-
Up From Totalitarianism
April 19, 2013 | 20 comments
-
Obama and Israel Reconfigured
April 1, 2013 | 34 comments
-
Reflections on Timbuktu
January 30, 2013 | 7 comments
-
The Blackmailer’s Paradox
January 16, 2013 | 85 comments
-
Right of Revolution?
December 20, 2012 | 84 comments
At Large
Honor Thy Country
That might be too much to ask of the current president.
President Obama believes that his decision to shake hands with Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez at a summit of Latin leaders in Trinidad was the right thing to do. He dismisses critics who accuse him of sending the wrong signals, of projecting an image of weakness, and of apologizing too much on his trips abroad. “It’s unlikely that as a consequence of me shaking hands or having a polite conversation with Mr. Chavez that we are endangering the strategic interests of the United States,” Obama said.
President Obama is wrong. Like his bow to Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah at the G-20 Summit in London, his cordiality to Chavez does real damage American interests, because it demonstrates that the honor of the United States is not something that matters very much to him. And that is a very bad and dangerous thing.
Charles de Gaulle famously observed that “states are cold-blooded monsters” — but de Gaulle was only half-correct. What redeems states from total monstrosity is their sense of honor. An “honorable” state is very touchy about its sovereignty, its good name, and the treatment of its citizens abroad, but it also follows through on commitments to friends and allies — even when doing so is inconvenient — because not doing so would be “dishonorable.” A head of state without a sense of honor is also unlikely to have a sense of dishonor, and is therefore more likely to behave dishonorably — to betray allies and renege on his promises — in an hour of crisis.
“Honor,” observed Winston Churchill in The Gathering Storm, “is often influenced by that element of pride which plays a large part in its inspiration.” While Churchill deplored an “exaggerated code of honor leading to utterly vain and unreasonable deeds,” he believed that a proper sense of honor was an essential component of enlightened statecraft. Indeed, he denounced the architects of what he called “the tragedy of Munich” (when, in 1938, England, France, and Italy abandoned Czechoslovakia to the not-so-tender mercies of Nazi Germany) because they behaved so dishonorably. A proper sense of honor, Churchill maintained, induces a nation “to keep its word and to act in accordance with its treaty obligations to allies.”
An American President imbued with a proper sense of the honor and dignity of his country would not shake hands with a leader like Hugo Chavez, who said, on the day after 9/11, that “the United States brought the attacks upon itself, for their arrogant and imperialist foreign policy.” An American President imbued with a proper sense of the honor and dignity of his country would not bow to a feudal despot whose kingdom’s vast financial resources and intransigent brand of Islam provide much of the impetus for Islamist terrorism. And a President with a proper sense of the honor and dignity of his country would realize that his every word and every gesture is carefully scrutinized both by America’s friends (who want to know whether he can be trusted to honor America’s commitments) and America’s enemies (who want to know how much they can get away with, before encountering resistance).
At another point in The Gathering Storm, Churchill observes that “it makes one flush to read in [Italian Foreign Minister] Ciano’s Diary the comments” that Italian officials made about “our country and its representatives” during Prime Minister’s Neville Chamberlain’s 1939 visit to Italy — and he provides the following excerpt:
“How far apart we are from these people [Ciano writes]! It is another world. We were talking about it after dinner to the Duce. ‘These men,’ said Mussolini, ‘are not made of the same stuff as Francis Drake and the other magnificent adventurers who created the Empire. They are after all the tired sons of a long line of rich men.’”
I am very much afraid that Latin and Arab despots — who are shaped by cultures that take matters of honor very seriously indeed — will not be more favorably impressed by Obama than Mussolini was by Chamberlain. “This is no President Bush,” they will say with a sigh of relief. “Nor is this a Reagan or a Nixon, a Kennedy or a Truman, or any of the other formidable American presidents who helped win the Cold War. This is a Jimmy Carter — and we know just how to handle folks like Jimmy.”
Letter to the Editor View all comments (43) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Joseph Shattan
More Articles From At Large
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/04/22/honor-thy-country
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Pingback| 4.22.09 @ 7:26AM
Honor Thy Country links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Deborah D | 4.22.09 @ 7:50AM
Yes, Mr. Shattan, I fear you are right. The idea that the United States and its president should bow down and kiss the feet of our enemies is a ridiculous multiculturalistic/politically correct idea that is sure to come back to bite the country. It usually comes in the form of an Iranian hostage-taking or a 9/11 attack. Be prepared in the near future.
