"Land of the Free" ?????

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 11:56 pm

@Scayde: Thomas Jefferson is one of my heroes. His quotes are very siggable.

@fable: I suppose I see the problems in Washington as more systemic and the product of how the Federal government operates (and has operated) since the 19th century, as opposed to isolated examples such as the one you identify. The excesses of Administrations and high-level cabinet members seems to not follow partisan lines, though we can say both major political parties and movements have their own particular style of ugliness. In the end, it seems to boil down to a ruling elite, and they war against each other for control at the expense of Americans and their pocketbooks. The means by which the US was officially drawn into action during WW2 is reprehensible to me; the presence and movements of the Japanese fleet in the Pacific was known. I also question the means by which the US justified declaring war upon Germany during WW1. Some dubious intelligence indicated a promise by Germany to assist Mexico in reclaiming territory lost to the US during previous military action. Both instances assisted the President in gaining both Congressional and public approval...and I am rather amused at President Harding's (hopefully I have the President at the time pegged properly, please correct me if I am wrong) campaign promise to not involve the US in WW1. That was his re-election slogan, and not long after his return to the Oval Office, he did exactly what he promised he wouldn't do.

Here we have two cases of Presidents (one who is idolized by the American left, I note) seeing the need for a course of action, and proceeding to do whatever it takes to make it happen. My understanding of the climate and setting of 1917 Europe is not as defined as my knowledge WW2 Europe is...in many ways, WW1 is a convoluted and often confusing study. Historically, Americans have tended to mind their own business, and had no desire to meddle in the affairs of foreign lands. Aggressive campaigning, slogan-throwing, and demagoguery is what it took to stir public opinion to believe the shedding of American blood was necessary. In the case of Pearl Harbor, the "surprise" attack enraged the public. Over time, however, I have come to not believe that the moral high horse of defending liberty and maintaining world peace was exactly what Washington had in mind when we made our presence an overtly military one in foreign lands. Not since the travesty of the Civil War do I believe the Federal Government has clean hands in anything it does. I'm sure it goes back farther than even that; I look to the war in the 1860s as a striking example of Federal Government (Fed) imperialism.

Blacktears · Post by **Blacktears** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 4:57 am

well as the goverment moves into the new age it feels it has to compete with the other nations for the "who has the bigger ego" trophie. I have known many politicans in my day and i have found that none are self-sacraficing, "for the good of the people", honest law abiding, members of our goverment. so my faith in americas future, while it may never be conquered by outside forces, is demenishing eachday. yes we are strong, safe, and we can vote but when its a vote between two tyrant wannabes how can you say it is the land of the free. its like being given the choice between dieing by gas or poison its your choice but its still death. "This is the view of one person though and i may not have the most popular view but i have the right to speech and im going to use it. So there goverment officals take it and gag on it. i have my rights and i intend to use them no matter what you do to me so ha." ok had to say it i feel better now.

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 7:13 am

[QUOTE=Chanak]Both instances assisted the President in gaining both Congressional and public approval...and I am rather amused at President Harding's (hopefully I have the President at the time pegged properly, please correct me if I am wrong) campaign promise to not involve the US in WW1.[/quote]

That was Wilson. What's not often remembered about Wilson was that although he ran on the Democrat ticket, his was a desperation nomination of an arch-conservative, by a party that had barely possessed the presidency in more than 60 years. Interesting point: Wilson was responsible for re-establishing racial codes in federal government and in Washington, banishing blacks to menial jobs, for example, and ghetto-izing housing. People tend to forget that parties don't always mean the same thing at all times.

Concerning WWI, there's been quite a bit of speculation that Wilson was seriously off his rocker by that point. He did suffer a massive stroke during his two terms, and it's been acknowledged that his behavior was not the same afterwards. Whether one likes the idea or not, his fervent support of the League of Nations has been tentatively consigned to these changes.

Here we have two cases of Presidents (one who is idolized by the American left, I note)

The US hadn't been in a war for roughly 20 years. The shift in power at the start of the Showa period was confused in the West because Japan was barely understood at that point, and because the Taisho period had just ended with the proclamation of universal suffrage to men. During WWI, as well, Japan had been on the side of the Allies--as much to gain leverage against Russia as for anything else, but still. The shock in Washington at the Japanese declaration of war was a failure of intelligence, something which has been characteristic of governments all too often, in all times and places. -And why shouldn't it be? Do we really think that the best people are elected to lead nations, or that these same people will automatically choose the best offficials to serve them?

As for the serious American "left" (which ceased existing back in the 1970s, save for a few stragglers in Academia), it idolized Roosevelt, but never denied his flaws. There were some good biographies of Roosevelt published, back then; I read one, but can't recall the title. To tell the truth, I wasn't impressed in the slightest with Roosevelt at any point in time, save in his handling of the depression. That was brilliant, but Roosevelt receives sole praise for a policy that was really developed by a group of people.

In the case of Pearl Harbor, the "surprise" attack enraged the public. Over time, however, I have come to not believe that the moral high horse of defending liberty and maintaining world peace was exactly what Washington had in mind when we made our presence an overtly military one in foreign lands.

I see the reasons for governmental involvement as mixed. On the one hand, there were some people at the top who had been clamoring for involvement for precisely those ideals of liberty and justice, but there were also those who saw it as an excellent opportunity to carve out an American "destiny" in Europe, or to provide a popular boost to political careers at home. Of one thing I am sure: getting involved in WWII was a good thing, in the end. It was a war whose dark villains, at least, were clear-cut, even if its heroes were far greyer than they liked to portray themselves.

Not since the travesty of the Civil War do I believe the Federal Government has clean hands in anything it does. I'm sure it goes back farther than even that; I look to the war in the 1860s as a striking example of Federal Government (Fed) imperialism.

I agree. The Civil War, though portrayed as a conflict about slavery in US history textbooks (not that any other nation's history textbooks in schools are any better), was in fact nothing of the kind until the last 18 months. It's origins and its first years focused on the concept of states having the right to leave a union they had voluntarily joined. And the so-called emancipation of the slaves wasn't even achieved for long; it was reversed in the following years, when the Democrats made a long-lasting deal with Conservative Southerners (to set up a power base in the South, countering the Republicans in the industrialized Northeast) to rollback the little good that the Civil War had achieved. Just my point of view.

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 1:04 pm

@fable: Agreed in regards to the need for US involvement in WW2. Our resources, manufacturing prowess (which was a sleeping giant until wartime arrived), and willingness and ability to wage war on 2 fronts simultaneously swayed the balance in the end (though the war in the Pacific was hairy at best for quite some time). However, the way public opinion was swayed is odious to me. The Japanese would have still attacked if Pearl Harbor was prepared or warned, and I think a properly informed American public would rise to the occasion in Europe. Indeed, the villains were cast clearly in the world at that time...but a study of the outcome of WW1 will demonstrate how Germany was ripe for the facism which ushered in the Third Reich. Instead of helping Germany to recover, it was punished beyond reason (IMO). Perhaps if that was done, Hitler might not have had such leverage to use.

What pains me even more is how mute the US representative was at Versailles. I believe history records he privately noted how utterly vindictive the surrender terms were, and voiced that to his French and British colleagues. If I remember correctly, the French were eager to gain territory, the British just as eager to prevent the French from doing this, and the Americans content to remain silent despite misgivings.

I just don't accept that the ends justify the means. Just because it held true once, does not mean it will again...and the style of "leadership" ascribed to the President of the United States is not very American in essence. The government is to acede to public opinion in all matters. If that opinion is misinformed, then the proper of dissemination of information can enlighten citizens. Yet this is not done, especially now....because the majority of Americans, if informed of the actual events behind the Iraqi invasion, would vehemently oppose it. Instead, we have propaganda carefully designed to whip up nationalist fervor in the good old, American demagogue sort of way.

Re: the Civil War...I think slavery was a cause used by the Federal Government to affect liberal sensibilities in the Northeast. In truth, African Americans were treated very poorly north of the Mason-Dixon line. It certainly wasn't a large issue for the states who elected to remove themselves from a Union which was no longer desirable for their best interests. Pure and simple, they exercised their right to withdraw, and that right was violated. I think of what happened as an invasion, not a Civil War.

Beowulf · Post by **Beowulf** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 4:57 pm

[QUOTE=Chanak]but a study of the outcome of WW1 will demonstrate how Germany was ripe for the facism which ushered in the Third Reich. Instead of helping Germany to recover, it was punished beyond reason (IMO). Perhaps if that was done, Hitler might not have had such leverage to use.

