![[freedomtowernight_edited.jpg]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_i7tmcOiJ4hc/RoJ3zn0O-9I/AAAAAAAAAFw/5Y4WaIwDd6k/s1600/freedomtowernight_edited.jpg)
The World According to Steinback
Back in October I frustratingly posted how I was sick and tired of reading the diatribes of Miami Herald columnists such as Leonard Pitts, Ana Menendez, and Robert Steinback. I have purposely refused to post anything by these individuals here, until today.
The latest piece by Bob Steinback really isn't that earth-shattering; it's a standard-issue left-wing discourse on everything that's wrong with America today. However, some of the points he makes are so easy to refute that I thought I'd share it with everyone.
My comments are interspersed in italics.
Let's rejoin the world
By ROBERT STEINBACK
After my Dec. 26 column about how fear of terrorism has affected U.S. policy, I received this e-mail from Down Under:
"I just wish to comment that from the outside, the U.S.A. has in fact gone completely mad. As you point out, the U.S.A. of pre-9/11 is almost a distant memory -- a memory of a Camelot-like society that appeared to value principles of freedom and human rights.
"I have been an observer of the U.S.A.'s fall from grace. Where once [the Americans] were the consummate global diplomats, using clever tactics and strategies to guide and manipulate the world toward their interests and goals, now they are military bullies who have failed at almost every diplomatic endeavor.
"Not only is the U.S.A. a far poorer place for the changes, so is the entire world.
Declaration of Human Rights
'I am hunkered down, bearing my own local loss of freedoms and liberties `in the name of terror.' My saddest realization is that governments have forgotten what 'freedom' means; they simply equate freedom with an absence of physical harm instead of the protection of the many rights encapsulated in the [United Nations' 1948] Universal Declaration of Human Rights. . . . I had thought that in my country and yours it had become a part of the legal framework. Yet our governments both publicly and secretly have torn it apart.''
"D.R., Perth, Western Australia.''
It has become fashionable since 9/11 for supporters of President Bush to display a blustery swagger about how little we need care what the rest of the world thinks of us. We don't need anyone, went the refrain, and we answer to no one.
This posture struck me as shortsighted and peevish. It also was sharply incongruous with our simultaneous expectation -- almost as an unearned entitlement -- to be admired as the world's cultural and economic leader. It's as if we figured on being selfish and loved at the same time. This mind-set hasn't been fruitful. In breathtakingly short order, the United States has squandered the legacy earned through 20th-century victories over fascism, Nazism and communism, as well global sympathy after 9/11.
The victories over fascism, Nazism and communism happened because we had leaders with guts who didn't cower to public opinion and flinch at the first hint of adversity. Unfortunately, that era of fearless leaders ended in the 1990s. Thus, we stand here today doing the work that should have been started at least 10 years ago. No, it's not a popular thing we're doing now, but neither were the tough decisions FDR, Truman, and Reagan made.
Keeping their distance
Seventeen nations that were once part of the U.S.-led coalition to invade Iraq have pulled out of ground operations, or will shortly.
Political aspirants in various venues -- even our smaller mirror image, Canada -- earn points by distancing themselves from Washington. The Spanish people dumped their government, and the Italians are restless to do likewise, in part over alliances with the Bush administration. Only Germany has bucked the trend, where conservative Angela Merkel dislodged Gerhard Schroeder, a Bush antagonist.
As we lose friends, we gain enemies -- the election of an anti-U.S., anti-Israel president in Iran may have extinguished a quietly nascent progressive movement there.
Has Iran ever been our friend? Has any anti-Isreal country in the Middle East really cared about peace, or is it about a religious ideology taking over the world? The nascent progressive movement in Iran is, as you mentioned, quiet. Too quiet.
In our hemisphere, leftist administrations dominate in Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Chile, and now Bolivia has elected as president an indigenous leader who proudly declared that ''the coca leaf is beating the U.S. dollar.'' This has much to do with the administration's lack of interest in helping assure that workers, the poor and the public share in the bounty of free trade. That has enabled President Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, for one, to don the mantle of popular hero by dispersing the nation's oil wealth rather than allowing oil multinationals to siphon it away.
That's right, Chavez is a hero for seizing control of oil fields in Venezuela and shipping barrels of the stuff off to places such as Bolivia in exchange for agricultural products. As far as blaming the US for Latin America's problems, once again it's damned if you do, damned if you don't. The US has supported free trade agreements such as CAFTA and FTAA, but as long as South America trades like it's the 1800's instead of the 21st century, their corruption, cronyism, and lack of regard for human rights will go unnoticed by the liberal left.
