I read Barack Obama’s second autobiography, The Audacity of Hope, in part to try to understand Obama better, but more particularly to see whether he understood evil in the world.
I found myself highly impressed with Obama’s fluency and open-mindedness. Some Republicans seem to be trying to depict Obama as some sort of angry, America-hating, hard left-wing ideologue. My sense is that Obama is both quite progressive/left wing (at least for a popular politician) and also very open-mined and non-doctrinaire. Indeed, in his second book I found him highly understanding of those who disagreed with him, especially those in the general public. His only sharp comments were reserved for a few Republican officials (eg, Bush) and media types (eg, Rush Limbaugh). In my opinion, Obama sees himself as highly moral, always pushing for the best progressive reforms, but understanding that others may not be as enlightened as he is.
Yet I got no sense from Obama’s Audacity of Hope (covering the post-2001 period) that Obama has any real understanding of the evil we face in the world. I did get a sense that he was somewhat above the fray – something that comes through in some of the flaps arising during his campaign. Much as his “bittergate” comments suggested, he is quick to try to understand – and slow to blame – those with whom he disagrees.
I almost get the feeling that Obama would be comfortable as an honest broker in a dispute between the government of Iran and the government of the United States (with, of course, a natural bias for the position of the United States, the country that he loves above all others).
Accordingly, I found this discussion by Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive (tip to Instapundit) half wrong:
None who have served, well none with more than 4 months in the motor pool, wonder what John McCain proved to us. We know that a man who would refuse to be released ahead of others and allow the enemy a propaganda victory definitely understands and stays true to those three pillars [Duty, Honor, and Country]. The clowns on the left toss out the straw man that he learned nothing about foreign policy there. Well I disagree, he learned at least one thing. Our enemies are evil, ruthless bastards and they do not play by the same rules. Barack Obama believes America is evil and ruthless and needs the cleansing only he can lightwork.
Let's compare the two:
John McCain was so loyal to the men he was imprisoned with he endured torture on their behalf.
Barack Obama associates with those who can help his career, and throws them right under the bus when they become inconvenient to his aspirations.
That single issue of character matters more than all the others combined. You can trust John McCain. You can trust Barack Obama to use you as a stepping stone. . . .
Obama is a feather blowing in the political breeze. McCain is a rock.
I think it’s fair to say that John McCain understands evil in a way that Barack Obama has not yet shown that he does.
But I think it a grave error to say that Obama “believes America is evil and ruthless and needs the cleansing only he can lightwork.” I think that Barack Obama believes that, on balance, the United States is the best country in the world. (It is interesting, nonetheless, how often over the years his expressions of pride in America have been tied to personal gratitude for the country that allowed his career to blossom.) I think that Obama sees “America’s cup” as two-thirds full, but wants to focus on its being one-third empty – as I would expect any critic to do.
UPDATE (11pm ET): In the over 160 comments so far, people have rightly debated whether we need a president who understands evil. It would seem that there would be situations where having such an understanding would be a help and others where it would be a hindrance. I remember when president Reagan called the Soviet Union "the evil empire." It struck me as somewhat unsophisticated at the time, but Reagan was right. And dissidents behind the iron curtain later credited such statements from Reagan with shoring up their resolve to fight that empire.
If George W. Bush had not understood evil, would he have had the resolve to institute the surge in Iraq? Perhaps, perhaps not.
I see in the comments one or two readers who also read The Audacity of Hope and see, as I do, Obama's real affection for this country (contrary to Uncle Jimbo's claim quoted above). One thing I haven't seen in the comments so far is anyone who read The Audacity of Hope and points me to passages in that book that contradict my claim that I don't see any evidence there that Obama has a deep understanding of evil.
That's a dangerous way of looking at the world.
Mermaid Man: EVIL!! EVIIIIIIIIIILLLLL!! Evil, evil, evil, EVIL!!
SpongeBob: What? All I said is there's evil afoot.
Mermaid Man: Evil!!! evil, evil, evil!! EVIL!!
Barnacle Boy: Would you stop saying that!
"That's a dangerous way of looking at the world."
"I think it’s fair to say that John McCain understands evil in a way that Barack Obama has not yet shown that he does."
I keep hearing people say things about people living in a "pre-9/11 America." But it appears that some people are living in a "pre-Iraq War America," all the same.
It is true that Obama doesn't look at world affairs through the prism of good v. evil, but that only constitutes a failure to "understand evil" if good v. evil is, in fact, the right way to look at world affairs.
For example, are we still calling North Korea evil?
That's a dangerous way of looking at the world."
FantasiaWHT indeed. Anyone who can rationalize away taped beheadings of innocent civilians and the barbarous 9/11 attacks upon civilians on American soil as mere misunderstandings would appear to represent a far more dangerous way of looking at the world than any I can conceive.
I agree it is regretful that we now live in a world that is far more ugly, dangerous, and unforgiving than the one I grew up in, but to pretend that you could reason with someone who believes with all their soul that they have a divine right to slaughter you like a pig solely because of your faith, your gender, your sexual orientation, or your nationality is so cognitively lacking as to be self-evidently suicidal.
Does the fact that they tortured John McCain make them evil? If so, does the fact that a few individuals in our own government have advocated or condoned torture make them evil too? Is John Yoo evil?
I don't think that being communist makes someone evil. I don't think that passionately fighting for a cause you believe in makes you evil either... even if you are fighting for the wrong cause because you are deeply misguided.
What do I see as evil? Genocide, obviously, or the killing or intentional harming of innocent individuals to advance your own ends (i.e. terrorism, the treatment of MDC supporters in Zimbabwe by the ZANU-PF, etc.)
How about torturing an enemy combatant to gain some sort of military advantage? Does that make one evil? I am not so sure. I do know that it should never be done -- but I am not so sure that those who disagree are evil. There are always the ticking time bomb scenarios or the scenarios where one believes that torture could be used to save innocent lives.
I think there is some value in reserving the term evil for the worst offenders, rather than for anyone we happen to not like because they are fighting passionately for a cause that is not our own...
I am glad that Obama does not make as casual use of the term as Bush.
what exactly do you mean by understanding evil? without defining just how obama (or anyone else) can understand evil, you post is kind of pointless.
I agree that good v evil isnt a particularly accurate way to frame this argument. I think we are really talking about naivity when it comes to the motives of our foes and the lengths they will go to achieve them.
Jimmy Carter springs to mind, or any of the parade of do-gooders that have flown over to 'mediate' the Israeli-Arab conflict (invited or not).
What we have to wonder is not whether Obama really wants to sit down with Iran, but what he expects the outcome to be. Is he appeasement minded? Traditionally our fascist foes will always require just one more concession... and one more and one more. How would Obama deal with that? By smartening up like Kennedy, or by becoming a lifelong dupe like Carter?
And all that tends to come from just how well you think of America's goals and aspirations, and how dimly the enemy is viewed. If you dont think much of the US and dont take the NK for the cold hearted butchers they are, you may try to negotiate in good faith with an adversary that isnt. That is why the people Obama has associated himself with is relevant. When his wife says she has never been proud of America until now, does Obama feel similarly? And if so how hard of a bargain will he drive with Iran?
You have to be a much better salesman to sell a product you dont feel passionately about. I dont doubt Obama loves America in theory and as an entity, but thats not the same thing as believing passionately that we are a force for 'good' in the world on balance. IF he doesnt believe that, we have to question what kinds of diplomacy he will practice with our enemies. That is why this stuff is very relevant.
It is nice to see that the retards who spoil our politics are still out in force on the VC.
Ms. Obama misspoke. You or a loved may have also misspoken during the course of your life.
