« Interesting...in a sick sort of way | Main | CT's Dictionary »
May 16, 2005
Ugh! George Bush is not Darth Vader
Somebody please tell me that George is being quoted out of context in this CNN article.
''In terms of evil, one of the original concepts was how does a democracy turn itself into a dictatorship,'' Lucas told a news conference at Cannes, where his final episode had its world premiere.
''The parallels between what we did in Vietnam and what we're doing in Iraq now are unbelievable.
''On the personal level it was how does a good person turn into a bad person, and part of the observation of that is that most bad people think they are good people, they are doing it for the right reasons,'' he added.
Or maybe he was just trying to make Star Wars look like left-wing propaganda in order to appeal to the liberal film industry meeting at Cannes. I mean, it almost makes me want to get rid of all my figures...almost. But that paradoxical last statement could apply equally well to millionaire independent film makers.
The fact of the matter is that George Bush is battling TYRANNY and DICTATORSHIP in order to preserve American Democracy.
Saddam Hussein was a sadistic murderer with no end to his term of office. Saddam Hussein is the closest parallel to the evil Emperor. Bush is actually more like Yoda--the spiritually minded commander-in-chief of an army sent to overturn those terrorist forces that are trying to undermine American democracy. Heck, they even share speech impediments!
But maybe this movie will show us why it is better NOT to overthrow evil dictatorships...
Posted by Peter Terp on May 16, 2005 at 02:20 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341d0c4b53ef00d8348406a069e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ugh! George Bush is not Darth Vader:
Comments
I've been reading this blog for just under a month and I've enjoyed it up until this post.
"The fact of the matter is that George Bush is battling TYRANNY and DICTATORSHIP in order to preserve American Democracy."
1) How does fighting tyranny and dictatorship in Iraq help to preserve democracy in the United States?
2) Why must democracy as it is now in the United States be preserved?
"Bush is actually more like Yoda--the spiritually minded commander-in-chief of an army sent to overturn those terrorist forces that are trying to undermine American democracy."
3) To clarify.. which terrorist forces?
Posted by: lyzii | May 17, 2005 1:54:33 AM
The purpose of my post was first and foremost to deconstruct arguments that the Star Wars prequels accurately apply to the current situation in Iraq. (Although Lucas's mention of Vietnam finally vindicates my allegorical reading of Attack of the Clones...I said that movie was about Vietnam from the first time I saw it and came up against huge resistance from other Star Wars fans.)
Anyway, my point is not so much to justify the war in Iraq as to say that those who would suggest America has become a dictatorship under George Bush have a seriously confused sense of what tyranny is. Tyranny is having professionally liscensed rapists. Tyranny is having political prisoners brought to your private residence so you and your sons can mutilate them. Tyranny is executing Olympic athletes for losing. Tyranny is constantly attempting to exterminate an entire people from your territories.
Sending a volunteer army overseas to liberate people from tyranny is not tyranny.
1) I can't really see how enfranchising the oppressed would not help preserve our freedom. Dictatorships are always security threats--look at North Korea. Saddam Hussein appeared to be actively engaging in terrorist activities, and he doesn't have a Communist country with the largest population in the world right next door. Whether or not Saddam was actually collaborating with Taliban, the man was a vicious murderer and no one can seriously say that the world isn't better off without him seated in power.
2) American Democracy might not be perfect, but it's by far the most enfranchising political system out there, and I for one don't want to see America bullied by threats from Islamic extremists.
3) Well, there were those guys who destroyed the World Trade Center, attacked the Pentagon, and crashed a plane in Pennsylvania. Whether or not the Taliban was actually active in Iraq before we liberated it, intelligence had reason to think they were...and the war in Iraq has brought the infection of Islamic extremism to a head.
Albert is probably better equipped to handle this debate than I. I am but a humble scholar trying to show how, whatever George Lucas intended Star Wars to mean, his analogy has some glaring flaws, not the least of which is that a Galactic Empire conquers worlds to expand its territories.
Interestingly, expansion is exactly what the megalomaniac Saddam Hussein tried to do.
America ousts dictators and the rebuilds infrastructures so that the nation can exist as an autonomous power. America is a Tyrant Tamer.
Posted by: Peter Terp | May 17, 2005 8:50:11 AM
I have to admit, Peter, I'm rather surprised by your take on the war in Iraq. Didn't John Paul II vehemently oppose American military action in Iraq? Given your ultramontane tendencies, I would have thought you would oppose American intervention.
