The kind of president we need…
The kind of president we need…
is the kind of president capable of thinking in this way:
“My job is to help the country take the long view — to make sure that not only are we getting out of this immediate fix, but we’re not repeating the same cycle of bubble and bust over and over again; that we’re not having the same energy conversation 30 years from now that we had 30 years ago; that we’re not talking about the state of our schools in the exact same ways we were talking about them in the 1980s; and that at some point we say, ‘You know what? If we’re spending more money per-capita on health care than any nation on earth, then you’d think everybody would have coverage and we would see lower costs for average consumers, and we’d have better outcomes.’ ”
The statement, of course, is by President Obama (cited here). I hope for all our sakes he’s up to the job in the face of the kind of obstructionism shown by America-hater Rush Limbaugh, who said “I want everything [Obama's] doing to fail… I want the stimulus package to fail…. I do not want this to succeed.” Just to get that clear, Limbaugh is saying that he wants the economy to go down the tubes, he wants Americans to lose their jobs, he wants companies to go bankrupt — just so that he can have the satisfaction of saying he was right (although that hasn’t happened much lately). Now it’s one thing to say that you disagree with policies. It’s one thing to say that you don’t think they’ll succeed in, in this case, pulling us out of the economic hole Bush got us into, but it’s entirely another thing to say that you “hope” those policies will fail.
10 Responses to “The kind of president we need…”
About this entry
You’re currently reading “The kind of president we need…,” an entry on Bodhipaksa's blog, bodhi tree swaying
Published: Feb 17 2009
Its very easy to see the appeal of somebody like Obama, when you’ve experienced the dark years of Bush, but I think its really important to see the bigger picture here.
As President of the United States, Obama:
a) is in control of the world’s deadliest nuclear arsenal, capable of destroying all life on the planet. Has he once questioned the morality of this?
2) is now sending more troops to Afhganistan. Will his popularity amongst well meaning people in the US and elsewhere be any consolation to the families of the innocent civilians that will be killed and seriously injured by the missiles and bombs that he authorises? Indeed, it is probable that he is already directly responsible for the deaths of Afghan civilians, see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7848652.stm
Remember that its easy to appear radical if you compare yourself to George Bush. A monster with a smiling face is still a monster – and perhaps a more dangerous one at that.
I’m not sure I should dignify this with a response, but here we go.
I’m afraid that what you write doesn’t resonate with what I think of as “the bigger picture.”
Your question about nuclear weapons is rather puzzling. You ask whether Obama has ever questioned the morality of being in charge of a stockpile of nuclear weapons. Have you tried Google? A simple search for [Obama nuclear weapons] brings up a slew of news-story headlines such as:
Obama says time to rid world of nuclear weapons – CNN.com
Obama to Urge Elimination of Nuclear Weapons
Obama says no nuclear weapons to fight terror
You’ll also find statements like the following:
So yes, I think it’s clear that he has in fact given some thought to being in charge of a nuclear arsenal, and also that you prefer making wild and emotive statements to doing actual research.
And regarding Afghanistan, just a couple of points:
1. It’s clear from what he’s said that a large point of Obama’s sending more troops to Afghanistan is precisely in order to reduce the number of civilian casualties. Whether he’ll actually be able to reduce the number of civilian casualties is of course something we’ll have to wait and see, although it’s impossible to avoid civilian casualties in any war. Given that the Afghanistan situation is effectively a hold-over from the previous administration and that no significant change in strategy has been brought about yet (there hasn’t been the time or manpower to do so) it’s way to early to judge whether he is currently doing a better job than his predecessor. Certainly it seems feasible that the almost 50% increase in troops he’s ordered will make a difference. But the numbers of civilian deaths can be affected by many things, such as the tactics that Taliban fighters use.
