Unfit for Command
Observing Speaker Nancy Pelosi and a Democratic House imperil a U.S.-Turkish alliance of 60 years—by formally charging Turkey with genocide in a 1915 massacre of the Armenians—the question comes to mind: Does this generation have the maturity to lead America?
About the horrors visited on Armenians in 1915, that year of Turkish triumph over the Royal Navy in the Dardanelles, which led to the ouster of First Lord Winston Churchill, and of victory over the British-French-ANZAC invasion force on Gallipoli, there is no doubt.
Between 1915 and 1923, as modern Turkey was being torn out of the womb of a dying Ottoman Empire, a million or more Armenians died in massacres and a forced exodus. It was one of the monstrous crimes and terrible tragedies of a 20th century that abounded in both.
That Armenian-Americans wish to have their holocaust recognized is understandable. But that Democrats could not put off that request—for Congress to officially charge Turkey with genocide, 90 years ago—is not.
For what was the necessity for the House to take this sensitive moment in U.S.-Turkish relations to rub our allies' noses in century-old sins by equating their fathers with Hitler and Himmler?
What was their motive?
Answer: House Democrats are pandering to an Armenian lobby that has long sought to have the United States formally declare that what Turks did to them is exactly what Nazis did to the Jews. The genocide resolution now goes to the floor, where Pelosi promises swift passage.
One trusts Democrats will be rewarded, for the damage they have done to the national interest is great.
In Turkey, America has always been regarded more warmly than the other Western democracies. We never declared war on Turkey in 1917. We were not party to the secret Sykes-Picot deal that carved up the Ottoman Empire. Though Woodrow Wilson agreed in Paris to accept a U.S. trusteeship of Constantinople, which would have put us on a collision course with Mustafa Kemal Ataturk's nation, the Senate rejected it.
When, after World War II, Stalin pressed down on Turkey, the Turks were among the first beneficiaries of Marshall Plan and Truman Doctrine aid. Turks reciprocated by sending their sons to fight beside Americans in Korea. They were then brought into NATO.
The Turks accepted U.S. intermediate-range ballistic missiles targeted on the Soviet Union, then accepted their removal as part of JFK's secret deal with Nikita Khrushchev to end the Cuban missile crisis.
No nation has been a better friend or more reliable ally. Since the first days of the Cold War, Turkey hosted U.S. bases. And few nations are more crucial than this land bridge between Islam and the West, between the Middle East and Europe. Turkey is a crossroads of the world.
But the relationship has deteriorated.
The Turks opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq, arguing, rightly it turns out, that Saddam was no threat to the region. The Turks refused to allow us to use their territory for a northern front in the invasion of Iraq. Yet, today, Turkey is indispensable to Gen. Petraeus. Turkish drivers deliver munitions and supplies overland to Iraq. Turkish bases, like Incirlik, are used by the U.S. Air Force to support American troops in Iraq.
Ankara's reward: to have Congress vote to condemn Turkey's founding fathers as genocidal murderers.
Understandably, Turks are coming to see the alliance as a one-way street and themselves as forgotten friends. For we have failed to convince the Kurds we shelter in northern Iraq to rein in their terrorist cousins, who are using Iraqi territory as a privileged sanctuary from which to attack the Turkish army. Two dozen Turkish soldiers have been murdered in two separate attacks in recent weeks by the PKK.
When Pancho Villa raided Columbus, N.M., in 1916, and killed dozens of Americans, Wilson sent Gen. Pershing and an army of 12,000 into Mexico to run him down. Turks have the same right of hot pursuit, and they feel the same rage. For the Leninists of the PKK were responsible for a 15-year war in which some 37,000 Turks and Kurds died before 1999, when a truce was declared.
By reigniting a war of terror in Turkey and using bases in Iraq from which to attack, the PKK appears to be provoking a Turkish invasion of Iraq, which could deal a mortal blow to the U.S.-Turkish alliance and would be a disaster for U.S. policy in Iraq. Meanwhile, Iranian Kurds of a related terror group, PEJAK, have been conducting attacks inside Iran. Iran, like Turkey, has been responding with artillery fire into Iraq.
The United States needs to sit down with our Kurdish friends and explain that in return for U.S. protection, they are to rein in the PKK and PEJAK before they drag us into a wider war.
As for Ms. Pelosi & Co., they seem determined to prove the point that, no matter the failures of Bush & Co., the Democrats are unfit for command.
COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
Entries(RSS)
If I had any nationality other than American, I would think it was an absolute hoot to watch anyone in the U.S. government--from either party--in 2007 act with an air of moral superiority in the field of international relations. As it is, I am embarrassed and exhausted from watching the shameful, inarticulate grandstanding of American "leaders" as they drag this country further into the mud.
UNCLE SAM: "We need to help those backwards, non-industrial Third World countries!"
UNCLE SAM: "Turkey is guilty of genocide!"
No explanation is needed for anyone who has been following current events.
Of course Turkey needs to come to terms with its brutality against Armenia. But that gets to the heart of the problem, which is that 1. so long as she repudiates her political and (since the 1960's) her cultural European inheritance, the U.S. can scarcely concern herself with this European problem, and 2. either way, this would not be an issue were we not shoving our noses into petty Middle Eastern politics in the first place.
Now I understand why Europeans enjoy laughing at us. If I wasn't the arse of this joke, I would be guffawing.
