Bush gave Obama the Nobel

I think the Nobel prize committee is trying to immunize Obama from literal or political assassination by the crazed NeoCons who are intent on a war with Iran and no end to Israel’s lebensraum programs.

Reg, Be sure to remind Jack Kelly that Nobel Prize money comes from a fund established by one of the leading capitalists of the 19th century, Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite who made his fortune as an armaments manufacturer.  That should warm his conservative little heart (oh, the irony!).

Reg,

One again I realize we must share a brain (which explains why I can't find mine so often - and here I was blaming it on living with multiple adolescents).

My first thought - and the words that blurted out of my mouth - "for what?!?!?!"

My second thought - This is great!  Rich (the official office dittohead) will lose his mind.  I was actually excited to come in today.

Have fun with Jack - watching a frothing crazy is loads of fun.

I'm sorry, but ceigai's comment are both offensive and inappropriate, but are still on this blog,  Your "terms" are baloney, and will only be enforced when this "private" company gets a jab to their sensibilities.

You're probably right, Reg--when I heard the news, my first thought was that this was a rumor started an "Onion" satire, or overzealous blogger.  It's way too early in O's term for this to be real.  

The only reason I can think of for it is that the committee was breathing a collective sigh of relief after the last eight years of bellicosity.  I bow to your wisdom.

EarthMother -

I have co-workers who still don't speak with me because Obama was elected.

(And I voted for Nader!)

Why get so worked into a lather? All the Nobels are political, some more than others. (Einstein only won once, and even then not for his best work. Peace, Economics, and (I *think*) Literature aren't "real" Nobel Prizes anyway.)

Aww gee.

Made an ass of myself (again).

Economics is the prize not established by Alfred Nobel.

Interestingly, though, Ghandi was never awarded the Peace Prize, despite being nominated multiple times.

As to the term of PG for this site - I find Myooz comments offensive and inappropriate.  Please delete them from this site.

I sprang from my bed in surprise this morningwhen I heard that Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize.   What a happy surpise.  I am just cringing at some of the comments I am hearing that seem to think it is a negative thing, and seem to criticize Obama.  Wow.  I was thinking that if last week I heard that sort of criticism I might have made a hyperbolic comment such as, "Wow, they would criticize him even if he won the Nobel Prize."  Talk about hyperbole come to life.  

Mr reply, are you trying to vote me off the island? Do I here a second?  Further discussion?

No ceijai - as long as you are not offensive as to the Terms of this site, I look forward to your writings.

PG staff:

Myooz but echoed ceijais comment that you deleted - what is good for the goose must be good for the gander.  Please delete this offensive blog reply.  Thank you.

myreply posts: "...ceigai's [sic] comment are both offensive and inappropriate, but are still on this blog,"

Wow!

Clearly, myreply regards himself as something of an expert on "offensive and inappropriate" comments, to wit this classic riposte from just over a month ago, for which myreply further refused to apologize when called out on it by our esteemed colleague Toadsly -- comments which indubitably reflect far more adversely on myreply than on anyone else:

*****

myreply wrote re: Who is right about rights?

on 09-07-2009 10:18 PM

Minx:

I wasn't talking to you, but since you so rudely answered, instead of Toadsly:

I never at any time said that retirement was a right - your first lie.

I never at any time whined about the cost of health insurance.  Your second lie.

I never at any time said I was in a bind.  Your third lie.

So, you little pig - get your facts correct before you mouth off!

I was merely stating facts.

I wish you nothing but poor health in your life.  I hope you have the opportunity to use as much health insurance as your president will let you have. And I hope it costs a bundle for you.

Maybe then you will understand what it is to actually live in this world, make a living in this world and understand this world.  Because little (and that is a wise choice of words to describe you) minx, you show no capacity for that at this time.

*****

I was really surprised that Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, too.  As I posted on a different thread, I think it's too early in Obama's term to make any such award.   The committee should have waited a while to see how his initiatives actually turned out.

However, watching conservatives' heads explode has been most entertaining.  

Mermaid, my thoughts exactly -- although I wonder if perhaps President Obama has accomplished some significant behind-the-scenes negotiations of which the public is as yet unaware.  Or maybe Rush Limbaugh's right about it being the Nobel committee's way of telling Obama not to escalate the war in Afghanistan (an effort opposed even by some conservatives, e.g., George Will -- i.e., one that doesn't break down entirely along partisan lines).

Maybe this Nobel Peace Prize was more a repudiation of Cheney than Bush.

I confess the Nobel surprises me.  We are on the verge of expanding the war in Afghanistan, we are not out of Iraq and we haven't closed Gitmo.  The Obama administration has not rescinded Bush administration policies on rendition or wire-tapping.  It always shocked me that conservatives were fine with signing statements, warrantless wire-tapping, indefinite detention, and the USA Patriot Act while Bush was in office.  I really wonder what the reaction might have been if these same measures were pushed through by oh say Hillary Clinton.  Still, in all, I'm with you, Mermaid.  Stand back and watch all the conservative heads explode.

Little minx:

See my reply at Reg letter about Name calling.  If you have any questions, we'll talk.  

But, I will say to you that if you treat me with respect and abide by the Terms of Use that the PG set up for this site - we will not have any problems.

