Somewhere during George Bush's education, I'm sure he came across the phrase ad hominem. An ad-hominem response criticizes the person, not their argument. Despite his admittedly spotty educational record, I know he knows this, because his response to the Democrats' attempt to set a draw-down date is not to criticize their argument, but to question their motives.
Is the Democratic response a political ploy? What isn't in Washington these days? And it clearly does no good for Harry Reid to say that the war has been lost. But to grant that the Dems are seeking political advantage doesn't speak to the validity of their position.
Bush had a relatively long time to get it right. By almost every measure, he had over four years of nearly unanimous
support; public opinion, news coverage, congressional collegiality, a seemingly-bottomless war-chest. How long did he genuinely expect that to continue, especially in the face of mounting casualties, the no-WMDs disclosures, the torture scandals, the lack of international support, the tone-deaf hawkishness of Cheney and Rumsfeld, and (most critically) no discernible progress? And this doesn't even consider the now-nearly-discredited notions that (a) nation-building still works, and (b) democracy can be successfully transplanted anywhere at any time to any people, like a McDonald's (see note below).To say, "this far, and no farther," is neither unpatriotic nor unChristian; when Christ called people to Himself, he first warned them to count the cost: "For which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who observe it begin to ridicule him, saying, `This man began to build and was not able to finish.' ” (Luke 14:27-30)
The Dems have said, "we think we've spent all the lives and money that we're going to on this." The Bush administration has given no indication of its spending limit, or if it has (or ever had) a 'cost' in mind. It's hard to argue that the lives of 3,303 American soldiers (as of 4/19) is not enough.
NOTE ON DEMOCRACY: I'm sure this is idealistic, but it's always seemed to me that a cornerstone of democracy was the idea of 'self-rule.' I'm not talking about self-rule as opposed to rule by tyranny; I mean that most citizens (for there have always been psychopaths and sociopaths) must have the ability to govern their individual selves, their behaviors, and their passions, such that some sense of common fairness can survive. I would not suggest that there are people-groups inherently incapable of this, but I don't believe it is chauvinistic to suggest that not all cultures have emphasized or encouraged the development of this virtue, and therefore not all cultures are at any given point in time equally capable of living in democracy.
That point no doubt needs more space than I have here, but my concern is really consequent to it; I am concerned that America, too, is losing its 'capacity' for democracy. We may call it conscience, or shared values, or the rule of law, or 'overarching metanarrative,' or even categorical imperative...some Christians would call it 'common grace' or the vestiges of the 'imago deo.' But when we lose the common sense of the good, and the sense of our own obligation to govern our individual selves (rather than pursuing our own ends at any cost), then we can no longer be governed by a democracy. We call down tyranny on ourselves (witness Russia under Putin), and we thank Them for saving us from us. I am no great fan of George Bernard Shaw, but he nailed it over a hundred years ago: "Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it."
AND IN CLOSING: Since we are speaking of
1 comment:
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers.
~ Thomas Pynchon
Post a Comment