As for the George Lucas quotation, I think it's plausible that CNN omitted comments in between the first two sections of what he said. In any case, his comments are probably over the top, but it's not as if anyone ever accused Lucas of coming up with the best dialogue in the world.
Regarding your responses to Iyzii's questions:
1) You're ignoring a lot of history here. The United States has supported oppressive dictatorships in many instances. Shapers of American foreign policy have not, evidently, agreed with you that "Dictatorships are always security threats". In fact, the case of Iraq demonstrates pretty clearly that dictatorships are not always threats to American security, since Iraq under Saddam Hussein was not threatening America's security. Where are those WMDs again?
Your second point, that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power, while true, is a non-sequitur. The question was not whether Iraq is better off with Hussein out of power, the question was how the United States is safer.
2) American democracy as the "by far the most enfranchising political system out there"? What about Australia, where voting is compulsory?
http://www.aec.gov.au/_content/what/voting/voting.htm That seems like a more expansive franchise than the United States, where thousands were disenfranchised because their names were similar to those of felons.
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch5.htm
As you say, the American electoral system is imperfect, but you're just being naive if you believe it provides the broadest franchise in the world.
3) IRAQ WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE SEPTEMBER 11TH ATTACKS. I really hate to be rude and use caps like that, but how many times does this need to be repeated before people stop suggesting otherwise.
You're damn right intelligence had reason to believe the Taliban had ties to Iraq - it was being fixed to say so. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/12/AR2005051201857.html http://downingstreetmemo.com/
Peter, if you still think the war in Iraq was a good idea, you need to start paying more attention.
Posted by: Danny | May 17, 2005 5:46:12 PM
Welcome back, Danny.
One more time--my original post is that, based on Lucas's own description, any Star Wars film that attempts to show how a democracy can turn into a dictatorship is a bogus analogy for America's involvement in Iraq. George Bush is not a dictator nor a tyrant. He has not created some new totalitarian political carte blanche for himself. In fact, his attack on Iraq was against exactly such a tyrant.
Now, for the point by point retort:
1) Just because dictatorships are themselves dangerous to democracy, there are some dictators that are better for you than others. Choosing the lesser of two evils is still preferable to doing nothing when national security is at stake.
2) Compulsory voting hardly seems enfranchising. One of the great liberties of America is the right to not vote. In fact, it might even be healthier for the political system if the ignorant and the lazy don't participate. Either way, it is their choice to participate or not. And, of course, by American Democracy, I imply more than just rule of the people (which, as I'm continually reminded, is actually antithetical to much of the founding fathers' ideology). Rather, American Democracy brings with it an egalitarianism as well as suffrage.
3) I don't recall ever saying that Iraq was involved in 9/11. My point is that the war in Iraq has helped bring matters to a head on foreign soil.
Finally, I don't recall ever saying that this war was a just war or even that it is justifiable. The ends do not justify the means. Regardless, the war in Iraq has led to the overthrow of a vicious, murderous, inhumane, tyrant, the liberation and suffrage of Iraqis and Kurds, and is sparking a domino-effect of democracy in a region of the world that has only known the worst forms of tyranny and theocracy.
If George Lucas wants to equate Star Wars with Vietnam or Iraq, then I hope he is realizing that in both wars, America was fighting on the side of preserving individuals' freedoms while America's enemies were the one's oppressing innocent populations and trying to expand their spheres of influence.
Posted by: Peter Terp | May 17, 2005 9:59:25 PM
Glad to have your comments Danny.
But a few counter-points that I would like to raise to your observations. First, even though the three posters on this blog are very much ultramontanists we are hardly clones of JPII or BXVI. And while JPII was not a supporter of the Iraqi invasion he did not call it an unjust war or use the strongest language he could in opposing it. There are several very orthodox theologians and priests who think that the invasion of Iraq was permissable under Just War Theory. http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/justwar/
Although, I agree with you that the evidence presented did not pan out as expected, nor has the conflict been as easy as many predicted.
But I remiss if I didn't mention that the Congressional resolution which authorized the President to invade Iraq made no mention of WMD's as a justification. It did however mention the fact that Saddam had attacked our military several times while we were enforcing UN sanctions, attempted to assassinate the President, violated UN sanctions, and regularly engaged in human rights abuses. The first three items would each individually be considered an act of war.
Also, while there has not been evidence presented that Iraq was behind 9/11, there has been evidence http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1156035/posts provided that Iraq gave Al Qaeda logistical support in several operations, and that they had an arms treaty of some sort. Iraq was clearly a state sponser of terrorism. While it is true that many states sponser terrorism Iraq was the only one which did so while explicity violating the UN sanctions placed against it.