I will confess. I have said some stupid things. I have mangled some words. If someone asked me to prove that I didn't "really mean" what I said when I misspoke, I might humor them for a while. But if they continued incessantly, I would increasingly see that my minor mistake in misspeaking was being used unethically by someone with an agenda that does not necessarily include advancing the truth.
In my view, conservatives harping on Ms. Obama are not interested in advancing knowledge or truth. They are interested in smearing.
Fools like you are what make "gotcha politics" which focuses on trivialities both possible and effective and an increasingly dominant part of our political discourse.
I think that John McCain understood that North Vietnam WAS evil. As Vietnam moves away from Communism toward capitalism, the country becomes more decent, less poverty inducing, and more respecting of human rights.
I agree about Obama’s lack of worldliness but I don’t however see that he has much “intellect” with which to be seduced by. It’s more that he knows how to play on people’s emotions by being able to capably deliver a prepared speech but other than that, he seems to be lacking in both substantive knowledge and wisdom.
Non-Sequitor Alert!
Failing to label terrorists as "evil" has NOTHING to do with the belief that one can "reason" with these guys. I don't understand why this obvious fact is so freaking hard for some people to grasp.
You're looking at what he wrote, and finding it not so bad, if perhaps a bit naive. Uncle Jimbo is looking at the Team Obama bus, and counting the number of people under it. Wright, Power, Jones, TUCC, Rezko, and .. I've lost track.
I wouldn't frame it as a matter of misunderstanding, but rather one of competing views of morality, religion and culture. If that's what makes a person or nation evil, that's fine. The problem, though, is that "evil" becomes rather like a sliding scale, to be determined only at a particular moment in time by the one reading the scale.
I'm not sure that acknowledging this rather simple truth is evidence of a sympathy, or, more condescendingly, of a naïveté.
That whole graduating magna from HLS thing? Just more proof that law school grades are arbitrary.
But Obama's problem is that he has spent a good deal of time with people who think America is evil. They have been mentors, colleagues, political supporters, parents.
So when it comes to making a bargain between two flawed entities, the US and whomever, the fair middle is more likely to favor the other party, because we have so much to atone for.
Is it possible to "understand evil" and yet pursue a strategy that doesn't involve wiping them out? (EG, Soviet Union then, North Korea today).
Is "misunderstanding evil" equivalent to "these men are tricky, cunning, and untrustworthy and you don't get that" or is it equivalent to "these men are committed to evil acts and you don't get that." Chamberlain is a good example of 1). Iran is probably what Lindgren means with 2). But they're different concepts.
Is it useful to conceptualize the world as evil or non-evil, even if you do understand it? Mugabe is evil. Gaddafi is evil. Kim Jong is evil. But I don't see how this can lead to any consistent advice that would apply to all three, or in how the US should act towards them. Nor has it, historically.
I guess what I mean is: moving beyond good and evil, why should I CARE that something is evil? There's huge quantities of evil in the world. Most of it even Mr. Lindgren doesn't think we should do anything special about (Africa...) What is the difference?
"Evil" is a word. It may be an appropriate word for certain people, or organizations as a description of our moral positions regarding them, or our inutuitions about them.
But at the end of the day, saying "there is evil in the world" or "there is no evil in the world" does not change the metaphysical realities of what exists in the world: people, doing things, some of which we like, and others of which we find morally abhorrent.
Further, labelling someone as evil offers them no opportunity for reform in our eyes - evil just is. 'Evil' also makes our enemies one dimensional; they can't change, they can't improve, and thus we can only solve our problems by destroying them. 'Evil' tends to blot out its lesser shades, until everything looks a black shade of evil.
I suppose that certain groups of theists won't be able to follow the initial premise of the argument, namely, that there is no evil force, with Satanic properties, roaming around in the world imbuing people with its spirit. Under those metaphysics, it really would be productive to call people evil. But I'm not going to argue metaphysics.
I don't think this answers the question at all. pointing to an evil country and providing some very vague reasons that can apply to nearly every country as to why it is evil doesn't explain what you mean by understanding evil. is it one of those i'll know it when i see it kind of things?
Specifically, to judge someone evil is to judge him -- at a visceral level -- a "total spoiler" (one with whom you have irreconcilable differences and so with whom negotiations would be futile). It is, additionally, to judge him unworthy of the benefit of the doubt / those (extremely extensive) privileges most ("elite" only?) Westerners (and certainly folk like McCain and Obama -- Western moralists in the age of tolerance) are prima facie inclined to accord other humans.
Plenty of our enemies -- many of whom sincerely believe they're doing the right thing (and so whom it is difficult to count as evil) -- are total spoilers whom prudence demands that we treat as if they were evil (with intense hostility and suspicion). Obama's capacity to empathize with these total spoilers, coupled with the moral streak he and McCain both share, I think makes it difficult for him to "internalize" that the best policy to pursue against (certain of) our enemies is treat them as people not worthy of the concern and respect Western moralists are inclined to accord an extensive class of people, whereas McCain's Manicheanism enables him to immerse himself in a framework that treats total spoilers as beyond the pale. (This is not to say that Obama is incapable of intellectualizing that many of our enemies are total spoilers, but once you empathize with someone -- even if you understand his motives perfectly -- it is difficult not to let your inclination to treat understandable human beings with dignity (and so forth) corrupt the purely consequentialist judgments you have to make when it comes to dealing with total spoilers.)
I am not a blind advocate of civility for its own sake. I am an advocate for the truth. My objection to "gotcha politics" is not that it is uncivil. I think the problem is that it has a tendency to push aside policy debates as we inefficiently waste brain cycles on trivialities and smear rhetoric.
I think that these particulars words are appropriate to describe someone who buys into this smear politics. Such an individual is a fool.
I am actually assuming that the person posting questions about Obama's wife really does sincerely believe she is unpatriotic. Just as likely, that person just likes to participate in smearing because they have a different ideological perspective.
Has anyone notices that the people perpetuating smears against Republicans tend to be Democrats, and the people perpetuating smears against Democrats tend to be Republicans? Imagine that.
Al Qaeda is driven by hatred of Israel, Jews, America, and will murder in service to their god. If they will fly airplanes full of innocent civilians into office buildings full of civilians and behead people alive, who can imagine that there are any limits on their behavior?
Libarbarian--See if you can "grasp" this. To be "evil" is to embrace immorality, wickedness, spite, malice, and destruction, all for the damning and indulgent sake of same. Therefore, attempting to reason with someone who holds the evil belief that you lack any right to draw your next breath is both futile and asinine.
You can absolutely reason with people who strongly disagree with you (i.e, you and I), or those who even despise what you believe in (perhaps you and I), but you cannot reason with an evil person who would rather kill you as talk to you (most definitely not you or I).
Did you grasp all that?
Yes. A man who approaches the world reasonably, tries to understand his opponents before he condemns them, who can see two sides to an argument, who is willing to reach out to bridge differences, who thinks we should talk before we drop bombs. It's pitiful. He doesn't seem to realize that we cannot be safe in a world without war, war, war. This whole idea of peace is a left wing plot to destroy our military industrial complex, which is what really makes America great. Yes, very dangerous, indeed.
It seems to me that the real difference between the two is not in understanding of "evil", but on what they view as prudent. Obama is more of a foreign policy realist than McCain, and wishes to use American military power and diplomacy in cautious and focused ways where it is clear that the effort is worthwhile--sometimes diplomacy is the more appropriate and effective tool, sometimes military force is, sometimes a combination. McCain, by contrast (and I don't mean this as a parody), is to judge by his statements and voting record a neoconservative/neoWilsonian who envisions a more muscular use of American force and influence to bring about transformative change toward worldwide liberal democracy, plus a vigorous military opposition to threats from "evil" states. The voters can judge which style of foreign policy is more likely to be successful in defending America against "evil."
