Pushing Daisies

I strongly agree with two of the points Ilan Goldenberg makes about the politics of foreign policy. He's right that "today Democrats have an opportunity to seize the national security mantle back from Republicans and potentially own the issue for the next generation" and he's right that it simply can't be fully seized except by actually winning an election and then having a Democratic president prove that progressive policies can deliver results. As Ilan says, "All the chest thumping and tough talk in the world is meaningless without a Democratic President who is successful on this issue."

I don't, however, think his interim solution of "more fear mongering" is all that sound. "Democratic fear mongering," he says "needs to focus on how scary it would be to have another Republican President and how much that could endanger all of us." There's room for some of that kind of thing, but fundamentally one thing I think Ted Nordhause and Michael Shellenberger get right (unfortunately their book, which says a lot of insightful things, is yoked to some pretty dubious policy ideas about climate change) is the idea that "resentment and apocalypse are weapons that can be used only to advance a politics of resentment and apocalypse." And, indeed, I think Ilan's example of LBJ's famous "Daisies" ad sort of makes the point -- Lyndon Johnson won the election, but while '64 set up great liberal advances on the domestic front it led to a fiasco in foreign policy terms. Similarly, the Democrats' somewhat demagogic campaign for the creation of the Department of Homeland Security just set the table for a much-more-demagogic and ultimately much-more-successful GOP counter-campaign.

At any rate, I have a whole book that'll be coming out about what kinds of mistakes I think Democrats have been making, but the main thought I'd leave you with for now is that you do need to return to the initial two points: Ultimately, the most helpful think would be for a progressive president to successfully implement progressive ideas under circumstances (unlike those of the Clinton administration) when the public is paying attention. That means dropping the assumption that liberal ideas won't fly politically and need to be kept hidden under layers of macho posturing and, instead, actually try to build progressive messaging around progressive ideas.

It's remarkable the extent to which you almost never see leading Democrats articulate commonplace notions like "starting a war with Iran would be a strategic disaster for the United States," "expending finite resources investigating people who there's no probable cause to suspect is probably a waste of time," "we should focus on fighting al-Qaeda rather than other Muslims who haven't attacked us," "invading Iraq was a huge mistake," "Harry Truman and Franklin Roosevelt founded the UN because a strong UN is good for America," "getting other countries to follow non-proliferation agreements is going to require us to follow them too," or "reviving the Israeli-Arab peace process would make ti easier for us to find Muslim allies." Now I'm not going to promise anyone that those exact phrases are ones it would be smart to use. But the ideas are important ones, and the real political professionals need to think about finding the best ways to express them.

More generally, I think progressive politicians -- but also progressives more generally -- need to make the point that good things can happen inforeign policy and will happen with smart leadership, it's not just a realm in which scary people do scary things and we try to stop them.

Comments

Well said, Matt.

Posted by BryklynLibrul | November 5, 2007 9:01 AM

And, indeed, I think Ilan's example of LBJ's famous "Daisies" ad sort of makes the point -- Lyndon Johnson won the election, but while '64 set up great liberal advances on the domestic front it led to a fiasco in foreign policy terms.

Well, that's either an insane interpretation of events ("The Daisy [singular, I think] ad led to escalation, etc., in Vietnam") or disingenuous ("LBJ made a series of bad policy choices unconnected to the Daisy ad, save for the fact that it helped get him elected. Proper phrasing elides the tenuous nature of that connection"). Goldenberg's idea seems like a pretty good one.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | November 5, 2007 9:03 AM

I am not so sure that the way to go is for liberal politicians to run a campaign with unabashedly advocating progressive ideas. Politicians aren't a risk-taking breed; those who do take risks tend to burn out like Goldwater or McGovern. Even Dean who IMO at the time expressed a pretty commonsensical idea, that America wasn't safer because Saddam was captured really got pilled on. The problem is that conventional wisdom which is wisdom both about substance and about appropriateness carries the
day.