2. You suggest that Obama may have been “directly responsible” for civilian deaths. I’m not aware that he’s been in Afghanistan or actually engaged in combat, so I think that’s unlikely. Perhaps you mean that he directly ordered this particular engagement? But assuming that the US account is accurate and that the troops were responding to fire directed at them I think it’s unlikely that the troops called headquarters, headquarters got the White House on the line, and Obama instructed the troops to respond. I think there’s a general order that when troops are fired upon they can defend themselves without presidential approval. Of course, there’s no evidence at present that any of the people reported killed (in that article at least) were civilians, although the concept of “civilian” tends to get blurred in a guerrilla war.
You imply that you regard Obama as a “monster with a smiling face” without adducing any evidence that he’s in any way acted in a way that is “monstrous”. But perhaps this brings us to the nub of the matter — you’ve already decided that Obama is a “monster” and therefore you don’t really need to do tedious things like research his nuclear policy, and you’re also therefore free to invent evidence in support of his monstrosity — such as his being “directly” responsible for the deaths of “civilians.”
Thank you for dignifying my points with a response and I do accept that what I say may appear to be “wild and emotive”. The reason I made the points in the way I did is that it saddens me when progressive/liberal/left (the label is irrelevant) people like yourself make the mistake (at least in my view) of supporting somebody like Obama without actually examining in a very detailed way what he has actually done, or the nature of the position he holds. I think that it is perhaps you (and I intend this in a thoroughly respectful manner) who lets your own preconceptions cloud any serious appraisal. I will attempt to answer your points in turn in the hope that we can have some form of meaningful dialogue.
As for nuclear weapons, when I state that he hasn’t questioned the morality of this, I mean that anybody who seriously (and I mean SERIOUSLY) questioned the morality of these weapons would have to reach the conclusion that having them is a seriously unskilful thing to do. In one of the articles you cite, Obama is quoted as saying, “As long as nuclear weapons exist, we’ll retain a strong deterrent”. This is the classic argument in favour of retaining weapons and is the argument used by the leaders of all nuclear powers, and also by those aspiring to be nuclear powers. I’m sure that even George Bush did not want a world full of nuclear weapons, but believed they were necessary as a “deterrent”. As for reducing the arsenal, well all this does is reduce the number of times that the US can destroy all life on the planet. It does not mean that the US will not have the ability to do it at least once. And ordering that the development of new nuclear weapons is stopped when you already have the most advanced destructive apparatus that humankind has ever seen is not, let’s face it, an overly radical move.
My point about Afghanistan is very simple. Sending more troops to occupy a foreign land will cause more death and destruction, and will undoubtedly result in innocent civilians being killed or maimed. I just don’t see how you can possibly defend this, unless you agree that it is actually ok to kill innocent people. When you state that “it’s impossible to avoid civilian casualties in any war” aren’t you actually confirming what I’m saying here? That Obama’s actions will result in death and destruction for some of the poorest people on Earth? Yes, it is true that the Taliban will also be responsible for some of the deaths. We are, however, not talking about the Taliban here, but about Obama. I suspect we would agree with each more readily when it came to discussing the morality of the Taliban! And yes the situation in Afghanistan is a hold-over from the previous administration, but this doesn’t mean that Obama has to continue their policies, and reinforce the occupation.
As for being directly responsible for deaths in Afghanistan, yes he is. I accept that he didn’t necessarily order the attacks, but as Commander-in –Chief, he is ultimately responsible for the actions of his military personnel. When the President condemns the actions of the military, such as what happened after the incidents at Abu Ghraib, it is clear that he is not (or doesn’t feel) responsible for them. The lack of such condemnation in the case of Afghanistan suggests approval, and therefore responsibility. If Obama did not condemn the actions described in the BBC article because the soldiers were acting in “self defence” then this is muddled thinking on his part. I’m not sure that an occupying power has any right to claim self defence at all.
Now for my claim about him being a monster. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that anybody who has full control of the largest military might the world has ever seen is a dangerous person. I also think that somebody who threatens to unleash this destructive power is very dangerous. (Remember that nuclear weapons are not an effective “deterrent” unless you are serious in your threat to use them). I think that anybody who kills civilians (or who sends troops to a country in the full knowledge that civilians will die as a result) is also very dangerous. Now, wouldn’t somebody who actively sought the role that entails actually doing all this be absolutely terrifying?