Weakness provokes the beasts...that's when they come in for the kill. We are, afterall, only human beings -- not that far from the animals. But, that's too logical for those on the left.
Becky| 4.22.09 @ 8:10AM
I've noticed this theme being promoted by Rove, Krauthammer, and now have come across this article.
Honor and a sense of duty, seem to have been replaced with hope and change. Duty and honor are both much more serious words and concepts than hope and change. A soldier goes to battle believing it his duty to the country and is honored by a grateful nation.
When a man beheads his wife in America in the name of honor, we need a serious discussion of what it means.
Duty and Honor. Nostalgic and needed more than ever.
mattled| 4.22.09 @ 8:23AM
There is no hope. That was a line for suckers.
This was the biggest con-job ever foisted on the American public and the only ones to see it, besides us 58 million, was the British press.
Mimi Evans Winship| 4.22.09 @ 8:41AM
LISTENING TO CHURCHILL
It’s the late 1930s and an old man paces
The corridors of Parliament, as his country races
To self destruction with the practiced eye
Of those who deny and deny and deny.
He waits and listens, shakes his head in defeat
As he hears his Prime Minister blather and bleat
About “peace in our time” and “Mr. Hitler’s” intention.
No one’s listening to Winston, so why bother to mention
That his Land’s unprepared to revisit the Hun.
After all victory there has already been won.
But a new breed is leading a new regime,
And those who realize it want to scream
To their fellow citizens “We can no longer wait.
We must make ready before it’s too late”!
Then Churchill takes charge, and the magnificent Few
Rouse the people of England, their courage renew.
But one thing is different today from then.
They had the USA to fall back on when
The forces of darkness would have swallowed all.
Who is there now to answer our call?
Time’s not on the side of the weak who just sigh
And forever deny and deny and deny.
Mimi Evans Winship
Pingback| 4.22.09 @ 9:38AM
Topics about Italy-places » Blog Archive » Honor Thy Country links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.22.09 @ 9:40AM
Topics about Italy » Blog Archive » Honor Thy Country links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
ccc| 4.22.09 @ 10:01AM
So it's ok for Nixon to shake hanfs with Khrushchev and Bush to hold hands with Saudi prince Abdullah but not for Obama to shake hands wih Chavez or bow to a suadi prince?
Is there a deeper subtlty or does honor only apply to democrat officials?
Deborah D | 4.22.09 @ 10:42AM
Obama bowed in ways other than just the physical. He berated his own country in foreign lands. He listened to Ortega for 50 minutes basically call our country the devil, and did he defend the U.S. after that? No, this man, our president, joked that he was glad Ortega didn't blame him for things that happened when he was three months old.
If that doesn't tell you what a narcisstic president we have, nothing does. When the country has a president who doesn't like his country very much, I'm sure that just pleases the heck out of those who don't like our country very much. And, that leaves us vulnerable because if he won't defend our country verbally it makes one wonder -- will he defend our country in other ways.
ALEXISTAN| 4.22.09 @ 11:03AM
Obama's selfish and self-obsessed attempt to isolate and elevate his presidency from the current of American history will not succeed. Nor our enemies nor friends will allow it, after all, the regnant theme of unappeasable grievance is a particularly American invention that the Kims, Chavezes and Ahmedinajads have wholly imbued, Indeed, the grievance/entitlement motif elevated this man to his high office–a role which, oddly, he seems to resent. But there is no escaping the tide of evil which will fill the voids we allow, not even by our cult-insulated, press-coddled Chief Executive. The enemy doesn't look into the mirror as Rahm Emanuel does and see someone who will appreciate a softer, more humanistic tone to interrogation. Perhaps the Oval Office's thinking is that by not treating someone as an enemy of every tradition our country was built on will make them a friend. This is the philosophy that equates surrendering with picking the winning side. If that's the true motivation, and it seems increasingly that it is so, and that the tune is called from somewhere between Amman and Beijing, then we are in grave danger indeed. The anti-individualist forces, guised in Islam, communism, fascism, or greenism, correctly see us as weak, irresolute, and growing weaker with each day. One of the many traits the Dems and the fascist enemies of America have in common is a powerful ability to attribute their own vile motives to their enemy. That, and a desire to land us all back a few centuries, our civilization in ruins around us.
