Get to the truth.
HILLARY
I’ve been watching a lot of the presidential debates, and political talk shows, and I hear politicians saying something, but I wonder if they mean what they say. Are these messages that have been crafted for them by a campaign manager, or are these heartfelt sentiments? And, even if they are heartfelt, are they really honest? I know that in day-to-day dealings we hear people say half-truths, and people will often bend reality in order to get what they want. It’s not really lying, but everyone has an agenda and sometimes it’s hard to see through that to what people are really trying to say. I wonder, how do we know if someone is telling us the truth?
JACK
People may think that they are telling you the truth, and it may be the truth as they see it. Let’s start with the political debates: One of the facts that always irritated me is that the candidate rarely gives a direct answer to the question. Each has their own stump statements and they get to that as quickly as possible. It is nothing new, but the campaigns are handled by spin-meisters, and so much of what we understand has to be de-coded. For example, when a politician proposes a "fair" tax he really means a sales tax, but they found that the word "fair" goes over best with the public. In this manner, "estate" taxes have become "death" taxes, ad infinitum. It becomes increasingly more difficult to understand what the candidate is actually saying. As well, I find it hard to understand when a question is not answered that it is rarely followed up with a tougher question to keep the candidate on track. Even more important to me is an increasing inability to say what we mean, and mean what we say.
HILLARY
Is this like when you’re in a relationship and one partner asks the other "what’s wrong", and the partner says "nothing"? You know that something is wrong, but if you just leave it there you are leaving that issue to rot.
JACK
This means that the party who was asked the question "what’s wrong" is not ready to face the issue. This does not just apply to young people, but it seems to cross the ages. I know a widower in his eighties who has suddenly found it difficult to make contact with a lady who has been his constant companion. I wish that she would simply tell him that she doesn’t want to see him any more, rather than refuse to take his calls. This happens to so many people because they do not want to confront the real issue.
HILLARY
But I think this is the question — How can we tell what the real issue is if someone is bent on concealing or changing the subject?
JACK
The answer is persistence. That if something ominous is hanging then we have to have the courage to pursue it. It was like all the years I spent in the commercial arena. If someone refused my deal, and gave a weak excuse, I would always ask, "besides that, why have you made this decision?" Then I would invariably get the real reason: there is no question in my mind that it is best for all concerned if we have the guts to pursue our true feelings, so if you get the answer nothing is bothering me, then the answer has to be "if nothing is bothering you, then why are you acting this way?"
HILLARY
I think people are so frightened of honest confrontation, that they will mask their feelings with anger or silence. I think another trick to moving past those defenses is to set aside the natural reactions that one has to that kind of response. If someone says, "nothing is wrong", it’s easy to feel like they don’t love you enough to share their feelings with you. If someone changes the subject, or responds to you with hostility, it’s easy to feel dismissed or even ashamed for asking. That means that you’re carrying the other person’s weight without even knowing why. The only way to get to the root of any problem is not to allow that person to throw you off the scent, rather to see past this defense mechanism to the real issue at hand.
JACK
The universal saying is "the truth will set you free". Now, it may not be pretty and you may come away bruised, but you’ve brought the point of conflict into the open. When someone explodes at you, it is usually not the triggering point but some resentment that has been harbored for a long time. The reality is that most of us fear a confrontation because it can put an end to the relationship. But, like many things in life, this is one of the chances that you have to take. There are times when an end to a relationship is more satisfactory than having it drag on and keep everybody involved pretty miserable. I would always rather take the chance, and either live in a healthy situation or get rid of a bad one. This may sound heartless, but after all the years that I have lived, I have seen it happen too often. One of the reasons I believe that my life has been happy and positive, is the fact that I have always been willing to take that chance.
Communication is inspiration! Share your thoughts below.
16 Comments
Leave a reply
It’s really not that complicated. Just remember that “progressive” policies allow progressives feel good about themselves, but always result in an absence of progress whenever and wherever they are implemented.