Yes, I grasped it a long time ago. I know you cannot reason with these people. I never disputed that.
Do you grasp that one can both think the term "evil" is more obscuring than clarifying and also know that one cannot reason with them?
Do you grasp that not everyone who resists the label "evil" is a naive fool?
You are here making an empirical claim about the meaning of our language, which is that the statement "there is evil in the world" does not imply (whether correctly or incorrectly) that there exists a class of abstract things -- goodness, evilness, etc. -- in addition to the other "metaphysical realities [that] exist in the world." I'd be surprised if that were the case, insofar as I expect that -- were I to ask someone (who was not a moral philosopher) who judged that "x is evil," "so, you mean you don't like x?" -- he would respond that whether x is evil has nothing to do with whether he (or anyone else) likes x or not. His response would amount to the assertion that evilness is an objective property. I also suspect he would consider evilness to be a property utterly unlike redness, or tallness.
Putting this two suspicions together, I think the average non-philosopher understands "x is evil" to imply that "x has an objective, non-natural property." Thus, by saying "there is evil in the world" one asserts that the world has an extra layer of ontology. While this assertion does not *change* the metaphysical realities of what is "out there" in the world, it does imply that the world is ontologically different than it would be were there no evil in the world.
He voted against a bill that would provide human rights protections to newborn babies from botched abortions. In other words, he voted against a bill to explicitly make it illegal to murder a newborn baby because he was afraid it would be a stepping stone to making abortion illegal.
When Obama is voting to permit sacrifices to Moloch like that, I'd say he knows exactly what he's doing. He is quite acquainted with evil, because he has dabbled in it many times.
What are some of the characteristics of evil? Indifference to human suffering? Check. He was indifferent to the human rights and suffering of newborn babies. And his friends were unapologetic terrorist bombers who still proudly celebrate murder by their co-conspirators. Jealousy? Anger? Greed? Check. He's been attending a church that has been preaching those thinfs with regard to "whitey" for over 20 years now. Arrogance? Check. He's the Messiah of Change for the left.
Obama is probably not as evil as the terrorists or some of our country's enemies, but any man who is so wedded to abortion that he sees nothing wrong with baby murder is evil. Period.
The ability to realize a person or group of people are simply unreasonable is a key skill that I look for in anyone I'm thinking of voting for.
You're oh so very right. I think of the futility of reasoning every time I see police tactical squads trying to reason with violent criminals holding hostages. They should just go in and blast all of them. You can't reason with violent criminals. You can't reason with people like Mao. It makes me sick when I think that Nixon and Kissinger axctually talked to Mao. And Reagan actually talked to Gorbachev, the head of the Evil Empire. They should have just nuked those guys. OK, a few hundred million people might have died in the attacks (and in the counterattacks on American cities). It might even have meant the end of civilization as we know it. But at least we wouldn't have been trying to reason with those evil men.
"I don't think that being communist makes someone evil. I don't think that passionately fighting for a cause you believe in makes you evil either... even if you are fighting for the wrong cause because you are deeply misguided.
What do I see as evil? Genocide, obviously, or the killing or intentional harming of innocent individuals to advance your own ends (i.e. terrorism, the treatment of MDC supporters in Zimbabwe by the ZANU-PF, etc.)"
Duh! All communist countries are guilty of "killing or intentional harming of innocent individuals to advance your own ends" In the millions. No, in the tens of millions. If that isn't evil, then the word has no meaning.
You first asserted that "[f]ailing to label terrorists as 'evil' has NOTHING to do with the belief that one can 'reason' with these guys," yet you now admit "I know you cannot reason with these people." To my mind, whether or not someone is or can be objectively categorized as "evil" has everything do with whether they can be reasoned with.
I agree with you that the term "evil" is largely an unuseful and emotionally-charged term that can often obscure more than it clarifies and that "not everyone who resists the label 'evil' is a naive fool."
That said, I would absolutely label anyone a "naive fool" who would refuse to call "evil" the terrorists who perpetated 9/11 or who butchered innocent Americans on tape.
So I think that your points cautioning against the willy-nilly or bombastic throwing around of the word, "evil," are spot-on, I just disagree with your seeming unwillingness to use the term even in the most obvious of circumstances.
Of course you can "reason" with them. Hasn't anyone watched the Godfather? Either your brains, or your signature, is on the contract. They reason just as well as anyone. And if you want to reason with them, either your brains, or your signature, will be on the contract.
Depending on how evil the man is, it might be worth it for your signature to be on the contract, because the evil man will go away eventually and better men might take his place. Other times, it's not worth it because even if you sign, he'll blow your brains out anyway.
Being good isn't a substitute for being smart, but being a consequentalist will only make you evil in the long run.
In the case of the terrorists, it's not worth it for us to reason with them, because it is a lie to try to buy peace with them. They want something we can't offer: a return to the 7th century. They'll never get it. So we can't do business with them. If other evil men can be bought off to good effect, then of course it should be done. That is, in fact, exactly what has been happening in Iraq. Killing the very evil, buying off the diet Coke evil.
Yes. That's the problem for you.
Obama would be expected to "get something" from Iran. He may not think so, but by the time he gets there, he will be required to "get something", which the Iranians know. So whatever he offers won't be enough. They wait, and wait and wait until he offers what they want so they can exchange a promise they won't keep. Obama returns in triumph. We lose.
Can you understand this?
I expect so.
Hecubus: I am ready to serve you master. And Satan!
Sir Simon: Good. Then let the proof of evil begin. Hecubus, pick a card, pick any card.
Hecubus: No.
Sir Simon: Pardon?
Hecubus: No.
Sir Simon: Evil! Evil! Impolite and Evil! Hecubus, have you seen the movie Presumed Innocent?
Hecubus: Yes I have master, and his wife killed her.
Sir Simon: But Hecubus, I haven't seen the movie yet. Evil! Evil!
You will kindly note I have not advocated a nuclear strike in place of international negotiations, and indeed, would not do so.
However, the key difference, I think, between the examples you list and the objects of my derision is that even most violent criminals, Gorbachev, and Mao--while all exhibiting certain traits that could fairly be labeled evil--still retained a certain humanistic element of self-preservation. The terrorists against which we have been forced to fight lack this most basic survival trait, and therefore, they represent and seek to foment an undistilled evil rarely encountered by civilized nations.
Bottom line--if you can't bring yourself to call these zealots "evil," then you rob the word of any meaning.
Certainly, fair minds can disagree that Obama's approach to non-defined "evil". But Lingren has offered no evidence of a lack of understanding, so the reader can only assume that he differs with Obama's approach.
<blockquote>
Regarding the question "why don't we treat all evil the same?" The answer is relatively simple. We don't have the resources to destroy all evil in the world, otherwise we would.
</blockquote>
Further than that, who appointed us the judges of all humanity? Who empowered us to destroy whatever we deem evil? There are some people who believe it is evil to kill a fly. To eat shellfish. To dishonor their ancestors. To eat pork. To charge interest on loans. To cut your hair or shave your beard. To divorce your wife. Good grief, it we could all agree on what is evil, we would have achieved the millenium. Is it the mission ofthe US to achieve the millenium, even if we have to blow the world up to accomplish our mission? Does anyone admit the possibility that hubris may also be classified as evil?
I readily admit it. I also note, for the record, that I think it's true that "Obama sees himself as highly moral, always pushing for the best progressive reforms, but understanding that others may not be as enlightened as he is."
So by your definiton, Obama is evil. Not only is he a supporter of baby murder, he also is arrogant.