"As for Ms. Pelosi & Co., they seem determined to prove the point that, no matter the failures of Bush & Co., the Democrats are unfit for command."
This is true, but so what ? The Republicans have been in power since 2000, inheriting a 56% Turkish approval of the USA. Today it stands at 12 %. And not just because of the demo rats. The Iraq war has been a disaster for the Turks and it was lead by stalwart republicans. When is our dear friend, Pat, going to admit reality. The party in which he spent a lifetime serving is over, the guest list has been revised, reservations are no longer accepted and the old folks who were once regulars( and always a minority), no longer welcomed.
For now this is a kid party, Pat, and if you are not rowdy and stupid, willing to bring your wife to the global whore house, or paramour to the new duopoly church, you aren't welcome. Pat reminds me of the distinguished old gentleman still arriving early on Sundays to serve coffee in the parish hall, when everybody in town knows the Bishop sold it a long time ago to pay legal fees.
I thought Pat Buchanan was an American defender of Christian civilization and, as such, would defend the truth, especially in relation to the Armenian genocide, perpetrated by a Muslim dictatorship (the Young Turks) against a defendless ancient Christian people. Perhaps I was wrong. With this article Pat seems more like a blind anti-Democrat and aligns himself with the neoconservatives, as well as the Turkish nationalists.
As for the US-Turkey alliance I think after the end of the Cold War it serves no purpose. In the case of the invasion of Iraq, Turkey provided absolutely no support: US troops were forbidden to cross Turkish soil or use the US bases there. As for PKK, it is more a nationalist than a leninist Kurdish organization.
The Cold War alliance of Turkey with the USA has outlived its usefulness. While I expect there was no particular reason other than moral-feel-goodness for the House condemnation of the Armenian genocide, it actually makes good sense in terms of the Separate & Contain strategy that the USA and the West ought to be following vis-a-vis the Islamic world. Part of this strategy would involve rowing back on the USA's hostility to the Russian-led Orthodox world, and ceasing to support Turkish-backed Islamic expansion in the Balkans and central Asia.
@Nikos Doukas
Yes, even though I am a great fan of mr. Buchanan's --- his analysis of international politics is among the best in the world --- he sort of seems like a Kissinger-like realpolitiker here. Is there no moral obligation to address this issue or is mr. Buchanan simply protesting the timing?
One could object to politicians who cowardly bend over for lobbys, but isn't this justice? If Turks committed genocide against a people, they should come to terms with their past demons, any sensible, grown up nation should. Although, postwar born Turks cannot be held accountable for other people's actions, the nation can be. They could at least admit to historical facts and stop denying tragedy.
Germany is constantly reminded of WOI & II and the Holocaust, the US of Vietnam and the Indians, Spain of the inquisition and the conquistadores, France of Algeria and the colonization of Africa and England of the rest of the world's misery. The West is blamed for slavery, apartheid, genocide, KKK, ethnic cleansing and the death of the 'Dodo' bird, who used to live in Mauritius.
It's all our fault!
Well not all, Turkey killed the Armenians. If Western countries have to take responsibility, than so should Eastern or Islamic countries. In Europe we're building slavery monuments all over the continent. Even in countries like Sweden, who didn't even participate.
Are we still living in the era of the white man's burden? Count me out.
There seems to be an attitude reflected in some comments here that there is a moral obligation of Congress to make this comment about genocide. Yet Congress has no other Constitutional purpose than to pass legislation. It was never intended, nor can it function, as some sort of clearing house for historical issues, bestowing approvals here, disapprovals there. While it was not Buchanan's thesis, this sort of grandiosity is, initself, a large part of what is wrong with all political comers at this moment. Our founders had no such illusions about political hacks, whom they label as mere "factions" in the Federalist. This sort of narcissistic behavior is 100% attributable to the presence of TV cameras and microphones everywhere, as a daily part of national life.
Politicians have not changed much in 200 years, but their context has. The Armenian genocide resolution of course has nothing to do with moral purpose, of these hacks, even if somebody somewhere can think of one. This episode would be more funny, however, if it were harmless. In a world where "speaking out" is seen as action, however, the consequences this daily striptease before the eyes of the world are yet to be accounted. Yet it seems reasonable to believe that a significant diminishment of American power and influence is a first large consequence, and the timing is very bad.
This c**t can push for something like this, but she refuses to consider impeachment of the most blatant war criminal on the planet?
The constitution is legally binding on nobody in this country, which means that the entire federal government is illegitmate. When are the people of this country going to wake up, and take every one of these people out?
Re: #5, reading your post, it occurs to me that forcing Turkey to be held accountable for her sins against Armenia and Assyria would have the nasty side effect of dealing a blow to the confidence of its occidental-friendly Kemalist régime. Just look at how the pointing of fingers at Europeans for slavery has helped break down national confidence and pride...
... and paved the way for an Islamic takeover of Europe.
Don't think it couldn't happen in Turkey. The morons who run the E.U. are trying to water down the military stronghold over that country in order to humanize it before (equally moronically) admitting it to the E.U. The inevitable result will be that the Kemalists are unable to contain Islamic fundamentalists...
... and unless Europeans find the morale to repudiate postmodernist historians (for whom decency does not allow me to express the full extent of my contempt), this will be the revival of the Ottoman Empire.
The timing of this is monumentally bad, but I agree with #6 that Congress has not Constitutional authority to do this sort of thing. Ron Paul understands this too. He is the lone vote against many of these silly gestures.
