Going back to Smith’s statement (see prior post), he had an insight which I think people fail to keep in mind. Even those who are considered “enemies” and “evil” almost always consider themselves on the side of good. Going even a step further, they probably have some decent reasons to think how they do (even if the actions are out of line).
Please bear with me non-American readers; I’m going to use some examples who are considered US rivals, but may or may not be for your country.
Hugo Chavez, socialist extraordinaire: His attempts to consolidate power smack heavily of authoritarianism, whether he sees it that way or not. But his desire to better the country seems sincere enough, and he continues to receive massive support from the poor–which indicates that probably they are a bit better off than before.
Robert Mugabe: Famed for an ill-fated land redistribution program, which took the farmland away from white colonial descendants and gave it to blacks. Yes, the program lacked foresight and was a wrong way to go about things. But can you blame a black African for feeling bitter about white possession of the land that was the result of imperialism?
Osama bin Laden: We all know about him. He’s not insane in the usual sense, and not all of his reasoning is nuts, including his displeasure at the US abandoning Afghanistan after the Soviets were driven back in 1988.
So how would you compare Bush, morally, to some of these other leaders?*
vs Osama: Osama favors blowing up people because they happen to live in the wrong country. Bush doesn’t kill civilians (at least not intentionally). We’ll give Bush the nod here.
vs Mugabe: If the Bush administration is dumb, Mugabe’s government is beneath retarded. (That’s not a moral issue, but just had to mention it.) The Republican party doesn’t actually go out beating up Democrats and jail them for trying to run for office. Mugabe prefers a more pro-active approach to maintaining his power. Advantage: Bush.
vs Chavez: Chavez has been active in suppressing media unfavorable to his cause and attempted to change the constitution so he could run unlimited times for office. But then again, Bush doesn’t have a problem kidnapping terrorist suspects on foreign soil and using “alternative interrogation techniques”. We’ll call this one a draw.
I think the Bush Administration hasn’t done enough to discourage people from eating eggs. We’re high in cholesterol, you know. That’s probably the single biggest thing he can do to improve his legacy before he leaves office.
Now THIS is some red meat for the commentariat!
We’re stepping on swampy philosophical ground here, but I would say everyone’s weltanshauung begins with certain unprovable assumptions, postulates or principles, call them what you will. If you believe Jesus was the Son of God and died to redeem your sins then a lot of actions follow–Christians don’t murder, period. Whereas, if you’re Hitler or Stalin and value the collective, the Volk, the Proletariat as a supreme value, then the death of any one or million or three individuals is just a price that must be paid to achieve the Greater Good.
I don’t speak for Bush, but I’d say that’s the bedrock difference between him and the other three pictured–he’s an individualist and they’re flaming collectivists. While Bush might error in condoning the kidnapping of an occasional terrorist suspect, he won’t be conducting any large-scale murder (preemptive strike: war is not the smae as murder), which collectivists always have the potential to commit if the greater good to be achieved is presumed to be great enough.
Very thought-provoking post!
I think Bush made a gamble and lost. He didn’t set out to deceive, but he didn’t have enough information to act the way he did either, in my uninformed uneducated opinion. (ie send thousands of troops to attack/bomb a place that may or may not be a threat)
That being said I still find the Dixie Chicks appalling and I am embarrassed to be from the same state as they. so there.
I know very little about chaves, though I have a big distrust of the guy. Personally I think Bush wins in all these cases, and the avalanche of anti-bush sentiment from various forms of media has caused public opinion of him to be much lower than deserved. I think history will have higher approval ratings. That is my impression anyway, perhaps if I watched the news more I’d be more against the guy, who knows.
Wait a sec.
He lies to a country about WMD so he can invade a country instead of go after a guy on kidney dialisis hiding in Afganistan/ pakistan who was responsible for 911 and he’s suddenly a “nice” guy ?
Who really owns the media? Who’s allegiance is Rupert Murdock tied to any how? Soudns more like Chaves to me? Did you ever stop to think that we get nothing but propaganda on the mainstream media networks?
Really, Its all fear tactics, NASCAR, and britney spears ( or her younger sister) that is trumping other worldly news. The first rule for controlling a population is to create a bunch of uninformed scared dumb people.
And WHY… I mean really WHY the F*ck is our current political race bringing in the Jesus factor. When asked at the republican primary debates about their interpretation of the bible… why didn’t any of them say the correct answer ” None of your business… this is a country based on religious freedom”
hrrrrmph
Controversy is always good for traffic!
Bush doesn’t kill civilians (at least not intentionally).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_conflict_in_Iraq_since_2003
Accidents will happen, I guess.
