Thus it follows that the electorate is, in the end responsible for who gets elected and can´t get away from a degree of reponsibility for the actions of the goverment.
Are you saying that the rulings of moderators (made in the Pit, incidentally) do not apply to the Pit? Are you saying that Veb overstepped her authority? Or are you, as usual, just shooting off at the mouth without thinking at all?
Except for the reasons that I noted before. The electorate (if we simply must hypostatize) is denied any real choice. It is scarcely more than the “Yes” versus “No” choice that former Soviet citizens were given. Our choice is between Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee.
Oh… whatever.
I don´t want to further hijack this thread; please acept my sincere apologies, Elucidator.
Look, however fucked up the system may be (I think that’s a topic for another thread), as citizens we have a vote. We can write our congresscritters and let them know our thoughts on issues.
As far as I can tell, that is how one takes personal responsibility for government in a representative democracy.
As much as I loathe this administration’s policies, I can’t escape the fact that they do, in fact, represent me.
elucidator was bemoaning the fact that the US’s honor is in the toilet (OK, grave) over the Abu Grahib obscenity. As a citizen, I own some of the responsibility for that, and I want to do what I can to make things right.
To pluck an example out of thin air, would Al Gore, have:
- caused the US military to invade Iraq
- proposed an amendment to ban gay marriage
If your answer to either of these questions, or others equally valid, is no then the faults in your position must be obvious to you.
Or you may think these are unimportant questions, having no real significance, being policy differences as substantial as such differences are between T-dee & T-dum. Perhaps you do and the major parties have no difference on policies important to you. It is a minority position though.
Por nada. Though, in all fairness, I really hadn’t considered the possibility that the Libertarian Party was the solution to all our problems. Having so considered, I find the notion laughable, but not humorous.
Perhaps friend Lib could start his own thread, centering on the twin themes of the splendid promise offered by the Libertarian Party and the exquisite complexity of his personality and thought? Then such persons as share his enthusiasms might indulge themselves without the tiresome restraints of relevence.
Or perhaps a blog? Where the masses might sit at this feet and gaze upon his pronouncements with awe and admiration? Admittedly, this might prove a distraction, he might find himself unable to provide the attention to the SDMB that he has lavished upon us to date. I, for one, stand resolute, I am willing to bear the burden of such a sacrifice.
And this just in, for those who still remember what I’m on about…
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5412316/site/newsweek/
"Beneath the Hoods
Many of the tortured at Abu Ghraib were common criminals, not terrorists"
Hearts and minds.
I’m glad the hijackers are gone and we’re getting back to your topic, Elucidator. Certainly, no one will disagree that these are heinous acts, and we’ve been discussing them here now for quite some time. What I question is the issue of responsibility. Like the little boy said, they were enjoying themselves. Well, I’m not smiling. I don’t enjoy it. And I think that responsibility goes through the chain of command all the way up to the President. But it doesn’t go outside of that. Why is the soldier who is building a school and bringing water to an old woman’s home while honoring the rights, dignity, and culture of Iraqis to blame for anything that went on at Abu Ghraib? I wouldn’t blame the poor schlob traffic cop in Baghdad who had to join the Ba’ath Party to get a job for Saddam’s massacres and tortures. Would you? And all that aside, if people really honestly from the bottoms of their hearts do feel responsible, that is, feel that they really played a role by voting for someone 4 years ago (even if it wasn’t Bush, I suppose is how the argument goes) — if they really feel this way, then what are they supposed to do about it? If we are all responsible for Iraq, then we were all responsible for children who died in Bosnia. And we will be responsible for whatever Kerry’s administration does. Should we just stop voting? What do you do to assuage your guilt?
Bingo.
Responsibility is commensurate with power. The reason you don’t recognize the responsibility which is borne by a republic’s electorate for the actions of their government is because you’ve never recognized the power of that electorate over their government. We are not a purely democratic republic, but neither are we yet a pure plutocracy, or a meritocracy or (thank God!) a theocracy or any other “pure” system.
When my government becomes oppressive, whether to me or my fellows or to those not bound by it, I am responsible by dint of membership to either oppose or endorse its actions, and to whatever degree relative to my power I must share the moral consequences of those actions. That sucks, but the flip side is I get to oppose the gummint without losing my membership.
