Big Sky Cairn

Wow.

For international law to have any moral force in cases like Slobodan Miloševi?, Augusto Pinochet, or even Saddam Hussein, the law has to apply to powerful countries as well as weak ones. Given that the architects of the Bush policy of detention and torture are unlikely to be prosecuted here, one only hopes that the international community will act.

These are the people that want to shape our foreign policy?  These are the people that want to negotiate on our behalf with enemies that want to kill us?

Should the U.S. not be subject to international law? Is that your position? What’s the cutoff for when international tribunals are legitimate? The population of the country? Its geographic size?

Do you oppose tribunals in every case? What, then, would you have suggested the international community have done in the case of the former Yugoslavia? Round up the likely suspects and send them to sunny Cuba until they confessed?

You should read the article, by the way. It might help you at least get your title right.

Hmm… well, are the arbiters of international law elected by me? Did I have a vote? Last I checked, ambassadors are appointed. Why do you hate Democracy Pogie?

And even if you count the doubly-indirect representation via treaty, in “international law” my vote would be watered down by everyone else in the world while an oppressive regime like China where people don’t get to vote would have as much say as I do.

Why do you hate Democracy Pogie?

(And yeah, I realize it’s Bush’s staff, but I was trying to save words)

Democracy. You keep using that word. I donna think it means what you think it means.

Wiley, democracy means that the polity (those eligible to be counted) get a say. In the international community, that means China gets a say. God forbid your special snowflake vote gets “watered down” with everyone elses. What you appear to want is American Nationalism, and International hegemony through force. That’s not Democracy, is it?

So, why *do* you hate Democracy, Wiley?

I think Wiley’s attitude here is that it’s not humanly possible for anything that America does to be a crime, because America does it. It’s like what Nixon said - “If the president does it, then it’s not a crime.” It’s the imperial mindset. Bush can’t possibly be guilty of anything, because he’s Bush.

Points to Wulfgar for the Princess Bride quote. But you lose even more points than you earned for lecturing me on the definition of democracy when you get it wrong yourself.

Democracy from the Greek demos meaning “people.” You can’t have a democracy where the votes are cast by states (”Canada votes nay”).

More to the point, how do you envision an international community to working?

Does each state get an equal vote - so Iran and North Korea together have a bigger say than the United States? Should Kim Jung Il’s unchallenged voice carry as much weight as the U.S. President representing millions of free-voting constituents?

Or maybe you go by population, in which case China is the most powerful voice, Asia gets free reign and South America and Africa are shut out.

Does a Democracy like India have as much say as a Socialist state like China or should the fact that India is a Democracy and the people of China are disenfranchised count for something?

If the United States is “outvoted” by whatever system you think fair, should the popular will of our people be subservient to the popular will of the majority of nations?

Is morality dictated by a majority of states? If the whole world, say, objects to interference with genocide in Bosnia is there any moral obligation to stand up against that plurality?

Oh, and I’m just getting started. Fundamentally, I challenge your notion that moral relativism makes all state actors equal. I think that the United States is a moral leader in the world. I think that the United States stands for good - even if we stand alone. And I think that it would be immoral to abdicate our role in the world because of the evil empires that would have a louder voice in the international community.

I challenge your notion that moral relativism makes all state actors equal.

Actually, that isn’t my notion. It is the very notion of Democratic rule. In Democracy, what is the highest moral will is the will of the polity (the people). It is truly tyranny of the majority. I don’t hate Democracy, but I don’t subscribe to it either. After all, I’m an American, and we are not a Democracy.

Or maybe you go by population, in which case China is the most powerful voice, Asia gets free reign and South America and Africa are shut out.

That would, indeed, be purely Democratic. I’m certain we all understand why that is an inherently flawed system. I think a Republic would make more sense. And funny that, in the International community, that’s pretty much what we have. Of course that’s also what we have right here in the good ole USofA.

If the United States is “outvoted” by whatever system you think fair, should the popular will of our people be subservient to the popular will of the majority of nations?

Apparently, not if we can kill ‘em … and we can.

I think that the United States is a moral leader in the world.

