Friday, January 21, 2005
Idealism or Hypocrisy?
Posted by Bob Clasen
Was not Bush's Inaugural Address a noble summary of excellent ideals for American foreign policy?
_________________
If you did not hear or read Bush's Inaugural Address,
I post some excerpts below for your consideration.
_________________
Why cannot Democrats and Republicans unite behind such a vision, even if they differ on the details of its implementation? Is there such a fundamental difference in vision between Democrats and Republicans that this speech evokes admiration in one but not the other?
I listened to one self-described Democrat arguing on talk radio that all ideals are mere foolishness and a cover for the harsh reality of truth: the fight for power. He argued that there is no fundamental difference between America and any other country: they all are merely seeking power. We moved into Iraq for one reason: to grab power (and he was not critical of such a motive). What he was critical of was the hypocrisy of those who claimed they believed that America sincerely cared about the freedom of those in a different country. In short, from a philosophical perspective, Republicans were hypocritical and self-deluded in claiming to be idealists working for Good and fighting Evil.
This skeptical Democrat was quite sure that Good and Evil were illusions; the only true reality was Power. Therefore, no matter what absurd talk Bush might make about supporting freedom and democracy and the rights of men, it was all a smokescrean to cover the truth: the raw struggle for power which is the only reality. Is not this the same viewpoint we encounter among our skeptical, cynical friends in Europe? Since America is no different than any other country, what right do we have to criticize dictatorships? Since we are all morally corrupt, no one has the right to judge anyone else.
Democrats enjoy the game of rooting out hypocrisy: exposing people who do not fully live up to their moral ideals. Democrats have become immune to the charge of hypocrisy. A person with no ideals cannot be found to have violated any of them.
Since Democrat intellectuals no longer believe in God or Good and Evil, the only thing remaining is power. The center of power in society is government. So Democrats wish to rule by means of the power of government. But if Democrats no longer believe in good and evil, why should I feel comfortable entrusting them with the power of the state over me, especially the kind of Socialist State they seem to prefer? Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The modern Democrat's brand of cynical skepticism makes me lean toward a libertarian suspicion of the power of the state, not any trust of people whose swollen egos drive them to pursue political power over others.
_______________________________
Excerpts from Bush's Inaugural Address:
________________________________
For a half century, America defended our own freedom by standing watch on distant borders. After the shipwreck of communism came years of relative quiet, years of repose, years of sabbatical - and then there came a day of fire. We have seen our vulnerability - and we have seen its deepest source.
For as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny - prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder - violence will gather, and multiply in destructive power, and cross the most defended borders, and raise a mortal threat.
There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom. We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.
America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave.
Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time. So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.
This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities. And when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own.
America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way. The great objective of ending tyranny is the concentrated work of generations. The difficulty of the task is no excuse for avoiding it.
America's influence is not unlimited, but fortunately for the oppressed, America's influence is considerable, and we will use it confidently in freedom's cause. My most solemn duty is to protect this nation and its people against further attacks and emerging threats. Some have unwisely chosen to test America's resolve, and have found it firm.
We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies.
We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people. America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies, yet rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed. In the long run, there is no justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty.
Some, I know, have questioned the global appeal of liberty - though this time in history, four decades defined by the swiftest advance of freedom ever seen, is an odd time for doubt.
Americans, of all people, should never be surprised by the power of our ideals. Eventually, the call of freedom comes to every mind and every soul. We do not accept the existence of permanent tyranny because we do not accept the possibility of permanent slavery. Liberty will come to those who love it.
Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world: All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you. Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country. The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that we still believe as Abraham Lincoln did: "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."
The leaders of governments with long habits of control need to know: To serve your people you must learn to trust them. Start on this journey of progress and justice, and America will walk at your side. And all the allies of the United States can know: we honor your friendship, we rely on your counsel, and we depend on your help. Division among free nations is a primary goal of freedom's enemies. The concerted effort of free nations to promote democracy is a prelude to our enemies' defeat.
