What an amusing instance of cheerleading. Here are a few questions, for what it's worth. Has it ever occurred to the readers of this space that the United States might soon be forced to face up to crises for which there are no off the shelf solutions, and about which reasonable minds might differ? Will it be enough for you to say that it was someone else's fault? Is that the best that your nation can do? Is America really as tribal as it looks from the outside?

Posted by Jassalasca Jape at July 10, 2005 05:55 AM

Interesting comment. I'm not sure who is cheerleading for whom however. To the author of this space, the concept of "crisis" indicates that there is not an "off the shelf" solution. If there were, it would be a managable problem and not a crisis. Reasonable minds do in fact differ. From the comments on this blog, one can see a wide variety of differences, from radical lefty types to radical righty types and all types in between. In fact, that is one of the reasons my progressive friend Marc Cooper has my blog on his blogroll with the sobriquet "Reasoned discourse." Though sometimes the discourse is less than reasoned. ;-)

Fault is such a trendy word, lets use the term responsible instead. I was late to work many years ago and was involved in an accident when a drunk driver plowed into my car. I was not at fault in that accident, but I was responsible for being late, I was responsible for taking that route to work and I was responsible for being where I was when the accident occurred. Do you discern the difference.

If I anger you, and you punch me in the nose, that action is strictly and only your responsibility. I have some responsibility for what I said/did to anger you, but you and you alone are responsible for your actions.

The same is true with the actions of terrorists, regardless of what we do or do not do, they are totally and solely responsible for their acts of terror, for the death and destruction and for their choice of actions. To deny this is to fly in the face of reality.

Does America look "tribal" from the outside, or is that a misconception from the left. The fact of the matter is that most group interactions are somewhat tribal in nature. In strife or in competition, or in business, its is one side looking for an advantage over another. In most cases, both sides deal understanding that they can take or not take the deal. I don't have to pay one store $40.00 for a shirt if I can pay another store $35.00 for the same shirt.

Your "tribal" comment is a pejorative, but I don't accept that other than it's meaning as a group of people with a similar outlook. If your argument is that we look primitive instead, than you are grossly mistaken. Primitive is the concept of dihimitude, of burkas, of cutting off peoples heads for reasons of instilling fear and revulsion in others. It is the use of murder and calling it "honor killings." It is cutting the throat and shooting a film maker because you didn't like his film, it is declaring a fatwa against an author because he writes a book that is a less than glowing account mentioning Mohammad in a less than glowing light. Does that make me "judgmental?" You bet it does, but not one whit less judgmental than your description of our society as appearing "tribal."

Posted by G M Roper at July 10, 2005 09:02 AM

GM, your brilliant reply to JJ was a post in itself. I hope you toss it up on your site, or on TWA!

Posted by The MaryHunter at July 10, 2005 01:38 PM

Personally, I've never been fond of the political correctness thing (and that goes for both sides of America's monotonous political spectrum). The "tribal" epithet is sure enough pejorative, and was used deliberately, to lend force to the question.

With respect, I believe that your reasoning highlights the atrophy of political debate in American society. Responsibility is indeed the issue. A truer word was never said. But responsibility has two meanings, and you yourself use it in two senses here. To hold someone responsible for a battery, to hold businessmen to their contracts, to exercise consumer choice, these forms of responsibility assume the pervasive, all-surrounding presence of a legal system, which enforces rights and obligations and imposes restrictions on behavior.

Legal systems don't do a perfect job of fixing people with responsibility. We are taught the importance of following the rules, and we teach the same to our children. But no matter how streamlined you try to make it, any organized process costs money, and that means that some bad acts go unpunished, and some people are able to avoid their obligations. Perfect justice is impossible, and anyone who has had the misfortune to experience the legal system up close and friendly has felt the frustration of that fact.

We all have a sense of moral responsibility, as well. In large,
the rules of the legal system track our moral sense (hacking a person's head off, for example, would violate the criminal law in any one of the fifty states, as would the act of killing a person and eating their flesh, or the act of killing someone through slow poisoning with a view to inheriting their assets). Where the law fails, whether because of imperfect enforcement, or because of a hole in the law that we think should not be there, we feel frustration. Everyone does.

Osama bin Laden and his little band of suicidal assassins changed nothing. We have always wanted perfect justice, and we have always had to make do with second best. If there are limits to justice inside a well-ordered society, there is going to be more slack in the world beyond its borders. Everyone with common sense, which I do believe includes present company, knows this.

What I do not understand is the point of this pronounced tendency among Americans today to actively flog this dilemma for emotional impact (with images such as "cutting the throat", for example). Nor do I understand why Americans pretend that because there is a set of "Democrat ideas" and "Republican ideas", that one of those baskets of wisdom must necessarily be right. I see lots of churning, and no dialog between the partisans of these so-called political parties. The thinking, if there is any, seems to be taking place elsewhere. Between the heads of the tribes.

Posted by Jassalasca Jape at July 10, 2005 04:50 PM