Saturday, July 19, 2008
Pelosi Calls Bush 'a Total Failure'
This past week House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called President Bush “a total failure,” which even in this era of uncharitable political dialogue struck many as over the line. And certainly, from a political stand point, if one is dealing with a leader who is a total failure (one without merit), then there is certainly no need to dialogue or compromise with such a figure – the only sane option is to dismiss such a man outright without giving his proposals a second thought.
This hatred of President Bush by the American left has been non-stop since the build up to the invasion of Iraq. Now there is no denying that objecting to the invasion of Iraq was a legitimate and reasonable political stance for Americans of all stripes to take; and one can certainly find substantial Bush policies that both figures on the left and right disapprove of. Yet it’s this intensely personal hatred of President Bush that has blinded many to initiatives that historians will surely praise: defense of the unborn, unparalleled generosity in fighting HIV/AIDS in Africa, preventing another 9/11 style attack and keeping American troops in Iraq long enough to see progress.
By labeling Bush a “total failure,” the left has shut down any attempt to reevaluate the war in Iraq, consider the importance of promoting abstinence in the fight against AIDS or acknowledging the fact that many millions in Africa consider Bush a hero for his generous patronage.
Stifling debate on large issues, whether they’re historical or contemporary, has been modeled to millions of Americans by professors, media elites and Hollywood activists. I was reminded of this reality a few days ago, when a colleague mentioned in the context of the American Revolution that we had “wiped out the Indians.”
There is no doubt that American Indians were deceived, killed, uprooted and all together treated with disdain by many Americans from the beginning of the colonies to the beginning of the 20th Century. However, to say that “we wiped them out,” is accusing our forefathers of genocide.
It’s worth noting that millions of Indians are still alive today all over America – the most superficial example being the Indian casinos that millions of American visit each year. Secondly, there was never a stated, intentional program to systematically remove Indians from this land by killing them. In our traditional celebration of Thanksgiving, we recognize that the early colonists and the natives had interactions that were far from genocidal.
We also know that Indians during the colonial days commonly joined sides with the British, French and Spanish to gain advantages, and were know to make war on the colonists when it benefited them and their allies. What did develop over time, was expansionist colonists and later Americans encroaching on the traditional lands of Indians; this clash was often violent, cruel and unfortunate – yet it was never genocide and the violence and cruelty flowed from both sides. And if one is tempted to justify the many murderous raids Indians made on innocent frontiersmen, then one finds himself in league with such modern day terrorists like the P.L.O and Osama Bin Ladin, who believe that those who have territorial and cultural disputes may kill people to resolve them.
The people of the United States must ask God for forgiveness for their sins against the native peoples; yet these injustices do not cancel out, nor negate the remarkable achievements in liberty, self-government and religious tolerance that have flowed from the founding of this country. Any sane view of human nature, assumes that human beings are sinners, who habitually fail to do what’s right. Yet we are also creatures of reason who are capable of understanding complex realities like the founding of America, and so when we blanket an entire epoch of American history with a statement like “Oh, of course - we wiped out the Indians,” we allow our intellects to atrophy.
President Lincoln had to tackle a similar issue when he spoke out against slavery; he understand as a Christian that slavery was a violation of the moral order – men can’t own other creatures of God. Yet President Lincoln was not an extremist, he knew that Southerners were wrong on this issue, but he refused to demonize them knowing that they were fellow citizens and that one day Americans North and South would need to reconcile. Instead of dismissing his opponents in the South as “total failures” or condemning them as many abolitionists did, he said this:
“Only a small percentage (of the people) are natural tyrants. That percentage is no larger in the slave states than in the free. The great majority, south as well as north, have human sympathies.”
President Lincoln reminds us that we must strive to see the common humanity of our political opponents; we must engage them on the field of debate, using reason and logic to make our points. And when we are tempted to dismiss ideas, political opponents or historical epochs with a hurtful remark or canned idea, we should bite our tongue a bit, remind ourselves of the responsibility of charity and rely upon respectful debate as our guide.
