What forms a nation's "moral standing" in the world? Is that measure absolute, or is it relative to each nation's particular situation?
President Bush held what is expected to be the last press conference of his administration on Monday. Washington Post reporter Michael Abramowitz asked the outgoing president about the nation's moral standing, which prompted a lengthy response:
Some would, obviously, disagree with President Bush. Indeed, they might assert that, while the United States stands for freedom, and thus provides hope, it does so despite Bush's years in office. And some might point to UN Resolution 1441, which, as the president stated, said that Iraq must "disclose, disarm or face serious consequences". When Iraq did disclose, it provided a large amount of information to the United Nations—some twelve thousand pages—which the United States government chose to disbelieve. This choice resulted in then-Secretary of State Colin Powell presenting to the UN what turned out to be grotesquely false information. The United States, convinced that Iraq had many weapons of mass destruction, found nothing convincing, just a few empty shells here and there with old residue, but nothing suggesting that Saddam Hussein's forces were remotely as dangerous as the Bush administration suggested.
And critics might also point to Bush's invocation and deflection of the Guantanamo issue: What obligation did other nations have to receive and assimilate our prisoners?
Bush decried Kyoto, the International Criminal Court, and observation of Israel's role in creating controversy and strife in the Middle East as things one might do to be popular, yet isolating our own nation diplomatically while misrepresenting events in what has become an obsessive international conflict does not seem prudent. And when one sets two standards of justice—that what is good for the rest of the world is not good enough for Americans—what moral example does that set?
Those who disagree with President Bush might also suggest that his greatest worry about the Constitution of the United States was how to circumvent its authority, which behavior would directly contradict the oath he took upon assuming the office of the President of the United States.
So a question naturally arises whether the moral standing of a nation can be embodied in one individual, e.g., the President of the United States. And the logical answer is that it cannot. Rather, the president has at his disposal an entire administration who helped guide him along the path he followed, and two houses of Congress that, for the most part, empowered every step either directly with endorsement and support, or tacitly by failing to protest, investigate, impeach, or otherwise interfere with what some would claim has become a wildly inflated presidential prerogative.
And beyond that, there are the American people themselves, who give more in raw dollars than any other nation to charitable causes. But as voters, Americans often betray their own alleged national and personal principles. Of course, Americans are not unique in this, although some might suggest the acuity of our betrayal of principle is shocking, astounding, unbelievable, or some other adjective creatively suggesting great severity.
So what, then, forms a nation's moral standing? It is true that few Americans, if any, truly get up in the morning and mutter, "How can I hurt people the most today?" Rather, as the saying goes, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions°.
Good intentions alone do not make a moral standing; indeed, common sarcasm among Americans includes the phrase, "This is because I love you", something that prior generations often heard either before or after being beaten by a parent. Nor does the failure of good intentions create a moral standing; indeed, the state of evangelical Christianity in the United States, then, could thus cast faith in Jesus as an abomination unto humanity, and therein lies an interesting example. It cannot be denied, after all, that Christians do much charitable work, and in an apparently sincere belief in judgment and redemption, strive to convert everyone else so that those other people will not be left behind. We can, of course, set aside for the time being the theological niceties that suggest Christians must make this effort, or else face punishment themselves°. To the other, though, many Christians regard women poorly, aim to establish political and social supremacy in American culture, or even spent the latter half of the twentieth century obsessed with causing the censorship of music, movies, and books. Some in the twenty-first century would deny civil rights for their neighbors, instead calling upon a tradition that actually dates to the 1950s, left many people miserable, and in many ways resulted in the moral and ethical liberalization of the present that they so loudly and frequently lament. In short, despite the best of intentions, Christianity in the United States is a disaster of nearly schizophrenic proportions. One might say the same thing of American culture in general, too. For all we call upon liberty and justice for all, our society depends in large part on injustice at home and around the world. Especially around the world, as our economic standing is powered in large part by a massive, and growing, poverty class in other nations.
How do we assess a nation's moral standing? Are these criteria uniform for all nations?
____________________
Notes:
° the road to Hell is paved with good intentions — This quote is often attributed to Samuel Johnson, the famous English journalist and author of the eighteenth century. The quote is improperly attributed, as what Johnson allegedly said was that "Hell is paved with good intentions", although this aphorism is not original. It has been documented in the seventeenth century, attributed to John Ray, and dates as far back as the twelfth century, when Saint Bernard of Clairvaux reputedly said, "Hell is full of good intentions or desires".
° Christians must make this effort, or else face punishment themselves — See the twenty-fifth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew.
