|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 12:36 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| caniff wrote: |
(whew!) I'm sorry, and the topic was?  |
No kidding! I read your post, wondering whether you had a point in there related to the thread or not... so, um, do you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, history will speak of Bushie. However, if it speaks well of him (promotion of democracy, creating debate in the M.E., etc), I don't think it will be because of any personal attributes he has other than sheer stubborness. He has alot of that, which actually is why many other countries (potential adversaries) don't want to mess with him.
Other than that, I think he sucks. He is taking a leak on the Constitution and not making many friends internationally. I live overseas, and I don't enjoy answering for him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bulsajo: you seem to buy into the Great Man theory of history -- that is, that individual leaders personally cause so much to go right or so much to go wrong in world affairs.
Might such an intensely negative focus on W. Bush -- not just alleging, in the superlative, that he is the worst president of all time, but questioning whether he has accomplished anything good at all -- ignore the larger, deeper issues that are at play?
Counterfactual history is simply too much speculation to carry any weight. But you seem to believe that had Gore or, later, Kerry, defeated W. Bush in the elections, somehow everything would have come out differently. (And by "everything" I open this up way beyond the Middle East.)
Is this accurate?
Last edited by Gopher on Thu Apr 20, 2006 1:52 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| caniff wrote: |
| I live overseas, and I don't enjoy answering for him. |
Yeah, that must really bite. americans certainly take a lot of grief from others simply for being American, having to answer for/apologize for Bush, or explain that you are of the slim minority that didn't vote for him, or put up with extra grief because of him... that must be a tough pill to swallow, even on the best of days. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 1:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| caniff wrote: |
| I live overseas, and I don't enjoy answering for him. |
Yeah, that must really bite. americans certainly take a lot of grief from others simply for being American, having to answer for/apologize for Bush or put up with extra grief because of him... that's a tough pill to swallow. |
W. Bush catalyzed and exacerbated the pretty fierce antiAmericanism that was already there, pretty much globally.
But he did not create this sentiment.
Last edited by Gopher on Sun Jun 11, 2006 3:15 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 3:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
But he did not create this sentiment. |
Never said he did, and I don't really think anyone on this forum would seriously try to argue that anti-Americanism began with Bush, so there is no need to disprove a non-statement.
Let's get back to Bush.
Gopher, you often defend the administration as not being as bad as its detractors make it out to be- do you see any successes for this administration, domestically or otherwise?
Economically or socially? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| ...you often defend the administration as not being as bad as its detractors make it out to be -- do you see any successes for this administration, domestically or otherwise? Economically or socially? |
Not really, no.
But I cannot see how one could look at over two-hundred years of U.S. history and select W. Bush as the very worst. I guess I'll have to read the article and see what Rolling Stone has to say about it.
Given the current state of U.S. politics, people will probably read this article and either nod their heads "yes" or nod their heads "no" -- and all based on their preexisting opinion on the issue.
Last edited by Gopher on Sun Jun 11, 2006 3:16 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Perhaps unsavory Middle Eastern nation-states like Saddam's won't so offhandedly call the United States a paper tiger again. |
That would be good, but I'm not so certain about that, it could easily go the other way in that the lesson of Iraq may very well be that unsavory nation-states will see the US as unable to carry something through to the end, since the goal was to remove Saddam AND in doing so effectively combat terror and bring deomcracy to the region. After Iraq, would a dictator be morer afraid of pissing off the US, or less? I don't think Bush's legacy will be that he set the middle east on the path to reconciliation and democracy, but I guess only time will tell.
| Quote: |
| And Khadafi seems to have drawn the correct conclusions here, although, borrowing from criminal law, being related to the Iraqi affair as it is, you might rightfully call this fruit from the poisonous tree. |
Khadafi, yeah, maybe that's a success, and while I haven't paid attention to Libya I was under the impression that he had been for some time now lying low, waiting for the right time to come out again and particpate as a leader and Al Qaeda/Afghanistan (and possbily Iraq) simply gave him the excuse he needed, or so it seemed to me.
I could be way way off on that though.
| Quote: |
| My issue is with the attackers and the unreasonableness of their allegations and criticism. |
Yes, I certainly agree to an extent, and as I said BJWD's comment got me thinking that maybe there is some different ground to explore on the issue of Bush, maybe there were some things domestically, or socially being overlooked.
But perhaps there really isn't anything more to the argument than "how bad is he really?" "That bad?" "No, not quite." But I definitely would prefer he be castigated and made to account for the real failures rather than bombastically pilloried for the imagined ones.
| Quote: |
| World leaders and presidents simply have little, if any, socioeconomic impact, domestically or internationally. As I am sure you recognize, there are deeper forces at work, presidents' willingness to credit themselves with successes notwithstanding. See, for example, Wallerstein and Gunder Franks's world-system theory. |
I only vaguely recall studying it, and that was when the system was a bi-polar one (cold war, 2 superpowers).
What do they have to say about a monopole system with one hegemon?
But anyway, it's clear that the Bush team forcefully focused on Iraq, and I don't think they can use the excuse that they weren't in control, or didn't have a goal with regard to Iraq, or were simply reacting to the stormy winds of external forces beyond their control- they rode that horse hard all the way to town, in a manner of speaking.
| Quote: |
And today, politically, with or without W. Bush, the United States would still be in the Middle East, albeit perhaps not in Iraq (but who can really say?). We would still be in that region, at war, the Gaza Strip would still be an issue, and we would still have this issue with Iranian nuclear technology, weapons, and aims.
I am not so sure how we can look at all of this data and conclude that W. Bush is destroying the world and making the world overly unstable and dangerous -- as if it already were not an overly unstable and dangerous place. |
Yes, perhaps in the scope of 100-200 years Bush may not matter all that much one way or the other, that's true. But the what ifs and could have beens of lost opportunity and reckless folly are damned unbearable right now.
| Quote: |
I cannot see how one could look at over two-hundred years of U.S. history and select W. Bush as the very worst. I guess I'll have to read the article and see what Rolling Stone has to say about it.
But if you ask me, it is a rhetorical question, and it is preaching to the already converted. |
Well, that's a very good point- how often does Rolling Stone do political covers?
How much of the article can be viewed as hard hitting journalism worthy of a sensational cover, versus pandering for increased readership/sales? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| Quote: |
| World leaders and presidents simply have little, if any, socioeconomic impact, domestically or internationally. As I am sure you recognize, there are deeper forces at work, presidents' willingness to credit themselves with successes notwithstanding. See, for example, Wallerstein and Gunder Franks's world-system theory. |
I only vaguely recall studying it, and that was when the system was a bi-polar one (cold war, 2 superpowers). What do they have to say about a monopole system with one hegemon? But anyway, it's clear that the Bush team forcefully focused on Iraq, and I don't think they can use the excuse that they weren't in control, or didn't have a goal with regard to Iraq, or were simply reacting to the stormy winds of external forces beyond their control- they rode that horse hard all the way to town, in a manner of speaking. |
I read your post and only need to clarify my earlier point with respect to the above words.
You'll have to suspend the W. Bush debate on this one issue, because it isn't about W. Bush, or any other president, world leader, or nation-state.
There are larger forces at work in world history than presidents and nation-states.
This may work for or against any particularly president or nation-state, and they would not likey recognize it as it was occurring, like a surfer on a huge wave, a wave which he cannot see in its entirety. And it neither attacks nor defends W. Bush, then, it just is.
I think one of the best points on Mintz's book on sugar and the world economy was that it just happened. People reacted to and benefitted from it. People helped shape it. But no one engineered or controlled it.
Something to think about anytime any administration claims credit for creating a great economy or anytime any outside political party attacks the current administration for ruining the economy.
Last edited by Gopher on Thu Apr 20, 2006 5:46 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
desultude
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Location: Dangling my toes in the Persian Gulf
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| caniff wrote: |
| I live overseas, and I don't enjoy answering for him. |
Yeah, that must really bite. americans certainly take a lot of grief from others simply for being American, having to answer for/apologize for Bush, or explain that you are of the slim minority that didn't vote for him, or put up with extra grief because of him... that must be a tough pill to swallow, even on the best of days. |
There was such a slim victory(?) for Bush, that both his elections have been drawn into serious question.
If you take those of us who voted for someone else, and those who didn't vote at all, you have a good solid majority of Americans who didn't vote for him. But he was voted for by enough people for it to still be an embarrassment.
There are plenty of reasons to be a bit cautious about admitting to being an American, and Bush just represents some of the worst of it.
I don't ascribe to the great man theory of history, and therefore think that Bush is just the president, but not the presidency. By that I mean, in the American system, there are three branches of government- Executive, Legislative and Judicial. In theory at least, Congress makes the laws, the executive carries them out, and the judicial arbitrates them in accord with the Constitution, etc. The president is the head of the executive branch, his adminstration is the presidency.
In the best of cases, with an alert, informed, thoughtful, hands-on president, he is still only a small part of the show. We surely don't have the best of cases at the moment. And most of us know that the show is going on behind the screne.
Back to why it is sometimes uncomfortable to be an American- what Bush is doing is consistent with a good number of American's (not the majority) beliefs about what should be done. Now that the war and a lot of other things have become clearly huge mistakes, those who agreed with him are trying to distance themselves, but the basic political culture that allowed such things in the first place preceded Bush, and will be there, latent or otherwise, long after his is in heaven at the right hand of his god.
Deep within the American archetype lives the belief that the world is well served by the divine providence of being led from the city on the hill in the name of God and manifest destiny. The politician who invokes these images in some way, has a good chance of success with the American public. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| desultude wrote: |
| Deep within the American archetype lives the belief that the world is well served by the divine providence of being led from the city on the hill in the name of God and manifest destiny. The politician who invokes these images in some way, has a good chance of success with the American public. |
You reference the motives that drove U.S. expansion Westward and into Mexico and the Caribbean from the colonial era through the ninteenth century, and perhaps beyond, although the Cold War certainly impacted U.S. thinking on its role in world affairs.
I am especially not so sure that this "archetype" remains valid post-Vietnam. But it is still too soon to tell.
I think it is a little more dynamic and complex than what you describe here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 6:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One of the great ironies of this presidency was that early on, Bush promised to address the problem of anti-Americanism. At the time, it seemed like he meant he wanted to reduce it.
Had Gore been elected, the power of the presidency would have been used to push for maintaining the budget surplus that existed in 2000. There is a very good chance that it (the surplus) would still exist. There is little reason to believe the war in Iraq would have taken place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bronski
Joined: 17 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| caniff wrote: |
| I live overseas, and I don't enjoy answering for him. |
Yeah, that must really bite. americans certainly take a lot of grief from others simply for being American, having to answer for/apologize for Bush, or explain that you are of the slim minority that didn't vote for him, or put up with extra grief because of him... that must be a tough pill to swallow, even on the best of days. |
Not a slim minority. It was a close race both times. Now his approval rating is around 34%. In Ohio I waited 2 and a half hours to vote for Kerry. Some others waited around 7. Curiously, these long waits were more typical in heavily democratic districts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bronski wrote: |
| Curiously, these long waits were more typical in heavily democratic districts. |
I wish you would not use innuendo. Why not just state what it is that you mean in plain language? Then we can be sure to understand what you are trying to get across.
Is this what you are saying: you think that the long waits suggest that W. Bush and the Republican Party intervened in the 2004 presidential election by, among other things, arranging for or contriving the election so that voters in Democratic districts (all across the United States?) had to wait longer to vote, hoping that at least some of them would give up and not vote in that election?
If this were true, it would follow that W. Bush's presidency is not legitimate, and is only in power because of coup d'etat, to one degree or another.
If this is your position, it repeats the Michael Moore position on the 2000 election.
I also would remind you that it was the Nixon camp's position with respect to JFK's victory in 1960, and especially in the California governor's race in 1962.
It has probably been so in several other elections as well.
My reaction to this would be simply that it is time for this partisan bitterness and bickering to end. Elections do not always go the way we want them to. There are also many bureaucratic and administrative difficulties, for example, in Florida. But this hardly means that W. Bush contols the election machinery, the courts, the press, etc., or that we live under a dictatorship.
Last edited by Gopher on Thu Apr 20, 2006 8:56 pm; edited 4 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bronski wrote: |
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| caniff wrote: |
| I live overseas, and I don't enjoy answering for him. |
Yeah, that must really bite. americans certainly take a lot of grief from others simply for being American, having to answer for/apologize for Bush, or explain that you are of the slim minority that didn't vote for him, or put up with extra grief because of him... that must be a tough pill to swallow, even on the best of days. |
Not a slim minority. It was a close race both times. Now his approval rating is around 34%. In Ohio I waited 2 and a half hours to vote for Kerry. Some others waited around 7. Curiously, these long waits were more typical in heavily democratic districts. |
Yeah, Ohio had some serious controversies there.
I heard GOP sent lawyers in there to check and re-check people's IDs and rights to vote and everything else holding up lines throughout all of the more democratic-oriented cities.
Also.. kind of shocked Bulsajo wrote 'slim majority' didn't vote for Bush.. thought it was extremely well-acknowledged as two of the closest races in modern history with both of the last U.S. elections.. let alone the whole 'extremely divided country politically' stories that have filled every form of media for the last 6 years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
