Kevin's Watch

On that note, I recently saw a clip of O'Reilly berating (surprise surprise) a peace activist who said that the US should withdraw from Iraq immediately and that we are committing war crimes. "You're crazy," O'Reilly told her contemptuously. "If you weren't, most Americans would agree with you. You are a tiny minority." Unfortunately, he was spot-on. Most Americans think we have a "duty" to intervene in other countries. Intervention is often aggression (to come full circle).

Lord Mhoram wrote:On that note, I recently saw a clip of O'Reilly berating (surprise surprise) a peace activist who said that the US should withdraw from Iraq immediately and that we are committing war crimes. "You're crazy," O'Reilly told her contemptuously. "If you weren't, most Americans would agree with you. You are a tiny minority." Unfortunately, he was spot-on. Most Americans think we have a "duty" to intervene in other countries. Intervention is often aggression (to come full circle).

O'Reilly is hardly a good yardstick (I hope).

I don't think we really need to delve into all the reasons why McGovern got his ass handed to him (which I think is a bit of a shame, McGovern seemed like a decent guy who didn't have the support of his party and was completely overwhelmed by the Nixon machine).

I'll also grant you that there wasn't much complaint about Vietnam in 1959, however that war became mighty unpopular relatively quickly.

As far as condemning military aggression, I'd like to point out that:

1) Bill O'Reilly is hardly a credible source on the mood of the American Public, which is born out by:

2) The fact that Bush's support is the lowest for any President in recent history, largely due to the war in Iraq. The only real discussion is whether or not pulling out ASAP would be punishing the Iraqi government for the mess we created.

That said, I thought we were talking about personal virtues and vices.

National policy and an individual's virtue have been at odds more often than not throughout history.

Plissken,

I don't think it needs to be said twice that I don't think Bill O'Reilly is a good gauge of nearly anything - but he is popular. Anyhow, I agree with him that most Americans do not support immediate withdrawal and they don't think Americans are committing war crimes. In any event, this is analogous to Vietnam. Americans supported Iraq in pretty good numbers in 2003 - the invasion was mostly supported. There were reservations, and there were smart people who saw that it was a bad idea. But it was supported.

Your second point has I think much more to do with Bush's handling of the war in Iraq. In other words, Americans are more irritated by deaths of Americans and a seeming American loss than American intervention.

That said, I thought we were talking about personal virtues and vices.

You were the one that started this discussion off by talking about "our" culture and how our concept of virtues and vices are influenced by culture. National policy is often an excellent reflection of culture. I think it says a lot about the American cultural consciousness that American continues to be aggressive in international politics.

Is your personal sense of virtue reflected in national policy? Do you even know anyone whose personal sense of virtue is reflected in our national policy?

(To be fair, I have had many discussions with people who believe that national policy reflects their values and idea of virtue. Those discussions usually last as long as I can keep asking "Oh really? What about X? ...Y? ...Z? ...A?")

As for 2003, people were reacting to their fears, not their sense of the Virtuous.

point Plissken +1

Yeah, I agree with Pliss really. Government policy doesn't reflect the personal values of citizens. I'd also have said that the American public were or became opposed to the war in Vietnam long before it actually ended. And as for Iraq, well, maybe a goodly number of Americans supported it, but I seem to remember a goodly number who opposed it too. (Even leaving aside the point about fears.)

--A

Plissken,

Is your personal sense of virtue reflected in national policy?

Mine personally isn't, but that doesn't prove anything. A government's policies in general usually reflect a culture. Hence, independent-minded Americans in the 18th century didn't establish a monarchy, but a democracy. Americans whose ancestors slaughtered Indians to expand their country are more inclined to initially approving of intervening in an East Asian country. A government should reflect cultural values, and when it doesn't, it either forcibly changes those values, or is overthrown.

As for 2003, people were reacting to their fears, not their sense of the Virtuous.

The fear factor is important to note, but it is undeniable that Bush's intonations about spreading liberty and democracy resonated with Americans. That was his appeal to virtue, and it worked.

Lord Mhoram wrote:Plissken,

Is your personal sense of virtue reflected in national policy?

Mine personally isn't, but that doesn't prove anything. A government's policies in general usually reflect a culture. Hence, independent-minded Americans in the 18th century didn't establish a monarchy, but a democracy. Americans whose ancestors slaughtered Indians to expand their country are more inclined to initially approving of intervening in an East Asian country. A government should reflect cultural values, and when it doesn't, it either forcibly changes those values, or is overthrown.

As for 2003, people were reacting to their fears, not their sense of the Virtuous.

The fear factor is important to note, but it is undeniable that Bush's intonations about spreading liberty and democracy resonated with Americans. That was his appeal to virtue, and it worked.

