In a more thoughtful followup (not hard!) to his earlier paean to Mother England, Yglesias goes on to say one sensible thing about patriotism:
American liberals and American conservatives are both Americans so our American patriotism is very similar. We just have different ideas about politics.
He then drives directly off the rails.
Specifically, I would say that liberals do a better job of recognizing that much as we may love America there’s something arbitrary about it — we’re just so happen to be Americans whereas other people are Canadians or Mexicans or French or Russian or what have you. The conservative view is more like those Bill Simmons columns where not only is he extolling the virtues of this or that Boston sports team or moment, but he seems to genuinely not understand why other people don’t see it that way. But of course Simmons is from Boston and others of us aren’t.
All of which is to say the liberal doesn’t, as a political matter, confuse the emotions of patriotism with a description of objective reality or anticipate that the citizens of Iraq or Russia or China or wherever will drop their own patriotisms and come to see things our way. Patriotism is a sentiment about your particular country but it’s also a sentiment that’s much more widespread than any particular country, and if you can’t understand the full implications of that then you’re going to go badly wrong.
No Matthew, you marvelous Harvard-trained Atlantic columnist you, you’re describing something far closer to nationalism, not any kind of patriotism I would recognize – or that Schaar, Wolin, or a host of others I could name would recognize. They actually are different things, you know.
And here’s a clue, which you spent several hundred thousand dollars to miss but which was available to you for two-fifty in library late charges.
There actually is something unique and well worth celebrating in American patriotism. First because we were among the first to throw off the yoke of hereditary privilege and substitute the rule of the governed. Second – and most important – because we are not a patrimony defined by land or by blood – not an accident of geography or a nation bound by a common heritage but instead a people animated by a set of ideas. That Yglesias thinks those ideas are worth as much as the ideas motivating – say, China’s polity, or Iraq’s – speaks volumes about what he sees when he looks around him.
And volumes about what I see when I look at him. I see someone who thinks love of country is not dissimilar to love of the Celtics. Why would anyone die for the Celtics? Why would anyone owe anything to the Celtics?
One of the farcical things implicit in this is that Yglesias probably thinks he’s cosmopolitan, in the snooty sense of “sophisticated and at home in all parts of the world”, and quite distinct from — and much superior to — Lee Harris’s tacky nationalistic (as Yglesias would no doubt call it) “team cosmopolitanism” adduced in Civilization and its Enemies, where having constituent elements from all over the world or from many different parts of the world united by a common and deep team outlook, and loyalty, is the crucial factor.
Harris’s “team” terminology adds a nice fillip of triviality if one chooses. Yup, just like the Celtics — if you’re a superficially “cosmopolitan” git.
AL, before you get too worked up about other people’s understanding of patriotism, how about we revisit some of your own shortcomings on the issue?
I would suggest that Yglesias is dead on with his comments in the article that you’ve linked to – although I think this post may be even more apt. Yes, the US has a long history of proud achievements and profound and meaningful ideology, and we justly celebrate that stuff on the 4th of July (and at other times of the year). But there is a substantive difference between loving your country because it’s your country, and loving the ideas that represent that country at its best. And just because America does have a long and proud history of ideas and goals that warrant joyous celebration doesn’t mean that any and all celebration of America is of those ideas – quite a lot of it is of the “my country, right or wrong” mindset.
Which can be, and generally is, a good thing, in and of itself, but let’s recognize it for what it is.
Meantime, I’ll note that many here at WoC seem to have gone out of their way to prove Yglesias right – that y’all were all too willing to turn your back on the _actual ideals_ of this country (say, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment – and no, the 8th amendment doesn’t say “citizens only”) in favor of arguing that just about anything George W Bush wanted to do was fine because we’re Americans, dammit, and Americans are _always_ the good guys, regardless of their actual actions.
Which brings us back to AL’s misreading of Schaar I linked to above… but I think I’ll stop and leave y’all to your sneering at Mr. Yglesias for now.
Chris, I hope I can point out that (from context) the 8th Amendment applies to criminal (and possibly civil) matters, and specifically to the actions taken by officers of the court and those who pass or execute sentences upon those accused or convicted of conventionally criminal acts.
That an unlawful combatant apprehended in combat not in US territory is not the same thing as a criminal apprehended by civil authorities in the US is still a matter of dispute by reasonable people, whether you like it or not. [NOTE: The above presupposes that the person in question in either case is clearly guilty. Determine *that* to a reasonable degree, let alone to a moral certainty. :\ ]
Even more debate-worthy are the questions along these lines: whether interrogation is intrinsically the same thing as punishment, whether warfare is “punishment”, and indeed whether the conduct of war can be anything but cruel. And how about this: If war is punishment, but we wish war to be not common, that is to say unusual, does the 8th Amendment forbid it, no matter what, to all who truly hold American principles? I could really go to town on this whole claim of yours about the 8th Amendment, but let it be for now.
I do not hold that Americans are incapable of cruelty. I do hold that nothing I’ve heard of the atrocities laid at the feet of our forces in the recent conduct of the Iraqi campaign is much like the systematic behavior of any renowned {sic} despot.
I do agree that we should hold ourselves to a high standard of moral conduct. Just “better than Saddam” is clearly not good enough, and too often that’s the cartoon rejoinder from some apologists.
That said, these are complex, difficult matters. I can not explain the evident impulse on several sides of these matters to simplify them into (sometimes burned) effigies, except cynically — and I’ll refrain from that as it is unproductive.
[Edits added]
What is wrong with loving your country because it is your country?
Davod, who said there was something wrong with that?
Nortius, #3:
That an unlawful combatant apprehended in combat not in US territory is not the same thing as a criminal apprehended by civil authorities in the US is still a matter of dispute by reasonable people, whether you like it or not.
Unfortunately, as a matter of law, the Supreme Court has determined that the CSRT process as it exists is inadequate. It’s therefore a bit dubious to assert that illegal enemy combatants cannot be afforded the protections of the US Constitution when it’s their status as properly determined illegal enemy combatants is part of what’s at question.
That said, these are complex, difficult matters. I can not explain the evident impulse on several sides of these matters to simplify them into (sometimes burned) effigies, except cynically — and I’ll refrain from that as it is unproductive.
Well, I still have some rocks to throw, in the service of complexty. I’ve thrown some at the Executive, above, so
let’s throw two more: One at the Court, for suggesting a process based on AR 190-8, then striking it down; and one at the Legislative for being so feckless that they have refused to proved any meaningful legal clarification, codification, or guidelines on how to deal with this.
Congress seems to think the world today is the same as the world of 2000, and needs no new legal thinking whatsoever. The Executive knows the world has changed, and seems to think it can do whatever it wants. The Court seems to think this is the time to play Sphinx. They’re all wrong; the world has changed, we do need a base of law both flexible ad coherent off which to experiment but which restrains the Executive from doing anything it pleases, and this is not the time to be ambiguous or flighty.
Marcus Vitruvius, #6 shows that you appreciate that the issues surrounding patriotism are complex. You discuss some of them without caricaturing the positions (much less the inner thoughts) of those who disagree with you.
Chris, comment #2 suggests that this subtlety has escaped you, so far. Try again?
What bloviating bullshit! One loves the homeland because one grew up in it; you create rationalizations (like these) later. By the way: if Americans were so eager to throw off the yoke of hereditary privilege and substitute the rule of the governed, how was it that the Founders sanctioned slavery?
Why love your parents more than any other strange man or women? Right?
Patriotism is not about criticism. It exists entirely apart from the fact of criticism.
Chesterton “explained the problem”:http://www.leaderu.com/cyber/books/orthodoxy/ch5.html best.
bq. _A man who says that no patriot should attack the Boer War until it is over is not worth answering intelligently; he is saying that no good son should warn his mother off a cliff until she has fallen over it. But there is an anti-patriot who honestly angers honest men, and the explanation of him is, I think, what I have suggested: he is the uncandid candid friend; the man who says, “I am sorry to say we are ruined,” and is not sorry at all…_
bq. _The evil of the pessimist is, then, not that he chastises gods and men, but that he does not love what he chastises — he has not this primary and supernatural loyalty to things._
When a man begins by saying ‘I am sorry we were ever born,’ it is hard not to think he is an antipatriot of this type: one who lacks the “primary and supernatural loyalty” that is the mark of the patriot. Every subsequent criticism is flavored by that initial regret that America should exist at all.
That does not mean the criticisms are wrong, of course: it only means that the man is not a patriot. Another man, who loved his country with the ferocity of a child for his mother, might have the same criticisms. They could both be right at the same time, in terms of the criticisms they raise: but only one is a patriot.
That an unlawful combatant apprehended in combat not in US territory is not the same thing as a criminal apprehended by civil authorities in the US is still a matter of dispute by reasonable people, whether you like it or not
Apparently, the definition of “reasonable people” now encompasses people who assert that captured illegal combatants be tried in U.S. courts for violations of U.S. law, and that they be treated in accordance with the third Geneva Convention, which expressly prohibits the trial of captured EPWs under domestic criminal law.
It’s not that big of a difference between loving a deeply subjective personal interpretation of your country’s highest ideals, while hating what your country actually is.
Yglesias is saying what liberals typically do constitutes constructive criticism. Problem is, the construction never begins. No, it’s all about ego and self-importance. What matters to Yglesias and that sort is maintaining a self-image as more (important, intelligent, patriotic, whatever) than some other group.
It saves a lot of time, though, if you just say ‘he’s an ass’ and move on. I mean, really, life’s too short and so on. He’ll have the same self-delusion tomorrow that he has today regardless of what anyone says about him. One post on this, fine. But why go on and on?
Myself, at this point if I see that name, I usually just pass. If I see a skunk, I know the deal. No need to test it.
Why bother? This guys sounds like a sophomore with a major in poli sci who landed a job as an intern at the Atlantic.
Look, it’s really simple – the United States of America came into being with the Declaration of Independence (and was given its substance with the Constitution.) When Matt says that we would have been even “awesomer” if not for that, then he is quite simply saying that it would have been better had the United States of America never been born.
Now, if Matt wants to try to reconcile that with any known definition of patriotism, he’s welcome to try. But it won’t fly. If “dissent is the highest form of patriotism” is arguably moronic, then “you can be patriotic while simultaneously thinking that your country would have been better had it never existed” is demonstrably oxymoronic.
Can someone help me out here? I always thought the Geneva Convention gave some basic rights to an epw in uniform. In the uniform of the enemy. A person capture on the field of batlle out of unifrom can be shot as a spy. The poeple detained aren’t covered under the convention.
Does anyone need a better example of moral relativism than Yglesias’ formulation of “patriotism”? Actually, it is this complete inability to escape the “floating opera” of relativism that is the REAL dividing point between Liberals and Conservatives. Yglesias thinks it is a demonstration of his superior intellect to say that there is no difference between a Nazi stormtrooper’s loyalty to the Fatherland, and Abraham Lincoln’s love of the Union. No difference, see? Coke or Pepsi, you silly boy!
It is just you rubes that think otherwise.
freedom from cruel and unusual punishment – and no, the 8th amendment doesn’t say “citizens only”)
It does say *punishment* though. “Limitation of Clause to Criminal Punishment”:http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment08/09.html#1 And the Fifth Amendment right to be Mirandized doesn’t say “citizens only” either.
{Slightly mangled link format. Fixed. –NM]
A liberal friend of mine is a rabid UCLA Bruins fan because he is a citizen of UCLA, having attended there for a few years.