BTW, Turkey should free their Kurds. I see no point in carrying water for Turkish nationalists.
Is there a better reason to carry water for Kurdish separatists?
@6
You're right, it shouldn't even be in congress. Thank God, for RP. He's truly a remarkable, once-in-a-lifetime, politician.
Yet, considering all lobbys are out there, AIPAC, NRA, oil-maffia, tobacco kings et al, don't the Armenians have the same right as the rest of them? It's not the lobby per se, it's the system which allows itself to be influenced.
PS
Earlier this day, I saw a politician on the (ultraliberal) Crooks&Liars named Lindsey Graham, he was defending the Iraq-war, a (supposedly) 'conservative', and badmouthing one of the American generals.
These are the kind of people who fall for lobby thugs, who vote for amnesty insanity, who invade countries, who lie about WMD's shamelessly, who suck up to Buscheny, instead of showing some manly spine --- he doesn't look manly at all, quite frankly. They should be wiping streets, instead of running things --- I excuse myself towards street wipers, at least they work for a living and 10 to 1 they've got more integrity.
@ Moses
You could be right, but I don't think so, Turkey was never much of a European country. Maybe anatolia has some Western roots and cross-cultural history, but Turkey is a mainly Islamic nationalist country.
The white man's burden (or the culture of Western guilt) is more of a corruption of the Protestant Christian ethic. The Western culture is built upon original sin, (Islamic) Turkey is built upon respect and pride. Their natural response towards guilt isn't met with humility and shame, but anger and resentment.
But all in all, MM was right. Stuff like this should be part of some intellectual debate, not politics.
"Is there a better reason to carry water for Kurdish separatists?"
Yes, self-determination.
Red:
Nancy Pelosi may be crazy, but she's crazy like a fox. This resolution was done largely for domestic political reasons.
She knows that she doesn't have the support in the House for an outright cutoff of funds for the war. (The VISIBLE support---behind the scenes, most Congressmen are getting tired of the whole Mess-O-Potamian exercise.) She also knows that the MoveOn.org crowd who is her main power base wants to see some specific action taken in response to their concerns. The support--and more importantly, the campaign contributions---come from that bunch.
By supporting this resolution, she angers the Turks. The Turks provide logistic support and overflight rights to the Imperial airforce and ground forces in Iraq. If they are sufficiently incensed (and they do seem to be---heads of state do not recall their country's ambassador on a whim), then they withdraw this support. That may and probably will not trigger an Imperial withdrawal from Iraq, but it will raise the costs to Bush, her political enemy, and provide her and her supporters something tangible to show to her contributors. Indeed, since the average American commoner knows nothing of history, she is not even likely to draw many protests, except from the more rabid talk-show-listener types.
This resolution, from Pelosi's perspective, is a high-gain, relatively low-risk move. I'm surprised nobody came up with it sooner.
Your servant,
Lord Karth
Fiddling while Rome burns.
@13
I would give more credence to your analysis if the impulse to posture and preen on moral issues were not so strong in the imperial city. Why assume a well thought out Machiavellian construct is in motion when the usual puffing up of egos and trolling for ethnic dollars is at work?
"Yes, self-determination."
Isn't that why Wilson got us into World War I? If, as Buchanan argues, America's national security is threatened by a Kurdish national rebellion, I go with America's national security. I'm not saying "forget justice" but just that I don't see how justice demands we support someone else's self-determination movement against our own just interests.
If Americans actually took a stand to protect their just interests instead of just talking about it maybe we would get somewhere.
T. French
You say: "I would give more credence to your analysis if the impulse to posture and preen on moral issues were not so strong in the imperial city. Why assume a well thought out Machiavellian construct is in motion when the usual puffing up of egos and trolling for ethnic dollars is at work?"
That's my point. The impulse to posture and preen is being exercised precisely for the purpose of trolling for dollars. Remember, the first rule of Imperial politics is this: maintain your tenure in office. The Throne City is a value-for-value town. Nancy Pelosi and her allies want those campaign dollars. MoveOn.org's members want movement on the war, or at least the perception of movement. The inclination is already there, at least on Pelosi's part.
This deal is a two-fer: The MoveOn.org crowd gets a spoke thrown in the wheel of the war, and Pelosi gets to do something she wants to do anyway, and gets paid for it to boot. What's not to like ?
I will agree with Professor Wilson that this is fiddling while Rome burns. The problem is that modern Imperial politics and political structure is not set up to allow consideration of long time horizons. Perhaps the next regime to be set up after the Lincoln/Wilson/Roosevelt apparatus collapses should have (at least) one hereditary house in it, just to extend the State's time horizon beyond the next year or so.
Your servant,
Lord Karth
@13 may be on to something? Buchanan has been very vocal against the Bush Administration's plans to launch premptive strikes against Iran. Those plans require considerable support and agreement on the part of Turkey.(Pelosi can damage that relationship).......PB, a committed non-interventionist sees Pelosi as an interventionist of an antaginizing nature, for the purpose of political gain at the expense of a crumbling and failed middleast policy that should be left to succeed or die on it's own. Her visit to Syria clearly showed a divided U.S. Government. If she thought it would damage U.S/Japan relations, she would be demanding that Japan appologize to Russia for the war that they had!.........She is simply a nut, but a clever, manipulative nut.
