Michael Ignatieff continues to be brilliantly correct and necessary reading.
It has been a charged and burdened time -- the D-Day commemorations, the death of a president, the daily carnage in Iraq, the pictures from Abu Ghraib prison, a July 4 just over the horizon -- the sublime and the squalid, the decent and the desperate in American life so overlaid upon one another that it is hard to reconcile the high rhetoric of one moment with the terrible reality of the other.
As Americans remembered the boys of Pointe du Hoc and the president who immortalized them, they had to read reports of government lawyers telling their superiors that ''the infliction of pain or suffering per se, whether it is physical or mental, is insufficient to amount to torture.'' The discordance between the high sentiments heard at President Reagan's funeral and the lawyers' attempts to justify the unjustifiable left you unable to determine whether the rhetoric of the funeral was a moment of spiritual reaffirmation or just an exercise in organized amnesia. The memoranda from White House counsel, and from Department of Justice and Department of Defense lawyers, gave new meaning to Robert Lowell's phrase ''savage servility.'' Their argument that ''the president's inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign'' rendered the United States' obligations under the Torture Convention ''inapplicable'' to interrogations conducted pursuant to his command left you wondering if they had ever heard of the Nuremberg tribunal.Read The Rest Scale: 5 out of 5.In the memos that filled the pages of our newspapers, there was more than servility. There was also a terrible forgetting.
You will say: Remember the departed president. Don't stain his memory with painful associations. But this is just not possible. The clash between the rhetoric of American democracy and the reality of American life is eternal. Indeed, it is the very essence of the American story. Ask the plaintiffs in Brown v. Board of Education how long they had to wait for ''separate but equal'' to be overthrown. Ask the teachers of segregated American public schools if the promise of Brown has been realized even today. America has never been equal to its rhetoric, and sometimes it can sustain belief in itself only by forgetting.
Only willed blindness could maintain the magic moments of presidential mourning. At the funeral service in the National Cathedral, former Senator John C. Danforth evoked the Puritan vision of John Winthrop: ''The eyes of the world would be on America because God had given us a special commission, so it was our duty to shine forth.'' The eyes of the world these past months would not have been on Winthrop's city upon a hill, but instead on a hooded figure standing on a box in a prison cell.[...]
To deflect their own accountability, American leaders confidently proclaim that the guilty ones are just a few rotten apples in an otherwise sweet American bushel basket. We are told that the abusers do not represent America. The reality, as always, is more painful. Go out and ask Americans what they think about Abu Ghraib. An ABC News/Washington Post poll recently found that 46 percent of Americans believed that physical abuse short of torture is sometimes acceptable, while 35 percent thought that outright torture is acceptable in some cases. Again, you will say: Let's not exaggerate. Let's not lose our nerve here. But no other democracy is so exposed by these painful moral juxtapositions, because no other nation has made a civil religion of its self-belief. The abolition of cruel and unusual punishment was a founding premise of that civil religion. This was how the fledgling republic distinguished itself from the cruel tyrannies of Europe. From this sense of exceptionalism grew an exceptional sense of mission. President Reagan's funeral was a high Mass of rededication to that eternal mission. The question is whether these reaffirmations still inspire Americans to be better than they actually are, or whether the nation's rhetoric has degenerated into a ritual concealment of what the country has actually become.
[...]
Theodore Sorensen, who as a young man wrote President Kennedy's best speeches, gave a commencement speech of his own recently that was not so much an address as a cry of anguish. He remembered a time when you could go overseas and walk down avenues named after Lincoln, Jefferson, Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy. Hardly anyone is naming streets after Americans in the cities of the world these days. "What has happened to our country?" Sorensen exclaimed. "We have been in wars before, without resorting to sexual humiliation as torture, without blocking the Red Cross, without insulting and deceiving our allies and the U.N., without betraying our traditional values, without imitating our adversaries, without blackening our name around the world."