I will also abide by these rules.

Now if only the PG would abide by their own rules.

LOL: The headline on Huffingtonpost is "conservatives livid over Obama Nobel Peace Prize."

Is "conservatives livid" over anything really news, these days?  Is there anything they are not livid over?

Even more hilariously, Huffpost reports "Obama Staffer asks, is it April 1?"

Now that's funny.

Re myreply's Sep. 7 post reproduced above, the question is whether it reasonably violates any of the following listed guidelines, quoted below in relevant part:

*****

...we expect -- and require -- that the tone of the commentary be civil and respectful...

Those terms state clearly that you must not post comments containing:

- personal attacks...

- language that threatens, harasses...

- material that is defamatory...

Please keep your comments constructive...

We also reserve the right to ban permanently users whose online behavior is abusive and flagrantly violates our Terms of Use...

*****

For the record, I do NOT want myreply's Sep. 7 comment to be removed, because it so clearly reflects myreply's true colors.  Sometimes the best rebuttal is for such a person to have to live with his or her own words.

myooz

I think you may have a good point, as does Reg, on the real motivations of the Nobel committee, although I fear they are misguided.

What we often forget over here in our splendid isolation, is that as far as the rest of the world is concerned, what is called "conservative" here is actually much closer in ideology and attitude to "fascist" over there.

As Gore Vidal recently remarked to the London Times:

"Obama believes the Republican Party is a party when in fact it's a mindset, like Hitler Youth, based on hatred - religious hatred, racial hatred. When you foreigners hear the word ‘conservative' you think of kindly old men hunting foxes. They're not, they're fascists."

yinzerati, Gore Vidal is an over the hill attention whore who will say anything to get quoted in the London Times-or the Beaver County Times for that matter. He is using the same tired argument both sides are using-pointing to the extremes of (in this case) conservatism and pretending that is the mainstream. The vast majority of conservatives base their beliefs on legitimate (if misguided) arguments by some very smart people, or at least some watered down version of these arguments. It is true that right now they are being led into irrelevance by loudmouthed showmen, but this is a temporary situation. They'll be baa-aack.  

Reg, do you have to go into this debate with half your brain tranquilized as a handicap?

Kevin, I certainly hope more moderate and true conservatives with actual ideas will return to the public square; the sooner the better.  In fact, I would even argue that they have, except that here we call them Democrats, and Obama is one of them.  

Sure, Vidal is a bit over the top but in my opinion his characterization of today's "top" republicans as representing more of a "mindset" than a political party is valid.

And,  to most British and European people I know, the American right as represented by Bush/Cheney for the past eight years, by the influence of Reagonomics on our economy for thirty years, and by the likes of Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck and Michael Savage today are viewed as dangerous, even deranged, extremists if not actual fascists.

Yinzerati, you do put an impressive list of wackos of every stripe together there, and the fact that each has a substantial following supports your point, especially as seen from Europe. But I KNOW a lot of these folks, and most don't drool, wear white robes, or sport swastikas.

Your point that the leading Democrats look like moderate conservatives seems to be increasingly apt. I thought Bill just about walked the line between the two camps, but so far Obama is certainly less than the flaming firebrand he impersonated during the primaries-he said virtually nothing in the presidential campaign, not needing to.

After 8 years I think the world just needed to see the US get a bit of sane, intelligent leadership. i think Obama should accept the award on behalf of the American voters.  

Yes, I too know a lot of very nice Americans -- Republicans -- who I know to be kind, generous, usually reasonable, intelligent people  -- yet who inexplicably saw nothing outrageous in such a colossally dangerous ignoramus as Sarah Palin being one rickety old man's heartbeat away from being ruler of the free world.  In this, sadly, they remind me of the good Germans.

In my experience, I've found that my British and American and German conservative friends tend to be more self-made business types than highly educated; in short, they are doers, not thinkers.  As such  they are hard-workers and upstanding citizens but they lack imagination.  Hence they lack compassion and the ability to imagine new realities for either themselves or others.  But they are fantastic at getting things done.  

Unfortunately, some of the things they get done are stupid and shortsighted, like defunding head start and libraries to save money while ending up having to spend twice as much on corrections.  LIke digging their heels in about health care, so that we continue to do the stupidest, most unconservative thing possible -- spend miles more for miles less.

The lazy and feckless and unfortunate will always be with us: the real question is, should we spend money to correct the problems early on with  prevention, or should we simply dole out harsh punishments at the end of these oh-so predictable cycles of poverty and deprivation? American conservatives, unlike their German and British brethren,  just have not yet come around to accepting that essential truth, and that is what is driving the bitter partisan divide that is currently killing the American dream.

However, I  conclude that the world needs both types. So, American conservatives, I've magnanimously decided to let you all live for while longer as I have faith in your common sense, if not your imagination.  (Much more of the Limbaugh-Palin axis of evil, and I may have to reconsider).  

And Kevin, completely concur with your last paragraph.

I wrote the following post, early this morning, on my PG+ blog:

I admire President Obama; I voted for him. But how can the leader of a country fighting two foreign wars, a country contemplating sending 40,000 more troops to “The Graveyard of Empires,” a country quickly developing a “super bunker-busting bomb” for possible use on underground facilities in Iran and North Korea, be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize?