An ominous alternative
Meanwhile, on the horizon looms the huge shadow of China, which is challenging the customary Western marriage of capitalism and democracy with its ominous alternative: capitalism with dictatorship. The danger is that China's formula may prove more nimble and aggressive than Western capitalism, which is weighed down by the popular vote and shifting political environments. If Bush has a strategy to counter this -- other than beating China to Iraq's oil -- it isn't yet evident.
We are fools to pretend we have no need to partner with the world community and, where prudent, to compromise in the interest of a greater good. It is in our interest to lead, not spurn, the global campaign for human rights, human dignity and a healthy standard of living.
The UN had a wonderful chance to do all that you mentioned in the previous paragraph. They failed miserably (oil-for-food, Cuba and Libya on the Human Rights Commission: is this an organization that we should take seriously?). Their incompetence has pretty much forced the United States' hand. Either we wait for Saddam to rebuild his arsenal, or we do something about it now.
D.R. sounds genuinely crestfallen that both his nation and ours now seem to have no greater mission than self-interest and self-protection. America became a great nation because of its ideals. We will cease to be a great nation if we continue to neglect them.
We have made mistakes, no doubt. But the only effectively way to deal with problems is by dealing with them, confronting them head-on. Waiting until they go away a-la the UN isn't going to do a thing to help. When the world is serious about helping us take on these challenges, then they can rejoin the real world.
The latest piece by Bob Steinback really isn't that earth-shattering; it's a standard-issue left-wing discourse on everything that's wrong with America today. However, some of the points he makes are so easy to refute that I thought I'd share it with everyone.
My comments are interspersed in italics.
Let's rejoin the world
By ROBERT STEINBACK
After my Dec. 26 column about how fear of terrorism has affected U.S. policy, I received this e-mail from Down Under:
"I just wish to comment that from the outside, the U.S.A. has in fact gone completely mad. As you point out, the U.S.A. of pre-9/11 is almost a distant memory -- a memory of a Camelot-like society that appeared to value principles of freedom and human rights.
"I have been an observer of the U.S.A.'s fall from grace. Where once [the Americans] were the consummate global diplomats, using clever tactics and strategies to guide and manipulate the world toward their interests and goals, now they are military bullies who have failed at almost every diplomatic endeavor.
"Not only is the U.S.A. a far poorer place for the changes, so is the entire world.
Declaration of Human Rights
'I am hunkered down, bearing my own local loss of freedoms and liberties `in the name of terror.' My saddest realization is that governments have forgotten what 'freedom' means; they simply equate freedom with an absence of physical harm instead of the protection of the many rights encapsulated in the [United Nations' 1948] Universal Declaration of Human Rights. . . . I had thought that in my country and yours it had become a part of the legal framework. Yet our governments both publicly and secretly have torn it apart.''
"D.R., Perth, Western Australia.''
It has become fashionable since 9/11 for supporters of President Bush to display a blustery swagger about how little we need care what the rest of the world thinks of us. We don't need anyone, went the refrain, and we answer to no one.
This posture struck me as shortsighted and peevish. It also was sharply incongruous with our simultaneous expectation -- almost as an unearned entitlement -- to be admired as the world's cultural and economic leader. It's as if we figured on being selfish and loved at the same time. This mind-set hasn't been fruitful. In breathtakingly short order, the United States has squandered the legacy earned through 20th-century victories over fascism, Nazism and communism, as well global sympathy after 9/11.
The victories over fascism, Nazism and communism happened because we had leaders with guts who didn't cower to public opinion and flinch at the first hint of adversity. Unfortunately, that era of fearless leaders ended in the 1990s. Thus, we stand here today doing the work that should have been started at least 10 years ago. No, it's not a popular thing we're doing now, but neither were the tough decisions FDR, Truman, and Reagan made.
Keeping their distance
Seventeen nations that were once part of the U.S.-led coalition to invade Iraq have pulled out of ground operations, or will shortly.
Political aspirants in various venues -- even our smaller mirror image, Canada -- earn points by distancing themselves from Washington. The Spanish people dumped their government, and the Italians are restless to do likewise, in part over alliances with the Bush administration. Only Germany has bucked the trend, where conservative Angela Merkel dislodged Gerhard Schroeder, a Bush antagonist.