Furthermore, something that is often lost in the current analysis, but brought up by a visiting Franciscan Admiral, was that Saddam had an office whose job was to get the world to think he had WMD's.
I don't know if the War in Iraq (more accurately, the Iraqi campaign in the War on Islamists, I think) was a good idea. I am not privy to the information given to the President. I think that the results down the road will also be necessary to inform our judgement, but it would be foolhardy to ignore the good things that have come from the campaign so far. Not the least of which is that Islamists that would otherwise be training to fly planes into our buildings are attacking our soldiers who are better positioned and trained to defend themselves.
Posted by: Al T | May 17, 2005 11:13:28 PM
I’m not concerned with what you think of George Lucas. You’ve looked for parallels between the Star Wars universe and the real world before (http://catholicaetestudines.blogs.com/catholicae_testudines/2005/03/are_jedi_prolif.html), so I can understand why you’re now upset with Lucas, but I really don’t care whether or not Star Wars functions as an analogy for America. What interests me is your thoughts on the war in Iraq.
Regarding American democracy, my point was not to say that the voting system in Australia is necessarily better than that in the U.S. (though I am intrigued by their use of a single transferable vote system). I responded to a particular claim that you made, that the American electoral system is “by far the most enfranchising political system out there”. Given that “enfranchise” means “to admit to the electoral ‘franchise’ or right of voting” (OED), your assertion is clearly false. Look no further than the case of Australia and the disenfranchisement of certain classes within American society. I’m not arguing that the American electoral system is bad, just that to blithely claim that it’s the best in the world is both misinformed and naïve.
You’re making a different argument about dictatorships than you did in your first comment. Then you wrote that “Dictatorships are always security threats”. Now you’ve modified your claim to the possibly tautological “dictatorships are themselves dangerous to democracy” and admitted that supporting dictators is occasionally in the national interest of the U.S. That’s a perfectly legitimate position, but it’s a different from the one that you expressed initially. I’m inclined to agree with you that “Choosing the lesser of two evils is still preferable to doing nothing when national security is at stake.” But it seems impossible to reconcile that position with the American decision to intervene in Iraq. North Korea, what with having nuclear weapons and all, would appear to be a far greater threat to American security than Iraq.
Before you accuse me of deviousness, Peter, I’d ask that you re-examine your comments regarding 3). lyzii’s question asked which terrorists American forces are fighting in Iraq. You responded with “Well, there were those guys who destroyed the World Trade Center, attacked the Pentagon, and crashed a plane in Pennsylvania.” If that’s not suggesting that Iraq had ties with the attacks on September 11th, I don’t know what does.
You are, of course, entitled to your own opinions regarding the justice of the war in Iraq, regardless of what the pope’s position on the matter was. I’m just surprised, since I don’t recall any cases where any of the writers on this blog have expressed disagreement with either John Paul II or Benedict XVI. That’s not to say it hasn’t taken place, just that I haven’t noticed it. A war that faced considerable opposition in the U.S. well before its inception just struck me as an odd case where your own position would differ from that of the Vatican.
Are you talking about the joint congressional resolution authorizing force in Iraq of early October 2002? http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html I’m not aware of any other one, and that one mentions weapons of mass destruction as a justification plenty. As I count, 10 out of 23 of the preambulatory phrases of the resolution mention WMDs. Along similar lines, in his speech of March 17, 2003, George Bush mentioned WMDs in over half of the speech’s 27 paragraphs. http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000920906 The freedom of the Iraqi people got rather short shrift. Make no mistake about it, the United States justified entering this war on the grounds of Iraq’s alleged WMDs and alleged ties with al-Qaeda. In both those cases, those allegations have been found false.
Free Republic? Now there’s an unbiased source. I place far greater credibility in the findings of the 9/11 Commission. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
The “flypaper strategy” of attracting terrorists to Iraq where they won’t be able to hurt America has all sorts of problems with it, not least of which is the rather offensive idea of using American troops as bait. And, as we’ve seen, our soldiers haven’t been all that well equipped, lacking the body and vehicle armor that would protect them against attacks. Equally problematic: the violence suffered by Iraqi civilians as a result of the American presence (did they volunteer to serve as flypaper? Are they equipped and prepared to deal with it?), the assumption that there are terrorists operating in Iraq they can’t do anything outside of Iraq, the assumption that there’s a finite set of terrorists in the world (isn’t it possible that American military action in Iraq has radicalized some Muslims and turned them into potential terrorists?), and the entirely empirical question of how many terrorists have actually been drawn to Iraq. In short, the idea that “the war in Iraq has helped bring matters to a head on foreign soil” just doesn’t hold water.
