My point about Lincoln was that his unity slogan is often quoted out of context. He was urging unity in the name of spreading slavery, not abolishing it. Yet, the irony is that the march of events froced him to be the president who abolished slavery in the end.
As for Gore's use of revolutionary slogans in Malaysia, it was ludicrous because Gore obviously had no understanding of the meaning of the slogans he was mouthing, to the embarrasement of many Asians who have personal identification with the terms. Gore sounded like a Mafia boss preaching law and order to a dinner of officers of the law.
As for the new Germany and the new EU, it remains to be see how it will play out. Europe has a history of disappointing betrayal of progressive potentials. Yet, the unification of Germanys offer the potential that Germany will no longer to a mere proxy of American policy in Europe. The Red/Green coalition is promising, although there are reports that the German Social Democrats are already using the Greens to neutralize the radical left within the SD movement, with the encouragment of the capitalist right. The Greens can easily go the route of the Siera Club.
Henry
Daniel wrote:
> Henry,
>
> It doesn't really matter, but I feel that your comments on Lincoln are not
> fair. "United we stand. . ." was a policy that I never quite understood -
> until I saw what happened in Yugoslavia. My confusion over this was utterly
> foolish, of course, because what has happened in Y. has happened down
> through the ages countless times. Yet, I suppose it reflected the charmed
> life many Americans have lived in the Baby Boom Generation.
>
> It's my opinion that Lincoln's fixation on unity was never quite adequately
> explained, even in biographies of Lincoln and essays on the war. Of course,
> in some abstract way, it is always pointed out that the Americans saw
> themselves as avoiding the pitfalls of European disunity which their near
> ancestors had experienced with such grief. I at least never appreciated how
> deeply the European experience was embedded in the consciousness of the
> early Americans, or why?
>
> I live at the edge of a high mountain valley in Northern Nevada. Over the
> mountain lie the Carson and Washoe Valleys, places of extraordinary beauty.
> The landscape is gentle, and in the area just directly down from where I am,
> one can still just barely see life as it was lived for many generations in
> the American West. There are various "villages" (now being "developed"):
> Minden, Gardnerville, Genoa, Carson City itself. One only has to imagine
> what it would be like if Serbs lived in one, Croats in the other, and
> Muslims in the third. In fact, the look of the land, with high mountains
> surrounding on all sides is very like places we see in the newscasts about
> Yugoslavia. It only takes the right conditions to turn people into
> frightened beasts.
>
> Thus, Lincoln's "united" seems to me to be not in the least bit "perversely
> righteous" as you suggested.
>
> But, I'm more interested in what you are saying about the Germans, and the
> European Social Democrats, etc. (I confess I did not understand at all what
> you were saying about Gore and the Malaysians. I can't see but that the
> Americans NEVER, EVER, EVER favor democracy, at home or abroad, under ANY
> circumstances. Did the Americans favor (intentionally support and aid)
> democracy in the Philippines when Marcos was done? Is that what you are
> suggesting?)
>
> The policy of the Germans on NFU (No First Use of nuclear weapons) is an
> example of the most elementary form of self-interest. The early '80s in
> Germany was a time of hyper-fear for many Germans. They cannot fail to
> remember what they felt (people of all political persuasions) when Reagan
> decided to forward deploy more advanced theatre nuclear weapons, AND
> first-use-missiles on German soil. It was difficult to say no: that was the
> rationale of it. But, the rationale was leading to a nuclear sacrifice of
> Central Europe; indeed, I believe we came closer to that mishap than any of
> us will ever appreciate, for we are, every one, inured to the reality of the
> peril that faces us.
>
> As for China's desire for NFU, I can remember when China showed no apparent
> interest in developing nuclear weapons (we did, however, hear somewhat
> covertly about secret advances in China in laser technology, bringing the
> Chinese even closer than the Americans to developing significantly powerful
> laser weapons). That wasn't so long ago. In fact, I still find myself a
> little surprised to see how things are changing. I believe that every human
> being must call on every nation to unilaterally disarm without delay, and
> that goes for the United States AND China. Naturally, as you say, the
> principal obstacle to NFU is, and has ALWAYS been the United States. Even
> the Russians have always favored NFU.
>
> I'm not sure that you are suggesting that Social Democratic advances in
> Europe imply progress toward progressive "third ways" or something like
> that. It seems to me that your list of "prospects" are too bold, for in the
> uncertainties of the moment, how can anybody predict? Total collapse (your
> first prospect) is, without a doubt, always the logician's choice.
>
> Quincy