Motivation vs. causation

[Dayuhan]

When we were clawing our way up from the obscurity of being a break-away penal colony of Great Britain we held to our principles and did not go about trying to impose them on others. There is great wisdom in the words of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt (1 and 2), and Wilson to name a few that is as relevant today as it was in their respective times.

Native Americans might disagree, as might Filipinos, and a few people in Latin America who saw the Monroe Doctrine from a side US history books don't generally portray. The Japanese might want to mention Commodore Perry sailing into Edo with warships and a few demands. That's off the top of my head, I suppose there are a few other examples around.

There is nothing wrong with an excellent principle, and one can have no better starting point. It pays, though, to be alert to the ease with which a bit of sophistry can twist the most admirable principles into justification for the most barbaric of acts.

[Bob's World]

Ken and Dayuhan,

No sugar applied. Building empires is what "big countries" did back then, and we wanted to be a big country in a big way.

We do not have clean hands, and as the doddering Spanish empire dangled before us, we could not resist the temptation of claiming what parts of it we wanted as our own. To control the seas required deep water ports and coaling stations, to find out where these facilities existed then, look for odd places where one often finds US flags to this day. The best deep water ports across the Pacific were Pearl Habor in Hawaii; Apra Harbor in Guam, Manila Bay in the Philippines, and Pago Pago Bay in American Samoa.

We took a strategy and tactics used to defeat native Americans and applied it to the people of the Philippines. I get it. I have studied my history too.

Both Wilson and FDR called for an end to colonialism and for the right of self-determination for all. Both were vetoed by their Eurpean counterparts in those initiatives who had far too much to lose to such a radical scheme.

Somewhere over the past 60 years "self-determination" became replaced by "democratization." Some may find that nuance insignificant.

Alway driven by commerce, as we grew more powerful we too began to manipulate governance in order to lend certainty and security to critical points of commerce and key terrain for lines of communication.

When the British held sway in the Middle East, we undercut them on the contract to develop Saudi oil by not making the same moral demands (end slavery) that the Briitish were making, and by also offering them a much fairer price for their product. We said we had no right to make such moral demands of another sovereign.

Today we not only see making such moral demands as our right, but also as our duty. To bring to rule of law and democracy to others.

In the law, they call this the "slippery slope." The problem is that we picked up a great deal of speed, and of late are encountering a great deal of friction as well. Yes, we quite willingly started down that slope. But that is no reason to ride it out to the bitter end like those empires who have gone before us. We can learn from their mistakes, and take steps to reduce the friction. Right now we are just slapping at the smoke and flames.

So yeah, I do think that prior to the end of WWII American leaders saw our rights and duties in the lands of other differently than they do today. Those were different times.
There was a time to expand the US across the North American continent. There was a time to dabble in colonialism and estabish a global footprint, there was a time to exert controls to contain the Soviets. The burning question is, what time is it now?

[Dayuhan]

Both Wilson and FDR called for an end to colonialism and for the right of self-determination for all. Both were vetoed by their Eurpean counterparts in those initiatives who had far too much to lose to such a radical scheme.

Somewhere over the past 60 years "self-determination" became replaced by "democratization." Some may find that nuance insignificant.

Were we really pushing for self-determination in those days, or was that a noble-sounding way of saying we wanted to break up the colonial system so we could trade into markets that the system locked us out of? Once Latin America was de-colonised we lost much of our interest in self-determination; I've no reason to believe it would have been any different elsewhere.

Alway driven by commerce, as we grew more powerful we too began to manipulate governance in order to lend certainty and security to critical points of commerce and key terrain for lines of communication.

Did that happen as we grew more powerful, or as the old colonial powers that once performed that function became less powerful and gave it up... or a bit of both?

When the British held sway in the Middle East, we undercut them on the contract to develop Saudi oil by not making the same moral demands (end slavery) that the Briitish were making, and by also offering them a much fairer price for their product. We said we had no right to make such moral demands of another sovereign.

Again, I think not making moral demands had nothing to do with principle and everything to do with business: we wanted the contract. The Brits manipulated the US a bit as well, most notably in Iran.

In the law, they call this the "slippery slope." The problem is that we picked up a great deal of speed, and of late are encountering a great deal of friction as well. Yes, we quite willingly started down that slope. But that is no reason to ride it out to the bitter end like those empires who have gone before us. We can learn from their mistakes, and take steps to reduce the friction. Right now we are just slapping at the smoke and flames.

So yeah, I do think that prior to the end of WWII American leaders saw our rights and duties in the lands of other differently than they do today. Those were different times.
There was a time to expand the US across the North American continent. There was a time to dabble in colonialism and establish a global footprint, there was a time to exert controls to contain the Soviets. The burning question is, what time is it now?

Post cold war foreign policy management has been a mixed bag. We've not done all that badly in Latin America, where we've scaled back on direct intervention and learned to live with a broad political spectrum without completely losing influence or compromising national interests. We've not done all that badly in East Asia. There's a rough crescent running from Pakistan through the ME and parts of Africa that remains a total mess... but that's not altogether our doing by any means.

[Ken White]

The burning question is, what time is it now?

Dayuhan said it better than I could, particularly on Monroe's and Roosevelt's quite commercial versus even mildly altruistic approach -- even though both were shrewd enough to publicly couch it as the latter instead of the former. As for Wilson, a classic case (like Carter) of idealism gone amok. You might want to think about that.

I'll just reiterate that I believe your vision of what you think we should do seems unduly colored by your version of what you think we did. That version of events before your birth does not square with my recollection in many cases or with actual history in a great many more.