Curious George 08/23/07 @ 5:53 amAre you suggesting that only progressives are guilty of inconsistencies and evasion? Come’on, George. We’re trying to get at a universal truth here. It seems to us that, when faced with a question that one doesn’t want to answer truthfully, one will often find a way to avoid answering - either by giving a box-answer that doesn’t get to the issue or changing the subject entirely. Will you not concede that this is beyond parties or political movements, but a human reality?
Hillary 08/23/07 @ 7:09 amYes, it is a general truth that politicians of any stripe will say whatever they think they have to say in order to get elected — for example, Edwards and Clinton authorizing the liberation of Iraq, but now being in favor or surrender because that’s what their base wants to hear.
But this is a much more pervasive problem on the left, since the left is composed of interest groups as opposed to ideas — big labor, big government, big education, self-victimized minorities, the (leftist) homosexual agenda, radical feminists, kooky environmentalists, etc. As such, a leftist, in order to get elected, must say things that please all of these narrow interest groups while not alienating the mainstream. Hence all the deception and dissimulation.
On the other hand, classically liberal conservative does not need to engage in all the deception. He can simply come out and say that he is for smaller, less intrusive government, low taxes, individual choice with regard to health, education and retirement, the unwavering defense of Israel, disallowing the government to engage in racial discrimination, etc.
If you listen, I think you will find that Giuliani is quite unambiguous and consistent in his views, while it is impossible to say what Hillary Clinton actually believes in her heart. For example, she was far more passionate and articulate than even Tony Blair in making the case for Saddam possessing WMD and the need to remove him from power. And how about John Edwards? He says he’s against these high risk home loans to the poor, but he made hundreds of thousands of dollars working for a firm that specialized in them.
Curious George 08/23/07 @ 10:22 amI might add that a true progressive such as Dennis Kucinich does not pretend to be something other than what he is. Which is why he can never be elected, because people can see that his ideas are nuts. If he wanted to be elected, he would have to be more deceptive. But a true classically liberal conservative such as Ronald Reagan can say exactly what he believes and be one of the most popular and revered politicians in American history.
Curious George 08/23/07 @ 10:26 amIn your estimation, what makes Kucinich’s ideas nuts?
Hillary 08/23/07 @ 1:57 pmOh my, there are so many… For starters, how about a “Department of Peace?” While he’s at it, why not abolish police departments to deal with crime?
He also uncritically accepts the most wild prognostications of the weather hysterics such as Al Gore. He is in favor of the Kyoto treaty, which our senate rejected something like 99-0. If implemented, it would cause such damage to the global economy that it would kill far more people than manmade global warming ever will (and every day there is more and more evidence that the dangers of manmade global warming are grossly exaggerated, to say the least).
He’s also in favor of immediate and unconditional withdrawal from Iraq, which will cause a massive genocide, probably in the millions.
Kucinich is a pacifict, and pacifism is by definition profoundly immoral, because it allows evil to flourish.
He is also in favor of socialized medicine, which would be a disaster. These are just off the top of my head. But as I said, if a progressive is honest about their agenda, Americans will reject it, so they must be deceptive if they actually want to get elected. Just look at progressive talk radio, i.e., Air America, a total failure. Given the choice, people don’t want to hear that stuff.
Curious George 08/23/07 @ 3:19 pmLetting your straw man argument go, I wonder why one would be opposed to a “Department of Peace”. We have a war department, why not one that is focused on acheiving peace? And, I’m not suggesting that the entire planet is one day going to simultaneously relinquishly all weapons and live in harmony. Practically, what’s wrong with the US having a cabinet post that focuses on a peace policy? If only to have another voice in the room when it comes to taking military action?
Hillary 08/24/07 @ 9:33 amYou would have to define your terms, i.e., “peace” and “peace policy,” because you seem to be using them in highly idiosyncratic ways.
Obviously, war is a peace policy. As JFK said, “It is an unfortunate fact that we can secure peace only by preparing for war.” It is the height of naivete about human evil to think otherwise. Ask a survivor of the Holocaust, before it’s too late. If they had followed Gandhi’s profoundly immoral pacifist advice, there wouldn’t be a European Jew alive today.
