BajaNomad

Let them hate.....op/ed piece in NY Times...

Dave - 3-7-2003 at 10:40 AM

What say all to this?


Let Them Hate as Long as They Fear
By PAUL KRUGMAN


Why does our president condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and allies this administration is fostering, including among its most senior officials? Has 'oderint dum metuant' really become our motto?" So reads the resignation letter of John Brady Kiesling, a career diplomat who recently left the Foreign Service in protest against Bush administration policy.

"Oderint dum metuant" translates, roughly, as "let them hate as long as they fear." It was a favorite saying of the emperor Caligula, and may seem over the top as a description of current U.S. policy. But this week's crisis in U.S.-Mexican relations ? a crisis that has been almost ignored north of the border ? suggests that it is a perfect description of George Bush's attitude toward the world.

Mexico is an enormously important ally, not just because of our common border, but also because of its special role as a showcase for American ideals. For a century and a half Mexico has ? often with good reason ? seen its powerful neighbor as an exploiter, if not an outright enemy. Since the first Bush administration, however, the United States has made great efforts to treat Mexico as a partner, and Mexico's recent track record of economic stability and democracy is, and should be, a source of pride on both sides of the border.

But Mexico's seat on the U.N. Security Council gives it a vote on the question of Iraq ? and the threats the Bush administration has made to get that vote are quickly destroying any semblance of good will.

Last week The Economist quoted an American diplomat who warned that if Mexico didn't vote for a U.S. resolution it could "stir up feelings" against Mexicans in the United States. He compared the situation to that of Japanese-Americans who were interned after 1941, and wondered whether Mexico "wants to stir the fires of jingoism during a war."

Incredible stuff, but easy to dismiss as long as the diplomat was unidentified. Then came President Bush's Monday interview with Copley News Service. He alluded to the possibility of reprisals if Mexico didn't vote America's way, saying, "I don't expect there to be significant retribution from the government" ? emphasizing the word "government." He then went on to suggest that there might, however, be a reaction from other quarters, citing "an interesting phenomena taking place here in America about the French . . . a backlash against the French, not stirred up by anybody except the people."

And Mr. Bush then said that if Mexico or other countries oppose the United States, "there will be a certain sense of discipline."

These remarks went virtually unreported by the ever-protective U.S. media, but they created a political firestorm in Mexico. The White House has been frantically backpedaling, claiming that when Mr. Bush talked of "discipline" he wasn't making a threat. But in the context of the rest of the interview, it's clear that he was.

Moreover, Mr. Bush was disingenuous when he described the backlash against the French as "not stirred up by anybody except the people." On the same day that the report of his interview appeared, The Financial Times carried the headline, "Hastert Orchestrates Tirade Against the French." That's Dennis Hastert, the speaker of the House of Representatives. In fact, anti-French feeling has been carefully fomented by Republican officials, Rupert Murdoch's media empire and other administration allies. Can you blame Mexicans for interpreting Mr. Bush's remarks as a threat to do the same to them?

So oderint dum metuant it is. I could talk about the foolishness of such blatant bullying ? or about the incredible risks, in a multiethnic, multiracial society, of even hinting that one might encourage a backlash against Hispanics. And yes, I mean Hispanics, not Mexicans: once feelings are running high, do you really think people will politely ask a brown-skinned guy with an accent whether he is a citizen or, if not, which country he comes from?

But my most intense reaction to this story isn't anger over the administration's stupidity and irresponsibility, or even dismay over the casual destruction of hard-won friendships. No, when I read an interview in which the U.S. president sounds for all the world like a B-movie villain ? "You have relatives in Texas, yes?" ? what I feel, above all, is shame.








FirstFederal - 3-7-2003 at 09:30 PM

Quote:

...ever-protective U.S. media...


What? I don't think so, the media is more than willing to tear into President Bush and his Administration.

Stephanie Jackter - 3-8-2003 at 11:33 PM

"Disciplined"? What an ostentatious display of paternalism on Dubya's part. He's got the diplomatic savoi fare (misp.), of a junk yard dog. The very word would insult me to no end were I a Mexican.

