Have we been too naively idealistic?

[vetusvates]

Being liberal is one thing, but the extreme of expecting everyone else to be as freely idealistic as ourselves...seems naive to me.
For an oversimplified example, parents being too blindly liberal in raising their kids, can end up with their house burned down.
Just because we agree to be noble and play fair....does not mean that everyone else does? Some will take advantage.

These links are to articles on drudge report,...that at first glance seem unrelated,...but together frame a bigger picture that makes me nervous.

First Obama offends the UK by saying France is our best ally. Now he has agreed to provide Russia with details of UK nuclear capabilities.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8304654/WikiLeaks-cables-US-agrees-to-tell-Russia-Britains-nuclear-secrets.html#

Then, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano travels to Dallas to inspect security measures at the SuperBowl tomorrow. Have we been so remiss that we have to fear terrorism in our heartland at an american institution like the superbowl?
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/homeland-security-secretary-inspects-sup

British Prime Minister David Cameron makes a good case that we have been too naive and idealistic with our liberalism...resulting in extremists being free to move freely in our societies and terrorize us.
UK's Cameron: Europe must wake up on extremism...
State multiculturalism has failed, says David Cameron
'We need to be a lot less tolerant towards Islamic extremists'...

NOTE : This is NOT a thread to rationalize or foster prejudice against minorities or other cultures. This thread is intended to make us ask ourselves if we have been too liberal and naive and idealistic......and allowed extremists who intend us harm, to freely circulate and create terror in our western societies.

 

[bitsy]

I don't think it's a matter of "allowing" that to happen. The nature of democracy is that people can circulate freely. If they choose to create terror, that isn't something that we can anticipate or control.

The only way to prevent people being able to circulate freely, is to abandon democracy (Soviet Russia, the old Eastern Bloc, Maoist China). The only way to stop people from creating terror, is to control their lives and the way they think on a day-to-day level (East Germany and the Stasi).

Ultimately if we wish to remain democratic countries, then we leave ourselves open to these risks.

I do believe that we can be less conciliatory to those who can potentially do us harm (or who have allies who can). However, the bottom line is that Russia controls a vast amount of natural resources that we in the West are likely to rely upon one day. I don't relish strategic UK information being handed over, but I can understand how the US would want to secure its interests by doing this.

 

[Hypancistrus]

I don't think it's a matter of "allowing" that to happen. The nature of democracy is that people can circulate freely. If they choose to create terror, that isn't something that we can anticipate or control.

"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security." Ben was a wise man.

 

[vetusvates]

So. Here is a hypothetical.
I've been diagnosed with prostatic cancer. My traditional community structure, in its most simplistic state, is based on "no intervention". The 1-in-a-1000 more aggressive cells that metastasize, do so with a vengeance. Certain death.
I can live with fine-tuned, technical, newly discovered, state of the art treatment that targets these extremely malicious cells. Or I can remain within the (over-simplified?) blind doctrine of democracy for all cells (wholesome, cancerous, and uber-cancerous) and my "no intervention" community and die.
To borrow desertanimal's phrase, a "paradigm shift" may be hovering, lingering, making itself available for a more finely-tuned philosophy of what is 'liberal' and what is 'democracy'.

Rephrased, do I continue using the outhouse...???...

Or do I allow my mind a little freedom to evolve and make fine distinctions...???...

 

[bitsy]

I can live with fine-tuned, technical, newly discovered, state of the art treatment that targets these extremely malicious cells.

This scenario presupposes that such a treatment exists. In reality all we have are surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy, which affect good cells along with the bad and may end up causing more harm than the problem they try to cure or control. They may cure if they don't kill - or they may end up ruining the patient's quality of life.

There is no technique in the world that would allow a democracy to target only those harbouring or causing terror. All we have is a series of blunt instruments with which we can handle the entire population, in the hope that we prevent the tiny minority that mean harm.

 

[vetusvates]

Bitsy, I was speaking in the theoretical and metaphorical with my examples, presupposing that such technologies do indeed exist.
Because, as a matter of fact, there _are_ blossoming nano-technologies being perfected that selectively target and kill cancer cells.
Only the other day was there a show on the discovery of a process by which to mass produce spherical nano-molecules with cancer targeting and cancer killing molecules assembled embedded in the outer membrane.
2011 -- http://world.kbs.co.kr/english/news/news_science_detail.htm?no=23218
2010 -- http://world.kbs.co.kr/english/news/news_science_detail.htm?no=23218
2009 -- http://dsc.discovery.com/technology/im/remote-controlled-nanoparticles-vonmaltzhan.html

But all of this is beside the point, references for a metaphor.

My point is to question the act of piously and complacently standing by in a rose-colored cloud of "can't so might as well not try" head in the clouds (or in the sand)....while suicide bombers are being sent to russian train stations, or any other place of large crowds where they can do the most damage.
For example, this woman who accidentally got blown to kingdom come before she got to her New Years Eve target.
And similar bombing attempts and successes from Rome to Stockholm.

IMHO, it behooves us "good guys" to remain active in searching for, exploring, and finding new ways to be smarter than the "bad guys".

To stick with allusions to Ben Franklin anecdotes,...regarding electricity...sure Benjamin Franklin tinkered around with a kite in a thunderstorm, but even he would have been disgusted had we sat back and stopped right there. Concluding "yes, lightning strikes kites in thunderstorms".

 

[Dreamsnake]

Are you suggesting pursuing Thoughtcrime?

 

[vetusvates]

Are you suggesting pursuing Thoughtcrime?

Although I don't know what that is, I don't think so. There have been enough people killed by iraqi/iranian/afghan suicide bombers (islamic extremists)....that we have plenty of real crimes with a common denominator, that we have our hands full solving (ideally trying to prevent) without having to police people's thoughts.

I woke up this morning and the news I was reading was kind of bothering me. Like things had gotten out of hand while we were not looking, patting ourselves on the back for being so naively liberal and blindly democratic.

Bitsy and Lauren are both friends of mine, both of whose minds I respect immensely. I was just hoping some others would read those articles I linked and give me some thoughts. Maybe ease my mind and make me feel better.

In life, I have discovered trying to live by the "do unto others" principle...often only gets one's kindness mistaken for weakness. Apply this on a national (or western world) level to extremists and terrorists and it pretty much gets one screwed in a similar way.

 

[Nitelion94]

This forum makes me think about stuff I never really thought about before. Thanks for the post!

 

[desertanimal]

Not sure, Eric, that it's the "do unto others" principle getting mistaken for weakness that's creating trouble for us with Islamic terrorists/extremists.

I suspect it's a combination of globalism and capitalism (which operates using the polar opposite of the "do unto others" principle) that's at the bottom of the trouble for us with Islamic terrorists/extremists. We're not always noble and we don't always play "fair." We play fairer now than we probably have in the past, given how transparent things often end up in the information age, but people have memories. And the people who end up on the short end of that stick sure as hell know it when it happens. And that makes them angry.

I don't presume to know what's pissing off Islamic extremists any more than I presume to know what's pissing off tea-partiers who hold rallies where they say they're going to take back the government by 2nd amendment-backed force. And I'm sure the answers are complicated and historical. But one thing I'm pretty sure of is that Islamic extremists don't feel like we have been good global neighbors (we and the rest of the "western" world who live in big houses with electricity while the people in their countries live in shacks with no indoor plumbing.) Perhaps they feel that we have them under the heel of our proverbial boot. I don't know. But if they had the economic power in the world, they wouldn't be bombing us. Of the Israelis and the Palestinians, it's not the Israelis who blow themselves up in crowds. Only the subaltern does that--the subaltern who figures there's nothing left to lose.

And another thing I'm sure of is that cracking down on them is only treating the symptom of the underlying problem, whatever it is, and can therefore never be curative. Now, I'm all for judiciously treating symptoms so that they don't kill you while you look for a cure. But we should really be looking for the cure. In other words, the government should be hiring socio-cultural anthropologists to figure out what the heck has happened here, what is sustaining it, and how we can fix it.

But then, I think capitalism is almost certainly the most "stable state" (as in physics, not as in keeping everything running smoothly) for economics, even if it might not be the best, and that's always about some set of "us" vs some set of "them," so perhaps we're doomed to just treat the symptoms of that fundamental problem.

I suppose I wouldn't have trouble with accurate targeting of specific bad cells. Trouble is, people are way less predictable than cells. And the people that would wield the power of accurate targeting of specific bad people are WAYYYYYYY less objective than MDs looking to kill cancer cells. Some dude named McCarthy springs to mind . . .

 

[bitsy]

Think desertanimal has summed up my thoughts really. I don't think we currently have a political/military/economic/other way of coping and I can't think of one that wouldn't take us away from democracy. As has been said, ultimately you have one group of people deciding who the bad guys are. That all depends on your perspective and possibly hundreds of years of history and imperialism and can never be a democratic process.

"Thoughtcrime" is where you pre-empt actual criminal acts by punishing people who are considering criminal acts, or thinking about performing acts against the State. A version of it was depicted in "Minority Report".

I was just hoping some others would read those articles I linked and give me some thoughts. Maybe ease my mind and make me feel better.

I did read those links, but I don't see how I can make you feel better Eric. Wish I could, because then I'd be happier myself.

First Obama offends the UK by saying France is our best ally. Now he has agreed to provide Russia with details of UK nuclear capabilities.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-secrets.html#

America selling the UK down the river? TBH this won't come as much of a shock to the British public who have largely been very wary of the so-called "special relationship", which mainly seemed to involve saying yes to whatever any given US President has demanded. Hearing GWB addressing Tony Blair like he was a Yorkshire Terrier pretty much set that scene. We're a naturally sceptical bunch, where Americans are more open and optimistic.

Then, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano travels to Dallas to inspect security measures at the SuperBowl tomorrow. Have we been so remiss that we have to fear terrorism in our heartland at an american institution like the superbowl?
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/home...y-inspects-sup

It's an obvious target and good to see sensible precautions being taken. You can't move in my town (sedate seaside holiday resort for the elderly) for armed police and security when there's a political party conference in the local conference venue. However, this has been the case since the IRA bombings in the 1970s-90s. Don't worry - you'll get used to it. Again, the British cynicism is probably more geared up to cope. I'm not saying that it would be good for Americans to get into this mindset. It's just where we've reached after decades of violence against our ordinary citizens. We're just lucky that the IRA were after a political solution and not an ideological religious one. We could (eventually) negotiate with the IRA where there's no way of doing that with a group driven by ideological extremism.

British Prime Minister David Cameron makes a good case that we have been too naive and idealistic with our liberalism...resulting in extremists being free to move freely in our societies and terrorize us.
UK's Cameron: Europe must wake up on extremism...
State multiculturalism has failed, says David Cameron
'We need to be a lot less tolerant towards Islamic extremists'...

A lot of empty, populist, hot air about how extremism is bad and we need to stop it. Without any indication of how he plans to go about it. He's not telling us anything that we don't already know.

 

[vetusvates]

Thank you, ladies. These are exactly the kind of posts, thoughts, ideas, and balance I was looking for.

My "statement of the problem" in asking for some reassurances(?) may have been clumsy, but I appreciate your recognizing my concerns for what they were and replying in the eloquent way you both always do.

And thanks for statement by statement itself, Bitsy. I have quite a curiosity about the UK, Belgian, Dutch, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian mindset in this regard, and on these and other subjects. These countries have been around for a long time, seem stable, and keep plugging along with a minimum of fanfare.

 

[bitsy]

Must admit that I do look at America and see something that we Brits have lost along the way. We seem to be a lot more world-weary as a society.

I wonder if it's because we've experienced more wars on our home soil? Whilst America has had its share of military action, it has usually been away from the homeland (Pearl Harbor being a terrible exception). My grandmother still remembers her home town being bombed regularly during World War Two. It induced what we called "The Bulldog Spirit", but this involved keeping your head down and just coping with whatever was thrown at you. I wonder if this has left us less proactive and more accepting of those acting against us, on the grounds that we usually just keep calm and carry on regardless?

 

[Dreamsnake]

Our country's last full on invasion was in 1810. Most people only remember that because of the Jackson's Battle of New Orleans; the war had ended already, he just wanted the victory.

Back to the subject...I don't think America is democratic. We are a feudal society that is quickly becoming socially fascist with this tea party movement. As a liberal I've been subjected to much slander for my ideals, I find that I am of a dieing faction and must learn to keep my head down while I hope for the best in this changing world.

 

[vetusvates]

Same subject, new commentator...French President Sarkozy.
Now France joins Cameron (UK) Merkel (Germany), Spain, and Australia in agreement on the subject.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110210/wl_afp/francepoliticsimmigrationsociety_20110210231042

"We have been too concerned about the identity of the person who was arriving and not enough about the identity of the country that was receiving him," Sarkozy said in the TFI channel show.

He seems to be expressing the theme a little better than others : When in Rome, one does as the romans do. One doesn't expect Rome to bend over backwards to change its culture to your cultural idiosyncrasies.