As Stephen said, your position is that anyone assuming the US presidency is automatically dangerous, because they have power. I think that’s a confused position, because it’s not the degree of power that someone holds that makes them dangerous, it’s the degree of skill and the quality of their character that determines that. For example, any time you have surgery, the surgeon has the power of life and death over you. Is every surgeon dangerous? No, surgeons who are skilled at their profession are not, while only those who are unskilled pose a threat. Likewise, it’s my belief that Obama is not dangerous because my perception of him is that he has the character and skills to use his power wisely.
I think he’s right to say that nuclear weapons are a deterrent, and I think also that it would be exceedingly naive for the US to disarm unilaterally, for that could or would lead to situations where the country could be held to ransom by other nuclear powers. If, heavens forbid, there was some kind of altercation between Russia and the European Union, for example, the Russians could tell a non-nuclear US to stay uninvolved at the risk of having a city or two nuked. I’d like to see disarmament, but it has to come multilaterally.
And I can only say that your understanding of the word “directly” and mine are wholly at odds. No commander in chief is going to condemn his troops for killing enemy fighters when the troops were acting in self-defense, as they apparently were. Your point merely seems silly, and your defense of the thuggish and repressive Taliban seems most peculiar. They may see themselves as “freedom fighters” but the freedom they seek is the freedom to impose a rule of fear and misogyny. You’re welcome to support that if you wish, but if you do I don’t think it puts you in a position to give moral lectures to others.
I have to say that i thoroughly agree with your response Bodhipaksa. I have posted before about my struggles with Buddhism due to issues of war and peace and this highlights some of the issues for me. If i could put in my tuppenceworth to Simon’s points, in reverse order.
I equally mean no disrespect and if any of this comes across so please excuse that as passionate but perhaps unskillful writing.
You seem to state that simply wishing the job of president automatically makes somebody a monster. On that basis none of us would ever take roles where difficult decisions have to be made. I would argue that to be willing to try and navigate the extraordinary moral ambiguities of our modern, interconnected world is an act of profound moral courage and i think few people have shown the kind of integrity and honesty to try to do the very best to do this in a skillfull way than Obama.
To refer to the invovlement of foreign troops in Afghanistan as occupation is in my view both legally and morally unjustifiable. The foreign military presence in Afghanistan is their by UN mandate and the clear permission of the first democratically elected Afghan government. It may be an imperfect government but it is still extraordinary progress in a devastated country towards genuine democracy. I have long struggled with buddhist pacifism due to what i see as the immorality of not militarily intervening to prevent greater evil. Would you consider the (staggeringly enormous) civilian casualties in WW2 to be so unjustified to allow Hitler to remain in power unchallenged? I have been having discussions recently with Buddhists who while viewing complete pacifism as an ideal, as all the precepts are, they beleive that the use of violence towards greater justice and ultimately less violence can be a skillfull act. However, my buddhist knowledge is inadequate to really comment on that. I do know that i believe that to leave the Taleban in power would have been deeply immoral. You are rightly concerned about civilian casualties in a war against totalitarian thugs, but the alternative is to let those thugs resume control. That is resume killing women for adultery, barring girls from education, killing teachers for daring to teach girls and a host of other atrocities. I believe that the tragic but accidental deaths of civilians, are justified in the name of fighting such oppression. If i lived in Afghanistan i would be desperate for people to support getting rid of such evil.
As for nuclear weapons, i have less of an issue with your perspective. However, the reality is they do exist and it takes a brave politician to start the extraordinarilly complex process of how to negotiate to move towards a world without them. If anybody is up to that, i think it is probably Obama.
I probably won’t post again as i’m sure Bodhipaksa doesn’t desperately want this dragged into a big political debate and i’m sure probably won’t agree with much of my perspective, but thought i would put in a view of a Buddhist sympathiser who struggles with this side of things!
warm regards
Stephen
Hello again,
I truly understand if you do not wish to continue this discussion and I won’t be offended if you don’t post this.
