Shifting Sands; Obama's Idealism; The Court; The Water Board
Perhaps the next party defection Americans will hear about is George McGovern, the once-upon-a-time "'most liberal' nominee for president in American history." Admittedly, this writer has over-stated the case. But Mr. McGovern sure sounds like a true free-marketeer in this comment:
___________________
Mr. Obama is happy to talk about false choices, particularly those choices around America's ideals and national security. As already noted in this place, Mr. Obama is rather guilty of making his own false choices: national security is one of America's ideals. But excuse the digression.
What peeves about Mr. Obama's comment that ideals trump everything is the disembodied-ness of his philosophy. He speaks in terms that are rather neo-Platonic, where what is best, pure and (most) real exists outside the corporeality of life, of the stuff of the world. Mr. Obama has intimated in his discussions regarding the alleged "torture memos" that America's ideals would be compromised, sullied and damaged if the very corporeal and bodily act of slapping was ever committed against a known terrorist or enemy combatant. What is more important is not the flesh-and-blood reality of living and breathing Americans. What is important is a transcendent, intangible, theoria: a realm of perfect Ideas.
Another way to look at it is to simply think of pacifism. A pacifist -- really -- is a person interested in self-preservation, in moral self-preservation. The pacifist says that he would rather die -- or let someone else die -- than suffer a moral stain on his ideals. Turning the other cheek, then, becomes a practical act of self-congratulation, where the pacifist receives glory when measured against a reified abstraction: his moral code. To hell with the flesh-and-blood empiricism of life, the heart-beating apparatus of human existence. What matters is idealism, the realm of the disembodied spirit rapturously contemplating glorious principles. To the idealist, Smith must never compromise his values in protecting Jones, for if he does, he will lose his "moral standing" in the world.
Sadly, Jones beheaded by a terrorist using a jack-knife before a TV camera is a "thought" too mundane, too tactile, for the idealists among us. "Harsh" interrogation methods are an affront to America's disembodied self-congratulation. Americans must feel good about themselves; they must preserve their self-righteousness by never defending themselves in ways unbecoming.
Ultimately, it's not the actual people that make America great, that embody American exceptionalism. America's greatness is found in its cold, lifeless abstractions.
__________________
Some folks have suggested that U.S. Supreme Justice David Souter has been a disappointment. Perhaps he has been. But it's interesting how his legacy (so far) has been perceived. The common reprise by conservatives is that Mr. Souter was either a conservative who shifted radically to the left or he never was a conservative in the first place. Of course this sort of assessment is to be set against the apparent values of the president who nominated him. In this case, or so it goes, Mr. Souter did not meet the expectations of George H. W. Bush. Souter shifted his position or, even worse, he concealed his position from the light of day.
But something is missing from this assessment, and it is that George H. W. Bush himself shifted his position during the Reagan years on key political issues. In 1979-80, as G. H. W. Bush began his first campaign for president, Mr. Bush was deemed by many conservatives too liberal for the position. Interestingly, Mr. Bush shifted right, ever so slowly, on things like abortion. Cynics felt he did this solely for political expedience, and they may be correct. But if they are correct, then it follows that Mr. Souter is not at all a disappointment, since he, like his sponsor, actually believed something other than represented. Perhaps Mr. Souter behaved exactly the way a George H. W. Bush appointment should have behaved. Perhaps his jurisprudential legacy is not an embarrassment at all.
___________________
Remember, waterboarding is so torturous, so utterly evil, those who oppose its use water-board themselves in protest. It is also so horrific, so damaging, that journalists get paid to endure it so they can report about its dreadfulness. Clearly you can see how such a thing compromises America's loftiest ideals.
Peace.
BG
©2009. All Rights Reserved.
My perspective on the so-called Employee Free Choice Act is informed by life experience. After leaving the Senate in 1981, I spent some time running a hotel. It was an eye-opening introduction to something most business operators are all-too familiar with -- the difficulty of controlling costs and setting prices in a weak economy. Despite my trust in government, I would have been alarmed by an outsider taking control of basic management decisions that determine success or failure in a business where I had invested my life savings.Sounds like Michael Steele needs to make a phone call.
___________________
Mr. Obama is happy to talk about false choices, particularly those choices around America's ideals and national security. As already noted in this place, Mr. Obama is rather guilty of making his own false choices: national security is one of America's ideals. But excuse the digression.
What peeves about Mr. Obama's comment that ideals trump everything is the disembodied-ness of his philosophy. He speaks in terms that are rather neo-Platonic, where what is best, pure and (most) real exists outside the corporeality of life, of the stuff of the world. Mr. Obama has intimated in his discussions regarding the alleged "torture memos" that America's ideals would be compromised, sullied and damaged if the very corporeal and bodily act of slapping was ever committed against a known terrorist or enemy combatant. What is more important is not the flesh-and-blood reality of living and breathing Americans. What is important is a transcendent, intangible, theoria: a realm of perfect Ideas.
Another way to look at it is to simply think of pacifism. A pacifist -- really -- is a person interested in self-preservation, in moral self-preservation. The pacifist says that he would rather die -- or let someone else die -- than suffer a moral stain on his ideals. Turning the other cheek, then, becomes a practical act of self-congratulation, where the pacifist receives glory when measured against a reified abstraction: his moral code. To hell with the flesh-and-blood empiricism of life, the heart-beating apparatus of human existence. What matters is idealism, the realm of the disembodied spirit rapturously contemplating glorious principles. To the idealist, Smith must never compromise his values in protecting Jones, for if he does, he will lose his "moral standing" in the world.
Sadly, Jones beheaded by a terrorist using a jack-knife before a TV camera is a "thought" too mundane, too tactile, for the idealists among us. "Harsh" interrogation methods are an affront to America's disembodied self-congratulation. Americans must feel good about themselves; they must preserve their self-righteousness by never defending themselves in ways unbecoming.
Ultimately, it's not the actual people that make America great, that embody American exceptionalism. America's greatness is found in its cold, lifeless abstractions.
__________________
Some folks have suggested that U.S. Supreme Justice David Souter has been a disappointment. Perhaps he has been. But it's interesting how his legacy (so far) has been perceived. The common reprise by conservatives is that Mr. Souter was either a conservative who shifted radically to the left or he never was a conservative in the first place. Of course this sort of assessment is to be set against the apparent values of the president who nominated him. In this case, or so it goes, Mr. Souter did not meet the expectations of George H. W. Bush. Souter shifted his position or, even worse, he concealed his position from the light of day.
But something is missing from this assessment, and it is that George H. W. Bush himself shifted his position during the Reagan years on key political issues. In 1979-80, as G. H. W. Bush began his first campaign for president, Mr. Bush was deemed by many conservatives too liberal for the position. Interestingly, Mr. Bush shifted right, ever so slowly, on things like abortion. Cynics felt he did this solely for political expedience, and they may be correct. But if they are correct, then it follows that Mr. Souter is not at all a disappointment, since he, like his sponsor, actually believed something other than represented. Perhaps Mr. Souter behaved exactly the way a George H. W. Bush appointment should have behaved. Perhaps his jurisprudential legacy is not an embarrassment at all.
___________________
Remember, waterboarding is so torturous, so utterly evil, those who oppose its use water-board themselves in protest. It is also so horrific, so damaging, that journalists get paid to endure it so they can report about its dreadfulness. Clearly you can see how such a thing compromises America's loftiest ideals.
Peace.
BG
©2009. All Rights Reserved.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment