Fredericksburg.com - Rhetoric distorts realities

search local
Follow us on Twitter Find us on Facebook

Get a printer-friendly version of this page. E-mail this story to a friend.
Make a post about this story on FredTalk.

Visit the Photo Place
Rhetoric distorts realities
In today's bizarre political climate, a relativist is someone who argues for moral consistency.
Date published: 6/16/2002

AUSTIN, Texas--A history
professor of mine once
returned essay exams with the comment that some students' attitude seemed to be, "Don't bother me with the facts--I'm going for the bigger picture."

George W. Bush wasn't in that class, but I thought of the professor's sardonic comment as I read the commencement address the president delivered at West Point earlier this month.

In addition to restating the Bush Doctrine (the United States has the right to destroy any society anywhere for whatever reason it chooses regardless of international opinion, law, or basic morality), Bush at West Point used one of the popular contemporary buzz phrases, "moral clarity."

Given that no one really argues for moral unclarity, claiming moral clarity is really just a cheap way to dismiss other points of view without providing a compelling argument or dealing with the messy world of facts. The West Point speech shows just how morally murky the president is.

In that speech, for example, Bush endorsed John F. Kennedy's and Ronald Reagan's refusal "to gloss over the brutality of tyrants" during the Cold War. That's accurate, if Bush meant the brutality of tyrants on the other side. American leaders have always been quick to condemn the crimes of enemies, which is perfectly appropriate.

But the United States has not only glossed over the brutality of tyrants on our side; it has often actively supported and funded such brutality. Where was the moral clarity when Kennedy backed an authoritarian regime in South Vietnam that had almost no support among its people? Where was it when Reagan supported vicious military dictatorships in Central America that killed tens of thousands of innocent people? In both cases, some moral clarity on the part of U.S. leaders would have saved lives.

"Targeting innocent civilians for murder is always and everywhere wrong," Bush continued. No disagreement there, but what about the U.S. military's direct attack on the civilian population of Vietnam through massive bombing and chemical warfare, or Reagan's support for the Contra army in Nicaragua that focused on what were called "soft targets" (undefended civilian targets)?


1  2  3  Next Page  


Date published: 6/16/2002



Comments guidelines

1. Be respectful. No personal attacks.
2. Please avoid offensive, vulgar, abusive, hateful or defamatory language.
3. Read and follow THE RULES.
4. We will block violaters and ban repeat offenders.










The Free Lance-Star fredericksburg.com 93.3 WFLS Print Innovators Classic Rock 96.9 99.3 The Vibe wntx radio