Moreover, I am very concerned and very pessimistic that in foreign affairs, the politics of fear trump the politics of reasonableness 9 times out of 10. Humans are wired to respond to fear so that side has the upper hand.

Perhaps a risk-taking political campaign may bear fruit over the long-term, like Goldwater did. Then again, I am not sure that what did it was Goldwater or Reagan for that matter. The Republican ascendancy was based on a multi-faceted complex of institutions who fought and financed a war of ideas many years before Reagan came.

In short, in sense what's more important is what this blog or your book and blogs and books in a similar vein do in influencing public opinion, not what the politician who reads them does. Politicians play in fields set by others. I am not sure they do much to change them; especially when they re campaigning.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | November 5, 2007 9:13 AM

This paragraph is sheer brilliance: "It's remarkable the extent to which you almost never see leading Democrats articulate commonplace notions like "starting a war with Iran would be a strategic disaster for the United States," "expending finite resources investigating people who there's no probable cause to suspect is probably a waste of time," "we should focus on fighting al-Qaeda rather than other Muslims who haven't attacked us," "invading Iraq was a huge mistake," "Harry Truman and Franklin Roosevelt founded the UN because a strong UN is good for America," "getting other countries to follow non-proliferation agreements is going to require us to follow them too," or "reviving the Israeli-Arab peace process would make ti easier for us to find Muslim allies." Now I'm not going to promise anyone that those exact phrases are ones it would be smart to use. But the ideas are important ones, and the real political professionals need to think about finding the best ways to express them."

Posted by Herb | November 5, 2007 9:16 AM

It's really a sign of bankruptcy of the liberal politicians' mind and of the weakness of their spine than you have to write a book to advise the progressives to proclaim openly that they are progressives. But then again, for you it's a great opportunity for making money by stating the obvious.

Posted by gregor | November 5, 2007 9:17 AM

SCMT: I thought Matt's point was that you sell a foreign policy based on fear by making people as afraid as possible. Conversely, if you want to sell a sensible policy, you need to change the way people think about how we should deal with other global actors, including those that threaten us. In short, there is more than a "tenuous" connection between rhetoric and policy in this area.

Posted by Led | November 5, 2007 9:19 AM

Should the headline be "Pushing up the daisies?

MR. PRALINE: If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! ...

OWNER: Owner: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage!

Such being what passes for discourse in the Village.

I agree with Herb on the sheer brilliance of that paragraph.

Posted by lambert strether | November 5, 2007 9:19 AM

If and when the Republican nominee starts up with "we're tougher on National Security" bulljive, I just hope the Dem nominee has the ovaries to respond with some variant of, "I'd be a lot more confident in Republicans on National Security if 9-11 hadn't happened on their watch. With plenty of advanced warning. There, I said it."

Posted by ed | November 5, 2007 9:20 AM

> nd he's right that it simply can't be fully
> seized except by actually winning an
> election and then having a Democratic president
> prove that progressive policies can deliver
> results.

Little bit of a problem here. And I'll even set aside the strong form using "free society" and just use "trade-based society": If the United States is going to have a trade-based society (as it has since 1700) there is absolutely no way to ensure "results" if by "results" you mean "no bad things happen in the continental United States". The flow of people and goods necessary for trade means that there is _no way_ to stop some small number of fanatics from entering the United States and doing some small amount of damage (assuming we can stop them from getting nukes, although post-Katrina that doesn't seem to be as much of an issue as it once was).

If by "results" you mean Lincoln's formulation that no one can take a drink of water from the Ohio without our permission then we have that and can maintain it fairly easily at 1/10 what we are spending today. But if we want to simultaneously throw our weight around all over the globe and prevent absolutely all blowback in the continental US, well, ain't nobody can guarantee that.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | November 5, 2007 9:23 AM

I have to agree with gregor. I don't think MY should be taking advantage of his first amendment rights to make any money. God damn capitalists!

