![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Comments re:Anti-American sentiment and US diplomacy by Stephen Holmes of NYU Law. Emphasis mine.
Man. Is that last sentence, not the most beautiful line. Negligence comes effortlessly. Yeah. It sure does.
We should not assume, without looking into it, that anti-Americanism will necessarily affect our national interests. Indeed, hatred of the U.S. should concern our national-security community only if it galvanizes individuals and groups with the capacity to harm us, either positively, by inflicting grave injuries, or negatively, by withholding the cooperation on which we depend to solve our most urgent problems. The latter method of inflicting damage merits special emphasis. WMD proliferation and offshore plotting by terrorist cells may or may not require active sponsorship by rogue states. But they can both benefit decisively from slovenly oversight by disorganized, distracted and incompetent states. Public officials around the world can inflict the most serious imaginable damage on the U.S. by simply being negligent. And negligence, it so happens, comes effortlessly to most human beings.
Man. Is that last sentence, not the most beautiful line. Negligence comes effortlessly. Yeah. It sure does.
no subject
It's really sad. I do believe that every American tourist can help, though, by not acting beligerant and demanding, being respectful of the country and culture they're visiting, and by being obvious in the enjoyment of that country and its people. The American guy in the Heathrow Hilton who got all pissy because his beer wasn't chilled enough is the perfect example of how not to behave.
no subject
Even if you believe the US ought to have its way and do whatever it wants - reality is that you can achieve that far better if you play along a bit more, are inclusive, and co-opt people rather than bullying them. International pissy-ness does us no favors. To this point, I think most people seperate didain for American policy with Americans as a whole. I just worry that it will shift more.
no subject
no subject
no subject
suckeringconvincing people to go along with you and your ideas, because your vision isseductive enough to dupe them into thinking it's good for themright and good for everybody.no subject
Perhaps I should have quoted the entire speech, but it's very much not the point. The point isn't whether or not we should care. And he certainly isn't recommending intervening all over the place...
It's important to note the audience reflected in the quote: hatred of the U.S. should concern our national-security community - not the citizenry. The Security Community.
Social Justice and Liberal norms are not their job, except for where it impacts US Security. Which he goes to show, it does. Policies that make people hate us, make us less secure. Whether or not we should care because we value Social Justice (and his position, BTW, is that we should) is beside the point for the audience. Holmes goes on to argue, though I don't quote here, that even the most hard hearted Machiavellian Realist who cares solely about national interest should care - because propounding social justice serves our interest.
The audience, again, isn't the general public. This isn't for, or about, people who value social justice. Those people do not need reasons to believe that it's bad to make enemies wily-nily and conduct policy based solely on fear and brute force.
The audience are those who don't consider social justice a prime issue, and who hold narrow national interest as more important.
And that attitude is what got us in the huge messes we are in now
Maybe that is what the Security Community needs to remember and if they can't, we need a new security community.
Re: And that attitude is what got us in the huge messes we are in now
Yes. And I'm sure such an argument will be terribly effective in swaying every audience one delivers it to.
Yeah - people should care about norms in and of themselves in the abstract. But human nature being what it is, not everyone is going to care about social justice or liberal norms enough to limit their own behavior in the pursuit of those norms abroad.
A large part of the reason those norms have become more and more universal goes beyond the "all humans have natural rights" - those norms propagate because they lead to tangible benefits in our daily lives. Pragmatism and realism based - arguments shouldn't be so easily discounted. They have legs.
Then these people shouldn't be our security community
If the tree has diseased roots, no matter how much you try to support it or prune the branches, it won't make the tree healthy. We need to recognize that the system IS the problem and not just say we can't beat the system so we need to figure out how to best deal with it.
Human nature is much more than greed. It is our very humanity that is the strongest thing there is. Not greed, but mercy, compassion, love. Those who don't live this shouldn't be the ones in charge. The system can be changed. It isn't what you do for your country, but what you do for Mankind. Things like the World Social Forum don't ignore prgamtism or realism. It works to find alternatives to the system. Alternatives are possible, provided you are interested in actual justice and not just preserving the system.
We have met the enemy...
I know we disagree - we view the world through very different paradigms.
Compassion, mercy and love are humanity. And so is pettiness and greed. It's all humanity. That's the diseased tree you rail against - that's humanity. The system - it's produced by humanity. And it's not particularly bad.
This particular system has flaws, flaws that can be fixed. Perhaps too many flaws to fix. But The System? That's humanity. It's us.
Re: We have met the enemy...
It's thinking like this that perpetuates the system. It is part of us, so we can at best deal with it. That's wrong. It's this thinking that makes it part of us. It isn't natural. Greed is a perversion of our nature, not our nature. Greed results from scarcity. Tell me what is still scarce. Why are we still hording? Why do we accept this behavior in others?
