I would simply like to go on record as having serious objections to the Bush administration’s policy of encouraging and supporting the growth of democratic institutions in the Middle East and around the world.
There is little historical evidence that democracy is the natural state, or the foremost form of political association among human beings. Historially, its origin in terms of time and location is very limited. Democracy began mainly in the 17th and 18th centuries in countries that bordered the North Sea or the English Channel. From there it extended into central Europe and North America, brought to the later by peoples of northeastern Europe. In other words, democracy is hardly a univeral phenomenon.
For a great many of the world’s peoples, personal freedom has been far less of a concern than physical and economic security or material prosperity. Often, to secure these, peoples have looked to more authoriitarian forms of government. George Kennan once pointed out that in some cases authoritarian governments had been able to introduce measures and reforms that have acted to better the lot of their people more effectively than if their governments had been more democratic and theefore more diffuse. Kennan named China under Mao, Cuba under Castro, and Portugal under Salazar. Even if one doesnt agree with these examples, they are worth examination.
The Bush admiinistration’s unthinking advocacy of democracy without fully understanding the cultureal and poliitical traiditions where democracy is being attempted seems to be another species of the delusion that we know with certainty what other people want, a self conceit that evades any honest evaluation to determine if our own beliefs, values and habits are relevent to people and institutions very different from ourselves.
The idea that every victim of oppression is at heart a liberal democrat is one of the most persistent of American illusions. It simply won’t die. It has the persistence of bacteria.
America is, at bottom, only a country, not some glorious cause. Like any other country, we have our shameful episodes like the Mexican War, the Spanish American War, the occupation of the Philippines, etc. In other words, there are times when we are are noble, other times where we are greedy and squalid, some times when we are selfless, and others where our avarice is truly shameful.
We have less to offer than we think, and what we need, it seems to be, is to bring into closer alighment our actual capababilities and the obstacles confronting them, and thus produce a more sober menu of ambitions.
Richard Sale
You’re not going to get a sober menu of ambitions from a group of people with no sense of history and no foundation in reality.
DITTO what maye said.
Pat, thanks for bringing this declaration to us. Now isn’t one of the first questions to be asked is if you agree with Mr. Sale, even just a little bit…what are our men and women in Iraq really fighting, dying and being crippled for? Michael Singer
I have argued this point with friends often, and my view is that it is not so much democracy that has value in itself, but the freedoms that usually come with it, at least in the West. Democracy is just a way to achieve these freedoms. It’s a means to an end, not an end in itself.
For some countries a democracy is a questionable solution because it won’t work. Mugabe’s Zimbabwe has an elected president and laws and a parliament and all the institutions of a democracy. Still it is a despocy, or a dictatorship of a majority at best. Somalia had a stable government when it had a system of tribal council. It kept the country together for 200 years. As a democracy it became a failed state in less than 50 years. For other countries a monarchy may be the better choice.
For democracy to work it needs a certain mindset that has to grow over time. Clan, tribal or ethnic focused thinking is a great obstacle for democracy to succeed.
In the end I think that a stable government that is actually governing and caring for the people, is what counts. What worth is having a freedom when trying to exercise it will get you bullied or killed by the majority in the population?
Neo-cons like Jeanne Kirkpatrick once claimed that a dictatorship like Pinochet’s is better than socialist rule, with the argument that the former is authoritarian whereas the latter totalitarian, and thus unable to reform. How convenient an excuse for propping up dictators.
I’ve seen the collapse of eastern europe’s communist block and with that in mind I wholeheartedly disagree. Yet Pinochet’s rule would still arguably better than anarchy as we see it today in Iraq.
Brilliant article. ‘America is, at bottom, only a country, not some glorious cause.’ Here is the crux, the current conservative movement is completely wrapped up in the mythology of America. That mythology tells us that we ARE a glorious cause, that God is on our side, that we are never wrong and that we cannot lose. How many times have we seen great men or nations undone by nationalist hubris? Sometimes I see Bush as Caligula, declaring war on Poseidon, driven to madness by the belief of his own divinity(remember Bush and God are tight). Sometimes I think of him as Nero, hopelessly out of touch, hopelessly incompetent at everything and oblivious to the crumbling empire around him.
