“Sacrifices On The Altar Of Freedom”?


From David Foster Wallace:

Just Asking

Are some things still worth dying for?

Is the American idea one such thing?

Are you up for a thought experiment?

What if we chose to regard the 2,973 innocents killed in the atrocities of 9/11 not as victims but as democratic martyrs, “sacrifices on the altar of freedom”?

In other words, what if we decided that a certain baseline vulnerability to terrorism is part of the price of the American idea? And, thus, that ours is a generation of Americans called to make great sacrifices in order to preserve our democratic way of life—sacrifices not just of our soldiers and money but of our personal safety and comfort?

In still other words, what if we chose to accept the fact that every few years, despite all reasonable precautions, some hundreds or thousands of us may die in the sort of ghastly terrorist attack that a democratic republic cannot 100-percent protect itself from without subverting the very principles that make it worth protecting?

Is this thought experiment monstrous? Would it be monstrous to refer to the 40,000-plus domestic highway deaths we accept each year because the mobility and autonomy of the car are evidently worth that high price?

Is monstrousness why no serious public figure now will speak of the delusory trade-off of liberty for safety that Ben Franklin warned about more than 200 years ago? What exactly has changed between Franklin’s time and ours? Why now can we not have a serious national conversation about sacrifice, the inevitability of sacrifice—either of (a) some portion of safety or (b) some portion of the rights and protections that make the American idea so incalculably precious?

In the absence of such a conversation, can we trust our elected leaders to value and protect the American idea as they act to secure the homeland? What are the effects on the American idea of Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib, Patriot Acts I and II, warrantless surveillance, Executive Order 13233, corporate contractors performing military functions, the Military Commissions Act, NSPD 51, etc., etc.? Assume for a moment that some of these measures really have helped make our persons and property safer—are they worth it?

Where and when was the public debate on whether they’re worth it? Was there no such debate because we’re not capable of having or demanding one? Why not? Have we actually become so selfish and scared that we don’t even want to consider whether some things trump safety? What kind of future does that augur?

Pass along without comment. H/T Charlie.


Sean Paul Kelley September 11, 2009 - 12:42pm
( categories: Ruminations )

Let me say, right up front, that if some other country invaded mine, I would be the first to fight for my country.

This post wants us to assume a kind of innocence in all of this but., the United States and its people are not innocent. We are being attacked because of our Democracy. What a crock! We the people are responsible for maintaining our Democracy and we have not done that. Most people do not vote, most people can tell you more about their favorite ball team than American politics. They will happily sit down and watch a two hour ball game but choose their presidents based on 20 second TV spots.

Now, because the American people refuse to participate in their Democracy, the US government invades other countries for its own interests. It invaded Vietnam and lied about its purpose; we know this because of the Pentagon Papers. How many people out there have read the Pentagon papers and understand their significance? We know that the United States government lied about its reasons for invading Iraq. What was the true reason? Dick Cheney will not reveal what was discussed in his meetings with Oil executives before 9/11 but there is reason to believe that Iraq was a subject:

Found among the documents, according to a July 18, 2003, Associated Press report, were “a detailed map of Iraq’s oil fields
.
Is this the Pentagon papers for the Iraq war?

Just who are we fighting in Afghanistan? I don't remember the Taliban having a part in 9/11. In fact it was Saudi citizens who perpetrated the 9/11 attack but the US did not attack Saudi Arabia. No we attacked Afghanistan, the most strategic, geo-politically speaking, country in Central Asia, we installed a government whose president is a former consultant to UNOCAL.

So what is the question again? Oh yeah, would I choose to die for this shit? I don't think so.

---------------------------------------------------------------
We need a NATION WIDE STRIKE for Real healthcare reform

Joaquin September 11, 2009 - 2:24pm

..The Taliban were sheltering Bin Laden and Al Quaeda, and I s'pose Bush/Cheney assumed Mullah Omar would never surrender Bin Laden and al Zawahiri to the USA, so decided to directly assist the Northern Alliance in restarting their rebellion and help them drive out the Taliban.

Quite possibly the only rationale Bush/Cheney used that I still don't have much of an issue with. Now, *staying* in Afghanistan........that's different. We should have been out of Afghanistan before 2003, IMO....

-5.75,-4.05
"God gives men a brain and a penis, and only enough blood to run one at a time." -- Robin Williams

justadood September 11, 2009 - 4:25pm

Invading a country to get one person? Ten persons a 150 persons? Even a few thousand persons is nuts. Never happened before; it is a lie plain and simple.

We need a NATION WIDE STRIKE for Real healthcare reform

Joaquin September 11, 2009 - 4:51pm

only said I had no problem with the decision at the time.

These days, I think maybe it was an excuse...a way to try to justify the plan (held all along) to invade Iraq. The Media didn't play along and gin up the desired connection between AQ and Saddam, though....

-5.75,-4.05
"God gives men a brain and a penis, and only enough blood to run one at a time." -- Robin Williams

justadood September 11, 2009 - 5:37pm

...as you stated so well; it presupposes innocence that doesn't exist. Our country/government has been the recipient of blow back from a long history of corrupt and hypocritical foreign policy. And now we are paying too high a price with our smooth slide into our own unique form of fascism; which is no less vile than the historical/textbook version.

www.iauthorbooks.com
http://iauthorbooks.blogspot.com/

Celsius 233 September 12, 2009 - 2:45am

Sacrifice for national integrity is a reality. It can be motivated for love of country, fear, or a choice of the lesser of two evils. For example, the Russian people had reasons to despise Stalin yet they fought heroically against invading Germans, Italians etc. in World War II. They didn't need liberties to protect to motivate them to victory. They had revenge, fear of a worse oppressor and other reasons to sign up and fight.

