Twisted Ethics & Time Travel

“Hegel was right when he said that we learn from history that man can never learn anything from history.” (George Bernard Shaw, 1856 – 1950)

On Censure: from http://frum.nationalreview.com/archives/03162006.asp#092640

David Frum in the National Review writes:

“As for the censure motion itself, well it is not unprecedented. A Whig majority in the House of Representatives censured President Polk in 1848, claiming that the war with Mexico was "unconstitutionally and unnecessarily begun." President Polk shook it off, as have the millions of future citizens of California, Texas, Arizona and the southwest who owe their homes and security to him.

Still the Polk motion has served one purpose in American history: It reminds us that every great American accomplishment was controversial in its day. And someday we trust American posterity will look back at these days and say: It was tough going there for a while - but those Americans of the 21st century never lost their nerve.”

Let me say that I support Senator Russ Feingold’s motion for the censure of President George W. Bush 100%. Censure, in my opinion, isn’t really enough. If a private citizen gets caught illegally eavesdropping on conservations, the penalty usually involves hard jail-time. If the President does it, no matter what the excuse, the penalty should be no less harsh. We are a nation of laws, not a country shackled to the capricious whims of a government agent or rogue executive. The president has broken the law and done so flagrantly. It’s time for him to go.

I’d like to address Frum’s article here and show you just how much bullshit he managed to pack into those two short paragraphs. Enjoy the ride. It takes just a little bit of functioning grey-matter to pick apart this nonsense. (Fortunately, it’s all I can spare anyhow.)

Frum suggests that President Polk was right to have shrugged off the censure in 1848, because by ignoring that censure the United States expanded it’s territory and, thanks to Polk, millions of Americans in out southwest have a place to live.

1) It is never proper for the President to ‘shrug’ off the will of Congress offhandedly. Congress represents the people and is there to place a check on the power of the executive branch. Mr. Polk should have known this little bit of information as it was in the employee handbook he swore to uphold while in office. Mr. Frum believes the executive branch should remain unfettered by laws or the people (unless a Liberal gets elected.)

2) The fact that the people currently living in Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico don’t care that President Polk carried out an illegal war is meaningless now. They can’t turn back history to undo what has been done over a century ago even if they wanted to. Unless Mr. Frum has a time machine, it’s a complete non-issue. I can’t believe he would even think to consider putting forward something that incredibly stupid.

3) Frum skips over the matter that the Mexican War was, in fact, an unconstitutional war which was not supported by the populace at large, especially in New England. Henry David Thoreau went to jail for not paying taxes to a government he felt was behaving in an unconstitutional manner. The Quaker movement, very large and influential in the 1800’s also opposed the war. Fact remains, the war was an act of aggression and was not conducted or conceived in any constitutional way. Polk got away with it, that’s all. One cannot claim the commission of crime is justified by lack of prosecution.

4) Frum suggests that the ends justify the means in saying that the war then is justified by the situation now, some 150 years later. This twisted logic is akin to asking humanity to thank Hitler and Stalin for easing the population problems that would have faced Europe had they not murdered 45 million people between them. Simply because the results have some beneficial, unintended side effect many years down the road by no means should imply a justification for the original actions themselves. Mr. Frum needs to take an ethics class.

5) Frum rightly states that great accomplishments, throughout history, come with a certain amount of controversy. Society and governments tend toward the status quo and any proposed changes, which affect the livelihoods or norms of a given society, will inevitably face some opposition. However, he makes two serious errors. First, he says “American” accomplishment, as if other nations don’t experience the same phenomena. Secondly, he assumes that an endeavor’s ‘greatness’ is measured by the level of controversy it engenders. (Legalization of marijuana and Gay Marriage also generate tremendous controversy, and by Mr. Frum’s logic, they must also be ‘great accomplishments’, though I suspect Mr. Frum doesn’t support either cause.)

In the end, Mr. Frum dons the mantle of prophecy and assures us that future generations will thank George Bush for expanding the powers of the executive branch, embroiling us in a global conflict, gutting our social programs, raising our national debt, and audaciously violating the law of the land. Mr. Frum has already failed miserably in his analysis of past events. If that is any indicator of his ability to divine the future, I will confidently be putting my money down on the other horse.

(It is no small coincidence that the Mexican War and the Bush War both originated in Texas. It must be something in the manure. Can we give it back to Mexico now?)

“Indeed, history is nothing more than a tableau of crimes and misfortunes.” (Voltaire, 1694 - 1778)