Simply not talking to Iran has been an asinine and pointless policy that has
1) been out of step with the successful ways in which REPUBLICAN Presidents in the past have dealt with dangerous and evil regimes
2) accomplished nothing of substance
The same has gone for Cuba. We've accomplished little in either case other than stroking our own egos and making life even more miserable for the people already suffering under these regimes.
I don't know about evil, but insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting it to have different results.
I also agree that Lingarden has offered little evidence at all that Obama doesn't understand or accept the concept of evil, which is quite a strong claim. I think it's quite legitimate to think that his policy ideas on how to deal with evil regimes are illegitimate, but it's close to a smear to imply that he doesn't, for instance, find certain conduct and treatment of human beings morally vile and reprehensible, like just about everyone else on the planet.
Is it mere a question of what we call it? Or is it a question of what we do about it? I think TR was right when he said "speak softly and carry a big stick." He did not say "don't speak and carry a big stick." I think it was FDR who said "Jaw, Jaw, is better than War, War." To me, it's much more than a question of labeling. "This is evil. This isnt. This has some characteristics of evil, but not some others." Osama, who has maybe killed thousands is evil, but Mao, who killed millions wasn't. It's a question of dealing with the world in a reasonable way, trying to work out problems and not immdiately conclude that the only way for us to prevail is to kill lots and lots and lots of people, some guilty and a whole lot who are innocent.
There are many things that cannot be reasoned with that are also not "evil". A hungry lion, an insane dude who rally thinks his own baby is possessed by devils, etc.
Now, there are differences between these guys and terrorists, but I was mainly objecting to what I thought was an automatic assumption that anyone who didn't call them "evil" must therefore think they can be reasoned with and mollified through "understanding".
Well, I do have a habit of being contrary for it's own sake :). But theres also the fact that I was a lot more willing to use the term "evil" for these guys before I began to see it abused as a cheap substitute to actually knowing your enemy (if only to better kill him), to obscure the differences (in goals, beliefs, and savagery) between our various enemies, and then to advocate for emotionally satisfying but ineffective and/or self-destructive courses of action.
It struck me that once some people embrace the "evil" label for an enemy they stop looking at the enemy critically and rationally and start to see it as a projection of their darkest imagination rather than a real entity that can be, if not reasoned with, at least understood to a decent degree.
Since you do not appear to be doing this - yes, they are about as "evil" as people can get.
Thank you for the insightful posts. Unfortunately, being at work prevents me from treating them with the thought and depth which they deserve.
I'd be surprised if that were the case, insofar as I expect that -- were I to ask someone (who was not a moral philosopher) who judged that "x is evil," "so, you mean you don't like x?" -- he would respond that whether x is evil has nothing to do with whether he (or anyone else) likes x or not. His response would amount to the assertion that evilness is an objective property. I also suspect he would consider evilness to be a property utterly unlike redness, or tallness.
Putting this two suspicions together, I think the average non-philosopher understands "x is evil" to imply that "x has an objective, non-natural property."
I'd suggest that at that point, our non-moral-philosopher is making an assertion which is in the realm of moral philosophy. At that point, it's time to see if such an assertion can stand the heat in the kitchen, which, in my view, it can't. But that's a long and complicated discussion, and one that the Volokh clientele is notoriously unreceptive to.
Earlier, you made the point that "evil"-labelling is productive as a useful fiction. I suppose this is a judgment call based upon the circumstances: I can see why certain circumstances might justify rhetorical effect based upon useful fictions, but side effects of subverting clear language based on correct ontology to rhetorically effective swooshes are easily forgotten. I was trying to allude to some of these in my earlier post without getting mired in the underlying ontological debate: the poisoning of opportunities to perceive nuance, a distorted view of one's enemy's motivations, and the self-assuredness of one's own righteousness and correctness of one's means in defense against "evil".
Alright, that's it for me.
Pragmatism, power, and shrewdness. These are things that Obama has demonstrated he understands and can wield. Quibble with his notion of "evil" all you want, but it won't make a dime of difference in the outcome.
Our best foreign policy experts have very, very fluid notions of what constitutes "evil", and it's not something they concern themselves with.
By contrast, Bush just completed a deal with North Korea which resulted in them destroying their nuclear cooling tower.
Who's the pragmatist here?
Nope, not by my definition. If someone sees himself as "highly moral," "pushing for the best progressive reforms," and "understanding that others may not be as enlighted as he," I would define him as a good person, or at least as one who aspires to be good. Unless I were trying to conflate good and evil, I would not define him as evil at all. I have never accepted Orwell's Newspeak. In my dictionary, good is not evil. Peace is not war. Hunger is not plenty. Wealth is not poverty. Strength is not weakness.
And Blackfive as an authority on anything other than which end of a rifle to point at the evildoers? Heh.
"Is it mere a question of what we call it? Or is it a question of what we do about it?"
I think the two are related. In very few instances (i.e. Al Qaeda) will negotiating with an enemey not be the most rational and productive way to resolve or prevent a conflict. However, when you are dealing with undiluted evil like Al Qaeda, what you call it should at the very least influence what you do about it.
"It's a question of dealing with the world in a reasonable way, trying to work out problems and not immdiately conclude that the only way for us to prevail is to kill lots and lots and lots of people"
Exactly, and that is what makes the US (even with my fellow Texan 43 at the helm) entirely distinguishable from Al Qaeda. The converse is manifestly not true: Al Qaeda knows no reason and therefore immediately concludes the only way to prevail is to kill lots and lots of us.
As an aside, I don't think you can credibly assert that the way the US has dealt with Iraq, Iran, or North Korea has been to shoot first and talk later (See the multi-national talks somewhat successfully initiated by the US with NK, and the UN sanctions sought and obtained by the US against both Iraq and Iran).
You just conceded the point, DangerMouse. Bush achieved this deal by actually talking to a member of the "Axis of Evil," not by bombing it into the Stone Age. If Obama should deem it practical to talk to another "evil" country, I'm not going to condemn him for the effort.
Obama = Jimmy Carter. This remains to be seen actually, and I'm not going to defer to someone else's clairvoyance on the matter. Let's give credit where credit is due, though. The Peace Accords between Israel-Egypt are nothing to laugh at.
I think it's great that North Korea destroyed the cooling tower, however, this was in spite of the "evil" rhetoric, not because of it. Condoleeza Rice triumphed over Dick Cheney, and this is the result. I'm all for pragmatism, and let's hope the administration has learned the lesson. Somehow I doubt it.
Hey, do the out-of-womb babies in Iraq count too? Just curious.
But they keep saying it over and over, so it must be true.
North Vietnam fought againt the French and the U.S. for independence under a popular leader, Ho. In the mismatched contest, the North Vietnamese were ruthless, but their motivation was rational. Upon achieving their independence, they stopped killing.
</blockquote>
North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam. The US was fighting North Vietnam so South Vietnam could keep their independence. The killing did not stop after North Vietnam took over the South.
Concede? Didn't you read my post where I said: "sometimes it makes sense to sign the contract" with evil men?
Where, ever, did I say all evil men cannot be reasoned with? If you actually read what I wrote, I said that evil men can be reasoned with just as anyone can be reasoned with. But their agreements might be lies, depending on how evil they are. Or it might be impossible to reason with them because you can't offer what they want.
Maybe you thought you were talking to someone else? Jeez.
Reagan called the Soviet Union the "Evil Empire." Then he sat down with them and worked out a deal that resulted in their ultimate demise. If callng an enemy "evil" will make you sit down with them and work out a deal, I say OK. If it works, let's do it. Let's not pretend that we can't ever, ever talk with an "evil" enemy.
The subject of this thread is Obama's understanding of evil. I didn't "shift" anyone's post. I brought up abortion in the context of his understanding of evil, and specfically, Obama's denial of human rights to newborn babies.