Sorensen's anguish was genuine, but it was forgetful. He forgot Vietnam, the stain that formed on his martyred president's watch and went on to blight American prestige and power for decades. Iraq is not Vietnam, but still it is salutary to remember Vietnam and to recall that America does not always prevail in the end. It is time to admit that America's story includes defeat and failure. For if the country needs anything as it faces up to Iraq, it is to put away the messianic and missionary oratory of presidential funerals and learn some humility while there is still time.
At Abu Ghraib, America paid the price for American exceptionalism, the idea that America is too noble, too special, too great to actually obey international treaties like the Torture Convention or international bodies like the Red Cross. Enthralled by narcissism and deluded by servility, American lawyers forgot their own Constitution and its peremptory prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Any American administration, especially this one, needs to learn that in paying "decent respect to the opinions of mankind" -- Jefferson's phrase -- America also pays respect to its better self.
Abu Ghraib and the other catastrophes of occupation have cost America the Iraqi hearts and minds its soldiers had patiently won over since victory. To say this is to say that America has lost the power to shape Iraq for the better. Accepting this will not be easy. America has as much trouble admitting its capacity for evil as for recognizing the limits of its capacity to do good.
This does not mean Iraq has been lost, as Vietnam was lost before it. The new interim government is struggling to convince Iraqis that it serves them, rather than the Americans. As the Iraqi government acquires legitimacy, the hateful resistance -- which has killed many more Iraqis than Americans -- will lose its standing. If the interim government, together with the United Nations mission, can guide the country toward a constitutional convention in 2005 and free elections by 2006, Iraq will become what Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani says it should be: a country ruled by the will of the people.
The modish cynics who take failure in Iraq for granted underestimate the people of Iraq. The country is not a failed state, the United Nations adviser Lakhdar Brahimi reminds us, but a powerful nation with a trained middle class and huge potential oil wealth. Even the disasters of the past year have taught all Iraqis a harrowing lesson in the necessity of prudence and restraint. Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds now have objective reasons, even if they distrust one another, to avoid the descent into civil war -- and there now exists at least a path to elections that may lure the gunmen into politics.
Iraqis may not have full sovereignty yet, but America needs to understand that Iraqis, not Americans, are already sovereign over events there. America would be a better nation-builder if it acknowledged this, but its history does not encourage humility.[...]
Ordinary American ignorance was compounded by the administration's arrogance. Gen. George C. Marshall began planning the postwar occupation of Germany two years before D-Day. This administration was fumbling for a plan two months before the invasion. Who can read Bob Woodward's ''Plan of Attack'' and not find his jaw dropping at the fact that from the very beginning, in late 2001, none of the civilian leadership, not Rice, not Powell, not Tenet, not the president, asked where the plan for the occupation phase was? Who can't feel that U.S. captains, majors and lieutenants were betrayed by the Beltway wars between State and Defense? Who can't feel rage that victorious armies stood by and watched for a month while Iraq was looted bare?
Someone like me who supported the war on human rights grounds has nowhere to hide: we didn't suppose the administration was particularly nice, but we did assume it would be competent. There isn't much excuse for its incompetence, but equally, there isn't much excuse for our naivete either.
Still, the United States did one thing well in Iraq, and nobody else could have done it -- it overthrew a dictator. Everything else was badly done, and some of what was done -- Abu Ghraib -- was a moral disgrace and a strategic catastrophe.
The United States has only one remaining task in Iraq: to prevent civil war and the dismemberment of the country.[...]
The promise -- of eventual peace and order -- needs to be kept. The signal illusion from which America has to awake in Iraq and everywhere else is that it serves God's providence or (for those with more secular beliefs) that it is the engine of history. In Iraq, America is not the maker of history but its plaything. In the region at large, America is not the hegemon but the hesitant shaper of forces it barely understands. In the Middle East, it stands by, apparently helpless, as Israelis create more facts on the ground and Palestinians create more suicide bombers. All this shows that the world does not exist to be molded to American wishes. It is good that the United States has wanted to be better than it is. It is good that the death of a president gave it a week to revive its belief in itself. But it cannot continue to bear this burden of destiny. For believing that it is Providence's chosen instrument makes the country overestimate its power; it encourages it to lie to itself about its mistakes; and it makes it harder to live with the painful truth that history does not always -- or even very often -- obey the magnificent but dangerous illusions of American will.