You’re right, Albert, it’s too soon to definitively declare that the war in Iraq was a good or bad thing. But things don’t seem to be going too well right now, have they? And you simply cannot deny that the United States went to war on false pretences and has prosecuted it ineffectively.
Posted by: Danny | May 18, 2005 10:22:36 AM
OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY
enfranchise
I. To admit to personal freedom.
1. To admit to freedom, set free (a slave or serf).
1531 ELYOT Gov. II. vii. (1883) II. 77 Thou in a priuate jugement were ouercommen of a poore man but late infraunchised. 1577-87 HOLINSHED Chron. I. 123/1 He did not onelie baptise them, but also infranchised them of all bodilie seruitude and bondage. 1636 G. SANDYS Paraph. Div. Poems 1 Sam. ii. 1, Those who served, infranchised. 1776 ADAM SMITH W.N. I. III. ii. 393 A villain enfranchised..could cultivate it only by means of what the landlord advanced to him. 1876 OUIDA Moths (1880) III. 119 The Tsar has not enfranchised me.
fig. 1548 GEST Pr. Masse 127 He is both blessed and enfranchised from al travayl. 1695 TRYON Dreams & Vis. iii. 37 [The] beginning of each Christians Regeneration..whereby he Infrancheses himself from the world. a1754 W. HAMILTON Youngest Grace (R.), Psyche, infranchis'd from all mortal pain. 1888 British Weekly 24 Aug. 273/1 The soul..should become mellow and enfranchised.
b. To set free from political subjection. Obs.
c1600 NORDEN Spec. Brit., Cornw. (1728) 7 Vntill the Britons enfraunchized themselves by a generall reuolte. 1606 SHAKES. Ant. & Cl. I. i. 23 Take in that Kingdome, and Infranchise that. 1648 MILTON Observ. Art. Peace (1851) 556 To be infranchiz'd with full liberty equall to thir Conquerours.
2. To release from confinement; chiefly transf. or fig. (Freq. in Shakes.)
1568 GRAFTON Chron. 93 If you finally refuse to deliuer him, I thinke verily the counsayle will enfraunches hym. 1588 SHAKES. Tit. A. IV. ii. 125 From that wombe where you imprisoned were He is infranchised and come to light. 1598 [see ENFRANCHISED.] 1626 T. H. tr. Caussin's Holy Crt. 160 Break your fetters, enfranchiz your selfe. 1878 S. COX Salv. Mundi ix. (ed. 3) 201 Liberate and enfranchise that which is good.
b. humorously. To get (a thing) free.
1682 D'URFEY Butler's Ghost 16 This..Fierce Blade from peaceful sheath he lugs; For, putting chape betwixt his Feet, He, with much ease, Enfranchis'd it.
3. To release from obligatory payments, legal liabilities, etc. to enfranchise a copyhold or leasehold estate: to convert it into freehold.
1594 CAREW Huarte's Exam. Wits xiii. (1596) 220 His house shalbe enfranchised in Israel from all maner tribute. 1818 CRUISE Digest III. 107 The lord of a manor enfranchised a copyhold..and then disputed the right of common with the copyholder he had enfranchised.
II. To admit to municipal or political privileges.
4. To make ‘free’ of a municipality or corporation. Const. into. Also fig. Obs.
1514 Act 5 Hen. VIII, c. 6 The crafte and misterye of Surgeons enfraunchesid in the Citie of London. 1602 W. FULBECKE Pandects 56 If they were enfraunchised of a hundred cities. a1628 F. GREVILLE Sidney (1652) 53 This was the first prize which did enfranchise this Master Spirit into the mysteries and affairs of State. a1655 VINES Lord's Supp. (1677) 170 He..must submit to the laws and rules of that Corporation he is free of, whether to be enfranchized or disfranchized.
5. To make (a city or town) ‘free’ by charter; to invest (it) with municipal rights. Now chiefly, to invest with the right of being represented in parliament.
1564 HAWARD Eutropius VI. 53 When he cam into Siria he enfraunchised Seleucia. 1655 FULLER Ch. Hist. I. iv. §2 Verolam-cestre was at this time enfranchised with many Immunities. 1844 LD. BROUGHAM Brit. Const. xiv. (1862) 212 She added no less than sixty-two burgh members, chiefly by enfranchising petty burghs.