It was one (required, weakly presented bit of lip-service) appeal to virtue, nestled in a full-court press of fear. Go re-read the speeches Bush gave back then, if you don't believe me.

As for the rest, there's one helluva "Should" in the first part that colors the rest of it pretty heavily.

I think you are underestimating the power of that appeal to virtue.

Anyway, I am just baffled that you don't see the connection between culture and government. The way I see it they are inextricably entwined.

I think the appeal to virtue was part of it, but I'd say you were over-estimating it. What's more important to people? Being good? Or being safe?

As for cultural impacts on government, broadly yes, of course there is. But I think that this is on a much narrower scale.

In other words, I don't think that American culture caused the war itself.

--A

No, I don't believe it did either. I think that history has shown that we generally don't care to mess with other countries unless someone tells us why we should, and sufficiently motivates us.

And fear is a hell of a motivation.

--A

Oh no question. I'd argue that fear is the only time-proven motivator that works universally on every culture.

Makes sense to me. Reminds me once again about the old story about loosing the rabid lion in the streets so that you can take care of it...

--A

Lord Mhoram wrote:I think you are underestimating the power of that appeal to virtue.

Anyway, I am just baffled that you don't see the connection between culture and government. The way I see it they are inextricably entwined.

And I think you are mis-underestimating it. (You give me a chance to throw in a Bush joke, and I usually will.) Seriously, go back and read the SOTU, or the President's appeal to Congress. They both pretty much go like this: "Terror, terror killing us, terror, WMD, terror, BinLaden, WMD, biological, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, WMD, terror, -- oh, and liberation, too."

Lord Mhoram wrote:
Anyway, I am just baffled that you don't see the connection between culture and government. The way I see it they are inextricably entwined.

I've been thinking about your bafflement, and here's what I've come up with: There is obviously a link between culture and government, but with - to my mind - two important distinctions:

1) Culture and Virtue are two different things. A government can shape the culture, either through good governance or through bad.

2) What a society values as virtuous, at least in a properly-run democracy, should shape the actions of the Government.

I tend to think of our Government as a slightly slow child that needs our values constantly instilled and reinforced within it. This held pretty much true from the inception of our country, right up until Nixon.

At that point, our government began thinking of itself as the rightful parent in the relationship, and some of us ("My Government, Right or Wrong") signed up with the new credo ("If the President does it, it's not illegal."). When that went awry, for any number of reasons, too many of us washed our hands, used tough love, said "Hey! It's the Government! What're you gonna do?", and went off to live our own lives as best we could.

Government, pleased with it's newfound independence from the folks, still stops in every two to four years to tell us it's still living by the virtues we tried so hard to instill, and then goes off to sleep with hookers, engage in risky behavior, lie, cheat, steal, and kill stuff.

And the divide grows. Americans still value Freedom as their country's defining virtue, but our goddamned stupid kid has stretched the meaning of that word so far in the occasional phone calls home that it carries about as much meaning as the word Respect (As in, "Do you respect [insert impossibly large group of people here]?"). Some days, the kid doesn't even try. He'll tell you to your face that he's going to tear up another freedom, cross another one of the House Rules off the list on the 'fridge, but it's okay, 'cuz he's found some new distraction for the poor Ol' Folks to be scared of.

Here's the thing:

That kid is still ours. Just as I've only been fathering a kid as old as my daughter for around one day, we've only been at the experiment of how to run a bloated, pasty, hung-over 230 year-old Democracy for one damned day.

And we're still responsible for it. We shape it's virtues, unless we stop - at which time it loses all sense of virtue and responsibility.

And when that happens, that kid is still ours, and we're still responsible.

It's not The Government.

It's Our Government.

That's a pretty good analogy. The problem s that, like many parents, we've abdicated that responsibility, and the kid knows it. When we try to reign the kid in, we hear threats of, "I'll shout abuse!". What's worse, is that when people do stand up to our unruly child, they get labeled as extremists. "How dare you question the Government?", they say. "That's Unamerican!", they shout.

Dear God, regardless of your feelings on David Koresh, the government burned up a church full of people. Men, women, and children who held some extreme and unconventional beliefs, to be sure, but they weren't hurting anyone. There was no outcry, and what little there was was labeled extreme.

And Ruby Ridge. Whatever you might think of that guy's politics - and I don't think much of them, personally - killing his family to serve a warrant is about as far from American as you can get.

Right there with you, C-Man.

Oh absolutely. Randy Weaver wasn't a nice person. He was a criminal and should have been arrested. But his arrest was not worth the lives of his family.

But he was unsavory, so there was no outcry.

Because we didn't want to be next.