Gaging Perspectives

I was having a discussion with a friend of mine today about perspective. We were trying to understand some points of view that we did not understand by looking at them from different perspectives. The conversation eventually - and perhaps predictably - veered into politics, where we tried to understand the pro-war contingent from a different perspective. We attempted to make the argument (somewhat successfully, I might add) that the pro-war folk, haven been shaken deeply by 9/11, had somehow lost the ability to rationally consider both the situation and the possible reactions. This loss of reason, which was mostly fueled by anger and a deep desire for revenge, made it possible for mostly rational people to be swayed by an extremely poor, and mostly fabricated (as we know now) argument. What then, could people have done to prevent this reaction? What check could we have place upon ourselves to measure our reaction for reasonableness? There were certainly enough dissenters that spoke out against our invasion of Iraq (just about every other country in the world), but we saw so much marginalization of that message that we didn't bother to consider it. (Remember "Freedom Fries" instead of French Fries?) Amazingly enough, it seems that if the rest of humanity thinks that a decision is inappropriate, they may well be correct, and we would do well to take their advice. If this obviousity weren't enough, we were warned about this by our Founding Fathers over 230 years ago. My random reading this evening somehow directed me to Alexander Hamilton's Federalist 63. In it, Hamilton warns us, especially in the wake of an emotional event, to look to the rest of the world to measure the appropriateness of our response: An attention to the judgment of other nations is important to every government for two reasons: the one is, that, independently of the merits of any particular plan or measure, it is desirable, on various accounts, that it should appear to other nations as the offspring of a wise and honorable policy; the second is, that in doubtful cases, particularly where the national councils may be warped by some strong passion or momentary interest, the presumed or known opinion of the impartial world may be the best guide that can be followed. What has not America lost by her want of character with foreign nations; and how many errors and follies would she not have avoided, if the justice and propriety of her measures had, in every instance, been previously tried by the light in which they would probably appear to the unbiased part of mankind? Once again, the old adage "those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it" seems morbidly applicable. When speaking of perspective on the Iraq situation, I also have to look at people other than the president and his cronies. Senator Levin and Reed are currently sponsoring their wonderful amendment to withdraw from Iraq. Where was this sentiment in 2002-2003, when almost the entire Congress voted to go to war? Senator Clinton and Pelosi can find "aye" votes indelibly etched next to their names in the official record. These senators have explained that they were simply misled by an evil president who would stop at nothing to go to war. They would have us believe that the impending 2004 elections had nothing to do with them hedging their bets about Iraq. I wonder if they do so in good conscience? Is their spin so complete that they have convinced themselves, or do they carry moral baggage regarding their complicity in the greatest guerra-political disaster of our generation? I wonder... Unfortunately, even after the President and his staff, as well as Congress, there is still plenty of blame left. Republican political pundits carry some of the blame, but I believe that the "liberal" (mainstream) media carries more of the blame. One can almost excuse the pundits - they're nothing more than political tools. Bill O'Rielly, Rush Limbaugh, Jonah Goldberg, Hugh Hewitt, Bill Kristol, and the like are simply the bleating sheep in Orwell's Animal Farm. One derives greater disappointment from people like Gaddis, where "the costs" represent a simple soundbyte at the top of the page, while the article spends innumberable paragraphs recounting Bush's "grand strategy". A precious few - such as James Webb, Brent Snowcroft (in the WSJ, for God's sake...), and Noam Chomsky - were against the war from the beginning. They were mocked almost into marginalization at the time, but have been proven mostly correct since. And we all stood by, just like we were supposed to do. Where was our perspective when we needed it? Some of us may have had it, but to no avail - good luck finding a platform for alternative ideas that is significantly more visible than this paltry little blog.