What’s next? Planned Parenthood awarding its lifetime achievement award to Roman Polanski because, when he started to rape 13-year-old Samantha Giemer, at Jack Nicholson’s pad, after giving her champagne and a Quaalude – he lured her there, supposedly, for a modeling shoot – and she begged him not to, pleading she wasn’t using birth control, he complied by sodomizing her?

myreply:

Settle down, buddy! You're risking apoplexy!

I apologize if you've taken offense over any of my good-natured ribbing. Blogs wouldn't be enjoyable if we were all of one mind.  Can't we just agree to disagree like the gentlewomen and gentlemen we surely are?

---plus I believe the Nobel committee is trying to encourge Obama to live up to his nobel campaign promises from which he has lately been backsliding.

Yinzer, for whatever reason we seem to get along well on these blogs, so I hope that you'll take this as a friendly comment....

Quoting Gore Vidal to bolster your arguments that conservatives are closer to fascists in the Europeon mind is a bit skewed. Vidal famously, or infamously, accused William Buckley of much the same thing in a debate years ago. Whatever you think of Mr. Buckley, surely you don't equate that man's intellectual embrace of conservatism as fascisim, but Mr. Vidal did, or at least used the close cousin of fascism, calling Mr. Buckley a nazi. I would like to think that Mr. Vidal regretted that, but I have no reason to believe that.

I think it is rather an unfair and certainly an inflammatory statement to equate conservatism with fascisim in anybodies assesment. Fascism, like nazi, has devolved to a term that simply equates to 'a position that I strongly disagree with'.

While on Mr. Vidals issues, I would be interested to know if you ever have read his historical fiction novels on American History? I read Burr all the way through Washington DC, and found the latter novels, maybe the last three, to be ever increasingly left biased. I might equate Mr. Vidals form of liberalism with socialism, especially in his final historical novel, and if you've read them I would be curious what you think. I think that there is certainly an issue of perception in all of these discussions, and I suppose that one mans liberal is another man's socialist, just as my conservatism may equate, somehow, to anothers idea of fascism.

If I'm not mistaken Fascism is a political philosephy that puts state above individual and looks to a strong centralized government. These don't really sound like the conservative principals that I am familiar with. I rather like the unwritten rule that says whoever plays the nazi/fascist card first forfeits the debate.

Finally, in my long winded fashion I get to President Obama's Nobel Prize. I can't find fault with the President for winning the award, it's not up to him to nominate or select himself, but I think that the Nobel committee has discredited the award by giving it to a man who was in office for days when the nominations were final. While I would offer President Obama congradulations for this prestigious award, I think that our host has hit the nail on the head, he won for not being President Bush.

yinzerati and kevin morris:

Thank you for taking this in an international direction.  

In my lifetime, America really was the shining example.  As cracks emerged, they were the exceptions proving the rule.  As the inconsistencies became more glaring, at least we stood for something.  Then came W and we didn’t even have that anymore.  

I think it was mugsy, a while back, who distanced himself from some of the town-hall and tea-bagger behavior, but said he could understand the anger.  Free-speech zones, torture, “those weapons of mass destruction have to be here somewhere” . . . and heroes?  Four months after 9/11, George W. Bush turned “Let’s roll” into a sports slogan.  Mugsy, try to understand *this* anger.

Yet the world was exceptionally generous in distinguishing Americans from our government during those years.  Everyone knew they would end, assuming we survived that long.  The problem I had – still do – is with the assumption we could then say, “Okay, you may respect us again.”

I admit pleasant surprise at how forward-looking (forgiving) others have continued to be.  I thought our second chance was the 2004 election, and that it was game-over when we failed to correct the mistake.  But the eight years ended and the world’s hopes for America rode with Obama.  The prize is obviously a statement of that – and, I think, that we get no more mulligans.

Thus, by the standard of “message,” the selection is loud and clear.  Exactly:  The world wants “not Bush” and is saying so.  More than that, it wants what Obama promised, the reason we elected him.  (I share the frustrations with Obama to date; I hope this is “reset” for him – a different topic.)

I am bemused, then, by the good guys who feel compelled to proclaim “too soon” and “for what?”  The world is telling *us* that it thinks *we’re* right.  Is it that we must each show we are independent thinkers before we can accept a ringing endorsement of our cause?

Meanwhile, the Americans who proclaimed their intention to break the American president, proclaimed that they wanted him to fail, cheered when the American candidate city for the Olympics lost, and now denounce the prize, are certain to a frenzy that *they* are the patriots.  It is for them a fortunate technicality that treason is so narrowly defined.  

So, I will not disparage too harshly anyone, old codgers included, who find colorful ways of saying so.  

P.S. – Drudge is reporting that the Olympics selection committee is going reconvene.

Mugsy and Callsign

Thanks for the thoughtful responses.  It's very early (or very late).  Apparently my dogs had an urgent appointment in the back yard which I had to get up and attend to -- must have been a cat or some other dangerous insurgent in the backyard.  I must shortly return to my attenuated slumber.  