Would that he was as devoted to this country as he is to his team.
Mike P.
That is exactly a very large part of it. Why does Yglesias love his mother more than my mother?
Familial love does not operate on the same plane as utilitarian calculation. It doesn’t obey strict laws of human rationalism – it might completely ignore individual merit, for example.
Yglesias-type liberals ought to recognize that it is a good thing that human affection extends beyond family to community, region, and country. This is what makes life livable for billions of people, and it’s an instinct that liberals want to appeal to.
Patriotism is not all sentimentality – particularly American patriotism, since we a country founded in political idealism. But national sentiment is a hugely important thing, and to dismiss it is irrational.
I can very well understand how a Russian can love Russia, in spite of centuries of disastrous history and all current problems. Likewise the Mexican. What I can’t understand is someone who lives comfortably in a very fortunate country and feels no affection for it at all.
Posted to Yglesias, see if it goes up:
“Arbitrary? What, did our ancestors choose America to emigrate to by throwing darts at a map? “Od, drat, we missed Montreal; oh, well, on to Ellis Island, then…”
People CHOSE to come to America. Maybe they wanted what they believed it offered, or what they believed it stood for, or because we wouldn’t kill them out of hand like their current neighbors. But there was nothing arbitrary about it. They looked at America and they saw their best hope, or their last hope, and they boarded the ships.
Shame on you for denigrating their faith and courage, equating it to a casual choice in a candy store.”
I dislike sports fandom (not sports – just the fandom) for exactly the arbitrariness of it that Yglesias points out.
I have never, and will never, wear an article of clothing with the logo of a sports team.
On the other hand, I served in the military, and am willing to die to preserve the freedom of the United States.
…because the US, as you point out, is not arbitrary – it is a beacon of liberty for all of mankind. That’s something you can’t say about France, or Mexico, or Zimbabwe, or any place other than the US.
_Specifically, I would say that liberals do a better job of recognizing that much as we may love America there’s something arbitrary about it — we’re [sic] just so happen to be Americans whereas other people are Canadians or Mexicans or French or Russian or what have you._
Just because a liberal can do something “better” doesn’t make that something worth doing at all.
For example, Yglesias _et al_ are very good at standing on the stern of a ship, warning everybody of the icebergs that were missed.
Liberals in America think that loving America is something arbitrary, but somehow can’t see that the same thing is true of the sports they support.
I looked Yglesias up on Wikipedia, and it says he’s a basketball fan. How American! And how unthinkingly American, too.
My challenge to liberals and leftists is simple: impress me. Impress me with your knowledge of sports in other countries. Impress me with your sensitivity to their sports. Impress me by knowing about not just the Boston Celtics but also Glasgow Celtic. Impress me by knowing what sort of competition the FA Cup is. Impress me by knowing something about cricket.
Yes, I know, some liberals and leftists can impress me in this way. But they tend to be younger. The older ones are hopelessly mired in sports bigotry. And knowing this, I just ignore the thoughts of people like Yglesias.
If Yglesias intended to suggest that, as a political matter, liberals don’t confuse their admiration of some parts of the Constitution with their zeal for International Law, he should have just said so.
bq. Chris, I hope I can point out that (from context) the 8th Amendment applies to criminal (and possibly civil) matters, and specifically to the actions taken by officers of the court and those who pass or execute sentences upon those accused or convicted of conventionally criminal acts.
bq. That an unlawful combatant apprehended in combat not in US territory is not the same thing as a criminal apprehended by civil authorities in the US is still a matter of dispute by reasonable people, whether you like it or not. [NOTE: The above presupposes that the person in question in either case is clearly guilty. Determine that to a reasonable degree, let alone to a moral certainty. :\ ]
NM, I think the founders would have disagreed – considering that some years prior to the Bill of Rights, many of the Founders _were_ “unlawful combatants”, or the equivalent of, for their day and age. What’s more, the basic idea of “inalienable rights” doesn’t exactly mesh with legal distinctions about who may or may not to be tortured.
bq. I could really go to town on this whole claim of yours about the 8th Amendment, but let it be for now.
And this is my point – for all the great and abiding love that y’all claim to have for this country, for freedom and human rights and all the other ideals this country was founded on, you seem to care relatively little about the actual _application_ of those ideals.
It’s pretty simple, actually, NM – you claim to stand ready to overturn a _prima facie _ reading of the 8th amendment with loopy logic about how, gosh, war is bad, and interrogation is bad, and they’re all bad, and probably against the 8th amendment, but what are you gonna do, huh?
NM, rationalizing away torture as merely being the application of “harsh interrogation techniques” on “unlawful combatants” is _not_ the way to protect and honor this country’s ideals.
And for all that AL loves to talk about a nation bound together by shared ideals, the fact that y’all support the guys who stand behind the principle that the President is _not_ bound by Congressional law not to, say, crush children’s testicles suggests to me that we do _not_ have many of those founding ideals in common any more. And that being the case, forgive me for not really giving a rat’s ass about how much you thump your chests about how you _really_ love your country, and how others do not.
bq. That said, these are complex, difficult matters. I can not explain the evident impulse on several sides of these matters to simplify them into (sometimes burned) effigies, except cynically — and I’ll refrain from that as it is unproductive.
Oddly enough, NM, this is me at my least cynical and most productive. None of this has a damn thing to do with right vs. left, D vs. R – this pretty much falls right into good vs. evil, in my book. And what you call an effigy, I call plain, honest truth.
Um, Chris not to put too fine a point on it but have you read what I’ve “written here about torture”:http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/armed_liberal_on_torture_people_should_not_fear_their_government_their_government_should_fear_the_people.php ? Why do you attribute ideas to me that aren’t mine?
Now I don;t beat the drum on it, because while I oppose it, I think that the issues raised here are relatively small beer – compared to any war we’ve engaged in in the past, we’re doing far better (not that we don’t have better still to do, and not that the Administration did not miss yet another golden opportunity to publicly do the right thing and to improve the stories told about this war).
But this is so far from defining the core of who we are as a people that I’m kind of at a loss for how to respond. Does Charlie Manson define America to you?
Out government is imperfect, which the Founders recognized it would be. That’s why it will change in seven months. We have a chance to do better. And when that government shows itself to be imperfect, we’ll get to change it, too.
A.L.
Chris wrote a counterfactual:
“NM, I think the founders would have disagreed – considering that some years prior to the Bill of Rights, many of the Founders were “unlawful combatants”, or the equivalent of, for their day and age.”
And he’s simply got the history wrong. We treated captured Crown soldiers as POWs, and they treated captured Americans as POWs, even ones in civilian clothing if they were taken as part of the military unit.
We hung captured out of uniform spies such as Major Andre, and they hung captured out of uniform American spies, such as Nathan Hale.
Neither quibbled with either capital punishment, as each was perfectly according to the rules of war then in use.
_One loves the homeland because one grew up in it…._
Tell that to my Hungarian grandmother.
Well, we’re kind of an accident of geography, but probably not in the way that you meant. Otherwise, yeah, you’re right about the difference between patriotism as you define it and nationalism. That’s also why when some people differ so much about what they think this country is supposed to be, it starts to become patriotism of something else entirely.
bq. Um, Chris not to put too fine a point on it but have you read what I’ve written here about torture ? Why do you attribute ideas to me that aren’t mine?
AL, I have read what you wrote – and it’s basically a long winded way of saying “yeah, we do some bad stuff, but nobody’s perfect, and we’re better than Saddam.”
Which is to say, you say pretty much nothing at all, while continuing to broadly support the Bush administration and attack the Democrats, even as John Yoo is saying the kind of stuff I linked to above. And with such stuff, if you’re not bang against it, you’re with it, for all intents and purposes.
bq. But this is so far from defining the core of who we are as a people that I’m kind of at a loss for how to respond. Does Charlie Manson define America to you?
AL, let me spell this out for you: we are, at the core, a nation given certain inalienable rights by our creator and governed by (largely) elected institutions, where each major branch is subject to checks and balances from the others and no one man is above the law.
However, the position of the Bush administration, both with regard to John Yoo’s testimony above and in a wide variety of other instances, is that _he is above the law_, and does not need to follow what Congress or anyone else says.
So, yes, the *official stated policies and actions of our elected President* define our core principles in the way that the actions of a psychopath 30-odd years ago do not.
This crap goes way beyond “our government is imperfect” – our government is actively undermining the ideals of this country. And shame on you for pussyfooting around the issue with this “nothing’s perfect” BS.
Why is Matthew Yglesias at all celebrated or admired? What has he ever written that wasn’t conventional liberal wisdom of the most expected sort? Why is he an Atlantic columnist and not just a staff writer at Newsweek? Can anyone point to ANYTHING he ever wrote that was especially clever, insightful, thought-provoking, anything?
Chris, that’s such a flat misreading of what I wrote that I’ve gotta question either your honesty or your reading skills.
A.L.
Tom-
bq. And [Chris has] simply got the history wrong. We treated captured Crown soldiers as POWs, and they treated captured Americans as POWs, even ones in civilian clothing if they were taken as part of the military unit.
Tom, it has been a while since I took my courses on the Revolutionary War, but I do seem to remember that POW status for American soldiers was not immediate, and that there were a fair number of highly questionable instances of captured prisoners falling dead.
_”I think the founders would have disagreed – considering that some years prior to the Bill of Rights, many of the Founders were “unlawful combatants”, or the equivalent of, for their day and age.”_
No. The British considered them traitors, plain and simple, and described them as such.
AMac, #7:
Well, I characterized the Hell out of the legislature as being feckless, but by and large I try not to caricature actual people. I don’t always succeed.
Nortius is exactly right that the issues are complex. I hold that they are not only complex, but novel– indeed, they’re complex in part because they are novel– and I get very frustrated when people ignore that. It’s not even always a right/left split, as it is a split between people who refuse to see we’re in a fundamentally different situation than we were ten years ago, vs people who think that novelty grants extreme license.
If I have a basic sympathy in this situation, it’s toward the Executive Branch, on the grounds that they’ve been given a job, but few tools or guidelines. I’ve been there in my own life. But that’s sympathy. It’s not a free pass.
(Some of this is also being fueled by my read through of Bobbitt’s (somewhat) new book, _Terror and Consent._)
bq. Chris, that’s such a flat misreading of what I wrote that I’ve gotta question either your honesty or your reading skills.
AL, the thrust of your argument is that the Nazis, North Korea, etc., are based on violence, that we’re not, and we should know that we have to resist becoming as such. And your main critique of the administration is not that they’ve done bad stuff, but that they’ve left themselves open to criticism on this issue.
Which is not substantively different from my earlier summation: “yeah, we do some bad stuff, but nobody’s perfect, and we’re better than Saddam.”
If you disagree, give specifics.
And as for honesty, give me a f^&king break – you have the gall to accuse me of being dishonest after implying that George W Bush’s behavior doesn’t reflect on this country any more than Charles Manson’s does?
How many times do I have to make the argument that what Bush is doing *is* substantively different – and worse – than what occurred in the past before you stop with this glib “nobody’s perfect” defense?
“Can someone help me out here? I always thought the Geneva Convention gave some basic rights to an epw in uniform. In the uniform of the enemy. A person capture on the field of batlle out of unifrom can be shot as a spy.”
Tell that to Scott Helvenston, Jerry (Jerko) Zovko, Wesley Batalona, and Michael Teague.
Chris says:
bq. Oddly enough, NM, this is me at my least cynical and most productive.