_______________________________
Was not Bush's Inaugural Address a noble summary of excellent ideals for American foreign policy?
_________________
If you did not hear or read Bush's Inaugural Address,
I post some excerpts below for your consideration.
_________________
Why cannot Democrats and Republicans unite behind such a vision, even if they differ on the details of its implementation? Is there such a fundamental difference in vision between Democrats and Republicans that this speech evokes admiration in one but not the other?
I listened to one self-described Democrat arguing on talk radio that all ideals are mere foolishness and a cover for the harsh reality of truth: the fight for power. He argued that there is no fundamental difference between America and any other country: they all are merely seeking power. We moved into Iraq for one reason: to grab power (and he was not critical of such a motive). What he was critical of was the hypocrisy of those who claimed they believed that America sincerely cared about the freedom of those in a different country. In short, from a philosophical perspective, Republicans were hypocritical and self-deluded in claiming to be idealists working for Good and fighting Evil.
This skeptical Democrat was quite sure that Good and Evil were illusions; the only true reality was Power. Therefore, no matter what absurd talk Bush might make about supporting freedom and democracy and the rights of men, it was all a smokescrean to cover the truth: the raw struggle for power which is the only reality. Is not this the same viewpoint we encounter among our skeptical, cynical friends in Europe? Since America is no different than any other country, what right do we have to criticize dictatorships? Since we are all morally corrupt, no one has the right to judge anyone else.
Democrats enjoy the game of rooting out hypocrisy: exposing people who do not fully live up to their moral ideals. Democrats have become immune to the charge of hypocrisy. A person with no ideals cannot be found to have violated any of them.
Since Democrat intellectuals no longer believe in God or Good and Evil, the only thing remaining is power. The center of power in society is government. So Democrats wish to rule by means of the power of government. But if Democrats no longer believe in good and evil, why should I feel comfortable entrusting them with the power of the state over me, especially the kind of Socialist State they seem to prefer? Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The modern Democrat's brand of cynical skepticism makes me lean toward a libertarian suspicion of the power of the state, not any trust of people whose swollen egos drive them to pursue political power over others.
_______________________________
Excerpts from Bush's Inaugural Address:
________________________________
For a half century, America defended our own freedom by standing watch on distant borders. After the shipwreck of communism came years of relative quiet, years of repose, years of sabbatical - and then there came a day of fire. We have seen our vulnerability - and we have seen its deepest source.
For as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny - prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder - violence will gather, and multiply in destructive power, and cross the most defended borders, and raise a mortal threat.
There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom. We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.
America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave.
Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time. So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.
This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities. And when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own.
America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way. The great objective of ending tyranny is the concentrated work of generations. The difficulty of the task is no excuse for avoiding it.
America's influence is not unlimited, but fortunately for the oppressed, America's influence is considerable, and we will use it confidently in freedom's cause. My most solemn duty is to protect this nation and its people against further attacks and emerging threats. Some have unwisely chosen to test America's resolve, and have found it firm.
We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies.
We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people. America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies, yet rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed. In the long run, there is no justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty.
Some, I know, have questioned the global appeal of liberty - though this time in history, four decades defined by the swiftest advance of freedom ever seen, is an odd time for doubt.
Americans, of all people, should never be surprised by the power of our ideals. Eventually, the call of freedom comes to every mind and every soul. We do not accept the existence of permanent tyranny because we do not accept the possibility of permanent slavery. Liberty will come to those who love it.
Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world: All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you. Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country. The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that we still believe as Abraham Lincoln did: "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."
The leaders of governments with long habits of control need to know: To serve your people you must learn to trust them. Start on this journey of progress and justice, and America will walk at your side. And all the allies of the United States can know: we honor your friendship, we rely on your counsel, and we depend on your help. Division among free nations is a primary goal of freedom's enemies. The concerted effort of free nations to promote democracy is a prelude to our enemies' defeat.
