm, intentionally much of the time and has made America worse, and for that reason I’m no fan of those people who were involved.
I’m also no fan of people who look at America and see only the good while rationalizing the bad. You have to acknowledge both.
I’m no fan of people who say things like “America is the greatest country in the world” without prompting, because they are in effect saying “we’re better than every other country in the world” and “every other country in the world is inferior to ours, including yours.”
I am a fan of the people in the present day and in American history who have seen the nation’s faults as well as its admirable qualities and have worked to change things for the better. And I am a fan of those people who don’t see themselves as special and superior simply because they were born on one side of a particular line on a map.
Rob Brown: “To say that it was always good is not accurate. To say that it was always bad is not accurate.”
Agreed.
Rob Brown: “I’m also no fan of people who look at America and see only the good while rationalizing the bad. You have to acknowledge both.”
Again: agreed.
Rob Brown: “I do think that the Bush Administration has done a lot of harm, intentionally much of the time and has made America worse, and for that reason I’m no fan of those people who were involved.”
I agree that the Bush administration has done a lot of harm, but I don’t believe Bush nor his administration intended to do harm. I think he and his officials sincerely believed they were doing what was right for this nation. That doesn’t excuse the things they did, but it’s an important distinction.
Rob Brown: “And I am a fan of those people who don’t see themselves as special and superior simply because they were born on one side of a particular line on a map.”
Again, I agree. It’s great to feel pride in one’s country, but we all need to keep things in perspective.
I agree with everything Bill said.
I’ve always thought you were a very agreeable person, Micha.
And I agree with your agreements, so all is well now. 😀
Part of this goes to the George Orwell distinction between patriotism and nationalism. According to Orwell, patriots are proud of their nations, whereas nationalists both show pride and denigrate other countries. I hope I’ve leaned more toward the “patriot” angle. I’m proud of my country (and I’ll agree with Bill Mulligan, I won a genetic lottery to be born here) and I’m chagrined to see the US– or Dubya for that matter– unfairly and/or irrationally attacked. That doesn’t mean we’re the only game in town, and there are a great many nations that have a lot to be proud of. “We’re second to none” does not imply “the rest of you all suck.” If I’ve given the opposite impression that was my rhetorical failing, and I’m willing to consider the possibility that I overshot a bit. I think I mostly agree with Micha.
Also I really didn’t intend the “softball” comment to be condescending. I thought it was kind of funny in a good-natured ribbing sort of way. I may be so used to debating orally that I forget how hard it is to convey tone in text. Possibly it’s an outgrowth of being a trial lawyer– one calls them legal “arguments” because they’re argumentative, and you don’t really have a roundtable discussion with opposing counsel in front of a jury– but I think I’ve always been this way to some extent. I’m not really going to back down from some of the more deliberately critical comments I’ve made. Sarcasm can be a phenomenally effective rhetorical approach. Used properly, it works. Used excessively you come across as a bit of an ášš, so I may want to dial back a bit on the extent rather than the nature of my comments.
I do think Bill Mulligan’s hypothetical question is a bit of a softball though, if you stick with the “patriotic rather than nationalistic” meme. We’re not great just because the “Greatest Generation” won WWII (though, clearly, that helped). A nation’s greatness is more than the sum of its military victories. The military argument would be an easier approach for the US, because we’re really good at blowing stuff up. But the thing that makes us better than the CSA or the Germans (who would have dominated Europe from 1866 on if they’d listened to Bismarck about fighting only one war at a time) is that we do have the institutions, the political culture, the free economy that let us build. And we are, clearly, building upon the contributions of others (with all due respect to Pink Floyd, sometimes being another brick in the wall is something to be proud of). Or put more poetically, “We are like dwarfs sitting on the shoulders of giants. We see more, and things that are more distant, than they did, not because our sight is superior or because we are taller than they, but because they raise us up, and by their great stature add to ours.” There’s nothing wrong with taking pride in the giant you’re sitting upon, and you needn’t belittle anyone else’s giants to do so. That works both ways, by the way: the “ugly American” stereotype of “do you speak German? you’re welcome” is inappropriate, but so is the constant America-bashing and the dancing in the streets when the Twin Towers fell. None of us alive drafted the Constitution or created the common law, but we do keep the republic going, which is no small achievement– certainly it’s a feat that eluded Rome and Athens. Those who contribute to America build upon what has already been accomplished; the expectation is that we will accomplish still more going forward and live up to our history. It is good and right for us to take pride in that. Yes, to be intellectually honest we need to acknowledge the faults our country has had, but we don’t need to wear a hair shirt. Was it unconscionable for the US to retain slavery for nearly 90 years after the Declaration? Yes, absolutely. Was it unjust to wait through 100 years and two shots at reconstruction to finally eliminate racially based legal inequality? Yes. Did we reach the right result in the end on both counts? Yes. The fact that we have overcome the mistakes we’ve made to reach the point we are at now does not exactly make me less proud.