Curious George 08/24/07 @ 12:49 pmPlease don’t take this the wrong way, because this is a straight forward question: Do you really believe what you are writing here, or are you trying to provoke an inflammatory reaction?
And,if you do truly believe what you have written, then I am quite curious to know what your vision is for the best possible society?
Hillary 08/24/07 @ 6:54 pmCurious George:
It seems to me from reading your quote from JFK, you were asserting that Kennedy believed that the only hope for peace is to constantly prepare for war. Respectfully, I belive that quote was taken out of context. In fact, I think JFK believe exactly the opposite. Indeed, as you’ll read below, Kennedy spoke at American University in 1963. The entire theme of his speech was that a mindset of war is perhaps easier, but ultimately defeatist. As JFK so eloquently put it, “I realize the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war, and frequently the words of the pursuers fall on deaf ears. But we have no more urgent task.”
JFK Speech at American University, 1963:
President Anderson, members of the faculty, board of trustees, distinguished guests, my old colleague, Senator Bob Byrd, who has earned his degree through many years of attending night law school, while I am earning mine in the next 30 minutes, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen:
It is with great pride that I participate in this ceremony of the American University, sponsored by the Methodist Church, founded by Bishop John Fletcher Hurst, and first opened by President Woodrow Wilson in 1914. This is a young and growing university, but it has already fulfilled Bishop Hurst’s enlightened hope for the study of history and public affairs in a city devoted to the making of history and to the conduct of the public’s business. By sponsoring this institution of higher learning for all who wish to learn, whatever their color or their creed, the Methodists of this area and the Nation deserve the Nation’s thanks, and I commend all those who are today graduating.
Professor Woodrow Wilson once said that every man sent out from a university should be a man of his nation as well as a man of his time, and I am confident that the men and women who carry the honor of graduating from this institution will continue to give from their lives, from their talents, a high measure of public service and public support. “There are few earthly things more beautiful than a university,” wrote John Masefield in his tribute to English universities — and his words are equally true today. He did not refer to towers or to campuses. He admired the splendid beauty of a university, because it was, he said, “a place where those who hate ignorance may strive to know, where those who perceive truth may strive to make others see.”
I have, therefore, chosen this time and place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth too rarely perceived. And that is the most important topic on earth: peace. What kind of peace do I mean and what kind of a peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, and the kind that enables men and nations to grow, and to hope, and build a better life for their children — not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women, not merely peace in our time but peace in all time.
I speak of peace because of the new face of war. Total war makes no sense in an age where great powers can maintain large and relatively invulnerable nuclear forces and refuse to surrender without resort to those forces. It makes no sense in an age where a single nuclear weapon contains almost ten times the explosive force delivered by all the allied air forces in the Second World War. It makes no sense in an age when the deadly poisons produced by a nuclear exchange would be carried by wind and water and soil and seed to the far corners of the globe and to generations yet unborn.
Today the expenditure of billions of dollars every year on weapons acquired for the purpose of making sure we never need them is essential to the keeping of peace. But surely the acquisition of such idle stockpiles — which can only destroy and never create — is not the only, much less the most efficient, means of assuring peace. I speak of peace, therefore, as the necessary, rational end of rational men. I realize the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war, and frequently the words of the pursuers fall on deaf ears. But we have no more urgent task.
Some say that it is useless to speak of peace or world law or world disarmament, and that it will be useless until the leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened attitude. I hope they do. I believe we can help them do it. But I also believe that we must reexamine our own attitudes, as individuals and as a Nation, for our attitude is as essential as theirs. And every graduate of this school, every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace, should begin by looking inward, by examining his own attitude towards the possibilities of peace, towards the Soviet Union, towards the course of the cold war and towards freedom and peace here at home.