Posted by Karl Marx | November 5, 2007 9:31 AM

I have to agree with gregor. I don't think MY should be taking advantage of his first amendment rights to make any money. God damn capitalists!

Posted by Karl Marx | November 5, 2007 9:32 AM

Matt, pay attention to Edwards speech in Iowa City today. Per Politco

MAKING NEWS TODAY - EDWARDS, from his campaign: "In a speech in Iowa City titled 'Learning the Lesson of Iraq: A New Strategy for Iran,' John Edwards will offer a new strategy for the Iran threat. Edwards' strategy begins by being the first candidate to reject George Bush's 'preventive war' doctrine … .Senator Edwards' plan for Iran has five principles: End the 'preventive war' doctrine. Use bolder and more targeted economic sanctions. Use incentive. Reengage with Iran. Reengage with other major nations on the challenge of Iran."

Sounds like a call for smart leadership to me.

Posted by AJ | November 5, 2007 9:33 AM

SCMT: I thought Matt's point was that you sell a foreign policy based on fear by making people as afraid as possible.

And that's what Goldenberg is suggesting. Yglesias doesn't seem to be accounting for the difference between making people afraid of external threats (them fur'ners) and making them afraid of internal threats (crazy Republicans). What else has Yglesias been doing when he writes posts arguing that Giuliani is singularly frightening because of his foreign policy advisors?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | November 5, 2007 9:38 AM

Well, Matt does say "there is room for that kind of thing" (and I agree), but you also need a positive message about the upside of a progressive, pragmatic approach.

Posted by Led | November 5, 2007 9:48 AM

""expending finite resources investigating people who there's no probable cause to suspect is probably a waste of time,"

Tell this to the Dems in Congress who have been so busy launching investigations of administration officials that they haven't gotten anything else done.

Posted by Fred | November 5, 2007 9:49 AM

He's right that "today Democrats have an opportunity to seize the national security mantle back from Republicans and potentially own the issue for the next generation"

Let me speak plainly, this is drivel. ( Actually, four-letter barnyard epithets come to mind. )

National security is not a product, like some sort of toothpaste, which "our" team can seize.

Rather, national security, like any other issue, is a question of strategy and tactics which, when properly analyzed and understood, should be adopted and supported by any team, Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, Green, neomonarchist, flat-earther, whatever.

All this sort of talk is to suggest that Democrats are a bunch of would be white-collar paper pushers who are seeking cushy government jobs.

And no wonder such a bunch of losers constantly cave to Bush.

Posted by Duncan Kinder | November 5, 2007 9:51 AM

I've heard the argument before from K. Drum that "negative emotions", such as fear and anger, won't work for progressives. Maybe, maybe not. Is there any evidence for this?

The example above about the Daisy ad makes absolutely no sense, as SCMT pointed out.

Posted by Jim W | November 5, 2007 9:54 AM

While I'm sympathetic, I wonder if our politics don't reflect the painstaking polling that informs virtually every position one could take on an issue. Imagine if the Clintons discarded Mark Penn and actually let it rip. Imagine the reaction of our elite press corps, the Joe Kleins and Tim Russerts. Their offense to such honesty would be fatal to Hillary's ambitions.

The problem is less our politics than our media culture. When so-called liberals are busy dissecting Hillary as a witch and ballbuster, it's pretty much a given that every potential Democratic nominee will have to play Ronald Reagan to be taken seriously. We don't have the megaphones and chances are we'll won't for a long time to come. Appreciate that reality, and liberal caution makes sense.

Posted by walt | November 5, 2007 9:57 AM

Some of the progressive discussion of fear lately has gone way around the bend in its fanatical rejection of the very appropriateness of fear.

Fear is a natural and healthy part of life. People are motivated to act both by bad things that they fear and wish to prevent, and by good things they desire and wish to bring about. There are rational and appropriate fears and desires, just as there are irrational and obsessive fears and desires. Since there are many objects that sane people should rationally fear, there is nothing wrong with a politics that vividly depicts these objects, instructs people about them, and proposes courses of action for addressing them.