Hurray for DangerMouse standing up against WombBaby murder.
Hey, do the out-of-womb babies in Iraq count too? Just curious.
What abortion talking points are you reading from which emphasize the word "womb"? I'm not up to speed on all the liberal-speak, but I presume the term is intended to be insulting somehow? Or maybe you're just trying to attack motherhood in general? Or maybe women? Who can say, when it deals with the worship of Molech.
In any event, Obama not only supports abortion, but is also against preventing abortionists from murdering newborn babies that are completely free of the "womb" (there's that word again!).
Still curious as to what Lindgren meant by this post. Is he suggesting that Obama is not repulsed by things he views as evil? I doubt that. What exactly is the benchmark for understanding evil anyway? A senior seminar course on the subject or just time in a POW camp?
He did go on the Sean Hannity show once, so that may help out.
Also: World leaders sometimes lie. The ones that do are the evil ones. THAT'S HOW YOU CAN TELL!
This is a very useful concept!
Danger Mouse, Deep End. Deep End, Danger Mouse. I'll let you guys get acquainted.
That's it? You can do much better than that.
"Let's not pretend that we can't ever, ever talk with an "evil" enemy."
See my earlier comment regarding the stark differences between the Soviet Union and Al Qaeda: the two are not comparable, particularly in the context of this debate.
But I wish you the best of luck in your reasoned negotiations with Al Qaeda.
Are you participating in this conversation, or are you in a conversation on another topic? We have been discussing whether it can be reasonable for a president to talk with (or "reason with?) an "evil" enemy. Your point about North Korea tends to indicate that it can sometimes be reasonable to talk with (or "reason with") an enemy, even an enemy that has been officially labeled as "evil." If you are not being understood clearly, you might consider the possibility that you are not expressing yourself clearly. It is not my intent to muddle your arguments.
1. You can negotiate with enemies that are labeled "evil". This has worked.
2. This does not necessitate that you can negotiate with ALL enemies labeled "evil".
3. Saying you can negotiate with enemies that are labeled "evil" does not necessitate you can/should negotiate with Al Qaeda.
4. For the record, Barack Obama has not advocated negotiating with Al Qaeda.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record (what's gonna replace that metaphor?) the discourse of interpersonal relationships, and interpersonal morality is of limited use in discussing relations, morality and law between sovereign nations.
To say that "North Vietnam is [or "was"] evil" is to assert that millions of people suddenly changed their moral stripe, over-night, with the partition, and, by the way, implies some sort of moral redemption for those who opposed them, regardless of their prior morality or lack of it, from the facts of partition and opposition. Any serious consideration of the history of Vietnam will reveal that the South Vietnamese were no more uniformly "good" or "moral" than the North Vietnamese were uniformly and individually "evil"
For the POTUS to proclaim an entire country "evil", or to say, in response to the act of a particular regime, or a head of state, frat-boy fashion, that "We're gonna kick Saddam and Iraq [the Nicaraguans, whoever] in the ass!" is to overlook, or at least to quickly gloss over, that the populace isn't the regime, and the fact that he's personally neither doing, nor taking the risk of, the ass-kicking, nor, generally, is the target of his bravado the only person whose ass gets kicked, if that person gets kicked at all.
McCain served his country honorably, and at great personal sacrifice. Does this give him some moral high ground and expertise regarding international relations? Not obviously.
Remember which combat vets lost to which non-combatants over the last century of election cycles? Does acknowledging McCain's sacrifice eliminate the ambiguity of the wisdom of the Vietnam war? No. Does discussing that ambiguity in the context of current foreign policy dishonor vets who served honorably? I don't think so, and I think the claim that it does is moral flag-wrapping of a pretty ugly sort.
SeaLawyer:
Try again, after reading the history of Indochina. There were supposed to be elections, and reunification, in 1956. The US, and some of its more corrupt puppets decided that wasn't going to happen, in the face of evidence that the rapidly radicalizing (read, Marxist) nationalist parties would sweep the elections.
Nonsense. I have never advocated negotiations with Al Qaeda. A few posts ago, I asked if anybody has ever heard Obama advocate that. So far no answers. Equating North Korea, Iran, and (in the past) the Soviet Union with Al Qaeda is logically fallacious. Suggesting that if you agree to talk with Iran you must also agree to "negotiate" with Al Qaeda is preposterous.
That's ok. The issue is, perhaps people tend to think that once something is labeled as "evil," it forecloses off most options, and maybe in particular when it comes to foreign policy. I don't think things are as simple as that. But don't pretend that because Obama rejects the formulation of certain adversaries as "evil" that his approach to foreign policy is nuanced. He could easily be blindly assuming that on whole, there are common understandings of "good" that our adversaries share and hence he can talk to. That oversimplification on the opposite end can be just as dangerous as an oversimplifiation when it comes to labeling people as "evil."
In general, it is a straw man's argument to say that labeling something "evil" necessarily forecloses certain options. I think it can provide a clarity that might allow you to explore new alternatives, whereas a person who doesn't recognize the reality of the situation might stumble his way through. For the fact is, certain things are evil, and that is germaine to the sitnation at hand. It is no substitute for wisdom to categorically reject calling a spade a spade.
I think this misused analogy to the Godfather Illustrates both the point Lindgren has and the problems with his question.
Don Vito Corleone is willing to apply lethal force to get his way in a business matter. The assertion is that this makes him evil. I suppose that's pretty much true in a personal context, but in a nation-state context some might certainly see that differently.
But Don Vito Corleone was also a reasonable man. He had goals and he knew when those goals could be reached by a less-evil alternative than violence, and he knew when violence would be counter-productive to those goals. One of the key plot points in the movie is that Sonny was less reasonable in this regard than either Vito or Michael Corleone in spite of the fact that all three of them took actions that were evil. Evil and "unreasonable" are not equivalent.
Thus, neither are evil and unreasonable equivalent in the context of international relations. The United States actively deals and has actively dealt with many people that are objectively evil, but if we agreed with them, that "evilness" didn't prevent us from getting something from them that benefited us and also benefited them in some way.
It may well be the case that some of America's Enemies are so unreasonable they cannot be dealt with at all. Al Queda almost certainly falls into this category. Most would say Hamas does, but obviously some in Israel think otherwise. Fifteen years ago most would say Fatah was, but far fewer would say that today. North Korea may or may not be, but I suspect that Kim's number one priority is his own survival in power and not any sort of crusade against perceived enemies.
Anyone who was alive on 9/11 understands evil? As if. There are plenty of people, like Obama's pastor and mentor of 20 years (who he could no more dismiss than his grandmother), who said it was the chickens coming home to roost, instead of the unprovoked and offensive murder of innocent civilians.
Huh? Assuming you have some definition of evil, either they're evil or they're not. If good versus evil isn't a useful way to look at world affairs, then fine. They're evil and you just don't care about it.
Just think of the clarity labeling countries Evil could bring to Diplomacy!
"I have never advocated negotiations with Al Qaeda ... [and s]uggesting that if you agree to talk with Iran you must also agree to 'negotiate' with Al Qaeda is preposterous."
Signs of the Apocalypse beware, we are in total agreement.
He was quoting a U.S.A.F. Admiral, but that fact might get in the way of your agitprop smears. And only a fool thinks 9/11 was the result of "evil" alone. You're free to insist that 9/11 was the act of madmen who "hate our freedom", but this explanation, fit for a 5-year-old, won't fly at this site.
One point of distinction to be made, Ben. Reason, as a logical action of the mind, can be used by evil people to logically and methodically proceed to their goals. Reasonableness, as a descriptive term, implies some quality of goodness linked to logic. An evil person could reason that the best way to achieve his goal is to be unreasonable with someone.