To assuage my guilt, I vote for the candidate I think will be more humane, and who also has a chance to win office. It’s a compromise, but there you are.
By guilt, I mean the shame on me and my country. I could completely dodge it and run up to Canada (where my family’s from) and wash my hands of the whole sordid mess. I prefer to stay and do what I can to fix things.
So are we in this mess because we voted in a white person or a male? :eek:
That statement appears to be either very racist. sexist or both.
I’m a little shaken that I appear to be the only person to take offense.
I saw it as racist and sexist. I also saw it as beneath contempt and not worthy of a reply.
In a democracy, responsibility is very very hard to trace backwards. Even if you vote for candidate X, candidate X’s success is still a choice determined by the votes of others, not (or at least almost always not) determined by yourself.
Osama Bin Laden’s understanding of democracy is that because American foriegn policy is answerable to the people, the people are responsible for whatever that policy is, and hence legitimate targets for revenge or making an example of. Those who bombed Nagasaki thought pretty much the same thing, and Japan wasn’t even a democracy.
But in general, most voters are mostly just responsible for wanting to live their everyday lives. If they vote for child torture, even then it’s not clear what their individual responsibility is (as the result would likely be the same whether they voted for it or not). But if they voted for military engagement and then got child killing as an unexpected and non-necessary side-effect, then its not clear how they could be held to blame. They weren’t in charge of the operation and were never consulted about it: they only selected, usually very indirectly, who would be in charge, usually with only very limited knowledge of who those people were and what they stood for.
Xeno! […happy dance…] 
Great to hear from you again! It is wonderful to have intercourse with someone who grants me the courtesy of understanding. And you know, of course, that I would agree with you completely were the republic in question to recognize the consent of those it governs and allow those who withhold consent to secede. Given that state of affairs, responsibility indeed would accrue to those who permit their government to commit atrocities. As it stands, permission goes the other way — it is government that permits or denies.
But not entirely, and not without limits imposed by a constitutional and democratic framework. (I know you disagree concerning the import of the scribbles, but let me have the point that nominal constraints exist.)
However, your pov notwithstanding (and as you know, I consider it defensible – I just disagree with it), my point, dear friend, was that you want to argue about collectivism, while the OP assumes collective responsibility as a starting point for his discussion about the consequences to America of the abuses in Iraq. If you wish to dispute the consequences to this country based on the perception [by those who might take action in response to Abu Ghraib] of our collective guilt or innocence, then I think your point is not a hijack (and citations for the moral philosophies of al Q strategists would be welcome). But if your argument is indeed whether collective guilt is appropriate, I think that it’s not germaine to the major thrust of the OP.
The problem both is and isn’t Bush.
Let us take a far more trivial example, in order to highlight the situation.
The first President, George Washington, deliberately limited himself to two terms. That tradition went unbroken until FDR. Since then, a Constitutional Amendment was put into place to codify that which had stood until that time by mere tradition. Obviously, though, we had passed the point to which we could trust mere tradition to limit our worst impulses.
Truman, much to his credit, limited himself to the two terms that had been codified in tradition.
In our time, the idea of serving more than two terms has been bandied about for both Reagan and Clinton, the two most popular presidents of our times. That this idea was seriously considered in both cases shows the depths to which our political culture has fallen.
Think of it as a canary in a coal mine.
We have become addicted to kingship. We want our Presidents to be like some kind of royalty, allowed to set the direction of the country in every way. We want to elect a new dictator every four years.
Obviously, a dictator gets to run the military as well, in whatever way he feels like, for whatever purpose he cares to, wherever and whenever his heart desires. Obviously, this is at odds with liberty.
There are lots of limits in the Constitution about what the President can do with the military, including but hardly limited to
- The Congress having the sole power to declare war,
- The Congress having to vote at least once every two years - that is, at least once during its existence - for appropriations for having an Army in the first place,
- The Congress having the sole power to organize the militias, and for " calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"
Article 1, Section 8 for all of the above.
Instead of all of the above, we have the War Powers Act, which assumes that the power to make war rests with the President, with the Congress reduced to rubber-stamping his decision when the military is already committed and in action. It’s a recipe for military disaster if it’s taken seriously and domestic tyranny if it’s not. (At this point we’ve managed to both have the former, first in Vietnam and currently, possibly, in Iraq, and be well on our way to the latter, a not inconsiderable accomplishment.) You couldn’t design something stupider if you tried.