First examine our attitude towards peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it is unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable, that mankind is doomed, that we are gripped by forces we cannot control. We need not accept that view. Our problems are manmade; therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man’s reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable, and we believe they can do it again. I am not referring to the absolute, infinite concept of universal peace and good will of which some fantasies and fanatics dream. I do not deny the value of hopes and dreams but we merely invite discouragement and incredulity by making that our only and immediate goal.
Let us focus instead on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions — on a series of concrete actions and effective agreements which are in the interest of all concerned. There is no single, simple key to this peace; no grand or magic formula to be adopted by one or two powers. Genuine peace must be the product of many nations, the sum of many acts. It must be dynamic, not static, changing to meet the challenge of each new generation. For peace is a process — a way of solving problems.
With such a peace, there will still be quarrels and conflicting interests, as there are within families and nations. World peace, like community peace, does not require that each man love his neighbor, it requires only that they live together in mutual tolerance, submitting their disputes to a just and peaceful settlement. And history teaches us that enmities between nations, as between individuals, do not last forever. However fixed our likes and dislikes may seem, the tide of time and events will often bring surprising changes in the relations between nations and neighbors. So let us persevere. Peace need not be impracticable, and war need not be inevitable. By defining our goal more clearly, by making it seem more manageable and less remote, we can help all people to see it, to draw hope from it, and to move irresistibly towards it.
And second, let us reexamine our attitude towards the Soviet Union. It is discouraging to think that their leaders may actually believe what their propagandists write. It is discouraging to read a recent, authoritative Soviet text on military strategy and find, on page after page, wholly baseless and incredible claims, such as the allegation that American imperialist circles are preparing to unleash different types of war, that there is a very real threat of a preventive war being unleashed by American imperialists against the Soviet Union, and that the political aims — and I quote — “of the American imperialists are to enslave economically and politically the European and other capitalist countries and to achieve world domination by means of aggressive war.”
Truly, as it was written long ago: “The wicked flee when no man pursueth.”
Yet it is sad to read these Soviet statements, to realize the extent of the gulf between us. But it is also a warning, a warning to the American people not to fall into the same trap as the Soviets, not to see only a distorted and desperate view of the other side, not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than an exchange of threats.
No government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue. As Americans, we find communism profoundly repugnant as a negation of personal freedom and dignity. But we can still hail the Russian people for their many achievements in science and space, in economic and industrial growth, in culture, in acts of courage.
Among the many traits the peoples of our two countries have in common, none is stronger than our mutual abhorrence of war. Almost unique among the major world powers, we have never been at war with each other. And no nation in the history of battle ever suffered more than the Soviet Union in the Second World War. At least 20 million lost their lives. Countless millions of homes and families were burned or sacked. A third of the nation’s territory, including two thirds of its industrial base, was turned into a wasteland — a loss equivalent to the destruction of this country east of Chicago.
Today, should total war ever break out again — no matter how — our two countries will be the primary target. It is an ironic but accurate fact that the two strongest powers are the two in the most danger of devastation. All we have built, all we have worked for, would be destroyed in the first 24 hours. And even in the cold war, which brings burdens and dangers to so many countries, including this Nation’s closest allies, our two countries bear the heaviest burdens. For we are both devoting massive sums of money to weapons that could be better devoted to combat ignorance, poverty, and disease. We are both caught up in a vicious and dangerous cycle, with suspicion on one side breeding suspicion on the other, and new weapons begetting counter-weapons. In short, both the United States and its allies, and the Soviet Union and its allies, have a mutually deep interest in a just and genuine peace and in halting the arms race. Agreements to this end are in the interests of the Soviet Union as well as ours. And even the most hostile nations can be relied upon to accept and keep those treaty obligations, and only those treaty obligations, which are in their own interest.
So let us not be blind to our differences, but let us also direct attention to our common interests and the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s futures. And we are all mortal.