6. To admit to membership in a body politic or state; to admit to political privileges; to naturalize (an alien). Now chiefly, to admit to the electoral ‘franchise’ or right of voting for members of parliament.
1683 Brit. Spec. 196 He hath by his Prerogative Power to enfranchise an Alien. 1711 STRYPE Parker an. 1595 (R.), He [Dr. Baro] being an alien, ought to have carried himself quietly and peaceably in a country where he was so humanely harboured and infranchised. 1839 THIRLWALL Greece II. 74 He is said to have enfranchised not only aliens..but slaves. 1884 Times (weekly ed.) 26 Sept. 2/1 We want..to enfranchise those great masses of the people.
b. fig. To naturalize (foreign words; rarely, foreign plants). ? Obs.
1601 HOLLAND Pliny I. 359 Cherry-trees, Peach-trees,..are held for aliens in Italy. Howbeit, some of them now are infranchised and taken for free denizens among vs. 1668 WILKINS Real Char. I. ii. §2. 8 By enfranchising strange forein words. a1748 WATTS (J.), These words have been enfranchised amongst us.
Posted by: Peter Terp | May 18, 2005 10:32:56 AM
A correction.
I was inaccurate in my statement about the Congressional resolution found here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/10/attack/main525165.shtml
It doesn't accuse Iraq of having WMD's but of trying to develop a WMD program. In violation of the cease fire ending the 1991 Gulf War.
Also I only referenced the freeper's because that site is mostly a collection of links to news articles, not because of any original evidence they provide.
Posted by: Al T | May 18, 2005 1:22:06 PM
Sorry, Al, that resolution still claims that Iraq has WMDs:
"Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material an unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability..."
As for the Free Republic link, I'm working under the assumption that the 9/11 Commission reached their conclusions on the best available evidence, including the information including in the articles linked there. If you know of particular information that the 9/11 Commission failed to look at, I'd be happy to know about it. This seems as good a time as any to remind you that the efforts of the commission were hampered by the reluctance of key Bush administration officials to testify.
Peter, I'm not sure what your point is in listing the entire OED definition of "enfranchise". Is it to show that the word has multiple senses? Well, yes. But I don't see what naturalizing foreign words has to do with democracy, voting rights, or freedom. In contemporary discourse, "enfranchise" is used almost exclusively to refer to the granting of voting rights. If you wanted to claim that America provides more freedom to its citizens, it would have been much clearer if you'd gone ahead and said that.
Posted by: Danny | May 18, 2005 3:17:43 PM
Danny,
I read that last line not as posessing them but posessing programs to create them.
Posted by: Al T | May 18, 2005 3:48:21 PM
Fair enough, there is some ambiguity in that line, though my initial reading still makes the most sense to me. Possessing a significant weapons capability sounds a lot like having weapons. George W. Bush's remarks, however, leave no doubt as to the government's position on whether Iraq had WMDs: "no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed."
Posted by: Danny | May 18, 2005 4:05:34 PM
1) The point of posting the entire OED definition is to allow those who read the comments to determine for themselves whether or not my assertion was "clearly false" based on semantics.
2) As for the pretences for going to war, it might be worth considering what nation in history has ever gone to war with all their cards on the table.
I'm not conceding whether we went to war under false pretences or not. I'm sure grad students will be writing theses on it for decades to come. Just for fun, I'll consider the possibility that the Bush administration was less than forthcoming.
It is not entirely necessary or even good for a leader to always present the clear cut truth. The first example that comes to mind is an incident in Livy where a Roman consul is clearly losing a battle. Nevertheless, he announces to all of his troops that the enemy has begun to retreat. This rallied the troops and sent them headlong into a battle which they were about to retreat from themselves. The trick worked and the reinvigorated Romans crushed a superior force.
The fact of the matter is that propaganda works--and if you aren't going to use it towards a good end, like overthrowing tyranny, someone else will use it towards a bad end, like installing a tyranny.
What I can't understand is why the Bush administration let the media hone in on the WMDs issue. If I were in the White House, I'd have had them televising images of Saddam Hussein's victims on a daily basis.
Rather than harping on potential terrorism, the media should have been reminding us just what Saddam Hussein wanted to do to his political adversaries.
But we didn't go the distance back in Dessert Storm...just like we didn't go the distance back in the Korean War...and it now it's come back to haunt us.
Posted by: Peter Terp | May 18, 2005 5:04:58 PM
NYTimes story on the politics of "Sith":
Posted by: Therese | May 18, 2005 10:42:15 PM
Heh, heh...I wrote "Dessert Storm"...that's what happens when you post right before dinner.
