I’m busy all day today, but two things you ought to go take a look at while I’m gone.
Den Beste makes my point about what happens if we don’t succeed in tempering Islamist rage – and it isn’t pretty for the Middle East. He seems to suggest that total war is new (it isn’t – think Troy), but he makes good points, and in case anyone wonders what I’m so damn afraid of, he nails it.
Julian Sanchez demonstrates once again that libertarians seem to have spent waaay too much time in logic class and not enough studying history or political theory, as he backhands Rob Lyman’s post below. I’m out till this afternoon, but watch this space for a fisking.
You Sanchez, is like the third or fourth commentor who has confused responsibility with blame.
Which means I wasn’t clear enough on that point. Will consider that for rewriting.
On the other hand, his “strict liability” comment is way out there.
Good point about that applies to many, but not all libertarians. Throw in “economics class” and you’ve got a real case there.
Rob:
What is the difference between responsibility and blame? In your earlier comments, you said you aren’t to be blamed for Bush’s steel tariffs and Israel policy, and also that non-voting immigrant’s responsibilities are lessened because of their limited power. Isn’t responsibility without power what blame is?
Taking responsibility for something that you haven’t power to change is meaningless. Responsibility requires power and a choice.
If someone takes all (legal) actions within their power to divert the government from what they believe to be a mistaken action, what are they responsible for? Are they responsible for the forseen mistake? What duty must they do to discharge their responsibility?
“What is the difference between responsibility and blame?”
I can’t speak for Rob, but I’ll take a stab at this. To me, in the context of this debate, responsibility refers to actions you should undertake in the future to help achieve the best outcome of all. Blame is determining who is at fault for bad decisions made in the past. One is forward-thinking and one is backward-thinking. One has more positive conotations while the other tends to be negative.
To quote from your example, part of a person’s responsibility in this country to take “all (legal) actions within their power to divert the government from what they believe to be a mistaken action.” However, one also has a responsibility to respect other opinions that may feel the action is not a mistake. And if the action results in the “foreseen mistake,” then you are now responsible going forward for doing whatever can be done to correct the mistake (or to avoid new ones).
Blame is more about determining who or what caused us to make the mistake in the first place. I’m not going to say whether this is a bad thing or not. Blame has its place, but it can also be destructive.
Why are you responsible for helping fix mistakes made by someone else (even when you tried to stop them)? Because, (at the risk of sounding to cliche-ish), we are all in this together. I think that is what Rob was getting at when discussing “tribal patriotism” (which I wish he had just called patriotism.) Some people scoffed at the idea of flying flags to show moral and community support after 9/11. However, this outpouring was actually a key component in our overall ability to heal as a nation after such a traumatic expense. Imagine the impact if most people simply said, “Well, 9/11 is the result of stupid decisions by people I didn’t vote for, so I’m going to do nothing to help the people of NYC.” I think this is the “moral imperative” that we all need to work together to stop that from happening again, including doing our best to resolve our differences if we disagree. Blaming the other side for our failures, and washing our hands of any responsibility going forward, is not an option.
This strikes me as mostly a semantic debate where, once the meanings of the words are cleared up, we would probably find that everyone is more or less in agreement on things.
Sanchez succumbs to error in he way that he uses the example of a corporation in rebuttal. A better analogy to the relationship between citizens and their elected government would be an employee-owned corporation. If the employees wish to maximize the value of their shares then they certainly have a stake in the behavior and performance of the company.
Government of, by and for the people? The concept would seem to imply that the people are burdened with a certain amount of responsibility.
AC8,
ramman31 has it exactly right. For the purposes of my posts, blame is backward looking, responsibility is forward looking. Both have their place; my concern is exclusively with the future right now. History can sort out whether Clinton or Bush I or whoever is really at “fault.” You are, I think, interpreting responsibility as what I am calling blame.
I am not seeking to “pin the blame” for Clinton’s or Bush’s mistakes on anyone, regardless of how they voted. I am calling on Americans to “take responsibility” for the safety of other Americans by ceasing to indulge in anti-Americanism, and by placing winning the war over winning the next election. I believe there are significant numbers of people, some of whom may be seeking the Democratic nomination, who care more about beating Bush than the terrorists; I call that what it is: treason. (Definitional issue: not “treason,” the crime defined in the Constitution. “Treason,” the act of betraying one’s country.)