Works Cited:
"Press Conference by the President". WhiteHouse.gov. January 12, 2009. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2009/01/20090112.html
See Also:
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions". Samuel Johnson Sound Bite Page. Accessed January 13, 2009. http://www.samueljohnson.com/road.html
President Bush held what is expected to be the last press conference of his administration on Monday. Washington Post reporter Michael Abramowitz asked the outgoing president about the nation's moral standing, which prompted a lengthy response:
Q One of the major objectives that the incoming administration has talked frequently about is restoring America's moral standing in the world. And many of the allies of the new President -- I believe that the President-elect himself has talked about the damage that Gitmo, that harsh interrogation tactics that they consider torture, how going to war in Iraq without a U.N. mandate have damaged America's moral standing in the world. I'm wondering basically what is your reaction to that? Do you think that is that something that the next President needs to worry about?
THE PRESIDENT: I strongly disagree with the assessment that our moral standing has been damaged. It may be damaged amongst some of the elite, but people still understand America stands for freedom, that America is a country that provides such great hope.
You go to Africa, you ask Africans about America's generosity and compassion; go to India, and ask about, you know, America's -- their view of America. Go to China and ask. Now, no question parts of Europe have said that we shouldn't have gone to war in Iraq without a mandate, but those are a few countries. Most countries in Europe listened to what 1441 said, which is disclose, disarm or face serious consequences.
Most people take those words seriously. Now, some countries didn't -- even though they might have voted for the resolution. I disagree with this assessment that, you know, people view America in a dim light. I just don't agree with that. And I understand that Gitmo has created controversies. But when it came time for those countries that were criticizing America to take some of those -- some of those detainees, they weren't willing to help out. And so, you know, I just disagree with the assessment, Mike.
I'll remind -- listen, I tell people, yes, you can try to be popular. In certain quarters in Europe, you can be popular by blaming every Middle Eastern problem on Israel. Or you can be popular by joining the International Criminal Court. I guess I could have been popular by accepting Kyoto, which I felt was a flawed treaty, and proposed something different and more constructive.
And in terms of the decisions that I had made to protect the homeland, I wouldn't worry about popularity. What I would worry about is the Constitution of the United States, and putting plans in place that makes it easier to find out what the enemy is thinking, because all these debates will matter not if there's another attack on the homeland. The question won't be, you know, were you critical of this plan or not; the question is going to be, why didn't you do something?
Do you remember what it was like right after September the 11th around here? In press conferences and opinion pieces and in stories -- that sometimes were news stories and sometimes opinion pieces -- people were saying, how come they didn't see it, how come they didn't connect the dots? Do you remember what the environment was like in Washington? I do. When people were hauled up in front of Congress and members of Congress were asking questions about, how come you didn't know this, that, or the other? And then we start putting policy in place -- legal policy in place to connect the dots, and all of a sudden people were saying, how come you're connecting the dots?
And so, Mike, I've heard all that. I've heard all that. My view is, is that most people around the world, they respect America. And some of them doesn't like me, I understand that -- some of the writers and the, you know, opiners and all that. That's fine, that's part of the deal. But I'm more concerned about the country and our -- how people view the United States. They view us as strong, compassionate people who care deeply about the universality of freedom.
(WhiteHouse.gov)
THE PRESIDENT: I strongly disagree with the assessment that our moral standing has been damaged. It may be damaged amongst some of the elite, but people still understand America stands for freedom, that America is a country that provides such great hope.
You go to Africa, you ask Africans about America's generosity and compassion; go to India, and ask about, you know, America's -- their view of America. Go to China and ask. Now, no question parts of Europe have said that we shouldn't have gone to war in Iraq without a mandate, but those are a few countries. Most countries in Europe listened to what 1441 said, which is disclose, disarm or face serious consequences.
Most people take those words seriously. Now, some countries didn't -- even though they might have voted for the resolution. I disagree with this assessment that, you know, people view America in a dim light. I just don't agree with that. And I understand that Gitmo has created controversies. But when it came time for those countries that were criticizing America to take some of those -- some of those detainees, they weren't willing to help out. And so, you know, I just disagree with the assessment, Mike.
I'll remind -- listen, I tell people, yes, you can try to be popular. In certain quarters in Europe, you can be popular by blaming every Middle Eastern problem on Israel. Or you can be popular by joining the International Criminal Court. I guess I could have been popular by accepting Kyoto, which I felt was a flawed treaty, and proposed something different and more constructive.
And in terms of the decisions that I had made to protect the homeland, I wouldn't worry about popularity. What I would worry about is the Constitution of the United States, and putting plans in place that makes it easier to find out what the enemy is thinking, because all these debates will matter not if there's another attack on the homeland. The question won't be, you know, were you critical of this plan or not; the question is going to be, why didn't you do something?
Do you remember what it was like right after September the 11th around here? In press conferences and opinion pieces and in stories -- that sometimes were news stories and sometimes opinion pieces -- people were saying, how come they didn't see it, how come they didn't connect the dots? Do you remember what the environment was like in Washington? I do. When people were hauled up in front of Congress and members of Congress were asking questions about, how come you didn't know this, that, or the other? And then we start putting policy in place -- legal policy in place to connect the dots, and all of a sudden people were saying, how come you're connecting the dots?
