Two presidents open their mouths

[fpb]

Once again, President Obama shows that he has more sense and a better ear for outright idiocy than his supporters. His clear statement that he did not think racism was a major feature of the opposition to his plans, and that at the heart of it was anti-state feeling, shows once again that disarming ability to sound as though he understood his opponents that is one of his major assets. Maureen O'Dowd, Jimmy Carter and the rest have been made to sound like the out-of-touch fools they are. Not that the opposition will thank the President, since in fact one thing that is clear is that his plans will plough forward whatever interpretation is placed on the resistance to them. In a sense, the interpretation does not matter, except in that it has again made Obama sound wise and moderate - whether he is or not.

The Western consensus that President Ahmedinajad's Holocaust denial will do nothing but harm to his standing in the world's eyes is, I regret to say, a pious hope. Of course, it is an outrage to Europeans most of whose families have personal memories of murdered dead in the Hell of what is often still called "the war", or to Americans who share our memories for many reasons - kinship, the memory of American troops who came here, etc. But what is to us both the blackest and the best remembered episode of our own past may well be, in countries with no direct connection, at best half-forgotten folklore, and at worst a matter for debate. I well remember my horrified astonishment at hearing a charming, attractive, well educated Chinese lady from Singapore state that she thought Hitler was on the whole right, because his policy was to improve the race, and that was a good thing! I think I managed to convey to her how far beyond the pale such views really were (and in London of all places!), but it took some effort. And if that is what comes out of educated mouths in a comparatively cosmopolitan place such as Singapore, God only knows what we would find among the rising classes in India and China. Economic growth is drawing people out of poverty and into a middle-class standard of living by the tens of million every year, but there is no guarantee that their cultural background is making the leap to anything like the same extent. And God only knows what ideas would find at play in the rest of Asia, in Africa, even in Latin America. To many people, even outside the Muslim world, Ahmedinajad's statement will have been both arguable and not particularly shocking.

Comments

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

The Western consensus that President Ahmendinajad's Holocaust denial will do nothing but harm to his standing in the world's eyes is, I regret to say, a pious hope.

Indeed. It harms his standing in the WEST, but as long as the West is not prepared to actually do anything to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear missiles, this "harm" is meaningless.

The West needs to stop trying to morally impress the Third World, and start simply smacking around recalcitrant minor Powers when they deserve such treatment. The Third World pretty much has no "morals," internationally-speaking, to impress or offend: they respect successful brute force, and that's about it.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I don't know that I agree with that, but I can certainly agree that we cannot count on other countries having the exact same moral reflexes, based on the same experences, as we do.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Note that I said "internationally-speaking." Individual Third World countries of course have their own moral codes, but (1) they are different from country to country, so one action is unlikely to impress the "whole world" the same way, and (2) given a history of poverty and defeat, they are not very likely to stick out their necks for a moral principle even if they believe in any.

The closest thing the Third World has to a shared moral value is "anti-colonialism," but that means different things to different countries, and given that real "colonialism" died over half a century ago, is unlikely to impel them to do anything of much practical benefit to anyone else.

[sanscouronne.livejournal.com]

I agree with you completely. Call it "first world privilege" but the U.S. and European countries are not forced to treat most events in the shadow of an existential threat. Third world countries do, either because there is an existential threat, because they are too poor/weak to do otherwise, or because the memory of a time in which they were is too close to national consciousness.

This was often an issue in the study of International Relations to the extent that many theories of IR treat states as equal (as far as expected behavior, etc.), when they are clearly not.

Well spoken, Mr. President, sir!

[johncwright.livejournal.com]

Speaking only for myself, I am thankful that the President spoke those words. I was nonpartisan enough (the older way of saying it is 'man enough') to say so in print. (http://johncwright.livejournal.com/281202.html?nc=58)

Let me say my words again here:

"In this case, where Mr. Carter is encouraging real racists, by convincing them that the majority sides with them, he deserves a gentle rebuff from Mr. Obama. Well spoken, Mr. President, sir!"

Encouraging? I would say so. A real deep-dyed negro-hater watching the telly, seeing, let us say, a well-attended the tax-protest meeting or public march, and hearing from Mr. Carter that all those people are racists, will think those crowds support him and his views, and he will be encouraged and cheered. He may even imagine that bombing one landmark will make the White Races suddenly rise up against the mongrels, because Carter told him those mobs are poised to do so.

I am well aware that the partisans on my side will go along their merry partisan way, and use the comment I admire as some excuse to heap upon Mr. Obama more scorn. But even though I am (obviously) ferociously partisan myself, it is a relief and a joy to be able to lay down the heavy and seething bag-of-scorpions burden of partisanship for a minute, and simply take my hat off to the honorable opposition, shake hands, and say aloud that they are honorable.

I fear that the United States administration is toying with notions like right-to-die that have crept into British health care, and I know that abortion is going to be a centerpiece of Democrat policy, since their entire world-view and sense of self-worth hinges on treating prenatal infanticide as if it were a medical health procedure instead of a medical death procedure. I have good reasons to oppose to the uttermost Mr. Obama and that abomination of desolation called abortion for which he stands: but he is not an enemy. The powers and principalities against which St. Paul told us to war, they are the enemy, the only real enemy.