Posted on 09/05/2002 8:04:30 AM PDT by Pokey78
It is important for all of us who share that distinguished triumvirate’s world view to continue to break bread with individual Americans, for it is not with individual Americans, or indeed with America in general, that our argument lies.
This is little more than the same liberal 'don't hold people responsible' attitude we see when liberals insist that groups have a right to supress individuals to maintain 'group identity.' When a liberal supports the Mugabe in Zimbabwe, they do it because they see him as a legitimate representative of the black race because of his anticapitalist views. They do not care that he slaughters blacks with as much gusto as he does whites; murder to maintain the cohesiveness of communist ideology in a group is considered justice by the left. It is the group that matters, not the countless individuals who are executed for dissenting with the herd. We see the same thing with the palestinians; murder of 'collaborators' is merely the lynching of the individual for the sake of the greater palestinian cause; suicide bombing is merely a group asserting their right to oppress people who are considered, whether they want to be or not, members of the sacred group. At least that is the leftist worldview.
Leftists are herd animals. They easily sacrifice their individual rights to the group's edicts. They do so because they no longer want to be responsible for their role in society or for their own acts within that society. They feel guilty if they prosper while others do not; they feel guilty and so compensate by blaming inequality on the group, demanding that the group take responsibility to feed those in need, instead of first trying to help the needy on their own. They enjoy the protection of the group, but take no individual responsibility to defend themselves or their neighbors. And if the group makes an error, or the group is forced to act in self defense and innocents are killed, the leftist is quick to say "I have nothing to do with it- my government did it." But they are still responsible because governments do act by the consent of the governed. We are always responsible when we choose personal safety over the freedom and responsibilities of keeping government in check and the risk of becoming a labeled dissenters. We are as responsible if we allow ourselves to be intimidated as we are when we vote freely, or choose not to vote at all. And if there is no good candidate, we are responsible for that, too. When there are none to take the lead, it is our responsibility to seek to fill the role.
The fact is, individual Americans are responsible for what the US government does. If it does good, it has done so because we have willingly authorized it to do so through our representative form of government. If it does bad, it does so because we have authorized it to do so through our participation, or lack thereof, in representative government. There are no excuses. We are free to leave if our hearts are burdened and we no longer want to bear responsibility for being citizens of this great country.
Many in the rest of the world as well as in America labor under the belief that the author espouses, that the government- particularly if it is American- is to blame and the blame should never fall on the individuals who tolerate their governments. That misguided belief is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Millions upon millions of Chinese, Cambodians, Iraqis, you name it, have submitted to being oppressed by the fears generated by but a few. There is no real barrier barring them from revolution and from establishing a truly reprisentative government, other than the unwillingness of individuals to face their fear and seek others of the same mind and challenge the status quo. Courage has a way of multiplying once a little of it is exposed. It won't be easy, but the lack of courage is ultimately the consent to be enslaved.
It is true that "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." It is fear which must be overcome. The thugs can be toppled by good men and women once they become determined to defy fear.
The world's history is not decided by groups. Groups have no rights, groups do not think, groups are not responsible. Groups are only led by individuals, willingly... or by fear. Why so many people perfer to identify with groups, rather than with individuals, is baffling and a bane to liberty. The course of history is a series of individual acts and individual decisions not to act. Americans have impacted the world largely because we advance the cause of individual liberty tempered with responsibility. But there is no way to advance individual liberty without simultaneously weakening a groups' ability to oppress the individual. And we are supposed to feel guilty for setting people free, for offering people choices denied them by their leaders or societal traditions? They can always return to their former ways, if they choose to do so. What Europeans object to is that people may choose change, and when their neighbors and friends adopt American ideas, they feel alienated. They want to deny people these choices.
I AM responsible for what my country does; I am a willing participant in my government and my society, surrounded by many other willing participants, and we have no recourse but to own up our roles in history. The only legitimate way to cast aside personal responsibility for what our nation does in our name is to deny the use of our names by leaving and accepting citizenship in another country. This right is a right belonging to all voters. So I don't mind if a European blames me for being an American; I don't mind if you blame me for what my country is doing and is about to do; I am part of the political process. I am part of 'the system.' I am pleased and honored to bear the name 'American,' even if Europeans speak the name with a sneer.
That comment was made by the former French Ambassador to Britain.
I just remember hearing it was made at an elite dinner party in Britain, and nobody at the table objected.
The problem is that those types of people wouldn't object to remarks like that if they're being made by a foreign dignitary, its just not diplomatic, you know.
Now wasn't Lady Plowden one of the educational "reformers" that Roy Jenkins promoted back in the Sixties? Or am I confusing her with another British harridan. Having read Peter Hitchens' The Abolition of Britain, one cannot underestimate how far the rot has progressed.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
We remain a living, breathing example of what you can achieve if you reject collectivism. And it makes the Socialists so mad they could spit.
You're correct. We make the mistake because Roy Jenkins has a posh accent and lives in a nice house in the Oxfordshire countryside, that he isn't so bad...and then we remember things like this.
Regards, Ivan
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.