Thanks for bringing the conversation back on track, Therese.
Posted by: Peter Terp | May 18, 2005 11:38:32 PM
My pleasure. Stuff like this often happens with male-run blogs.
Haha, just kidding. Speaking of being off track, I remembered that desert (the place with no rain and lots of sand) only had one 's' and dessert (post-entree course) had two 's's by thinking that a dessert is a little something extra - thus the extra 's' - and deserts are often barren - thus only one 's'.
Posted by: Therese | May 19, 2005 12:11:09 AM
Yes, Peter, government control of the media is clearly the best way to preserve democracy and avoid totalitarianism.
Since we've moved into the realm of hypotheticals, here's a question for you. What information would be necessary for you to change your mind and accept that the Bush administration led the United States into war under false pretences? Speaking for myself, the "Downing Street Memo" I linked to above provides damning evidence that Bush administration had little concern with the facts on the ground in Iraq and had committed itself to military action regardless of Iraq's compliance or non-compliance with weapons inspections. Now, if we later find evidence of extensive WMD programs in Iraq and high-level connections with al-Qaeda, I'd reconsider my opinion. But given the information currently available, the Bush administration lied in its justifications for this war.
As you wrote, whether it's justifiable for leaders or government to lie is a separate issue. If you want to outline an ethics that allows a government to deliberately offer false justifications for war, go right ahead. But I'd rather avoid granting our government carte blanche to lie whenever they see fit.
Posted by: Danny | May 20, 2005 7:03:39 AM
"If we later find evidence of extensive WMD programs in Iraq and high-level connections with al-Qaeda, I'd reconsider my opinion. But given the information currently available, the Bush administration lied in its justifications for this war."
Danny, I can't say now how I feel about the war. Like others, I think only time will tell. I do think pre-emptive war raises very troubling moral questions and the war does, in many ways, make me uncomfortable.
That said, let's imagine that by some fluke Churchill was elected prime minister back in 1937 or 1938 and he had rallied the British people then to confront the threat of Hitler, and Roosevelt followed his lead and rallied the American people, and Britain and the U.S. launched a war against Nazi Germany in '37 or '38, and the Allies won. If that were the case, there would be no evidence of the Holocaust, no plans for it, no plans of Hitler's race war against the Soviets. Sure, he'd taken some political prisoners by then and started getting Jews out of the economy, but he hadn't started killing people yet. In fact, he would have even fulfilled his campaign promise of turning the German economy around. How would history have judged Churchill and Roosevelt for doing that?
Posted by: Therese, the Rhetorical Tomboy | May 20, 2005 9:32:32 AM
I'm all for withholding final judgment, Therese, until the causes consequences of the war in Iraq are more fully known (though the "Let's wait and see what happens" perspective doesn't seem to square with the deontological perspective typically found here). But the mere passage of time won't provide all the answers. History is still a matter of judgment and interpretation based on the best available evidence, so it's not as if fifty years from now it will be self-evident whether going to war was a good decision. To put off making any sort of judgment about the morality/justice/whatever of the war until the facts are fully known seems to be a surefire way of ceding policy-making power to those who are willing to make those judgments. We should be making our best judgments based on the information we have now, information that hardly casts the Bush administration in a positive light.
As for your counterfactual example, I don't know. But that's one of the biggest problems with counterfactual history: by its very definition it's speculative. Historians generally express doubts about the value of counterfactual history (as fun as it is!) because it's based on scant, if any, evidence. While proposing counterfactuals is a good way of challenging teleological narratives of history, we're ultimately only capable of writing the history of what *did* happen, not what may have happened.
The particular example you suggest requires substantial modification to what actually happened, so any conclusions drawn from it are necessarily tenuous. There were no U.K. general elections held in either 1937 or 1938 (Stanley Baldwin had been elected prime minister in 1935, the next general election was not held until 1945), so first we'd need to come up with a scenario in which the Conservative prime minister would have called an election at least one year before expected. Then we'd have to come up with circumstances that would lead to Churchill's election and we'd have to explain his ability to rally the British behind a(nother) war against Germany. Then we'd have to get the United States into the war somehow, which would be quite a feat, seeing as the U.S. did not enter the conflict until the end of 1941 and then only after Germany had declared war against the U.S. My point, which I've hopefully made clear, is that it's not as simple as just saying, "What would we think of Churchill and Roosevelt if they had started a war against Hitler in 1937?" If we're taking that as a departure point, we also have to explain the circumstances that would make such a scenario plausible, which, in turn, would color our view of that decision. In short, it's complicated, and I don't know.
