![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.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.
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.