Wooo Hooooo! Finally, someone has picked up the glove. ;-)
Thank you, Marvin.
At 04:30 PM 6/14/01 -0500 Marvin Long, Jr. wrote:
>If one argues "great" just means big and powerful, then it's no problem.
>"Greatness" is then a quality shared by the US, China, ancient Rome,
>the old British Empire, and so on.
I think that Gautam has pretty well established with certainty that America
certainly meets this criterion - and I think we all agree that the US is
the only remaining superpower.
>On the other hand, to argue that America has been a net force of good in
>the world requires some very difficult accounting, the weighing of
>countless lives and possibilities and possible alternatives...in short,
>it's pretty much impossible *unless* what you really want is for somebody
>to admit that America really is pretty great after all.
See, but this is what I find so difficult - for me, the calculation is not
difficult at all.
The final part is where I really start to disagree with you. To me, you
seem to be confusing "great" with "greatest." There is a difference. To
me, greatest implies putting down the achievements of all other countries
to make a claim of unquestioned superiority. Greater however, simply
implies a general level of high achievement. I've tried to make the point
of not once putting down another country's accomplishments for exactly this
reason.
Thus, I don't agree at all when you write that a declaration of greatness
"is nothing ess than to argue that America should be allowed a special
exemption when
it comes to evaluating its motives and behavior." I find it especially
strange, because later on, you also write that "true greatness is bestowed
retroactively on people and things, by people who are in a historical
position to evaluate the allegedly great people and/or things."
I definitely agree with the latter. I nevertheless considered it
interesting, however, to look critically on American with that distant
historian's eye from the present, and try and reach the best conclusions
that we could about what the distant historians' judgement would be.
Certainly, I would never argue that America somehow deserves a plenary
exemption from future scrutiny, solely because of its past deeds.
Critical scrutiny is always required. That critical scrutiny of past and
future events, however, should not impair us from make our best-possible
present-time judgement of America's accomplishments in history-to-date.
Indeed, it is exactly this critical scrutiny that I *rely* upon for my
arguments. You clearly also believe in the necessity of critical scrutiny
of America's present and future actions.
I am simply arguing that that same crutical scrutiny which you advocate, if
applied to America's past-to-date, adds up to a blemished, but otherwise
wholly impressive record. America has fundamentally changed the ethical
context of foreign affairs in just a short period of time.
Unfortunately, at the end of your post, I am left feeling that you have
simply argued process rather than substance. You seem to hold that America
cannot be declared "great", because to do so would be insufferable in the
present-time. You then simply dismiss "net-goodness" analysis as
uncalcuable. Yet, how can it be uncalcuable given the existence of the
critical scrutiny we have both advocated. You can't on one hand argue for
scrutiny of America's actions in the present and future, and then say that
the actions of the past are inscrutable. Likewise, given the unlikelihood
of our discussion year causing America to become (even more?) unsufferably
arrogant, or other nations to be unnecessarily deferrant to American
demands,it seems not unreasonable to at least make a best attempt at
drawing conclusions about the American record.
JDG
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
"Compassionate conservatism is the way to reconcile the two most vital
conservative intellectual traditions: libertarianism & Catholic social
thought."
-Michael Gerson, advisor to George W. Bush