David J| 4.22.09 @ 2:05PM
Obama is a National Traitor. Throw the beast out of office. The time to revolt is coming. March on Washington DC Sept. 2, 2009. Be there to protest the government that refuses to listen to you.
David J| 4.22.09 @ 2:07PM
That is Sept. 12, 2009. March on DC
BD57| 4.22.09 @ 2:21PM
The biggest problem with such things is the misunderstanding it breeds.
Just to use the example cited:
Il Duce thought England weak and impotent because the Prime Minister he met with struck him as such. When war came, he discovered he was dealing with a Churchill, not a Chamberlain. We should at least consider the possibility that millions may have been spared but for that misunderstanding.
jim rice| 4.22.09 @ 2:53PM
ccc has a good point. Where was the outrage when bush was giving a reach-around to the Saudis?
Chavez is not an enemy of the United States. He's only an enemy of narrow minded people who are afraid of people who do things differently. Everything Chavez said about America under bush was spot on, and I love him for it. Seeing Obama shake hands with Chavez is the 2nd best thing I've seen all year. Second only after watching bush finally lose his ability to run America into the ground.
We need more open hands and open minds around here.
JeffW| 4.22.09 @ 3:05PM
CCC and Jim,
Perhaps you should study some of the Arabian customs. Saudi is and was our ally, even if we do not always agree with them. In their culture men holding hands is common among friends. Meaning Bush and Prince Abdullah considered each other friends. As for Nixon, he was VP, not the President at the time. Subtle difference. Plus he defended us. My (and I believe many others) problem with Obama's handling is.
1. Those leaders have never been our friends or allies.
2. He didn't even attempt to defend us.
Yes, American has made mistaked but why does the left focus on that and not our accomplishments? Don't give me a line of crap about being humble to establish relations. This isn't the schoolyard and they aren't kids. Nothing wrong in the adult world with admitting you made mistakes but also defending the good you have done. Everyone of those countries pointing their finger at us has benifited from us as well but the left refuses to acknowledge that as it doesn't fit into the America is evil model. Ask the people of Venezula just how fair and open minded Chavez is. Better yet, ask the american oil companies who's oil wells he took over at gunpoint. Get a clue.
the-gunslinger | 4.22.09 @ 3:14PM
I'd love for jim rice to explain exactly what he means by: Bush's "ability to run America into the ground". I hear a lot of meaningless generalizations like this...but never any specifics.
I'd agree Bush had the "ability", but never the determination to do so. Unfortunately, Obama has both.
Helen Donnelly| 4.22.09 @ 3:31PM
Dear Mr. Rice - Why don't you get your head out of the sand and take a look at how Chavez has opressed his people and have run THEM into the ground. Yes, and please do give us specifics when you say that Bush ran the US into the ground.
jim rice| 4.22.09 @ 3:35PM
Well, I wasn't trying to turn this into yet another discussion on why george bush gets thrown into the mix for "Worst President Ever." Our country became morally reprehensible over the last 8 years. Given... I don't believe bush was the real problem - he was way too stupid. But he was the guy in charge when we attacked another country unprovoked, encroached on Americans' freedoms and privacy, sustained the worst terror attack on American soil, had the economy go to hell, let religion direct policy, and botched a natural disaster recovery effort.
*I* certainly felt like the country was in the ground. I was embarrassed and angry to call myself an American.
And yes, Chavez has plenty of detractors in Venezuela... but he also has plenty of supporters. No one pleases everyone.
Chavez was the one who had ships loaded with oil and supplies sitting off our coast to help with Katrina. bush said, "No Thanks."
Chavez was the one who offered a long-term deal for $50/barrel oil when oil was approaching $100. bush said, "No Thanks."
As for the US oil companies... I'll let Chavez speak to that one:
Q: Speaking of the free market, you've demanded back taxes from U.S. oil companies. You have eliminated contracts for North American, British, and European oil companies. Are you trying to slice out the British and American oil companies from Venezuela?
