Obama, McCain refuse to call Russia 'evil empire' - Yahoo! News
NASHVILLE, Tennessee (AFP) - White House candidates Barack Obama and John McCain on Tuesday refused to call Russia an "evil empire" but nevertheless criticized Moscow's military actions in Georgia. ADVERTISEMENT During the second of three televised debates ahead of the November 4 election, the two were asked about former president Ronald Reagan's characterization of the former Soviet Union in 1983 as the "evil empire." "Ronald Reagan said that the Soviet Union was the evil empire. Do you think that Russia under (Prime Minister) Vladimir Putin is the evil empire?" asked the moderator, journalist Tom Brokaw. "I think they are engaged in an evil behavior," answered Obama. "We must understand that they are not the old Soviet Union, but they still have nationalist impulses that are very dangerous." His Republican rival answered: "Maybe. It depends on how we respond to Russia. It depends on a lot of things. "If I say yes, that means that we are reigniting the old Cold War. If I say no, it is ignoring their behavior."
NASHVILLE, Tennessee (AFP) - White House candidates Barack Obama and John McCain on Tuesday refused to call Russia an "evil empire" but nevertheless criticized Moscow's military actions in Georgia.
During the second of three televised debates ahead of the November 4 election, the two were asked about former president Ronald Reagan's characterization of the former Soviet Union in 1983 as the "evil empire."
"Ronald Reagan said that the Soviet Union was the evil empire. Do you think that Russia under (Prime Minister) Vladimir Putin is the evil empire?" asked the moderator, journalist Tom Brokaw.
"I think they are engaged in an evil behavior," answered Obama. "We must understand that they are not the old Soviet Union, but they still have nationalist impulses that are very dangerous."
His Republican rival answered: "Maybe. It depends on how we respond to Russia. It depends on a lot of things.
"If I say yes, that means that we are reigniting the old Cold War. If I say no, it is ignoring their behavior."
Barack: We have nationalist impulses too. Or did I hallucinate where you two said America is the greatest country in the history of mankind?
John: Would that also be your answer if asked if you thought America was an Evil Empire? Or does your capacity for nuance extend no further than US borders? "Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
I wonder, what country is/was the greatest in history? And why?
...oh, wait, I get the game now.... Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
Or, is the point no country is the greatest because it depends on the definition. I think that is fine, but I think it deliberately misses the point. Oh well.
Rightly or wrongly, most Americans are taught to believe they live in the greatest country in the world. I'm not sure how to undo this mindset or if it is even beneficial to do so. America likes to believe its own myths. And I believe the 'myth' of American greatness must be harnessed by American leaders to navigate the country out of the current black hole it is falling in to. I know it is likely annoying or insulting, but it is certainly American to think America is the greatest.
I know it is likely annoying or insulting, but it is certainly American to think America is the b greatest.
Believing that one was living in the greatest nation in the world was the norm all over Europe in the years leading up to World War 1. Then things went kind of bad...
American patriotism isn't really exceptional. Just very, very old-fashioned.
"We're better than you! Blah Blah Blah!" Until they starve. In the end, might makes right. Nothing has changed since the caveman.
Believing that one was living in the greatest nation in the world was the norm all over Europe in the years leading up to World War 1. Then things went kind of bad... American patriotism isn't really exceptional. Just very, very old-fashioned.
To the extent that we're indoctrinated in this way, it's not as all consuming as it was in early 20th century Europe. A lot of it depends on where you live as well. Unsurprisingly, it's far more common in conservative leaning communities. I got it a lot at church. I didn't get any of it in public school.
It also differs from Europe, even today. In Europe nationalism runs approximately "we're the best because we're nation x" whereas in America it's "we're the best for reasons x, y, and z" where x, y, and z are not completely connected to ethnicity and culture. The latter is more prone to self-reflection, although with modern propaganda the reality about x, y, and z is often easy to hide.
Personal anecdote that I've mentioned here before - even in the Lutheran school I attended until I was 12 years old, we were taught that schools in Europe were much better. The poor rankings of American schoolchildren vs. other industrialized nations were known to me at a young age. When I was 16, I went to Germany for two weeks with my German language class. During a week long family stay, we spent a few afternoons at the local school in the middle class city we were in. My public school was a little bit above average for the US, so I was expecting some impressive students and facilities. It turned out to be the opposite - the school reminded me of an inner city American school without the violence and cultural dissaffection. The facilities were poorly kept and the students had zero interest in learning. The teachers simply talked over students who were paying no attention. Music class amounted to listening to CDs. It was an interesting myth-breaking experience.
you are the media you consume.