Some giants are monsters that need to be cut down. (See: Soviet Union, the; Confederate States of America, the.) Judged fairly, by the times this nation has lived through, we’ve never been the monsters. We’ve always been headed in the right direction. For all our flaws, the world has always been made better by the United States being in it. That was the point I was trying to make, and I stand by it.
And that’s about all I have to say tonight. Except for one thing. The past few days when I’ve been at that window upstairs, I’ve thought a bit of the “shining city upon a hill.” The phrase comes from John Winthrop, who wrote it to describe the America he imagined. What he imagined was important because he was an early Pilgrim, an early freedom man. He journeyed here on what today we’d call a little wooden boat; and like the other Pilgrims, he was looking for a home that would be free. I’ve spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don’t know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That’s how I saw it and see it still.— Ronald Reagan’s Farewell Address
PS: Much as I hate to undermine our bold new era of civility, sometimes you just have to be firm. Mike, you need to actually read what I said and not impute to me a contradiction when I state the position I’m arguing against.
PPS: There’s some indication that Reagan misunderstood what Winthrop meant by that, but the “city on a hill” image has taken on a life of its own since Winthrop, with most of the interpretations echoing Reagan.
Ok, dude, I hear your clarification that “…because the losing end of the Civil War resisted abolition, the US didn’t voluntarily choose abolition….” was paraphrasing Rob’s argument which you deny deep in that big ol’ block of text. Now we can all say the civil war didn’t force abolition onto America at gunpoint because America elected Lincoln. Thank you.
“Never have been [the bad guys]” and absolutely unconscionable are still contradictory statements that have yet to be reconciled.
“Never have been [the bad guys]” and absolutely unconscionable are still contradictory statements that have yet to be reconciled.
The commission of an evil act doesn’t immediately consign one to the bad guy wagon. At the time of independence, slavery was rampant in the new world; the soon-to-be-US was no exception. Abolition societies sprung up almost immediately after the Revolution and continued until they won. At no point does the US appear to have been significantly more racist than was normal for the era. Slavery was always inherently an evil, and it took us unconscionably long to eliminate it. But one evil act doth not a villain make, and we did eliminate it. We have always seen ourselves as, and tried to be, Reagan’s city on the hill. I still stand by our overall record.
David: “Those who contribute to America build upon what has already been accomplished…”
Yes, you’ve made your point. Nevertheless, Bill Mulligan’s observation is more accurate than yours. Simply being a U.S. citizen doesn’t entitle you to bragging rights for everything that’s been accomplished in this country.
I think you and Rob Brown are painting pictures in raw, bold colors, whereas reality tends to be more nuanced. The U.S. is neither wholly good nor wholly bad. We’ve committed deeds in our history that are quite shameful (example: committing genocide against the native peoples on this continent because we wanted their land), and conversely have done things that were quite noble (example: the sacrifices made to help win WWII).
On the whole, I do think the U.S. is great. In fact I believe we may indeed by the greatest nation on earth (ducks brickbat from Rob Brown). That doesn’t mean we’re perfect. And that doesn’t mean I or most of the people I know should feel superior solely for being part of such a great nation (ducks brickbat from David). Quite the opposite: I think we should feel lucky.
By the way, I’m quite happy to duck rhetorical brickbats. If anyone starts throwing shoes at me, I’m outta here.
On the whole, I do think the U.S. is great. In fact I believe we may indeed by the greatest nation on earth (ducks brickbat from Rob Brown). That doesn’t mean we’re perfect. And that doesn’t mean I or most of the people I know should feel superior solely for being part of such a great nation (ducks brickbat from David). Quite the opposite: I think we should feel lucky.