Chavez: No, we don't want them to go, and I don't think they want to leave the country, either. We need each other. It's simply that we have recovered our oil sovereignty. They didn't pay taxes. They didn't pay royalties. They didn't give an account of their actions to the government. They had more land than had previously been established in the contracts. They didn't comply with the agreed technology exchange. They polluted the environment and didn't pay anything towards the cleanup. They now have to comply with the law.
Charlene| 4.22.09 @ 4:32PM
Jim,
The only thing reprehensible is that you were embarassed to be an American.
jim rice| 4.22.09 @ 4:34PM
Thanks for adding your valuable insight to the conversation, Charlene!
rw| 4.22.09 @ 4:53PM
jim rice said:
"He's only an enemy of narrow minded people who are afraid of people who do things differently. "
So I suppose you are OK with with doing different things like, you know, jailing dissidents and anyone else that peaceably opposes government policy. Is that what you mean?
jim rice| 4.22.09 @ 5:06PM
No, that's not what I mean. I'm not saying he's perfect, but I believe he's far from the villain that we are told he is.
I do have to say, however, that if I had been the target of US backed coups, kidnapped by US backed militants, and had an insane (though somehow still respected) American leader call for my assassination.... I'd probably be a little paranoid and over the top too.
Peaceful demonstrations for or against anything should always be allowed and even supported by the government. Even the people holding their "tea parties." I think those people are largely just hypocrites and sore-losers, but the government should address those fears in a calm, rational, and logical manner. As should all governments with any issue brought to the table be a large portion of the populace.
jim rice| 4.22.09 @ 5:07PM
Crap, sorry... wish there was an edit function...
To clarify, rw, I'm not saying the man is a saint - the point of what I said is that he is not our enemy. We could now (and could have in the past) work with Chavez for the greater good of the entire hemisphere.
mattled| 4.22.09 @ 6:23PM
But he was the guy in charge when we attacked another country unprovoked, ---UH--95% of senate/congress approved.
encroached on Americans' freedoms and privacy--------
Further clarification? How? Like demanding Card check? Fairness Doctrine? Did he tap your phone? Monitor your Craigslist hooker responses?
sustained the worst terror attack on American soil-----Uh, UM---yeah, the hijackers came in here Jan 21, 2001---, got drivers licenses, learned how to fly Jumbo Jets and then went and crashed into buildings causing a man-caused disaster. Check!
had the economy go to hell-----yeah, he let the Democrats drive the economy into the ground---you got one right,
let religion direct policy----yes of course, every person in the US now has to say Our Fathers before they get to vote--sure--example? Didn't think so.
botched a natural disaster recovery effort-----Uh, UM, Gee---why didn't Blanco run again---let's se could it UMMM----[[[[[[she botched a natural disaster recovery effort??]]]]].
All you lefties have is empty rhetoric re-hashed .
Why didn't you throw in Valerie Plame? After all, she was right next to Jack B auer out there in the field getting the bad, er, man-caused disaster folks
This is all you got? Really? This is it?
It's going to be a LONG three+ years if this is all you got and Obambi has outdone Bush in less than 100 days.
Mattled| 4.22.09 @ 7:09PM
I'd like one "honest" lefty to come up with one statement by Reagan or Bush that blamed their predecessor on their current situation.. Just one.
Carter did it.
Clinton did it.
Obama does it.
Stay classy Dems----
After all, being a liberal means never having to say you're wrong or you're sorry. Unless you're blaming America for something.
ccc| 4.22.09 @ 9:06PM
My point above was that dignataries formally greet each other. They shake hand when meeting, it isn't wrong that Obaama did so it's expected. Obama bowed as is custom when meeting royalty, even though americans are averse to the practice. Bush held hands, even though it looked kinda gay. These elements are formalities that do not show weakness but rather politeness.
Be specific in your criticism, his failure was in his words not his actions.. Obama made an error when he disassociated himself from the lineage of american head of state and did not defend american history.
HistoryWriter| 4.22.09 @ 9:44PM
Those who take the trouble to familiarize themselves with the US' abysmal record in Latin America --- including installation and support of some of the world's worst dictators --- would understand that it's better for us to act with a little modesty instead of pretending that we can call the shots for every other country in the hemisphere. Honor? No, sanity.
Todd| 4.22.09 @ 9:56PM
You sound like a good little commie HistoryWriter. You must be one of those who ordered Chavez's gift on Amazon this past week.