Ah. So your true calling is as a stick-figure cartoonist. Much is made clear.
By the way, that “Y’all” stuff? It’s getting pretty old. Are you a hearing-impaired cartoonist? So it seems.
#35 (MV):
The situation being novel is, of course, (as I’m sure even our deaf acquaintance Chris would say — though he won’t note that I agree with him, it would get too much in the way of his “Y’all” vs “Chris” narrative) one great big opportunity for license (in the sense of excess). As, for instance, was the Patriot Act one great big Christmas present for the FBI.
“The British considered them traitors, plain and simple, and described them as such.”
Correct. And the consideration of them as traitors was correct, as well. The only reason that now, in the USA, they are not so considered is because the rebellion succeeded.
“There is only one excuse for rebellion; that excuse is if you win.”
And the matters of, e.g., not being represented in Parliament were only tyranny because the Americans who objected survived to say so, rather than being hanged one and all as directed by the Crown. Because, as is well understood, all monarchs are sovereign by Divine Right.
Yes, that’s perfectly clear.
bq. Ah. So your true calling is as a stick-figure cartoonist. Much is made clear.
No, I’m a mere engineer in real life. I dearly wish I _was_ smart enough to be a stick-figure cartoonist.
bq. By the way, that “Y’all” stuff? It’s getting pretty old. Are you a hearing-impaired cartoonist? So it seems.
I’m a life-long southerner who talks that way in real life, and my writing reflects that. Euphemistically speaking, forget you if you have a problem with it.
My problem with the expression is it does not actually describe all the people to whom you (believe you) are speaking. It’s because you’re being sloppy with your accusations that I object, not because it’s a Southernism.
Forget me if you wish. But when you use too broad a brush, a stick figure (even a crucially paradigmatic one relating to the claims you make about rights violated uniquely by GWB) becomes a blob. Such blobs make it less worthwhile to attempt engagement on the merits of your views.
[Edited]
bq. My problem with the expression is that “You-all” does not actually describe the people to whom you are speaking. It is too broad a brush. A stick figure drawn with a broad brush is a blob. The combination makes it less worthwhile to attempt engagement on the merits of your views.
NM, even if you don’t like my use of “y’all” as shorthand to refer to “many here at WoC,” I’ve made specific arguments about what both you and AL have said here – there shouldn’t be any problems attempting engagement with those particular posts.
I’m also curious if you’ve ever voiced similar concerns about imprecision to any of the many, many, many right-leaning posters I’ve seen here over the years who’ve used the terms “the left”, or “liberals” or “Democrats” to refer to everyone they disagree with.
Simmons understands why others like their teams as much as he likes his. That’s why you can enjoy his columns even if you aren’t from Boston. They are about being a die-hard sports fan, not a die-hard Boston fan. Bad analogy.
Chris, in fact, I hope you never see the really bogus / imprecise posts from the right that I manage to catch in my role as one of the Marshals here. They are transported to /dev/null as obnoxious. Just sayin’.
Coming late to this thread, let me just place here that having a strong opinion on the legalistic implications of the Eighth Amendment concerning enemy combatants neither enhances nor reduces someone’s patriotism.
It’s a difference of opinion on a highly technical point of Constitutional law.
And connecting disagreements on such a technical and complicated disagreement like Chris does on a post that is simply about loving the warm hearth that is your home country discredits his whole larger argument.
I believe Kelo is an horrible abridgement of my Fifth Amendment rights. I don’t try to connect the intellectual qualms I have with it towards my basic love of America.
Chris, you have to actually substantiate that what GWB is doing is dramatically worse than what any other (even recent) Administration has done. You have one drum, that you beat frequently and loudly – that unlike any other war in US history (not) Iraq was a war that we started.
That’s your argument and the whole of the moral edifice you erect is stood upon it.
A.L.
OK, too much about the effective WoC editorial policy, but what the heck.
bq. I’ve made specific arguments about what both you and AL have said here – there shouldn’t be any problems attempting engagement with those particular posts.
Indeed, and yet here we are, with you saying we say things we don’t. Impasse, it seems.
bq. I’m also curious if you’ve ever voiced similar concerns about imprecision to any of the many, many, many right-leaning posters I’ve seen here over the years who’ve used the terms “the left”, or “liberals” or “Democrats” to refer to everyone they disagree with.
We’ve been over this multiple times on this site.
What we have here is a classic distinction that I predict you will claim is without a difference.
Direct address to parties evidently in conversation, using blog handles, participant names, and personal pronouns such as “you”, carry a particular evident directness to the parties. This is tautologous.
Generalizations and party labels are not the same thing.
Arbitrary though it might be, saying (hypothetically)
“You-all are ***holes”
is different than saying (hypothetically)
“Leftists are ***holes”,
or
“Skinheads are ***holes”,
or even, say
“People who believe what AL believes are all (but I don’t really mean all, I mean most) crypto-fascist.”
All of the above are sloppy and I (I think the evidence will show) eschew those formulations when I post.
Generalizations and categories are inherently imprecise. “You-all” carries a denotative meaning, whether you like it or not, that “Leftists” or even “conservatives” lacks.
I note that it seems that most of the complaints I get about the latter are from people who self-identify as aggrieved or specially-picked-on leftists, at least here, [and who seem to find the distinction I make here bogus].
Thus my prediction that you will remain true to form and take such sloppy speech as personally offensive when it’s uttered by people you identify as adversary… [and when it please you, going personal, because it’s the same thing to you.]
And that you will continue to regard the bias here as worth remarking on and as unfair.
That’s tough, and I don’t know what to do about that except acknowledge that you will do it, and say that I wish the speech here in general showed more probity, and carry on.
[Edited]
“Prisoners, sir? What prisoners? They all fought to the last man,” said the young soldier on the battlefield, afraid that yet another jihadist would regain his freedom after being released due to a minor legal technicality at trial back in the States.
The difference I see is that conservatives believe that America is great in its founding ideals and the system its founders created to protect both its citizens and a society that would endure.
Liberals seem to be ashamed of that kind of pride, and deem it hubris in light of our many failings as a people throughout history. They focus on goals they believe are necessary for greatness, which they label as progressive, and hold the nation liable for not eliminating poverty, sickness and other forms of inequality.
It seems to me that it boils down to one’s definitions of two terms, justice and freedom. I would say that neither implies equality of results, because results come from our personal efforts. Yglesias would probably say that the fact of poverty proves that there is no justice and that poverty itself is a denial of freedom.
I think he’s wrong.
bq. Chris, you have to actually substantiate that what GWB is doing is dramatically worse than what any other (even recent) Administration has done.
AL, I did just that in the post I linked to earlier – you never even bothered to respond to my points about why what Bush did was worse than what Lincoln or FDR did. So you might want to give that a reread before you start complaining about me not actually substantiating my arguments.
bq. You have one drum, that you beat frequently and loudly – that unlike any other war in US history (not) Iraq was a war that we started.
Actually, AL, I challenge you to find any other post I’ve made here where I claim the problem with Iraq was that we started the war. I do have a wide variety of problems with how Iraq was started, how it’s been fought, and the kind of crap people here on Winds of Change have been willing to support in Iraq’s name – but my earlier point about Iraq being different from WW2 or the Civil War because we started it was fairly unique.
bq. That’s your argument and the whole of the moral edifice you erect is stood upon it.
No, it’s not. But please do try to actually support that assertion with substantive links back to what I’ve written here in the past, as I’ve done in my posts, rather than just making blanket assertions about what I do and don’t stand for.
bq. Indeed, and yet here we are, with you saying we say things we don’t. Impasse, it seems.
Setting aside for a moment the (incorrect) assertion that I’m lying about what you and AL have and haven’t said, what does this have to do with my earlier point that, even if you don’t like “y’all”, I am at least being specific with what I’m saying to to two of you?
bq. We’ve been over this multiple times on this site. What we have here is a classic distinction that I predict you will claim is without a difference.
Well done, NM – you’ve correctly predicted my response by… er, looking at what I said on this exact subject in the past. Kudos.
bq. Generalizations and categories are inherently imprecise. “You-all” carries a denotative meaning, whether you like it or not, that “Leftists” or even “conservatives” lacks.
Oddly enough, I don’t think my comment #2 would have had a substantially different meaning had it read:
bq. Meantime, I’ll note that many here at WoC seem to have gone out of their way to prove Yglesias right – that conservatives were all too willing to turn their back on the actual ideals of this country (say, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment – and no, the 8th amendment doesn’t say “citizens only”)…
In fact, it would have been substantially less accurate, because while I have seen just those arguments made by posters on these boards, I there are plenty of conservatives who haven’t made such arguments. Given that my problems are specifically with the general tone and approach of the posters here, I think it’s only right and proper that I say just that.
bq. Thus my prediction that you will remain true to form and take such sloppy speech as personally offensive when it’s uttered by people you identify as adversary… [and when it please you, going personal, because it’s the same thing to you.]
Wow… a mess of misrepresentations here. First, I don’t take it as personally offensive, and I don’t believe I’ve “gone personal”, other than specifically calling out individual posters such as AL and disputing the things they’ve said. Despite the examples you used in your post, NM, I’ve never called anyone here an “***hole”, or a “crypto-fascist”, or any of that, nor will I.
As to whether it’s offensive, I maintain that the dread word “y’all” is no better or worse than when someone in one of these threads states that “liberals are traitors”.
bq. And that you will continue to regard the bias here as worth remarking on and as unfair.
I don’t find that there’s a bias in the threads – I do believe there’s a bias specifically in your supposed “policing” actions, NM, which frequently blur the division between your own personal political opinions and the actions you take as a moderator. That said, while I won’t apologize for pointing that out, I don’t feel that this is horribly or uniquely unfair – I suspect similar things happen to conservatives who’re in the minority on liberal sites – and if you’re telling me to stop remarking on it, I will.
You said it differently than I, but at least as well (wink):
The flame of which America is the white-hot heart is the living fire of the West. But who knew I would find one of the most moving descriptions of what the United States represents in one of my youngest son’s books? Rick Riordan has created Percy Jackson, son of a human woman and Poseidon, the (Greek) God of the Sea. In The Lightning Thief, Percy discovers what it means to be a half-blood; that the gods truly are immortal—and they are living in America:
Explains Charon the Centaur:
“Come now, Percy. What you call ‘Western civilization.’ Do you think it’s just an abstract concept? No, it’s a living force. A collective consciousness that has burned bright for thousands of years…The fire started in Greece…Then…the heart of the fire moved to Rome…Wherever the flame was brightest, the gods were there. They spent several centuries in England…Like it or not—and believe me, plenty of people weren’t very fond of Rome, either—America is now the heart of the flame. It is the great power of the West.â€
If what is happening all over western Europe and in Britain is any indication, the blaze of true freedom of thought and spirit is a barely glowing ember everywhere but here. With those who represent the Law and Faith in England showing their bellies to the feral hounds of Islam, the torch of individual liberty has well and truly passed to those of us here willing to keep it lit.
I think to modify civilization with the word “Western†is redundant now. From what we have seen of the twins, Fascism and Socialism, civil society can not survive the death of individual rights and the ownership of private property. Certainly, while on her way to being a military and economic superpower, China is no more truly civilized than were our Neolithic ancestors. Cultured, yes; civilized? No. The cult of the State obliterates what is mannered and respectful and genuinely human in society. And one can only turn away in loathing from what passes for civility in the theocracies of Islam. In so far as non-Western nations are beginning to light the path forward, it is only as they are embracing the foundational ideas of Western greatness.