_______________________________
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
End of History
posted by Bob Clasen
http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=49730
America backs democracy, and the world improves
By JONAH GOLDBERG
AMID THE media din about the tsunami, Dan Rather’s implosion, and the usual grim news from Iraq, an amazing story has been unfolding — but has received scant appreciation from the chattering classes. Democracy is on the march.
The Ukraine election reversal is the most significant victory for democracy in Europe since the fall of the Berlin Wall. The Palestinians have held the first legitimate nationwide (so to speak) election in their history (Arafat’s previous “election” was a sham). And while the new Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, leaves much to be desired, his fair victory is significant and momentous in its own right.
Meanwhile, Iraq is preparing for its first fair elections since before Saddam Hussein came to power. Those elections won’t be perfect. Heck, they may even be a disaster (though I doubt they will). But they are finally going to happen — and that very fact is amazing.
Now, it’s true I’m known to be something of a “one-and-a-half cheers for democracy” kind of guy. Then again, I’ve also been known to eat a brick of cheddar like it was an apple, so feel free to take that with a grain of salt. Anyway, it’s not that I don’t like democracy, it’s just that I believe there are more important things than democracy.
I would rather live in an undemocratic country with constitutional rights, fair courts, and a government that upholds the rule of law than live in a democratic country without those things. I’d also rather live in a republic where democracy is tempered and cooled through deliberation and debate. After all, direct democracy is little more than the rule of the mob with ballots instead of torches.
But that’s a technical, political-sciency kind of point, lost on billions of people who not only see democracy and the rule of law as pretty much the same thing, but who also see democracy as the gateway to prosperity and normalcy. In common parlance, democracy means decent government — or at least the hope of it.
What is so astounding is how undisputed democracy is as an ideal. In 1990, Francis Fukuyama wrote an enormously influential essay for The National Interest, which remains the best English-language foreign policy journal in the world. Titled “The End of History,” Fukuyama’s essay argued that the fall of the Berlin Wall signaled, well, the End of History. He didn’t mean clocks would freeze and coins would stop in mid-flip, like in some twilight zone. His was a Hegelian point. Mankind had fought for millennia in an effort to figure out how to organize society. This is what pushed history forward. Liberal democracy, in all its forms, seemed to settle that argument. That was the end of history.
And that’s what we are witnessing before our eyes. Indeed, throughout the 20th century even the worst dictatorships and totalitarian regimes insisted that they were “real” democracies. The Soviet Union swore up and down that it was a “republic” offering a true “peoples’ democracy.” From Nazi Germany to North Korea, men who ruled with jackboots and billy clubs nonetheless felt compelled to use the language of democracy. Saddam Hussein thought holding a sham national election would save his credibility. Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa, a man who knows more about the proper allocation of vowels in first names than he does about democracy, has endlessly harangued America about how to create a “legitimate” democratic government in Iraq. Just this month, Libyan dictator and all-around laugh-riot Muammar Khadaffy told Al-Jazeera that America had a “shameful form of government” and that we need a real democracy. “The U.S. doesn’t have a regime worth imitating. If any regime is worth imitating, it is a Libyan regime. A republic of the masses in which men and women govern themselves. A direct, popular democracy.”
When dictators, theocratic potentates and totalitarians cannot even muster a vocabulary to compete with democracy, you know that democracy has won the battle of ideas.
Obviously, there will be setbacks. History moves tectonically, and, as the tsunami taught us, such processes can be less than smooth. Islamic fundamentalism, for example, rejects democracy for much the same reason — to use Bill Buckley’s phrase — that baloney rejects the grinder. But does anyone doubt the ultimate conclusion of such a conflict? The jihadists aren’t really competing with democracy — they’re opposing it the way barbarians have always opposed modernity and civilization. They can’t cope with it otherwise.
The expansive, decent version of democracy will come to the Middle East and the rest of the world — eventually. If the Iraqi elections fail, even their failure will reinforce the desire for successful elections. Many complain that in Iraq the process is too bloody or too expensive, but these critics are determined to make the perfect the enemy of the good. At the end of the tunnel we, or our children, will look back on America’s role as the catalyst for democracy, and we’ll be proud we were on the right side of history and its end.