I would ask you, quite sincerely, to set a baseline or definition for what you see as “moral”. When countering Pogie, you posited that it was “Democracy”, but we both agree that that is silly. After all, to most Indians, we are immoral because we kill and eat cows. So I ask, with all good respect, what makes us a “moral” nation? I would like to think that it is because our Constitution dictates moral behavior, applied to our citizens and all others, whether they wish to kill us or not (hint: if actions don’t apply to all then it really isn’t a morality). That isn’t how we’ve been behaving, is it?

And I would like to point out how slimy it is to accuse “the left” (undefined as always) based on the writings of one person (Pogie). Even by the standards you’ve expressed here, that’s hardly “moral”, is it? Regardless, I await with bated breath your foundations for the morality of our national actions.

Wulfgar, I note that you managed to avoid actually proposing how your international utopia would function. How would you handle Kim Jung Il - who speaks for his nation and his people whether they want him to or not. How would you handle a European Bloc which could outvote the U.S. every time, and has incentive to do our people disservice for their own United Europe dream?

Either you think that Kim Jung Il (et. al.) should have exactly as much influence in the world stage as the United States, or you must establish some criteria for determining how influence will be delegated. I, too, wait with bated breath.

As for my morality, fortunately I don’t have to invent them. I fall on the morality of the Enlightenment upon which this nation was founded. Representative government that derives its power from the consent of the governed and a capitalist economic system that allows (but does not provide) social mobility. Do I acknowledge that they are both flawed? Of course, but show me something better.

At the same time I uphold the ideals of the Enlightenment - of our Founding - I am quite comfortable condemning systems based on religious extremism, despotism, fascism and socialism. These systems have been demonstrated as inferior.

Is my opinion shaped by the bias of what I am comfortable with? Sure. But the existence of bias is not a prima facia counterwarrant. I believe that the American system is the best among deficient options, and if others feel their systems are better let them bring them freely to the Marketplace of Ideas to be tested. It is my responsibility to stand firmly by my convictions - to make the best argument in the face of their best argument - for my beliefs. To merely accept them as different and therefore judge them on a different scale is to abdicate a moral responsibility to uphold freedom.

I note that you managed to avoid actually proposing how your international utopia would function.

You’re being obtuse. I wasn’t proposing an “International Utopia”. I was discussing the International community as it currently exists. If you have a better idea with a more moral foundation, kindly submit it for comment, and propose how it might be brought about.

How would you handle a European Bloc which could outvote the U.S. every time, and has incentive to do our people disservice for their own United Europe dream?

And how is this immoral? You are the one who proposed a morality to international relations. I’ve simply invited you to support your ideals.

Either you think that Kim Jung Il (et. al.) should have exactly as much influence in the world stage as the United States, or you must establish some criteria for determining how influence will be delegated.

You’ve yet to show why he shouldn’t, save for your self-unsupportable cries concerning Democracy. Don’t wait on my ideas; please, forward your own. This is your blog and your argument.

I am quite comfortable condemning systems based on religious extremism, despotism, fascism and socialism. These systems have been demonstrated as inferior.

Internally, indeed they are. But that isn’t what you’ve proposed, is it? You’ve suggested that because the US is more moral than other countries that we should have a greater voice in the polity of the international community. I still await your argument for any such thing. If the International community is moral, than they will agree with us, the US. Are you so insecure about our righteousness that you would deny its obvious worth? Show the foundations of what you think is moral. Then we have a conversation. Until then, you remain confused about whether “Democracy” should will out, or the nebulous moral will of one nation.

It is my responsibility to stand firmly by my convictions - to make the best argument in the face of their best argument - for my beliefs.

You really haven’t done that, have you. WHY is our system better if you can’t trust the same to work in the international sphere? You decry “liberals” as somehow poisoning the waters here in America. Are we not strong? Why do you shiver at the thought that other nations would favor Kim Jong Il? Are we not more moral?

Seriously, I do wish you’d answer the question. What makes us a moral nation, such that our ’system’ is unacceptable for the world community? It’s not a tough query. I await your response.

The problem with the contention that the United States “is a moral leader”, even if conceded, is that the people of most countries would likely believe about the place in which they live. I’m certain that many people in Japan and Germany following WW2 believed that their countries had done no wrong. That can’t be the standard.

