Clare;
Thanks for your thoughtful response to my comments. There is not much I would be
especially inclined to take issue with. I am certainly not of the view that
American foreign policy is above criticism. What we have done by sustaining the
embargo against Iraq, for instance, is grossly immoral. I agree too that the great
power of the country should make its leaders more reflective about the effects US
power.
Morally and strategically, however, it makes no sense to leave even the hint of a
suggestion that the US brought this atrocity on itself or that force should be
ruled out as a response to it. That line of criticism would be quite
counterproductive for anyone wishing to see changes in US policy.
I am not sanguine at all that US policy would be improved by more populism. The
last time there was a great influx of new voters in American elections was 1968.
The newly registered voters largely supported George Wallace -- hardly the kind of
candidate I would like to see influencing American politics today. The data I have
seen on non-voters is hardly encouraging. Non-voters tend to be less informed than
voters and (worse) they are more susceptible to jingoistic and right wing appeals
than voters. You are more likely to find people like Timothy McVeigh than Albert
Schweitzer among American non-voters.
I agree entirely that American leadership needs to show caution and moral
sensitivity. I also agree that Bush does not inspire confidence on this score.
Larry
Clare O'Farrell wrote:
> >There is something odd about chastising "Americans" for arrogance and
> >then instructing us on how to conduct elections. No advice on elections
> >for Afghanistan? There is also something peculiarly arrogant about
> >thinking that the FIRST response to a vicious attack on civilians should
> >be to rethink foreign policy.
>
> I was aware that I was leaving myself open to this kind of criticism
> when I made my remarks. However I would like to say a few things
> here. The US (unlike Afghanistan which is of course *more* than open
> to criticism!) is currently the most powerful country -economically,
> militarily and culturally in the world arena. It also purports to
> play a world leadership role. This has very practical effects on
> those living in other countries which those living in the US might
> not be aware of. Just to use the example of even a 1st world country
> like Australia - since the Bush administration came into power the
> Australian dollar has plummeted on the world market making it
> difficult for ordinary people to travel out of the country and making
> American as well as other imported goods (of which there are many)
> very expensive. Australian cinemas and tv channels are flooded with
> American films and tv shows and have been for years. The Prime
> Minister was in the US last week when everything happened to ratify a
> military treaty with the US. (He had to return home without doing
> this). Australians are affected by US leadership, foreign policy and
> culture at a very practical day to day level in ways they can't
> escape.
>
> One can also draw attention to the impact of English language culture
> in non English speaking countries. Given these circumstances, the
> rest of the world watches anxiously during US elections to see what
> political leadership is voted in and hopes that the response of that
> leadership on the world stage will be enlightened and moderate. Bush
> appears to have toned down some of his initial remarks which is a
> relief to the many people who are very worried about the potential
> for world conflict in response to recent events. One of the few
> avenues of influence non Americans have in these contexts is to open
> questions for discussion. (terrorism is not power - it is about
> violence and the limits of power - Foucault makes a clear distinction
> here) If one country is able to exercise as much power as the US is,
> the rest of the world is quite within its rights to raise questions
> for discussion about its foreign policy, civic education and
> electoral systems. Indeed I think these questions should be discussed
> in relation to *every* society and not necessarily just by members of
> those societies. No society is exempt from criticism.
>
> The US also claims to be a democracy and much has been made of this
> during recent events. One notes however that only a small percentage
> - 30% (does anyone have the right figures here?) - of the potential
> voting public actually voted in the last presidential elections and
> then there was the saga over the vote counting... What are we to make
> of this disjunction between the rhetoric and the practice?
>
> >
> >The distinction between state-sponsored and non-state sponsored terrorism
> >is porous. Surely a list where the distinction between private and public
> >decisions in capitalist societies is treated with skepticism should show
> >similar skepticism about terrorists who could not flourish without being
> >harbored by a host country.
>
> I agree with you on this and offer a useful citation from Foucault
> here. I still think in the interests of the avoidance of global
> conflict that a distinction does need to be made. Even if terror
> potentially lies at the heart of the state power, one needs to limit
> this tendency and not respond with terror to terror in escalating
> spirals. Foucault remarks 'In a more general way, terror is revealed
> as the most fundamental mechanism of the dominant class in the
> exercise of its power, its domination, its power of persuasi0n and
> its tyranny'. (1976) 'Le savoir comme crime', in Dits et Ecrits, t.
> III. Paris: Gallimard, 1994. p.83.
>
> At 21:24 +0200 14/9/01, Erik Hoogcarspel wrote:
> >I don't think elections have anything to do with it.
>
> snip
>
> >To achieve this, U.S. policy will probably have to change. It must become more
> >respectful, more supportive, and more polite, less directive, less
> >hypocrite and
> >less selfish. Self-respect is easy and useless, you have to earn respect from
> >others. This is very difficult for a country full of cowboy and countryboy
> >sentimentalism, full of obsession by violence and small town protestantism. I
> >think the change has to come from education..
>
> I agree change has to come from education and educated people are in
> a better position to vote for more enlightened leaders who can play
> their part in contributing to the reduction of levels of hatred and
> exploitation of human beings in every country.
>
> I would like to make a final comment on the inspiring courage and
> hard work of all the rescue workers, fireman and doctors and others.
> As one journalist remarked it draws attention, particularly within
> the context of budget cuts, to how heavily the rest of the social
> body relies on these infrastructures in these situations. To bring in
> the Foucauldian connection here - check out Foucault's excellent
> short review of a book on firefighters and their social role (1975)
> 'Un pompier vend la mche', in Dits et ecrits, Paris: Gallimard,
> 1994, t.II, pp. 698-702.
> --
> Clare
> ************************************************
> Clare O'Farrell
> email: panopticon1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> website: http://home.iprimus.com.au/panopticon1/
> ************************************************
Thanks for your thoughtful response to my comments. There is not much I would be
especially inclined to take issue with. I am certainly not of the view that
American foreign policy is above criticism. What we have done by sustaining the
embargo against Iraq, for instance, is grossly immoral. I agree too that the great
power of the country should make its leaders more reflective about the effects US
power.
Morally and strategically, however, it makes no sense to leave even the hint of a
suggestion that the US brought this atrocity on itself or that force should be
ruled out as a response to it. That line of criticism would be quite
counterproductive for anyone wishing to see changes in US policy.
I am not sanguine at all that US policy would be improved by more populism. The
last time there was a great influx of new voters in American elections was 1968.
The newly registered voters largely supported George Wallace -- hardly the kind of
candidate I would like to see influencing American politics today. The data I have
seen on non-voters is hardly encouraging. Non-voters tend to be less informed than
voters and (worse) they are more susceptible to jingoistic and right wing appeals
than voters. You are more likely to find people like Timothy McVeigh than Albert
Schweitzer among American non-voters.
I agree entirely that American leadership needs to show caution and moral
sensitivity. I also agree that Bush does not inspire confidence on this score.
Larry
Clare O'Farrell wrote:
> >There is something odd about chastising "Americans" for arrogance and
> >then instructing us on how to conduct elections. No advice on elections
> >for Afghanistan? There is also something peculiarly arrogant about
> >thinking that the FIRST response to a vicious attack on civilians should
> >be to rethink foreign policy.
>
> I was aware that I was leaving myself open to this kind of criticism
> when I made my remarks. However I would like to say a few things
> here. The US (unlike Afghanistan which is of course *more* than open
> to criticism!) is currently the most powerful country -economically,
> militarily and culturally in the world arena. It also purports to
> play a world leadership role. This has very practical effects on
> those living in other countries which those living in the US might
> not be aware of. Just to use the example of even a 1st world country
> like Australia - since the Bush administration came into power the
> Australian dollar has plummeted on the world market making it
> difficult for ordinary people to travel out of the country and making
> American as well as other imported goods (of which there are many)
> very expensive. Australian cinemas and tv channels are flooded with
> American films and tv shows and have been for years. The Prime
> Minister was in the US last week when everything happened to ratify a
> military treaty with the US. (He had to return home without doing
> this). Australians are affected by US leadership, foreign policy and
> culture at a very practical day to day level in ways they can't
> escape.