Brilliant article.
‘America is, at bottom, only a country, not some glorious cause.’
Here is the crux, the current conservative movement is completely wrapped up in the mythology of America. That mythology tells us that we ARE a glorious cause, that God is on our side, that we are never wrong and that we cannot lose. How many times have we seen great men or nations undone by nationalist hubris? Sometimes I see Bush as Caligula, declaring war on Poseidon, driven to madness by the belief of his own divinity(remember Bush and God are tight). Sometimes I think of him as Nero, hopelessly out of touch, hopelessly incompetent at everything and oblivious to the crumbling empire around him.
A comment from London on your very interesting post:
This view of democracy as a kind of panacea for security problems rests largely on quite extraordinarily simplistic readings of European history since the period of the American and French revolutions. One can usefully go back to Tocqueville, not least because he is a fundamental influence on Kennan, whom you cite.
Tocqueville’s work was in large measure an attempt to make sense of the contrasting outcomes of the American and French revolutions, and specifically of the fact that the high hopes of a new world of equality and liberty held by the French revolutionaries in 1789 had found their nemesis in the imperialistic ‘Caesarism’ of Napoleon. In trying to explain the different outcomes of the two revolutions, he introduced two oppositions. One was between aristocratic and democratic society, with democratic meaning egalitarian; the other, within democratic society in this sense, was between equality combined with liberty, on the American model, and ‘democratic despotism’. The former distinction reflects the actual situation of early medieval Europe, where kingship was not absolute. At the practical level, the means available to royal power to enforce its will were limited. At the theoretical level, the obligation of obedience to divinely sanctioned authority was counterbalanced by the obligation of authority to consult — a pattern replicated down the hierarchy of authority.
A central contention of Tocqueville’s was that the centralising activities of monarchical absolutism had worked to create an atomised form of ‘individualist’ society, and in so doing undermined the legitimacy of the whole system. Having privilege without function, the nobility no longer supported the monarchy while in turn having no claim on the obedience of the non-noble. Not only was the system inherently unstable, but its collapse was inherently likely to produce anarchy followed by ‘democratic despotism’. Tocqueville’s intellectual problem lay largely in showing how this could be prevented from becoming a recurrent pattern, and a successful combination of equality and liberty achieved on the continent of Europe.
Given the success of the post-war Pax Americana in Western Europe, it is easy to assume some kind of natural teleology of Western civilisation towards the more hopeful of Tocqueville’s two outcomes. But in the interwar years, one might indeed have concluded that if European history had any natural destination, it was towards Caesarism. And indeed, a good case can be made that the survival and success of liberal democracy in post-war Europe is the fortuitous result of a most peculiar combination of factors, not least important the fact that Hitler decided to attack the Soviet Union. The diplomats of the German Moscow Embassy, the excellence of whose analyses is noted by Kennan in his memoirs, argued that experience showed that the nationalist version of ‘Caesarism’ was inherently more powerful than the internationalist communist one, and that this was reflected in the fact that Stalin was increasingly turning into a kind of national socialist. Accordingly, they argued, Germany’s future lay in an alliance with the Soviet Union to form a ‘continental bloc’ of Germany, Japan, Italy, and the Soviet Union. Had Hitler not been gung-ho with hubristic self-confidence after the fall of France, their advice might well have been taken. And who knows — Francis Fukayama might have been writing books explaining how the liberal era was simply an aberration on the path to the ineluctable triumph of fascism.
Very little in recent history gives warrant for confidence that the disintegration of traditional systems of legitimacy necessarily leads to benign outcomes. One implication is that, where such systems of legitimacy have disintegrated or are under threat, as seems to be the case in much of the Middle East, it is highly likely that one may end up looking, not for magic solutions, but for least worst options. If one deludes oneself that things can be better than they can be, they may end up a lot worse than they need be. Another is that one should not assume that having a long history of successful democratic government gives Americans, or British, any kind automatic immunity to the dangers of Caesarism.