It's not fear that is the problem, but cowardice. Cowardice takes several forms. One is an absorption in the objects of fear, without either any clear positive vision of a future in which the objects of fear have been successfully prevented or a realistic conception of the kinds of cooperative and individual effort that will be required for success. It is this kind of cowardice that causes paralysis, cognitive impairment and abject surrender to leaders and authorities who purport to know the way out of the problem.

Another form of cowardice is a studied avoidance of appropriate objects of fear - a fear, if you will, of confronting and addressing what is fearsome. This may be married with unrealistic fantasies of a vague yet bright future that will seemingly come about magically, without any focussed attention on, or mature cognizance of, the threats that stand in the way.

The problem with Nordhause and Shellenberger is not just bad policy ideas. It's their suggestion that a rational environmental and energy policy agenda can be built mainly on a sort of Nietzshean technological and economic triumphalism: a dramatic narrative with only triumphant successes and no frightful nemesis.

But the melting of the ice caps, for example, is a prospect that rational people should fear and work to prevent. That has traditionally been coupled by environmentalists with optimistic visions of a greener, saner future. Raising fears of environmental catastrophe is not apocalypticism; it's only apocalypticism if those fears are accompanied by the message that there is no way out.

Similarly, there is nothing at all wrong with raising fears of the dire future that lies in store for us if we continue with a Bushian Republican, wingnut foreign policy. These warnings should be coupled with a message about how an alternative foreign policy will save us from all that.

Posted by Dan Kervick | November 5, 2007 10:27 AM

Well, Yglesias certainly has faith, i.e., the conviction of things not seen. Because we have had two Democratic administrations in my lifetime that operated along the lines he suggests. The Carter foreign policy produced fairly disastrous results, and, while the Clinton foreign policy wasn't quite as unsuccessful, it certainly brought us neither peace nor friends in the Middle East. But hey, let's do the same thing again and maybe we'll get different results this time.

Posted by y81 | November 5, 2007 10:49 AM

I think anyone who says 'war with Iran would be a strategic disaster' is ultimately bound to loose the general. It does not matter how you state that position. The GOP misinformation machine would tear you apart. In times of conflict most people like a hard ass who (i) is not afraid to fight, and (ii) exaggerates the power/ capabilities of the US military.

The only way this could work is if someone married policy with values. E.g. doesn't the Bible have a line "blessed are the peacemakers ...". Now it need not be the Bible, but the stated policy i.e. no unnecessary war with Iran or re-start the peace process in the middle-east, needs to be linked to the values of the candidate. Somehow the American voter relates much better to a value-based argument than pure policy (no matter how commonsensical the policy might seem). That is the only way (I think) that someone could openly advocate such actions and not look like a wimp.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | November 5, 2007 10:51 AM

Have you seen the show? It's not bad!

Posted by Anonymous | November 5, 2007 10:52 AM

I don't remember anything disastrous about the foreign policy under Carter or Clinton. While Carter didn't make any idiotic decisions that got tons of people killed, he also didn't provide sufficient entertainment for a group of influential people for whom the purpose of American foreign policy is to make them feel macho. On that basis, he is now thought of by many as a failure.

Posted by Jim W | November 5, 2007 10:54 AM

Re: "...while the Clinton foreign policy wasn't quite as unsuccessful, it certainly brought us neither peace nor friends in the Middle East."

This is completely desusional. Who were we at war with in the Middle East during the Clinton years? No one. I guess you could say Clinton didn't bring us peace, in the sense that we already had peace. But he did keep us in a state of constant peace, much to the chagrin of a bunch of bored, neocon pseudo-intellectuals.

Posted by Jim W | November 5, 2007 10:58 AM

"I don't remember anything disastrous about the foreign policy under Carter or Clinton."

