Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (72484)	8/16/2003 9:39:21 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 82486

Can't graft values onto ill-suited tree By George F. Will Warships carrying 2,300 U.S. Marines are off Liberia's coast, U.S. forces still are in harm's way in Afghanistan and U.S. military deaths in Iraq are, as this is written, just nine short of the total before President Bush declared major combat operations over. But some people think America is underengaged abroad. For example, the presidents of Oxfam America and Refugees International, writing in The Washington Post in support of intervention in Liberia, urge the Bush administration to confront "head-on" many crises: "Central Asia, the Balkans and Western Africa are areas of the world that provide too many examples of what happens when U.S. power is not used proactively." Such incitements to foreign policy hyperkinesis can draw on the messianic triumphalism from British Prime Minister Tony Blair in last month's address to a rapturous Congress: "There is a myth that though we love freedom, others don't; … that freedom, democracy, human rights, the rule of law are … Western values; that Afghan women were content under the lash of the Taliban; … that Milosevic was Serbia's savior. … "Ours are not Western values, they are the universal values of the human spirit. And anywhere, anytime ordinary people are given the chance to choose, the choice is the same: freedom, not tyranny. …" Neoconservatives seem more susceptible than plain conservatives are to such dodgy rhetoric and false assertions. Certainly not only Westerners value, or can come to value, those things. But certainly not everyone everywhere shares "our attachment to freedom." Freedom is not even understood the same way everywhere, let alone valued the same way relative to other political goods (equality, security, piety, etc.). Does Blair believe that our attachment to freedom is not the product of complex and protracted acculturation by institutions and social mores that have evolved over centuries that prepared the social ground for seeds of democracy? When Blair says freedom as we understand it and democracy and the rule of law as we administer them are "the universal values of the human spirit," he is not speaking as America's Founders spoke of "self-evident" truths. They meant truths obvious to all minds unclouded by superstition and other ignorance. Blair seems to think: Boston, Baghdad, Manchester, Monrovia - what's the difference? Such thinking is dangerous. Blair's argument is true only if it is trivial: "Ordinary" people choose freedom, democracy and the rule of law because those who do not so choose prove thereby that they are not ordinary. But there are a lot of them in the world. Some of them are waging guerrilla war against American forces in Iraq. Blair's thinking is President Bush's, too. "There is a value system that cannot be compromised, and that is the values we praise," Bush says. "And if the values are good enough for our people, they ought to be good enough for others." But one must compromise in the face of facts, those stubborn things. It is a fact that not everyone is inclined to praise "the values we praise." And not every society has the prerequisites - of institutions (political parties, media) and manners (civility, acceptance of pluralism) - of a free society. Bush and Blair and many people called neoconservatives believe that moral objectives in politics are universally applicable imperatives. If so, then national cultures do not significantly differ or they do not matter or they are infinitely malleable under the touch of enlightened reformers. But all three propositions are false, and antithetical to all that conservatism teaches about the importance of cultural inertia and historical circumstances. The premise that terrorism thrives where democracy doesn't may seem to generate a duty to universalize democracy. But it is axiomatic that one cannot have a duty to do something that cannot be done. * George F. Will is a columnist for The Washington Post, 1150 15th St. NW, Washington, DC 20071; www.washingtonpost.com.