Third, let us reexamine our attitude towards the cold war, remembering we’re not engaged in a debate, seeking to pile up debating points. We are not here distributing blame or pointing the finger of judgment. We must deal with the world as it is, and not as it might have been had the history of the last 18 years been different. We must, therefore, persevere in the search for peace in the hope that constructive changes within the Communist bloc might bring within reach solutions which now seem beyond us. We must conduct our affairs in such a way that it becomes in the Communists’ interest to agree on a genuine peace. And above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy — or of a collective death-wish for the world.
To secure these ends, America’s weapons are nonprovocative, carefully controlled, designed to deter, and capable of selective use. Our military forces are committed to peace and disciplined in self-restraint. Our diplomats are instructed to avoid unnecessary irritants and purely rhetorical hostility. For we can seek a relaxation of tensions without relaxing our guard. And, for our part, we do not need to use threats to prove we are resolute. We do not need to jam foreign broadcasts out of fear our faith will be eroded. We are unwilling to impose our system on any unwilling people, but we are willing and able to engage in peaceful competition with any people on earth.
Meanwhile, we seek to strengthen the United Nations, to help solve its financial problems, to make it a more effective instrument for peace, to develop it into a genuine world security system — a system capable of resolving disputes on the basis of law, of insuring the security of the large and the small, and of creating conditions under which arms can finally be abolished. At the same time we seek to keep peace inside the non-Communist world, where many nations, all of them our friends, are divided over issues which weaken Western unity, which invite Communist intervention, or which threaten to erupt into war. Our efforts in West New Guinea, in the Congo, in the Middle East, and the Indian subcontinent, have been persistent and patient despite criticism from both sides. We have also tried to set an example for others, by seeking to adjust small but significant differences with our own closest neighbors in Mexico and Canada.
Speaking of other nations, I wish to make one point clear. We are bound to many nations by alliances. Those alliances exist because our concern and theirs substantially overlap. Our commitment to defend Western Europe and West Berlin, for example, stands undiminished because of the identity of our vital interests. The United States will make no deal with the Soviet Union at the expense of other nations and other peoples, not merely because they are our partners, but also because their interests and ours converge. Our interests converge, however, not only in defending the frontiers of freedom, but in pursuing the paths of peace. It is our hope, and the purpose of allied policy, to convince the Soviet Union that she, too, should let each nation choose its own future, so long as that choice does not interfere with the choices of others. The Communist drive to impose their political and economic system on others is the primary cause of world tension today. For there can be no doubt that if all nations could refrain from interfering in the self-determination of others, the peace would be much more assured.
This will require a new effort to achieve world law, a new context for world discussions. It will require increased understanding between the Soviets and ourselves. And increased understanding will require increased contact and communication. One step in this direction is the proposed arrangement for a direct line between Moscow and Washington, to avoid on each side the dangerous delays, misunderstandings, and misreadings of others’ actions which might occur at a time of crisis.
We have also been talking in Geneva about our first-step measures of arm[s] controls designed to limit the intensity of the arms race and reduce the risk of accidental war. Our primary long range interest in Geneva, however, is general and complete disarmament, designed to take place by stages, permitting parallel political developments to build the new institutions of peace which would take the place of arms. The pursuit of disarmament has been an effort of this Government since the 1920’s. It has been urgently sought by the past three administrations. And however dim the prospects are today, we intend to continue this effort — to continue it in order that all countries, including our own, can better grasp what the problems and possibilities of disarmament are.
The only major area of these negotiations where the end is in sight, yet where a fresh start is badly needed, is in a treaty to outlaw nuclear tests. The conclusion of such a treaty, so near and yet so far, would check the spiraling arms race in one of its most dangerous areas. It would place the nuclear powers in a position to deal more effectively with one of the greatest hazards which man faces in 1963, the further spread of nuclear arms. It would increase our security; it would decrease the prospects of war. Surely this goal is sufficiently important to require our steady pursuit, yielding neither to the temptation to give up the whole effort nor the temptation to give up our insistence on vital and responsible safeguards.