>
> One can also draw attention to the impact of English language culture
> in non English speaking countries. Given these circumstances, the
> rest of the world watches anxiously during US elections to see what
> political leadership is voted in and hopes that the response of that
> leadership on the world stage will be enlightened and moderate. Bush
> appears to have toned down some of his initial remarks which is a
> relief to the many people who are very worried about the potential
> for world conflict in response to recent events. One of the few
> avenues of influence non Americans have in these contexts is to open
> questions for discussion. (terrorism is not power - it is about
> violence and the limits of power - Foucault makes a clear distinction
> here) If one country is able to exercise as much power as the US is,
> the rest of the world is quite within its rights to raise questions
> for discussion about its foreign policy, civic education and
> electoral systems. Indeed I think these questions should be discussed
> in relation to *every* society and not necessarily just by members of
> those societies. No society is exempt from criticism.
>
> The US also claims to be a democracy and much has been made of this
> during recent events. One notes however that only a small percentage
> - 30% (does anyone have the right figures here?) - of the potential
> voting public actually voted in the last presidential elections and
> then there was the saga over the vote counting... What are we to make
> of this disjunction between the rhetoric and the practice?
>
> >
> >The distinction between state-sponsored and non-state sponsored terrorism
> >is porous. Surely a list where the distinction between private and public
> >decisions in capitalist societies is treated with skepticism should show
> >similar skepticism about terrorists who could not flourish without being
> >harbored by a host country.
>
> I agree with you on this and offer a useful citation from Foucault
> here. I still think in the interests of the avoidance of global
> conflict that a distinction does need to be made. Even if terror
> potentially lies at the heart of the state power, one needs to limit
> this tendency and not respond with terror to terror in escalating
> spirals. Foucault remarks 'In a more general way, terror is revealed
> as the most fundamental mechanism of the dominant class in the
> exercise of its power, its domination, its power of persuasi0n and
> its tyranny'. (1976) 'Le savoir comme crime', in Dits et Ecrits, t.
> III. Paris: Gallimard, 1994. p.83.
>
> At 21:24 +0200 14/9/01, Erik Hoogcarspel wrote:
> >I don't think elections have anything to do with it.
>
> snip
>
> >To achieve this, U.S. policy will probably have to change. It must become more
> >respectful, more supportive, and more polite, less directive, less
> >hypocrite and
> >less selfish. Self-respect is easy and useless, you have to earn respect from
> >others. This is very difficult for a country full of cowboy and countryboy
> >sentimentalism, full of obsession by violence and small town protestantism. I
> >think the change has to come from education..
>
> I agree change has to come from education and educated people are in
> a better position to vote for more enlightened leaders who can play
> their part in contributing to the reduction of levels of hatred and
> exploitation of human beings in every country.
>
> I would like to make a final comment on the inspiring courage and
> hard work of all the rescue workers, fireman and doctors and others.
> As one journalist remarked it draws attention, particularly within
> the context of budget cuts, to how heavily the rest of the social
> body relies on these infrastructures in these situations. To bring in
> the Foucauldian connection here - check out Foucault's excellent
> short review of a book on firefighters and their social role (1975)
> 'Un pompier vend la mche', in Dits et ecrits, Paris: Gallimard,
> 1994, t.II, pp. 698-702.
> --
> Clare
> ************************************************
> Clare O'Farrell
> email: panopticon1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> website: http://home.iprimus.com.au/panopticon1/
> ************************************************