Moving On | Choose your lifeMoving On | Choose your life
Safe Passage Foundation - Support to youth raised in high demand organizations


Saturday, January 31, 2009    

Home | New Content | Statistics | Games | FAQs

Getting On : All My Politics

Putting Everything in Perspective - An Editorial by Professor Matthew Manweller

from ThinkingDavinci - Wednesday, November 10, 2004
accessed 1144 times




In that this will be my last column before the presidential election, there will be no sarcasm, no attempts at witty repartee. The topic is too serious, and the stakes are too high.

This November we will vote in the only election during our lifetime that will truly matter. Because America is at a once-in-a-generation crossroads, more than an election hangs in the balance. Down one path lies retreat, abdication and a reign of ambivalence. Down the other lies a nation that is aware of it's past and accepts the daunting obligation its future demands. If we choose poorly, the consequences will echo through the next 50 years of history. If we, in a spasm of frustration, turn out the current occupant of the White House, the message to the world and ourselves will be two-fold.

First, we will reject the notion that America can do big things. Once a nation that tamed a frontier, stood down the Nazis and stood upon the moon, we will announce to the world that bringing democracy to the Middle East is too big a task for us. But more significantly, we will signal to future presidents that as voters, we are unwilling to tackle difficult challenges, preferring caution to boldness, embracing the mediocrity that has characterized other civilizations. The defeat of President Bush will send a chilling message to future presidents who may need to make difficult, yet unpopular decisions. America has always been a nation that rises to the demands of history regardless of the decisions. America has always been a nation that rises to the demands of history regardless of the costs or appeal. If we turn away from that legacy, we turn away from who we are.

Second, we inform every terrorist organization on the globe that the lesson of Somalia was well learned. In Somalia we showed terrorists that you don't need to defeat America on the battlefield when you can defeat them in the newsroom. They learned that a wounded America can become a defeated America. Twenty-four hour news stations and daily tracing polls will do the heavy lifting, turning a cut into a fatal blow. Except that Iraq is Somalia times 10. The election of John Kerry will serve notice to every terrorist in every cave that the soft underbelly of American power is the timidity of American voters. Terrorists will know that a steady stream of grizzly photos for CNN is all you need to break the will of the American people. Our own self-doubt will take it from there. Bin Laden will recognize that he can topple any American administration without setting foot on the homeland.

It is said that America 's WWII generation is its "greatest generation." But my greatest fear is that it will become known as America 's "last generation." Born in the bleakness of the Great Depression and hardened in the fire of WWII, they may be the last American generation that understands the meaning of duty, honor, and sacrifice. It is difficult to admit, but I know these terms are spoken with only hollow detachment by many (but not all) in my generation. Too many citizens today mistake "living in America " as "being an American." But America has always been more of an idea than a place. When you sign on, you do more than buy real estate. You accept a set of values and responsibilities. This November, my generation, which has been absent too long, must grasp that 100 years from now historians will look back at the election of 2004 and see it as the decisive election of our century. Depending on the outcome, they will describe it as the moment America joined the ranks of ordinary nations; or they will describe it as the moment the prodigal sons and daughters of the greatest generation accepted their burden as caretakers of the City on the Hill

Reader's comments on this article

Add a new comment on this article

from Phoenixkidd
Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 09:02

(Agree/Disagree?)

I completely disagree with this professor, First of all he forgets the whole democratic functions of America. The president of the United States holds less power than the prime minister positions of England and Japan. We have a multi leveled justice system, we have a very complicated process for the billing and passing of laws in this country. Anyway my point is no one person can spell the doom of America. This country was founded on democratic principles ensuring that no one person can be completely in charge of all factions of government and legislation, therefore no one person can be in charge of all its downfall. America seems to make a comeback after every economic downfall or war, it is superiorly blessed not only geographically but in all levels of economics, resource, population statistics and with an educated populace making this place ripe for economic growth and power. Needless to say America's Baby Boom Generation is definitely not the last, in fact is already been taken over by generation X who is much more technically savvy and absolutely ruthless when it comes to making profit.

This professor is obviously an outsider and its very common to look at things through dimmly lit glasses. Much like the media in national newspapers makes other countries economies and conditions of surrounding countries look bad. He needs to understand the resiliency and brilliance of the governing members of this country, MINUS our little president.
(reply to this comment)

from steam
Saturday, November 13, 2004 - 12:46

Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5(Agree/Disagree?)
I for one do not see the logic in "accepting the responsibility to be caretakers of a city on the hill". By electing a trained monkey who when beginning a war that he knows will bring death, pain, and suffering to tens of thousands of innocents (even if he truly believes it is for the greater good in the end) announces the war, and then says "I am feeling really great, bring it on". If you have any concern for your fellow man, it should be with a heavy heart after carefully considering your options that you regret to inform the nation you were forced down a difficult path and you pray for all those who will suffer. This guy is a cowboy who thinks the world is a video game.
(reply to this comment)
from banal_commentator
Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 07:36

Average visitor agreement is 2.5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 2.5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 2.5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 2.5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 2.5 out of 5(Agree/Disagree?)

"But more significantly, we will signal to future presidents that as voters, we are unwilling to tackle difficult challenges, preferring caution to boldness, embracing the mediocrity that has characterized other civilizations"

Caution is easier then boldness?! Caution is easier then boldness???!!! It is much easier to hastily demolish a country then to use foresight and strategy. Let's not mistake boldness with brashness and caution with wisdom.
(reply to this comment)

from Baxter
Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 06:55

Average visitor agreement is 3.5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 3.5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 3.5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 3.5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 3.5 out of 5(Agree/Disagree?)

I think professor Manweller's perspective is painfully myopic. He has failed to appreciate the underlying responsibility of being the world's singular superpower.

If we consider the perspective that the US is a political island, and as such is exempt and immune to the implications that befall the rest of the world, then his angle makes sense; if and only if. If we think that the opinion of the sigle superpower is the only one that matters for anything, than his perspective is concrete; if and only if. What indirectly motivates every insurgent anti-American force now hurling itself at America, and in retrospect every contradicting force that has ever stood against any major world power, is that this is never the case.

If the United States wishes to be the global policeman, then it must first appreciate the implications of that role. The global policeman must be the central force of good in the world. It must pursue a moral standard so unnerringly high that its motivation cannot be blighted. It must be willing to stand alone not simply because it's national sentiments and military power predispose it to, but because its moral directive forces it to, even against extreme adversity. There is no other alternative, else it is the angry usurper and not the beacon of democracy it claims to be. In the end, it's position can only be retained through maintaining a far more difficult path than that which it has presently chosen. Until this is so, it will merely continue to undermine a stance it professes to be reinforcing. It cannot allow itself to apply simplistic responses to complicated problems; it must remain altruistic, and it must accept it's casualties as truly the price of the greater good and not a cause for vengeance.

Furthermore, if the American attitude towards the expenditure and application of power remains as it is, that is to say the application of maximum force with minimal coinsideration of consequence, then it will find itself not only depleting it's reserves of power, but it will find that it's battles will multiply to a degree to which even it cannot counter. Unless the United States understands the discretion is in fact the better part of valour it will learn by the painful route the difficult lesson of all it's precedent imperial powers who have tired the same thing.

Thirdly, the 'War on Terror' has no real relevance to the conflict in which the United States has found itself enbroiled. In simple terms, literal wars fought with conventional weapons cannot be applied to the defeat of a state of mind. In the context of terror as such a state of mind which must be countered, a far more subtle and relevent method must be adopted. This may not sit well with those who wish to apply violence to violence, but if considerations are not made to underlying objectives, the conflict is in danger of deteriorating into a 'war of terror', rather than a 'war on terror'. this does in no way dismiss the use of military resources, but past experience has demonstrated that mass deployment of conventional military bodies to apply conventional force to a threat that has evolved beyond it is not only a waste of resources, but is ultimately counter-productive. No prior conflict of this nature has deonstrated a contradiciton to this assertion. The units required to fight this war will be smaller, better trained, more highly independent, more highly intelligent, and more adaptive, but will ultimately make less specacular television viewing. If you truly want to defeat a terrorist by understanding his mind, than you will have to adapt beyond your own.