Thanks Mr. Sale – I agree with a lot you said.
But your starting point is: “Bush administration’s policy of encouraging and supporting the growth of democratic institutions”
Bush does not support genuine democracy. He is coming from a free anarchistic market model and sees “democracy” as a (sometimes) helpful tool to achieve that.
In his recent speech at Freedom house Bush said:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060329-6.html
“I happen to believe free markets eventually yield free societies. One of the most — one of the most pure forms of democracy is the marketplace, where demand causes something to happen. Excess demand causes prices to — the supply causes prices to go up, and vice versa. That stands in contrast to governments that felt like they could set price and control demand.”
To him its markets. Try to replace “democracy” with “free market” in anything the Cheney government says and you can read their real religion.
(Ignore Bush’s senseless demand/supply blubber in that quote. Who gave this man a MDA diploma?)
If for Bush it is about “free markets”, the “Clash with Islam” can be seen in a very different light too. Islam has much to do with an egalitarian society with tightly controlled markets.
It is against free capitalism of the Bush propagated type. Unfortunatly this aspect of the whole conflict has not received enough interest yet.
The United States is not a democracy; it is a representative republic with well-established and well-respected legal framework for the protection of individual rights (the Rule of Law)
During 3000 years of Chinese history, only a minuscule number of the Chinese people ever enjoyed the benefits of the Rule of Law. And that was in the British Crown Colony of Hong Kong during its 99-year existence; which was not a democracy.
It would have been a more achievable goal, in my opinion, if US policy had been concentrating on the development and imposition of the Rule of Law in ME and else where.
But building and sustaining the Rule of Law is neither glamorous nor easy. It does not attract headlines and does not capture men’s imagination. Yet that is where, in my opinion, our future on this planet must lie.
Michael
nothing. pl
“The United States is not a democracy; it is a representative republic. . .”Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 31 March 2006 at 10:18 AM
. . . Except in California where the only laws getting enacted are ballot initiatives passed via direct democracy. I leave it to the judgment of others the merits of this system. (P.S., We have an action hero as a governor.)
Babak..You raise interesting issues,,
I tend to agree with you on Rule of Law..Which is the Highest law of the Land..
It needs to be established
but in a just and humanitarian Way..Similar the the Rule Of Law in the United States and England..
With Sufficient Due Processs and Human Rights and Safeguards..
That is what true Democracy has to Offer and what is the difference betweeen Our Social order and Rule of Law..AND THOSE OF MORE SECTARIAN..oppressive regimes..with stricter rules..
Use their Rul of Law to Oppress the People when its convenient..
Less Human rights or Regards for the Welfare and Happiness of the People..so they can live without Fear..
As long as thier are differences ..There will always be debate of the Issues and differences between the Unitwed States and other Cultures and Peoples..
The Question is how to resolve those differences in Peaceful and diplomatic Way..With Wisdom..
Not With iolence and Confrontation..
The Drums of War..Hatred..
and violence..
Should NOt beat..Should Never Beat..
Without First Consideri9ng the BEAT of Mans heart..
And Rather Peace Could and Should Be the Better Alternative…
Patrick Henry:
Thank you for your kind and supportive response.
I beg to differ with you on several points:
1. I do not think that the Rule of Law can be established or maintained anywhere at any time without violence. Certainly US has not been an exception in the need for the constant exercise of violence to maintain the Rule of Law.
2. Secondly, the “oppressive regimes” do have laws. But they tend not to obey & follow their own rules & laws (Stalin’s Constitution was one of the most progressive ones at its time.) In other words, there is no Rule of Law.
3. I do not believe that human beings are capable of avoiding war; they like war (2500 years ago Plato wrote “Only the dead have seen the end of war.”). Perhaps because war is exciting or perhaps because of the love/hate feelings that human beings have for one another.
