Christian Scholar 5


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Daystar Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Roland (203.221.111.146) on April 17, 2004 at 22:58:16:

The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?021014ta_talk_hertzberg) gives an editorial on the NSS document, an extract of which follows:
“The vision laid out in the Bush document is a vision of what used to be called, when we believed it to be the Soviet ambition, world domination. It's a vision of a world in which it is American policy to prevent the emergence of any rival power, whatever it stands for—a world policed and controlled by American military might. This goes much further than the notion of America as the policeman of the world. It's the notion of America as both the policeman and the legislator of the world, and it's where the Bush vision goes seriously, even chillingly, wrong. A police force had better be embedded in and guided by a structure of law and consent. There's a name for the kind of regime in which the cops rule, answering only to themselves. It's called a police state.
The Bush doctrine's answer to this objection is essentially this: Hey, we're the good guys. People—especially people who share our values, like the citizens of democratic Europe, but everybody else, too—should embrace American hegemony, because surely they know that we would use our great power only for good things, like advancing democracy, keeping powerful weapons out of the hands of terrorists, and facilitating peaceful commerce. And so we have done, most of the time; and so no doubt we would do, most of the time. But what a naïve view of power and human nature! What ever became of the conservative suspicion of untrammelled power, the conservative insight that good intentions are not, are never, enough? Where is the conservative belief in limited government, in checks and balances?”



Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject: Re: Christian Scholar 5

Comments:


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Daystar Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]