Actually I'm not really familiar with Gore Vidal, I have not read any of his books but I do notice that the level of barely-suppressed anger he projects is ironically close to that of those he deems fascist. Which is part of the reason, I'm sure, that fascism is so broadly defined and has appeared in so many divergent political iterations. Shades of grey.

However, Vidal's mindset vs. party comment I thought very apt, it struck a chord with me and seemed to fit with this latest cause for partisan wrangling over -- oh the irony-- the Nobel Peace prize.  

I realize the f-word is an overused concept that provides endless grist to scholars and historians who try to define it.  I just found this thoughtful analysis which might be useful for our ongoing discussions on this site, as while I concede I was the first to bring it up this time, we do seem to need a working definition::

"Fascism is mostly reactive in nature. It is more defined by what it is against than by what it is. First and foremost, it is anti-liberal. This is not necessarily the same thing as being conservative. We too often define political positions as a scale between two polar opposites, when reality is broader and sloppier than that. So, while Fascism is a thing of the right, it is not just extremism beyond normal conservatism."

I don't know who this guy is but he sounds pretty reasonable:

cursor.org/.../fascismiii.php

What do you think?

Well thanks guys, the intellectual exercise required to respond to you has made me sleepy again after the canine fire drill;  TG its the weekend, back to bed I go . . . .

Yinz, I think that definition gets at a very important distinction we liberals should keep in mind when considering our conservative brethren. The corollary would be that all who aren't conservative aren't communists or socialists.

My favorite definition of fascism is Benito Mussolini's (who I would consider something of an expert on the subject), “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power” I would submit that, using that definition, we as a nation have been heading toward fascism for many years despite the warnings of president Eisenhower. However when Mussolini defined the term he envisioned the state as being in charge, not the corporations.

kevin morris -

"After 8 years I think the world just needed to see the US get a bit of sane, intelligent leadership. i think Obama should accept the award on behalf of the American voters."

Perhaps this year's Peace Prize *is* meant for all of us Americans.

This great experiment has apparently displayed the ability to accept the will of the people, peacefully transfer power (in one of our darkest times), and hopefully right itself and put itself back on course as the moral beacon for the world community.    

Mugsy -- I agree its perplexing that they would award the Nobel Peace Prize to a man who hasn't really done much to earn it yet.  I am not sure if is a denigration of the prize itself or not.  I guess history will be the judge of that. Kinda depends what happens now.  It can only be interpreted as a gesture of faith.

The only explanation is as Reg, Callsign and Kevin suggest -- that they are rewarding what they perceive to be the reinstatement of the promise of America.  Apparently a very important ideal and practise of political liberty and freedom through participative democracy; an acceptance of diversity, the idea that we an all be master's of our own destiny, start from nothing and become something.  That our children can have a better future.  Of course, this reality has fallen way short -- such ideals of social mobility, peace and prosperity are found, in practice, in societies such as Finland and Sweden.   Yet America's founding documents remain a vital global focus for the ideal.  

What the world wants for America is clearly not aligned with the American conservative position seems to want for America.  The American right wing is clearly on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of world opinion, I think, is the take home message from this Nobel Prize situation.

NPR had several interesting analyses yesterday including this Special Coverage, in which the nomination process is discussed and some historical context is provided :

www.npr.org/.../mediaPlayer.html

As far as the F-word goes, I read through that page I posted and it remains a sensible, text based analyses and cites sources.  In addition, I like this guy Lawrence Britt's definition, reportedly based on his analyses of several fascist regimes; however, I do not see him cited by reputable sources and I can't find out what is methodology actually was; nonetheless, I'll post the link in case anyone else wants to explore and comment on it:

www.ratical.org/.../fasci14chars.html

A word on Gore Vidal, as long as he's come up as a topic.  It's kind of a shame to see a sharp mind like his degenerate into a kind of peevish sensationalism.  I think as he's gotten older, his internal censor has sort of broken down.  As to his historical novels, they are a magnificent chronicle of the country as seen through the eyes of people at the center of the action.  I agree with Mugsy that they deteriorate a bit toward the end.  I attribute this not so much to a leftward slant as to the fact that Vidal was now dealing with events that affected him persnally, and he is still bitter over some of them, and will die bitter.  I hope he doesn't totally discredit himself before he passes on.

I highly recommend the novels.  If you're going to read just one, I suggest "Empire"--set during the McKinley/Roosevelt administrations, with Henry James, John Hay, and Henry Adams as lead characters.

I second Regis' suggestion of Empire, but I would read them from Burr if there is time and intrest.

Regis, I think from my reading you are correct, and our final protaginist, Blaise's son (whose name escapes me) is surely Vidal himself, and is surely a bitter person who feels betrayed. I think that Vidal did have an incredibly sharp mind but is hardly a suitable judge of conservatism as fascism. I would suspect that Mr. Vidal would consider move-on.org to be a right of center orginization.

Yinzer, as to world opinion, I think that world opinion should matter less to us then it seems to, American opinion, and in fact American exceptionalism, should carry the day. We should look to lead, not follow, with the understanding that we are uniquely qualified to do so. As to being on the wrong side of history, history, or whoever writes it, will be the judge.

Thanks for the book recs, always welcome.

