[PEN-L:5119] Re: Re: random thoughts on the slaughter

["William S. Lear" <rael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Nathan attempts to redefine Michael's query:

On Sunday, April 11, 1999 at 18:41:36 (-0400) Nathan Newman writes:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Michael Perelman <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>I am very appreciative of all the intelligent analysis I am reading on
>>this list, although I am a loss to see how anyone in their right mind
>>could credit Clinton and company with some humanitarian concerns.
>>Remember Ricky Rector and Welfare "Reform"?
>
>I don't think saying that NATO intervention can have a humanitarian end is
>the same as saying Clinton et al are sob sister moralists.

Michael was talking about "concerns", not "ends".  Michael is
therefore talking here about *motive*, not ends.

If the end is simply *incidentally* moral, as you hypothesize, then by
definition, it is not a "humanitarian concern".  One does not act
morally by accident.

>If the theory is that Clinton cannot do anything that has a humanitarian
>end, then the expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, signing the minimum
>wage increases, vetoing the Contract on America, or any number of other acts
>that were better than the alternative is inexplicable.  His motives may be
>seeking power and buying off and defusing his left flank, but the result is
>still to the good.

No, the "theory" is quite different: Clinton is about as likely as
Ronald Reagan, who was about as likely as Nixon, who was about as
likely as any other of our presidents, to act out of moral concern.
Ergo, should a "humanitarian" end result from the acts of Clinton, it
is merely incidental, a fortunate accident, that the ends deserve the
label "good".  Given that, one can therefore ask the likelihood that a
state with a rich history of violence and flagrant abuses of human
rights and civilized norms might undertake an aggressive and violent
foreign policy campaign *and* have the ends accidentally turn out to
be "humanitarian".  Note here that the relevant domain for evaluation
is *foreign* policy, not *domestic*.  Domestic policy is guided by a
very different concern, since our population has the technical right
to participate in managing our affairs --- other populations around
the globe don't even rise to this level of nuisance.

I believe, in short, that Michael and countless others are saying:
Clinton's *concern* is not humanitarian; Clinton's ends, therefore,
are highly unlikely to be humanitarian given the relevant history.


Bill