This post started as a comment to “John Bolton’s farcical ‘realism’”, but I think it’s worth considering separately.
Oddly enough, I agree with part of Mr. Bolton’s quote:
…’walls’ exist not simply because of a lack of understanding about who is on the other side but because there are true differences in values and interests that lead to human conflict.
However, I would argue that the “walls” are clearly metaphorical and the “human conflict” that results is not necessarily “conflict” per se, but can (and must) result in the positive recognition of differences and the discussion that can perhaps lead to mutually shared values. Recognizing these differences is essential, provided that we realize that very few differences between people are truly intractable.
The rest of his quote seems ridiculous. Having an English teacher for a parent, I almost never correct grammar because I find it annoying, but I think in this case correcting Mr. Bolton’s grammar reveals a major flaw in his thinking. He claims that the Berlin Wall was a result of the “hostility of communism toward freedom”. The flaw in this statement is that communism is an idea, not a thing, and it, on its own, cannot have any hostility toward anything. It is the people who hold certain ideas who can be hostile, not the ideas themselves. The reason I bring this up is that it is a prevalent flaw of politicians, particularly current ones, and it has real implications. The most obvious example is the “war on terror”, which led the US (and NATO, in one case) into wars with Iraq and Afghanistan, not “terror”, because that would be impossible. The problem with this is that we will never rid the world of terror or people who would like us to suffer from it. Attacking the idea, and not those who hold it or the conditions which drive them to take those positions, is precisely what leads us into incoherent policy and inescapable military commitments.
To be fair about it, Obama’s use of the word hope is, I fear, equally dangerous. “Hope”, on its own, cannot be audacious, the people who are hopeful are. But people have real goals and real aspirations, hope does not. The worry about Barack Obama is that this talk of hope allows him to gain the favor with the American public without anyone familiarizing themselves with what “hope” actually stands for. Once he starts enacting policies, people may realize that the kool-aid they drank during the campaign tastes a little more bitter than they thought.
The root of this problem is the citizen. It is our responsibility to know the true nature and policy of these ideas and make sure that we don’t just blindly accept the ideology. So how do we sift through the semantics? Moreover, how do we start to change the behavior of our leadership so they actually provide information and not just empty statements? That’s our challenge. Its time to get informed.
hlz2 – I think I see your point about semantics, but would appreciate some clarification: if I’m getting it right, you dislike the use of these metaphorical terms because they incorrectly distance focus from the individuals who hold to certain ideas to those ideas themselves, which, in turn, discourages consideration of the many things that different people, despite ideological differences, share in common that can become the basis for discussion and convergence to shared values…?
Thats roughly the idea. Basically I think the use of language in politics allows politicians to create rather glossy policy that doesn’t focus on the real crux of problems. Bolton’s talk of “communism” being evil during the cold war is what allowed policymakers to think the institution of communism was evil instead of focusing on the nefarious objectives of the Soviet Union. The “war on terror” language ignores the real issue which is finding a way to diffuse the influence and hostility of various extremist organizations worldwide–muslim and not muslim. The “hope” language seems to allow Obama to gain support from people who remain ignorant of his actual policy goals.
So yeah, there is a general focus on lofty language that seems to avoid the complexity of real issues. That is the problem I was trying to target.
To hzl2: But at the same time, what’s really important to the American public? It appears they favor the very cursory evaluation and labeling of “the real crux of problems” which you decry. Right now we have two presidential candidates who don’t really talk about the issues or the reality behind the issues. McCain is trigger-happy, ready and willing to pull the short answers about complexities like evil by analogizing everything to “radical Islamic jihadism” and saying “we must win” without detailing at what cost or within what constraints. In the other corner we have the suspiciously inexperienced Obama who calls for “change” in not a blue or red America but a “united” America, all while exhibiting little evidence of ever crossing the aisle; whose entire campaign rested on the “hope” for a better America with scant detail on how that will be secured or paid for. Obviously, to update politics as usual, one must start somewhere, and that’s the visionary piece. Barack’s got that down solid. But you can’t effect visionary change without execution, and McCain’s about action, but appears shallow in his lack of context and premises for it. So where Obama is the guy with the “means” buzzwords, McCain is the guy with the “ends” buzzwords. In the end, though, I that’s what the American people want. They don’t want to think about detailed policy — that’s up to the professionals and academics to bitch about. They either want vision — let’s work together to restore equality and peace — or execution — let’s get the bad guys and preserve our freedom, period. While Obama gets the criticism — and rightly so — for being vague and pandering all the time, McCain is the truly the same way, but on the other side of the equation. In the end, both prey on the self-induced naivete of the American public.
Of course in a world where employment is wholly separated from the public realm, where engaging in political discourse is a luxury of the wealthy and well-connected, it’s hardly a surprise that the masses prefer buzzwords to detailed policy.
Buzzwords relieve voters of their need to think while still providing some useful policy signposts. Stephen – your distinction between “means” and “ends” buzzwords is noteworthy. In privileging means to ends (experience to vision) McCain has sold us short. Why should we care that McCain can fight the war on terror when we’re not even sure that we want a war on terror (see hzl’s post)? Obama’s reversal of McCain formula – his privileging of ends to means – at least provides us with a proper vision of what we should want from government. Details may be lacking, and that’s a problem, but at least we know what Obama wants, if not how he’s going to get there.
Plus his nomination acceptance speech helped put some of my doubts to rest.