Pettiness and greed, just like the dehumanization of our enemy, are something that were learned. It isn't a natural part of us. To accept it as part of us is to accept a perversion and damn ourselves. The only chance we have is to realize this isn't us and get back to what we are.
The system is not humanity any more than the clothes I wear is me. I can discard it and start a new one. It has done before and it will be done again.
Re: We have met the enemy...
Because it is in our nature, because it is instinctual to do so, because it is an inborn survival urge. Excessive greed is a perversion, yes. Greed is not. It isn't going away.
We are humans. We possess the urge to perform acts of charity and compassion. We possess the urge to sin. Specific sins, yes, may be learned. But the urge is innate. We can strive to learn ourselves, so that we might better approach our 'perfect' selves instead of fulfilling the baser aspects of our nature. But it would be folly to delude ourselves into thinking it isn't our nature. To deny that, is to deny that we are human.
The system is not humanity any more than the clothes I wear is me. I can discard it and start a new one. It has done before and it will be done again.
And the new system will be infected by the same humanity the old one possessed. Because it's not just the clothes. It's your skin. It's your heart. It's your brain. The System isn't something external or alien - it's an extension of our humanity. And you will discard again ad infinitum - because the system is you.
You can rail about how "thinking like that perpetuates the system". Mere existence perpetuates the system.
Re: We have met the enemy...
Sin cannot be learned and innate. They are sort of opposites. To "sin" under certain circumstances is innate. It is natural to strive to fulfill our needs. To continue this behavior once those needs have been met is not acting innately. Greed is not fulfilling our needs. It is exceeding them. Greed is acting because of behavior we learned when we were acting innately. IMO to act that way under conditions of scarcity isn't necessarily a sin. To act that way when scarcity is no longer present would be a sin.
This doesn't deny our humanity. It embraces what is really us and allows us to express it. Humans aren't angels and devils. We are humans. We can act like devils, but we aren't devils.
And you have done nothing to demonstrate how greed is our nature. You have just asserted that it is. Why not explore this assumption rather than just accept and work with it? If we were born greedy, my child would have gorged herself on breast milk and her stomach would have burst. We have an instinct to meet our needs, not to exceed them.
The System is not something we are born with. It is something we are born into. It isn't an extension of us. It is an extension of our parents and grandparents. As we mature, it is harder and harder to tell where we end and the system begins. We get more and more away from who we are and become what we are molded into.
And that is where our salvation lies, figuring out what is us and what isn't and living who we are. It is realizing we don't have to be this way. It is realizing that the system can be changed. It is realizing that we aren't demons and things aren't inevitable. We can kick the board over.
Re: We have met the enemy...
I understand the argument about greed, but not so much about pettiness. When we're born, all we care about, or are even aware of, is ourselves. Which may be better described as being selfish, but is also petty insofar as petty is marked by having a narrowed viewpoint. It's only through experience and education that one's worldview is expanded to consider the needs and wants of others.
Compassion and mercy are also things that must be learned. It seems that in order to be compassionate, you have to understand other's viewpoints. And in order to truly understand, you need the proper experience or ability to understand and then care about what others go through. Same with mercy. I definitely don't think those are innate, though I think the capacity to express those feelings are.
Honestly, I'd say pettiness is more innate than compassion or mercy, because I think it's a hell of a lot easier to do for yourself first. It's easy to ignore the plight of others, if you don't consider them worthy of your attention. It's only when you realize the wrongness of doing so, that you are able to rise above it and express such kindness. And eventually, it becomes innate. But I think our first inclinations are often to be selfish.
Then again, this attitude may be reflective of the stage of life I'm at. I definitely struggle with doing the right thing at times. I don't think it comes very naturally for me, though I'd like it to.
My viewpoint is colored by two things
First my background, which is surprisily similar to DL's. 5 years can make a lot of difference, I suppose. Not sure when DL came to the DC metro area, but I moved there in 1979 when I was 8. The next year (actually, we moved in Sept, so the next few months), Reagan was elected to the presidency in reaction to the Iran Hostage Crisis. In his journal, my husband
I was fortunate enough to be educated in Montgomery Public Schools (just like DL) and had rather liberal teachers. Carter losing the election was a great blow to these people. His service record after he left the presidency is unlike any prior occupant of the White House and shows what a truly great man he is. I never really did accept Reagan as a good thing.
