"Contrary to popular impression, the threat didn't appear suddenly. A few men warned against it from the beginning. They pointed out how the Johnnies had become dominant in the politics of more than one nation, which thereupon stopped being especially friendly to us, and how in spite of this they were making converts throughout America." (pp. 128-129)
Who are "us" and what constitutes friendship towards "us"? Are the economic and strategic interests of the most powerful nation in the world necessarily consistent with the interests of populations elsewhere in the world?
Matuchek refers to:
"...the majority of us, that eternal majority which wants nothing except to be left alone to cultivate its individual gardens..." (p. 129)
Richard Nixon's "silent majority"? I do not want to be left alone and want to look beyond my individual garden.
10 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I thought it was obvious, by "us" Matuchek meant the US of his timeline and those other nations genuinely close to it, such as, say, the UK. And he was alluding to how, where the Johannine Church taken over various other nations, they had taken a colder, more hostile line against the US and her allies. And NOT because they had genuinely different interpretations of what was best for those countries. They were acting from a "Party line" of the kind the late, unlamented USSR used to impose on its satellite "allies" and Communist parties around the world supervised by Moscow.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But there are more fundamental questions about the use of the words, "we" and "us." For one thing, these words change their reference.
In "Are we guilty of original sin?," "we" are the whole human race.
In "How can we outcompete the Japanese?," "we" are the citizens of some Western country regarded as an economic unit.
In "What should we do about the unemployed?," "we" are the managers of society and this "we" excludes the unemployed who are nevertheless members of society.
Some black Americans asked whether it was in THEIR interests to be conscripted and sent to Vietnam.
So I do not buy into every politician's use of the word, "we."
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But I was going by what Matuchek himself meant by "we." And I still believe my definition more accurate than yours, in this context.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Oh, yes, I realize what Matuchek meant but I am raising questions about it.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But what Matuchek MEANT, in the context of the story in OPERATION CHAOS, is what matters. To add all the other things you listed could distract readers attention from that story.
Ad astra! Sean
Put it this way: if our governments do business with a dictator who is overthrown by a popular revolution, in whose interests is it that he remain in power and in whose interests is it that he is overthrown? I do not identify myself with the "we" who did business with him.
Kaor, Paul!
And what makes me so skeptical of these remarks of yours is HOW OFTEN an overthrown dictator is replaced by a still worse despot. Usually because the leaders of the "popular revolt" are either wannabe tyrants themselves or are too incompetent to set up a tolerably better regime which manages to last. I don't share your faith in "popular revolts" and I doubt Anderson did either.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But I still don't want to be represented by a government that finds it expedient, e.g., to arm dictators.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Unfortunately, in this wicked, fallen world we live in, even reasonably decent gov'ts often have no choice but to do business with unsavory regimes. Because the alternatives are believed to be even badder.
Ad astra! Sean
BTW, about people who don't want to pay attention to politics, the Greeks had a saying: "That doesn't mean they won't pay attention to -you-."
Post a Comment