Your're right Mugs, it will all be judged by history. Hope I live as long as Gore Vidal, I might even be around to see it.  

So what if he's bitter, though?  I imagine being the only survivor of all the compadres and companions of your youth while being a witness to your own decay is a pretty bitter experience.  And remember, that's what we've got to look forward to -- if we're lucky!!

And on that cheerful note, I'm off to hold a special Saturday workshop for my students.  Wonder if the little sods will actually show up??

Hi Yinser, the novels being discussed were written thirty or more years ago, before Vidal became witness to whatever decay he may be encountering. He actually is Al Gore's cousin, Albert Gore's grandson, so maybe he saw politics just a little too closely to escape cynicism. If so, then it may be excusable but can't help but effect his opinions.(Or is it affect? I never know which to use) That's my issue with Gore Vidal, although I did enjoy reading his novels, even when their content seemed a little disturbing to my sensabilities.

His novel on Lincoln, though panned by many historians, is tremendous reading.

mugsy:

If I may, on your comment to yinzerati:  I like the idea of American leadership.  For a century at least, the United States was the greatest force for good on the planet.  We led, and did the good we did (while doing quite well for ourselves), because, in addition to building up the military and economic might, we showed the world an example it wanted to follow.   We were (simple adjective) exceptional.  

To claim exceptionalism is something else.  Unless we lead affirmatively, inspirationally, it’s just bullying.  

Remember the 700-pound gorilla that sleeps wherever it wants?

Hi Callsigntourist;

To place my comments in perspective, they were in response to this comment from Yinserati...

"What the world wants for America is clearly not aligned with the American conservative position seems to want for America.The American right wing is clearly on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of world opinion, I think, is the take home message from this Nobel Prize situation."

My referance to exceptionalism is that I do think, by our makeup and our culture, we are exceptional and uniquely qualified to lead. (Assuming there is anything left that we can agree to lead another to). World opinion is a concern, but to offer it as evidence that conservative opinions are wrong because they are on the wrong side of world opinion is to make us just another player in a world of players, whose own credentials may be less than sparkling.

Europe and the rest of the world have their own agenda; sometimes it is favorable to our own and sometimes it is not. Yinzer is correct that the award to the President is evidence that the world ,or at least the Nobel comittee, has a favorable impression of him, but that in itself is of little consequence in the decision of how we choose to shape our own culture.This comittee nominated the President after just a few weeks in office; a previous one found no contribution from Ghandi worth recognition for several years. Being on the wrong side of history may be in their resume, as well.

As for past leadership, I will now have to argue against myself a bit to make my point. President McKinnley fought the Spanish American war not to liberate Puerto Rico and the Phillipines but rather to establish US presence and hegimony in the far east while ridding ourselves of a thorn in our sides closer to home. President Wilson dragged his feat entering the first world war, won re-election by promissing not to, then reversing fields and entering the war to end all wars after re-election. President Roosevelt had to drag the country kicking and screaming into the second war, until the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. We were very isolationist and many people wanted nothing of "Europes war".

This leads me to what will be an unpopulair point in this forum; the best example that I can think of concerning American Leadership is under President Reagan in the destruction of the Iron Curtain. Reagan, a man most often on the wrong side of world opinion, liberated millions from communist oppresion, and was never on anybodies short list for a Nobel Peace prize, so far as I know. Wilson and Roosevelt (Theodore) both were not only on the list but actually won. Go figure.

Mmmm yeah, can't let you slide on that last paragraph, mugsy.  I'l just say that a powerful argument can and has been made that Reagan was a lucky bugger in many ways and with his actor's sense of timing he certainly knew how to provide an appealing political spectacle with the tear down this wall bit.  While burnishing his own legend, of course, well, fair enough, I'll give him the theater aspect of it.

However, the Soviet system was collapsing under its own weight anyhow, Gorbachev was disillusioned with it, and the Kremlin knew it was all about to explode anyway.  More than Reagan's leadership, everyone simultaneously decided to cut their losses, take the high road and ended up on the right side of history with that one.

But as for the Nobel committee being on the wrong side of history and just a sort of more upmarket version of "World's Best" ratings, well that's a good argument too.  Apparently they've given it to Henry bloody Kissinger for god's sake.  I guess everyone makes mistakes.

As for American exceptionalism (AE)  -- I find such a notion completely embarrassing  and nonsensical to be honest.  Aside from the fact that history, to me, shows a spotty record of doing good and doing evil in about the same proportions as any other empire in history, the notion offends my liberal preference for harm reduction, fair play and equality.  

I can  understand how AE appeals to the conservative preference for  in-group solidarity, honor and patriotism however.   But I think the conservative view requires a pretty darn strong prescription of rose colored glasses to make it work.

But perhaps there are liberals out there who don't find AE embarrassing?  If so, do share . . .

Yinzer, I don't believe that Americans are exceptional in the world because we are from some better sort of stock or anything in that manner, but rather because the American system has unencumbered people from the  stifling lack of freedom that much of the rest of the world has endured historically, and created a climate for people to thrive in. Much of the world can only dream of our life, even that of those who are impoverished, because their own are so much more impoverished and without hope for improvement.It's not that we are an inherently better people, it's that we have a better system .