As I got older, since the Reagan-Bush years are so long we are looking at ages 8-20, I did not like things I heard coming from that administration. I can sum up my feelings about the Reagan administration in two words, "evil empire." Gone was any sort of identification with those oppressed by totalitarian regimes that Kennedy demonstrated with his famous jelly donut speech in Berlin. Gone was the mutual respect of Carter that allowed him to negotiate peace between Mohamed Anwar Al-Sadat or Egypt and Menachem Begin of Israel.
Instead the enemy was demonized. They were evil. They were dehumanized. We are seeing the effects of this with our treatment of POWs. First on Gitmo where we are trying to torture other human beings because of a loop hole in The Geneva Conventions. Second when we ACTUALLY are in GROSS BREACH of Geneva. This isn't just the effects of war. These are the effects of administrations that didn't believe in the oppressed people, but in realpolitik where the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
When I see someone say that we should work with this attitude and try to use their tactics to get them to behave, I see someone enabling what I perceive to be one of the greatest threats to world peace. My country is the greatest threat to world peace. The world organizations that we set up, the international treaties that we wrote, we don't believe in. We use them according to "national interest." What is in my best interest is to see human beings treated as human beings. I don't care about the economic interests of a select few which really have nothing to with "national" anything.
The first thing I listed colors my impression of what we are naturally the most. My daughters didn't have to be taught to recognize people as people. They have a face. They are human. When one isn't feeling well, the other tries to comfort her. When they see someone crying, they try to help them. I didn't teach them this.
The thing with ego boundaries is we are born without them. We may be self centered, but everything is self. We have to learn that we are separate from others. When we start to learn this, we are still operating under the Golden Rule. We see others as separate in theory, but we don't know any other way to treat them except as we want to be. We want to be comforted and helped when we need it, so we do that. This stops when our own needs start to take precedence. This happens when those needs aren't met, scarcity.
We aren't naturally petty. We become petty when our needs aren't met. If our needs are met, naturally we aren't petty. When our needs are then met, we sometimes continue to be petty. We are taking a natural reaction and using it at a time when it isn't natural. That is a learned behavior.
Our needs are met. We are told by various organizations that they aren't. We are taught to try to keep up with the Jones or that we need more of X. We don't. We are operating under false assumptions and the only way to get out is to see this.
Re: And that attitude is what got us in the huge messes we are in now
A quick question - the urge to be practical, to use and act upon reasoned analysis, is inhuman? Who developed the scientific method, Martians?
Re: And that attitude is what got us in the huge messes we are in now
There is much more to us than "the urge to be practical, to use and act upon reasoned analysis" so to just do so is not really human any more than an arm is human. It is a human arm, but the arm itself isn't a human being. National and international policy need to be constructed from the totality of our being. The heart that believes that people shouldn't suffer cannnot be removed any more than the brain that figures out how to accomplish this.
Re: I’d say you’d better learn to quote better
Yes. And it is made up of people who are trained to see conflict through the lense of Specific, Quantifiable National Interest. Social justice, particularly beyond US borders, is an abstract concept to this particular audience. Measurable security indicators are not. The argument is aimed toward tying the concept of "norms" to cases of security assessments.
Yup. These are people, and as such they should be concerned with Social Justice. But, it's not an inherent part of the job description. And there's a major selection bias in play. If they wanted to do social justice because they cared primarily about social justice, even more than perceived concrete cases of "security", they would have sought work in a different arena.
As a rhetorical tactic, he is making a counter-argument in favor of norms within the same terms as the primary argument that such norms (the violation of which provokes Anti-American sentiment) are unimportant in a "security crisis". This is a strong tactic, and not unexpected from a law professor. Defeating an argument entirely within the terms in which it is presented. Why argue this way, instead of from a "Social Justice is a Natural Right" angle? Because your argument, no matter how valid or forceful, won't work if you're not speaking the same language as the one you counter.
And I do agree with the argument. And as noted above, he takes "only if" as premise, and then continues to illustrate that the "only if" is actually "with stunning regularity". And I emphasize this, because it's the most effective argument he can make to the audience he's speaking to.
Do you think the people who were turning a blind eye to provocation of Anti-American sentiment don't think other folks have reasonable grievances? They do. They know that if our citizens have "interests" to fulfill, then so do people who aren't US citizens. But they gamble that a morally questionable tact it will somehow work out to our benefit anyway. That's how they justify, what seems unjustified. It's part ideology (in the case of the NeoCons and administration) and part Utilitarianism (in the case of folks like Chuck Schumer.)
The counter, isn't to "show" those people that they're Wrong. They already know. They've already contemplated going forward anyway. The counter, is to show them that it's not going to work. That it's going to cause more problems than it prevents. It takes away the justification upon which the policy is based. If people care at all, they can be swayed.
Why do you find the line: “And negligence, it so happens, comes effortlessly to most human beings. To be the most beautiful line of the piece?
