nimh wrote:
Jonathan Chait's "The case for ..." submits as convincing as any an argument for why the liberals should hate the President with such an unprecedented fervour.
Well, it didn't convince me. I found Chait's tortured argument suggesting that, though the hatred of some Republicans for Clinton was certainly paranoid and unjustified, his and that of other liberals for Bush is certainly fully justified, to be ludicrous in the extreme. Moreover his opening remarks criticizing Bush's style of walking, with elbows out and shoulders back as some exercise in vanity, reveals the author as an envious pencil necked geek who doesn't know the effects of regular physical workouts.
Blatham is very sore at me for my consistent belief that, taken as a whole, large groups of people exhibit more or less the same good and bad human qualities, and, for example, Canadians overall are no better or worse than Americans. What would he say if I amended that to exclude citizens of BC? The shadow metaphor was very good, but so is my point ! Also I find, it wasn't either the weed or Lola - it was me! 'George moved - a bit', he said. (I'm reminded of Pilar's question in "For Whom the Bell Tolls" -- "Did the earth move?". Was it good for you?)
I do readily admit to an emotional reaction to some of the criticism of the USA by others. I also acknowledge that the fact that numerous Americans may have voiced the same criticisms does not assuage the discomfort I feel. I also note that to a degree this is an observable national trait. We do have a mythology about ourselves, and like all such myths, its contradictions to fact are its most visible parts. In turn our critics should recognize that, in a similar way, their criticism puts their own hypocrisy and contradictions in stark relief in our eyes.
Beyond this I also believe that some of the most important good things we do are likely to be among those most criticized, both domestically and internationally. I agree with Tartarin that Europe would still be Europe without us. Indeed, in view of European history, that is a good argument for our active role in the world.
The facts suggest that Guantanamo is indeed a good deal better than the Hanoi Hilton or the French prisons in Algeria, or even the Maize in Ulster. The fact of American dominance in the world is merely an historical fact - it is not a result of any particular virtue on our or anyone's part. Our mistakes and shortcomings are rather easy to see and comment on. However, i don't know of any historical precedent suggesting it has been done a whole lot better. That is certainly no excuse for our failings, but it is a factor that any responsible critic should keep in mind.