Mark Steyn is prophetic in his work America Alone. To watch England and Europe today is to watch a once-powerful warrior remain still and silent as he is cut to ribbons by goblins with pocketknives. What is horrifying to let into consciousness is the thought that some of those who would style themselves our leaders stand ready, eager even, to douse the flame—and the bitter heart of the gall is that they are not even capable of understanding the consequences of their submission and the depth of their betrayal. Mental dwarves, they launch themselves into the gutter, eschewing the brilliantly lighted palace left to them by those whose crowns they can never hope to wear. God willing, some of us will remain to keep Olympus whole and safe.
[Worthy, if slightly wet prose for a first post here. 🙂 Feel free to stick around and contribute original content here, rather than limiting yourself to extended quotes lifted from your own blog. –NM]
#15 from telepath at 5:01 pm on Jul 06, 2008
“Can someone help me out here? I always thought the Geneva Convention gave some basic rights to an epw in uniform.”
Off the top of my head, the answer is there was more than one and there is more than treaty. One, the US never signed, gave some rights to some nonuniformed insurgent types.
Chris, I didn’t say you had crossed any line.
I predicted you would (and do) equate the use of “You-all” with the use of “{political party [x]}” and that you would not consider the two things to be distinct.
I used hypothetical simple utterances not to say you had said such but to make my examples a bit less colorless and academic.
I regret the attempt. It did muddy the water.
I reassert that, at least in my case, you have failed to represent me as an apologist for Bush by citing anything I’ve posted, have (possibly) meant me, and possibly not as part of your “Y’all” — who can say? — and have behaved as I also predicted in my # 39:
bq. [Chris] won’t note that I agree with him, it would get too much in the way of his “Y’all” vs “Chris” narrative
Well done, sir!
This guy Yglesias, he’s just saying this stuff because it’s the only thing that can get him laid.
You don’t get to pick your country any more than you get to pick your family, sure. I’ll buy that.
But if you were to say “the only use I have for my family is the extent to which they conform to my interests and ideals, and beyond that, affection for the family is simple-minded sentimentality and I’ll have no part in it…” Not only our society, but virtually all societies in the world and throughout the ages, would find that opinion unnatural and abhorrent.
And if you trot that line out in the middle of the family reunion, then you, my friend, are just being an @$$hole. [Redaction mine. –NM]
All other things being equal, I prefer the other people living in my society to like that society. Not in every jot and tittle, not in each single specification, not to the exclusion of seeing that society’s imperfections and working to improve them. But you should still like it anyway! At least, in our case, where to be frank, it’s pretty damned good and hardly anybody can do as well.
I don’t like thinking that other people in society look at our form of government and life as some kind of raw material, to rip up and use to form the shining utopia in their minds. If that’s really your opinion, okay, so be it, but don’t wave it in my face and then wonder why I’m sneering at you.
Canada, US, UK, France, Germany, etc etc
They are all great places to live. People who make it a point to say one is so obviously the best compared to the others tend to be quite obnoxious.
The above presupposes that the person in question in either case is clearly guilty. Determine that to a reasonable degree, let alone to a moral certainty.
And how DO you determine that, absent a fair trial?
Yes, and how do you conduct a fair trial during (what some say is) a war? One doesn’t “try” combatants during a firefight, one attempts to kill or defeat them. What’s “good enough”, once shooting stops, but there is no clear party to surrender, in an arena where the convention, since 1648, more or less, has been that you have “rules of engagement” as distinct from “rule of (English Common) law”? As I said, complicated.
#39, Nortius Maximus:
The situation being novel is, of course, (as I’m sure even our deaf acquaintance Chris would say — though he won’t note that I agree with him, it would get too much in the way of his “Y’all” vs “Chris” narrative) one great big opportunity for license (in the sense of excess). As, for instance, was the Patriot Act one great big Christmas present for the FBI.
That’s one type of license, yes, but I don’t think it’s the most problematical one– at least it’s license of a sort which is written down, bounded, and defined. As such, it’s easy to change and deal with because it is a known thing.
Worse, though, are the cases where the Administration is given a job (or has a new form of an old job, such as providing national security) but critical elements of it are left unclear, or definitions which are clearly outmoded are left without even an attempt at update. There are a great many things about this current– and likely to be long-lasting– situation, which are new. How does one fight a war in which the other side is itself distributed, uses only distributed agents, and has almost no reliance on conventional, uniformed forces, but which also don’t really fit the definition of a spy, per se? How does one treat an armed, organized group that parasitizes a real, but weakened, nation-state? What if these situations effectively break the Geneva Conventions to which we are signatory? If we create new categories of combatant and non-combatant, how are decisions made? Who has jurisdiction? Who has review? What courts apply?
These are important questions of law, as well as strategy, and without some sort of guidance and input from law-making bodies, what recourse does the Executive have? Well, they have two overriding responsibilities: First, to do their jobs as best they are able; second, to maintain the Constitution as best they understand it. In the absence of guidance, and in significant danger, I would expect any Administration, Republican or Democrat, to act along certain lines. Namely, to carve out as large an area of operating space as possible as they think they can possibly justify, in order to get the job done.
I sure as Hell don’t agree with everything the Administration has done. Even aside from that, their justifications for some things have been shockingly tone deaf, and their failure to educate the population about some similar measures taken in the past has been inexcusable. But I cannot quite find it in my heart to condemn this Administration as deeply or profoundly as the Left (generally) has.
Fletcher, #40:
Correct. And the consideration of them as traitors was correct, as well. The only reason that now, in the USA, they are not so considered is because the rebellion succeeded.
I… don’t think that’s quite fair. I realize that every side in every civil conflict will try to justify itself, and that the Federal government of the US has the quandry of defending it’s own Revolution while simultaneously defending it’s prosecution of the Civil War, but:
There is, and was at the time, a well-developed notion of a social contract. That’s why the French and Indian Wars are significant, here. It wasn’t outrage at being forced to pay, monetarily, for the French and Indian Wars. It’s being forced to pay for them, after being shoddily defended and discouraged from managing their own defense. It was abuse heaped on outrage, and the American revolutionaries had some just cause to feel themselves betrayed already.
And finally, on the general subject of patriotism, I confess to getting tired of the subject before it comes up. It sometimes seems to me as if it’s a perennial fight between those who can’t bear to hear of anything their country does wrong, vs those who can’t bear to hear of anything their country does right.
It’s not quite that simple, but one is sometimes left with that impression.
Chris, you “say”:http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/010326.php#c52 :
“and”:http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/010326.php#c52
OK, here’s the entirety of the comment you linked (absent a quote from my post, omitted for brevity):
OK, so claim #1 was: you responded to my charge that you had not made any kind of substantial argument as to why GWB’s actions in Iraq and Afghanistan were dramatically, qualitiatively worse than the actions of other US wartime presidents. That was your answer…
OK, so claim #2 was: that you never claimed that the problem in Iraq was that we started the war. I’ll go with the next-to-opening sentence from the cite above – “One is that, oddly enough, the US wasn’t the aggressor in starting those wars.”
So forgive me Chris when I question – since I’ll accept your claim to honorable behavior – whether we’re speaking the same language.
A.L.
telepath #15:
I’m a bit confused as well. I can understand how one might regard someone out of uniform as a legitimate combatant since (for instance) it took a few years for uniforms of the Union and Confederacy to become standardized. But it’s generally recognized (for good reason) that to deliberately dress in civilian garb is a form of perfidy. It doesn’t simply endanger the opponent, but also noncombatants who have no stake in the fight. In fact, it deliberately endangers them, as a strategy. That’s what perfidy is. As someone pointed out, both Andre and Hale were executed… and in the case of the former Washington insisted that he be hanged rather than shot because the latter form of execution was reserved for honorable men. Washington suggested that if Andre were not going to be hanged he ought not be executed at all.
Also, I was under the impression that it was illegal under the Geneva conventions to “try” a POW… so the requirement that enemy combatants (even perfidious ones) be tried in US courts suggests an unexpressed conviction that our system of justice transcends and supersedes such cautionary constraints, and can effectively be regarded as “universal.” If you don’t think this the case then the requirements regarding trial would be ill-advised. Clearly we would not be all that happy to have our captured military “tried” in enemy courts… and would prefer that they simply be held until the end of hostilities, or until there were a prisoner exchange.
Chris:
I think you’re sadly lacking a coherent background understanding. One clue might be the situation related above: that there’s an implied assurance that our procedures approach a universal standard of fairness compared to those of nearly all real or potential enemies. That, I would suggest, is good reason for more than nationalism. Whatever you want to call it, it’s grounded in something beyond “team spirit” or even pride of place.
Just a suggestion: Read practically anything by S.M. Lipset, but especially something like The First New Nation. He’s a lifelong Democrat, so that shouldn’t compromise your partisanship too much. But you really need some context. Not to put too fine a point on it, but you make no sense (nor does Yglasias, really). Your arguments are not even sufficiently coherent to be worthy of a direct response. And I’m not saying this as a form of backhanded argument. Your posts just seem like a pile of loose threads, with no relevant organization. I just have no idea where to begin.
But if you haven’t time to read Lipset, AST #51 puts it rather succinctly. Start with that.
Well, it’s either gonna be McCain/Palin or …
Barack Obama starring as “Change” the Gardener in remake of movie classic, “Being There”, starring Peter Sellers as “Chance” the Gardener!
*HT to hs commenting on
puma4palin.blogspot.com
bq. I reassert that, at least in my case, you have failed to represent me as an apologist for Bush by citing anything I’ve posted, have (possibly) meant me, and possibly not as part of your “Y’all” — who can say? — and have behaved as I also predicted in my # 39:
bq. [Chris] won’t note that I agree with him, it would get too much in the way of his “Y’all” vs “Chris” narrative
bq. Well done, sir!
NM, for you to agree with me, I’d first have to agree that “the situation being novel is… one great big opportunity for license.” Which I don’t much have an opinion on, one way or another.
As for the rest – does all this basically boil down to whether you, personally, NM, feel impugned by possibly being called a Bush admin apologist? Dude, get a grip – if you’re not, you’re not, but it’s hardly some gross misrepresentation of the facts to say that many here at WoC either are substantively have been in the past. And whether you support the Bush admin or not, NM, what you’re saying about the 8th amendment is plenty reckless in and of itself – especially given the current civil liberties crisis – regardless of whether you support Bush or not.
If folks that the US Army captures in Iraq, etc must be treated the same as folks arrested by NYPD, must the US Army treat folks who it hasn’t captured the same way that the NYPD treats folks who haven’t been arrested?
For example, must the US Army follow the same rules before shooting someone? Can the US Air Force bomb in circumstances where the NYPD can’t?
AL-
bq. OK, so claim #1 was: you responded to my charge that you had not made any kind of substantial argument as to why GWB’s actions in Iraq and Afghanistan were dramatically, qualitiatively worse than the actions of other US wartime presidents. That was your answer…
Yep.
bq. OK, so claim #2 was: that you never claimed that the problem in Iraq was that we started the war. I’ll go with the next-to-opening sentence from the cite above – “One is that, oddly enough, the US wasn’t the aggressor in starting those wars.”