Lord Karth
We have no real disagreement here. I concede that the Turks will be enraged and that the administration may suffer some inconvenience as a result. What I'm not so sure about is whether or not Pelosi and company even thought of this happening when they threw their support behind this resolution. Then again given that stupidity and malice often travel hand-in-hand you may well be correct in your assessment. If I had time to parse the MoveOn.org blog and the like perhaps I'd find an answer, what say you?
@11
Untill the Seljuks came, "anatolia" was very much an European country.
Ephesos, Milete, Byzantium, Nicea, Trebizond were once as European as Athens, Rome and Londen.
If things don't change, Athens, Rome, Londen and Rockford will
become soon "asiatic" like Ankara, Izmir and Gaziantep and Christians of European descent a persecuted minority like the
poor Armenians in the empire of the young Turks.
Nikos,
"I thought Pat Buchanan was an American defender of Christian civilization and, as such, would defend the truth, especially in relation to the Armenian genocide, perpetrated by a Muslim dictatorship (the Young Turks) against a defenseless ancient Christian people. Perhaps I was wrong. With this article Pat seems more like a blind anti-Democrat and aligns himself with the neoconservatives, as well as the Turkish nationalists.
As for the US-Turkey alliance I think after the end of the Cold War it serves no purpose. In the case of the invasion of Iraq, Turkey provided absolutely no support: US troops were forbidden to cross Turkish soil or use the US bases there. As for PKK, it is more a nationalist than a Leninist Kurdish organization."
You said it all and well.
As for Pelosi: our enemies indeed do not define our beliefs.
"... Unfit for Command ..." Buchanan, unprincipled as ever.
"You could be right, but I don’t think so, Turkey was never much of a European country. Maybe anatolia has some Western roots and cross-cultural history, but Turkey is a mainly Islamic nationalist country."
I would never call Turkey a European country, no matter how thoroughly secularized they made it. But Turkey is an issue for Europe because she is at their back door, and whatever the faults of the Kemalist state, "Islamic nationalism" per se is scarcely one of them, and from my great distance I would wager the Kemalist Republic is preferable to the Ottoman Empire. I suspect most Europeans believe the same thing, and I would admonish them that attempting to turn Kemalism into the same denatured human rights culture swamping the West would only destroy it and leave a nasty power
@22: There is no evidence that Buchanan favors the Turks over the Armenians, only that he thinks this resolution is ill-timed and overbearing, and I would agree. Unprincipled? I think perhaps you're not seeing the dramatic irony in his post: Buchanan is well aware that, had we not invaded Iraq in the first place, we would hardly be in this awkward position of having to salvage what remains from a Cold War alliance.
"nasty power vacuum."
Pat,wake up! The Armenians are the oldest Christian nation and their defiance and revival should be at least a small counter to your pessimism about the West. You once spoke boldly of the spirit of Lepanto and siege of Vienna. Now you belly dance like a harem girl to keep the Sultan happy!
This is all very interesting, but I fail to see how attempts to tweak major events worldwide by Congressional seals of good health further the American experiment. If Congess is -- by mass approval or approval by silence, if nothing else -- encouraged to exercise power in this fashion, even for the undeniably good, it will shortly use that power for the undeniably bad. In either event, the American experiment is further degraded right here and now, much less as something fit for export now or later (the very level of the folly diminishes the chances for a later).
This has nothing to do with the degradation of the other 2 branches of the national government, as if that could be a justification. Nor with whether Pat Buchanan dances like a harem girl. Agree with him or not, Buchanan has signalled a major malfunction in the federal legislative branch particular to this moment in history. The nation is in the course of playing with dangerous meltdown in an already volatile international situation, by no other means than giddy and phony moralistic pronouncement -- uncountenanced by any actual election or arguable plebiscite, or any decision Constitutionally sanctioned by any branch of government in its ordinary course of business.
Sure, neither the 9th or 10th Amendments prevented the current runaway federal government. The original bargain likewise failed to prevent the civil war. Thus even a constitutional amendment likely would not prevent the foolishness (or calculation) of a Pelosi. But at what point does "we the people" become complicit with the destruction of our republic, and with whatever destructive consequences may follow? Lunacy on this level, egged on by virulent media predated the civil war (see Charles Royster's excellent study The Destructive War.) But I am not certain there has ever been any other such moment, in kind or degree, although there was a shot at that title again in 1968 which I am sure many will recall.
Simply, a responsible citizenry cannot countenance this Armenian resolution, even if it is "morally right." Perhaps especially if it is "morally right."
What Armenian pressure? Pelosi's desire to recognize the Armenian genoide has nothing to do with pressure from Armenian groups since this lobby small, very unorganized, and, worse yet, statistically very Republican.
Instead we have to look at the Israeli Lobby as the instigator of this new move to deliberately embarass the Turks. Pelosi doesn't even brush her teeth without first consulting The Lobby so that you can be sure that The Lobby gave it approval for the present campaign.
Why would The Lobby want to embarass the Turks? There might be any one of several reasons. Among these might be the crumbling of the once solid Tukish support for the Israeli governmen and Turkey's refusal to support or participate in the Iraq War.
The Armenian campaign ties in with another interesting development. This is the continuing attacks on Turkish forces in Kurdish areas of Turkey that seem to be from emanting from the Kurdish areas of Iraq. The Kurdish area of Iraq is now under increasingly dominant Israeli control so the attacks on Turkey could only be taking place with the complicit support of the Israelis.