Did you know that Presdient Reagan's writers wanted the "tear down this wall" line removed, but the President insisted on it? I don't think that President Reagan was the first President that was a skilled communicator, but I think no President will ever be successful again if they lack that quality.I think that president Obama has a tremendous ability to speak directly to the people, which was President Reagan's forte as well. Because I am not on board with president Obama's agenda, it makes me uneasy, but credit must be given where credit is due.

mugsy:

Greetings!  In this little corner of the discussion, you appear to have been left to hold us off alone, so you have my respect.  You are saying, in essence (I hope I’m being fair), that the United States alone can be right, and should forge ahead, and I’ll give you the legitimacy of such a point of view.  

What you overlook is that the world has changed since de Tocqueville declared us unique.  True then; now, not so much.

You:  “[T]he American system has unencumbered people from the stifling lack of freedom that much of the rest of the world has endured historically, and created a climate for people to thrive in.”  

Me:  The kinds of freedoms I think you mean, and that I’ll concede we as a practical matter “invented,” are the baseline throughout *much* of the world.

You:  “Much of the world can only dream of our life, even that of those who are impoverished, because their own are so much more impoverished and without hope for improvement.”  

Me:  Which “much”?  Old Europe?  New Europe?  Korea?  Japan?  China?  India?  Brazil?  

I’m not making a list – on it or not on it – I’m saying that, yes, your word again, there are plenty of “players” now, and I’m with yinzerati on how embarrassing the words “American exceptionalism” are today (sorry, but I mostly mean “since Bush”), particularly when face to face with a non-American.  

When you (symbolic) were a child, your elder siblings knew better and your parents knew best.  Eventually, you joined them as an adult.  

We have, have, have (!) a tremendous amount to contribute.  We can still lead.  We just have to make our case, like everybody else.

In the process, we can sometimes even learn something.

Thanks guys, what an interesting conversation.  Glad you don't mean "better than" mugsy, because that just can't be right -- plus, to assume "one" is better than is so fundamentally unAmerican, it strikes me.  Perhaps we need a new phrase.

Callsign, I liked your metaphor of America as the world's "child" that may have been given a free pass while being instructed in the finer points of academic argument but must now join the adult discourse as a full partner, and compete according to the rules.

Yes, I must admit, mugsy, that while its important to recall that much of the world still lives, as (was it Locke?) said, lives lives that are nasty, brutish and short, much of the world does not, particularly Britain and Northern and Western Europe.  They may not have quite so much stuff or such big houses and cars, but with their strong social safety net, most notably healthcare, they live longer and healthier than Americans and are at far less risk of being gunned down by violence on their streets.

I don't 'think many citizens of those countries whose political traditions provided centuries of gestation befoe giving birth American ones feel particularly less free or fortunate than Americans do.  In fact I'd go so far as to say they might feel more secure and therefore more free than Americans do.

But American democracy is a beacon for the world, no bout adoubt that, and I think the Nobel committee is doing what Reg said. If you want to claim American exceptionalism, then its a bit of a strange argument to also say "but we should care less about world opinion and lead."  You can't lead if you dont' have the admiration and respect of your putative followers.  

During Bush-Cheney, that admiration and respect was simply not there "over there."  If you want to reclaim respect for America and American conservatism, something other than the Limbaugh-Palin-Beck-Savage axis of idiocy will have to happen.

"Reagan ....a skilled communicator, but I think no President will ever be successful again if they lack that quality." Of the four presidents elected since Reagan, two were, two were not. Obviously both had other skills, but neither Bush senior nor junior were gifted orators, and neither were facile at extemporaneous speech.

As far as the US leading the world, I think It used to be that many nations would blindly go where we did, assuming that our decisions were always sound, and that our economic and military power had the capacity to insure our decisions-might equaling right. These perceptions have shifted, and now most nations will carefully examine the destination before getting on our bandwagon. The best thing the US could do to regain that leadership role would be to focus on a major peaceful objective that the rest of the world would rally around-my choice would be drastically reducing or eliminating fossil fuel use, especially the use of Middle East oil, which provides the funding for most of the world's terrorism.

I didn't know that tidbit about Reagan's most well known speech; he deserves credit for it, absolutely.  I would also add that you are correct that no president can succeed now without being an exceptional communicator -- or, I would add, good looking and/or charismatic/appealing.  

This is because of our TV-based public discourse model, pointed out  by the excellent writings of Neil Postman over 25 years ago.  I have my students read "Amusing Ourselves To Death" and "How to Watch TV News" as fundamental readings in understanding why our public discourse is so debased, and how public policy by bumper-sticker slogan is probably not the sensible way to proceed, particularly for a country with aspirations to global greatness.

Yinzer, Callsign and kevin;

I don't mind going solo here with you , it's a good conversation .

Your points on exceptionalism are good and I need some time to collect my own thoughts. I think that I have a tendency to be a bit too dismissive of world opinion at times, perhaps in reaction to what I see as a tendency in others to be too submissive to it. I don't know, but the clanging sound that you hear is my brain reconsidering it and trying to do the unnatural, put a couple of coherent thoughts together in reply. I'll be back to this if you will indulge me a half a day to think about it.