MODERATOR: Should the people of the world look at the United States, Governor, and say, should they fear us, should they welcome our involvement, should they see us as a friend, everybody in the world? How would you project us around the world, as president? BUSH: Well, I think they ought to look at us as a country that understands freedom where it doesn't matter who you are or how you're raised or where you're from, that you can succeed. I don't think they'll look at us with envy. It really depends upon how our nation conducts itself in foreign policy. If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us. If we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us. And it's -- our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power, and that's why we have to be humble. And yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom. So I don't think they ought to look at us in any way other than what we are. We're a freedom-loving nation and if we're an arrogant nation they'll view us that way, but if we're a humble nation they'll respect us.This wisdom did not -- should not have, at least -- change[d] on September 11th.
I've previously linked to fine pieces by Ignatieff here, here, here, and here; all pieces I, unsurprisingly, very much think worth reading (him, not me).
More Lefty droppings.
This started out interesting, but then succumbs to tbe usual America bashing.
I must disagree that America should not affirm it's ideas, because we often fall short, makes us less humble, and shows our hypocrisy.
If these words "all men are crated equal" were not in the Declaration of Independence, would slavery have ever been abolished? Yes, proclaim our ideals loudly! Then someday, we may live up to then. If we stand in silence, then what?
"More Lefty droppings."
Yes, that was a thought-provoking rebuttal. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I shall reconsider now; I'm sure it will make many people ponder its convincing wisdom, as well.
"I must disagree that America should not affirm it's ideas, because we often fall short, makes us less humble, and shows our hypocrisy."
If I might gently suggest, this would read more clearly without the double negative, dependent clauses that are left hanging, and, well, perhaps like so: "I believe that America should affirm its ideals; that we often fall short shows not hypocrisy, but what we strive towards." Something like that?
"If these words 'all men are crated equal' were not in the Declaration of Independence, would slavery have ever been abolished? Yes, proclaim our ideals loudly! Then someday, we may live up to then. If we stand in silence, then what?"
Aside from the fact that few of us are, I hope, crated, I entirely agree.
Aside from the fact that few of us are, I hope, crated, I entirely agree.
Make that "few of are, unfortunately, created" and I'm with you 100%.
Is this called, how do they say it on the basketball court, "being taken to school"?
Can you believe I actually proof read that?
Oh yeah, Gary, it seems that I remember reading (on your blog?) that you are an editor. I never would have guessed!!!!!
I became tired of superficial comparisons used to bemoan some lack of esteem held for the US throughout the world and went to skimming. A couple of things irked me, so maybe I will finish it later.
One was memorials, such as street namings. Of course there are FDR's and Kennedy's, et al, but don't look for such FDR memorials in Kuwait, look for Bush I's, and look for Reagan's in Latvia, Lithuania or Estonia. Check in the various Balkan states for a Clinton Blvd. Let's wait a time for the one's in Iraq or Afghanistan for you know who. There is a pattern here. And why is that? The time for that in France and Germany are over. Whatever! Their history books teach children the benign evil of America in the world and the papers constantly characterize us as some kind of Beelzebub. And a religion of 2 billion people characterize us as "infidels" worthy of putting the blade to our necks. Words or acts of Jeffersons, Lincolns, and FDR's alone can't erase these things. But I still saw a Lady Liberty in 1989 Tianamen Square, Liberians pleading to have Marines to rain from the sky, not Legionnaires. Seems to me there are other examples. I guess they are uninterviewable or uncoverable for some reason.