As I've said before, a good idea predicated on a flawed perception can go awry. You also still seem to ignore the venality of Politicians in your prescriptions...

[Bob's World]

Dayuhan said it better than I could, particularly on Monroe's and Roosevelt's quite commercial versus even mildly altruistic approach -- even though both were shrewd enough to publicly couch it as the latter instead of the former. As for Wilson, a classic case (like Carter) of idealism gone amok. You might want to think about that.

I'll just reiterate that I believe your vision of what you think we should do seems unduly colored by your version of what you think we did. That version of events before your birth does not square with my recollection in many cases or with actual history in a great many more.

As I've said before, a good idea predicated on a flawed perception can go awry. You also still seem to ignore the venality of Politicians in your prescriptions...

Ken the way I look at it I should not have to tone down what I think needs to be done to move forward simply becuase it suggests actions required of elected officials that they historically prove themselves unlikely to take on. I'll set the bar where it needs to be, not where I think they can clear it.

It is incumbent upon an informed populace to demand more of its governance when it falls short. Consider this my demand.

Was Wilson an idealist? certainly. Were his French and British counterparts realists? No, they were bitter, angry, visionless men and by trumping Wilson they forced terms on Germany that made WWII inevitable.

I'm comfortable with my knowledge and interpretations of history. I'm not a memorizer, so don't ask me to regurgitate dates, names, etc. I am more what I would call an "understander." I think about things and relate them to other things, challenge book solutions, and look for deeper meanings. Sure, I get it wrong at times, and I certainly probably sometimes see things that aren't really there. I'm comfortable with my track record.

I put these ideas out for others to consider in their own quests for understanding. Party lines and status quo answers are sold elsewhere. I'll be the first one to admit that America has stepped on a lot of toes over the years. Sometimes intentionally, sometimes just being a bit clumsy. I'm simply saying that we might want to step back a few inches and be a bit more tolerant of others a bit less intrusive in the governance and morality of the world.

[marct]

Ken the way I look at it I should not have to tone down what I think needs to be done to move forward simply becuase it suggests actions required of elected officials that they historically prove themselves unlikely to take on. I'll set the bar where it needs to be, not where I think they can clear it.

Good for you. I took that line years ago when I was heavily involved in politics; didn't work then and probably won't work now, but I can at least live with myself.

It is incumbent upon an informed populace to demand more of its governance when it falls short. Consider this my demand.

Sure, it's an axiomatic assumption if a democracy of any form is actually going to work as more than a mobocracy. Unfortunately, most of our (Western) democracies are dominated by political parties rather than any real grass roots type of democratic organizations, and one of the unfortunate truisms about political parties is that they are all focused on either maintaining or getting into power. In addition, there are some very strong institutions operating that do not want the populace to be informed except as that term is used by propagandists.

[slapout9]

Is BW really Billy Jack????

Scene from Billy Jack goes to Washington.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqBynKxAiiI

[Bob's World]

Sadly, the "net-nazis" won't let me view youtube from here...

I'll sit down with a glass of the Irish and watch it when I get home.

[Ken White]

...the way I look at it I should not have to tone down what I think needs to be done to move forward simply becuase it suggests actions required of elected officials that they historically prove themselves unlikely to take on. I'll set the bar where it needs to be, not where I think they can clear it.

Good for you -- I'm merely an old cynical guy pointing out that you're likely doomed to be disappointed. I'm also pointing out that while what you want is desirable IMO I believe you'd be better off or more likely to achieve success with a flanking movement or infiltration rather than a frontal assault...

I also suggest that while you don't have regurgitate stuff verbatim and that it's great to be an "understander," that those who oppose your ideas will latch on to any apparent egregious errors to discredit your positions. That's not an accusation, it's a cautionary...

I'm simply saying that we might want to step back a few inches and be a bit more tolerant of others a bit less intrusive in the governance and morality of the world.

As you know, I agree. We simply differ on the tactics...

[Pete]

In the final analysis I think it was a good thing that FDR steered us in the direction of becoming involved in World War II. A great grandfather of mine who served six months in a California National Guard cavalry unit at Camp Lewis during the Spanish-American War was a outspoken believer in the "Yellow Peril." During the 1930s he used to listen on the radio to Father Coughlin, the Rush Limbaugh of his day. Although the "Yellow Peril" sounds unacceptably racist to us now, the hindsight of the war with Japan and later wars in Korea and Vietnam makes me wonder whether old granddad was on to something. My grandma said her father would drive her mother nuts when he'd fiddle around with his Army-issue Colt .45 revolver when he was working his way through a bottle of whisky.

[jmm99]

there is a difference.

I see "rule of law" as something that arises from the People (and yes, I agree with Dayuhan that "village factions" exist); but, if a rule of law develops, it results from a sythesis of the theses and anti-theses of those factions. As such, it (the rule of law) is a valid expression of "self-determination" - something that could be called "legal" ("hey, Mr Lawyer, is this legal ?") or "legitimate".

Much of the world (and too often us - USAians) translates our self-determinate "rule of law" as "rule by law". The latter could be called "positive law" imposed from above - that is, by whatever elites happen to be be ruling the roost. The dichotomy between "rule by law" and "rule of law" is illustrated in Manchu law, where the imperial codes represented "rule by law" and village traditional law (preferred by the villagers) came closer to our "rule of law".

The bottom line is that in most of the world (and often in the US), I will have to do a lot of explaining to get across what I mean by "rule of law". And, after all that, the listener may still think that I am speaking about "rule by law".

Another case where closely-sounding terms mean very different things.

Mike