On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, Gautam Mukunda wrote: > Well, Bush's rhetoric is partly aimed at an American > audience, and I think largely reflects his own > feelings. Post-colonial powers may understand that. > But the nations who used to be colonial powers will > laugh at that because the cynicism of "Old Europe" is > such that the idea of doing something out of idealism > is laughable to them. They know that they never meant > it when they used such language, so they assume that > we don't either. But we do.
Knowing this, then, and knowing that Europeans are not an undifferentiated mass of cynics, why indulge in this rather odd and (IMO) misleading formulation of American idealism? Is manifest destiny the only language of idealism at hand? For all the people who respect and admire America's accomplishments but are nervous about our growing power, what language could be more unnerving then that particular choice? And for Americans who doubt that this is the best use of our power, who haven't made up their minds (like me)...it's just not helpful. Not for me, anyway. I'm inclined to believe the president's intents are charitable, on the whole, but when his secretiveness is combined with such language it makes me very nervous. Thanks for the POV on India. Good stuff to think about. Marvin Long Austin, Texas Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Poindexter & Ashcroft, LLP (Formerly the USA) http://www.breakyourchains.org/john_poindexter.htm _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