David Foster Wallace said:

"Why now can we not have a serious national conversation about sacrifice, the inevitability of sacrifice—either of (a) some portion of safety or (b) some portion of the rights and protections that make the American idea so incalculably precious?"

The notion of human sacrifice is certainly provocative, especially when the humans are not selected on any rational basis. They are certainly not volunteers. It is a slippery slope ending up with Aztec sacrifices which were justified to preserve the state. It's a topic worthy of discussing mainly for the purpose of debunking exceptionalism and other strange notions like "the American idea so incalculably precious?"

It would be vastly preferable to be in a country that actually reflected the values of the vast majority. Full and open debate on any of the military incursions that have made us targets of "blowback" would have resulted in us staying home rather than blowing up people and property overseas. Then the question Wallace asks would be moot.

Michael Collins September 11, 2009 - 3:44pm

...it might be worth while comparing the figure to other instances of loss due to enemy action in US history. Looks a lot less benign when expressed in terms of "How frequent an occurrence of D-Day equivalents is the cost of doing business?"

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

JustPlainDave September 11, 2009 - 5:21pm

They are to keep the privileged 1%, mostly unAmerican ones (let's face it, you only get to be in the top 1% by stealing from many fellow Americans), where they are.

creativelcro September 11, 2009 - 5:42pm

...types aboard when the towers fell.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

JustPlainDave September 11, 2009 - 6:19pm

Sacrifice more every year than 9/11.

Should we should declare cars weapons of mass destruction and invade Detroit?

Synoia September 11, 2009 - 6:37pm

I think some things are still worth dying for.

Yes, the American idea, as in liberal democracy, intellectual libertarianism and the rights as laid out in the Bill of Rights, is such a thing. I include in this the continual expansion of those rights, contra the “Original Intent” canard espoused by Federalist Society. I believe it was James Madison who said something to the effect that the Constitution was meant to be a continuing argument, read “Living Document.”

In debates with right leaning acquaintances, when the previous administration was trying to justify warrantless wiretapping, I made the precise argument that part of the cost of freedom was accepting the small risk of being killed or injured in a terrorist attack in exchange for not living in a police state. I often see the bumper sticker “Freedom isn’t free” unfortunately the assumption seems to be that it is those in the military that have to pay the price and the rest of us just have to sport the bumper sticker. The military doesn’t give us rights or protect rights, we as citizens demand our rights and if we succeed it gives the mission of the military meaning. If we give up our rights out of fear then what is the meaning of the sacrifice of those in the military?

Be assured, fellow citizens, that in a democracy it is the laws that guard the person of the citizen and the constitution of the state, whereas the despot and the oligarch find their protection in suspicion and in armed guards. ~ Aeschines 389–314 BC

Karl der Grosse September 11, 2009 - 8:38pm

Living a positive vision of society is much harder.


"The best-informed man is not necessarily the wisest. Indeed there is a danger that precisely in the multiplicity of his knowledge he will lose sight of what is essential."

- Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Escher Sketch September 11, 2009 - 11:23pm

Joaquin says:

"Let me say, right up front, that if some other country invaded mine, I would be the first to fight for my country."

and David Foster Wallace said:

"Why now can we not have a serious national conversation about sacrifice, the inevitability of sacrifice—either of (a) some portion of safety or (b) some portion of the rights and protections that make the American idea so incalculably precious?"

Here's the rub:

No big Evil Bad Guy is invading us outright and trying to sack our cities, rape our women, and steal our children for slaves. Of course, the obvious response is to fight back.

No, the invasion we are suffering is a hidden, insidious "you don't see the symptoms until the disease is already progressed" kind of attack, and the attack is coming from within, by our very elected officials and those who place glorification of the self and greed above allegiance to ANY nation or people.

And it is disguised cleverly with clothes of fake patriotism and advertisements and PR campaigns meant to appeal to our fear of being attacked. They have realized that it is possible to whip up a suitable level of anti-bad guy emotion without the inconvenience of an actual invasion, and then use that emotion to generate support for passing legislation that takes away our freedom and further divides our society into haves and have-nots.

September 11th served the purpose of these forces in our society. They galvanized the public with exactly the level of fear and revenge consciousness needed to start jerking our freedoms and press on with the rape of the American economy.

Again, this is being done by people who wear the clothes of championing democracy.

That's why we don't see it. We are all in the place of outraged citizens who have been ripped off when the circus came to town, and all we can muster is afew concerned citizens who are deftly handled by smooth-talking businessmen and political types when they object.

So we don't fight for our country because 1. we aren't being obviously invaded by a Ghengis Khan of some type, and 2. most people cannot identify the the true source of the problems our system has become bogged down by, and therefore do not know what to do, or even whom to resist.

Thjis reminds me of a friend I had who died a few years ago from cancer. He was a former Delta force veteran, a man who was thoroughly trained, in top shape, and able to counter just about any type of external threat to his well-being.

But he could not win against the cancer within.

That is what's happening to Uncle Sam.

yogi-one September 12, 2009 - 12:56pm

I have been thinking about a post along these lines too; the true threat is from within. Thanks for saying it so well.

We need a NATION WIDE STRIKE for Real healthcare reform

Joaquin September 13, 2009 - 2:38am

www.iauthorbooks.com
http://iauthorbooks.blogspot.com/

Celsius 233 September 13, 2009 - 3:08am
Lasthorseman September 13, 2009 - 8:54am

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.