Rhetoric Vs. Reality
Recently President Bush has reiterated
The problem of Bush's 'rhetoric' of freedom (emphasizing the
When 'reality' finally hits home, then what? It seems that Bush is caught between a rock and a hard place. Obviously, the US needs non-democratic allies (Pakistan, China are the most obvious ones) so a little bit of 'real politics' rhetoric is urgently needed and it is about time to tone down the 'crusade rhetoric' which is perceived, if not in America, at least in the rest of the world, as a demonstration of hypocrisy and dishonesty.
'Real politics' can be a good political move too. It seems that if people are ready to endorse 'torture' for 'the good cause' of their national security, they should be OK with a bit of 'real politics' as long as the stakes are clearly explained to them. Making a difference between those democratic states that are dangerous for world stability, those that are not, and those that are necessary for world peace at this time and age could be a good start. It does not mean that the West should not push for democratic reform whenever possible, or that we should not occasionally use force when an 'immediate danger is looming', but PLEASE, stop the 1950s goodie-baddie cowboy rhetoric.
What traditions are we talking about exactly here? That of the Pogrom? The Russian Revolution? The Gulag? Communism? The current Mafia?
Politically,
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home