A Philosopher's Blog

Philosophical Essays on Many Subjects

Vietnam

Unrest in the Middle East

by 9 Comments

CAIRO, EGYPT - JUNE 4: An Egyptian man lights...
Image by Getty Images via @daylife

Obviously, this post’s title is almost eternally accurate. However, the focus today will be on the more recent unrest, namely that in Egypt.

Many people in Egypt appear to have had quite enough of the government and are actively engaged in protesting the regime. In response, the government has attempted to suppress the protests, cut off communication, and silence the media. This is, of course, to be expected from this sort of government.

While Obama praised the folks in Tunisia, the administration is taking a different approach to Egypt. This is hardly surprising-though the government has been fairly repressive and is hardly a bastion of freedom, it has been fairly consistent in being on what we see as the right side of American interests in the region.

The situation in Egypt does present the usual interesting dilemma for Americans. On one hand, we profess a set of values that include freedom, self-government, democracy, and justice. These values and our own historical revolution would seem to give us good reasons to support those who are pushing for freedom against a repressive state. On the other hand, we seem to always be in a war against an opposing ideology and this leads us to support almost any government that promises that it will be on our side against the communists/terrorists or whoever the enemy is at the moment in question. That these governments are often repressive, undemocratic and lacking in freedom never seems to be a major point of concern-at least for those in power.

While it is tempting to see this policy as being pragmatic and realistic (“yeah, we talk democracy, but that is for us…we need these states to repress their people so that they don’t go over to the commies/terrorists/whoever”), it is well worth considering the price that must be paid for this.

The largest price is, of course, paid by the people who live under the repressive regimes. They get to live without freedom (or at least far less freedom) so that the United States can have a “reliable” ally in the region or so that American interests can be advanced.

We also pay a price. The first part of the price is that we become hypocrites: we speak of freedom while tolerating and supporting tyrannies and repressive states. This, of course, seems to be quite contrary to our professed commitment to democracy, freedom, liberty and all that. Given how we throw these words about, we should be the ones supporting revolutions against repressive states, rather than trying so often to keep them propped up against their own people.

Second, we pay a rather ironic price: our efforts to prop up repressive states as allies against the enemy of the day sometimes ends up leading to that state falling to that enemy (Vietnam) or another enemy (Iran). People tend to remember who backed the government that jailed their relatives and murdered their friends.

Of course, it can be argued that the people in the Middle East are not yet ready for democracy and must be kept under the watchful eye of authoritarian states. It could also be argued that the threat posed by radical Islam means that we have to support states that will keep repressing the radicals. Of course, this strategy might (as noted above) turn out to have a result that is opposite of the one we desire.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Dr. King’s Day

by 13 Comments

Martin Luther King, Jr.
Image via Wikipedia

When reflecting on Dr. King’s day I generally use his “I Have a Dream” speech as a focus. In that speech Dr. King compares the situation of 1963  with that of 1863 and it seems proper to keep making comparisons between how things are now with how things were in the past.

King focuses on three primary problems: discrimination, segregation and poverty. While the situation in 2011 is clearly vastly better than in 1863 and significantly better than in 1963, there are clearly still problems that remain in these areas.

Although, as people like to point out, we have a black president discrimination is still a factor in American life. It is no longer legal, but persists in various ways. While it is unlikely that there will ever be a time when people are evaluated based solely on relevant qualities, this is still an ideal worth striving for.

Segregation is, oddly enough, still quite real. Interestingly enough the segregation that occurs today is not based on legal restrictions but is rather based on choice and economic factors. Choice occurs when people elect to self-segregate. The economic factors also tend to divide people by race, mainly because income still tends to divide along racial lines. Since neighborhoods tend to be divided on the basis of economic class and class and race still correlate to a significant degree, segregation still occurs.

Since the segregation is not based on laws, there is the serious question of what, if anything, should be done to address this. After all, if people segregate by choice, then there seems to be little grounds on which to justify forcing people to move so as to lower segregation. As far as the economic based segregation, attempts to push the rich and poor together or attempts to lessen income disparities would tend to met with great resistance. As such, it seems likely that segregation will endure now and even forever.

Poverty is still clearly a serious problem. After all, unemployment is still rather high and income is still correlated with race. Now that there is an overall economic problem it is harder to address specific economic inequalities. After all, the main focus seems to be on getting the economy on an upswing. Once the economy is doing better, attention might be turned to more specific sorts of inequalities.

