Reading the very interesting linked article reminded me of a line of thinking I was pursuing with some fellow arm chair philosophers. It adds a degree of poignance that was lacking in my case to the others.
For the sake of argument, let’s say that the Bush administration is everything my most lefty friends might have characterized them as… imperialist, fascist torturing [insert your favorite disparging noun here] who demolished any semblence of civil rights we enjoyed in the States. I don’t want to get tangled up in the validity of that, we’re just accepting that as a hypothetical.
That would lead me to belive one of the three must be true about the Obama administration:
1. They are complicit in the numerous acts of villainy. Now in full possession of all knowledge of the former administrations dark deeds, they do nothing. Perhaps even continuing the deplorable acts.
2. They are powerless against the [insert favorite secret society or other shadow government here]. The reason the current administration cannot pursue the crimes of the former administration is that whoever really possesses power is preventing them from doing so.
3. It is not politically expedient to pursue those issues. There is an economy to fix and that is the first and foremost issue. It wouldn’t be possible to succeed so why diminish the chance of a second term? There are plenty of reasons why it may not be politically expedient. But if we’re hypothetically talking about fascist, imperialist war criminals doesn’t morality demand that action be taken regardless of what’s convenient?
Granted this is a substantial over simplification, but that iss exactly what this is… a hypothetical model simplified to get to the core of the idea: How do we characterized the current administration’s action relative to its rhetoric?
I’m always the “Socratic Agnostic”, so don’t look for me for any answers. What do you think?