But I'll take a stab at it anyway. The whole scenario seems much more plausible in 1938, given that the Austro-German Anschluss took place in March and the Munich crisis over Sudetenland in September. In that case, I think that historians would see Churchill as enforcing the terms of the Treaty of Versailles and honoring Britain's obligations to Czechoslovakia. Considering that many have excoriated Nevile Chamberlain for his policy of appeasement (with some merit), I think most historians would consider British entry into a war with Germany in 1938 as justified. (I must admit, however, that I'm no expert on WWII and there is, no doubt, an extensive and sophisticated historiography that answers these questions better).
As for Roosevelt and the United States? I'm having a hard time envisioning a scenario in which the U.S. would have entered a war with Germany in 1938 (probably my own lack of imagination). How do you think we'd view Roosevelt?
Posted by: Danny | May 20, 2005 11:57:44 AM
1) I don't recall sponsoring government controlled media. But the sixteen deaths resulting from Newsweek's idiocy clearly shows that a free media ought to be self-regulating enough to know when to pick their fights.
2) I would rather not limit my ability to judge history by dictating a set of factors necessary to prove a case. I suppose a sworn testimony from Bush himself would be fairly convincing, but given the political and cultural climate in America right now, I don't feel particularly comfortable buying anyone's arguments whole-heartedly. A man is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
I am more opposed to tyrants than I am opposed to liars, though--and I'd rather have a well-intended trickster for my president than allow the Iraqi people to be tortured under tyranny.
Posted by: Peter Terp | May 20, 2005 4:40:07 PM
"What I can't understand is why the Bush administration let the media hone in on the WMDs issue. If I were in the White House, I'd have had them televising images of Saddam Hussein's victims on a daily basis."
As you would have it, the Bush administration would not have allowed the media to focus on WMDs. As you would have it, the White House would be dictating what the media televises. Sounds a whole lot like government control of the media to me.
I'm not so much asking you to make any set-in-stone criteria for what would change your mind about the war in Iraq. My question was more a way of ensuring both sides in a debate keep an open mind. But would you really find sworn testimony from George W. Bush that he lied to the country only "fairly convincing" that he, in fact, lied to the country? We seem to be operating with rather different standards of truth.
Here's what I'm not following in your reasoning, Peter. You say you don't feel comfortable "buying anyone's arguments whole-heartedly", but you seem to be supporting the Bush administration line rather vigorously. Now you may accept the pro-war thinking entirely, but I haven't seen any deviation either.
To return to WMDs for a bit, you seem to be forgetting that the U.S. case for war was built primarily on claims that Iraq had WMDs and was developing more. Ask George W. Bush in March 2003 why we went to war and he would have said WMDs. Freeing Iraq from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein was a secondary issue. While the removal of Saddam was a happy consequence of the war, the Bush administration evidently planned little for the difficulties of a post-Saddam Iraq (again, read the Downing Street Memo. And look at all the problems in Iraq). I'm all for overthrowing tyranny whenever possible. But it's not as easy as simply capturing the tyrant. Leaders need to be competent, not just well-intended. While George W. Bush might be the latter, there's little evidence from the Iraq debacle that he's the former.
On a purely philosophical note, your preference for the "well-intended trickster" raises a crucial question: if a leader is a liar, how do we know he has good intentions?
Posted by: Danny | May 20, 2005 6:33:33 PM
Again, I don't think we are disagreeing as much as you think. When I said the White House "shouldn't let"...I wasn't suggesting that the White House censor the media. You can spin doctor without taking a black magic marker to newsfeeds. Your point about making WMDs the focus of the invasion certainly agrees with my impression of why we went to war from the get go--and I am suggesting that this was a political error on the part of the White House. By letting WMDs become the focus of the war, the White House opened itself up to all kinds of attacks from the usually left-biased media. I am merely suggesting that the President should have come out with a much stronger statement that we were ousting a tyrant, and then reminded us of just how bad and psychopathic Hussein was--and a lot more red-blooded Americans would have been willing to accept the action.
As for my allegiance to the Bush party, the only reason I voted for the man was because he at least took a pro-life stance. In fact, I hadn't even declared a political party until after the Democrats started to refuse to even let pro-life speakers present at their national conventions.
Incidentally, this also brings the issue back to why Bush is not a Sith, and why John Kerry could have been. Kerry and Edwards were willing to promise us all kinds of medical advances through infant stem cell research--promises that they could in no way guarantee.