No, AL, that was _not_ my claim. What I specifically said – in response to your assertion that I complained about us starting the war “frequently and loudly” – was:
bq. AL, I challenge you to find any *other* post I’ve made here where I claim the problem with Iraq was that we started the war. I do have a wide variety of problems with how Iraq was started, how it’s been fought, and the kind of crap people here on Winds of Change have been willing to support in Iraq’s name – *but my earlier point about Iraq being different from WW2 or the Civil War because we started it was fairly unique*. [Emphasis added]
In other words, while I sure as hell did say that in that _one post_, that is _not_ a theme that I harp on here at WoC.
bq. So forgive me Chris when I question – since I’ll accept your claim to honorable behavior – whether we’re speaking the same language.
Oh, we’re speaking the same language, AL – the difference is, I’m actually of the opinion that _all_ the words matter, whereas you skip over the petty details you don’t care for. Which brings us back to the Schaar post I quoted up in #2…
Demosophist-
bq. I think you’re sadly lacking a coherent background understanding. One clue might be the situation related above: that there’s an implied assurance that our procedures approach a universal standard of fairness compared to those of nearly all real or potential enemies. That, I would suggest, is good reason for more than nationalism. Whatever you want to call it, it’s grounded in something beyond “team spirit” or even pride of place.
Quoting my comment #2 above, Demo:
bq. Yes, *the US has a long history of proud achievements and profound and meaningful ideology*, and we justly celebrate that stuff on the 4th of July (and at other times of the year). But there is a substantive difference between loving your country because it’s your country, and loving the ideas that represent that country at its best. And just because *America does have a long and proud history of ideas and goals that warrant joyous celebration* doesn’t mean that any and all celebration of America is of those ideas – quite a lot of it is of the “my country, right or wrong” mindset. [Emphasis added]
So, no, it’s never been an issue of “all American patriotism is just nationalism” – but there is some nationalism involved, and I believe (and I think Yglesias does as well) that the two get confused far too often.
bq. Not to put too fine a point on it, but you make no sense (nor does Yglasias, really). Your arguments are not even sufficiently coherent to be worthy of a direct response. And I’m not saying this as a form of backhanded argument. Your posts just seem like a pile of loose threads, with no relevant organization. I just have no idea where to begin.
Bull-hockey, Demo: a backhanded attack is exactly what you’re doing. You’re making a direct response while claiming you’re somehow above making a direct response – which would simply be annoying, if it weren’t for the fact that you didn’t even read my argument correctly. As it is, what you’re doing is merely pathetic.
Chris –
Huh? How about showing me an argument in there?
And sorry, I don’t have cycles to search through your comments to show whether you’ve made the same point before.
Your point in the comment you cited – which I presume was dispositive – was clear to me. We started it, and in order to start it, Bush had to lie (as opposed to what Lincoln and Roosevelt did, which was distinct from lying somehow).
So thanks for the fish, and when you make a criticism that makes sense to me, I’ll be happy to play.
A.L.
bq. Huh? How about showing me an argument in there?
AL, I was agreeing with your synopsis of what my “claim #1” was. There was no argument to be had on that particular point.
bq. And sorry, I don’t have cycles to search through your comments to show whether you’ve made the same point before.
No, but you have time to lie about what I was asserting in my “claim #2”, and then completely ignore what I said about that in my followup post. And you have time to assert that I make arguments about how horrible it was that we started the war “frequently and loudly”, but not actually prove that assertion with any, y’know, evidence. Nice.
bq. Your point in the comment you cited – which I presume was dispositive – was clear to me. We started it, and in order to start it, Bush had to lie (as opposed to what Lincoln and Roosevelt did, which was distinct from lying somehow).
Yes, that is approximately what I said in that comment – although I’m generally careful not to use the word “lie” with Bush, as it sets off too many knee-jerk reactions. And if Lincoln and Roosevelt misrepresented their cases for war to anywhere near their cases to the extent that Bush did, I surely wish you’d _make that argument_, rather than just implying it.
bq. So thanks for the fish, and when you make a criticism that makes sense to me, I’ll be happy to play.
AL, I have no idea what does and doesn’t make any sense to you, because you pretty much seem to play by your own logical and rhetorical rules – “look, I’ll prove how much I understand patriotism by quoting Schaar, and just lop off this sentence at the end of my selected quote that completely undermines my whole argument!”
So I guess I’ll just keep saying what I’m saying, and if, someday, you rouse yourself long enough to make a coherent counterargument, so much the better.
Quite interesting. I think in reality the difference is between those who are utopians, and thus forever damned to feel disappointment over America’s failures; and then those who are realists and are in awe of what was created as a political ideal to freedom over 200 years ago. The utopian must force the ideal, for the failure to have the ideal is a constant irritant. The utopian has much in common with the Caesers of Rome, the old monarchies of Europe, Mussolini, Stalin, Lenin, and yes even Hitler – the ability, nay the need to order society to their vision. The realist fears these people because they steal freedom. I think the realist has to be aware of forgiving the state’s actions when they feel the state is trying to protect those freedoms.
I distrust people who trot out the old canard about conferring our constitutional rights to non-citizens who try to kill us, and the utopian’s desire to give them constitutional protections is puzzling. Defense of the executive’s ability to act in the interest of defense of the nation is not an argument to shred the constitution. There are very plausible constitutional arguments for every action GWB has taken, and the Supremes have created some new requirements, including most recently the need to look into the future and determine exactly what process we would like you to create when we just told you to create one. Turning a constitutional dispute, of legitimate origins, and saying that it is evil intent on one of the parties is foolish. Both parties believe they are in the right, impugning their motives without specific knowledge is reckless.
And as to losing Iraq ( was that a reference to a post that was pre-surge ) – we sure seem to be losing it in a way that looks alot like winning, with the last AQ stronghold being wiped out by a joint Iraqi-US operation. But maybe the definition of winning in war has changed with the times as well.
Chris, I’m just gonna call for help on this one.
Anyone? I’d love an explanation…
A.L.
[i]… much as we may love America there’s something arbitrary about it …[/i]
That a paid professional political writer — an American one at that — has either never heard of or doesn’t understand the significance of the Constitution is … disgusting. There’s no other word for it.
bq. Chris, I’m just gonna call for help on this one.
bq. Anyone? I’d love an explanation…
AL, what, exactly, are you confused about? Or is this merely some lame attempt to have others dogpile on so you don’t have to defend your own arguments?
We obviously have a lot of points of disagreement, but I’ll make it simple: in #48, you said:
bq. Chris, you have to actually substantiate that what GWB is doing is dramatically worse than what any other (even recent) Administration has done. You have one drum, that you beat frequently and loudly – that unlike any other war in US history (not) Iraq was a war that we started.
bq. That’s your argument and the whole of the moral edifice you erect is stood upon it.
In #52 I linked to a post that made the argument that what GWB did is worse than what Lincoln and FDR did, and pointed out that “Iraq is bad because we started it” is _not_ an argument I’ve frequently made. I asked you to provide proof to the contrary; you declined. Logically, it would follow that I have therefore rebutted the whole of your post #48.
Is this not correct, AL?
There actually is something unique and well worth celebrating in American patriotism. First because we were among the first to throw off the yoke of hereditary privilege and substitute the rule of the governed.
Oliver Cromwell doesn’t mean anything to you? the Netherlands? Athens, for the love of God?
Second – and most important – because we are not a patrimony defined by land or by blood – not an accident of geography or a nation bound by a common heritage but instead a people animated by a set of ideas.
Much like the USSR then…
Sigh. OK, one last time, Chris.
I’m confused because when I made a statement about your clsim #1 it was because you had stated that the linked post included all your arguments for “why GWB’s actions in Iraq and Afghanistan were dramatically, qualitiatively worse than the actions of other US wartime presidents.” You responded affirmatively – that that was in fact your argument.
The problem is that I don’t see any such argument in your words; your only point appears to be that Bush made us the aggressor in the war, and that because the public doesn’t support this war, we cannot win.
I ask about fruits and vegetables, and you tell me about bricks and plaster. I don’t get it.
So let’s see if we can reach some common understanding on this one and we’ll proceed from there.
A.L.
Hmm, Cromwell – how’d that work out for him, then? The Netherlands are your best case, but I don’t recall William of Orange being elected to his position – the confederancy included only one or two non-feudal states, as I recall (Frieland? I’ll go look it up…). Definitely on the path, but I think they still have a monarchy.
Athens? Well, how, exactly did you become a citizen? Check it out, I’ll still be here.
A.L.
bq. Sigh. OK, one last time, Chris.
bq. I’m confused because when I made a statement about your clsim #1 it was because you had stated that the linked post included all your arguments for “why GWB’s actions in Iraq and Afghanistan were dramatically, qualitiatively worse than the actions of other US wartime presidents.” You responded affirmatively – that that was in fact your argument.
And I repeat, that comment was, in fact, my argument. In the original context, it’s more about FDR and Lincoln than US Presidents in general, and it explicitly differentiates between Iraq and Afghanistan. That said, the core of the argument – that Lincoln and FDR were _actually being attacked_, whereas Bush _instigated_ the Iraq war by pushing flawed intelligence – is the same.
bq. The problem is that I don’t see any such argument in your words; your only point appears to be that Bush made us the aggressor in the war, and that because the public doesn’t support this war, we cannot win.
AL, I don’t really see how you can get that out of this:
bq. …but the core argument for war – they attacked us first, and they threaten our very existence – was still legitimate. But in the Iraq war – as opposed to the war in Afghanistan – that’s not the case. And when Bush’s core cause for war is basically a purposeful fraud – which was never the case with the Civil War or WW2 – then we’ve got a real problem.
As for the public not supporting this war, that’s not an issue with us _winning_, it’s an issue with how much latitude Bush is to be given for his screw-ups in prosecuting the war. In other words:
bq. … much like Lincoln was ultimately forgiven by history for suspending habeas corpus for saving the Union, and FDR was forgiven for interning Japanese-Americans for saving the world, Bush’s actions leading up to the war just wouldn’t mean that much. As it is, however, Bush misled us into war and we have a loss on our hands because of it. THAT is where the problem lies, AL – and those two reasons make a world of difference when it comes to how we view Bush’s actions.
Moving on:
bq. I ask about fruits and vegetables, and you tell me about bricks and plaster. I don’t get it. So let’s see if we can reach some common understanding on this one and we’ll proceed from there.
AL, I can’t control what you get out of my words, but by and large I do a far better job of fairly representing what you say, and backing that up with direct quotes – here, for example – than you do for me. And in the meantime you blithely misrepresent what I say – by saying I’m constantly harping on GWB starting the war – and then don’t back down when I disprove you.
I don’t really expect any better from you at this point, but I won’t sit still while you do it.
Athens? Well, how, exactly did you become a citizen? Check it out, I’ll still be here.
yeah, well I guess you better stay quiet with talk about the overthrowing the yoke of hereditary privilege until the next president is sworn in…
I blink. I read the text again. Is Phoenician… actually trotting out the trope that the US has dynasties? I shake my head wearily.
Trust me, Chris, my expectations of you are equally low. Does the self-congratulation get as tiresome to you as it does to the rest of us?
OK, you make claim A which is “why GWB’s actions in Iraq and Afghanistan were dramatically, qualitatively worse than the actions of other US wartime presidents.” and your response is that because GWB made
“the core argument for war – they attacked us first, and they threaten our very existence – was still legitimate. But in the Iraq war – as opposed to the war in Afghanistan – that’s not the case.”
Well, that’s historically inaccurate if you know anything about 19th Century American wars. I can suggest reading, but I’d just start at Wikipedia.
And it doesn’t reflect the issue being discussed, which was the conduct of the war; in your model if the war had been run by Mother Teresa, it would still be awful and qualitatively worse than anything the US had ever done, because it was the fruit of a poisoned tree.