With regards to Obama, I don't think he's being logical when he wants to negotiate with Iran, because he doesn't understand what he's dealing with.
"And only a fool thinks 9/11 was the result of "evil" alone."
What, pray tell, are the non-"evil" reasons for the murderous and cowardly acts committed by the terrorists on 9/11 upon your fellow and innocent citizens?
Just think of the clarity labeling countries Evil could bring to Diplomacy!
Amateur. Come on Sarcastro, you really CAN do better.
The belief in a supernatural source of Obama is not necessary; men alone are quite capable of every wickedness.
Men never do Obama so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.
All that is necessary for Obama to succeed is that good men do nothing. (Wait...that one kinda works if you're a Freeper type)
Battle not with Obama
lest ye become an Obama
and if you gaze into the Barak
the Barak gazes into you.
"Nope, not by my definition. If someone sees himself as "highly moral," "pushing for the best progressive reforms," and "understanding that others may not be as enlighted as he," I would define him as a good person, or at least as one who aspires to be good."
No one "pushing for the best progressive reforms" is a good person nor do they "aspires to be good." They aspire for control over the rest of us.
The point is that they know exactly what they're doing and how to get there. Treating them as if they're a random insane variable is not helpful.
Also, Iran is more like the USSR than like al-Qaeda. And Ahmedinajad is not the head of the Iranian state. And negotiation =/= capitulation. And Bush's only unqualified foreign policy success has come through negotiation with a member of the "Axis of Evil."
I never heard him say he wants to "negotiate." I thought I heard him say he would be willing to "talk" with our enemies, whoever they may be, after appropriate preparations. But in case I an wrong, please provide the citation where he said "negotiate."
Is it your point that you can understand your enemy better by not talking to him? I had thought that talking was a way of increasing understanding. "What do you want? What are your demands? What makes you think they are justified? But we think you are wrong, and this is why. We are willing to use force if we can't work things out peaceably." By this logic, Reagan would have understood the Soviet Union a lot better if he had just refused to talk to them. Nixon would have understood China a lot better if he had just refused to talk to them. Again, if I am wrong, please provide the citation.
I would argue it doesn't and that your example itself is flawed.
Reasonableness is inextricably tied to goals and the costs of various outcomes.
If your only acceptable outcome is "A," then that necessarily cost of all methods of getting to A are less than the result.
Going back to your example, Vito Corleone had a goal. That was to get the band director to sign a release, and he was willing to pay him a significant amount of money to do so. The band director refused and was consequently presented with the "signature or brains" offer.
But the godfather's taking that option had costs. Presumably those costs were potentially higher than the amount of money he would pay on the contract, but less than the costs of breaking his word.
So the act you describe as Evil, that is an "evil" person deciding that the best way to achieve his goal is to take an "unreasonable" action, is in fact still being reasonable. He is being unreasonable only if the action does not advance him toward his goal or if the costs of his action are higher than the benefits of achieving his goal in the first place.
You've got Orwell down pat. Progressive is regressive. Reform is bad. Good is evil. War is peace. Etc., etc. I love this kind of labeling. Eliminates the need to think.
"Everyone knows ... OBL et. al. are not John Wayne Gacy's--intent on murder and slaughter for the sheer absurd thrill of it. They were reacting to U.S. foreign policy--namely, the occupation of the Muslim holy lands."
Everyone, apparently, save for the imams upon whom OBL relied in justifying the 9/11 attacks because the targets were infidels or apostates. The geopolitical justification you reference was a quaint and easy excuse also employed by Al Qeada talking heads.
Are you really so lost in the gray morasse of moral relativism that you can't or won't equate the madness that motivated Gacy to the madness that motivates Osama?
You'll note we got no credit for protecting Muslims in the Balkans. Either there's a double standard here or our dealings with Muslims is an excuse.
If the goal of an enemy is actually the destruction of the United States, obviously that is unreasonable to us. If the goal of an enemy is something that would so inherently jeopardize the national security of the United States that it would impair our survival, that is unreasonable to us.
We can be perfectly reasonable in refusing to accede to such a demand, and perfectly reasonable in using violence to resist such a demand. But the essence of foreign policy lies in the fact that that is very rarely the goal of an adversary, and that there may well be a point where we make their goals so costly as to force them to settle with less, but that will often require some expenditure on our part.
Ben, in case you haven't cracked open a dictionary lately, all I was saying was that "reasonable" can have more than one meaning:
American Heritage Dictionary:
adj.
1. Capable of reasoning; rational: a reasonable person.
2. Governed by or being in accordance with reason or sound thinking: a reasonable solution to the problem.
3. Being within the bounds of common sense: arrive home at a reasonable hour.
4. Not excessive or extreme; fair: reasonable prices.
A person who threatens to kill a band leader to sign a contract may be logically concluding that it's the best way to achieve his goal, but that action is excessive and extreme, and not within the bounds of common sense. Surely you can't have difficulty with those differing concepts?
[
What makes the U.S. infidels? We are infidels because we're occupying Muslim holy lands. You just conceded the point.
It's not rocket science, and I'm not going to go around this block again. Even the neoconservative advisors crafting our policy in this administration wouldn't deny that our foreign policy contributed to the geopolitical climate in which Al Qaeda operates. And that's putting it tactfully.
Do you really want to stake your argument (whatever is left of it) on this point?
That is something you would tell a 5 year old, or a college student. That was the excuse given by Osama not the reason 9/11 happened.
If you actually travel outside of the US and have real conversations with people you will learn that US foreign policy to them is Hollywood.
Seriously? A
We moved from the holy land to the holiest land and have embroiled ourselves in a war between rival Muslim sects.
I do not think they would attack us no matter what, but our national security goals being tied to Israel and oil make it pretty damn impossible for us to "placate" them. So we must defeat them at the same time that we create allies in the region. This is something both parties agree on. It's just a matter of how. (Sure, there are some far-left and far-right isolationists, but they're in a very small minority.)
There is no "one" reason. I just shot that off as a quick example of the myriad of conflicts and causes that led to the War on Terror. I'm not sure what you think caused it, but I was simply refuting the point that it was solely because Al Qaeda is pure evil, a la Wayne Gacy, and gets a thrill out of slaughtering innocent people. I think that oversimplifies it. So does every foreign policy scholar.
Hardly. Infidels are unbelievers. Of course, being an unbelieving occupier is even worse, but the fatwas that gave the greenlight to OBL to attack innocent civilians in the US did not hinge their reasoning upon the location of the targets, only upon their beliefs.
"Do you really want to stake your argument (whatever is left of it) on this point?"
I always find it revealing when an opposing party resorts to grading their own argument (always upwards, of course).
The former regime in South Africa was democratic. And the former regime in South Africa engaged in evil acts. It therefor follows that all citizens who live in a democracy and believe in democracy are evil.
Just thought I would throw out some "logic" similar to yours.
That a ruler of a country that is communist is evil (and yes, Stalin was the very definition of evil, for example) does not mean that every individual in that country and all other countries who are communist are evil. I do not believe that all communists approved of the actions of Stalin. Those that did I would say can fairly be said to be evil.
I don't know how these simple points could be anything other than obvious.
I don't think Obama is as wise as he's cracked up to be, and I think McCain is being portrayed rather unfairly in the media at the moment, but nonsense like this is not helping.
Fine, if it makes you happy I can use rational rather than reasonable. I think I was pretty clearly using the first definition, and I think I pretty clearly stated that even if their thinking is rational or reasonable that it may still not be in our interests to go along with them, but that it is pretty clearly independent of them being "evil" unless you define evil solely in terms of opposition to US foreign policy. (Which would pretty much fall into what someone said earlier about diluting evil until it became meaningless)
We can negotiate with the rational, and I'm using the word narrowly, negotiate does not necessarily include making concessions or agreeing, it means conferring or talking with the purpose of resolving disputes. In any case, we can negotiate with the rational precisely because we can anticipate when something is in their interests or not.
