Tweet
Surprise, surprise, no unreliable sources, no unknown liberal Euro pussies,
this time.
The interview of Arthur Schlesinger to Newsweek:
March 22 — “The bane of ideology,” wrote Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. in his 1986 book “The Cycles of American History,” “is that it exalts abstractions over human beings. It impoverishes our sense of reality, and it impoverishes our imagination, too.” Schlesinger knows a few things about ideology and its role in history: In 1962 the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian and advisor to President John F. Kennedy witnessed first-hand the tense unfolding and peaceful resolution of the Cuban missile crisis. Today he is witnessing “with deep gloom” what he calls a dangerous shift in American foreign policy towards the ideological.
THE SON OF A prominent American historian, the bow-tied Schlesinger followed in his father’s professional steps, and even went on to live through a good chunk of it himself. An unrepentant New Dealer, he taught at Harvard, his alma mater, from 1946 until 1961, when he was appointed special assistant to the president for Latin American affairs. He won his first Pulitzer Prize for history at the age of 28 for his book “The Age of Jackson,” and his second in 1966 for “A Thousand Days: JFK in the White House.” He is the general editor of a new series of biographies called “The American Presidents” (Henry Holt & Company).
NEWSWEEK’s Brian Braiker spoke with Schlesinger about Gorge W. Bush as a wartime president.
NEWSWEEK: How would you describe Bush as a wartime president?
Arthur Shlesinger: Well I think he’s made a fatal mistake. I think we’ve made a fatal mis-turn in our foreign policy by abandoning the doctrine of containment-plus-deterrence (which won the Cold War peacefully), and adopting as the basis of our foreign policy preventive war. Preventive war, anticipatory self-defense, was the doctrine with which the Japanese justified Pearl Harbor. FDR, an earlier American president, said that it was a date that will live in infamy. And now the Bush doctrine is a doctrine of preventive war, which makes America the self-appointed world’s judge, jury and executioner. However benign the motives, it’s bound to have a corrupting effect on our leadership. I think the whole notion of America as the world’s judge, jury and executioner is a tragically mistaken notion.
NW: Robert Kennedy called preventive war “Pearl Harbor in reverse.” Is that what we’re seeing now?
- That’s what we’re seeing now. And no wonder we look to the rest of the world as a lumbering bully. I regard this with deep gloom.
NW: Are you suggesting that Bush and his administration lack a sense of history that is required of someone in this position?
-Yes. I think they lack a sense of history. They lack an instinct of respect for the views of other countries. It’s “the rest of the world is OK only insofar as it conforms to the views of the White House.” And I don’t think this is a healthy position for the White House to have.
NW: How does aggression against Saddam Hussein, as you have said, play into our enemies’ hands?
- Anti-American zealots around the world are strengthened by the conduct of this administration, by their belief that the rest of the world has to conform to our issues, to our attitudes.
NW: But does containment even work against someone like Saddam?
-Yeah, he was contained for ten years. The last thing he would do would be to commit an act of aggression because an act of aggression would legitimize the reaction of massive retaliation. He has not stirred beyond his own frontiers for ten years. As the C.I.A. has pointed out, the threat from Saddam Hussein will come only when we invade him.
NW: How will that threat manifest itself, in your opinion?
- I have no idea.
NW: JFK’s Secretary of State Dean Acheson consigned Britain to a “tame and minor role in the world.” Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld recently referred to our allies as “old Europe.” Do you see parallels there?
- Well, Dean Acheson was not secretary of State when he made that remark. He made it as a private citizen. Rumsfeld has succeeded in antagonizing most of the rest of world.
NW: So if personalities play a role in shaping history, then, what can you say about the personalities of Bush and Rumsfeld?
-They’re ideologues. Bush seems to feel that he’s been appointed by the almighty to go to war with Iraq. But Iraq is far less of a clear and present danger than North Korea. North Korea has nuclear weapons. The difference in our treatment between Iraq and North Korea is strong incentive for other countries, other rogue states, to develop their own nuclear arsenal.
NW: Still, we are witnessing a rally-round-the-flag phenomenon of a new war-Bush’s approval ratings are above 70 percent. How long do you expect that to hold true?
- Well, it all depends on how the war goes. I think the British have lost more men in the war than we have. I think the war will be over in two or three weeks, if it lasts more than a month, then I think the polls will be less enthusiastic about the war.
NW: There didn’t seem to be much in the way of Congressional debate before this war. Why do you think that is?
- Partly because of the American press. Every utterance of [Vice-President ****] Cheney or Rumsfeld was given front-page treatment, whereas any utterance from Senators [Edward] Kennedy or [Robert] Byrd or Bob Graham were ignored or given page 18, one-paragraph treatment. There was the makings of a great debate about this, but the press so favored the administration and they so excluded, they so ignored the opposition in Congress. Both Byrd and Kennedy gave thoughtful, capable speeches—a succession of them—and the press did not give equal time to the opposition.
My question is:
Don't you think that famous American historian is correct and that Bush and his administration lack a sense of history?
What could be a consecuenses of such lack?
p.s. I really wish to see how Ming will justify the closing of this thread.
this time. The interview of Arthur Schlesinger to Newsweek:
March 22 — “The bane of ideology,” wrote Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. in his 1986 book “The Cycles of American History,” “is that it exalts abstractions over human beings. It impoverishes our sense of reality, and it impoverishes our imagination, too.” Schlesinger knows a few things about ideology and its role in history: In 1962 the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian and advisor to President John F. Kennedy witnessed first-hand the tense unfolding and peaceful resolution of the Cuban missile crisis. Today he is witnessing “with deep gloom” what he calls a dangerous shift in American foreign policy towards the ideological.
THE SON OF A prominent American historian, the bow-tied Schlesinger followed in his father’s professional steps, and even went on to live through a good chunk of it himself. An unrepentant New Dealer, he taught at Harvard, his alma mater, from 1946 until 1961, when he was appointed special assistant to the president for Latin American affairs. He won his first Pulitzer Prize for history at the age of 28 for his book “The Age of Jackson,” and his second in 1966 for “A Thousand Days: JFK in the White House.” He is the general editor of a new series of biographies called “The American Presidents” (Henry Holt & Company).
NEWSWEEK’s Brian Braiker spoke with Schlesinger about Gorge W. Bush as a wartime president.
NEWSWEEK: How would you describe Bush as a wartime president?
Arthur Shlesinger: Well I think he’s made a fatal mistake. I think we’ve made a fatal mis-turn in our foreign policy by abandoning the doctrine of containment-plus-deterrence (which won the Cold War peacefully), and adopting as the basis of our foreign policy preventive war. Preventive war, anticipatory self-defense, was the doctrine with which the Japanese justified Pearl Harbor. FDR, an earlier American president, said that it was a date that will live in infamy. And now the Bush doctrine is a doctrine of preventive war, which makes America the self-appointed world’s judge, jury and executioner. However benign the motives, it’s bound to have a corrupting effect on our leadership. I think the whole notion of America as the world’s judge, jury and executioner is a tragically mistaken notion.
NW: Robert Kennedy called preventive war “Pearl Harbor in reverse.” Is that what we’re seeing now?
- That’s what we’re seeing now. And no wonder we look to the rest of the world as a lumbering bully. I regard this with deep gloom.
NW: Are you suggesting that Bush and his administration lack a sense of history that is required of someone in this position?
-Yes. I think they lack a sense of history. They lack an instinct of respect for the views of other countries. It’s “the rest of the world is OK only insofar as it conforms to the views of the White House.” And I don’t think this is a healthy position for the White House to have.
NW: How does aggression against Saddam Hussein, as you have said, play into our enemies’ hands?
- Anti-American zealots around the world are strengthened by the conduct of this administration, by their belief that the rest of the world has to conform to our issues, to our attitudes.
NW: But does containment even work against someone like Saddam?
-Yeah, he was contained for ten years. The last thing he would do would be to commit an act of aggression because an act of aggression would legitimize the reaction of massive retaliation. He has not stirred beyond his own frontiers for ten years. As the C.I.A. has pointed out, the threat from Saddam Hussein will come only when we invade him.
NW: How will that threat manifest itself, in your opinion?
- I have no idea.
NW: JFK’s Secretary of State Dean Acheson consigned Britain to a “tame and minor role in the world.” Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld recently referred to our allies as “old Europe.” Do you see parallels there?
- Well, Dean Acheson was not secretary of State when he made that remark. He made it as a private citizen. Rumsfeld has succeeded in antagonizing most of the rest of world.
NW: So if personalities play a role in shaping history, then, what can you say about the personalities of Bush and Rumsfeld?
-They’re ideologues. Bush seems to feel that he’s been appointed by the almighty to go to war with Iraq. But Iraq is far less of a clear and present danger than North Korea. North Korea has nuclear weapons. The difference in our treatment between Iraq and North Korea is strong incentive for other countries, other rogue states, to develop their own nuclear arsenal.
NW: Still, we are witnessing a rally-round-the-flag phenomenon of a new war-Bush’s approval ratings are above 70 percent. How long do you expect that to hold true?
- Well, it all depends on how the war goes. I think the British have lost more men in the war than we have. I think the war will be over in two or three weeks, if it lasts more than a month, then I think the polls will be less enthusiastic about the war.
NW: There didn’t seem to be much in the way of Congressional debate before this war. Why do you think that is?
- Partly because of the American press. Every utterance of [Vice-President ****] Cheney or Rumsfeld was given front-page treatment, whereas any utterance from Senators [Edward] Kennedy or [Robert] Byrd or Bob Graham were ignored or given page 18, one-paragraph treatment. There was the makings of a great debate about this, but the press so favored the administration and they so excluded, they so ignored the opposition in Congress. Both Byrd and Kennedy gave thoughtful, capable speeches—a succession of them—and the press did not give equal time to the opposition.
My question is:
Don't you think that famous American historian is correct and that Bush and his administration lack a sense of history?
What could be a consecuenses of such lack?
p.s. I really wish to see how Ming will justify the closing of this thread.
He did finish the highschool, did he?
Comment