You have a short memory. The rest of us remember Carter (literally) kissing up to Brezhnev before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, we remember how pathetically weak and impotent he made this country look by the wimpy way he dealt with the Iranian invasion of our embassy in Teheran, we remember America's weakness leading communists to challenge our interests no longer half-way around the world but right in our hemisphere, in Central America.

As for Clinton's foreign policy, we remember him turning tail from Somalia after the Black Hawk down incident (after his SecDef refused to give our troops the armor they requested); we remember his lame response to the Al Qaeda attacks on the Cole and our embassies in Africa -- launching cruise missiles at aspirin factories and empty tents. We remember acting as the air force for Muslim militants in the Balkans, bombing the Chinese embassy in the process. We also remember Clinton, by his own admission, refusing to take custody of Bin Laden when offered him by Sudan.

Posted by Juan | November 5, 2007 11:17 AM

Juan, what you "remember" are mostly lies and talking points from right-wing media. GIGO.

I hate to keep saying this, but the demarcation between right and left is between people who gladly believe bullshit and people for whom reality is a bit more complex.

Posted by walt | November 5, 2007 11:24 AM

Shorter Dan Kervick: "I'm scared, and if everybody would be scared, then I won't have to be scared. And I get off on labeling people cowards."

Dan and I and a couple of others went back and forth on this over at tpmcafe.com. Check it out for yourself, and see what you think.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/bookclub/2007/oct/09/shadowboxing#comment-306467

Posted by vorkosigan1 | November 5, 2007 11:25 AM

One thing that should be done is to kill the expression "conventional wisdom". Conventional wisdom isn't wisdom, it's the very opposite - loose rumors, speculation, what people say. If people use the term "conventional wisdom" or "common wisdom", translate it in your mind to "conventional view" and "common view", and you will become much smarter. Don't use the terms "conventional wisdom" or "common wisdom" - they are half-Orwellian.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | November 5, 2007 11:34 AM

Tell this to the Dems in Congress who have been so busy launching investigations of administration officials that they haven't gotten anything else done.

Given that plenty of legislation has been proposed and then blocked by the GOP minority and/or the President's veto, this version of events is fantastic and could only be proposed by someone who gives not a whit whether or not what they say is true.

Posted by washerdreyer | November 5, 2007 11:51 AM

we remember how pathetically weak and impotent he made this country look by the wimpy way he dealt with the Iranian invasion of our embassy in Teheran

One more time: Carter's response was to INVADE IRAN*. How much less wimpy could he have been? Should he have gone straight to the nuclear option?

*Yes, he did. Sending an armed force into another country without their permission is invasion. True, the invasion was fouled up beyond all recognition by the incompetence of Delta Force et al, but that's hardly Carter's fault.

we remember his lame response to the Al Qaeda attacks on the Cole and our embassies in Africa -- launching cruise missiles at aspirin factories and empty tents

A response loudly and universally condemned by Republicans, who - in 1998 as in 2002 - were firmly opposed to hunting down bin Laden.

We remember acting as the air force for Muslim militants in the Balkans, bombing the Chinese embassy in the process.

I am willing to bet $100 that Juan was not "acting as the air force" in Kosovo. I don't think he was within three thousand miles of the place throughout the war.

Posted by ajay | November 5, 2007 11:58 AM

Juan has a problem with pronouns.

Posted by Ed Marshall | November 5, 2007 12:02 PM

Re: "...we remember how pathetically weak and impotent he made this country look by the wimpy way he dealt with the Iranian invasion of our embassy in Teheran"

This sentence really captures what I was saying. To the nutty neocons and their fellow travelers, its not about what happens, its about how it makes them feel. Better to have a few 100 thousand dead people than for them to feel weak and impotent.

The root of the problem is that for these people, the fate of their self esteem is tied to the popular perception of the fate of their nation, which they think of almost as an individual character. We would all be better off if we could get them to invest their psychic energy in rooting for professional sports teams instead.

