www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Crimes Against Humanity

Daniel,

I am familiar with those sites. I�m sorry, but I don�t see any evil plan to build an American Empire that will take away people�s freedom and annex the whole world to the United States as slave states. I see a very above board and open presentation of their perspective in the marketplace of ideas within our society. I find it far more compelling than anything you have said here on this forum. Your writings seem to suggest that you believe that the world would be very much worse if the non-democratic countries (like Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and China, etc.) adopted constitutions which respected human rights and allowed the people to choose their forms of governments and leaders. I find this very odd indeed. America faces challenges (we must pull our country off this path towards secularism). Yet we do continue to have the legal methods to address issues important to us and convince others to adopt our ideas and vote for them. Even with our many sins as a society we are far more moral that many of the other societies you seem to praise.

I can respect those who disagree with the ideas espoused by the two websites you reference. What I don�t understand is why you would equate these groups with evildoers like Saddam Hussein (you routinely paint Baghdad under Hussein as a peaceful city where one could live a good life in freedom). On the larger scale, in this respect you are like some of the more militant anti-war folk.

It seems that it would be much better to offer a well reasoned response using logic, rather then simply labeling those you disagree with as evil (or empire builders, or whatever). A constructive engagement of ideas is far more likely to succeed in winning allies than ongoing denigration.

Admin

Can democracy be imposed, or must it be rooted in a culture from which it naturally evolves?
Not that I buy the "we only want them to be free" line; we are content with dictatorships if they serve our purposes.
And why is Democracy sacrosant? The Church has never taught that it is the only acceptable form of government.
What we are seeing is a misguided ideology, a sort of capitalist utopianism.
It has often been remarked that many of the leading thinkers of the neocon movement [Podhoretz, Kristol] were once Trotskyites. Some hold that they still are, but I think that is transparently foolish [along the lines of those who hold the Bush is the antichrist] but what is true is that they have continued a sort of habit of mind, a utopian globalist vision. Big Ideas generally lead to chaos, if you look at human history. I share the conservative scepticism about overly utopian notions, a respect for the fallen nature of man and his limitations. The idea that Democracy is the natural state of man is rooted in Rousseauian Enlightenment notions, not Christian tradition.

And you keep taking my comments about pre-war Baghdad- culled from interviews with Iraqis- out of context. No, it was not ideal living under the reign of a brutal dictator, but everyday life was not dominated by chaos and bloodshed the way it is now, and there was not near civil war in the streets.
-Daniel

Daniel wrote:
Can democracy be imposed, or must it be rooted in a culture from which it naturally evolves?

It can be offered and people can choose to embrace it (as we see in both Afghanistan and Iraq). In 1776 the British elite said that those Americans were not capable of governing themselves. After WWII many said that those evil Germans and Japanese were not capable of governing themselves, that their respective cultures were not amenable to democracy, that we could not force it upon them. They were wrong. Both cultures embraced democracy and doing quite well.

Daniel wrote:
Not that I buy the "we only want them to be free" line; we are content with dictatorships if they serve our purposes.

Yes, in the past we have. Because they assisted us to fight larger enemies. We sided with Stalin only because he was fighting Hitler, who was a common enemy. Things are not always straightforward. Where there are cases where we support countries merely because they served our interests and our interests alone we should change our position. The recent stand America has taken for freedom has caused Libya to head in a different direction, Egypt to at least hold the beginnings of real elections and even Saudi Arabia to at least speak of change. We must be stronger and push harder.

Daniel wrote:
And why is Democracy sacrosant? The Church has never taught that it is the only acceptable form of government.

It�s not that democracy is not sacrosanct. It�s that, as Winston Churchill observed, the rest are far worse. Poor people are better off (culturally, socially and materially) in democracies than there are anywhere else. A good friend argues for an absolute Christian monarchy, but such is not likely and not guaranteed unless the monarch is a dedicated Christian. I�d welcome any examples where the poor in Uganda, China or anywhere else have a better life (freedom to worship, learn, make a living, find a safety net for those who cannot care for themselves) then they have in a western democratic country.

Daniel wrote:
What we are seeing is a misguided ideology, a sort of capitalist utopianism.
It has often been remarked that many of the leading thinkers of the neocon movement [Podhoretz, Kristol] were once Trotskyites. Some hold that they still are, but I think that is transparently foolish [along the lines of those who hold the Bush is the antichrist] but what is true is that they have continued a sort of habit of mind, a utopian globalist vision.

I disagree. While there are always exceptions, most of the people who hold the positions you speak of are solid citizens. Many of them, in fact, are Catholics of good standing. Just as our American founding fathers said that our democracy is for a moral people, so, too, is a democratic structure which uses capitalism only for a moral people. Unbridled capitalism can lead to evil things, but it is not the capitalism that is evil. One could theoretically organize a socialistic system that is very Christian but they simply don�t last. [In fact, the first attempt at government in North America in Massachusetts was socialistic. The pilgrims almost starved until they replaced it with a more capitalistic one.]