4. My own concern has been not with the possibility of war but rather the decision to go to war. It seems to me that both in ancient and modern warfare there was an emotional (non-rational) decision (by a group of mostly males) to go to war-the possible outcomes and cost/effect analysis were never performed. Thus one could easily wind up in a war that ruins oneself (Athens vs. Sparta).
I do agree with you that diplomacy and non-military solutions are often more desirable. They do entail costs like everything else but when one looks at the Civil War one would wonder if the Federal Government could not have offered to buy all the slaves and thus avoid that war. Or in case of Iraq, if containment would not have been a better choice for many more: for US, for Iraq, for Jordan, etc.
Patrick Henry:
Thank you for your kind and supportive response.
I beg to differ with you on several points:
1. I do not think that the Rule of Law can be established or maintained anywhere at any time without violence. Certainly US has not been an exception in the need for the constant exercise of violence to maintain the Rule of Law.
2. Secondly, the “oppressive regimes” do have laws. But they tend not to obey & follow their own rules & laws (Stalin’s Constitution was one of the most progressive ones at its time.) In other words, there is no Rule of Law.
3. I do not believe that human beings are capable of avoiding war; they like war (2500 years ago Plato wrote “Only the dead have seen the end of war.”). Perhaps because war is exciting or perhaps because of the love/hate feelings that human beings have for one another.
4. My own concern has been not with the possibility of war but rather the decision to go to war. It seems to me that both in ancient and modern warfare there was an emotional (non-rational) decision (by a group of mostly males) to go to war-the possible outcomes and cost/effect analysis were never performed. Thus one could easily wind up in a war that ruins oneself (Athens vs. Sparta).
I do agree with you that diplomacy and non-military solutions are often more desirable. They do entail costs like everything else but when one looks at the Civil War one would wonder if the Federal Government could not have offered to buy all the slaves and thus avoid that war. Or in case of Iraq, if containment would not have been a better choice for many more: for US, for Iraq, for Jordan, etc.
I think it scares me that we even approach these questions at the level proposed by Bush.
I think almst every third world country had democratic elections and other trappings since WWII, often lots of times. With a long list of collapses.
I am not sure what the requirements for success are, perhaps a system that preserves rights, and other pieces, but I do know simplistic proposals are insanity at this point. They are for peple who live in an imagiery reality, a faith based world.
But then again it seems to work for them. For example the approach to civil war is identical to that of the Greenhouse effect.
Point 1- It doesn’t exist.
Point 2- If it does exist we had nothing to do with it and can do nothing.
Point 3- If we are responsible then it’s a good thing.
Babak..Thank you for your Response and comments..I can tell you give this subject deep thought..
You have also Caused me to give the subject more thought also..
i welocme your right to have differt perspectives and thoughts on the matter..
We all have our Own experiences..Perspectives and Insights..
There is wisom in Peaceful Debate..among Friends..
The Fact is..Yes..rules of Law Have been Established..with the Use of violence..
Thats Past History for the United States..We Had Our Revolution..Against oppression..and unfare Taxs..and Disregard for Human Dignety or Human Rights..With security..
Thus we Established Our Constitution..and Bill of Rights With That in Mind and built In Safeguards..
That protect the CITIZENS..
and all others who pass throguh Our judicial System with its RULE OF LAW..
The WILL of the People is the ..Rule of LAW..
A Nation OF the PEOPLE..BY the People and FOR the People.(.True On a Scale) democracy..
With built in Safeguards from from Monarchal..Dictoral..Sectarian or Political Regimes..
or forms of government that Oppress the People..
Read The Preamble to the US Constitution..
Thats the Heart of the Debate..
“The Bush admiinistration’s unthinking advocacy of democracy without fully understanding the cultural and poliitical traiditions where democracy is being attempted seems to be another species of the delusion that we know with certainty what other people want, a self conceit that evades any honest evaluation to determine if our own beliefs, values and habits are relevent to people and institutions very different from ourselves.”