T.P. Brantinger| 4.23.09 @ 4:35AM
@Rice: Imperfect?? You know I think people with an alcohol problem are imperfect, somebody who cant quit smoking, has a temper or is chewing his nails. Somebody who throws people into jail for not agreeing with him, erases checks and balances from the constitution of his country to stay in power and spends public money for his partisan campaigns is on the way to tyranny with a detour over ochlocracy. I think somebody with common sense and appreciation for democracy would find a stronger word than "imperfect" for that. (Sorry for my rusty English)
JeffW| 4.23.09 @ 9:47AM
CCC,
Bowing at the waist to royalty is only expected from a subject. Not a equal. And to make matters worse they blatantly lied about it saying he bent over to grasp the princes hands with both of his when in the photos you can plainly see his left hand next to his leg. a American president is expected to show some respect to a equal, not deference.
mike| 4.23.09 @ 7:08PM
President Obama has a need to show respect towards the leaders of other countries. like all civil nations, President Obama allows America's achievements to stand for themselves. furthermore he does not worry what others say, because this country is a great nation with many supportors- to respond to chavez comments or to refuse to bow to another leader shows that America can be provoked and it's hand forced, to further create conflicts to serve the aforementioned rulers. further more many of the claims written by mr. Rice and ccc are correct, thogh skewed regarding President Bush. first, the war was admitidly mishandled and based on false reports. the concept that a war must be fought on enmy territory is flawed since terrorist attacks are based on a stratagey to provoke fear and anger in the intended targets. this also relates to laims that President Bush help to sae America from another terrorist attack are dubious at best. furthermore the Patriot act shown by many as testament against Republicans is based on the irony of a party that endorses small/limited government to employ policies that are anything but, not as some detractors comment to exonorate Democrats from ever having abused their power. the comment regarding President Bush's allowing of religious policy to dominate politics refers to his lack of support for stem cell research, his declaration of being on a directive from God, and his constant use of rhetoric that caimed Biblical directives. finally i enjoy the comments made about hoew Republicans never blame their predecessors, when did they not? many suportors got to the oppurtunity before they could. additionally, the remarks about how Democrats ran the economy into the ground during their holding of lower seats for the last two years of President Bush's Term, are ridicoulsly false. many more attempt to blame Bill Clinton. so which is it? if the Republican party always knew how to run an economy to make choices that benefited people, why did President Bush not repeal/fix legislation that caused such problems during the six years that he and republicans had full power and were, as many claimed of the now Democrat party majority, ruling the white house? am i supposed to believe these problems occured overnight? Finally, what is the purpose of accusing the current President? if Bush had eight years to get things right , allow Obama at least four- then complain. to Mr. Rice and ccc i would like to say that many of these leaders you defend are found to be dangerous. however, there is very little President Obama can do in forceful machinations, but the overall point is not that chavez or any other are not as bad as some say, but rather the victory in which one does not fight is the best. in regards to the article, it is a poor mark of any writer to make sweeping declarations as done in the aforementioned piece- this is very bad and dangerous. how so getting to know your enemy's retoric? showing a civil and calm manner no matter what the oppisition throws at you? allow the military to show might, let the president show hoew the American spirit relies on the honor of patience, detication and a willingness to take in to account all sides of any story, before making decisions. this is where America's spirit, honor and success come from.
squidpie1| 4.24.09 @ 8:50PM
jim rice. I did happen to notice in your comments the utter disrespect for a President of United States, mainly George Bush. Your use of capital letters for Chavez and Obama versus bush. Pathetic. It shows your complete hatred. You think more highly of Chavez then "bush". I didn't vote for Obama but he is my President and thus deserves the respect that title enails, even if he himself dishonors the office while on foreign soil. P.s notice I respected you, jim rice?
squidpie1| 4.24.09 @ 8:53PM
jim rice. I did happen to notice in your comments the utter disrespect for a President of United States, mainly George Bush. Your use of capital letters for Chavez and Obama versus bush. Pathetic. It shows your complete hatred. You think more highly of Chavez then "bush". I didn't vote for Obama but he is my President and thus deserves the respect that title entails, even if he himself dishonors the office while on foreign soil. P.S notice I respected you, jim rice?
Lingerie | 9.12.09 @ 11:03PM
sexy lingerie wholesale lingerie