But the only way for the country to have a minimal army and a reserve designed for the task to defend the country and nothing else, and for it to be used solely for that purpose, is to have a culture in place that recognizes that “The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.” G W’s Farewell Address
At this point, we have plenty of codified “engagements” with the rest of the world, from the UN to NATO to the WTO. Instead of working around them, we should work through them. If a problem arises in Europe, let Europe take the lead. Ditto for the Arab world, Asia, and Africa. In our hemisphere, we can and should take a leading role, along with the other countries in this part of the world. And that’s it.
The fact that the Great Debate that didn’t take place after 9/11 is why we weren’t prepared for an attack from within and why we didn’t - and still haven’t - secured ourselves from such an attack, attests to our fixation abroad, instead of to defending ourselves right here and now.
Codifying restraints in how our military is to be used in some way (IANAL, so don’t ask me how to do this so that it works) will castrate the Presidency. Which is as it should be, so that the universally power-hungry and ruthless bastards who compete for the job can’t do any more damage than is absolutely necessary to ourselves and the rest of the world.
But first, we, the people, have to want that, and seriously debate the ways to codify the limits that were taken for granted by the Framers, instead of limiting ourselves to a debate about the character or culpability of either the Presidents we elect or the citizenry that elects them.
Fix the system, and the problem will go away, until some clever lawyer figures a way around the new restraints or some ruthless politician simply runs right over them, claiming that the “national security” trumps everything.
Unrestrained, people will resort to their worst impulses, every freakin’ time. That has to be the working assumption you start from. So you have to codify the restraints. Way easier said than done, but it has to be done. Every time a restraint is gotten around, a new restraint has to be put in place, until using the military for anything besides actual defense becomes simply unthinkable.
In short, Afghanistan, but not Iraq. And, finish the job in Afghanistan - not to mention Pakistan. And, it should be a lot easier to get to this goal than it is now.
Are you saying we deserved 9/11?
Reading comprehension is not your strong point, is it, milroyj?
I would be grateful if you would tell us all how a statement the we as a nation are responsible for the acts of our officials, agents and representatives with particular and specific reference to the treatment of detainees in Iraq can be convoluted into a statement that the 3000 people in the WTC, the 250 people in the Pentagon, and the 600 people on the four airplanes, more or less, who were not officials, agents and representatives of the United States (excepting federal employees and members of the armed forces whose presence was incidental and fortuitous) were deserving of their fate. Your question is asinine and deserving of no more attention that this demand for an explanation of your thought process.
Or perhaps you are just trying to waylay this discussion before it draws more people who might think that the mistreatment of people who have fallen into our hands might not be the most effective way to bring the blessings of democracy to the Middle East and that it might possibly constitute a betrayal of a trust and an abuse of a power.
One vote every four years is certainly not enough to justify feeling like you participated in democracy.
You need to call your congressman often enough that he recognizes your name. You need to find the people in your neighborhood who feel as you do, and are not registered to vote. You need to make yourself a powerbroker on your own block. There are party meetings, and local elections every year, usually more than once a year. You need to be responsible for making the United States Government responsive, and holding it responsible for the actions of the nation.
If we don’t take George II to court over this, and force the Congress to censure itself over abrogating its sole responsibility for this war, we will never change anything about what we as a nation do. We need to make sure that every action of our “intelligence community” is recorded, and publicized when it can no longer reasonably be considered dangerous to do so. We need to convict those who ordered violations of our own laws, even after they are dead. We need to make sure that we face up, as a people to the final cost of “letting George do it.”
You choose who decides what America will do, and you are completely responsible for what America has done.
Being ashamed ain’t even enough. Talk loud.
End the war in Iraq; end the war in Afghanistan. Take away the disguise of a War against Terrorism. Terrorism is not a place, or a population. You can’t make war on it. You can give unlimited excuses to exploit our unreasoned fear to an unprincipled group of profiteers. The terrorism in 2001 was not the most dangerous thing to Americans. It wasn’t even as dangerous as malnutrition, in the wealthiest nation in the world! The end of our Constitution will certainly be worse.
Tris