Daniel wrote:
Big Ideas generally lead to chaos, if you look at human history. I share the conservative scepticism about overly utopian notions, a respect for the fallen nature of man and his limitations. The idea that Democracy is the natural state of man is rooted in Rousseauian Enlightenment notions, not Christian tradition.

I agree about utopian notions usually failing. I don�t see one in these people you oppose so harshly.

Daniel wrote:
And you keep taking my comments about pre-war Baghdad- culled from interviews with Iraqis- out of context. No, it was not ideal living under the reign of a brutal dictator, but everyday life was not dominated by chaos and bloodshed the way it is now, and there was not near civil war in the streets.

Check the facts. Everyday life was dominated by chaos and bloodshed under Hussein. Hussein kept it hidden from America television cameras. Civil was kept down only because Hussein killed anyone whom he considered an enemy. Stalin managed to keep the chaos and bloodshed off the streets, and killed anyone who could instigate civil war. I suppose you consider our opposition to those peaceful communists immoral? After all, there were nice trees in Moscow and it was pretty city.

Who was the horrible right wing conservative who spouted this stuff you consider nonsense? Vice President Al Gore, on December 16, 1998 in an interview with Larry King on CNN.

It took me a bit, but I finally got the sarcasm in the comment about Frank Rich. The point is well taken that sarcasm does not go far via e-mail.

Sarcasm aside, I thought that the Rich review of the movie was an example of Rich's conservative side. He used the familiarly conservative tactic of responding to a trite and bungled movie with a trite and bungled review. Being dismissive in such an off-handed, almost elitist way is something the left has yet to learn from the right but it is a tactic or strategy with a certain value and Rich can be good at it. When he isn't using what is essentially a right-wing form of discourse he is telling a great, if somewhat uncomfortable, truth about America, the wars and the Bush administration.

I don't consider The New York Times particularly liberal or particularly friendly or unfriendly to Catholicism. I believe that FAIR and Counterpunch have both done excellent on-going critiques supporting my point.

I raised Frank Rich as a balance to the rather misnamed The New Criterion, which really offers little that is either new or of reliable value as a standard of judgement or criticism.

Counterpunch, The Nation and Sojourners all offer fresh critical thinking.

Daniel is hardly sounding like "some of the more militant antiwar folk"--take that from someone who is proudly among the ranks of the militantly antiwar folk himself.

I spend most of my day arguing with people and I'm good at my job because I'm a born brawler. That said, I'm not going to jump between someone who hasn't worked out the intrinsic value of democratic praxis and someone who seems more dedicated to empire. The opposing sides don't seem so opposed or real to me. But the often near-hysterical shots taken at a mythic left here miss the mark by a great distance. A bit of dialogue with a real leftist--as opposed to the caricature you may be more comfortable with--might help. If it will, drop an e-mail to me at rjrossi@navicom.com.

Be well.

bob r.

Bob- I am certainly glad a real militant antiwar leftist has stepped up to the plate; I'm tired of taking punches that I don't deserve. Good luck...
And to clarify, it is not that I don't value democracy, only that I don't see it as some divine mandate that the USA has been chosen to impose. Nor, of course, do I think that is the real reason for the war. Again, would we be in Iraq if their main export was turnips?
And of course, all this talk about "freedom" rings a bit hollow coming from an administration that holds American citizens [Padilla] for years without charges filed, defends torture, [while scapegoating some hicks when they are caught], has a history of deposing democratically elected leftists, etc.
If you think it is harmless to want to rule the world, then the neocons are your boys.
Like Chesterton, who loved Little England and despised Great Britain, I love America but despise the Empire.
-Daniel

Iconophile

You know I've also been on here many times, and it felt like I would be able to have a dialogue more with a brick wall than some of the people who respond to what I post. The arguments go around in circles, and there is only so much any one person can take before they get dizzy.

I still am reading what is said in here, especially since the class I am teaching this semester is "Ways of Peace in World Religions." Comments in here help me know what others might be thinking

Yes, it can be frustrating; I try and remember that the talk is more for the benefit of those reading than some of the participants, for whom Bushism is a sort of religion....
-Daniel

I do believe those who attack without alternatives commit Crimes against "humility."

CDL

Well, my friend, I didn't say, or mean to say, that you don't value democracy. I said that I didn't think that you have "worked out the intrinsic value of democratic praxis" and that seems much different to me and less critical of you. For that matter, I don't think that I have worked out the intrinsic value of democratic praxis fully either. I apologize if I gave cause for offense.