And so, Mike, I've heard all that. I've heard all that. My view is, is that most people around the world, they respect America. And some of them doesn't like me, I understand that -- some of the writers and the, you know, opiners and all that. That's fine, that's part of the deal. But I'm more concerned about the country and our -- how people view the United States. They view us as strong, compassionate people who care deeply about the universality of freedom.
(WhiteHouse.gov)
Some would, obviously, disagree with President Bush. Indeed, they might assert that, while the United States stands for freedom, and thus provides hope, it does so despite Bush's years in office. And some might point to UN Resolution 1441, which, as the president stated, said that Iraq must "disclose, disarm or face serious consequences". When Iraq did disclose, it provided a large amount of information to the United Nations—some twelve thousand pages—which the United States government chose to disbelieve. This choice resulted in then-Secretary of State Colin Powell presenting to the UN what turned out to be grotesquely false information. The United States, convinced that Iraq had many weapons of mass destruction, found nothing convincing, just a few empty shells here and there with old residue, but nothing suggesting that Saddam Hussein's forces were remotely as dangerous as the Bush administration suggested.
And critics might also point to Bush's invocation and deflection of the Guantanamo issue: What obligation did other nations have to receive and assimilate our prisoners?
Bush decried Kyoto, the International Criminal Court, and observation of Israel's role in creating controversy and strife in the Middle East as things one might do to be popular, yet isolating our own nation diplomatically while misrepresenting events in what has become an obsessive international conflict does not seem prudent. And when one sets two standards of justice—that what is good for the rest of the world is not good enough for Americans—what moral example does that set?
Those who disagree with President Bush might also suggest that his greatest worry about the Constitution of the United States was how to circumvent its authority, which behavior would directly contradict the oath he took upon assuming the office of the President of the United States.
So a question naturally arises whether the moral standing of a nation can be embodied in one individual, e.g., the President of the United States. And the logical answer is that it cannot. Rather, the president has at his disposal an entire administration who helped guide him along the path he followed, and two houses of Congress that, for the most part, empowered every step either directly with endorsement and support, or tacitly by failing to protest, investigate, impeach, or otherwise interfere with what some would claim has become a wildly inflated presidential prerogative.
And beyond that, there are the American people themselves, who give more in raw dollars than any other nation to charitable causes. But as voters, Americans often betray their own alleged national and personal principles. Of course, Americans are not unique in this, although some might suggest the acuity of our betrayal of principle is shocking, astounding, unbelievable, or some other adjective creatively suggesting great severity.
So what, then, forms a nation's moral standing? It is true that few Americans, if any, truly get up in the morning and mutter, "How can I hurt people the most today?" Rather, as the saying goes, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions°.
Good intentions alone do not make a moral standing; indeed, common sarcasm among Americans includes the phrase, "This is because I love you", something that prior generations often heard either before or after being beaten by a parent. Nor does the failure of good intentions create a moral standing; indeed, the state of evangelical Christianity in the United States, then, could thus cast faith in Jesus as an abomination unto humanity, and therein lies an interesting example. It cannot be denied, after all, that Christians do much charitable work, and in an apparently sincere belief in judgment and redemption, strive to convert everyone else so that those other people will not be left behind. We can, of course, set aside for the time being the theological niceties that suggest Christians must make this effort, or else face punishment themselves°. To the other, though, many Christians regard women poorly, aim to establish political and social supremacy in American culture, or even spent the latter half of the twentieth century obsessed with causing the censorship of music, movies, and books. Some in the twenty-first century would deny civil rights for their neighbors, instead calling upon a tradition that actually dates to the 1950s, left many people miserable, and in many ways resulted in the moral and ethical liberalization of the present that they so loudly and frequently lament. In short, despite the best of intentions, Christianity in the United States is a disaster of nearly schizophrenic proportions. One might say the same thing of American culture in general, too. For all we call upon liberty and justice for all, our society depends in large part on injustice at home and around the world. Especially around the world, as our economic standing is powered in large part by a massive, and growing, poverty class in other nations.
How do we assess a nation's moral standing? Are these criteria uniform for all nations?
____________________
Notes:
° the road to Hell is paved with good intentions — This quote is often attributed to Samuel Johnson, the famous English journalist and author of the eighteenth century. The quote is improperly attributed, as what Johnson allegedly said was that "Hell is paved with good intentions", although this aphorism is not original. It has been documented in the seventeenth century, attributed to John Ray, and dates as far back as the twelfth century, when Saint Bernard of Clairvaux reputedly said, "Hell is full of good intentions or desires".
° Christians must make this effort, or else face punishment themselves — See the twenty-fifth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew.
Works Cited:
"Press Conference by the President". WhiteHouse.gov. January 12, 2009. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2009/01/20090112.html
See Also:
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions". Samuel Johnson Sound Bite Page. Accessed January 13, 2009. http://www.samueljohnson.com/road.html