As to your democracy argument, it’s specious on face. The international community has a mechanism–one that the U.S. has endorsed– to determine violations of international law. How can we insist on their application for other leaders if ours are not subject to the same scrutiny?

And, I’m still wondering what you would do with people like Miloševi?? Since, as you contend, international law is anti-democratic and wrong, what should the West have done with him?

Both Pogie and Wulfgar exhibit the symptoms of a modern education in post-modernism. You’ve been taught to think critically by deconstructing - why do we know what we know? Why do we know that? Why do we know that? It’s an infinitely regressive - if theoretically rich - critical tool, but ultimately it’s utility is solely theoretical as it does not provide any real world benefit.

The moral relativism that Pogie suggests - that the arguments of other countries that they are the moral leades of the world are equal to the same argument from the United States - is the same criteria that makes Wulfgar unable to criticize or condemn Kim Jung Il, whose dictatorship and disastrous leadership has caused millions of his own people to die.

What Wulfgar asks for I cannot answer to his satisfaction. He’s been trained to always ask why. If I explain the foundation, he’ll ask why that’s good. He wants a starting point and from the post-modern perspective he applies to world politics, there is no such place.

Even so, I will say that the reason I believe that representative governments and capitalism are superior is that they are most closely aligned with human nature. They are natural - and I don’t buy the argument that self-government and freedom doesn’t work in the rest of the world - that they’re not ready.

You’re being obtuse. I wasn’t proposing an “International Utopia”. I was discussing the International community as it currently exists. If you have a better idea with a more moral foundation, kindly submit it for comment, and propose how it might be brought about.

If we’re talking about the International community as it currently exists, then the U.S. generally doesn’t subject itself to the whim of other nations unless it suits our needs and certainly our officials - military or civilian - will never be tried by an International tribunal. That’s fine by me, but since the subject of the post that you are arguing about was a fundamental deviation from status quo, I assumed you had a different system in mind.

And how is this immoral?

It’s immoral for the elected leadership to subject their constituents to the will of a people an ocean away.

Reading this exchange was a little depressing - Wiley exhibits all of the characteristics of a fanatic, seeing himself as morally superior to all around him, and labeling any attempts to ground him as deconstruction. He is incapable of objectively analyzing post-WWII US behavior because he says that it is moral, per se, and should not be judged. You can’t argue with a fanatic.

Wulfie - you argue your points well, but I’m curious why you never go into actual behaviors, like preventive war, torture, rendition, unjust imprisonment, mass murders and other crimes, to set him off his moral perch. If there are objective standards, these things are wrong, and the only reason the US is not punished is because of its military and economic prowess, and not its moral standing. But WIley cannot see this because he has the fanatic’s world view of good and evil - they and they alone are evil. It’s a fundamentally imperialist outlook. It’s nothing more than that.

Mark, right up there I acknowledge that the U.S. isn’t perfect, but as they say, the perfect is the enemy of the good.

Point me to a better all-around system Mark.

Europeans, especially the Scandinavians, seem to have it figured out. Canadians too. Japanese as well, not to mention Taiwanese and Koreans. It’s a mix of capitalism tempered by socialism, with social safety nets, public-sponsored health and education, progressive taxation and not the extremes of wealth we see in purely capitalistic countries.

By the way, as China and Singapore demonstrate, capitalism works fine in any system, communist or fascist.

Hey - this brings me to another point - Wulfy and Pogie and I have debated you here, but I never see you venture out on the blogs. I see this a lot in conservatives - I’m yet to hear a reasonable explanation for it other than fear of ass whuppin. .

I do most of my blog-reading via RSS, and when I have something to say I post it here rather than in comments. That’s a practical choice because I think that cross-linking between posts is more valuable than click-to-read comments that few people will see - I’m sending traffic your way when I comment and link here, plus I’m ensuring a larger audience reads it.

I think you’ll be hard-pressed to find another Montana blog that provides as much Linky-Love as BSC, and Linky-Love translates to Google ratings, increased audience and a more dynamic community.

But that’s just speaking for me.

I’m late to this party, but I glad some politicans have the stones to tell other countries to bug off.

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Jun05/0,4670,MexicanExecutionsUS,00.html

God. Bless. Texas.