Look, there are two broad claims made by opponents of the war (there are more, but there are two central ones) which are that a) starting the war was wrong (morally, or instrumentally) and b) that the conduct of the war was so reprehensible that is a) had been OK, the war would have been unforgiveable.
b) is demonstrably not true by simply searching basic history; a) is challengeable on instrumental and moral grounds, although arguable.
Your declaring a) to be true is a common position, but declaring that pi=3.0 a million times with great passion and certainty doesn’t make it so. We can’t know whether it was in our interest until the dust settles, and there are competing moral arguments that are well-played out but inconclusive.
So no, I don;t think we’re speaking the same language. I will suggest one change to yours, which is that if you’re going to keep tossing accusations of lying around, you’ll soon be doing it on your own blog, and not here. Be civil or be gone.
A.L.
Phoenician help me get it – are you suggesting that the next president won;t be sworn in? Because last time I looked, neither candidate was part of a dynasty.
And to become an Athenian citizen? You had to be born into one of the families that owned property in Athens. And even then the rules could be changed (as they were in Periclean times) to deprive you of your citizenship.
Check out McDowell’s book on the Athenian Constitution (I did a large chunk of my undergraduate thesis on the Athenian Constitution and proscriptive law).
A.L.
Was LBJ conspiring to gin up causus beli in the Gulf of Tonkin up there with anything Bush has done? Hussein’s Iraq provided 10x the rationale to go to war than North Vietnam ever did… and of course strategically there is no contest. Notwithstanding the shooting war in Laos Johnson and Kennedys CIA was running before the official kickoff at Tonkin.
I cant recommend “Legacy of Ashes, The History of the CIA”:http://www.amazon.com/Legacy-Ashes-History-Tim-Weiner/dp/038551445X highly enough for those looking for any kind of historical insight. Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, and certainly Nixon would have made Bush blush with their antics. Think Bush’s FISA issue is a big deal? All 4 of those president used the CIA with increasing brazenness in direct violation of federal law to spy on US citizens.. and without so much as an overseas phonecall to known terrorists as a justification.
The only thing unique about Bush is that everything he does ends up on the cover of the NYT within a month instead of being buried for 30 years.
Phoenician help me get it – are you suggesting that the next president won;t be sworn in? Because last time I looked, neither candidate was part of a dynasty.
The term was “hereditary privilege”.
How many people here honestly believe Bush Jr would be President now if Buah Sr hadn’t been it then?
Anyone? Anyone?
#83 Armed Citizen:
The difference between Athens and the modern USA is that they admitted the stratification of their society. How many people get into high office (particularly the highest) in America without being extremely rich?
As for “dynasties”; well, in the last century there have been two US Presidents that were succeeded by their sons – admittedly with gaps in between. And of course, there was very nearly one who was succeeded by his wife – and hence would have had a lot of power, albeit unofficial, again. Incidentally, if Shrub hadn’t made such a godawful mess of Iraq, how likely would it have been that he would eventually have been succeeded by another family member?
Rome started out as a republic, too. Look what happened to them.
Ahem. John Quincy Adams beat GWB to the succession bit by a cool 1.75 centuries.
Fat cats and people of “standing” are indeed pretty much who get elected, and for -most- much of the 20th Century the Roosevelt, and later, Kennedy names carried a lot of weight; but I think the notion that running for high office is a rich person’s game is more defensible than the “d-word” angle.
Of course, if one thinks in terms of American empire, what could be more natural than thinking of dynasties as well?
[Edit: …and do please note that FDR and TR were distant cousins, not fils et père.]
The daily parade of Democratic Party wackjobs and their churlish cohorts pop up like jack-in-the-boxes in front of the nearest T.V. camera: Code Pink, Charles Rangel: “George Bush is our Bull Connor†, Cynthia McKinney: “The entire ‘Saving Private Lynch in Iraq’ episode was staged by the US militaryâ€, Patty Murray: “bin Laden builds day-care facilities…we haven’t done thatâ€, Nancy Pelosi: “Bush guilty of Katrina cover-upâ€, Sheila Jackson-Lee: “Names like Hurricane Andrew, Hurricane Sam and Hurricane Wanda are just too white and, all racial groups should be represented.â€, Al Sharpton: “Fidel Castro is a great leader.â€, and Louis Farrakhan: “The New Orleans levees were blown up by the governmentâ€.
Dick Durbin, Harry Reid and Howard Dean don’t often pass up the chance to enlighten us with their perspectives, either. They’re frustrated; reduced to hurling playground taunts from the sidelines when the adults are in charge of running the country.
The egotistical incompetents of the left would never dare to praise the U.S. or show gratitude for what they’ve got when bizarre, obscene, unappreciative behavior will do.
The left’s “love†for this country orbits around the guaranteed right to spew all the things they hate. Here’s just some of what they hate: The country, (“It’s not worth fighting forâ€) American history, democracy, President Bush, SUVs, President Bush, people who question their opinions, and oh, did I forget to mention President Bush?
Then there’s the special hate category they’ve reserved for the military; denigrating the sacrifices of those sworn to protect them and reap the benefits without having to put their own lives on the line. The convenience of it all is mind-boggling. Newsflash: Marching with anti-American/pro-Islamofascist signs and screaming the usual recitations in a free country doesn’t take a lot of guts.
For all of the bluster, they would never, for one minute, live under the system they advocate. Their identity is mired in the anti-American neurosis part and parcel to the lunatic fringe.
But don’t you DARE question their “patriotism”.
Chris, A.L.;
FDR deliberately maneuvered the USA in to a war with Japan primarily to defeat Japanese aggression in mainland China (and to a lesser extent in Korea). “Here’s a source”:http://www.history.army.mil/books/70-7_04.htm, with a key bit on page 105 —
bq. 26 July [1941] when the President [Franklin Roosevelt], against the advice of his Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Harold R. Stark, issued an order freezing Japanese assets in the United States. Since Japan no longer had the dollars with which to purchase the urgently needed materials of war, the effect of this measure, which the British and Dutch supported, was to create an economic blockade of Japan. So seriously did Admiral Stark regard this move that he warned Admiral Thomas C. Hart, commander of the Asiatic Fleet, to take “appropriate precautionary measures against possible eventualities.”
Both sides viewed this blockade as likely to result in the collapse of the Japanese economy. Japan was, therefore, facing an existential threat before the attack on Pearl Harbor, due to the direct action of FDR via executive order. Bush, on the other hand, led up with months (if not years) of debate and got the explicit approval of Congress. Plus, it’s “very debatable whether Bush lied or even mislead”:http://www.factcheck.org/iraq_what_did_congress_know_and_when.html.
FDR also flagrantly violated official USA neutrality in the European War via Lend Lease and other stratagems, all of which, IMHO, were “worse” than anything Bush did.
Lincoln I would give a pass, because the Civil War or partition was coming and Lincoln’s action prior to that were of not much significance.
And Chris, I agree with A.L. that it’s very hard to parse any actual arguments out of your text. Your entire parsing arguments with A.L. seem like a deliberate distraction from the paucity of your real arguments.
AL-
bq. OK, you make claim A which is “why GWB’s actions in Iraq and Afghanistan were dramatically, qualitatively worse than the actions of other US wartime presidents.” and your response is that because GWB made
bq. “the core argument for war – they attacked us first, and they threaten our very existence – was still legitimate. But in the Iraq war – as opposed to the war in Afghanistan – that’s not the case.”
bq. Well, that’s historically inaccurate if you know anything about 19th Century American wars. I can suggest reading, but I’d just start at Wikipedia.
AL, I specifically qualified my remarks by saying:
bq. In the original context, it’s more about FDR and Lincoln than US Presidents in general, and it explicitly differentiates between Iraq and Afghanistan.
You pull some questionable 19th century wars out of your pocket and think you’ve proven something. And hey, I suppose if your only desire is for current US policy to be as good as the Mexican American war, I guess you have.
bq. And it doesn’t reflect the issue being discussed, which was the conduct of the war; in your model if the war had been run by Mother Teresa, it would still be awful and qualitatively worse than anything the US had ever done, because it was the fruit of a poisoned tree.
Maybe I’m crazy, but yeah, I’d say that if a war started under false pretenses definitely starts out life with one strike against it. But the second half of my comment was about why starting the war under false pretenses is specifically bad for Bush – because we’re not winning. And, of course, you skipped right over that in favor of lecturing me about history (except, y’know, not actually _saying_ anything other than “it’s in Wikipedia, trust me.”)
bq. Your declaring a) to be true is a common position, but declaring that pi=3.0 a million times with great passion and certainty doesn’t make it so. We can’t know whether it was in our interest until the dust settles, and there are competing moral arguments that are well-played out but inconclusive.
Well, that’s at least somewhat straightforward: it doesn’t matter what kind of crap gets pulled in starting or prosecuting a war: as long as there’s at least some chance it might not be a complete disaster, everything’s excusable. Nice moral system you’ve got there, AL.
bq. So no, I don;t think we’re speaking the same language. I will suggest one change to yours, which is that if you’re going to keep tossing accusations of lying around, you’ll soon be doing it on your own blog, and not here. Be civil or be gone.
AL, I called you out on specific quotes. Beyond that people can judge for themselves.
Chris you haven’t ‘called anyone out’, less drama please. And I’m more than happy to let the audience judge each of our arguments as we’ve made them.
A.L.
#87 Nortius:
I stand corrected on the point about the Roosevelts. I strongly suspect, however, that there is quite a lot of dynasticism (is there such a word?) about various offices below that of President; after all, when a few plutocratic families make up most of the political establishment it is inevitable. On the gripping hand, I have neither the time nor the inclination to actually check this point; indeed, I wouldn’t know where to start.
Before anyone says anything about the British aristocracy – most of them have no power these days; at most, a few life peers in the House of Lords. And our monarchy is largely symbolic, of course.
You’re misreading Yglesias. He’s not saying that patriotism “is equivalent to” liking the Celtics. He doesn’t even imply it. The whole point of bringing up Simmons is to argue by analogy: just as Simmons, who loves the Red Sox, extols the Red Sox to a broader audience that have a variety of different allegiances, so too does the patriot, who loves his country, extol that country to a broader audience of people who love their respective countries. Just as the Yankees fan won’t get Simmons, so too will the Russian patriot not get the American patriot.
What, exactly, is objectionable about this observation?
Yglesias nowhere says there is nothing laudable about the U.S. He’s talking about patriotism as a phenomenon, not about the virtues of the U.S. as a country. Why don’t people understand this difference?
[Commenter name changed to conform to policy. Commenter is thanked for his kind compliance with AL’s request. –NM]
Chris, you’re misreading Yglesias because you’re ignoring context. he’s repeatedly made the connection between patriotism and fandom, just as he’s repeatedly made the suggestion that the world would have been far better off without the US Revolution.
Go Google “patriotism” on his old Typepad site.
But now here is an argument we can debate…so thanks for that.
A.L.
Mr Yglesias has it exactly backwards, loving ones country because it is yours is a conservative impulse. Loving ones country because one thinks it lovable is liberal.
If one is to say that one should love ones country because of it’s lovablity then a corralary to that is that such love is conditional on the lovability remaining. And it can lead to such absurdities as hating one’s country because ones favorite candidate is not elected.
