From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Foul Words and False
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 04:56:40 GMT

In article <5NOV199202465423@vxcrna.cern.ch> casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.194250.14760@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes...
>> 
>>Clinton seems to be one who desires government office to effect
>>positive change.  Remember that he grew up in the 1960's, saw JFK, who
>>exhorted "Ask not what your country can do for you...," as a hero.
>>Remember that he went back to Arkansas after his school years,
>>certainly not the most glamorous place to work in government.
>
>I don't recall hearing that JFK ever dodged the draft or demonstrated against
>his country from the safe haven of a foreign land while his "fellow
>Americans" were dying in combat to contain a foreign enemy though...

One point that you're missing is that the demonstrations were BECAUSE
our boys were dying in a foreign land.  Cause and effect, no?

>
>>>I would'nt like to think what Clnton would do if Iraq was pointing nuclear
>>>missiles at him. A man who was afraid of the draft, a man who can't decide
>>>on such concrete issues as abortion.
>
>Of course, it is much easier to send others to fight for you than to answer
>the call yourself...
>
>>One would think that Clinton wouldn't have helped arms Hussein, given
>>the latter's track record on human rights that the Reagan/Bush
>>administration conveniently ignored.  I think Clinton argues for a
>>more humanistic basis to foreign policy, and would not view statecraft
>>solely as a billiards game, where only the actions of nations, and not
>>their natures, are important.
>
>This is what scares me the most about Slickness.  It's the same airy-fairy
>idealism which led that other great Moral Force of our era, Jimmy Carter, into
>unmitigated humiliation and disgrace.
>
>By your moral criterion then, a more ethical FDR could never have conscienced
>aiding Stalin in the war against Hitler, since Stalin was not a nice person.
>The mere fact that he was willing to aid in the struggle against a common
>enemy who was perhaps only equally as evil (Hitler's evil being directed more
>outward than Stalin's, however) would be irrelevant under this view, since
>only the moral value of nations, not their impact on US national security,
>should be considered.

Look, I don't mean that humanitarian considerations should be our sole
criterion in deciding the morality of foreign policy.  I'm arguing
that the game of state craft we're playing right now does not have
moral considerations.  Realpolitik is amoral, plain and simple.  Power
for the sake of power.  What is the goal of game?  A prettier set of
alliances under our belt?  My argument is that there should be a
higher goal than simply a balance of power.  That policy should
procede with caution, that we may have to make hard choices between a
Hitler and a Stalin, is unarguable.  I'm saying that other
considerations should be kept in mind.

>The President of the United States is responsible first and foremost for
>protecting the security and interests of the US.  When those interests coincide
>with doing some greater good in the world, so much the better.  But when
>confronted with a choice between defending the US with some less than sanitary
>instrument or jeopardizing the US in the name of some ethereal Moral Good,
>I hope, I really hope, he will put the interests of the nation first.

This is perfectly fine.  My complaint was that we didn't give a damn
about any other goal beyond the security of the US (of course,
"national security" is a phrase bandied about by Presidents to justify
interventions abroad and at home).  It's also arguably that the
promotion of democracy abroad eases our security considerations.
Fewer fronts to watch, more trading partners, more allies, etc.

>  For all
>his faults, at least JFK understood this.  I have the gravest doubts that
>Slick Willy Clinton does.

We'll see what happens, no?




And gentlemen in England now abed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speak
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.	   [Henry V, 4.3]
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:13400 alt.politics.clinton:16189 alt.politics.elections:22957 talk.politics.misc:58601