Another thing. Abu Graib is something new? Hogwash! Read your history, particularly during the times of those who have streets named after them. I am glad, not that it happened but that these events are getting so small and local in times of war. But if you think it will disappear entirely, you do not understand human nature, or probability and statistics for that matter. We ought to be getting streets named after Jefferson for having penned thoughts which have led to making these things anomalies.
Anyway, something does bother me. If Ted wants to worry about street names, then I say it is long past time we had a prominent Burke Avenue and Churchill Promenade and we soon should dedicate a Blair Blvd. What bothers me develops out of things like this -- yes, we sent 'volunteers' to stage out of Burma, and there was lend-lease and other efforts, but we didn't enter WWII until Pearl Harbor, two years later. Sometimes, I feel we ought to show a little more humility, that we ought to spend more time recognizing the efforts of others. Yes, we supplied immense amounts of material and more in resources, and roughly 75k men onto the beaches on June 6 1944, but on those anniversaries hail also the 60k Brits (and the Canucks) who stormed the shores shoulder to shoulder with us. No lackeys then and none now!
So as the underagers whine outside the pub about whose inside, I shall (and we all should) sit inside raising mug after mug. Cheers to the Brits, the Aussies, all hail the Poles, here's to the S. Koreans, may Mongolians live long and prosper, Lithuania forever, .... and last but not least, here's a chug for our brother Figians. And in the wee hours, let us again honor our young but noble brothers from Spain, ... they had to leave earlier because Momma called. All Hail Momma, the sourpuss has the runs!
The money graf:
----------------
Still, the United States did one thing well in Iraq, and nobody else could have done it -- it overthrew a dictator. Everything else was badly done, and some of what was done -- Abu Ghraib -- was a moral disgrace and a strategic catastrophe.
----------------
Seems to me to be awfully simplistic.
I mean, it's a long, clearly heartfelt essay, and very very serious. But its core message seems to be:
"The US is good for one thing and that's dumb, naive muscle. Yay US! Good boy! That one thing you've touched was kind of OK. Everything [Ignatieff's word] else touched by the US has turned to shit. Even the stuff we don't know about yet or haven't heard about yet.
"Now, US, get out of the way so that the selfless professionals - who have done such a bang-up job on the rest of the world - can do their jobs. Just make sure you ensure our safety, K?"
I'm sorry to be juvenile about it, but I'm leery of articles that argue the US is ignorant and arrogant and should just quit the field. That's what this one in effect does. It's basically saying that by sticking to our ideals, we've betrayed our ideals, and the best way to rectify this is to give up our ideals.
It also strikes me as purposefully naive to use Bush's statements against him without taking 9/11 into consideration, at least as something more than a "corrective" for our so-called arrogance/ignorance.
It undertakes too much, tries to make too many points, from what-happened-in-iraq to what-does-it-all-mean-for-the-future-of-the-world. So he overreaches, which is a shame, because there are many good points.
The worst moment is when he says that we lost the ability to reshape Iraq because of the abuses in Abu Ghraib. That's silly. The Iraqis were used to a lot worse than that, and emotional impact always depends upon the context in which the events are experienced. The Iraqis didn't think we were divinely sent in the first place, and they weren't surprised--any more than I was surprised--to discover that we had some pretty rotten people amidst our generally superb armed forces.
We continued to reshape Iraq after Abu Ghraib and we still do, even after the departure of Jerry Bremer, and we will continue to do so for many years to come, unless we're defeated on the ground.
"So he overreaches, which is a shame, because there are many good points."
Perhaps so. I didn't sign up to agree with every word, nor do I. But I thought it, overall, worth reading. And I strongly suspect that Ignatieff has been an emotional rollar coaster over Iraq, and that many of us have been on such a ride, though perhaps I over-generalize from my own up-and-down ride, in which at some times I have been exhilarated, and at others, nauseated. It's difficult not to, at least, feel dizzy some of the times.