There are, however, a number of points that I would like to make in response to both Stephen and yourself.
Stephen suggests that a UN mandate makes the occupation of Afghanistan “legal”. I guess it does, but “legal” in this situation means that the action has the approval of the big nuclear powers, each of which is concerned with furthering its own geopolitical agenda. “Legal” in this case does not equate with “moral”. Indeed, the first US military adventure in Iraq (the one ordered by Bush snr) had strong UN backing, but that did not make it morally justified. The point I wish to stress is that legality is logically independent from morality. If we didn’t accept this, then the early actions of e.g. the Civil Rights Movement in the US would have to be regarded as immoral because they weren’t legal.
And the government in Afghanistan is without doubt a puppet government installed by the US and its allies only to further its aims, which let’s remember, were initially to get Osama Bin Laden and not to help the ordinary Afghan. Let’s say though that the Afghan government actually is a democracy, and that it invited the troops in (though of course it actually happened in the opposite order), it is still legitimate to refer to the troops as occupying troops. The UK is a democracy and yet a significant number of individuals in Northern Ireland regarded the presence of British troops there as an occupation. This is a position which many people viewed as legitimate. Now, just so you don’t misunderstand me, I am not supporting the IRA here. I am simply stating that a democratically elected government and an occupation are not necessarily mutually exclusive things.
Stephen states that if he lived in Afghanistan, he would be prepared to live with civilian deaths caused “tragically” and “accidentally”. Does this mean that he, personally, would be prepared to accept the death or mutilation of members of his own family for a higher cause? He may, though I expect that when faced with the reality of this, he may actually change his mind. Even if he would be prepared to accept this, the point is that he DOESN’T live in Afghanistan, and it is arrogant to assume that others would think in the way he does.
As for civilian deaths being justified if they prevent future ones, well I can see how this utilitarian logic may make sense. I actually question the use of people as means to ends in this way, but let’s just accept that in some cases it may be acceptable to do this. When we look at Afghanistan, it is clear that intervention by the US and its friends has actually increased the numbers of people killed. Foreign intervention is the cause of mass civilian casualties. The idea that it is somehow the solution to this is rather bizarre to say the least.
It is also perhaps worth noting that the modern ideology of “humanitarian intervention” is strikingly similar to the ideology of those who justified the actions of Europeans in Africa and India in the colonial era. Was it not we in the civilised world who had this burdensome duty to “civilise” these savage people and protect them from themselves?
Stephen’s description of WW2 is grossly inaccurate. It is highly debatable that the powers fighting Hitler’s Germany were actually that bothered about fighting Nazism. In fact, prominent members of the British ruling class (and at least one national newspaper) actively supported what Hitler was doing. And I’m sure that Stalin wasn’t averse to the odd concentration camp here and there. Note here that I am not questioning the motivation of the individual soldiers who genuinely believed that they were fighting the horrors of Nazism, and in fact were. Many of the civilian casualties in WW2 were not the result of a well meaning desire to fight Nazism. (Hiroshima as on obvious example). If the aim of the powers fighting the Nazis in WW2 was to prevent the atrocities committed by them, then why weren’t the railway lines to concentration camps systematically targeted? How is it that the concentration camps continued to exist right up until the very end? WW2 is perhaps better understood as a conflict between expanding capitalist (and state capitalist) regimes, all at roughly the same level of industrial development. And because of this, it is unwise to use it as the ultimate test of pacifism.
And now on to the points raised by Bodhipaksa: You seem to be responding to things that I haven’t actually said. Is this a mistake on your part, or a deliberate strategy?
I never once challenged the moral status of power as such. I challenged the morality of having (and actively seeking) a particular type of power that provides one with control over a nuclear arsenal.