President Bush is not a tyrant and neither Mr. Obama or Mr. McCain hold tyrannical ambitions despite what their detractors may say about them.
This hatred of President Bush by the American left has been non-stop since the build up to the invasion of Iraq. Now there is no denying that objecting to the invasion of Iraq was a legitimate and reasonable political stance for Americans of all stripes to take; and one can certainly find substantial Bush policies that both figures on the left and right disapprove of. Yet it’s this intensely personal hatred of President Bush that has blinded many to initiatives that historians will surely praise: defense of the unborn, unparalleled generosity in fighting HIV/AIDS in Africa, preventing another 9/11 style attack and keeping American troops in Iraq long enough to see progress.
By labeling Bush a “total failure,” the left has shut down any attempt to reevaluate the war in Iraq, consider the importance of promoting abstinence in the fight against AIDS or acknowledging the fact that many millions in Africa consider Bush a hero for his generous patronage.
Stifling debate on large issues, whether they’re historical or contemporary, has been modeled to millions of Americans by professors, media elites and Hollywood activists. I was reminded of this reality a few days ago, when a colleague mentioned in the context of the American Revolution that we had “wiped out the Indians.”
There is no doubt that American Indians were deceived, killed, uprooted and all together treated with disdain by many Americans from the beginning of the colonies to the beginning of the 20th Century. However, to say that “we wiped them out,” is accusing our forefathers of genocide.
It’s worth noting that millions of Indians are still alive today all over America – the most superficial example being the Indian casinos that millions of American visit each year. Secondly, there was never a stated, intentional program to systematically remove Indians from this land by killing them. In our traditional celebration of Thanksgiving, we recognize that the early colonists and the natives had interactions that were far from genocidal.
We also know that Indians during the colonial days commonly joined sides with the British, French and Spanish to gain advantages, and were know to make war on the colonists when it benefited them and their allies. What did develop over time, was expansionist colonists and later Americans encroaching on the traditional lands of Indians; this clash was often violent, cruel and unfortunate – yet it was never genocide and the violence and cruelty flowed from both sides. And if one is tempted to justify the many murderous raids Indians made on innocent frontiersmen, then one finds himself in league with such modern day terrorists like the P.L.O and Osama Bin Ladin, who believe that those who have territorial and cultural disputes may kill people to resolve them.
The people of the United States must ask God for forgiveness for their sins against the native peoples; yet these injustices do not cancel out, nor negate the remarkable achievements in liberty, self-government and religious tolerance that have flowed from the founding of this country. Any sane view of human nature, assumes that human beings are sinners, who habitually fail to do what’s right. Yet we are also creatures of reason who are capable of understanding complex realities like the founding of America, and so when we blanket an entire epoch of American history with a statement like “Oh, of course - we wiped out the Indians,” we allow our intellects to atrophy.
President Lincoln had to tackle a similar issue when he spoke out against slavery; he understand as a Christian that slavery was a violation of the moral order – men can’t own other creatures of God. Yet President Lincoln was not an extremist, he knew that Southerners were wrong on this issue, but he refused to demonize them knowing that they were fellow citizens and that one day Americans North and South would need to reconcile. Instead of dismissing his opponents in the South as “total failures” or condemning them as many abolitionists did, he said this:
“Only a small percentage (of the people) are natural tyrants. That percentage is no larger in the slave states than in the free. The great majority, south as well as north, have human sympathies.”
President Lincoln reminds us that we must strive to see the common humanity of our political opponents; we must engage them on the field of debate, using reason and logic to make our points. And when we are tempted to dismiss ideas, political opponents or historical epochs with a hurtful remark or canned idea, we should bite our tongue a bit, remind ourselves of the responsibility of charity and rely upon respectful debate as our guide.
President Bush is not a tyrant and neither Mr. Obama or Mr. McCain hold tyrannical ambitions despite what their detractors may say about them.
Labels: Politics
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]