Fear not David’s brickbat. I agree with that entire paragraph. I never said I was superior by virtue of being American. In fact I said I was lucky to be born here and compared myself (borrowing from John of Salisbury) to a dwarf. I do garner a lot of advantages by being born American; as you said, we’re lucky.
I’ll leave the “genocide against native peoples” tangent for later. We didn’t, but I don’t want to have a rerun of this entire thread substituting “American Indians” for “Civil War.” And frankly we did enough rotten things to the Amerinds that I’m not sure how much I can rehabilitate that issue anyway.
unconscionable, adj.
What?
Ok, including the definition of the conceded word was categorically retarded, but David’s denials are so arbitrary and nonsensical that it doesn’t seem to matter. Four score and seven years of “evil” is never a bad guy be?
On the whole, I do think the U.S. is great. In fact I believe we may indeed by the greatest nation on earth (ducks brickbat from Rob Brown).
Nah, don’t worry about that. It’s certainly possible. The U.S. has played a prominent role in the last 200+ years of history, and obviously it hasn’t been bad acts from beginning to end. It’s also changed internally over the years in ways both good and bad.
It doesn’t bug me even a little if somebody says that a country might be the best. It does bug me when somebody states it as a certainty.
That doesn’t mean we’re perfect.
LIES!
No wait…truth. Never mind. 😉
Four score and seven years of “evil” is never a bad guy be?
I like making comic book analogies when I can, so here’s how I see it.
The Thunderbolts have always been described as “former villains turned heroes.” Some of them didn’t have any really serious crimes on their records (such as Songbird) and some of them did (such as Bullseye). Some of them were sincere in their desire to reform (such as Abner Jenkins or Chen Lu) while others are just doing it because it’s better than time behind bars (Karla Sofen and Norman Osborn).
Nevertheless, all of them are considered to have been “villains” because of their histories. It doesn’t matter if the good they’ve done in the lives to this point has outweighed the bad (as is probably the case with Songbird, and as was definitely the case with Hawkeye), or if any of them have done bad things with good intentions. They still have that stigma permanently attached of having once been bad guys because…well, they were.
The U.S., or more accurately the American people or American leaders, have bad deeds to their name and as such could be accurately described at certain points in history as “the bad guys,” IMHO.
But the beautiful thing about the Thunderbolts concept to me is the idea that people can put stuff like that behind them and change for the better, stop being the bad guys without reverting to type. Hawkeye did, and he’s been a hero for so long that today there aren’t too many fans or characters who immediately think “ex criminal” when his name is mentioned. So having once been a bad guy doesn’t need to define you indefinitely.
“some giants are monsters that need to be cut down. (See: Soviet Union, the; Confederate States of America, the.) Judged fairly, by the times this nation has lived through, we’ve never been the monsters. We’ve always been headed in the right direction. For all our flaws, the world has always been made better by the United States being in it. That was the point I was trying to make, and I stand by it.”
Again I highly recommend not to be tempted by the good guys, bad guys, monsters and cutting down rhetoric. If for no other reason, because it confuses Mike.
Look at it this way: to refer to the Confederate States as monsters because they supported an institution that the United States supported for the previous 90 years doesn’t seem to make much sense. If they were monsters, so was the US, no? And since they were re-admitted to the US, what does that mean about the US?
But the real world doesn’t work like this. It is more complicated. The institution of slavery was monstrous, no doubt, but beyond that…
And did the CSA need to be cut down?
Consider this, Lincoln had 3 options: to continue tolerating slavery in the Union; to let the Confederates secede to their own slavery tolerating union, or to go to war to preserve the union — a war that was exceptionally brutal. Which was the right choice (Rob)? How much monstrosity was exhibited by the union at that war?
In the case of the USSR it seems obvious that it was a tyranny, and that tyrannies are bad. But should we consider slavery a dark aberration in American non monstrous history, while communist despotism should make Russia a monster?
It could be argued that in Russia despotism is the norm and democracy the aberration. It could also be argued that a system of government is more relevant to the essence of a country than an institution like slavery. And it could be argued that we are talking only about the system of government, the Communist one, not the country and the people and so forth. But I would still be uneasy about talking about monsters. Where does the monstrosity end and the goodness begin? Do we want to call a country monstrous for replacing Czarist despotism with communist despotism?