My point was primarily self-critical: from my political framework the differences between you and some others here don't seem so great because I'm so far on the left that the entire right seems like a blur. But I know now that these differences are real and that they apparently matter very much to you. I have something to learn.

The same must be true, therefore, when conservatives in this group look at the left: we look like one big blur to you as well. Somehow I end up in the same boat as Al Gore, Hilary Clinton, etc.--not people any of us on the left identify our politics with.

The unkind words have a way of becoming rage and rage becomes violence or impotence and self-loathing. In the end someone suffers. I would rather have people attack me personally than take their rage out on an abstract and mythic left. We know from our theology what happens to angry people. If it helps, the right wingers can rage at me, get it out and maybe learn bit as well. If they refuse they have to live with the results.

I agree completely with your points about the war and empire.

Be well.

bob r.

Oh, and Mr Administrator- You mention that some of the neocons are Catholics in good standing. For a detailed report on my quixotic battle against their distortions of Catholic social teaching in the 90s see this article from the New Pantagruel [newpantagruel.com] by Jeremy Beer, who really grasps the issues we were wrangling with.
-Daniel

If you don't have time to read the whole lengthy article, skip to pages 5-7 for the gist of my case against Neuhaus, Weigel and Novak.
-D

Dear Daniel you said:

"Uh, Zenovia, it was a joke."

I say:

And I decided to react to your joke in a very 'naive' way."

You said:

"The Antichrist of course must be Jewish..."

I say:

Actually my devout grandmother said during WW II that Hitler must be the anti-christ because his mother was Jewish. Well I don't know if his mother was, but I do know that some people will misinterpret the star in the prophecy for the Star of David...rediculous! So I gave my interpretation. Did you like it?

As for us being an Empire, mind you I said we are the Empire. Actually the continuation of the Roman Empire...that is if there are any prophecies concerning it. I do recall reading that there have been interpretations of Saint Paul's writing stating that the anti-christ was kept from coming by the Roman Empire. Of course I don't know if the interpertation meant the Holy Roman Empire and it's relation to the Church, etc. Which Church, is another story.

As for us wanting to be an empire in the sense that you and Bob have stated, then I find it strange that we didn't just establish ourselves as such at the end of WW II. Let's face it, the world was in ruins. Instead we rebuilt Germany, (in our own image of course), and then rebuilt Japan, (in our onw image of course), and they in turn rebuilt Europe and the Far East, (in our's and consequently their image), of course.

Actually, we went so far in rebuilding them, that we even began to wonder if Japan owned us. So much for your beliefs, or whoever you're listening to.

In truth, we are the Empire simply because the only one left after the war, (the Soviet Union), ended up dying.

We won! We won! We won! Thank you Pope John Paul II and President Reagan. Aren't you glad?

Oh and about Iraq and the chaos there, did you know that thirty years ago, in New York City there were approximately three murders every night. Talk about chaos. Of course we New Yorkers never saw it because we knew exactly where to go and where not to go.

Zenovia

"I spent thirty-three years and four months in active service in the country's most agile military force, the Marines. I served in all ranks from second lieutenant to major general. And during that period I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
"I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all members of the military profession I never had an original thought until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of the higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.
"Thus I helped make Mexico, and especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. "I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenue in. I helped in the raping of half-a-dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers and Co. in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras 'right' for American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

"During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. I was rewarded with honors, medals, and promotion. Looking back on it, I feel that I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate a racket in three city districts. The Marines operated on three continents."

�Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler (former Commandant, U.S. Marine Corps), Common Sense, November 1935

I really can't conceive of how far to the left one must be not to consider the New York times particularly liberal or unfriendly to Catholicism. It would also occur to me that to hold these beliefs one must have never read from their editorial section or any of their coverage of the pedastry scandal.

Regardless, here's an excerpt from a meeting of American Catholics in the Public Square:

Link here [catholicsinpublicsquare.org] .

Zenovia- Are you seriously comparing the situation in Iraq with NYC thirty years ago?
Let's see, in New York there were almost daily car bombs going off, killing scores of people? Suicide bombers? Something approaching civil war? An armed foreign occupation army with check points on the roads? How about bombs falling from the sky on centers of strife?
No, I didn't think so. I lived in NYC for a while in the 80s- the South Bronx, no less- and it was rough, but compared to modern Iraq, rather idyllic. Your metaphor lacks credibility.
And note our continued military occupation of parts of Japanese and German territory and you will be getting closer to the truth. Since the Cold War ended- and yes, I'm glad the West "won", albeit with some reservations- our military occupation of oil rich Muslim lands has grown by leaps and bounds. We are now the dominant power in the Mideast. If things had gone better in Iraq I have no doubt that we would have taken Iran and Syria as well...
Glad that is okay with you, but where in the gospels is the mandate for the USA to rule the world?
-Daniel