I phrased that badly in the original piece; evidently lots of people have been confused. I’ll have to consider how I might make the distinction clearer next time around.
And I chose the unusual term “tribal patriotism” over just “patriotism” because what I was arguing for was a moral obligation based on political power and a Hobbesian social contract. Plain old “patriotism” is a much more expansive term with all kinds of cultural/historical connotations. I wanted to exclude those connotations to have a degree of control over my language. This way, no one could start yelling at me, “That’s not what REAL patriotism is! REAL patriotism is dissent” blah, blah, blah.
I mean, just look that the difficulty we’re having figuring out what is meant by the perfectly ordinary words “responsibility” and “blame.” You can’t blame me (no pun! I swear!) for wanting to minimize semantic fights by making words up.
You are confusing anti-Americanism Rob Lyman (which is a slimey – grossly offensive – simpleminded – and patently false accusation) – with the right and duty of every American to question and demand disclosure, transparency, and accountability from our leadership.
This debate is essential to a healthy American democracy, which is being ravaged by the rightwingideologue religious zealots, crony captalst booking cooking profiteers, and predatory warmongers in the Bush oligarchy.
This debate defines and represents everything noble and just America was founded upon, and has long defended.
How creepy and hypocritical to promote and blindly defend an illegal, unjust, deceptive and unnecessary war – a woefully misguided, never accounted for exceedingly costly and bloody, (though obscenely lucrative to Bush cronies in the oil, energy, and private military cartels) nationbuilding enterprise against the wrong Muslims – and a Bush controlled puppet democracy in Iraq – while blindly supporting and/or excusing and/or ignoring the radical assault on and erosion of democracy by the same Bush fundamentalist republican oligarchy here in America.
The Iraq war is a costly mistake America will hazard and burden for decades.
The truly American duty and our essential right is to demand investigations into the misuse and abuse of intelligence Bush exploited and mass marketed to pimp an illegal, unjust, and unnecessary war against the wrong Muslims in Iraq.
America is being mortgaged, radically redefined, deceved, and shamed by the Bush oligarchy and the shameless exploitation of the horrors of 9/11, the cloaked accounting, the crony capitalist book cooking profiteering, the oil piracy, the puppet government erected by Bremer and the CPA, the sliming and demonization of every and any voice of opposition, the revenge outing of a WMD agency operative, the curious shielding of the House of Saud – and/or the woefully misguided, exceedingly costly and bloody, (though obscenely lucrative to Bush cronies in the oil, energy, and private military cartels) nationbuilding enterprise in Iraq against the wrong Muslims.
Bush is accountable.
We have a right and a duty to question the many abuses – deceptions – acts of malfeasance and perfidy – failures – and neglect of the Bush oligarchy.
Sliming questioners or any and every voice of opposition or alternate opinion – conduct unbecoming Rob Lyman – and patently un-American.
“Have you no shame sir…?
Tony,
The Bush oligarchy? No mention of the Clinton oligarchy that let these problems fester until they manifested 9 months into the Bush regime. Why is that? “Liberals” had 8 years to prevent this. It is not like the first attack on the towers didn’t come in a liberal administration.
It would be nice to hear criticism of the current administration that didn’t rely on the evil cabal idea for it’s strength. Such overheated rhetoric weakens your argument in the place it counts most: the people that vote.
And as to the Iraqi mistake. If you read reports from Germany and Japan 1945 to 1950 or so you would know that there is no way to tell if it it is going wrong or right after only six months.
I remember hearing on the radio complints about displaced persons still living in barracks four or five years after the war was over. This was considered an outrage. People got their shorts in a knot over this. Evidently it got sorted out. Except for the Palestinians who for some reason are still living in camps (which funny enough resemble towns and cities).
I liked Clinton. I like Bush.
It would be nice to hear rationalism from the left but I don’t expect it. Any more that I expected it from Clinton critics on the right.
It is amazing the number of people politics drives mad.
=======================================
America is being mortgaged to bring democracy to Iraq. It seems worth it to me.
Clinton is no longer in the White House M. Simon – Bush is president now.
We are proud Americans just like you brother.