It seems that Israel in her typical fashion is about to turn on her once loyal ally. Is the turnabout because that ally has refused to strictly toe the Israeli politcal line or is it something much darker and more sinister.
Pelosi -- and Buchanan, and everyone participating in this thread -- are obviously anti-Semites who should be fired from their jobs and prevented at working in any niche more significant than that of a dishwasher at Long John Silver's.
Everybody knows that the only genocide that has ever occured in human history took place in the years 1942-1945.
@26: most nations in the West do many things that would be considered anathema constitutionally in the United States. Some of these things are very bad; others are quite good or even necessary given the modern world. Given the current state of the U.S., I really think it is long past time conservatives moved beyond the idea of conserving our 1776 constitution, which was written for a small 18th century farmer's republic.
Not that I support this resolution. Condemnations by public figures, in better times past, were timely and had teeth. This thing is nothing more than a motion to grandstand, to wag our finger and to pick a quarrel, far too late in the game, without any teeth to it. It will do nothing to deter future murders. Presumptuous and useless.
@27: the Armenian lobby may be heavily Republican, but this year I think it's pretty safe to say most non-evangelicals and non-neocons are swing. I doubt whether Ms. Pelosi really has the intellectual capacity to comprehend political strategy 101; most likely she is posturing, as all politicians do when it comes to human rights.
On posting number 27, jdfsau:
First a question, concerning your "The Kurdish area of Iraq is now under increasingly dominant Israeli control". I would not be surprised; still, could you provide me some web link?
Of course, that "that nationality" wants to be "spice in everyone's soup" is a mere euphemism. What is quite unusual in this case, however, is the fact that "they" always scream that they are "the only eminent victims" and rabidly suppress any other nations' claims to victimhood. If they now did let poor Armenians by, something serious must be brewing.
Nicholas, your candor is quite welcome and refreshing. If more persons in the wide debate over Iraq -- both sides -- admitted they believe we should "move on" from the 1789 (not 1776, that was the declaration of independence) constitution, then we the people might have a fighting chance, however desparate. The mask would be ripped off of both "sides."
And you may well be right. But how is that to be determined?
Instead of the 1789 document, what do you propose? No government? Government by instant mass reaction, based on little or no information? Following whatever "most nations in the West" do at any given moment? A board of seers and wise men certified by the Nobel prize? What?
It is arguable the Romans were finished when Caesar crossed the Rubican. Or when Augustus was made chief priest and given his title. Or when Caligula declared himself a god. Or even after the partial return to normalcy under Trajan. But it is certainly not arguable that once the citizenry started flocking into the coliseum, cheering one antagonist or another (including many exotics from far away lands), and damn all else, they were finished.
Further, the document of 1789 was hammered out, for good or ill, by men who thought in such terms of historical lesson. Since you propose that this document every American citizen has a right to rely upon simply go away, by enough people just ceasing to think about it, I believe one may fairly ask you -- upon what body of thinking, science, or what have you should the new order be built?
@31: thank you for correcting my typo.
My proposal? I admit to not having a complete solution. I am not a wise old man, and reflexively doing just "what everyone else" is doing is unwise. But at the risk of dragging this too far off-topic, here are my thoughts-in-the-rough:
1. A "living document" interpretation of the 1789 Constitution is nihilistic and untenable, allowing us to be ruled by the whims of judges who neither have an organic connection to their subjects (a monarch) or democratic demand behind their decisions.
2. A "strict constructionist" interpretation of the 1789 Constitution seems, in my opinion, too narrow for changing economic and geopolitical circumstances. For example, campaign spending limits are apparently unconstitutional.
3. Even if that is not a good example of strict constructionism, it is questionable whether the constructionists will ever overcome the liars in this mad game, especially since the Constitution is so difficult to amend--a situation which may have been desirable in the days when the States were more loosely connected, but except for a few holdouts the U.S.A. of 1789 is long gone.
4. There is no questioning that many of the Fathers were brilliant men and healthy skeptics, even if their cosmologies and positive ideas cannot be fully trusted. A reconstituted U.S.A., when drafting a new document, should at least ponder their ideas both in and out of the 1789 Constitution.
5. I would never argue that Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, et. al. are perfect--in certain areas their flaws are even more pronounced than ours. But in many cases they have progressed far more slowly down the road to homogenous soup than we, and daily life is often far more functional and natural than in the United States (just compare the life of the average Frenchman--everything from eating habits to transportation--to that of the average American and you'll see what I mean). And since politics informs culture, it is at least worth asking what, if anything, they have done right that we have not.
6. As a conservative, I desire, if nothing else, a constitution that provides for the reasonable protection of life and property, the prudent defense of our territorial integrity and international trade interests; a guard against excessive influences of uncontrolled forces with sweeping revolutionary potential (including both Communist parties and large corporations); an upholding of Christian institutions, morality and culture; and at least a forum for honest debate in how to educate the next generation. Maybe I'm dreaming. But it's a good dream, I think.
Add to number six the explicit granting of the power to local communities to put local cultural and aesthetic needs on an equal footing with property rights--and perhaps a national endorsement of neotraditional architecture to ensure that the response to their demands won't be economic pullout and therefore a dying community.
@ 32, 33: In other words, a recasting of the document of 1789 -- a constitution (not a Napoleonic Code covering everything) updated to fit new societal developments, designed to protect the same values underlying the 1789 document (heavily implicit in 32, no. 6, and 33).