I’m taking this opportunity, therefore, to announce two important decisions in this regard. First, Chairman Khrushchev, Prime Minister Macmillan, and I have agreed that high-level discussions will shortly begin in Moscow looking towards early agreement on a comprehensive test ban treaty. Our hope must be tempered — Our hopes must be tempered with the caution of history; but with our hopes go the hopes of all mankind. Second, to make clear our good faith and solemn convictions on this matter, I now declare that the United States does not propose to conduct nuclear tests in the atmosphere so long as other states do not do so. We will not — We will not be the first to resume. Such a declaration is no substitute for a formal binding treaty, but I hope it will help us achieve one. Nor would such a treaty be a substitute for disarmament, but I hope it will help us achieve it.
Finally, my fellow Americans, let us examine our attitude towards peace and freedom here at home. The quality and spirit of our own society must justify and support our efforts abroad. We must show it in the dedication of our own lives — as many of you who are graduating today will have an opportunity to do, by serving without pay in the Peace Corps abroad or in the proposed National Service Corps here at home. But wherever we are, we must all, in our daily lives, live up to the age-old faith that peace and freedom walk together. In too many of our cities today, the peace is not secure because freedom is incomplete. It is the responsibility of the executive branch at all levels of government — local, State, and National — to provide and protect that freedom for all of our citizens by all means within our authority. It is the responsibility of the legislative branch at all levels, wherever the authority is not now adequate, to make it adequate. And it is the responsibility of all citizens in all sections of this country to respect the rights of others and respect the law of the land.
All this — All this is not unrelated to world peace. “When a man’s way[s] please the Lord,” the Scriptures tell us, “he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him.” And is not peace, in the last analysis, basically a matter of human rights: the right to live out our lives without fear of devastation; the right to breathe air as nature provided it; the right of future generations to a healthy existence?
While we proceed to safeguard our national interests, let us also safeguard human interests. And the elimination of war and arms is clearly in the interest of both. No treaty, however much it may be to the advantage of all, however tightly it may be worded, can provide absolute security against the risks of deception and evasion. But it can, if it is sufficiently effective in its enforcement, and it is sufficiently in the interests of its signers, offer far more security and far fewer risks than an unabated, uncontrolled, unpredictable arms race.
The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough — more than enough — of war and hate and oppression.
We shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall be alert to try to stop it. But we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success. Confident and unafraid, we must labor on–not towards a strategy of annihilation but towards a strategy of peace.
Scott 08/24/07 @ 7:10 pmI didn’t quote it because JFK said it, but because it is true. As for other things his speechwriters believed, they may or may not be true, depending on the case. But one of the central themes of Kennedy’s candidacy was founded on the need for a stronger defense — that the Eisenhower administration had allowed a “missile gap” to develop between us and the Soviet Union. It was JFK who increased defense spending and who got us more deeply involved in Vietnam.
In any event, to the extent that you believe in the novel idea of a “Department of Peace,” it is incumbent upon you to explain what you mean by this. The conditions pf peace are already well understood: liberal government, free markets, and democracy. No two democracies have ever gone to war. The whole point of President Bush’s foreign policy is to try to introduce democracy into the Middle East, and thereby create the only known conditions for lasting peace. Perhaps he was naive in thinking that liberal democracy is compatible with the war-like values intrinsic to Islam, but there you are.
Curious George 08/25/07 @ 7:33 amBy the way, I am not here to “provoke an inflammatory reaction,” but because communication is inspiration. Your blog has a sort of monolithic leftist/MSM point of view, so it is obviously easy to communicate with people who believe exactly as you do. Much more challenging — but inspiring — to communicate with people whose values are diametrically opposed to yours. It’s the American way.
Curious George 08/25/07 @ 7:37 amI’m so glad to hear it. It’s the pupose of our site, and it would be quite useless if only people who agreed with me (or Jack) shared their views. Thank you for being here, and please continue to share your thoughts. I find them quite inspirational, and I believe it’s our only chance at acheiving peace - which I define as people (or countries) with differing opinions, existing (living, working, building) together without violence. Naive? Sure, but why not work in that direction?