As if to underscore this point, Dear Leader yesterday:
“”We support democracy, but that doesn’t mean we have to support governments that get elected as a result of democracy.”
How could he possibly think that the world view identified in the first point above leads anywhere but to the dilemmas which led him to yesterday’s quote?
The man’s knowledge of how the US and the world works seems to have stopped with Mrs. McGillicuddy’s sixth grade Civics class at Midland – Odessa Middle School.
More on Sale’s piece:
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2006/03/compassionate_i.html
IMO, the best run nation in the modern world is Monaco, a benevolent monarchy. Keeping a monarch benevolent is the biggest problem.
Patrick Henry:
I have read the preamble of the US Constitution.
The point I was hoping to make was that there will always be a need for what people like Colonel Jessup do to create a blanket of security.
I am completely against the hubris of the fools that go out there and looking to make more enemies in order to live their (infantile) fantasies; the liberal fantasies in Vitenam, the humanitarian fantasies in Somalia and Yugoslavia, and now the neo-conservative fantasies in Iraq.
And at the end of these wars, the policy makers go and right books such as “In Retrospect” and tell us why the policy was wrong. Tell that to the dead and the wonded and their families.
There can be differnt forms of Rule..some monarchs can and have been very wise and Benevolent..
Our Revolution was against a Monarchy Who wasn’t so benevolent..
Any Power to Rule bears great responsibility..
True..there are Various Forms of Democracy..The so called Will of the People..
The does Not mean that the will of the people is disquised in a Way..that it disprgards ALL the People..
The United States as a Democracy is still the best Example of Having Freedoms for ALL People..Feedom to Chose,,To Worship or not Worship..To peacefully assemble..to protest..Have Free Speech..Debate..without Persecution or fear of oppression..
We are Many peoples..Gathered from many Nations..races..cultures..creeds and Beliefs..
We all have Our Individual Rights..
We Live in relative Peace..and tolerance..with out the Extreme Forms of violence of other Cultures..and “Democracys”
The Difference is..That WE THE PEOPLE.Reconginzed oppression.Desired Our Freedom..and Human Rights..
And FOUGHT for it Ourselfs..
FOR~ALL `THE `PEOPLE..
Democracy begans at Home..
Our Leaders..Elected Officials..and People..
Should Walk to Walk..
Before they Talk the Talk..
I would like to add One more thought to this Discussion..before I turn my Puter off for the day..and enjoy some gardening..now that its warming up alitte..
I believe the problems we see come from Idelogical..Theocratic differnces among Nations and People..
I believe that any or all of them can and do go to extremes in defending what they believe to be the Right Process..
Each has its flaws..or benifits depending on Time and Circumstances..
i believe in Free Markets and free Market reform..There must always be Commerce..with Goods and Commodites for the People..every where..
That is sadly lacking in many Parts of the World..Mostly due to Strict policys and Controls by Those who RULE..
I do not approve of Strick or Violent efforts to Protect IDELOGOY..
Rather Capitolism..Communism..Naziism.. Fascism..Sectarianism..or any other SECTISM..
Humanitarianism..Based on a Respect for the Value of the ‘Idividual” and Human Life..
Most people just want Food..a`roof..some happiness..Security for thier Children and thier Homes..and..
Wise and benevolent Leadership..
Of ANY KIND..
Thats a On Going..and Constant GROWING Process..
For ALL of us..
‘I think almst every third world country had democratic elections and other trappings since WWII, often lots of times. With a long list of collapses.’
Some of those ‘collapses’ were coups instigated or carried out by the U.S. I’m not sure the fledgling democracies of South and Central America, or Iran were given much of a chance to succeed before we squashed them.
Perhaps the most important question is the impact of the ideology on policy and public opinion.
Democracy as the end-state for all our policy efforts suggests a long game quite akin, in my own mind, to the creation of the workers’ paradise under you-know-who.
