Did the world change, or merely our perception of it?
Earlier today, Michael van der Galien posted here at The Moderate Voice “Why ‘Pre- and Post-9/11′ Should Be Banned From Vocabulary” which brought to my mind something I wrote back in January of this year for my weblog, Random Fate, “America as an idea and an ideal“. It is long so I won’t duplicate the entire post here, but the key passage that reflects the ideas of Michael’s post is:
What are the fundamentals?
The Founders had recently overcome, at the time they wrote our Constitution, through actions that included secret meetings and covert actions against the legitimate government of their lands, a government that claimed to have the power to inspect any private home or other property without any restraint. Abuse of this power was the rationale behind the requirement to have judicial review and approval of search warrants.
Yet, somehow, after more than 200 years of survival, the actions of a few fanatics on September 11, 2001, are a justification to many, not solely members of the current Bush administration but apparently including many in America as a whole if comments are to be relied upon, that the philosophy that has survived 200-plus years should be cast aside because “the world changed on 9/11.�
As I have written before, many times, the world did not change on 9/11/2001, only our perception of the world changed.
We, the United States, had been attacked several times before 9/11/2001, but we didn’t notice because either the attacks did not succeed (the earlier attempts to bring down the World Trade Center in New York by truck-bombs in the parking garage), or only foreigners were killed (the car-bomb attacks on embassies in Africa).
We only panicked when the deaths were those in the United States itself. Now in the “land of the free and the home of the brave� as we so proudly proclaim in our national anthem we shit in our pants and give up yet another essential liberty every time the administration cries “terrorist� or bin Laden issues another taped proclamation.
Do your own math, but it easily comes out to this: So much for being brave OR free…
Actions speak louder than words.
Through our actions we show who we really are, regardless of any ideas we claim to follow.
Sadly, the same themes are still being played for political gain, and our actions belie the ideas we claim to hold dear, destroying America as an ideal.
Today, The IndePundit concluded a post on the changes in how the United States will be treating those declared “enemy combatants” with the words, “Stand by for a flood of ‘I question the timing’ remarks from certain quarters…”
Yet how can we NOT question the timing, when for years now the government has been acting completely contrary to the ideas underlying our nation, not the least of which is the rule of law?
How can we NOT question the timing, when the “war on terror” has been used cynically for political gain?
How can we NOT question the timing, when on the occasions that President Bill Clinton ordered missile strikes against terrorist targets THAT timing was questioned by those now demanding unquestioning obedience?
The world did not change on September 11, 2001, only our perception of it, and that perception has been manipulated by those who had lost the tools of fear with the fall of the Soviet Union. Those tools of fear are in no small part responsible for many of the ills that plague us now because they prompted actions that were counter to the ideals that our nation once represented.
We are repeating those mistakes, and we only have ourselves to blame.
12 Responses to “Did the world change, or merely our perception of it?”
“Of course the people don’t want war. But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.”
– Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
A quote that is somewhat applicable to the discussion at hand.
“Stand by for a flood of ‘I question the timing’ remarks from certain quarters…”
Count me in those certain quarters. Did Bush fear more SCOTUS setbacks or is this just a cynical move. It’s a reasonable question, the timing after years held in secret prisons. Just in time for election time, a show trial of KSM to rattle our fears.
Scaring voters is what has worked in the last few elections.
Whether that will continue to be true, in light of current events, remains to be seen.
In regard to the timing of Bush’s announcements about Gitmo prisoners, CIA prisons, etc, I think that it is a convergence of two factors.
First, there is domestic political expediency. Some parts of this will play well to the electorate and have a direct positive effect, and some parts will stir up even more controversy, reminding those who oppose Bush about the human rights violations. So, the timing of this seems to be, close enough to the elections so that those who view the administration positively (not that there are many of those) will get a boost, and those who view the administration negatively won’t have the ammunition right before the election.
But a second factor that I see in the timing, is that Bush is responding to EU pressure. The only way to avoid military confrontation with Iran is to mend fences with EU countries, who face their own domestic political situations that make it difficult for them to work with Bush even when it is in their best interest. If they are seen in their own countries as having the ability to pressure Bush into dealing with the human rights issues, then they gain political clout and save face with their voters, so that they can then commit to backing US policy against Iran without looking like Bush’s lapdogs.
So, while not discounting the domestic political timing of these announcements, I think there are other factors relating to international relations as well.
Fantastic observation, C.
I also agree with most of C Stanley’s analysis.
I do think, however, that there’s plenty of time before the election for things to get better. Or for things to get worse.
In the long run–longer than the coming election–I think it would useful to repair our relations with our European allies. And I think this is a reasonable step in that direction.
I posted this comment somewhere else; perhaps it should’ve been here:
Jack, I have to admit that the 9/11 perception v. reality discussion leaves me cold. I understand the philosophical distinction, which I concede is correct (except, arguendo, as to the victims and families directly impacted). But I’m baffled by the significance of the discussion. To me, the phrase “post 9/11 world”, while inartful, is consistent with the idea that our perception of the world, and therefore its reality, changed on that day. At the very least, post-9/11, we perceive the world as a more dangerous place than we did before. The Administration view is that it is a substantially more dangerous place. There’s much rancor about the accuracy of this perception. Increasingly, the WH perception appears to be hyberbolic and alarmist.
But all of this aside, isn’t perception reality in this context?
ultram…
news…
phentermine…
news…
lodine…
news…
discount phentermine…
news…
taking viagra with cialis…
news…