Sep 142002

Bush’s speech was OK. But here’s what he really should have said.

  One Response to “Bush and the UN”

  1. Yeah but the really interesting point here is how Objectivists like Harry Binswanger will insist that "it’s too early for meaningful political action, because we need first a philosophical revolution," — and then they will issue sweeping critiques of political developments, hurling dire edicts and pronouncements about the UN, appeasement, etc., etc. — as if any of these things "could be different, tomorrow, if only Bush or Powell were honest." This is absurd. Only Greenspan, who gets what is going on, seems to understand one can’t be an intellectual bull in the political China shop: Thus he gets to change the world, and make history, while Binswanger is marginalized, and rightly so, with his little email service — a flea somewhere on the elephant of public opinon, not even worth a lazy thresh of the tail.

    What is more, Objectivists oppose the intiation of force, on grounds that men are supposed to relate rationally to resolve their differences. That is the stated purpose of the UN, to resolve international crisis through dialogue, to avert war: It is not set up to be a world government, and it is not one. That its sanction is sought, as once was the pope’s, does not mean that its sovereignty is asserted.

    All these things notwithstanding, sure — I agree with what HB said, and wish I had said it.

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>