The analogy is entirely apt – we overlay our policies, which often incline towards the pragmatic, with an ideological gloss. The gloss appeals to some, but is rejected by most as naive, hypocritical and utopian.
I’d say the democracy thing is mostly for domestic consumption, and probably does us no good at all in the wider world. We believe in democracy and American exceptionalism, not the rest of the world.
A more genuine expression of the yearning for freedom would be a policy emphasis on human rights as opposed to democracy. Carter was pilloried for giving a policy priority to human rights; the current crew clearly does not believe in human rights. Having foreclosed this appealing option, we are left with… purple fingers.
Duck of Death,
what you point out is easily explained with the Bush wonderful quote brought by fbg46:
“We support democracy, but that doesn’t mean we have to support governments that get elected as a result of democracy.”
Babak..you raised more issues during our discussion about other matters you think about..All Good questions..
Why does man and or nations go .to War with each other..VANITY..GREED..
..Perhaps as you suggest..even motivated by the Excitement of War..
I believe thats what drove men like Hitler..perhaps in the believe they were do the right thing..Motivated..by Nationalism..or some supposed Righteous Cause..
But then Vanity..Greed..Lust for Power takes Over and there are Extreme Abuses far beyond what was Origionally Intended..
The United States has a history of RESPONDING those those who have Started other Wars..included the Curret Attack on The United States.. Remember..Germany..Japan..
and Our efforts to help the korean people..
Onbe can see the Contrast between South korea and the Strict Dictatorship oif KIM in the North..his people are Starving..are desperate for Freedom and Liberation and would Love anything resembling a Fair Democracy..and He threatens more War and Violence..even if that means His Nations Self destruction ..as you alluded to in your earlier Comments..
Ther may not be anyone left to write Future Books about what went Wrong..or about The History of War..
or any History for that matter..
With todays Modern..Weapons..and Mass destruction..
and enough Nukes to Wipe out mankind 250 times over..
The Survivors…if any..will be in Caves..rewriting History on scraps of Paper..with a Stubble of Pencil..
as long as there are Forces of Good and Evil..Principalitys and Powers..Satan will put it in someons Mind to Start wars..and help them rationlize it..to satisfy EGO and vanity..
With litte regard for Consequences..
Future events will determine if Continued Containment was the Best alternative for Iraq..
I wonder what has Been set in Motion..I wonder at the outcome..
I wish preachers and teachers and world leaders would Talk Peace..
But..I am an Idealist..
My Holy book tells me that god Loves me..and all of Us..
We`are to LOVE him..and Love Our Nieghbor..and Not KILL..
With That in Mind..
There would be No War..
Solomon was Right..Vanity..Vanity..All is Vanity..
There will be until Gods Kingdom is established on earth..
And they will Beat thier Swords Into Plow shares..
And Make war no more..
For now..we are want..to watch..and Wait..
For the Final Chapter..in a long Story..
His Story …
Patrick Henry,
what I learned in my courses on foreign legal systems was that common law basically boiled down to two universally accepted essential and basically moral rules: (a) Keep your promises and (b) don’t infringe other people’s property/ privacy.
Whenever one ignores those two rules he’s bound for trouble. That as much applies to everyone’s personal life as to global politics. Wouldn’t they be an interesting guideline for foreign policy?
Probably even a Bin Laden or any other Salafist could live with that.
What we are dealing with in current U.S. politics is that politicos claim the right of the U.S. to play by their own rules, and interfere whenever and wherever they feel fit. Talk about hubris.
Democracy is mostly about finding a legitimate way to ensure for the citizens a pool of individual rights to keep the peace. Laws are the means to this end. Anyone standing above the law poses a threat to this, and even when he has a strong position he is going to pay a price sooner or later.
Same in international affairs. When there’s a country that declares it is above the universally accepted rules there will be an inevitable reaction. The loss of U.S. standing and their loss of political leverage, despite their still impressive power, gives testimony to that.