Jonah Goldberg’s e-mail address is JonahsColumn@aol.com
http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=49730
America backs democracy, and the world improves
By JONAH GOLDBERG
AMID THE media din about the tsunami, Dan Rather’s implosion, and the usual grim news from Iraq, an amazing story has been unfolding — but has received scant appreciation from the chattering classes. Democracy is on the march.
The Ukraine election reversal is the most significant victory for democracy in Europe since the fall of the Berlin Wall. The Palestinians have held the first legitimate nationwide (so to speak) election in their history (Arafat’s previous “election” was a sham). And while the new Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, leaves much to be desired, his fair victory is significant and momentous in its own right.
Meanwhile, Iraq is preparing for its first fair elections since before Saddam Hussein came to power. Those elections won’t be perfect. Heck, they may even be a disaster (though I doubt they will). But they are finally going to happen — and that very fact is amazing.
Now, it’s true I’m known to be something of a “one-and-a-half cheers for democracy” kind of guy. Then again, I’ve also been known to eat a brick of cheddar like it was an apple, so feel free to take that with a grain of salt. Anyway, it’s not that I don’t like democracy, it’s just that I believe there are more important things than democracy.
I would rather live in an undemocratic country with constitutional rights, fair courts, and a government that upholds the rule of law than live in a democratic country without those things. I’d also rather live in a republic where democracy is tempered and cooled through deliberation and debate. After all, direct democracy is little more than the rule of the mob with ballots instead of torches.
But that’s a technical, political-sciency kind of point, lost on billions of people who not only see democracy and the rule of law as pretty much the same thing, but who also see democracy as the gateway to prosperity and normalcy. In common parlance, democracy means decent government — or at least the hope of it.
What is so astounding is how undisputed democracy is as an ideal. In 1990, Francis Fukuyama wrote an enormously influential essay for The National Interest, which remains the best English-language foreign policy journal in the world. Titled “The End of History,” Fukuyama’s essay argued that the fall of the Berlin Wall signaled, well, the End of History. He didn’t mean clocks would freeze and coins would stop in mid-flip, like in some twilight zone. His was a Hegelian point. Mankind had fought for millennia in an effort to figure out how to organize society. This is what pushed history forward. Liberal democracy, in all its forms, seemed to settle that argument. That was the end of history.
And that’s what we are witnessing before our eyes. Indeed, throughout the 20th century even the worst dictatorships and totalitarian regimes insisted that they were “real” democracies. The Soviet Union swore up and down that it was a “republic” offering a true “peoples’ democracy.” From Nazi Germany to North Korea, men who ruled with jackboots and billy clubs nonetheless felt compelled to use the language of democracy. Saddam Hussein thought holding a sham national election would save his credibility. Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa, a man who knows more about the proper allocation of vowels in first names than he does about democracy, has endlessly harangued America about how to create a “legitimate” democratic government in Iraq. Just this month, Libyan dictator and all-around laugh-riot Muammar Khadaffy told Al-Jazeera that America had a “shameful form of government” and that we need a real democracy. “The U.S. doesn’t have a regime worth imitating. If any regime is worth imitating, it is a Libyan regime. A republic of the masses in which men and women govern themselves. A direct, popular democracy.”
When dictators, theocratic potentates and totalitarians cannot even muster a vocabulary to compete with democracy, you know that democracy has won the battle of ideas.
Obviously, there will be setbacks. History moves tectonically, and, as the tsunami taught us, such processes can be less than smooth. Islamic fundamentalism, for example, rejects democracy for much the same reason — to use Bill Buckley’s phrase — that baloney rejects the grinder. But does anyone doubt the ultimate conclusion of such a conflict? The jihadists aren’t really competing with democracy — they’re opposing it the way barbarians have always opposed modernity and civilization. They can’t cope with it otherwise.