Truebelievers foolishly imagine that by simply spewing some partisan – grossly offensive – patently false – completely unsubstantiated slime on your fellow Americans – that there exists some truth or any validity or veracity to the treacherous slander -when in fact there is none.
It is a shameless lie!
The left is defending America – the people of America – in marked contradistinction to the Bush oligarchy and the mindless flocks of truebelievers who are focused on and promote the interests of the super rich – 4% of the population – thefew.
You can slime me personally all you want – but I stand strident in defense of any claim I make and it is your camp that avoids, evades, shades, ignores, and excuses the glaring Bush failures, abuses, acts of malfeasance and perfidy, crony capitalist book cooking profiteering, disinformation, cloaked accounting, and neglect. Dare you discuss any claim?
We are not allowed to question the how’s and why’s and what for’s and certainly not the how much – we are simply expected to bow to the will of the all mighty Bush oligarchy and hope it all works out in the end.
Well – your guy is suspect, with a huge festering “credibility gap”, and we are not so easy to dismiss the daily slaughter of Americans and Iraqi’s the enormous costs – the cloaked accounting timeframes and objective – and we want – we demand answers investigations, redress, a change of policy and accountability.
This is our right and our duty as proud and loyal Americans and we will not be silenced.
Tony, Michael Moore couldn’t have said it any better.
I’m going to cut this off. Tony, you were invited to respond to Dan Darling’s article, because it referenced yours and that was only fair.
Needless to say, we’re a long way from that here.
Sigh. Back to the IP bitbucket…
Tony, I repudiate you.
There, I did it.
Tony,
I disagree strongly with everything you wrote.
But I woudn’t call it “anti-American,” or treasonous. You have every right to hate Bush and seek his ouster. If you think that is what it takes to protect your fellow Americans, then more power to you. Certainly Bush has made a number of mistakes that deserve criticism.
I am NOT criticizing dissent. I am criticizing irresponsible “dissent” which places beating Bush above a stable and safe Iraq, and which hates the opposing political party more than terrorists.
Everyone else, even my strongest critics, understood that.
Thanks Rob,
I was getting a bit confused with Armed Liberal’s statement that all our hands are dirty in Selective Service. The semantics of blame and responsibility are important, and there are some important distinctions based on who is taking or assigning the blame or responsibility. I think AL’s point is that, looking backwards, we who benefit from american society have signed up for the social contract and are responsible/to blame for the actions of our govenrment to some extent. It is a point I agree with, but it does have an uncomfortable result: Those who receive damage at the hands of our government also hold our citizens to some extent responsible. Your point seems to be that looking forward, we have a duty to act for best outcome for our citizens.
Counter to Tony Foresta above, I think you are not confusing anti-americanism with the duty to criticise, rather you see a valid duty to question and criticise by those who feel it is their duty as citizens to do so.
What disturbs me the most is that this administration seems dismissive of criticism, from both without and within. This adminstration is also secretive about nearly everything. I am, and have been, skeptical that this administration can produce the best outcome for our citizens. That skepticism has been reinforced to the point that I feel it my patriotic duty to continue vote against and to question them.
There are those who hate Bush and seek his ouster, but few of them would say, even to themselves, that they hate the opposing political party more than the terrorists. Focusing on the ‘irresponsible “dissenters”‘ shifts the discussion away from the mistakes that deserve criticism.
M. Simon:
I hope you don’t mind if I pick on your signature a bit: “America is being mortgaged to bring democracy to Iraq. It seems worth it to me. ”
America being staked on a sucker bet doesn’t seem worth it to me.
Our administration didn’t sell this as mortgaging America to bring democracy to Iraq; if I remember right, which I’m sure I don’t, it was something about the next step in the war on terror is disarming an evil dictator. A number of people seized on Steven den Beste’s *Strategic Overview* as a good explanation of our plan, even though it isn’t endorsed by the administration. I don’t think we have the resources to accomplish the chosen goal: “…to reform the Arab/Muslim world.” Attempting to reform the Arabs or the Muslims by force seems like madness. If anyone tried to reform us (as americans or as our respective religions) through force, many of us would laugh and resist.
Personally, I think Den Beste’s part III.C small solution would have been the best course for us: Terrorism is bad, fight terrorism, don’t try to reform the Arab/Muslim world.
=================
Question Authority