Kevin, of the two Presdients that you argued were poor communicators, I would say that President Bush Sr. was an excellent communicator when he orginized much of the world concerning Iraq, but not so much before or after. This makes your argument, because at that time much of the world was in agreement with him.Presdient Bush Jr. was never able to communicate his goals for the presidency well.

Yinzer, I'm happy to hear that educators are tackling the issues that you are. Wether for or against my own positions, I think that this phenomena that we have where decisions are based on information gathered from 8 second soundbites is ruining us. We need more patience, better discernment.

Callsign, while Europe has enjoyed freedom for centuries, I don't think that they are yet free from some overbearing government but now we enter a more abstract piece of the conversation, and it may be one that a forum such as this is not really adequate for the discussion. I'm already long winded enough, but we'll see.

Leading those who agree with you is like leading hungry dogs to meat, there seems like there must be more to it. I hope that I can better articulate my thoughts later, for now I wanted to acknowledge your thoughtful responses and buy a little time.

I agree Kevin; if America is to lead now, the most obvious need for leadership is on climate change and the global pollution associated with it.  I shudder to think what the world will be like if strong action is not taken reducing our social, cultural and economic dependence on burning fossil fuels and dumping other toxic waste everywhere.  

All I keep thinking is that Pittsburgh is sufficiently inland and on high ground that while we may escape the worst of coastal devastation, where does everyone think the displaced peoples of the world are going to go? And  what are we going to do about all of our needs for clean water, clean air and a  clean earth?

yinzerati:

Thanks, but I actually meant the “child” analogy the other way around – that in terms of some of the freedoms/systems that a modern nation needs to thrive, where we once were the parent/teacher/example, others have grown/caught up.  

I agree with your “free pass” interpretation, however, so maybe the image works both ways.  I have no objection to saying something good accidentally.

I think that I've reached an impasse with the rest of you on this; I have considered your arguments and still believe that the example of American leadership that I wish to use is President Reagan ending the cold war. One can make a case that the Soviets were struggling under the weight of their own system, yet how and how long they would struggle is another argument. The next step, to suppose that they just decided to take the high road and do it right, is just wishful thinking.

Leading the rest of the world does not begin with placing your own ideals in submission to what the world would have them be, it means pursuing what is right regardless of the opinions of others.

The shame of the NeoCon Republicans is that they have sullied the record of a true conservative Republican,Ronald Reagan, with guilt by association to the party.

mugsy:

It’s a pleasure doing business with you.  (Reference:  Thatcher, Reagan, Gorby.)

I think we are down to one difference that is no real difference, or not a big one, and another that might be.

I have no argument with doing what is right in the face of opposition.  I would even agree that the one can be right and the many wrong – either as the last holdout or the first to arrive:  Before everyone can know, one must know.  

You, I trust, do not object to hearing others out when our actions will affect them.  As I like to say, we might even learn something.  Even if not, if we can accommodate concerns and still accomplish our purpose, that’s just good politics – good leadership.

The question – *the* question – the both simple and complex question – is, in whose interests should we act?

I’m pretty sure your answer would be, “our own, always.”  Mine would be, too.  Yet we would not be meaning quite the same thing.  

As I perceive it, the root difference between political conservatives and political liberals is that conservatives believe it’s every man for himself, while liberals believe we are all in this together.  That’s simplified, generalized, wide open for all kinds of rebuttal, but, if you’ll accommodate me, it’s not the argument I’m trying to start right now.

What I *am* saying is that it’s not always about preserving or sacrificing “ideals.”  Most of the time it’s about the grunt work of two hundred countries and seven billion people trying not to blow the place up for their grandchildren.  Sometimes, just sometimes, we act in our own interests, help ourselves long-term, and maintain our leadership, by cooperating, showing flexibility, and, yes, even going along.

Great line from Josh Marshall (TPM) today:  “Can Obama survive the shame of global popularity?”    

Could be useful in our interests, don’t you think?

[Note to self:  Why did I get zero takers when I tried to talk about space exploration?  We gotta get out of this place!]

Callsign -- so uh, we've messed up the planet so much we need to move to the moon?  Isn't that a bit extreme?  Could we at least consider some housecleaning here as an interim measure? Aside from details like you know, the moon can't sustain life?  Honestly, are you trying to prove the conservative shouter's point about liberal moonbatishness??

In regard to your characterization of libs and cons, yes, that is also a bit too simple, I think.  As Einstein put it, everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.  There's an interesting body of research on psychological differences b/w the two political leanings, you might be interested in this article which provides links to sources and a lot of insight, I thought:

www.alternet.org/.../can_you_guess_a_person%27s_politics_by_their_personality_psychologist_team_says_yes

yinzerati -

It was Hobbes (Leviathan), not Locke.

No, I didn't read it. I'm not that much of a pedant.

A peasant, maybe.

Locke was close, though.

Apparently, there's a lot of dicsussion about the "social contract" as it relates to the provision of universal healthcare.

yinzerati:

Cheers!  Thanks for the link.  I said I was simplifying, but doesn’t the final paragraph of the main article say what I said?  Don’t worry about it.  I think the gang did some good.