I'm feeling distinctly more positive and optimistic about Iraq's possible future this week, after the hand-over, which was carried out so well. But I can imagine endless terrible events that might happen at any time that could cause me to feel drop-kicked into the well of despondency again; in such volatile times, I'm willing to forgive a little over-reaching, in any direction.
"The worst moment is when he says that we lost the ability to reshape Iraq because of the abuses in Abu Ghraib. That's silly. The Iraqis were used to a lot worse than that, and emotional impact always depends upon the context in which the events are experienced."
That's a good point. But I've always maintained that we have to take a long-term view on Iraq; we likely won't really be able to judge whether our endeavor was a success or a failure for several more years.
"The Iraqis didn't think we were divinely sent in the first place, and they weren't surprised--any more than I was surprised--to discover that we had some pretty rotten people amidst our generally superb armed forces."
True, but alas that they are all too prepared to believe the worst; it's understandable, but not helpful. We can but hope that events will eventually teach them otherwise.
"We continued to reshape Iraq after Abu Ghraib and we still do, even after the departure of Jerry Bremer, and we will continue to do so for many years to come, unless we're defeated on the ground."
Teddy Roosevelt's favorite adage seems quite apt, in my view.
''The eyes of the world would be on America because God had given us a special commission, so it was our duty to shine forth.'' The eyes of the world these past months would not have been on Winthrop's city upon a hill, but instead on a hooded figure standing on a box in a prison cell.
"To deflect their own accountability, American leaders confidently proclaim that the guilty ones are just a few rotten apples in an otherwise sweet American bushel basket."
I didn't believe this at first, either, and I am still not certain about it; but the more I read about it from many different sources, the more I am inclined to believe this just may be true. I would go into what I have read and what made me believe it may be true, but the truth is, I can't remember the sources. I'm all over the Internet, reading in many different newspapers, etc., around the globe. All I can tell you is that I remember thinking 3 or 4 times - Well, this one certainly wouldn't say this if it wasn't true.
"We are told that the abusers do not represent America. The reality, as always, is more painful."
And I certainly disagree with you on this one.
"Go out and ask Americans what they think about Abu Ghraib. An ABC News/Washington Post poll recently found that 46 percent of Americans believed that physical abuse short of torture is sometimes acceptable, while 35 percent thought that outright torture is acceptable in some cases."
"Physical abuse short of torture?" I wonder what exactly this would mean. I read Americans' responses to the abuse at Abu Ghraib on many different news web sites and this wasn't what I saw at all. At least 97% of what I saw were totally against the abuse. There were a couple of things that made a lot of us change our minds, though. The Muslim world made a huge deal out of this. They went way overboard and said hardly a thing about the beheadings. This made a lot of us angry. Plus, just the beheadings alone made a whole lot of Americans angry.
Like you and many other Americans, the prison scandal was very embarrassing for me and I was very disgusted. I think many Americans were humilated, and I think you are very wrong about Americans being arrogant. Anyway, the more I thought about it, the more I realized that this is war, and unfortunately, war is never pretty...or so I have always heard. As someone else said on here, this type of thing goes on all the time in wars. It doesn't make it right, but I would say it always happens. You have to think, those prisoners were killing so many innocent civilians and the coalition troops, not to mention the danger they were putting the entire country of Iraq in and probably some of Iraq's neighbors. More than likely a whole lot of them had info that could have saved thousands of lives. So, when I thought about it that way, it didn't sound so bad after all. How else would they have gotten info out of them? Also, I read a very good article about things such as this happening in prisons. Someone did some studies on it a long time ago; they put students in prisons in guard positions. They described these students as being very nice people & very good students. Every one of them ended up doing some type of abuse to the prisoners. They did the study because it happened so often that it amazed them. I may still have the article if you would be interested in reading it. It may help you realize that we aren't such horrible people after all. We're just normal.