And presumably a document of granted powers, like the 1789 document was supposed to be. Proposal 33 could not otherwise exist without the premise of such a grant from we the people.
But the point is this: nowhere is there a grant to any body, or part or department of government, to carry on a living fashion moral show for either ourselves or others, much less to issue "decrees" applauding or condemning events and peoples in other places or times.
Incidentally, I am no "strict constructionist" (whatever that is). You don't have to be one to observe the present level of folly, and realize how far afield it is.
Yet too, in the updated circumstances included, what checks and balances do we now require? In light of dangerous new possibilities and powers falling to beltway demagogues, who presume in the eyes of the world to "speak out" as this nation's voice -- a development which in a quite potent manner threatens all the things we both value -- territorial integrity, property, healthy development of grass roots culture . . . . Hopefully, no one should have this power, and it clearly is not on any true or sane conservative's list. But the point is, the beast is still there. It got around the 1789 document and it might just as easily get around any updated one. At present, a citizen's only power is to vigorously oppose Congress' donning of this berserk mantle. Whether for or against Armenians, Turks, Islamists, whoever.
Buchanan's argument, focusing on timing and which of these foreign causes we need to endorse, admittedly takes for granted the potential goodness of the power; he simply sees it misused in this instance. Perhaps we the people need to think of creative yet effective ways to defang our globe-trotting Frankenstein (which is born first in our heads and egos). Personally, my choice (based on the 197th rerun of the towers going down, and not environmental hysterics) was to buy a hybrid. I realize that is about as (1) unlikely to effect matters as the Ron Paul candidacy, (2) almost as smugly righteous as Nancy Pelosi.
"But the point is this: nowhere is there a grant to any body, or part or department of government, to carry on a living fashion moral show for either ourselves or others, much less to issue “decrees” applauding or condemning events and peoples in other places or times."
Perhaps we are not nearly so far in disagreement as I had mistakenly construed, and I apologize for my error. There are those who would like the U.S. off of the international scene period, and I'm pretty sure that is untenable. I don't think we would even come close to solving all our problems by immediately and unilaterally withdrawing from the UN, WTO and other such organizations, and that we may even do harm to ourselves in certain cases. Also, while the underlying current to the present international régime is plainly evil ("human rights"), that should not be taken to mean that international alliances and conferences are devoid of use, properly understood.
But I completely agree. This moral grandstanding is unacceptable, and as "SPQR" points out in Piatak's latest thread, most governments are almost by necessity Machiavellian enough to make said grandstanding rather ironic (or hypocritical).
Who is to defend the new traditional order? True, there is almost no one among the present ruling classes or even in the country at all who would be fit to uphold any beautiful ideal, but we must propose the program all the same, lest we concede our country is dead. And there is hope... in Europe there are political leaders (if not necessarily governmental ones) who care about their countries far more genuinely (if not completely genuinely) than in the U.S. We've got Ron Paul and Patrick Buchanan, but where is the political movement?
Also, what I'm really trying to get at is that some conservatives tout the "smaller government" talking point as though that will restore local autonomy and traditional integrity. In the age of techno-capitalism and academic postmodernism, the U.S. government is far from the only thing destroying traditional life in this country. The large corporation and the big university are but two of the institutions that, barring an act of God, only something of state-strength can hope to even imperfectly check.
And the reason I support reconstituting the government is because the present state concerns itself far more with sleeping with corporations and academics than counteracting with them, arguably to a higher degree than any other country.
@Nicholas GP Moses
Agreed, I prefer a nationalist proud secular state Turkey over an expansionist Islamist Ottoman empire too. I just think Islamic countries behave much differently from the West when they're confronted with past sins. Most of our leaders roll over and take the blame. These weasels sicken me.
(Hey, I may even found something I like about Islamic countries. At least, they stand up for themselves when they're bullied. Too bad for the Armenians though.)
One sins against God and against Him and Him alone does one sin. He deals with sin one of two ways: the unrepentant is ultimately consumed by God's wrath - remember vengeance belongs to Him alone, or the repentant, covered by the blood of the Christ, is redeemed. Thus sins are God's business and His business alone.
One transgresses against an individual whether that individual is subsumed in a great genocide or murder quite alone. The individual or in some cases his family on his behalf seeks where they may justice and/or forgives the malefactor(s). Limiting ourselves to the discussion of the Armenians, we find that those who transgressed and those against whom the transgressions were brought are dead. Any justice or forgiveness at that level died with them.
Crimes are committed against the state. A crime occurs when at the time of the action there is a recognized law against it and the state which has made the law has jurisdiction. What state at the time of the actions which the Turks took against the Armenians had law and jurisdiction against such acts? These United States I think not.
Therefore, to put it in the tongue of my deceased father, who was no little earthy: this is all a minnow fart in backwater as it relates to sin, to transgressions and a healthy notion of the law. The United States were not sinned against, for contrary to liberal and neo-con belief, we are not God. There was no transgression against the United States in the case of the Turks versus the Armenians at the beginning of the last century; and there was no U.S. law or jurisdiction which applied at the time.
I find it quite interesting that the current generation denies anyone the right to hold it accountable and claims that all values are relative in the orgy of diversity but at the same time, in utter contradiction, holds the right to judge and even carry out sentence on the past; and the worst part of it is that these irrational sentiments are held to be high ethical and moral standards.