Posted by Jim W | November 5, 2007 12:06 PM

If Carter had been C-o-C of the Israeli army, he would have gotten the hostages out. It wasn't his fault that the United States Marine Corps couldn't accomplish the mission.

Posted by Bloix | November 5, 2007 12:51 PM

Very good post & good points. I think I agree with you rather than Kervick. A reduction in fear and security to be found in the Int'l institutions was maybe the Truman strategy in another fear-mongering time. But the direct benefits of liberal internationalism can be hard to see & sell:I don't know if Americans felt safer because of the UN and the Geneva Conventions, although NATO may have helped.

Anyway my point in the earlier thread was not about politics but policy; not about the demonization of Republicans but about the recognition that they are actually demons. A major focus of Democratic Foreign Policy should include measures to constrain and limit the options of Republican Presidents, again NATO and the troops in Europe being examples, in 1952+ President Joe McCarthy would have had a tougher time nuking Moscow.

Posted by bob mcmanus | November 5, 2007 1:10 PM

To further show the way I am thinking, could Bill Clinton have made the attacks on Iraq & Iran impossible for whatever wingnut murderer that followed him?

Should Clinton have given (or arranged) for Iraq & Iran to get nukes?

Posted by bob mcmanus | November 5, 2007 1:15 PM

It wasn't his fault that the United States Marine Corps couldn't accomplish the mission.

I have no animus towards Carter, being born during Reagan's first term, but how could that possibly not be largely his fault? Did they refuse to obey lawfully given orders? Did they demand not to be given more than a certain small amount of resources?

Posted by washerdreyer | November 5, 2007 1:42 PM

"It wasn't his fault that the United States Marine Corps couldn't accomplish the mission."

First, it was a Delta Force mission, but that's besides the point. If you want to know the details, The Atlantic published a great article about the mission by Mark Bowden last year.

Second, the pure hostage mission was the wrong approach. Carter should have given the Iranians a deadline to release the hostages unconditionally and asked Congress for a declaration of war against them if they didn't. If the hostages weren't released, he should have authorized the rescue mission and massive punitive bombing missions simultaneously. Iran should have paid a price.

Posted by Juan | November 6, 2007 1:07 AM

If the hostages weren't released, he should have authorized the rescue mission and massive punitive bombing missions simultaneously. Iran should have paid a price.

For those keeping score at home, Juan has descended into into terrorism as policy, and is most likely a proponent of torture for deterrent effect.

This is moral clarity.

Posted by Ed Marshall | November 6, 2007 1:21 AM

It's remarkable the extent to which you almost never see leading Democrats articulate commonplace notions like "starting a war with Iran would be a strategic disaster for the United States," "expending finite resources investigating people who there's no probable cause to suspect is probably a waste of time," "we should focus on fighting al-Qaeda rather than other Muslims who haven't attacked us," "invading Iraq was a huge mistake," "Harry Truman and Franklin Roosevelt founded the UN because a strong UN is good for America," "getting other countries to follow non-proliferation agreements is going to require us to follow them too," or "reviving the Israeli-Arab peace process would make ti easier for us to find Muslim allies." Now I'm not going to promise anyone that those exact phrases are ones it would be smart to use. But the ideas are important ones, and the real political professionals need to think about finding the best ways to express them.

Truman put it very well.

Address in San Francisco at the Closing Session of the United Nations Conference June 26, 1945

Mr. Chairman and Delegates to the United Nations Conference on International Organization:

[...]
The Charter of the United Nations which you have just signed is a solid structure upon which we can build a better world. History will honor you for it. Between the victory in Europe and the final victory in Japan, in this most destructive of all wars, you have won a victory against war itself.

It was the hope of such a Charter that helped sustain the courage of stricken peoples through the darkest days of the war. For it is a declaration of great faith by the nations of the earth--faith that war is not inevitable, faith that peace can be maintained.

If we had had this Charter a few years ago-and above all, the will to use it--millions now dead would be alive. If we should falter in the future in our will to use it, millions now living will surely die.