In a sense, there’s a free market for sympathy that works like credit ratings. When your reputation or record get worse, interest rates are rising, and goodwill is going to be denied. The loss of patience with the Bushies has already forced them to change parts of their policy in reaction. While the U.S, military strength is indeed without even a near term peer, the U.S. aren’t alone on the world, and as Iraq has shown, there are limits to U.S. power, and that cannot be ignored eternally.
Maybe that’s a comfort.
I really like that credit score analogy. It desentmentalizes, AND it gets us where we live.
“Mit Der Dummheit Kampfen Gotter Selbst Vergebens..’
Against Stupidity..God Himself Struggles in Vain..
anybody see Gen. Zinni on Meet the Press this morning? He was great. He should run for Pres in 08
does CSPAN still do reruns?
Patrick Henry,
I’m well aware that Bush in a vainglorious moment could declare war on Iran (if we don’t act now … blabla) , and unleash the U.S. Air Force – he already suggestet he cares more for his bio in the history books than for his people or sensible policy.
I also think that his administration is a motley crew that still can’t decide on *one* policy on Iran, let alone on every other issue. And while they are bickering, there is the inevitability of somehow adressing Iran on the nuke issue or their growing influence in Iraq. Ignoring them will not make Iran go away. And wanting to have their way doesn’t work either. I see that as reality mugging the hardliners and realists alike. Still, I trust them to continue messing up things in their zeal.
China has already declared they have no requirement for further turmoil in the Middle East. They might indeed pull the strings and play the donor card when their calculation shows that higher oil prices hurt more than the loss of business with the U.S. Having relocated so much of their industries to Asia or wherever else cheap labor can be found, the U.S. have no choice but to buy anyway.
When the U.S. make themselves much more unpopular they might lose their atractiveness as an investment market. Even though the Bushies are stupid, there are others that aren’t. Europe is already making overtures to everyone who wants to invest in Euro. That’s the great thing about having competition – it somewhat ballances the market. So my concern is not what the world does to the U.S. but what the U.S. are doing to themselves.
When America seems isolated today, Bush has no one to blame but himself. The overwhelmingly positive international reponse to 9/11 suggests to me that most of the mayhem Bush entangled America in since 9/11 is was not only avoidable but housemade.
Sadly, the American people had every opportunity in the world before the election to see the administration’s misrepresentations about Iraq’s nuclear program. They also had every opportunity in the world to see that Bush was determined to go to war no matter what. I’m not going to buy any storyline about how the administration fooled the innocent public and the pro-war chattering classes.
What the health of the Republic requires, in other words, may not be a new crop of leakers and whistleblowers, or a fresh young generation of Woodwards and Bernsteins — or even a more independent, aggressive media. What it may need is a new population … ‘a Republic, if you can keep it.’ Good point, Mr. Franklin.
That is the truly gloomy part.
“Jedoch der schrecklichste der Schrecken,
Das ist der Mensch in seinem Wahn.
Weh denen, die dem Ewigblinden
Des Lichtes Himmelsfackel leihn!
Sie strahlt ihm nicht, sie kann nur zünden
Und äschert Städt und Länder ein.”
Schiller again – in ‘Das Lied von der Glocke’
“But the most terrible or terrors,
that is man in his delusion.
Woe betide tose who, to the ever-blind,
lend the torch of heavenly light!
It won’t guide him, can only ignite,
and incincerate cities and countries”
Herbert..you make many good points and observations..They are the same concerns many americans have about the future of the United states and the quality of Our Leadership and government..
I especially know how the Germans feel..and probably most Europeans as well..
There has been great damage done to the reputation of the United S
tates and its relations with other Nations..
The key word often hear now when discussion current events with my fellow citizens about Bush..is ARROGANCE..
It Dominates His Administration and His policys..There is little about it to like..
It Leaves a Bad Taste and Bad impression..Thier menu leaves little to be desired..
Its like a Guest house where you got Bad Food and Bad service along with an..
ATTITUDE..
I suppose the Rest of the World is Suprised to see this type and extent of arrogance from the United S
ates government,,
its the Wrong Response..