True love does not demand that the love be deserved. In that sense it is “arbitrary”. But said “arbitrariness” also means that such patriotism is not self-righteous and does not become an ideology. It does not lead to endless confrontations with foreigners over who is the best. Nor does it require you to believe absurdities(one’s nation cannot be the best at everything). Finally loving ones country because it is yours is claiming only the right to feel human affection. Loving your country because it meets your approval and only so long as it does so is setting yourself up as a judge of your own country.
Armed Liberal:
If you meant to invoke this broader context of Yglesias’ writings on patriotism, I missed it in your post; I was going off the language and text of the post itself.
I’m not sure which of Yglesias’ writings you’re referring to, since the “Nationalism and Patriotism” post in his old Typepad site suggests that he’s more apt to equate sports fandom with nationalism than with patriotism: “link”:http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew/2005/02/nationalism_pat.html
But even then, his point again is that nationalism is a sentiment of solidarity and loyalty and affection, and analogizing to (not equating with) sports fandom. He is not saying that loving your country as a patriot is akin to loving a sports team. Even in his old Typepad site. Is there a specific post you’re thinking about?
As for the world “being better off” without the American Revolution, it’s a slight mischaracterization of his argument. What he’s saying is this: (1) the American Revolution was good! (2) but, no one wanted a Revolution, people wanted to work out their grievances with the crown and Pariliament (which is true) (3) thus, the Revolution represented a political failure (again, true if you accept premise #2), and (4) you can imagine a world that would have been better off with the colonies remaining a part of GB, thus (5) the American Revolution was probably not as good as political solution in which the colonies remained a part of the empire.
Now it seems to me tat premises 1-3 are not really difficult to swallow; in fact, you could say some similar things about the Civil War (that it was good insofar a it created a single Union and had the effect of abolishing slavery, but it represented a breakdown of the constitutional order that no one ever wanted). It’s premise 4 (and by extension, 5, but really it’s 4) that people seem to be trouble by, but I think even Yglesias would admit that there’s a lot you’d have to assume for (4) to be true. For example, you’d have to assume that there would have been some process of Western democratization without a USA in existence (which you probably could if you assume that the Fr. Revolution would have taken place, which it might not have because it was precipitated in part by the immense debts incurred by France in helping fund the American Revolution); you’d have to assume that the British empire existing even to the present day as a powerful presence would be a beneficent good, etc.
Those who disagree would take the position that the birth of the U.S. was a unique and watershed event in the progress of the human species, representing a step forward that has bettered the world.
It seems to me that those who take this latter position should be able to engage in Yglesias’ counterfactual by engaging in particular details (capitalism, wars, international relations, human rights, etc.), rather than in the macro “America is awesome” level, which does not engage the debate but avoids it, and in the process makes something close to an ad hominem attack on Yglesias.
And it’s the ad hominem aspect of these “let’s question Yglesias’ patriotism” posts (see, e.g., the Corner, Commentary, etc.) that bothers me. Why do we need to “question” anyone’s patriotism? Why can’t we just engage the ideas on their own terms?
[Bare URL, corrected. –NM] [Commenter name corrected. –NM]
Chris, help me out here – this is a good example of why I have so much trouble with your comments.
You say:
and immediately go on to say
Now, even in your somewhat overgenerous rephrasing of Yglesias’ post, do you not see the plain “would have been better off”? (or in Yglesias-speak “awesomer”?)
To continue, you say
Now since Yglesias points 1 – 3 are (in your words)
OK on that one.
Um, some did, some didn’t. There were diverse movements within the revolutionaries, and some of them (Ben Franklin, according to Gordon Wood) hoping to become part of the British ruling class, some (Paine, the Adams cousins) motivated by a deep belief that they should not be subjects of any king.
Well, that’s assuming you believe that preserving the status quo is the metric of political success – an opinion which would get you highly thoguht of in Zimbabwe right about now. Gaddis talks about this in his Cold War history, in which the thinking class that ‘owned’ political policy during the 60’s and 70’s simply believed that stability in and for itself was the highest goal – meaning that they would never risk challenging the Soviet Union in such a way that it might collapse – as in fact it did. Some interesting possible counterfactuals there, no? So I’ll give that one a big nope as a value judgment, and a big nope historically, as well – since without an American revolution (the funding of which in large part broke the French treasury) we don’t have the history leading up to the Estates-General and “let them eat cake”.
Imagine if you would a Europe without a French Revolution…hmmm…interesting. Republics and democracies? Maybe not so many. So how – based on historical fact – would things have been better?
And I’m amused that you think that
Well, then, let’s have a debate about the value of America – and since accepting the ‘value of America’ – of our patrimony as Americans – is the essence of patriotism, I’ll suggest that those of us who value it do in fact have a different claim to the label of patriots than those – like Yglesias – who don’t.
So read a couple history books and come on back to us…
A.L.
Er, for the record, it’s not clear from the names, but the Chris above in comments 93 and 96 is a different Chris from me, the guy from comments 90 and earlier. NM should be able to verify by checking the email and IP addresses
Kudos to him, incidentally – he’s doing a fine job of tearing down AL’s post.
Well, that would explain my comment in #94…
“New Chris” could I persuade you to add a last initial or something to differentiate yourself?
A.L.
AL to “New Chris”: So read a couple history books and come on back to us…
This from the guy who recently asked since when is waging aggressive war a crime under international law? Who also told us that the colonists were in a weak position when they presented the Olive Branch Petition? That’s what I love about the internet.
Chris is pretty sound on the history. It’s just nitpicking to respond to “no one wanted a Revolution” by saying that a few of the colonists were opposed to monarchy from the outset. They needed the moderates. In that regard the only thing that Yglesias got seriously wrong (and he has since acknowledged this) is that he placed too much of the blame for the conflict on the Americans, rather than George III and his ministers, who deserved practically all the blame; they were offered a reasonable deal and they turned it down.
As for France, it’s surely true that without the American Revolution events there would have taken a very different course. But it’s not plausible to claim that Louis XVI could have resisted the pressure for democracy of some kind. Having lost out to Britain in the Seven Years’ War, losing everything they had in both North America and India, the French were increasingly blaming their system of government and contrasting it unfavourably to the British system. Sooner or later the reformists would have won out. They might easily have had a bloodless revolution, modelled on the one the British empire would have had if Yglesias had been God at the time.
If the the essence of American patriotism is setting a high value on a “patrimony” which depends on how history is read, then there are as many patriotisms as there are interpretations of history. Some lament the New Deal, others think it was too limited in scope. Likewise for Reconstruction and a host of other changes. Each school of interpretatiom then has “a different claim to the label of patriots” to be sure, but why should the AL school have a better claim than the MY school?
Kevin, you’re telling me the Olive Branch Petition was issued from a position of strength? Lexington and Concord were followed by Ticonderoga, true; but the situation was highly fluid, as the following year (the famous 1776) showed. And “the response from King George was hardly that of someone who thought he was dealing with anything but rabble.”:http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/revolution/proclaims.htm
NM,
What AL said in that thread was that “in 1775 things were not going so well for the Americans” which is just false. They were riding high at that point. You don’t seem to be disputing that, but if you are I can’t do better than to cite General Clinton again as I did in that thread (comment no. 14).
Of course you are right to say that the situation was fluid, as it usually is in war. That’s why the colonists were wise to offer peace and George III was foolish to reject it. Early success didn’t go to the colonists’ heads, which is why I chose that example to counter AL’s claim that peace offers are for losers (meaning those who are getting the worst of it at the moment the proposal is made). Evidently the many historical counter-examples offered in that thread convinced AL that his theory doesn’t hold water. So AL’s mind can be changed, but it’s uphill work.
In response to #97 –
First, there is a difference between saying the world “would have been better off without the Am. Revoltuion” than saying “the American Revolution was the consequence of a failure to work out a political compromise between the Crown and the colonies.” It’s different because a world without the American Revolution is not just one single possible world; there are many possible worlds. Yglesias, for his part, is imagining a world in which there was a very successful political solution, GB was a force for hope, truth, justice, etc., and Western democratization would have gone along a similar or accelerated or more progressive course. Certainly you can imagine a world in which the American Revolution didn’t happen because the colonists decided to give up, acquiesce to the crown, rebelled later and disastrously, etc. It’s a nuanced point, and I would caution against easy equivalencies.
Second, I think it’s fair to point out that after a certain tipping point, there was certainly a faction of folks who clamored for a split and who didn’t want to compromise with GB. I was speaking of, and am taking Yglesias to speak of, a longer view: that the tensions between colonies and Crown was long-simmering, and it wasn’t until about a decade or so before 1776 that the idea of Revolution was beginning to simmer. In any event, since we’re talking about history, a useful illustration of the point that the break was a “political failure” is the sense that the colonists (before the break) were actually trying to assert their rights as citizens of the kingdom, not the citizens of an abstract new creation; it was GB that had fallen off course, not the colonists who were trying to forge something new. Bernard Bailyn’s “Origins” is interesting in this regard; in his studies of the pampleteering leading up to the Revolution, he suggests (among other things) that in fact the idea of a new Republic and break did not come to the fore until before the Revolution, in part inspired by the great pamplet of Thomas Paine (Common Sense), not published until 1776. I admit this is a gloss and am happy to engage the details.
Third, I never said (nor did Yglesias) that “preserving the status quo is a mark of political success.” Rather, I made the point that the “political failure” was the lack of _some compromise_ between colonists and crown. By definition, this would not be the “status quo.” It’s not clear to me why the choices are binary: status quo v. Revolution. Surely there were other options; the failure to find them and seize them would have represented both a lack of political imagination and a lack of political will.
Fourth, I admit that it’s _possible_ the French Revolution would not have happened absent the American Revolution, but the causes are so complicated it’s really impossible to say. I think there’s an argument to be made that the debts incurred by the French crown in supporting the American Revolution was the straw that broke the camel’s back; but if that’s so, then some other straw migh have done the trick. My own view is that it would have just been a matter of time because the problems in France were deeply rooted in structural economic and social problems (e.g., the need to transition from a feudal to capitalist system, the entrenched power of the nobility) and inspired by new thoughts about humanism and religion (i.e. the Enlightenment) that some radical change in France was close to inevitable. I take my cues here from Eric Hobsbawm’s “The AGe of Revolution” and William Doyle’s book in the Oxford history series.
Finally, I do and did not suggest a debate on “the value of America.” Rather, I suggested we examine certain things that we value _about_ the United States — the free market, the Bill of Rights, winning WWII — and ask what the outcomes might have been if the colonies remaied part of the crown. I admit that’s a difficult analysis open to a wide variety of interpretations, but it’s a different question from “is American good?” That’s not my question; I actually don’t think it’s Yglesias’, either, which is why I find the whole argument that we can “question” someone’s patriotism based on a counterfactual suggestion about history, in a word, silly.
All the crazy things that Cynthia McKinney (who lost her Democratic Primary with most of the party aiding her opponent) said and a WoC commenter picks one of the rare times she was correct.
Just to put some meat on these counterfactual bones:
Let’s talk specifics. Let’s assume for a moment that WWI and WWII were two of the greatest calamities in the post-1789 world. (I believe this to be true.) Let’s further assume, for a moment, that it would be “better world” if neither of those wars happened, or at the very least if the outcomes had been better (few deaths, no nuclear weapons, no Holocaust, etc.).
I contend that WWI was an avoidable war. Niall Ferguson, in “The Pity of War,” has made the persuasive argument that it was a failure of British policy that WWI took place. Others have argued (before Ferguson) that it was a combination of the weakening of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires and the emergence of a unified and powerful Germany. For now, let’s assume these were all identifiable causes.