I can only think of all those Mexican American swing voters that elected him because he spoke a little spanish and kissed a few babies that are now clinching their teeth every time he opens his mouth.

And those very voters could easily be a real power pocket in the next election as well. - Stephanie

PJC - 3-28-2003 at 02:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Stephanie Jackter
"Disciplined"? What an ostentatious display of paternalism on Dubya's part. He's got the diplomatic savoi fare (misp.), of a junk yard dog. The very word would insult me to no end were I a Mexican.

I can only think of all those Mexican American swing voters that elected him because he spoke a little spanish and kissed a few babies that are now clinching their teeth every time he opens his mouth.

And those very voters could easily be a real power pocket in the next election as well. - Stephanie


You have the right to dream. Illegal Aliens do not vote. American citizens do.

Stephanie Jackter - 3-28-2003 at 09:10 PM

My point was quite clear. I said "Mexican American swing voters". It is you who misunderstood. -Stephanie

Dave - 3-28-2003 at 09:51 PM

"Illegal Aliens do not vote. American citizens do."

Illegal aliens don't vote because they can't. Almost 50% of American citizens eligible to vote didn't. Send THEM to Iraq.


[Edited on 3-29-2003 by Dave]

Stephanie Jackter - 3-28-2003 at 10:04 PM

But isn't not voting one of the many options that we have a right not to be persecuted for, Dave? - Stephanie

Dave - 3-29-2003 at 11:16 AM

"But isn't not voting one of the many options that we have a right not to be persecuted for, Dave? - Stephanie"


Stephanie, JFK said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". Of course in his case it was "ask what your daddy can do for you" but leaders often subscribe to " do as I say, not as I do".

Depending on our governmental system to protect our rights when we opt out of the process is ludicrous. An ever-vigilant public operating through the ballot process is the ONLY way to insure our liberty. Short of sacrificing one's life in our country?s defense, voting is the highest responsibility and the greatest gift one can give. Shame on Americans who are too lazy to vote and then protest when our brave sons and daughters give their lives on the battlefield: albeit for a cause that you and I, for completely different reasons, oppose.

I would re-phrase your question as a statement.

Not voting is a sure way to succumb to domination, persecution and loss of ?rights? by those who PASSIVELY insist upon them.

FrankO - 3-29-2003 at 09:39 PM

People who choose not to vote have no right to b-tch. As far as I am concerned non-voters are nothings in this country. If a third of the people who didn't vote that could would there would be an entirely different political environment in the USA. It's those pathetic apathists that are the biggest problem here.

Stephanie Jackter - 3-30-2003 at 12:16 AM

I understand your points, Dave and FrankO, and they would probably even have been points I myself would have made in the past. But I guess I'm just a little more jaded now and have a clearer understanding of backroom politics and how much those politics rule and how much our right to vote has really become a sham when the books have already been cooked to a large extent before any of us ever get to the polls.

After I resigned as a precinct committeeperson, I didn't tell you that I've stayed in politics ever since at the very lowest level, as a neighborhood representative. Although I'm still involved, and still cast my vote, I can tell you that at every level I've been involved, there's a tremendous amount of lying, thirst for power that trumps care for the community, and butt-kissing of higher ups in direct return for favors. Having refused to participate in any of that, I've always moved on the margins of the organization, even when I chaired it for five years. It is a world of panderers and courtiers. We may not be living in the times of Rome, but little has changed in the way politics plays out.

Yes, I still vote and I still participate, but I can understand the apathy and frustration of those who don't VERY clearly.

A little taste of the bitter root of politics can be enough to turn off the heartiest soul and I've seen it happen to many well educated and well intentioned friends along the way. I only stick with it out of pure grit and often still wonder if I'm just wasting my time in terms of what I could accomplish if I pursued change through other venues.

Follow the money Dave. This country is run by a corporate elite that doesn't give a rat's you know what about your vote or mine standing in its way.-Stephanie