The expansive, decent version of democracy will come to the Middle East and the rest of the world — eventually. If the Iraqi elections fail, even their failure will reinforce the desire for successful elections. Many complain that in Iraq the process is too bloody or too expensive, but these critics are determined to make the perfect the enemy of the good. At the end of the tunnel we, or our children, will look back on America’s role as the catalyst for democracy, and we’ll be proud we were on the right side of history and its end.
Jonah Goldberg’s e-mail address is JonahsColumn@aol.com
Monday, January 17, 2005
Iran
Bob,
Are you ready for another war? Draft time is coming, as new recruitment for your failed experiment won't get us out of Iraq. What do you think about a preemptive attack on Iran filled with mushroom clouds of WMD to institute a universal draft? Two down, North Korea to go.
The real question is, how many UN speeches from Colin Powell will convince you it’s a good idea to bomb Tehran next? If your watching the news, it looks like it’s coming.
Steve
Are you ready for another war? Draft time is coming, as new recruitment for your failed experiment won't get us out of Iraq. What do you think about a preemptive attack on Iran filled with mushroom clouds of WMD to institute a universal draft? Two down, North Korea to go.
The real question is, how many UN speeches from Colin Powell will convince you it’s a good idea to bomb Tehran next? If your watching the news, it looks like it’s coming.
Steve
Sunday, January 16, 2005
Terrorists and the Geneva Conventions
by Bob Clasen
To be covered by the Geneva Conventions, a combatant has to have
(a) a commander who is responsible for his subordinates;
(b) formal recognizable military insignia;
(c) weapons that are carried openly, and
(d) an adherence to the laws and customs of warfare.
Terrorists have none of these. As I understand the Geneva Conventions, they are treaties that civilized countries at war with one another enter into to try to insure the mutual fair treatment of their prisoners of war. If two countries are signatories to this treaty, then their prisoners will be extended these special privileges.
Terrorists do not have a country, do not carry weapons openly, and only promise to torture and behead the captured enemy. So far they have carried out these promises. Why in God's name would we extend the protection of the Geneva Convention to captured terrorists? Please explain this to me if you disagree. If we unilaterally extend the privileges of the Geneva Convention to terrorists who do not extend the same courtesies to us, what motivation do they have to change their ways? We have given away our bargaining chip for free.
This is not to say that I am in favor of torturing terrorists (under most circumstances) but I have no compunctions about making their lives a little uncomfortable in order to extract information. Just as criminals have foregone the protection of the ordinary laws and can be locked in a cell, terrorists have foregone the protectionn of civilized societies that create the rights they wish to destroy. As non citizens and sworn enemies of our country, our only duty is to protect our country from further violence at their hands. (In my opinion, sawing the head off a living man is torture; piling naked bodies into a pyramid is not.)
___________________________
To be covered by the Geneva Conventions, a combatant has to have
(a) a commander who is responsible for his subordinates;
(b) formal recognizable military insignia;
(c) weapons that are carried openly, and
(d) an adherence to the laws and customs of warfare.
Terrorists have none of these. As I understand the Geneva Conventions, they are treaties that civilized countries at war with one another enter into to try to insure the mutual fair treatment of their prisoners of war. If two countries are signatories to this treaty, then their prisoners will be extended these special privileges.
Terrorists do not have a country, do not carry weapons openly, and only promise to torture and behead the captured enemy. So far they have carried out these promises. Why in God's name would we extend the protection of the Geneva Convention to captured terrorists? Please explain this to me if you disagree. If we unilaterally extend the privileges of the Geneva Convention to terrorists who do not extend the same courtesies to us, what motivation do they have to change their ways? We have given away our bargaining chip for free.
This is not to say that I am in favor of torturing terrorists (under most circumstances) but I have no compunctions about making their lives a little uncomfortable in order to extract information. Just as criminals have foregone the protection of the ordinary laws and can be locked in a cell, terrorists have foregone the protectionn of civilized societies that create the rights they wish to destroy. As non citizens and sworn enemies of our country, our only duty is to protect our country from further violence at their hands. (In my opinion, sawing the head off a living man is torture; piling naked bodies into a pyramid is not.)
___________________________