"Hardly anyone is naming streets after Americans in the cities of the world these days. 'What has happened to our country?' Sorensen exclaimed. 'We have been in wars before, without resorting to sexual humiliation as torture, without blocking the Red Cross, without insulting and deceiving our allies and the U.N., without betraying our traditional values, without imitating our adversaries, without blackening our name around the world.'"
Just because there are a lot of people who do not like the US these days, doesn't make them right. I agree that we shouldn't have gone to Vietnam and I agree that this administration made some huge mistakes in the Iraq war, but we know exactly why our European allies did not want to go to war in Iraq. They had some dealings under the table with Saddam, and the UN food for oil program had been corruppted. Just wait until that story comes out. We had every reason in the world to go into Iraq; but I am like you, I was for this war because of the humanity reasons.
France & Germany have been letting the Muslim extremists write anti-American propaganda in their newspapers for a long time now. They want to rebuild the Roman Empire (the EU), they had these dealings under the table with Saddam, and were probably in on the corruption of the oil for food program, so they had to get the majority of their people against America. Sooner or later the deals with Saddam would have came out and, of course, America would say things against them for making these deals, so this is why they had to get the people turned against the US. Muslim extremists are using tactics that Hitler used to get people on his side, such as "turnspeak." Have you noticed that everything they do, they blame on us? People fall for this stuff just as they did for Hitler. It just amazes me at times. Even some Americans are falling for it. It was very obvious that many Europeans had turned against us before we went into Iraq. Also, I guess they are sick of us being the superpower of the world. Wouldn't you be if you were in their shoes? These Muslim extremists really lay it on thick, though, going all the way back to the Crusaders & how we stole the US from the Indians to try and drum up anti-Americanism. Be very careful because I think they are the very ones that made the Europeans care so little about their countries now. I haven't researched this one at all, but I do know most Europeans care little for their countries now for some reason. It's the reason I am guessing at.
"It is time to admit that America's story includes defeat and failure. For if the country needs anything as it faces up to Iraq, it is to put away the messianic and missionary oratory of presidential funerals and learn some humility while there is still time."
I think you are so wrong here. I think America does face up to our mistakes very well. Did we ban the video "Blackhawk Down?" Americans really got down on themselves about Vietnam for many years. We face our mistakes, correct them, and go on. There comes a time to get over your failures/ mistakes, and thank God we can do that, because what we do not do is sit around & harp on them until we get so down on ourselves that we cannot get back up. And I definitely do not think Americans have a problem with humility. Being optimistic, patriotic and remembering the good things more than the bad is not a bad attitude to have. It puzzles me that you say these things. At times in this article, you sound like the Muslim extremists who try to get Americans down about our country.
"Abu Ghraib and the other catastrophes of occupation have cost America the Iraqi hearts and minds its soldiers had patiently won over since victory."
The terrorists lost us the hearts and minds of some of the Iraqis. We had to get tough with them. But if there is anything I have learned from all of this, it's that you have to be tough with the extremists. If not, they take it as a sign of being weak, and being weak would have turned the Iraqis more against us than anything we could have done. So, really, we couldn't win in this situation. We could never go up against the terrorists in how to work the minds of the Muslim world and win. They are experts at it.
"To say this is to say that America has lost the power to shape Iraq for the better. Accepting this will not be easy. America has as much trouble admitting its capacity for evil as for recognizing the limits of its capacity to do good."
This is just BS, in my opinion.
"This does not mean Iraq has been lost, as Vietnam was lost before it. The new interim government is struggling to convince Iraqis that it serves them, rather than the Americans."
And let me tell you, that is no easy task for them with the Muslim extremist rhetoric.
"Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds now have objective reasons, even if they distrust one another, to avoid the descent into civil war -- and there now exists at least a path to elections that may lure the gunmen into politics."
Well, at least your attitude towards Iraqis is a whole lot better than your attitude towards Americans. Have you ever read Iraq's history? They have stayed almost in a state of war since Iraq was formed.
