Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Special Student Discount for WORLD!
Humility regarding what man does. Faith in what God does. That means skepticism about politicians' plans to run health care.
Click to Print
Include Comments
The appearance of courage
Here is something to watch for as the presidential campaign goes into full swing: courageous speeches.
You know the kind I mean, where the fella bangs on the podium and proclaims emphatically — and he doesn’t care who knows it! — that he stands for justice! And freedom too! Or for civilization. Or for the planet.
There is an art to this. You choose a conviction that used to be unpopular, maybe thirty years ago, but that savvy politicos know is in the ascendancy and will soon be mainstream (eg. Abortion or gay rights). Embracing this cause in your platform gives you all the appearance of being a person of courage, with none of the risk.
Alexandr Solzhenitsy talked about it thirty years ago: “…the decline of courage…is ironically emphasized by occasional outburst of boldness and inflexibility….when dealing with…doomed currents which clearly cannot offer any resistance.”
C.S.Lewis illustrated it in the fictional confession of a repentant former practitioner of the art:
Let us be frank. Our opinions were not honestly come by. We simply found ourselves in contact with a certain current of ideas and plunged into it because it seemed modern and successful. At College, you know, we just started automatically writing the kind of essay that got good marks and saying the things that won applause. (The Great Divorce)
back to top15 Comments to “The appearance of courage”
I like speeches. I even give speeches.
But I will nt be voting nor will I be much moved this time on the basis of speeches.
Report comment to moderator
Let me just go on record that Anthropogenic Global Warming is on a rapid popular descent. That’s why I can so boldly pronounce that it’s all a hoax without any risk.
Report comment to moderator
John McCain proved himself physically courageous as a prisoner in North Vietnam when he refused a chance to be released early and, after often refusing to confess “war crimes,” he spent much of his five and a half years in solitary confinement with frequent torture.
He, also, spoke out about sending more troops to Iraq and made it clear when the unpopular war wasn’t going well that we needed to keep our resolve and try to win the war. He has many scars from his attempts to compromise on issues, though admittedly he sometimes goes too far with this.
Can anyone give a convincing example of Obama’s courage?
Report comment to moderator
To Peter
Following your “logic” what about Bush and Cheney?
Bush was a shirker in the Reserves during the Viet Nam war and Cheney freely admits to trying to stay out of the military while he was young.
Both of them turned into armchair warriors when they reached middle age.
At least Obama is consistent.
Report comment to moderator
Newsflash, Nick — Bush and Cheney are not on the ticket this fall!
Now, please explain to us how Obama is consistent when he tells us we need to negotiate with terrorist states and then recants, and tells us he’s for public campaign funding and then recants, and on and on?
As Peter asked, how is Barry consistently courageous?
Report comment to moderator
To Outkast
I thought Peter was talking about military service.
I believe Obama is at least consistent because while he may not have been in the military when he was young he will be less likely to send young people into combat.
I think it is unconscionable to ask young men and women to die in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those countries were a mess long before we invaded and they will be a mess long after we leave.
Report comment to moderator
Actually Nick, when the passions cool and historians take a look at Bush’s decision making, they will find plenty of examples where he courageously made unpopular decisions. Two examples would be stem-cell research and the Surge.
Report comment to moderator
Nick: The young men and women have VOLUNTARILY joined the military service, in which they could end up dying for their country. They know that going in.
Report comment to moderator
Nick, Bush’s decision to fight a global war on terrorism and to bring down the Saddam regime have had profound effects on the Middle East. You might read the article, A New Middle East, After All What George W. Bush hath wrought, by Reuel Marc Gerecht, the former CIA head Middle East analyst who summarizes as follows:
An uneasy and healthy tension now exists between rhetoric and reality, guaranteeing that Americans will continue to debate what has gone wrong and right in the Muslim Middle East. Whether America escapes another 9/11 or not, the president deserves credit for understanding that the region’s murderous anti-American extremists, both secular and religious, had to be confronted on the battlefield. Sanctions, cruise missiles shot at rock huts and empty intelligence-service buildings, and close liaison relationships with foreign internal-security services were not enough. If the United States is brutally struck again by holy warriors, President Bush will seem prescient and wise–about the need for reform in the Middle East’s autocracies, about the strategic shortsightedness and immorality of pre-9/11 American foreign policy toward Muslims, and about the imperative to use ugly tactics against mass-casualty terrorists. Given the forces arrayed against him, his administration’s failures, and his own limitations, these are achievements even Ronald Reagan would envy.
Report comment to moderator
To Peter
Let me see if I undertand this:
According to Mr. Gerecht if we are struck again Bush will seem “prescient and wise”.
But won’t Bush also get credit if we are not struck? Sounds like a no-lose for him.
And the author only mentioned 9/11 twice (in one paragraph) to justify Bush’s invasion of Iraq. Mentioning 9/11 to justify Iraq is a sure sign of desperation.
Report comment to moderator
It’s a global war on terror, Nicky, so we must fight it on several different front.
Report comment to moderator
To Outkast
Our “global war” seems to be house-to-house fighting in obscure Baghdad neighborhoods.
You mentioned earlier the soldiers join voluntarily. I guess those poor 18 and 19 years olds didn’t read the fine print in their enlistment papers. 3 and 4 tours of duty, longer stays during their deployment and then finding out that Uncle Sam can keep them in the military even when they thought their time was up.
Report comment to moderator
Nick, first remember that the 9/11 Commission report concluded that another 9/11 type event is probably not a matter of if but when. Just yesterday.
Second, Gerecht stated, Whether America escapes another 9/11 or not, the president deserves credit for understanding that the region’s murderous anti-American extremists, both secular and religious, had to be confronted on the battlefield.
Report comment to moderator
To Peter
I have no doubt Hussein was an evil person. But please remember he was a secular ruler in an Islamic country who had been in power since 1976 and he never once threatened the U.S.
From an U.S. perspective (not Iraq) he might have been to best we could hope for in that area.
But really when is it going to occur to you that Bush attacked Iraq to avenge and/or show up his father who never took out Hussein in the 1st Iraq War? The American public never would have accepted that reason for going to war so Bush framed it as a WMD issue.
Report comment to moderator
Nick, you’re forgetting that Saddam was shooting at American planes and his intelligence service trained thousands of jihadi and secular terrorists. He, also, had a WMD program in place that, after sanctions would be removed was capable within a month or two of producing biological weapons. He sought fissile nuclear material with which he could have produced a nuclear weapon within a year. Bush’s very real concern was that Saddam would hand over some of these WMD to terrorists.
Avenging Saddam’s attempted killing of his father was never a major consideration in going to war. I should suggest that if you wish to understand the facts of the Iraq War matter you get a hold of Douglas Feith’s recently published book War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War against Terrorism. This volume might help to inform you of the careful analysis and decision making of the Bush administration before the war. Your actual knowledge of the decision making is based on rather scant information and crude assumptions.
One can in fact make a case for not fighting the Iraq War, though you don’t come close to making it.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!