I do not think for one moment that this conflict cannot be concluded without bloodshed, nor do I for one moment entertain the thought that relenting will serve any purpose in either the short-term or the long-term; but, in the end, we may find that it is necessary to accept that we may lose the battle in order to win the war.



(reply to this comment)

from Tim R
Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 00:24

Average visitor agreement is 4 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 4 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 4 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 4 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 4 out of 5(Agree/Disagree?)

I disagree with this guy on a number of his points. Mostly though, I think he fails to understand his enemy, and the strategy they have.

Check this link out; it's from a fairly anti-American European who "endorsed" Bush. I don't agree with his views, but I think it may be a good insight into the mentality of the people who want to see the destruction of what they call: "The American Empire". They hate the Democrats as much, or even worse than the Republicans.

Key quote: "Bush has one great virtue: sane people hate him..."

Http://www.idleworm.com/rnt/plt/gwb/gwb01.shtml


BTW, if you read up on the Vietnam War, you find that people like the Professor were trying to sell the same logic then, "We can't pull out of Vietnam! All of Asia will be lost to Communism! Dominoes! Red tide! Better to fight them over there than over here! Etc, etc. (Yes, I'm aware that the Vietnam War was started by a Democrat, and ended by a Republican.)

Pete Seeger wrote a song back then that could just as well describe events today:


Waist Deep In The Big Muddy
by Pete Seeger.

It was back in nineteen forty-two,
I was a member of a good platoon.
We were on maneuvers in-a Loozianna,
One night by the light of the moon.
The captain told us to ford a river,
That's how it all begun.
We were -- knee deep in the Big Muddy,
But the big fool said to push on.

The Sergeant said, "Sir, are you sure,
This is the best way back to the base?"
"Sergeant, go on! I forded this river
'Bout a mile above this place.
It'll be a little soggy but just keep slogging.
We'll soon be on dry ground."
We were -- waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool said to push on.

The Sergeant said, "Sir, with all this equipment
No man will be able to swim."
"Sergeant, don't be a Nervous Nellie,"
The Captain said to him.
"All we need is a little determination;
Men, follow me, I'll lead on."
We were -- neck deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool said to push on.

All at once, the moon clouded over,
We heard a gurgling cry.
A few seconds later, the captain's helmet
Was all that floated by.
The Sergeant said, "Turn around men!
I'm in charge from now on."
And we just made it out of the Big Muddy
With the captain dead and gone.

We stripped and dived and found his body
Stuck in the old quicksand.
I guess he didn't know that the water was deeper Than the place he'd once before been.
Another stream had joined the Big Muddy
'Bout a half mile from where we'd gone.
We were lucky to escape from the Big Muddy
When the big fool said to push on.

Well, I'm not going to point any moral;
I'll leave that for yourself
Maybe you're still walking, you're still talking
You'd like to keep your health.
But every time I read the papers
That old feeling comes on;
We're -- waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.

Waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.
Waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.
Waist deep! Neck deep! Soon even a
Tall man'll be over his head, we're
Waist deep in the Big Muddy!
And the big fool says to push on!


Words and music by Pete Seeger (1967)
TRO (c) 1967 Melody Trails, Inc. New York, NY
(reply to this comment)

My Stuff


log in here
to post or update your articles

Community

79 user/s currently online

Web Site User Directory
5047 registered users

log out of chatroom

Happy Birthday to demerit   Benz   tammysoprano  

Weekly Poll

What should the weekly poll be changed to?

 The every so often poll.

 The semi-anual poll.

 Whenever the editor gets to it poll.

 The poll you never heard about because you have never looked at previous polls which really means the polls that never got posted.

 The out dated poll.

 The who really gives a crap poll.

View Poll Results

Poll Submitted by cheeks,
September 16, 2008

See Previous Polls

Online Stores


I think, therefore I left


Check out the Official
Moving On Merchandise
. Send in your product ideas


Free Poster: 100 Reasons Why It's Great to be a Systemite

copyright © 2001 - 2009 MovingOn.org

[terms of use] [privacy policy] [disclaimer] [The Family / Children of God] [contact: admin@movingon.org] [free speech on the Internet blue ribbon] [About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]