"Iraqis may not have full sovereignty yet, but America needs to understand that Iraqis, not Americans, are already sovereign over events there. America would be a better nation-builder if it acknowledged this, but its history does not encourage humility."
I'm not certain about what you mean here, but I thought Iraq was under complete sovereignty.
"Ordinary American ignorance was compounded by the administration's arrogance."
Maybe I didn't read this right somewhere, but I thought you said you were an American. Hopefully, I am wrong.
"Who can't feel rage that victorious armies stood by and watched for a month while Iraq was looted bare?"
Now, all of this, I can agree with you on. This administration had no plans and this was very humiliating and disgusting.
I would comment on your last paragraph, but I haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about.
Debbie, why are you addressing Michael Ignatieff here as "you"? So far as I am aware, he does not read this site.
I've noticed a number of people doing this in comments. Are some people unaware of the standard blog convention that blockquoted material is quoted from the cited source, not the original writing of the poster? If not, why do some folks keep addressing writers from the Washington Post, NY Times, NY Review of Books, New Scientist, or wherever, here as "you"?
Mr. Ignatieff seems to have over-reached. Abu Ghraib certainly was a scandal, a crime, even an alarming example of carelessness, even lawlessness in government. But a repeal of this country's exceptionalism?
It is true that a substantial part of the public probably, as he alleges, have few qualms about torture. It's probably true that the Bill of Rights might not survive a popular vote. But the genius of the Framers was to recognize the fallibility of government, and burden it with separated powers, and even guard against tyrannical majorities of the American people themselves -- see Federalist No. 51. "Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives not more laudable than these, are apt to operate as well upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of a question." (Federalist No. 1, Hamilton).
It's worth remembering that we've had blots on our history before. The Constitution was written in part by a slaveholding aristocracy; the miracle was not that the country could evolve to the point of abolishing it but -- at the moment we signaled that fact with the Emancipation -- it may have staved off foreign intervention in that war. The British public recognized in that, perhaps, that we weren't ideal but were capable of moving towards those ideals.
We've had other public scandals that seemed to show the Republic as irredemably fallible. Little Rock in 1957 was held up by the Soviets, among others, as proof. Yet the system did work, even though Pres. Eisenhower did have to send an airborne division to enforce it. In the end, segregation is gone and so is the Soviet Union.
Andersonville, Sand Creek, Jim Crow, the Homestead strike, Manzanar, Joe McCarthy, My Lai, Watergate. Ultimately they faded as blots on the Republic, even when the scandal implicated the country's then-current leadership. Our exceptionalism is not that we're without stain but that ultimately every scandal has proven an anomaly. Abu Ghraib belongs on that list. Some way, somehow, the ones implicated will face some sort of justice. And, as Madison said in Federalist No. 51, "Justice is the end of government."
It has been good this 4th of July weekend to re-read something Justice Brandeis wrote, dissenting from a case (Whitney v. California, 1927) he saw as an injustice:
"Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the State was to make men free to develop their faculties, and that, in its government, the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end, and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness, and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that, without free speech and assembly, discussion would be futile; that, with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty, and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. ... Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty."
That was true then even though a majority of the Court, and a majority of the public, thought Ms. Whitney belonged in jail because of her views. The fact that a majority of the American people may think Abu Ghraib no big deal merely suggests that public opinion is fickle.
You want exceptionalism? What other country, now in business, was founded on what Brandeis described? If there is one, it's an even-money bet that they got the idea from us. We're not perfect; we never will be; the genius of the Framers is that they knew it and rigged the system so that those imperfections might not overcome us.
Since when did one's popularity become a metric of one's morality?
Are we now regressing into an honor/shame dynamic where one's honor is no longer a measure of one's consistency between actions and beliefs but has instead become merely a measure of one's reputation in the eyes of others?
Since when, as Mr. Ignatieff states, has it become better to know the right thing to do and not do it for fear of failure, than to try and fail?
This post is not brilliant at all, it's simple moral cowardice, perhaps the most enduring of all evils.