| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Kurt Nicklas" |
| Date: |
18 Aug 2005 11:35:47 AM |
| Object: |
!In Defense of Bush And American Imperialism |
In defense of American imperialism
BY MICHAEL A. BABCOCK
Michael A. Babcock, an associate professor of "humanities at Liberty University
in Lynchburg, Va., is the author of “The Night Attila Died: Solving the Murder
of Attila the Hun." Sheryl McCarthy is
http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-opbab184388003aug18,0,6486833.story?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlines
President George W. Bush's basic vocabulary - good and evil, war and victory -
always has made his liberal critics uncomfortable. But last week Bush seemed to
be speaking to members of his own administration when he made it crystal clear
to the world that we're fighting a "war" against terrorism.
It's not, as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recently has been nuancing it, a
"global struggle against violent extremism." It's a war - plain and simple.
Of course, wars are neither plain nor simple. They're messy and unpredictable
affairs. But to his credit, the president seems to recognize - in his gut - that
a shift in vocabulary will change nothing. A policy is either right or wrong.
So what are we to make of Rumsfeld's relabeling project - and the president's
very public rejection of a new vocabulary? It has settled one thing for sure:
Bush has a firmer handle than even Rumsfield does on how empires think and act.
And I don't mean that as a criticism. It's time for us to accept and defend our
imperialism.
Imperialism has received bad press for most of the last hundred years. We think
of pith helmets when we hear the word, and tiger hunts, and pathetic little
bands in remote Indian provinces playing "God Save the King." We think of a
stiff upper lip that looks, over time, more like foolish bravado than noble
resolve. We think of colonial hubris and the blind assertion of cultural
superiority.
But ancient Rome - always the brand name in empires - is the better model. Rome
demonstrated that empires can be about much more than blood sports, tiger hunts,
rapacious oil companies and military adventures in far-off places. Empires can
also stand for things that make the world a better place. Political stability,
the rule of law, the virtues of political enfranchisement, the preservation of
learning and the arts, and respect for other cultures and religions: These are
some of the better legacies left to us by the Romans. They pulled this off -
with all their faults - because they believed in that quaint concept we call
destiny.
Americans, too, always have believed in a higher purpose. Almost 400 years ago,
John Winthrop envisioned America as a shining "city upon a hill." Ronald Reagan
echoed that language in speeches that resonated deeply with the American people.
The liberal elites in Europe and America never understood the mythic power of
Reagan's rhetoric - just as they don't understand Bush's simple vocabulary
today. That disconnect is easy to explain. If you believe that history is the
product only of material forces - and is never nudged onward by some
transcendent will - then all this talk about destiny will strike you as, well, a
bit spooky.
Bush has embraced the transcendent view - and the clear-cut vocabulary of war
that goes with it. That certainty may creep out a lot of people, but that
doesn't keep the president from declaring - repeatedly and rightly - that we
represent a force for good in the world. What we're fighting for cannot be
reduced to "one set of interests" struggling against "another set of interests"
in a world of diminishing natural resources. We are fighting a war over things
that matter - not the right to wear pith helmets, hunt tigers or drill oil wells
in distant lands. We are fighting for ideals that transcend race, culture and
religion - ideals of freedom and human dignity.
And that's the kind of "imperialism" we should be willing to defend.
--
Kurt Nicklas
"I'm stating truths, not making an
argument."
---Scott Erb (scotterb@worldnet.att.net)
.
|
|
| User: "Sasha" |
|
| Title: Re: !In Defense of Bush And American Imperialism |
18 Aug 2005 12:22:26 PM |
|
|
But ancient Rome - always the brand name in >empires - is the better model.
And look what happened to them. Empires have a nasty habit of becoming
extinct.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: !In Defense of Bush And American Imperialism |
18 Aug 2005 12:29:04 PM |
|
|
Maybe we can be just like Britain when we grow up !
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kurt Nicklas" |
|
| Title: Re: !In Defense of Bush And American Imperialism |
21 Aug 2005 08:32:03 PM |
|
|
In article <Az3Ne.103828$zY4.83989@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>,
says...
Maybe we can be just like Britain when we grow up !
We were.
Then we grew up and left.
--
Kurt Nicklas
Vocatus atque non vocatus deus aderit
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "yossarian" |
|
| Title: Re: !In Defense of Bush And American Imperialism |
19 Aug 2005 03:28:46 PM |
|
|
Imperialism has received bad press for most of the last hundred years. We
think
of pith helmets when we hear the word, and tiger hunts, and pathetic
little
bands in remote Indian provinces playing "God Save the King." We think of
a
stiff upper lip that looks, over time, more like foolish bravado than
noble
resolve. We think of colonial hubris and the blind assertion of cultural
superiority.
Even given that I think the British are much better at the colonial game
that the Americans.
Yossarian
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "G*rd*n" |
|
| Title: Re: !In Defense of Bush And American Imperialism |
18 Aug 2005 12:41:36 PM |
|
|
Kurt Nicklas <kurtnicklas@aport2000.ru>:
In defense of American imperialism
BY MICHAEL A. BABCOCK
...
But ancient Rome - always the brand name in empires - is the better model. Rome
demonstrated that empires can be about much more than blood sports, tiger hunts,
rapacious oil companies and military adventures in far-off places. Empires can
also stand for things that make the world a better place. Political stability,
the rule of law, the virtues of political enfranchisement, the preservation of
learning and the arts, and respect for other cultures and religions: These are
some of the better legacies left to us by the Romans. They pulled this off -
with all their faults - because they believed in that quaint concept we call
destiny.
...
As long as you're willing to kill, maim, terrorize, rob and
enslave a lot of people, including innocent people, and pervert
your own institutions, first into permanent militarism, and
then into despotism and tyranny. There was really not a lot
of moral or ideological difference between imperial Rome and
Nazi Germany, with the exception of the racial thing -- the
corresponding Roman virtue was total devotion to the Roman
state regardless of your ethnicity, color, speech or (former)
religion, total loyalty and submission to authority, and
merciless obedience.
George Orwell described the system very succinctly at the
end of _1984_ as a boot coming down on the human face,
forever.
So that's what Michael Babcock wants. How about you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: !In Defense of Bush And American Imperialism |
18 Aug 2005 02:13:49 PM |
|
|
G*rd*n wrote:
George Orwell described the system very succinctly at the
end of _1984_ as a boot coming down on the human face,
forever.
So that's what Michael Babcock wants. How about you?
It's quite possible that the only real choice will be
whether the boot-wearing stomper is wearing a turban
or a cowboy hat.
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