Because it's a tautology. I can think of diligent incompetence. But can you think of diligent negligence?
Correct me if I'm wrong,
FDR recognized in his famous "Four Freedoms" address to Congress that national interest was tied to world affairs. That was 1941. It seems to have made such an impact on the current Security Community. Do you really think the rhetoric of some law professor in 2004 is going to have greater pull?
To that new order we oppose the greater conception --the moral order. A good society is able to face schemes of world domination and foreign revolutions alike without fear. Since the beginning of our American history we have been engaged in change, in a perpetual, peaceful revolution, a revolution which goes on steadily, quietly, adjusting itself to changing conditions without the concentration camp or the quicklime in the ditch. The world order which we seek is the cooperation of free countries, working together in a friendly, civilized society.
This nation has placed its destiny in the hands, heads and hearts of its millions of free men and women, and its faith in freedom under the guidance of God. Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere. Our support goes to those who struggle to gain those rights and keep them. Our strength is our unity of purpose. To that high concept there can be no end save victory.
Can it be said any better than this?
If these people see "social justice is an abstract concept" they aren't doing their jobs. They are poorly trained and need to understand the mission statement of our country. Their job is to defend and protect that country. We are not just the land or people, but our beliefs. If their policies conflict with those stated beliefs, which they have taken an oath to protect, they are not doing their job. Social justice as a natural right was set down in the Declaration of Independence. It is the very justification for being an independent country in the first place. To act contrary to that undermines the very foundation of our country. It isn't the terrorists that are the greatest threat to our country. It is the security community. They are worms eating the roots of the liberty tree that was watered by the blood of Patriots. They are the disease.
We don't need to counter these people. We don't need to convince them to behave. We need to remove them. They aren't the ones that need to realize they are wrong. The general population does. A government of the people can heal the liberty tree.
Re: I’d say you’d better learn to quote better
But can you think of diligent negligence?
So how does alienating Europeans affect US if the issue is negligence? Does anyone really believe they will become diligent on behalf of the US when they are not so on their own behalf?
Am I missing the point here because I don’t see a point.
Further, liking the US or not is beside the point. There is a confluence of interest between the US and Europeans on the issue of terrorism and WMD. Some may dislike the US but they are not about to shoot themselves in the foot. That's realism too. Hence post Madrid bombings Chirac and Schroeder did not sign on to Zapatero's anti-US rhetoric and snubbed his actions as unhealthy appeasement.
Remembering why I'm happy to be in Canada
And speaking as a Canadian for whom an intense dislike of many many aspects of the United States is a central cultural pastime, (don't believe me? watch some of our TV sometime) it is actually fairly true that that in many cases, speaking from a purely pragmatic standpoint, anti-Americanism will not have that much of an effect on the United States as a whole. The American economy is such a powerhouse in the world markets that allowing a genuine national dislike, or even hatred, to affect relations between any government and the US is cutting off your nose to spite your face. For many countries alienating the American government would be committing economic suicide. Others fear the sheer power of the American military and the way the American government will react. Why else would Iran be so tractable over the current question of whether they have a WMD development program? They look at Iraq and decide to hell with worrying about allowing foreigners all over our country poking their noses where they aren't wanted. It's prbably safer for them, and the region, if they just let the bloody inspectors in.
It's absolutely right. Looking at national security from a purely bloodless and heartless standpoint, most of the time it will have no impact on the states. The problem is that negligence of this aspect of international relations breeds hatred. Quietly, in the backwaters of third and second world countries. There will be large numbers of those willing to circumvent the normal societal rules and demand revenge for the wrongs (whether deliberate or accidental, malicious or well intentioned, or merely imagined) committed by 'America'. That is when the effects of this negligence will become both apparent and, most likely, deadly. But until that time, with no immediate threat, there will be no actions taken on the matter because, "... negligence, it so happens, comes effortlessly to most human beings."
And ain't that nice and circular?
SCWLC
Re: Remembering why I'm happy to be in Canada
And it shows how shortsighted the administration can be. The "bloodless approach" can be too clever by half, if you don't take the negligence aspect into account. And while maintaining good working relationships with people who might be inclined to disagree with you on specific issues you care about - it's far cheaper in the long run to work towards better relationships than it is to go alone and engender hatred.
It's self-defeating to try to have a calculating approach to relations, and not take opportunity cost into account. The Administration is pretty well up on Machiavelli's famous quote: "it is better to be feared than loved" an not so well up on the following "it is worst of all to be hated". Pennywise. Pound foolish. And that's even if you subscribe to the antiseptic approach.
Re: Remembering why I'm happy to be in Canada
Is that a joke? Iran will have a nuclear weapon in a year.