It also differs from Europe, even today. In Europe nationalism runs approximately "we're the best because we're nation x" whereas in America it's "we're the best for reasons x, y, and z" where x, y, and z are not completely connected to ethnicity and culture.
I don't believe you are correct here. I agree with the ethnicity part, which is at least not mentioned explicitly in the States. But cultural exceptionalism is stronger in the US than in most european countries.
And garden variety patriotism in Europe is indeed all about "we're the best because of...". Only the rabid nationalists explicitly talk about culture or race. Just like in America.
There are two kinds of nationalisms (even if cataloguing like this is Platonism and reducing the complexity of the world, thus losing information... IE, this is not true, but a pedagogic lie).
First you have the normal one. Based on culture and ethnicity. All over the place. Might not be bad, as long as it doesn't turn aggresive.
Then we have the other one, based on ideology and values. We have it in the USA, France and the old Soviet Union.
These are often more dangerous as the nations feel they have a creed or ideology to spread, a mission civilicatrice.
But as I said above, nothing is as clear cut as this. Soviet nationalism was also based on Russian imperialism, the American variety have strong WASP elements and French republicanism of course also have ethnic markers. But it's still very different from the view in Germany or Sweden (even if the Swedish elites are much closer to the French view). Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Civic nationalism though... That can still be used as a cover for armed robbery on a geopolitical scale, to spread "democracy" or promote "womens rights" and so on. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
WTF? Evil?
Objectionable, illegal if you must, but evil??? A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
it was a loaded, dumbfuck question, but i was a bit disappointed with the reply.
i would have liked for him to laugh and say how inappropriate the use of the medieval word 'evil' to describe a whole country in such a jejune, blanket way. then i would have liked him to say how russia, like america, is trying to pursue its interests, and show some respect for how they are back, and not the failed state reagan so idiotically condemned with his foolish comment.
obama fell fully into brokaw's stupid frame, too bad...
the only time mccain showed more shrewdness during the debate was when he aced that same question, saying 'maybe', thereby keeping his base, while not falling into a simple binary trap, as obvious a gotcha question as the old saw 'when did you stop beating your wife?'
for the most part obama filled the presidential shoes better than mccain, whose clenched body language and rigid, robotic moves set off obama's easy fluidity by contrast.
obama has a spacey edge quite often, with the long 'er's' and 'ums' before getting his stride, leaving one hanging a few milliseconds...will he fluff it or not?
the only slip i caught was when he was talking about the opportunity america gave him to go to the world's best schools even though he was poor, when he said 'country' when he meant 'world'.
very minor PN... totally harmless.
when i think he's been campaigning for 2 years pretty much non-stop, the stamina and sang-froid obama's exhibiting in this pressure-cooker election are as stellar an example of 'grace under pressure' i've ever seen. mccain doesn't even come close as presidential material, tho' for such an old coot, he's doing a better job than i would have expected, frankly. unfortunately the fact that he's not as braindead as gwb is not entirely reassuring, as mccain has an even scarier form of fanaticism glittering in his eyes, replacing gwb's puzzled, beyond-clueless stare.
he's a lot less crusader-for-jesus-fake-redeemed sinner, but a fuck of a lot more militaristic for the whole sick edgy thrill.
many of us mention how much we think obama might do a sudden change after inauguration...i wonder if mccain might too, if 'selected', turning away from gwb's coattails and carving a new form of more bipartisan republicanism, less lobbyist- and earmark-influenced.
only a very faint hope, that, very audacious...
...especially considering his fawning fondness for the nuclear power solution for america's energy independence, where sounded really moronic, with his 'happy voice' on, exhorting his countrymen to cover the land with nuke-plants and the shores with drilling platforms with the same jolly tone a leader might use promising his people a plethora of fairs and festivals for their endless edification and entertainment.
whoopee! a 3-mile island on every skyline!
dead, oily pelicans on every beach...
this is the change he's offering, this is the great vision he's humping the leg of power to attain, and it's a sorry sight, once i move out of 'detached observer' mode...
sorry for the ramble... ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
many of us mention how much we think obama might do a sudden change after inauguration
I really hope not, he's too centrist already. Not unless you share the dKossack believuh mythology that the Change he offers is the one they want and will tack left.
Fat chance of that !! At what point in the last two years has Obama given any of us reason to believe he is anything other than a Beltway centrist who will attempt to do exactly the things he has promised ? Things which bear no relation to the sort of liberal/progressive initiatives people bafflingly attach to his platform.
In european terms he's a conservative. The only place on earth where he might be confused with being a liberal/progressive is exactly where he is, but that doesn't make him one and we here shouldn't fall into the belief that he might be one. keep to the Fen Causeway