In any case, although US economic pressure was instrumental in cutting down the USSR, the US did not really cut down the USSR militarily, but lived with it for 50 years for all its monstrosity.
And look at Britain (Canada and Australia included), was it a monster? Was it a bad guy? For quite some time it had a colonial empire with its own share of questionable deeds.
Back to the US. It is certainly better than the USSR and the CSA. And it is better because it improved itself over time. (Some would call believing in improvement over time progressive). Yet for some people, some of the time, the US was the bad guy, and was a monster. And it wasn’t only slavery or indians more than a century ago. The South Americans have a few bones to pick with the US more recently, and lets not forget Vietnam. This, I think, shows the problem with terms like good guys and monsters.
And what about Nazi Germany?
Well, look how both Germans and the rest of us struggle with the idea of separating Germany and Nazism without separating them too much. Also, I think Nazism presented a very clear evil since it was an ideology whose stated purpose was war, conquest and annihilation. But people tend to be too quick in comparing this very unique instance in time and very unique war with a lot of other things, which ends up debasing the historical event and actually making it harder to learn the lessons we need to learn from it.
It should also be pointed out that part of the greatness of the US is that it saved the world from the Nazis. But this was also done together with Colonialist Britain and Stalinist Russia.
I’m not saying there are no monsters and good guys and bad guys in the world. I do say that in general it is not advisable to use these terms to think of the world. They are too simplistic, and there is too great a danger that they would lead to simplistic thinking.
I have the same problem with “the shining city.” The same metaphor that can be very inspiring can lead to arrogance and stupidity. The US got into the mess in Iraq partially because it got caught up in this idealized image of itself as the great liberator bringing democracy to the oppressed. It was tricked in part by its own good intentions.
David: “Much as I hate to undermine our bold new era of civility, sometimes you just have to be firm”
In this case it would be a waste of time.
That’s all for now.
Consider this, Lincoln had 3 options: to continue tolerating slavery in the Union; to let the Confederates secede to their own slavery tolerating union, or to go to war to preserve the union — a war that was exceptionally brutal. Which was the right choice (Rob)?
I’m kind of embarassed to admit this because I’ve spent pretty much my whole life hearing that the Civil War was worth it because it ended slavery and so forth, and believing it, and ending slavery WAS a good thing, but…if I were in Lincoln’s shoes at the time I probably would’ve gone with option #2: let them secede to their own slavery tolerating union.
It’s easy for me to say “yeah, this was worth fighting a really brutal and bloody war over” when I’m the better part of 150 years removed from those events. But making a decision whose consequences would be on my head, which I’d be remembered for…and which might, for all I knew, result in the Confederates winning and slavery being legal in every part of what is today the United States of America…I’d be tempted to say “Let them secede. We know we’re doing the right thing by abolishing slavery here. One day they might realize it’s the right thing too. I’d rather not risk the lives of our people and the safety of our country by starting a war over this.”
I’m not saying that it would be the right decision or that I know better than Lincoln or anything. I’m just saying how I would’ve done it since you asked, Micha, and maybe because of that it’s a good thing I wasn’t in Lincoln’s place back then.
I generally agree with Micha that this rethoric is used by any government to justify anything, but I don’t think I’d like to see the words “monstrous” and “evil” abolished from discourse.
Sometimes I fear that well-intentioned persons, for fear of appearing unsophisticated and bigoted, go too far in the opposite direction and adopt a quasi-nihilistic acceptance of the world’s ills. Albert Camus said that it’s sometimes in the interests of the powerful to over-complicated morality, so that none will oppose them. George Orwell said that dishonest intelectuals will also complicated morality to apologize for monstrous regimes (like the Soviet Union undoubtly was for most of its existence).
Demonizing things sometimes is salutary. Take racism, for instance. The ingrained idea that racism is absolute evil, no two ways about it, no apologizing about cultura differences or any s**t like that, has helped to purge racism from civilized company in Western society.
There is a war to terminate evil that I would gladly support. An alliance of all western countries to kick the šhìŧ out of any country that tolerates genital mutilation of women. Ultimatum of 6 months for countries to eradicate the practice on their own. But I realize that there is little economical incentive to go to war to stop it, it’s not like there is any oil to be found in women’s private areas…