And the Wrong Message to Send..Its destroying good will and Offending Friends and Allies..
Patrick Henry,
I heared of the U.S. first ear as a kid, so to say. That was first my granma telling me that she was happy that my granpa was POW with the U.S. – because he was treated well. When my mom was very little, right after the end of the war, she got diptheria, and was treated in a U.S. Army hospital with the then brand-new penicilin. She was the sole survivor in twenty children. Later, she was fed in school with U.S. donated food. Even today her eyes still light up when she describes how she got her first orange.
Whatever Bush does, he cannot kill these memories. In the widest sense, I owe something to America, and I certainly will not forget about it.
Contrast my childhood tales to Abu Ghraib, Gitmo or the torture debate. It’s a disgrace that America today even affords itself such a debate. I mean, who again wrote the Nuremberg standards? In WW-II there was no doubt that torture was barbarious.
Terrorists hardly are a greater peril than Hitler once was, so how come that then torture was out of question, but seems to so many acceptable today ‘if it can save a life’. The only word I can find for it is hysterical.
“So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.”
FDR in 1933 didn’t speak about war and peace but about needed optimism in face of the depression, though the quote today is frequently taken out of context and given a new interpretation in face of politics of demonisation and fearmongering (mushroom clouds anyone?).
What I see in Bush’s misled and foolish policies (embracing torture, treaty killing, agression as a seemingly preferred expression of political will) is a retreat into barbarism. But despite all this there is, however, no reason to fear the attempt to convert this retreat into advance.
Norman,
Re: Common Law. An interesting point but Common Law died in the US sometime after the Civil War didn’t it? It simply doesn’t offer those in power enough wiggle room, with Common Law gone, the power elites can write the laws to their own benefit. They sure as hell aren’t gonna offer the rest of the world a kind of Common Law justice, it doesn’t do anything for us, we’ve already got all the muscle.
Patrick Henry,
when you start talking Satan putting the idea of war into world leaders head, your world view appears to be very close to George W. Bush’s world view.
duck,
but then, the U.S. managed to get an end to segregation only after a long hard struggle and thanks to a couragous lady named Rosa Parks.
People do have power even when not stringing up the mighty.
Norbert..please excuse me for getting your name wrong..
My wife has a cousin named Herbert . in Germany..
.she was commenting about him and about Schiller after reading your Previous comments..I had that name in mind when I wrote you back..
I think your comments about american Policy and Actions..probably remind Germans of a bad time in thier History..
They were exposed to the same Measures and Hysteria..and Saw the Results..
I would like to remind DUCK..that many believe in
the influence of Satan on mankind..
Including the Pope..like Pope John Paul..and all Christians..Mulsims and Jews..blieve in other Powers that exist..
The most Primitive peoples in the world believe in Spirits and Demons..Why..No one Taught them..they just know..
My faith..or Belief in the bible.. does not mean all of us..are like George Bush share the same World View..
I do not support his policys..
Or Promote a New World Order..Thats the sad Consequence of Bush becoming a Sectarian President..
It reflects on all of Us..
If you have read all of my comments here..You will find many differences between my world view..
And Bushs..
I also Believe the Power of Love and Forgiveness comes from God..
and what I have learned in the bible..is a reasonable
explanation for Mans Behaviour..and History..
I respect your right to believe what you will..
I believe in Peace..and pray for Peaceful solutions..
You may like this paper/elegant speculation on democracy in ancient India:
http://www.nipissingu.ca/department/history/MUHLBERGER/HISTDEM/INDIADEM.HTM
http://www.nipissingu.ca/department/history/MUHLBERGER/HISTDEM/INDIADEM.HTM
Just serfed in. Great site, guys!
Your site is very interesting and useful
Wonderful and informative web site.I used information from that site its great.O
Hi, all. Nice site…I really like your site ! Good job man.
This website is Great! I will recommend you to all my friends. I found so much useful things here. Thank you.
You guys do a wonderful job! Keep up the good work!!!g