Fiddling while Rome burns
Is the "fiddling" remark directed at Pelosi or at us bloggers? What is your proposal for how to quench the flame, Dr. Wilson?
I commend Nicholas Moses for seeing through the "constitutionalist" and "isolationist" approaches. If the United States federal govt. suddenly stopped every activity that the 1789 Constitution does not permit, chaos would result. Federal pork often enough is what is buoying up "small town America" and "Middle American Main Street." And sudden withdrawal from the UN might result in UN-leftist domination of most of the world, via the Chinese, Russian, and EU votes. America might then face an even worse predicament when that UN turns against it than now, when the US is entangled in it. The John Birchers focus only on the positive outcomes of leaving the UN, never on even a slight possibility of negative blowback.(And, speaking of foreign affairs, though "Chronicles" so far has not mentioned it, Putin apparently is quite chummy with Ahmedinejad. So how is Russia our ally against Islamism?)
We currently have a written Constitution that's ignored. "Living document" is absurd. So why not just chuck the "document" and go with an unwritten constitution? Scalia has praised the British system in this respect. So much of the American obsession with the written Constitution has to do with protestant sola scriptura. If some clause on the parchment said that drinking was a crime (hmm, wait, that sounds familiar . . .), then suddenly this would have the legal weight of the Ten Commandments. I'd want the Justices to have a very "loose constructionist" approach if that amendment still were on the books.
So, Mr. Moses, would you like an Augustus figure, as Thomas Molnar recommends? I assume you'd prefer a Catholic one, of course, more like a Franco, Salazar, or Dollfuss. Am I correct?
Caper echos my thought process on the matter quite well. A dictatorship is not always a good long-term solution, but often at least in the interim it can help get things settled. If only we can get over the "Big Brother" mentality, it may be possible to settle down and royalize the tyrant. Being Catholic, of course I would prefer a Catholic dictator, but I could support a benevolent Protestant with good aesthetic tastes.
As for the constitution, when and if Americans are again fit for constitutional government, an unwritten British-style system would require some long series of traditions, writs and Acts of Parliament to provide any guidelines for functioning. (It is only partially correct to state that "Britain has no written constitution"; the rule of the land and code of government encompass a great many written documents as well as unwritten customs.) Either we reunite with Britain (which would be fine by me) or accept a written document may be necessary, but it should be easier to amend (which would almost by default make the parchment far less sacrosanct) and should put the courts in their place.
Mr. Caper and Mr. Moses,
With Dr. Wilson's fiddle playing in the background, I herewith articulate my perception that we on this current forum are off on a tangent; therefore, allow me to join you and thereby become a cotangent.
America as a society and as a culture, whatever that is, existed before there were States united. Both of those existed before there was that document known as the Constitution. In fact, that document, through which the states and the respective peoples thereof meeting in their sovereign capacity in convention created the general government, is a product of and an articulation of those rights which we properly call life, liberty and property. Following out of those rights are the obligation to tell the king that he can have our personal wealth only by our leave; that he can have our bodies and the bodies of our wards for his wars only by our leave; that our obligations to him are due only as he fulfills his obligations to us; that he may not imprison us without habeas corpus; and that we claim before his magistrates a trial by our peers who shall not only judge our guilt or non-guilt before the law but who shall judge the law itself. The moral tools and argument by which we maintain these rights and obligations are freedom of association, nullification and concurrent majority. However, all of these things remain nice esoteric abstractions unless we have the means - arms, weapons guns - and the will to use them against usurpations.
I fear that the majority of the fickle masses does not even realize that these rights, obligations, tools and weapons exist and are at our disposal. I further fear that those of us who do realize it, as would be the case of most who frequent these fora, do not have the will, the courage and the resolve to use them; and that is our weakness and our humiliation.
One can yet and still hear Dr. Wilson's fiddle!
It seems to me that discussion about U.S. government relations with Turkey is intra-imperial talk. We need to be thinking about how to save the homeland from the Empire, not worrying about capers of the rulers on distant frontiers of their Empire. The Islamization of Europe will indeed be a immense tragedy. But there is little we can do about it. The Europeans are more likely to save their homeland from Islamization than we are to save ourselves from Mexification. They do have a real culture to protect, and while their rulers are just as corrupt and self-serving as ours, they are not as stupid and reckless.
Dr. Wilson,
The struggle between the Republic and the Empire is an old one which has taken place at different times and in different theaters. This is our time and our theater.
The struggle is even portrayed in popular culture: Star Wars, The Lord of the Rings, Gladiator, The Patriot, and Hunt for Confederate Gold
, etc.
It is more seriously handled, as you well know, in books like Republic not an Empire: Reclaiming America by Pat Buchanan.
It is most seriously handled by you yourself in From Union to Empire, particularly focusing on our time and our struggle.
A simple Google of the juxtaposition brings hundreds of sites and articles dealing with Republic versus Empire.
Yet, in my limited circles, few seem to be aware. I learned first hand last week that when some become aware, their awareness immediately translates into anger. I attend an informal men's Bible study on a week day. One of the sidebar discussions went to the eschatology of Revelation and to the great Babylon. Since I am not a dispensationalist/rapturist, I was already on thin ice in that particular discussion within the group. However, after listening to much speculation about who and or what country was "Babylon," I ventured the suggestion that the state which best fits the description found in Revelation, at least to this point in history, would be the United States. You'd have thought that I had tossed a hand grenade into a baby nursery. I wasn't even suggesting it as a theological absolute. If eyes could stone, I'd be as dead as St. Stephen, and this among conservative, Southern men.