We cannot successfully negotiate with the irrational because the irrational can not be safely assumed to follow their interests.
I can conclusively say that OBL is not rational, the attacks on 9/11 can't easily be tied to a rational goal on the part of Al-Queda.
I think you can say the oppisite about Kim Jong Ill, (well maybe). He may well oppose the United States, but I feel reasonably safe in saying his ultimate goal is his survival in power and we can reasonably expect him to take actions that comport with that goal.
I wouldn't even bet the outhouse on that one. The only "natural bias" Obama (and his ilk) has for this country is it's the one he landed in, through no fault of his own. If he thought he'd get more power for less work somewhere else, he'd switch citizenship in a heartbeat. He's all about him and his perceived entitlements.
I'd say there's no there there, but unfortunately there is - it's a the-state-is-everything there where I don't wish to be.
His presidency would make Carter's look good by comparison, and his
proposedpromised tax increases will bring on a second Great Depression (for the rest of us; the newspapers are already in a self-created one)."I was simply refuting the point that it was solely because Al Qaeda is pure evil, a la Wayne Gacy, and gets a thrill out of slaughtering innocent people."
First, glad to know you don't consider AQ "pure evil." Tell that little bromide to any relative of a 9/11 victim.
And second, I can't speak as to whether the AQ killers in Iraq took pleasure in beheading captured civilians on tape, or whether the AQ pilots felt a thrill while sitting at the controls, but their enjoyment of the act (which I would posit is greater than you allow for) is, frankly, inapposite as to whether they may be fairly labeled as "evil."
[Your point re: policy not changing is at least worth trying, except for the fact that we needs the oil like a precher need pain and a needle needs a vein. But as for "Convert of die" not flying, I refer you to history.]
Study the history of Islam and you will understand why 9/11 happened. It is just a another continuation of the fight that has been happening between Islam and the west for over a thousand years.
"The former regime in South Africa was democratic. And the former regime in South Africa engaged in evil acts. It therefor follows that all citizens who live in a democracy and believe in democracy are evil.
Just thought I would throw out some "logic" similar to yours.
That a ruler of a country that is communist is evil (and yes, Stalin was the very definition of evil, for example) does not mean that every individual in that country and all other countries who are communist are evil. I do not believe that all communists approved of the actions of Stalin. Those that did I would say can fairly be said to be evil.
I don't know how these simple points could be anything other than obvious."
You clearly either can't read or refuse to. I never said that "every individual in that country" was evil. I said that the "country" was evil.
And yes, all communists are evil just as all Nazis were, but not all Russians nor all Germans were. The millions of their own citizens that they killed in each country are ample prove of that.
"But their actions are telling--in general, they do not target nonbelievers in far off lands who have no involvement with the Middle East."
It is comforting to know your opinion of Jews.
I think few would call "classy" rationalizing either the reasons for the 9/11 attacks or the the motives of the 9/11 attackers as you have done here.
Look, if you repeatedly attempt to explain away or justify the actions of someone you label as "evil," you reveal a misundertanding of not only what the word really means but what the condition really is.
So, I guess my dander is up because I think that attempting to "expla[i]n" (i.e. qualify) evil precisely "diminish[es]" the use of the term. Which, as I've said earlier, should not be thrown around lightly or carelessly, but should unquestionably be leveled unequivocably at AQ.
There is almost 0 evidence of the last. The only "human right" that regime has come to respect is property rights, primarily because this makes it easier for the regime members' families to enrich themselves.
The move away from centralized command and control economies, and the decriminalization of private enterprise, in Vietnam, China and other places is definitely a good thing in and of itself, because it's letting 100s of millions escape from grinding poverty. But the political regimes in those nations are still pretty sordid and brutal when compared to the average European Monarchy of the 18th century, let alone to modern democracies. And they evince little inclination to reform themselves. To the extent they are less "evil" than their immediate predecessors it is because they are less interested in radically restructuring their societies or that of their neighbors and are thus more politically stable...for the moment.
Evil doesn't need reasons to kill, so neither does America. When it comes to Evil, that is. Which AlQ is, clearly. No motivations worth mentioning, just evil. Kinda like Lex Luthor. And America is Superman!
Hurling insults like this is a poor substitute for argument. I have just finished reading "The Audacity of Hope" and know that Obama has a strong love for the United States, which he has expressed over his lifetime of hard work, study, and exceptional accomplishment. He was not born into a rich family, like the present occupant of the White House. He was not born the son of an admiral, and did not marry a very rich woman, like the nominee apparent of the Republican Party. Both he and his wife worked for what they got, overcoming obstacles along the way. What do you mean by "his ilk"? People whose skin color isn't of the right hue? Or by your "ilk" do you simply mean people who think the present powers that be have made a god-awful mess that badly needs to be cleaned up? If the latter, please include me (white, blue-eyed, recovering Republican who is now "fed up") in the "ilk."
See Thailand and the Phillipines. Neither are involved in the ME. Still got the Islamic terror and murder thing going on.
Pluribus. The picture of GW sitting down with Iran as the only way for them to know what we think is silly. Really, really silly. If they don't get our speeches, our diplomatic contacts, our general demeanor, they aren' going to get it if Bush visits in order to repeat it.
More to the point, they get it. The problem is, they don't like it and want us to change it. I don't know how having GW visit is going to change that..... Except that pluribus and others like him won't be satisfied without a serious concession which puts us in danger. See the point about Obama having to "get something". Same thing will be expected of Bush. Thing is, Bush won't concede unilaterally, and Obama will. That makes Bush wrong, right?
And Bush did not offer to sit down and talk to the Norks without preconditions. Big difference. Problem is, pretending there isn't a difference makes people look silly.
should he get elected, anything and everything he does to this country (higher taxes, more government regulation, stupid foreign policy decisions, etc...) will be for our own good and because we won't "change" on our own to meet his expectations of what America should be. the only problem is, there won't be a shelter where Lady Liberty and her children can run too when he raises his belt.
Why don't you tell us what you think, Richard, instead of trying to tell us what I think? So far, you don't seem to be even getting close.
Disagree completely. It would be really, really, really, really silly. (You missed two "reallys.") But who said anything about "only"? Was Nixon's trip to Beijing the "only" way he could let Mao knew what his policy was? Was Reagan's trip to Rekjavik the "only" way he could let Gorbachev know what his position on nuclear disarmament and the Cold War was? Of course not.
So have we been wasting our time in the talks with North Korea? Couldn't they "get our speeches," etc., without an actual talk? Of course they could. But talks can produce results, in the appropriate circumstances.
Again, think Beijing, think Rekjavik.
Nonsense. I don't want anything that puts us in danger. And the idea that talking requires a concession, much less a concession that would put us in danger, is preposterous. In my opinion, refusing under any circumstances to talk with a country that could start World War III puts us in danger. I do not believe that North Korea's agreement to implode its signature nuclear cooling tower puts us in danger. On the contrary, I think it may help reduce the danger.
Again, Richard, try to explain what you think. You haven't a clue what I think.
I think this is a frighteningly accurate description of Jimmy Carter and Woodrow Wilson. Both were so impressed with their own moral uprightness as to border on psychopathology. I don't consider it something that would encourage me to vote for Obama.
Fox News: Al Queda is evil!
Rational People: Okay, perhaps they were, but, really, we should try to devine their motiviations for flying planes into towers.
Fox: No we don't! They are evil! That's all we have to know!