I never actually said that nuclear weapons were not a deterrent. I’m sure they are. I said that the moral justification for using them as a deterrent is erroneous. Let’s be honest here, deterrence is a matter of saying to others that we are prepared to kill every single form of life in their territory – and like I said in the earlier post, you have to MEAN THIS for the deterrent to work. I’m absolutely amazed (and slightly concerned) that you accept this as morally legitimate. As for protecting Europe from the Russians, well that’s very decent of you, but I suspect that there might be other, less menacing, ways to fend off the “bad guys” to the East.
You say my response is “silly” without really saying why and then accuse me of siding with the Taliban. Not only is this offensive, it makes the mistake of falling into the clumsy dualistic either/or thinking that states that if one is opposed to the occupation of Afghanistan, then they must be in favour of the Taliban. Why must this be the case? (In fact it reminds me a little of Bush’s “you’re either with us or against us” speech). I opposed the Iraq war, but certainly did not support Saddam Hussein.
I suppose that when it comes down to it, I’m disappointed that progressive people lack the imagination or courage to argue for a radical and revolutionary rearrangement of the way that the world is organised. It seems instead that many are content to maintain the present system and just hope that a nice person might run it a little better.
Goodness me, i said i probably wouldn’t post again but my frustration at some of these outrageous claims can’t lie. They simply demonstrate for me the moral bankruptcy of many dedicated pacifist perpectives.
I did not equate legal with moral or suggest that they logically dependent. I said i believed the presence of the foreign troops was both legal and moral, seperate but indivudally inportant concepts. The rest of your points about the civil rights movement are therfore indeed silly and irrelevant. Legal positions can of course be both moral and immoral, that does not make legality an irrelevant concept. The point is that in the sense that it is commonly used (and i believe you intend it) an “occupying” army is one which has invaded and is there with no moral or legal legitimacy, such as Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait, or Hitlers annexation of Poland. I simply state the case that that is not the case in Afghanistan. Incidentally, i find it ironic that you have such a hatred of occupation but regard a war to remove a brutal dictatorial state from a genuinely illegal and immoral occupation as immoral itself. Presumably the moral option would have been to leave the genocidal Saddam in Kuwait.
The idea that the Afghan government as well as the Iraqi one are puppet governments is one often cited by the far left. It is in reality grossly offensive to the people of those countries, who braved being murdered by extemists to vote, to denigrate their wishes in such a way. You talk of either/or thinking but that is precisely the kind of simplistic good/evil view you present of theses issues. You accuse me of arrogance for apparently thinking that people in Afghanistan may agree with me. I never stated that, i did state that their democratically elected government approved of the presence of foreign troops and can ask them to leave at any time, as the Iraqi government is currently in the process of doing. There have also been may opinion polls suggesting the large majority of Afghans support the presence of troops who help them build roads, infrastructure etc and keep them safe from fascists. Some polls granted say different, but hey, that’s the joy of being able to get divergent views in a country where this certainly wouldn’t have been possible under the Taleban.
You arrogantly implicitly suggest that i am willng to see others suffer but would probably not be willing to put my family through these things. Let me be clear. If my family, and i have a young daughter, were to live in a country where religious thugs threatened to kill us if we did not follow their misogynistic, hate filled ideology, then i categorically would prefer to take the risk of us being accidentally killed by people who helped us to fight such brutality than to be left to their mercies. You seem to be living in a fantasy where Afghanistan would be a lovely place to live with no killing or atrocities if only the big bad Americans left. The reality is you have one side who make mistakes sometimes despite going to great lengths and accidentally kill civilians and another who deliberately kill and maim anyone who does not follow their ideology. Categorically, i say again i would be prepared for that risk for me and my family rather than have my daughter brought up in fear and as a continually threatened, second class citizen.
You state that i gave a “grossly inaccurate” description of WW2. I gave absolutely no decription of WW2, i asked you a question which you did not answer. You rightly (and somewhat obviously) state that many of the people involved in that conflict had at best mixed and sometimes bad motives. But again you fall precisely into either/or thinking, ie “If Churchill and those on the allies weren’t all good then fighting Hitler must be bad”. Great issues of global justice are never simple and without question many of the allies had deeply dubious convictions and motivations. That doesn’t answer the question, what would you have done with Hitler and would the world be a better place had we had a nice attempt to sort things out peacefully like Chamberlain did? You are entitled to think so, and i am entitled to think you would be extraordinarilly naive and living in a terrifying Europe today if people like that had won the arguments in the 1930s.