Bush … won’t be conducting any large-scale murder (preemptive strike: war is not the smae as murder)
What about occupation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-invasion_Iraq,_2003%E2%80%932006
But I guess it is ok
if the greater good to be achieved is presumed to be great enough.
And isn’t that the point?
You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet (sorry Mascot). How one judges the value of the eggs lost versus the value of the omelet made (and whose eggs they were and who gets the omelet) is what leads to differences of opinion.
I was kinda hoping for responses like “Look how dopey Bush looks” or “Haha, Osama looks completely decrepit”, not all that serious stuff.
(Seriously, I enjoyed reading your comments, but need some time to respond to them properly.)
I’m sure your photo collection had more interesting photos of the people you listed here.
Well, here’s what they were saying just as the photo was taken:
Bush: Ummmm…
Mugabe: I am a STRONGMAN, strong man, mumblemumble…
Chavez: Hey baby, you want a tough guy, here I AM…
bin Laden: Allah is merciful, now stop struggling and put your head right HERE…
@Allen: Unfortunately, I did not have access to “the collection” at the time of posting.
The Chavez pic is particularly unspectacular.
@Wahrheit: Sadly, you probably guessed correctly on two of them.
Blunderprone and Tacticus, your posts got placed into moderation and I just released them. (Tacticus’ b/c of having two links in the comment. Blunderprone’s, I have no clue; maybe b/c he mentioned Rupert Murdock).
Now, on to the serious stuff…
@Mascot: Bush is far too unpopular now for even that to make a difference.
@Wahrheit: First off, I had to look up weltanshauung. You’re channeling Derek there.
As uncomfortable as it is, your observation how much of our belief system is axiomatic is important. Probably many people go through life without realizing it. And unlike Euclidean geometry, we aren’t all starting with the same set of five axioms.
Interesting point about the idea of the individualist vs collective. I’ll have to roll that around my decreasing number of synapses. It makes sense to a degree, but there’s something about that generalization that seems uncomfortable. But I can’t think of a good counterexample.
@Annie: I’d agree that Bush really thought that Iraq was a threat. This was a preconceived notion in his mind, and he chose to believe the evidence that supported that notion and dismissed evidence that did not. This is human nature.
Your “uninformed uneducated opinion” is always welcome at Liquid Egg Product.
@l3rucewayne: Yes, depending on which news source(s) one gathers information from, your opinion of Bush may vary.
I do not blame you for not trusting Chavez. Anyone who tries to become prez for life should fall under suspicion, regardless of motif.
Besides, Venezuela’s throwing oil money around to try to make friends. Then again, the US does stuff like trying to pay Turkey to be able to invade Iraq from the north, so maybe we shouldn’t trust the Americans, either.
@Blunderprone: Rupert Murdock seems to be more interested in money than anything.
As far as the point of view we get from MSM, I think it’s less insidious and more that groups of people tend to think in a certain way.
This is why it’s important to gather news sources from around the world. Thinking CNN and Fox are diametric opposites and cover the spectrum of “liberal” and “conservative” is naive.
Checking world news sources like the BBC, Al-Jazeera, and even the ghastly KCNA will give people a more complete view of world events. (Additional note: For us Westerners, it is much easier to spot culture bias in non-Western sources, while failing to notice it in our own.)
The GOP knows invoking Jesus will get them some votes. Even the Democrats are starting to try to prove their religious boney-fides. It’s a dreadful thing when the presidential candidates feel the need to out-religion each other.
As noted above, I’m not so sure that Bush lied when he said he believed Iraq had WMD; he seems like the type of person who would hold fast to an opinion and require apocalyptic evidence to change it. “Stubborn” I think is the word for it.
@Tacticus: OK, so hundreds of thousands of people have died. But it wasn’t on purpose. Kinda.
It’s not out of bounds to ask whether the omelet will ever get made in this case. The eggs were mixed, put in the frying pan, but no one checked if the house even has electricity. (Iraqis seem to be getting 4-12 hours a day, depending.)
All this talk about killing and eggs and omelets is making me really uncomfortable. Thanks, Tacticus.
I think my “serious” comment needs some refinement–GW Bush isn’t such a pure individualist, after all. But I’d sure rather have him deciding my fate than any of the other three!
Why doesn’t this website publish what the public has long been waiting for? A biography for the mascot.
The public has been left to wonder for too long whether the mascot was born a pair of egg parents, or calls a chicken his mother.
@Wahrheit: I guess it’s hard to argue that one.
@Allen: Er, I will attempt to pry some more information out of him, but considering I don’t even know his real name, this may be a tad difficult…