As a final point, in these times of angry rhetoric we should consider Dr. King’s words: “We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.”

Enhanced by Zemanta

Blumenthal & Vietnam

by Leave a Comment

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal announces ...
Image by Getty Images via Daylife

While there are people who lie about military service, these are usually not people who are running for a major office. After all, military service is rather easy to confirm or disprove.

Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat, has made references to serving in Vietnam-despite the fact that he never did so. He did serve in the Marine reserves, but that is rather different from actually going to Vietnam during the war.

The New York Times, which is usually accused of being liberally biased, took Blumenthal to task over these claims. In response, Blumenthal claims that he “misspoke.”

While it is possible for someone to misspeak, the Blumenthal situation does not seem to be this sort of situation.  If he did not misspeak, then the question arises as to why he said such things. Perhaps, he was lying in the hopes of some sort of political gain. Or perhaps he somehow wants to think he did serve in Vietnam (just as Hilary Clinton claimed to have come under sniper fire).

One rather important question is what sort of impact this should have on a candidate. Although candidates are supposed to be candid, politicians tend to lie. As such, if candidates who lie should not run for office, there would be a rather limited pool of candidates (then again, maybe this would be a good thing).

Since most (all) people do lie, lying itself should not be a disqualifier. Rather, it would seem to be a matter of the nature and seriousness of the lie. Hillary Clinton’s “misremembering” of the “sniper incident” did not disqualify her, nor did her husband’s lies about not having sex.  Bush and his fellows were also not disqualified by their lies (or incidents of misspeaking) even when their mistaken claims were used to justify a war. As such, Blumernthal’s “erroneous claims” seem to be fairly minor.

Of course, such lying is of concern. After all, lying is morally questionable and this calls a person’s character into question. Laying aside ethics, there is also the concern about the competence of a person who lies (or misspeaks) when it is so very easy to check on the veracity of such claims.

Honesty is, as always, the best policy.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

It is Time to Say “Goodbye” to the 1960s

by 9 Comments

The 1960s were important years in American history and they did much to define the shape of country. It was a time of conflict, war, dissent, racism, sexism, hate, love, and hope. But, it is also a time that is long over and it is about time people accepted that it is groovy to say “goodbye 60s.”

The need to say goodbye was brought to my attention by two of my close friends. One is a neo-conservative who makes Rush Limbaugh look like a liberal. The other is a classic liberal-what my neo-con buddy would call a “moonbat.” Oddly enough, they both agreed that is was high time to put the 1960s behind us.

My moonbat friend, in an act of moonbattery, made an excellent case that the politicians who came of age in the 1960s are locked into the conflict and partisan mode of politics. Back then it was always “us” against “them” and this approach has continued to this day.

My neo-con friend thinks that nothing good came from the 1960s. In his eyes, it was a time when America was in decay and chaos. Those who are enamored of that time are, in his eyes, naught but hippies who want to drag America into socialism and decadence.

My view is that the 1960s did have some positive outcomes. Civil rights, women’s rights, and other steps towards equality took place in that time. America had the chance to look deep into its soul and see much that was wrong. This sort of thing is painful for both a person and a nation.

However, as my friends pointed out, the 1960s had many negative effects on America. The taint of decadence, drug use, and other social ills became highly entrenched during that time. The culture of the victim also had its foundations put down solidly in that time and this is one of the most problematic legacies of the 1960s.

The culture of the victim is the view that a person’s identity is to be largely defined and determined by their status as a victim. It is also the view that the victim is neither responsible nor capable in regards to his/her fate.

While it is noble and good to help others who have been harmed, furthering the culture of the victim does nothing to truly help people. In fact, it enervates people by convincing them to remain victims and wait for someone else, perhaps the government, to make things right for them.

This is not to say that we should not help our neighbor. They are our brothers and sisters and we are the keepers of each other. But, people need to be aided and encouraged to succeed. Treating people as eternal victims does not do this. We can acknowledge the sins of the past and the sins of the present while still treating people as they deserve to be treated: as men and women and not as mere victims.

While we are duty bound to honor the sacrifices made in the 1960s, those days are over. Those years were important but there are years that are more important-namely now and the future. It is time to say goodbye to the 1960s and to say hello to tomorrow.

%d bloggers like this: