Adam's Apple
Senior Member
- Apr 25, 2004
- 4,092
- 452
- 48
Hypocrisy Is Smarter Than Stupidity
By Peter A. Brown for The Orlando Sentinel
June 10, 2005
In our daily lives, we admire consistency in people, yet often we believe it can be the hobgoblin of little minds when dealing with larger forces. How and when -- if ever -- to disregard a principle we hold dear is a test of our value system and of conflicting claims on our moral compass. Especially when national security is involved.
This dichotomy has arisen over the U.S. treatment of prisoners from the war on terror. Most Americans believe U.S. policies should be the government equivalent of the Golden Rule, yet they wonder if a new kind of terrorist enemy requires new ways of dealing with prisoners.
This issue of U.S. officials saying one thing and doing another is arising again about how to deal with friendly, but repressive, governments in Central Asia with large Muslim populations.
President Bush said in his second inaugural address that backing democracy would become the guiding light of U.S. foreign policy. His critics -- and even a few supporters -- scoffed. After all, past presidents have often paid lip service to the ideal. Many later found that protecting U.S. interests required unattractive trade-offs, putting America in bed with unsavory dictators and tyrants.
At various times, other presidents have struck marriages of convenience with the Shah of Iran, various strongmen across Africa and South America, and even Saddam Hussein at one point. Yet almost six months after his inaugural speech, Bush, for the most part, gets credit for being true to his word.
www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-edpbrown10x061005jun10,0,525573.column...
By Peter A. Brown for The Orlando Sentinel
June 10, 2005
In our daily lives, we admire consistency in people, yet often we believe it can be the hobgoblin of little minds when dealing with larger forces. How and when -- if ever -- to disregard a principle we hold dear is a test of our value system and of conflicting claims on our moral compass. Especially when national security is involved.
This dichotomy has arisen over the U.S. treatment of prisoners from the war on terror. Most Americans believe U.S. policies should be the government equivalent of the Golden Rule, yet they wonder if a new kind of terrorist enemy requires new ways of dealing with prisoners.
This issue of U.S. officials saying one thing and doing another is arising again about how to deal with friendly, but repressive, governments in Central Asia with large Muslim populations.
President Bush said in his second inaugural address that backing democracy would become the guiding light of U.S. foreign policy. His critics -- and even a few supporters -- scoffed. After all, past presidents have often paid lip service to the ideal. Many later found that protecting U.S. interests required unattractive trade-offs, putting America in bed with unsavory dictators and tyrants.
At various times, other presidents have struck marriages of convenience with the Shah of Iran, various strongmen across Africa and South America, and even Saddam Hussein at one point. Yet almost six months after his inaugural speech, Bush, for the most part, gets credit for being true to his word.
www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-edpbrown10x061005jun10,0,525573.column...