As it happened, the workings of diplomacy failed in part because the European balance of power, in which GB was a primus inter pares, was thrown off by the unification of Germany. Ferguson is right to point out that the British diplomatic failure was in not properly adjusting to this new reality. Germany, for its part, clamored for war because it thought war would be swift (so did some in GB) and victory certain. Of course, it didn’t turn out that way.
By 1917-18, the essential stalemate on the battlefield was giving way to more fluidity, and this favored the Germans. There is a good counterfactual argument to be made that, had the U.S. not stepped in when it did, Germany could have prolonged and won the war. This is complicated by internal German politics, but for now this is a good workable thesis.
In any event, when the U.S. entered the war Germany realized it could not sustain a battle against fresh and plentiful (if inexperienced) American troops. And so the war ended, Wilson was looked at as a hero, etc. The signing of and then the collapse of the Versailles treaty was, in part, an important factor in the rise of Nazism, Hitler, and the origins of WWII.
So. The question: what would have happened if the U.S. was not the U.S. but still a part of GB at this time?
For starters, it would probably be wise to assume the GB would still have the preeminent place in Europe that it did at the end of the Napoleanic wars, especially with the influx of resources and bodies and money from its now-consolidated colonies. GB probably would have emerged not as a primus inter pares, but as a true European, perhaps global, hegemon. This seems at least to be plausible.
As a European hegemon, GB would have been in a much more powerful position to check German ambitions on the continent. The diplomatic failure might not have happened because the “need to adjust” to a new reality might have been vastly different; the threat might not have been that Germany could now become a European hegemon, but instead that it could effectively balance with, say, France or Austria-Hungary and check British power. This would have led, perhaps, to a different balance-of-power system, but perhaps not to a calamitous war.
Even if WWI would have happened along similar lines as it did, the huge amount of resources, bodies, and money from the New World (I’m assuming an equivalent expansion across the continent by the Americans) might have made for a far shorter war against Germany, with a much clearer outcome for GB. Shorter outcome, fewer deaths.
And thus the conditions for WWII would have been diminished. It’s much more likely that there would have been no Versailles and no ill-conceived desire to keep Germany “down,” no rise of Nazism, etc.
But even assume that Nazism did rise and Germany was still transformed into the Third Reich. Under our world, it took the U.S. 2 years to get into the war; we could plausibly assume a shorter war if the U.S. were not the U.S. but part of the British empire.
In short, I think you can make a case that, in fact, the world would have been better off if the Americans had remained a part of the British Empire, under the assumption that world would be a better place if the world wars never occurred.
Assuming that practical good, then the question is — is the practical good of avoiding wars better than the “good” of having the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, etc.? This is a decent question that I’m willing to engage in. But for now, the bottom line is that Yglesias’ hypothetical really is quite provocative if you spend a few minutes engaging in the implications.
This has of course prompted me to write my own little blog, in case anyone cares.
“link”:http://intentionallymisread.blogspot.com/
[Bare URL, corrected for you this time to comply with WoC guidelines posted above the comments entry fields. -NM]
Kevin – the majority of the British forces didn’t show up until the summer of ’76, and the colonial leadership knew it, and knew they were coming.
There was no alliance with the French on the horizon, and they knew that they faced the most powerful army in the world. So yeah, I’m comfy saying that the colonists knew that things weren’t looking all rosay and wonderful in 1775 – and if you read what they wrote (“New Age Now Begin” by Smith) I think you’ll see they agree.
And yes, the essence of patriotism is respect for one’s ‘patrimony’ and I’ll side w/Schaar and Lincoln in saying that there is something qualitatively different about the American patrimony (which is, after all, the core point of the debate).
Chris H – I’ll certainly agree that the Revolution was the product of a “political failure” – i.e. that there were a set of actions on both sides that could have led to the Revolution not happening. But that’s different than suggesting that the world would be better off had the Revolution not happened.
While neither you nor Yglesias explicitly said that preserving the status quo was “success” it certainly flows from your arguments.
And it’s generous to say that the French revolution “might” not have happened – although given the thin air we’re all operating in here, I’d say that that’s arguably more certain than anything else we’re discussing here. The example of the American Revolution, combined with the immense debt that Versailles had incurred to fund the American Revolution – as well as the cost of the direct military support given by the French – certainly were close to the front of everyone’s mind at the time. We just were in Paris and saw an interesting exhibit on “Franklin in Paris” at the museum of Parisian history (the Carnavalet) and the exhibits there certainly made the connection.
Off to work, but more later in the day…
A.L.
Chris- your analysis is interesting but it similarly to the recent Buchanan book it skirts the critical detail the in both world wars, the Germans were intent on forcing a conflict for its own sake. To split hairs over which policies led to the outbreak of fighting is beside the point- the intent existed, the pretext is largely immaterial. If you look at the demands the Germans issued to the French before and during WW1 its clear this wasnt a conflict that could be reasonably mediated… for the simple reason that German demands were never reasonable.
This is a classic diplomats error. Assuming the other side is acting in good faith or amendable to reasonable consessions can be a dangerous mistake. Munich is such a great (and oft used) example of the dangers of appeasement precisely because the allies bent over 10 times backwards and it did nothing to stop the outbreak of war. Short of surrender and survitude, there was no stopping the outbreak of war in Europe in the 20th century. Too many parties wants it for its own sake.
Mark,
I agree that in the actual world, there is an argument to be made the Germany was acting in bad faith, wanted a war, etc. (thus my allusion to Germans thinking war would be swift and victory certain). My question is whether, in counter-factual world where GB now encompassess all of North America, Germany would have been checked by a hegemon rather than a weakened GB.
To make my argument, however, we need to define “reasonable.” If all German decisionmakers were irrational, then you’re right, it might not have mattered (thus my second point on the outcome tree- the war would have nonetheless been shorter). But I think it’s hard to make that argument, and I think that there were at least some rational actors who might have pointed Germany’s ambition in a different direction, had the world been counterfactually different.
_in counter-factual world where GB now encompassess all of North America, Germany would have been checked by a hegemon rather than a weakened GB._
No, in a unified kingdom, I imagine that the Republic of Texas exists, France owns Louisiana and Spain controls California and New Mexico.
A good take-down of the Ferguson theory on World War I is “here.”:http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99may/9905greatwar.htm
PD Shaw may be right; I note only that I was making an assumption for the sake of the argument, and for the sake of pointing out that Yglesias is not as crazy as some have suggested. The nice thing about hypotheticals is that they allow for the operation of historical and political imagination. But in the end, we only have the real world.
_”But I think it’s hard to make that argument, and I think that there were at least some rational actors who might have pointed Germany’s ambition in a different direction, had the world been counterfactually different.”_
I would just note that rational and reasonable are not the same thing. Im sure Germany’s goals were entirely reasonable to their leaders at the time, but completely outrageous for France in particular.
The idea that GB would have become hegemon of the allies with all else remaining equal seems unlikely, the balance of power would surely have adjusted in other (unpredictable) ways in the interim. What would _not_ have changed in all likelihood is Germanys need for raw materials, markets, and Atlantic access- if anything a hyperpowerful GB may have accelerated Germanys agression in an attempt to achieve parity.
I think Mark’s points are good ones (and I agree with the reasonable/rational distinction, I conflated without explaining). This is the ultimate problem with counterfactuals. In any event, I do not have a strong view about what would have happened. Again, my point is to respond to AL’s dismissing Yglesias’ argument out of hand.
Chris H, since it’s not the ‘quality’ of Yglesias’ counterfactuals, but the very notion that he’d use kind of childish ‘what if?’ history as a balance against the very real impact on history of the creation of the United States that I’m dismissing out of hand … how does your argument counter mine?
A.L.
Al:
I was responding to three comments you made. First:
bq he’s repeatedly made the suggestion that the world would have been far better off without the US Revolution.
Second:
bq Imagine if you would a Europe without a French Revolution…hmmm…interesting. Republics and democracies? Maybe not so many. So how – based on historical fact – would things have been better?
Third:
bq Well, then, let’s have a debate about the value of America – and since accepting the ‘value of America’ – of our patrimony as Americans – is the essence of patriotism, I’ll suggest that those of us who value it do in fact have a different claim to the label of patriots than those – like Yglesias – who don’t.
I took your point to be that Yglesias was simply wrong – there’s no way the world would have been better off, and that to assume we would have been better of without the American Revolution is to assume that there’s no value to the U.S. being in the world.
My argument, then, is that thinking hard about counterfactual situations (which in any event require more imagination than data, so I admit it’s tricky) and to see if it’s possible to have a world in which an expanded and consolidated GB could have been a better outcome for the world, assuming we can agree what “better outcome” means.
I did not take you to be saying that it was “the very notion that he’d use kind of childish ‘what if?’ history as a balance against the very real impact on history of the creation of the United States that I’m dismissing out of hand,” and your quotes above are in tension with this interpretation of your argument. You seem to be arguing that Yglesias’ hypothetical is simply ludicrous on its face. If I’ve misunderstood, please clarify; because I think that it’s really not a ludicrous idea, and if you think about it you can see how the argument might play itself out.
In any event, I am not saying (nor is Yglesias, which I say in part to keep our eye on the purpose of this long back-and-forth) that we would all be better off if the U.S. were wiped off the map. The point is whether the Revolution was the best outcome that could have been obtained. –
One of the immediate results of the American Revolution was the beginning of the end for slavery. Prior to the Revolution, Britain vetoed efforts by the colonies to ban the importation of slaves. In 1777, Vermont banned slavery (AFAIK the first country to do so) and the other Northern states followed. One of the first acts of the American government was to ban slavery in the Northwest territories and set the stage for a national ban on the slave trade.
On the British side, the loss of the colonies weakened King George, forced Lord North to capitualate to the Whigs, the party whose ideals most closely resemble those of the American rebels. As a result of the Revolution, Ireland would be granted the type of autonomy the Americans initially sought. By 1832, the Whigs would ban slavery in the British Empire and reform parlaiment along more democratic lines.
In other words, the American Revoultion promoted liberal values on both sides of the Atlantic. Matt’s views are simply illiberal or ignorant.
PD Shaw,
I do not know British history following the American Revolution enough to agree or disagree with you, so let me assume you’re absolutely right on all your causation arguments.
Even assuming you’re right, I think you’re missing the point. Unless I missed something, neither I nor Matt ever argued that the American Revolution was _bad_, or that it somehow _retarded_ the advancement of liberal causes. As you demonstrate, there’s a strong case to be made that it was a net boon for liberal values. I’m pretty sure Yglesias would say the same thing.
As such, I think it’s unfair to call him “illiberal” or “ignorant,” because he’s not making the argument you suggest he’s making. He’s saying that a political solution in which the colonies remain tied to the Crown (not necessarily under a status quo arrangement) might have led to an even better outcome. Thus my playing with the ideas of avoiding WWI and WWII.
If you’re argument is that, in fact, there’s _no way_ the absence of the American Revolution would have led to the advancement of liberal causes, then that’s different; but I don’t think you’re making that argument, because it would require engaging in a counterfactual thought experiment, which you have not done. Maybe you’re implicitly suggesting that slavery would not have been eliminated in Britan and Parliament would have wielded less power vis-a-vis the Crown had there been no American Revolution, but I don’t see that argument being made.
I think it’s important to be very careful in distinguishing the contours of the original suggestion: not that the American Revolution was bad, but that a political solution that obviated the need for the Revolution might have been better.