Justice, Freedom, Democracy
President Kennedy made a mistake when he set up the Peace Corps. It should have been called, instead, the Democracy Corps, if establishment foreign policy hacks are to be believed. For decades now Washington has been obsessed with making the world safe for democracy, barrels blazing if necessary, to help those in need. Wherefore such emphasis? If asked what America means to me, democracy is not the first (or second, or third) thing that I think of — quite apart from the ridiculous spectacle of a patently undemocratic regime lecturing the world about democratic virtues.
Old fashioned types tend to revert to the Constitution for guidance but most of the time most of us forget the words in the Declaration of Independence. Following the preamble, the first mention of government occurs thusly: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." Subsequently the idea of justice recurs repeatedly until the ultimate paragraph, where it is elevated in an appeal "to the Supreme Judge of the world." In short, what the United States of America is about, in the first place, is justice. And if you think about it, this makes sense: justice is a necessary precursor to other political conditions we aspire to, such as peace, democracy, freedom, the pursuit of happiness, and all the others.
So it was a real attention grabber when I read the opening line of David Ignatius' Sunday column in the Post, '"We talk about democracy and human rights. Iraqis talk about justice and honor."' Making the point that this "is the beginning of wisdom" Ignatius, however, reverts immediately to the true form of the Washington hack, equating foreign concerns with justice with his formulation of something called a "dignity agenda." How far one's values must be debased to equate justice with dignity I cannot say, but my understanding — reading between the lines — is that "dignity" here means pretty much the opposite of what the word dignity usually conveys, e.g., dignity may be useful to us in so far as it becomes a foreign commodity in which we invest.
What's noteworthy is that virtually nobody in Washington will stop and say, "Wait a minute — what the Iraqis really, really want might be justice and that's not something we're in any position to offer." And why? Because nobody in Washington is concerned anymore about justice for Americans either.
Posted by George Kenney on October 17, 2007 1:55 AM 
« Blue Ridge Country | Main | WWIII »
Comments
By all means we should resist intervention in the affairs of other nations because it offends their dignity. That makes us sound ever so civilized and absolves us of the need to consider international law or other inconvenient concepts.
I wonder if Ignatius finds it excruciating that the United States refuses to make a rational accounting for its history, or whether that sentiment is reserved for the Turks. How would he feel if the Turkish Parliament passed a resolution condemning the genocide of the Native Americans by the United States? Would he find that excruciating? Would it offend his dignity?
Posted by: Democracy Lover
|
October 17, 2007 5:12 PM
I had to laugh (once again) at Dr (Puffed) Rice as she expressed her concern that too much power was being gathered by the Kremlin. The USA has lost its credibility to speak to rights, liberty or justice, or much else for that matter — certainly not "dignity"!
I also agree with Democracy Lover's point (as usual).
Turner's "Rain, Steam, and Speed" is a fascinating painting. Decades ahead of its time (1844) and perhaps his statement about how things were changing at an ever accelerating rate.
Posted by: pandabonium | October 20, 2007 3:20 AM