I do agree that it is much better when nations (or people) believe in principles that they don’t always live up to than when they abandon them altogether. And I do not in any way support what Trump is doing.
However, I think this argument, which I have seen made a few times recently (though not as well illustrated as in this essay) misses a key point. Principles can be guides to imperfect behavior, and even occasional abuse, _when people actually believe in them_.
People recognize that moral principles are a guide, something to reach for, but that it is not always possible to maintain them. To say that no “hypocrisy” of any kind can ever be tolerated is to tie everyone into total inaction. But when a principle is believed and held dear, you try to follow it, and when you don’t, you ask forgiveness. This at least re-affirms the principle as an ideal even as you transgress it in action.
But this doesn’t make sense if you, or the community who you ostensibly share it with, don’t actually believe in the principle itself anymore. I’m thinking here of the empty rituals of aristocracy that they used to perform on Downton Abbey. Maggie Smith was the only one who believed in them! The rest of the family was just doing it to do it, and they felt silly.
After World War II, most of the world _believed_ that democracy and self-determination were good, achievable things. The U.S. believed this sincerely, I think, too. And so institutions were set up to support this transformation — especially the U.N. and related — to facilitate these ends through participatory, cooperative action. And for a while, these efforts were imperfect but I think successful.
However, over the last 25 years, the idea that these institutions support these goals is not, in my view, still plausible. In my mind the big break came when Bush invaded Iraq. The showdown between the U.S. and the U.N. revealed that _neither_ were really committed to the principles from the post- WWII peace. The U.N. lacked the nerve to hold countries, like Iraq, to account. This was apparent when the inspectors left. And the U.S. lacked any sense of accountability to the U.N. or the world. They would simply “go it alone” whenever it felt like it.
Or, in other words, it was obvious that there were “two hypocrites” playing the game, leaving anyone to wonder if there were _any_ non-hypocrites out there? When that happens, it’s time to find a new set of principles.
Is it realpolitik? Or just shortsightedness? America is not even serving its own interests by Trump’s violence abroad. What profitith a nation to gain a controlling share of Venezuela’s oil extraction and a Middle East quagmire, while losing the most powerful alliance system the world has ever known?
Thanks for the info about Ethiopia and Eritrea. I didn't know any of that.
Nailed it. Also this was an excellent history lesson. I too didn't know any of this.
I do agree that it is much better when nations (or people) believe in principles that they don’t always live up to than when they abandon them altogether. And I do not in any way support what Trump is doing.
However, I think this argument, which I have seen made a few times recently (though not as well illustrated as in this essay) misses a key point. Principles can be guides to imperfect behavior, and even occasional abuse, _when people actually believe in them_.
People recognize that moral principles are a guide, something to reach for, but that it is not always possible to maintain them. To say that no “hypocrisy” of any kind can ever be tolerated is to tie everyone into total inaction. But when a principle is believed and held dear, you try to follow it, and when you don’t, you ask forgiveness. This at least re-affirms the principle as an ideal even as you transgress it in action.
But this doesn’t make sense if you, or the community who you ostensibly share it with, don’t actually believe in the principle itself anymore. I’m thinking here of the empty rituals of aristocracy that they used to perform on Downton Abbey. Maggie Smith was the only one who believed in them! The rest of the family was just doing it to do it, and they felt silly.
After World War II, most of the world _believed_ that democracy and self-determination were good, achievable things. The U.S. believed this sincerely, I think, too. And so institutions were set up to support this transformation — especially the U.N. and related — to facilitate these ends through participatory, cooperative action. And for a while, these efforts were imperfect but I think successful.
However, over the last 25 years, the idea that these institutions support these goals is not, in my view, still plausible. In my mind the big break came when Bush invaded Iraq. The showdown between the U.S. and the U.N. revealed that _neither_ were really committed to the principles from the post- WWII peace. The U.N. lacked the nerve to hold countries, like Iraq, to account. This was apparent when the inspectors left. And the U.S. lacked any sense of accountability to the U.N. or the world. They would simply “go it alone” whenever it felt like it.
Or, in other words, it was obvious that there were “two hypocrites” playing the game, leaving anyone to wonder if there were _any_ non-hypocrites out there? When that happens, it’s time to find a new set of principles.
“Hilariously,2 Ethiopia switched sides in the Cold War anyways and imposed communism on both its own people and Eritrea as well.”
From what I have heard it was a famously nasty version of a Communist dictatorship as Communist dictatorships go.
It’s interesting how little interaction these articles get.
Is it realpolitik? Or just shortsightedness? America is not even serving its own interests by Trump’s violence abroad. What profitith a nation to gain a controlling share of Venezuela’s oil extraction and a Middle East quagmire, while losing the most powerful alliance system the world has ever known?
That Hush Sound song is a blast from the past! Really quirky band back from when Millennial quirk was cool. Saw them live once.