As we lose friends, we gain enemies -- the election of an anti-U.S., anti-Israel president in Iran may have extinguished a quietly nascent progressive movement there.
Has Iran ever been our friend? Has any anti-Isreal country in the Middle East really cared about peace, or is it about a religious ideology taking over the world? The nascent progressive movement in Iran is, as you mentioned, quiet. Too quiet.
In our hemisphere, leftist administrations dominate in Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Chile, and now Bolivia has elected as president an indigenous leader who proudly declared that ''the coca leaf is beating the U.S. dollar.'' This has much to do with the administration's lack of interest in helping assure that workers, the poor and the public share in the bounty of free trade. That has enabled President Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, for one, to don the mantle of popular hero by dispersing the nation's oil wealth rather than allowing oil multinationals to siphon it away.
That's right, Chavez is a hero for seizing control of oil fields in Venezuela and shipping barrels of the stuff off to places such as Bolivia in exchange for agricultural products. As far as blaming the US for Latin America's problems, once again it's damned if you do, damned if you don't. The US has supported free trade agreements such as CAFTA and FTAA, but as long as South America trades like it's the 1800's instead of the 21st century, their corruption, cronyism, and lack of regard for human rights will go unnoticed by the liberal left.
An ominous alternative
Meanwhile, on the horizon looms the huge shadow of China, which is challenging the customary Western marriage of capitalism and democracy with its ominous alternative: capitalism with dictatorship. The danger is that China's formula may prove more nimble and aggressive than Western capitalism, which is weighed down by the popular vote and shifting political environments. If Bush has a strategy to counter this -- other than beating China to Iraq's oil -- it isn't yet evident.
We are fools to pretend we have no need to partner with the world community and, where prudent, to compromise in the interest of a greater good. It is in our interest to lead, not spurn, the global campaign for human rights, human dignity and a healthy standard of living.
The UN had a wonderful chance to do all that you mentioned in the previous paragraph. They failed miserably (oil-for-food, Cuba and Libya on the Human Rights Commission: is this an organization that we should take seriously?). Their incompetence has pretty much forced the United States' hand. Either we wait for Saddam to rebuild his arsenal, or we do something about it now.
D.R. sounds genuinely crestfallen that both his nation and ours now seem to have no greater mission than self-interest and self-protection. America became a great nation because of its ideals. We will cease to be a great nation if we continue to neglect them.
We have made mistakes, no doubt. But the only effectively way to deal with problems is by dealing with them, confronting them head-on. Waiting until they go away a-la the UN isn't going to do a thing to help. When the world is serious about helping us take on these challenges, then they can rejoin the real world.
posted by Robert at 12:54 PM
2 Comments:
If you still believe at this juncture that going into Iraq was the right thing for the U.S. to do, Robert, there is certainly nothing I can offer here to change your mind.
I'm convinced that there's a certain segment of our population today that would observe George W. Bush tossing babies into a woodchipper on the White House Front Lawn and totally buy his argument that he was just demonstrating a viable form of birth control. There's absolutely nothing this man could do that is wrong or even questionable. So why waste the time debating otherwise?
If today's "real world" includes the U.S. being involved in torture; if today's "real world" involves being pro-war just because the President says we should; if today's "real world" means disregarding the Constitution; if today's "real world" means sending our young men and women into battle without a developed endgame or adequate equipment to help them survive; if today's "real world" means giving the finger to the rest of the world, beating our chests and attacking anyone that might possibly, if we really, really, use our imagination and our best distortions, pose the slightest threat to us halfway around the world; if that's what today's "real world" is, I guess the last 224 years have been one big, horrible dream.
I have my disagreements with Bush, I think he could have explained ALL the valid reasons for going into Iraq without focusing exclusively on the WMD's. Some of these reasons were covered extremely well with fairness and balance in the Chicago Tribune. Here's the link to a post from Cuban-American Pundits which goes over the article: http://songuacassal.blogspot.com/2005/12/judging-case-for-war.html
My problem isn't that people criticize Bush. I welcome open and constructive criticism. What really frustrates me is the lack of respect and regard for Bush's integrity. Calling him a liar and a murderer is just plain wrong and irresponsible. Unfortunately, the only Democrat who seems to understand the situation is Joe Lieberman, and he's pretty much marginalized by his own party.
You're right, Rick. My mind is made up. I don't mind hearing opposing views, but most of what I hear is just so distasteful that it makes me want to throw my hands up and cry uncle!
Post a Comment
<< Home