It has already been said by many that this is only a first step to a lasting peace. That is true. ...The Constitution of my own country came from a Convention which--like this one--was made up off delegates with many different views. Like this Charter, our Constitution came from a free and sometimes bitter exchange of conflicting opinions. When it was adopted, no one regarded it as a perfect document. ... This Charter, like our own Constitution, will be expanded and improved as time goes on... Changing world conditions will require readjustments--but they will be the readjustments of peace and not of war.
[...]
There were many who doubted that agreement could ever be reached by these fifty countries differing so much in race and religion, in language and culture. But these differences were all forgotten in one unshakable unity of determination--to find a way to end wars. Out of all the arguments and disputes, and different points of view, a way was found to agree.

Here in the spotlight of full publicity, in the tradition of liberty-loving people, opinions were expressed openly and freely. The faith and the hope of fifty peaceful nations were laid before this world forum. Differences were overcome. This Charter was not the work of any single nation or group of nations, large or small. It was the result of a spirit of give-and-take, of tolerance for the views and interests of others.
[...]
You have created a great instrument for peace and security and human progress in the world.

The world must now use it!

If we fail to use it, we shall betray all those who have died in order that we might meet here in freedom and safety to create it.

If we seek to use it selfishly--for the advantage of any one nation or any small group of nations--we shall be equally guilty of that betrayal.

The successful use of this instrument will require the united will and firm determination of the free peoples who have created it. The job will tax the moral strength and fibre of us all.

We all have to recognize-no matter how great our strength--that we must deny ourselves the license to do always as we please. No one nation, no regional group, can or should expect, any special privilege which harms any other nation. If any nation would keep security for itself, it must be ready and willing to share security with all. That is the price which each nation will have to pay for world peace. Unless we are all willing to pay that price, no organization for world peace can accomplish its purpose.

And what a reasonable price that is!

Out of this conflict have come powerful military nations, now fully trained and equipped for war. But they have no right to dominate the world. It is rather the duty of these powerful nations to assume the responsibility for leadership toward a world of peace. That is why we have here resolved that power and strength shall be used not to wage war, but to keep the world at peace, and free from the fear of war.

By their own example the strong nations of the world should lead the way to international justice. That principle of justice is the foundation stone of this Charter. That principle is the guiding spirit by which it must be carried out--not by words alone but by continued concrete acts of good will.
[...]

All Fascism did not die with Mussolini. Hitler is finished--but the seeds spread by his disordered mind have firm root in too many fanatical brains. It is easier to remove tyrants and destroy concentration camps than it is to kill the ideas which gave them birth and strength. Victory on the battlefield was essential, but it was not enough. For a good peace, a lasting peace, the decent peoples of the earth must remain determined to strike down the evil spirit which has hung over the world for the last decade.

The forces of reaction and tyranny all over the world will try to keep the United Nations from remaining united. Even while the military machine of the Axis was being destroyed in Europe-even down to its very end--they still tried to divide us.

They failed. But they will try again.

They are trying even now. To divide and conquer was--and still is--their plan. They still try to make one Ally suspect the other, hate the other, desert the other.

But I know I speak for every one of you when I say that the United Nations will remain united. They will not be divided by propaganda either before the Japanese surrender--or after. This occasion shows again the continuity of history.

[...]

By this Charter, you have realized the objectives of many men of vision in your own countries who have devoted their lives to the cause of world organization for peace.

Upon all of us, in all our countries, is now laid the duty of transforming into action these words which you have written. Upon our decisive action rests the hope of those who have fallen, those now living, those yet unborn--the hope for a world of free countries--with decent standards of living--which will work and cooperate in a friendly civilized community of nations.
This new structure of peace is rising upon strong foundations.

Let us not fail to grasp this supreme chance to establish a world-wide rule of reason--to create an enduring peace under the guidance of God.

(emphasis added)

Posted by Tom Doyle | November 6, 2007 1:42 PM