Posted by: Peter Terp | May 21, 2005 11:24:01 AM
I have to admit, I was a bit confused by your title for this post. Having seen the film now, I don't think anyone would argue that Lucas was comparing George W. Bush for Darth Vader. Really, have we ever seen Bush as conflicted as Anakin? As political allegory (simplistic and flawed as it may have been), I saw Darth Vader as analogous to the United States itself, following good intentions but falling away from the path of good.
I think we still disagree a bit about the media and WMDs. It's just not the case that the Bush administration "let" WMDs become the focus of the war - Bush put WMDs front and central as the primary justification for the war. There's nothing wrong with the media challenging the president on his own terms. Was it a political error on the part of the Bush administration not to justify the war as bringing freedom to Iraq? Perhaps, but then that didn't square with the urgency with which the country went to war or the utter lack of planning that went into stabilizing Iraq after the invasion. If we were genuinely concerned with the welfare of Iraqis, I would have hoped that we would be able to establish a democratic government there with fewer mishaps along the way. I just can't help but feel that, if the war in Iraq were really about ending tyranny and bringing democracy, we wouldn't have the problems there that we do.
Do you have proof that the Democratic party refuses to let pro-life speakers speak at their national conventions? This is a right-wing myth, easily debunked. The most common name that comes up regarding this is Bob Casey, former governor of Pennsylvania, who was not permitted to speak at the 1992 national convention. While it's true that Casey didn't speak, it wasn't because of his pro-life stance, but rather his refusal to endorse the Clinton-Gore ticket.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200504200005
And yes, there have been pro-life speakers at recent Democratic conventions. Last year, for example, pro-life Harry Reid (who's now Senate minority leader, so it's not as if he's a minor figure in the Democratic party) spoke at the Democratic convention.
I know we've already gone over the death penalty here, but Bush's apparent glee in enforcing capital punishment as governor of Texas would seem to belie any claims he has to a consistently pro-life stance.
Posted by: Danny | May 21, 2005 12:26:23 PM
Well, some op-ed pieces would arge that Harry Reid isn't exactly "pro-life" either. The democratic party has simply become so "pro-abortion" that Harry Reid looks anti-abortion in comparison.
I'm also a little disappointed that you would say that America has fallen away from the "path of good." First, this is a difficult position to hold because it reifies the nation. Secondly, it suggests that one can somehow quantify the amount of good and bad in the nation and say that the bad has somehow begun to outweigh the good.
We are not a dictatorship. We are not an empire. We are not a third world nation. We are not isolationist nor do we horde our wealth. We have committed grave sins, such as abortion and the emerging issues of euthanasia, but these have yet to become Constitutional amendments and, as precedents, can still be overturned.
Posted by: Peter Terp | May 21, 2005 2:51:11 PM
Er, are you actually aware of Harry Reid's voting record? He's voted in favor of criminal penalties for harming unborn fetuses during the commission of other crimes, in favor of banning partial birth abortions, in favor of banning abortion on military bases... both Fox News and NARAL have labelled Reid pro-life. Whether or not he meets your personal criteria for "pro-life", he is widely recognized as holding pro-life positions.
Look, Peter, you said the Democratic party prohibits pro-life speakers at its national conventions. This is demonstrably false. I've provided evidence to the contrary. Moving the goalposts now doesn't change the fact that you were wrong. It's hard to have a civil discussion here (which I think we've largely succeeded in) if you're going to throw around inaccurate statements and then ignore evidence that you've made false claims.
Here's what I wrote about the political analogies of Revenge of the Sith:
"As political allegory (simplistic and flawed as it may have been), I saw Darth Vader as analogous to the United States itself, following good intentions but falling away from the path of good."
Note that I didn't say that the United States has fallen away from the path of good (honestly, conceptualizing policy in terms like that is simplistic and unproductive, as you acknowledge). All I said was that I don't think the analogy was even supposed to be George W. Bush as Darth Vader, but rather the U.S. as Darth Vader. You'll note that I made no claims about the accuracy of the analogy.
Posted by: Danny | May 21, 2005 7:15:14 PM
Okiedoke. Your parenthetical statement suggests that you were suggesting the analogy doesn't hold up.
As for Harry Reid, I only said that his pro-life stance has been questioned. If I'm just being fed lies and the Democratic party is open to pro-life speakers, then I'll have find sources that I trust that concur.
I mean, I certainly can't say that many of my left-leaning colleagues are at all tolerant of the pro-life, so it wouldn't seem implausible to me on the level of anecdotal evidence that the Democratic party as a whole would be intolerant.
Posted by: Peter Terp | May 21, 2005 11:04:27 PM