RP: But if we could find out WHY they felt they had to kill people in the US, wouldn't that be a good thing?
Fox: We know why they killed people, because they are evil!
RP: But that's not helpful. There are lots of evil people who don't fly planes into buildings.
Fox: NOw you're trying to blame America!
RP: No, I just am making a fairly obvious point.
Fox: So now you hate America, just like all the other evil people do!
RP: I'm just saying, perhaps if we tried somehow to find out why....
Fox; Appeaser! Appeasers are always evil! It led to WWII! You are evil!
RP: So i'm evil just because I don't agree with you?
Fox: of course!
Oh, and I'm an anti-Semite apparently too.
You got it.
1. Sex with 9-nine-year old girls (still happens today. See the writings of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini)
2. Killing gays
3. Stoning women for ... well almost anything
4. Having the jailers rape a virgin teenager the night before she was hung so she would go to hell.
5.... lots and lots more.
And it is all in the Koran (and yes, I have a copy.)
He's gonna lose Obama supporters, whether you want to admit it to yourself or not.
(though I am not one of them), but that doesn't mean that his adventures reflect reality.
Did a little birdie come and tell you this? This isn't what he says in "The Audacity of Hope," or in his speeches. But of course you know so much better than he what he believes.
Did you get this from your crystal ball? If so, you must have a new and improved model. Mine tells me only that almost half or more than half will vote for him. It won't be more specific.
So there are a billion or so Muslims. All of them are evil? And your plan is to make war with each and every one of them, because they are all so obviously evil? Good luck with that.
Or how about Al Franken is smart, funny and has at least a shred of intellectual or financial honesty?
"And it is all in the Koran (and yes, I have a copy.)"
So there are a billion or so Muslims. All of them are evil? And your plan is to make war with each and every one of them, because they are all so obviously evil? Good luck with that."
Islam, KKK, SDS, Weathermen, Stormfront, Christian Identity, Marxism and many more are all evil movements. When they try to put their ideas in practise, we stop them. Unlike the left, I don't punish people for what they believe, but for what they do.
Muslims can believe what they want and they can practise those beliefs in their own countries all they want, just not in my country.
A Muslim killed his two teenage daughters here in Dallas earlier this year because they were becoming too American. If we catch him, he will be tried for capital murder.
You missed the point about "no preconditions". Since Obama was clear about that, and since the other cases you discussed had agendas, you must be trying to equate two different situations.
I used to watch the cold-war negotiations and National Review was right: The Sovs would put forward a proposal which would be awful for us and the US government would be negotiating with the US left while the Sovs whistled and kicked a soccer ball and otherwise waited for us to hang out another "kick me" sign. Until Reagan got into office--and only conservatives appreciated it at the time although some elephantine waltzing has brought the lefties to pretend he was cool--that was how it went.
Obama is no Reagan, even if he had the desire to be which he clearly does not.
Consider: Everybody knows the difference between "no preconditions" and the other thing. And everybody is clear on the motivations of those who seek to pretend there is no difference.
Get your facts straight. She had been out of school for years and years before being hired as an administrator for the second or third largest hospital in Chicago. She was even Obama's boss at a law firm after graduating from law school (not "college"). Last I checked, highly educated professionals make six figure salaries when they are hired as administrators at large organizations. Guess it would be more to your liking if she inherited millions?
Now there's an interesting Constitutional doctrine.
Why don't you put your money where your mouth is? The market obviously disagrees with you, so you'll make a tidy profit if you know something they don't.
Maybe you ought to work that out with DangerMouse, because he says,
and
If consequentialism is a precurser to evil, and if Barack Obama has ever done anything that could remotely qualify him as evil, then by that standard, appeasement be just plain off-the-chart evil.
<blockquote>
Muslims can believe what they want and they can practise those beliefs in their own countries all they want, just not in my country.
</blockquote>
Well they can do it in my country. It's called the U.S.A. and has what we call the First Amendment. Doyou have another country?
"I think that Obama sees “America’s cup” as two-thirds full, but wants to focus on its being one-third empty – as I would expect any person who sees it as his job to address, even in small part, the problems that create that one-third emptiness to do."
/de-powerline'd.
Sam Hall:
Well they can do it in my country. It's called the U.S.A. and has what we call the First Amendment. Doyou have another country?
No, they can't if the action is against the law, such as murdering gays, having a underage wife or killing your daughters because they are acting too American. They can do those things in Muslim countries, but not in America. At least, not yet.
Here's how I answered you on the Taser thread, where you accidentally responded to my comment @ 6:53 pm on this thread:
"Everyone in this country has the right to practice any religion of his or her choice, excluding most religious practices that would otherwise be illegal. But nothing becomes illegal by virtue of its association with the religion. And prohibiting the religious practice of otherwise criminal acts applies no more to Islam than to any other religion. So when you say "Muslims can believe what they want and they can practice those beliefs in their own countries all they want, just not in my country", that's about as contrary as a statement can be to our Constitution. "
I don't see how. Anyone can believe any thing they wish, they just may not be able to practise those beliefs in this country where they could in other countries. The difference is in what you BELIEVE and what you DO. The Constitution does not allow religion to override criminal law. The case here in Texas with the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints marrying underage girls is an example. They can believe their G_d tells them that this is proper, they just better not practise it.
I think the point you're missing here is that I agree with everything in your last comment after "I don't see how," but not with your first comment, which said "Muslims can believe what they want and they can practice those beliefs in their own countries all they want, just not in my country." That's an overly-broad blanket statement which, standing on its own, is absolutely wrong. If what you said later is what you meant originally, no problem. It's just not how your original statement reads.
Obama did not get where he is through merit. He didn't get into Harvard by having the requisite grades -- he got into Harvard through its Affirmative Action program. Same with his darling wife, who didn't get her $300,000+ per year job through merit, either. She collects that level of pay through influence peddling, nothing more. As was pointed out above, she received a $200,000 per year raise when her hubby was elected to the Senate.
And the old saying, "You're known by the friends you keep" applies especially to Obama -- who has never had a close centrist friend for the past twenty years, much less any conservative friends. Obama's true friends hate America; how could Obama not? Everyone shares the world view of their circle of close, long time friends.
Obama has the character of a thief. He intends to greatly increase taxes on ordinary Americans [and anyone who thinks that "the rich" can fund the programs he proposes doesn't understand the tax system; if Bill Gates gave all his $billions to the feds, it wouldn't fund the gov't for two days]. If there were any but the most insignificant numbers of actually poor people in this country, that might be a reason for a moderate tax increase. But there are no poor left -- there are only those who have somewhat less than others.
Finally, there is no question that Obama intends to absolutely GUT the great American military. Why does the media absolutely run away from asking about this? Americans love being the strongest country on the planet. Just ask the average man or woman on the street. But Obama's intent is to de-fund the military to a greater extent than Carter and Clinton combined, doubled and squared. Don't believe me? Then stick a microphone in his face and demand a pledge that he will keep our great military machine at current levels. Go ahead, ask him. I wanna see him squirm.
Seems to me that I said the same thing both times. There are certain beliefs that can't be practised in this country.
I just looked up "practise" and one definition is "to take part in or follow" In that sense, you are correct. I meant "practise" to mean "an action" I can believe that the &^%$ that cut me off on the freeway should have his tires shot out, but I better not do it.
That was an impressive post. I'll have you to thank when I remember the message boards here at Volokh aren't subject to Rule 12(b)(6) next time I feel like practicing my inductive reasoning.
Where do you live? Seriously, as in "which city and state?" not like "what planet are you from?"
I can't really take seriously anything Lindgren said after that.
I'm not sure which word needs what-the-hell-does-that-truly-mean quotes more: "understands" or "evil"?