As for yor comment about not once questioning the moral status of power, that is simply backtracking having been roundly shown up to have a silly position. You clearly stated your belief that Obama was, to quote you “a monster”, simply be desiring to have a position of influence and power that involved nuclear weapons. Could you explain to me how you would hope to remove the world of nuclear weapons if everyone who would rather them gone avoids running for president in case they become morally tainted by the very fact that they exist? Completely illogical, and indeed silly thinking.
How dare you accuse us of a lack of courage? It is precisely this kind of naive, cowardly appeasement that allows tyranny to flourish. What becomes apparent is that you actually never once propose a better way of doing things, but you “suspect” there may be better ways. If i wasn’t so gobsmacked at your naivete i would be interested to hear what these may be, but unfortuately like many of a revolutionary trait, you appear to be only good at condemning those who try to make brave decisions to achieve real change. You reveal yourself with your desire for revolutionary change and yet you cite Stalin. Little has done more to spread the world with slaughter and torture than the desire for revolutionary, rather than skillfull, negotiated change.
Well, what can I say? Its clear that we’re not going to agree so I wish you the best of luck with your “skillful” and “negotiated” change and I hope that your Buddhists bombs do whatever it is you want them to do!
Interesting reading. How about you guys take it easy? Rather than arguing about things that divide us, let’s focus on what all of us as human beings have in common. Now that is genuinely revolutionary! Peace, brothers.
Simon: This is a very tedious discussion, mainly I find because you keep shifting your position, but I’ll take the bait and respond to a few points you made that were directed at me:
Well I also responded to things that Stephen said. You may regard that as a “strategy” but I call it a discussion. And you also seem to think I’ve said things I haven’t said.
I’d invite you to show me where I said that you were challenging the moral status of power as such. You described Obama as being a “monster” and as being “dangerous” because he is in charge of the US’s nuclear arsenal. I addressed those points. You either misunderstood my response or you’re avoiding it, I don’t know which.
You started by saying that Obama was a “monster” for being in possession of a nuclear arsenal. You asked when he had ever questioned the morality of possessing a nuclear arsenal (and it was pointed out that he had). Then you shifted to saying he’d never seriously questioned the morality of possessing a nuclear arsenal. Apparently wanting to get rid of the US’s nuclear arsenal is not “serious.” Now you’re suggesting that anyone who runs for the US presidency is automatically immoral.
I’m glad we cleared that up, although I don’t recall questioning you on that point.
I think the use of nuclear deterrence is a political and military necessity, and the best position to take given the unfortunate circumstances of there being two sides (at least) who are armed with nuclear weapons. But of course as is clear from what I’ve written I’m in favor of nuclear disarmament. It would be nice if we could wish away the fact of nuclear weapons and instantaneously have a nuclear-free world, but of course that can’t happen and so we need a workable strategy for getting from the here of a nuclear world to the there of a disarmed world. This is just realism.
Which you conveniently forget to mention. I’ll turn my unilateral disarmament hypothesis into a question. Let’s say NATO decides unilaterally to disarm its nuclear weapons. And let’s say that Russia decides that it wants to start expanding its territory back into the old Warsaw Pact area and beyond. And as it asserts its territorial claims it warns Western Europe and the US that it will destroy every major city with nuclear weapons if it meets resistance. What then? What’s your “less menacing” response? You’ve put forward arguments that suggest you’re against war in any form, so I’m not sure what political and military strategy you’re left with.
I think I made it clear that it was “silly” of you to stretch logic to the point where you could seriously say that Obama is “directly responsible” for the deaths of Afghan fighters in an altercation where US troops were defending themselves against enemy fire. Your attempts to defend your own intemperate words are indeed silly, and rather sad.