Saving the homeland from the empire is indeed a daunting task.
@43: I question whether auto-dependent suburbanite Americans actually do have the liberty to do anything but to drive their cars around until cheap petroleum runs out, and whether individual states have much left to protect themselves from this homogenized interstate-entangled nation-state. From my perspective the best we can do is begin to rebuild these things, taking as our model the best foreign contemporary and domestic historical elements we can conjure up. I quote Robert Adams, one of my favorite contemporary architects:
"Change creates traditions, and the creation of traditions is most noticeable in times of the greatest change. It has been the sport of modernist historians to ridicule tradition by discovering the huge number of seemingly ancient, immemorial traditions invented only in the last two centuries. But the ridicule misses the point. We all live with many of these traditions: Christmas, Scottish tartars, American flag folding. The traditional Christmas is a hodge-podge of borrowed fables and commercial exaggeration. The much-loved code of Scottish clan tartars was invented by—horror of horrors—an Englishman in the early nineteenth century. The solemn ritual of folding the American flag was introduced late in the last century in an atmosphere of militaristic nationalism. The recent invention and continued use of these traditions, created in times of greatest change, demonstrates their potency, not their irrelevance.
"The function of tradition in bonding society and giving a sense of identity has been used by the more recently created European nations, such as Germany; by countries with inherent political instability, such as nineteenth-century France; and by new nations of mixed populations, such as the United States... Military regiments throughout the world still use devices like these. Indeed, new regiments often invent counterfeit historic practices or purloin whole traditional systems taken from disbanded regiments, so vital is the need for a traditional framework. And it works: it saves lives by creating a loyalty based on shared identity. It seems to strike no one in a military context that this obsession with tradition is in any way at odds with the absolute necessity for modernization that dominates the thinking of all armies."
Which brings me @44: Dr. Wilson, outside some parts of the South, is their really much hope for salvaging the identities of the individual States? I think we are all in this together for good, like it or not, and I for one would hate to see us relinquish the thought thought of us playing a collective role in geopolitics, if for no other reason than it makes us a lot less safe and because we miss out on valuable opportunities for cultural exchange. Perhaps I need to let go, but I cannot bear the thought of losing Europe.
More on cars: there is no experience so liberating, speaking as an automotive-bred American (my grandfather even worked on the Flint, Michigan GM assembly line through UAW until retirement!), than to land in one of Europe's great cities or the few North American cities that are old and large enough to have a human layout and real public transit and just WALK. The only time I feel that my car is "liberating" is that wonderful moment when I cross the line from Miami-Dade to Broward County.
G.S. (post #28):
"Everybody knows that the only genocide that has ever occured in human history took place in the years 1942-1945."
You are absolutely right. I consulted Ellie the Weasel at Boston U., and he says the same. He also sends his greetings to Buchanan, says at last he found someone he agrees that Armenians (goyim) are not worthy of recognition, and is immediately initiating campaign "Buchanan for President".
Dr.Wilson ,Europe would have a much better chance of avoiding the "Islamification" you correctly dread if America would stop militantly promoting it.I need only refer to the military subjugation of Christian Serb rebels in Bosnia and Kosovo by us,the impending attempted handover of Kosovo to the KLA by us,the ongoing pressure on the EU to admit and then choke on Turkey by us,the relentless call on Greek Cypriots to acquiesce to a suicide pact pushed by Ankara and us,the bleating of our State Department for more "multi-culturalism",etc.,etc.Turkey is still in a state of belligerence with Christian Armenia replete with economic blockades,etc. Such an ally for our so-called "Christian" nation.
Behind so much of the argumentation here is the fact that "paleo-conservatism" is divided on the wisdom of opposing Islam per se.
In one of his books, Buchanan praises a British politician for claiming that the Turkish massacre of Bulgarians was of no concern for Britain. Buchanan is a "realist," and he cast the pro-Bulgarian Brits as "sentimentalists" or "messianists" or some such thing.
Dr. Trifkovic, on the other hand, has used the *same* British politician (Disraeli?) as a villain. Britain had "abandoned fellow Christians" to "Islamist terror."
So are we fighting for modern nation-states? Turkey, Armenia, and Kurdistan aren't in our nation-state, so screw them? Are we fighting for self-determination, or against it? Buchanan seems to talk out of both sides of his mouth on this one, as he tends to lament devolution in France, Italy, and Britain, while still praising the Confederacy. Are we fighting for a broader Western Civilization, which might include Kemalism? Are we fighting for Christendom, which would include Armenia? If it's for Christendom, which one? An Orthodox, Protestant, or Catholic one, or a hodgepodge? Are the Armenians Christians, or heretics (traditionally, most of them have been monophysites, with a Catholic minority)?
I can't see how there's a clearcut "paleoconservative" answer to any of those questions.
I still don't understand certain paleoconservative laments about the dissolution of state identities. My parents were from Wisconsin, yet I was born and raised in Illinois. Then I went to college in Wisconsin. I *definitely* knew the difference, as I felt like an "odd duck" in both states. And although some paleoconservatives might not like it, yes, traditional sports rivalries (Packers vs. Bears) really are part of genuine interstate cultural differences.