Hillary 08/25/07 @ 8:33 amIt is funny to see that after our turn it is yours to debate for a future president.
sophie Morel 08/30/07 @ 5:35 amWe had a choice btw a man and a woman and we chose the man, not bcs he was a man, I think the socialist made a mistake by picking Segolene Royal bcs to my opinion she is not fit for the job, not like Hillary Clinton, for instance.
As for my ideas of why they don’t answer the question, i think that it also depends on who is on the other side of the camera. In France we have got a few good journalists who during the campaign really made the politicians answer their questions or the one the public asked.
We have had for the first time a great program where 100 people would ask their question to the politician in front of them.
So we have had people asking about their education, their retirement pension, the war in Irak, or Iran …
the politicians tried a few times to say what was on their agenda to be said that night but the journalist was there to cut him off and to say to him/her “just answer the question please if you would”.
As for your point of you Jack, I totally agree with you because i think when you love someone, it is worthy to push the other to get him or her to say what’s on his or her mind.
I think it is important otherwise you get to a point, maybe ten or twenty years down the road where one could blame you for that or this… while you both could have deal about it on the spot just by speaking, discussing it together.
I think the truth is maybe hard to say but it is forst of all a question of respect: respect of the others of course but first of all of yourself!
One of the things I find most troubling about this dialogue is the loose use of the term “pacifist”. It is applied here to both Dennis Kucinich and Gandhi, and it applies to neither of them. In Kucinich’s case it reminds me of the way the term was used against George McGovern in 1972 because he opposed the war in Vietnam. But supporting military restraint is very different from being a pacifist.
In Gandhi’s case, he simply did not believe in pacifism because it was passive. He used nonviolent assertiveness– satyagraha, he called it, and he defined it as “truth-force”. Over the years, he deemphasized the “truth” part in favor of the “force” part, saying that it would likely not always be used in service of truth. Truth-force meant active resistance and Gandhi specifically rejected the term “passive resistance.”
Martin King encountered similar misunderstanding over what he called “nonviolent direct action” because many confused it with pacifism. But as understanding of the technique spread, the use of the term pacifism declined. Reinhold Niebuhr, an opponent of pacifism, once admitted that he had suffered from such confusion. Niebuhr wrote, “I think, as a rather dedicated antipacifist, that Dr. King’s conception of the nonviolent resistance to evil is a real contribution to our civil, moral, and political life.” I must say, though, that it is a surprise to see the term being used here that way, since understanding of the distinctions have long since become widespread. In addition, with regard to the comment above that “If they [German Jews] had followed Gandhi’s profoundly immoral pacifist advice, there wouldn’t be a European Jew alive today”, as it happens King addressed himself to that argument. He said that if German gentiles had used nonviolent direct action, if they had identified themselves with the Jews by putting on the yellow star, if they had gone into the cattle cars with the Jews, the Nazi machine would have come to a halt. One need not agree to understand that this technique is profoundly non-pacifist.
One additional point– both viewpoints expressed here about John Kennedy are correct. At different times, Kennedy followed both of the approaches described in this dialogue. He was shaken by how close he took the world to the brink in the missile crisis and he backed away from the belligerence that had characterized his campaign and early presidency. On July 25 1961, he said of the Soviet, “For the choice of peace or war is largely theirs, not ours.” But by 1963 at American University, he said, “But I also believe that we must reexamine our own attitudes, as individuals and as a Nation, for our attitude is as essential as theirs.”
Dennis Myers 09/6/07 @ 3:44 pmThat is a good statement to tell Americans nowadays I would emphasize, because I thought that after 9/11 more of them would take Kennedy’s view and “reexamine their attitude” but one can see especially after the Bush’s reelection that it is not the case in all part of America, although I now think that things have been changing a bit since Bush’s public opinion has never been so low.
sophie Morel 09/10/07 @ 3:29 amBut it is like that for everything and to go back to another subject on this blog, it is the same in a relationship, everyone has to take his/her own responsability in the relationship and face the consequences of his/her actions or inactions.
Sophie Morel.