[/QUOTE]

And yet, Weimar Germnay recieved more money in aid, primarily from the US, than it ever payed in reparations, as a result of the Dawes and Young plans.
Arguably, the immediate cause of Hitler's ascent was the economic turmoil created after '29 and the withdrawl of US aid. And maybe more market regulation by the federal government would have prevented the Crash... maybe the Federal Government doesn't (didn't) have enough power at all

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 5:15 pm

[QUOTE=Beowulf]Arguably, the immediate cause of Hitler's ascent was the economic turmoil created after '29 and the withdrawl of US aid. And maybe more market regulation by the federal government would have prevented the Crash... maybe the Federal Government doesn't (didn't) have enough power at all

[/QUOTE]

More recently, when Reagan's Neocon buddies convinced him to remove required insurance "safety nets" on banks to "promote growth" and "cut red tape," we had the massive Texas Savings and Loans Crisis which ended up costing all US taxpayers 50 billion dollars. So perhaps regulation isn't such a bad thing, as you suggest.

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 5:32 pm

What pains me even more is how mute the US representative was at Versailles. I believe history records he privately noted how utterly vindictive the surrender terms were, and voiced that to his French and British colleagues. If I remember correctly, the French were eager to gain territory, the British just as eager to prevent the French from doing this, and the Americans content to remain silent despite misgivings.

Before I read this paragraph, I was going to post an anecdote I'd encountered; as soon as I read it, I realized that it was spot on the mark. It was at a news conference held by Lloyd George, then-British Prime Minister, at the conclusion of the Versailles Peace Conference. Asked how things had gone, he replied (and it was reprinted by many news sources), "Not badly, considering I was seated between Jesus Christ and Napoleon." Wilson Christ, wringing his hands; Clemenceau Bonaparte, trying to exact as much retribution as possible against a foe that had attacked and invaded it, not once, but twice in fifty years; Lloyd George trying to limit Clemenceau's depredations. So seldom does history truly level down to such simple things as the personalities of three people--but at that time, and that place, it did. The results, as you say, had an enormous impact on the face and future of Europe.

I just don't accept that the ends justify the means. Just because it held true once, does not mean it will again...and the style of "leadership" ascribed to the President of the United States is not very American in essence. The government is to acede to public opinion in all matters.

But has that ever truly been the case? Yes, Jefferson stated it in theory, and he got it from the French Revolution philosophers, who in turn took it from the Greeks they admired inordinately. But the average Greek polis had less than 20,000 people, and at last estimates, three-quarters of these were disenfranchised--slaves, women, foreigners in residence, etc. Is democracy possible on a larger scale?

Personally, I think it *is* possible, but only when 1) a public truly understands the privilege and responsibility it holds to comprehend and consider issues at every step of the political process, and holds all political officials to account; and 2) the bodies governing such a people are proportionally representative of the views of that populace. I think some of the Scandanavian countries perhaps come closest to this model (thanks in part to pre-communications boom isolation of communities, and a tradition of northern democracy which lies outside the Franco-American model). Still, I could be idealizing situations with which I lack a great deal of familiarity.

Re: the Civil War...I think slavery was a cause used by the Federal Government to affect liberal sensibilities in the Northeast. In truth, African Americans were treated very poorly north of the Mason-Dixon line. It certainly wasn't a large issue for the states who elected to remove themselves from a Union which was no longer desirable for their best interests. Pure and simple, they exercised their right to withdraw, and that right was violated. I think of what happened as an invasion, not a Civil War.

If you want to start a thread, we should probably continue this line of discussion there.

Sojourner · Post by **Sojourner** » Mon Jul 26, 2004 8:49 am

[QUOTE=Chanak]Here are a few quotes from some men who lived in 18th century America, commonly referred to as the "Founding Fathers."

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." - Patrick Henry

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." - Thomas Jefferson

"In free governments the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns." - Benjamin Franklin[/QUOTE]

I've got a few more:

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." - President James Madison, while a United States Congressman

"The consciousness of being at war, and therefore in danger, makes the handing over of all power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival." - George Orwell, "1984" (1949)

" They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be secure when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." - Patrick Henry, on protecting the public's right to know.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President of the U.S. (1918)

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Mon Jul 26, 2004 9:29 am

[QUOTE=Sojourner]

" They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be secure when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." - Patrick Henry, on protecting the public's right to know.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President of the U.S. (1918)[/QUOTE]

The three best, I think, that sum up where we are now.