Re space, though, no.  I was not talking about the Moon.  I forced it in the first time and don’t want to throw it at everyone again.  It’s in the September 21 batch titled “G-20 week:  Send in the clowns,” and was prompted by this P-G editorial:

www.postgazette.com/.../999525-192.stm

OK, callsigntourist, I'll bite.

(But by no means do I pretend to be an expert on any of this stuff.)

Since the sun should not burn-out or engulf earth as a red giant for another several billion years.

Barring some other catastrophe, we should not be forced to leave planet earth unless we befoul the planet or otherwise make it uninhabitable or hostile.

Assuming that we don't continue to f*ck thiings up, we can explore how best to do extra-solar, inter-stellar, or extra-galactic transporation and exploration at our leisure.

Personally, I would prefer to wait until we truly understand and can engineer gravity, the geometry of space, (instantaneous) quantum teleportation, etc., and for this we had a better chance of sussing these things out had we funded the Superconducting Super Collider. (At least there's still CERN. I guess we have to cede experimental Physics to the Europeans.)

I for one  don't see any pressing need for, say, travel to Mars. I believe that our current program of near-earth missions,  the International Space Station, unmanned distant probes, new-generation telesopes, etc. should give us as much information as a manned mission beyond the moon.

If we are to travel back to the moon, or beyond it should be an international effort,  witrh everyone sharing the costs.

God knows that there are more pressing things to spend the money on right here. (Besides noisemakers for riot control.)

Just the 2 cents of the jagoff down the street...

thescarletpumpernickel:

“For we came out of the cave, and we looked over the hill, and we saw fire.  And we crossed the ocean, and we pioneered the West, and we took to the sky.  The history of man is hung on the timeline of exploration, and this is what's next.”

And I’d like to live to see it, and spending creates jobs, and these jobs would spur education, and it’s fun.

callsigntourist -

I guess I've become less romantic, and more pragmatic,  in my dotage.

You're right, of course.

Romance trumps reason.

thescarletpumpernickel:

Whatever you’ve (we’ve) lost with age, it’s not your grace.

The most stirring English sentence (independent clause) ever spoken was:  “We choose to go to the Moon.”  But there’s another, fictionalized one:  In the movie “Apollo 13,” on the night of the Apollo 11 landing, the Jim Lovell character says:  “From now on we live in a world where man has walked on the Moon, and it’s not a miracle; we just decided to go.”

How young do you have to be for that time to mean nothing?

"Sit down?

I can't sit down.

I just got to heaven and I gotta' look around."

(Jonny Mathis' suggested first words from the moon. From an Esquire article poliing people for suggestions, as I best recall.)

Like many, still have my father's 8 mm film of the TV broadcast (w. TV "scan lines") of Neil Armrtrong's first steps on the moon.

Great memories.

thescarletpumpernickel:

Memories indeed.

I am generally a facts-are-facts kind of guy, but I’ve rather recently decided that Armstrong said:  “That’s one small step for a man” – no parentheses, no asterisk.

On one of the earlier anniversaries, I heard him in an interview say, regarding the “a”:  “I intended to say it.  I think I said it.  I listen to the recording and I don’t hear it either.”

If popular culture is going to remember Jim Lovell as saying, “Houston, we have a problem” (he didn’t, quite), I think we can give Neil a break.

Of course, you know, per the mini-series “From the Earth to the Moon,” what Michael Collins thought Armstrong should say:  “If you had any balls, you’d say, ‘Oh, my God, what is that thing?’ – scream, and cut your mic.”

callsigntourist -

Thanks for that (and the kind words as well).

You've made me laugh, before I go out and start the battle that is my day.

(P.S. - I'm not sure that anyone knows for certain the exact words of "The Gettysburg Address". Does it really matter? How different is it than understanding some text through translation?)

When I was (much) younger, continuing abit of back and forth above, I heard Hobbes and Locke mentioned together so much that I briefly believed there was just one guy named "Hobson Locke".

regis:

I believe you!  There’s a story I cannot quite place (it will come to me) – I’m thinking it was from Sagan or Hawking – about someone in a meeting of some sort who finally asked what this “Fobosendeimos” everyone was talking about was.  

Phobos and Deimos.

(For anyone still following this desultory thread...)

Did I say Superconducting Super Collider?

Silly me. Apparently the particle it was meant to discover was the reason for the halt in it's funding.

This is weird:

www.nytimes.com/.../13lhc.html

(Don't know if it's a joke.)

I guess the lesson is that one of the properties inherent in God's existence is that he (she?) won't permit his existence to be empirically demonstated.

thescarletpumpernickel:

So it’s going to eat the Earth, or not eat the Earth, or we’ll never know because otherwise it would eat the Earth.

I hate panic movies.

Pre-cisely!

Dialetheiacally speaking, of course.

thescarletpumpernickel:

In two of the three possible outcomes we expand our store of knowledge.  In one, we perish, so it doesn't matter.  I say fire the thing up!

Not just romantic.

Wise as well.

I'm undone.

thescarletpumpernickel:

I'm sure there would be plenty who'd disagree, except that I think you were right:  We're probably the only ones still here.

callsigntourist:

We are in good company.

(I am , anyway.)

thescarletpumpernickel:

We were meant to be together.