It may just be a personal axiom of mine, but whenever someone attacks somebody else's intelligence and morality, I usually view the person doing the attacking with suspicion. People are so busy blah, blah, bli-ing Bush they have lost all sense of perspective. Green Day's fear of being an 'American idiot' reveals a reoccurring pattern in American history - the constant internal shortchanging of itself. Yet, America always stands firm and on top in spite of pop culture fears. In my opinion, the bigger picture aims of the Bush administration are worthy and deserve some serious pondering.
Ever notice how the truth is often scoffed if not scorned at? The funny thing about the truth is that even when it comes to be realized as self-evident people rarely acknowledged when they once opposed it. Of course, at this point, someone is bound to suggest that truth mean different things to different people. Without getting into Socrates let us assume that certain truths are, shall we say, obvious?
This is the feeling I get about George W. Bush. Who is closer to the truth when it comes to Iraq? His message on foreign policy is actually nothing new. Much has been said of the neo-conservative influence on Bush. The neo-con doctrine seemed to to touch a nerve with his nationalist outlook. But there is another aspect that may be neglected: Bush's attempt to reach out to Wilsonian principles.
Woodrow Wilson (that raving racist liberal) once attempted to convince an old, weary and cynical Europe that it was time to integrate moral imperatives within political frameworks. With the collapse of the Treaty of Westphalia's and its tenets that defend balance of power politics, American politicians and thinkers questioned realpolitik (as it was known). Wilson was laughed off the stage like a cheap vaudeville act. Europeans, not surprisingly, dismissed him as a naive American as their own experience with democracy was limited if not inferiour to the American model.
Fast forward to the present time. How far off is Bush from Wilson's idealism? Is there a parallel to be made between the two? 9/11 offered another go at instilling moral edicts in the political process. Would the reaction had been the same if Bill Clinton sent the Americans into Iraq? Of course, someone could easily say Clinton would not have done it. We'll never know.
The Romans used to say, "...if you want peace, prepare for war." Post 9/11 was a declaration of war on a perceived evil empire. There is nothing neither debatable nor complicated in this. What is complicated are the reasons for this and the stage selected. The only problem is we still don't know if Iraq was really involved given the murderers came from Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
Almost immediately our minds were filled with theories about its occurrence. As usual, the interpretations are based strictly from a narrow postmodern perspective. Relativism has distorted our moral and intellectual compass.
America, I have always maintained, is an ever-changing society that is agile and innovative. Hence, its power base is not just concrete but abstract. America is a different kind of empire that can, theoretically, last forever.
There seems to be a discrepancy between the world's idealistic rhetoric (like Canada for instance) and what they are prepared to do for it. The world lags behind the principles of the American Constitution - one of mankind's greatest documents. Part of the problem, one can argue, is that America has set its standards too high. That human nature can not possibly meet them.
Once again, modern liberal thought reveals its arrogance when it chastises America for coming up short of its ideals. Bush, with the exception of a few, is also perpendicular to accepted and antiquated intellectual elitism. This bugs the hell out of the tweed club. I have yet to see the theocracy so feared take root. Hyperboles are not very becoming but it's all the left seems to have left.
This is not to say that Americans should export its value abroad blindly. Nor am I remotely suggesting people not be critical.
It just needs to be a little more cautious and tactful about it. It is incumbent upon them that they act responsibly and morally. They need not trump it with less chest thumping. .
Ever notice how the truth is often scoffed if not scorned at? The funny thing about the truth is that even when it comes to be realized as self-evident people rarely acknowledged when they once opposed it. Of course, at this point, someone is bound to suggest that truth mean different things to different people. Without getting into Socrates let us assume that certain truths are, shall we say, obvious?
This is the feeling I get about George W. Bush. Who is closer to the truth when it comes to Iraq? His message on foreign policy is actually nothing new. Much has been said of the neo-conservative influence on Bush. The neo-con doctrine seemed to to touch a nerve with his nationalist outlook. But there is another aspect that may be neglected: Bush's attempt to reach out to Wilsonian principles.
Woodrow Wilson (that raving racist liberal) once attempted to convince an old, weary and cynical Europe that it was time to integrate moral imperatives within political frameworks. With the collapse of the Treaty of Westphalia's and its tenets that defend balance of power politics, American politicians and thinkers questioned realpolitik (as it was known). Wilson was laughed off the stage like a cheap vaudeville act. Europeans, not surprisingly, dismissed him as a naive American as their own experience with democracy was limited if not inferiour to the American model.
Fast forward to the present time. How far off is Bush from Wilson's idealism? Is there a parallel to be made between the two? 9/11 offered another go at instilling moral edicts in the political process. Would the reaction had been the same if Bill Clinton sent the Americans into Iraq? Of course, someone could easily say Clinton would not have done it. We'll never know.
The Romans used to say, "...if you want peace, prepare for war." Post 9/11 was a declaration of war on a perceived evil empire. There is nothing neither debatable nor complicated in this. What is complicated are the reasons for this and the stage selected. The only problem is we still don't know if Iraq was really involved given the murderers came from Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
Almost immediately our minds were filled with theories about its occurrence. As usual, the interpretations are based strictly from a narrow postmodern perspective. Relativism has distorted our moral and intellectual compass.
America, I have always maintained, is an ever-changing society that is agile and innovative. Hence, its power base is not just concrete but abstract. America is a different kind of empire that can, theoretically, last forever.
There seems to be a discrepancy between the world's idealistic rhetoric (like Canada for instance) and what they are prepared to do for it. The world lags behind the principles of the American Constitution - one of mankind's greatest documents. Part of the problem, one can argue, is that America has set its standards too high. That human nature can not possibly meet them.
Once again, modern liberal thought reveals its arrogance when it chastises America for coming up short of its ideals. Bush, with the exception of a few, is also perpendicular to accepted and antiquated intellectual elitism. This bugs the hell out of the tweed club. I have yet to see the theocracy so feared take root. Hyperboles are not very becoming but it's all the left seems to have left.
This is not to say that Americans should export its value abroad blindly. Nor am I remotely suggesting people not be critical.
It just needs to be a little more cautious and tactful about it. It is incumbent upon them that they act responsibly and morally. They need not trump it with less chest thumping. .
No comments:
Post a Comment
Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.