David Harsanyi: Sorry, history just ain't that easy
[David Harsanyi is an award-winning columnist and an editorial board member at The Denver Post.]
It's fun to be idealistic in a world of moral absolutes. I know, I'm a columnist. But when we start discussing history, things always seem to get complicated.
Jon Stewart of "The Daily Show"learned this recently when debating the Foundation for Defense of Democracies president Cliff May about the harsh interrogation techniques administered during the Bush administration.
When May asked Stewart if he also considered Harry Truman a war criminal for dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the host said yes. A few days later, however, Stewart apologized for his blasphemy, saying Truman's decision was, in fact, "complicated."
Things were indeed complicated. They are always complicated.
That's the point.
Please don't get me wrong: For numerous reasons, I'm ecstatic that the United States triumphed over the forces of jackbootery during World War II. But staking moral claims on old wars is a bad idea for either side of this debate.
In fact, if President Barack Obama believes, as he recently stated, that the nation had "lost its moral bearings" under his predecessor, he will have a hard time defending any presidency.
After all, if waterboarding is a war crime, the dropping of an atomic bomb on a couple hundred thousand innocent civilians surely deserves some serious consideration for rebuke. At the very least, it's a fair topic for discussion.
Just as surely, Franklin Roosevelt's presiding over the destruction of Dresden and incinerating 30,000 to 40,000 civilians in mere days is at least as terrible as long-term sleep deprivation.
If Bush deserves war crime status for holding terror suspects in Guantanamo Bay (which Obama has yet to close), then we can safely say that FDR merits more of a historical lashing for the forced internment of 100,000 Japanese-Americans to "war relocation camps."
If Bush is a war criminal for denying terror suspects habeas corpus, then what is one to make of Abraham Lincoln suspending habeas corpus for all American citizens during the Civil War? Or of President Woodrow Wilson, who backed the Espionage Act that forbade Americans from using "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" about the government?
Because, if we buy the argument that the ends never justify the means, we can't give presidents a pass. If you argue that the times and morality have evolved, that situations have changed, or that some causes are greater than others, then you're offering up distinctions and you should accept some, as well...
Read entire article at Denver Post
It's fun to be idealistic in a world of moral absolutes. I know, I'm a columnist. But when we start discussing history, things always seem to get complicated.
Jon Stewart of "The Daily Show"learned this recently when debating the Foundation for Defense of Democracies president Cliff May about the harsh interrogation techniques administered during the Bush administration.
When May asked Stewart if he also considered Harry Truman a war criminal for dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the host said yes. A few days later, however, Stewart apologized for his blasphemy, saying Truman's decision was, in fact, "complicated."
Things were indeed complicated. They are always complicated.
That's the point.
Please don't get me wrong: For numerous reasons, I'm ecstatic that the United States triumphed over the forces of jackbootery during World War II. But staking moral claims on old wars is a bad idea for either side of this debate.
In fact, if President Barack Obama believes, as he recently stated, that the nation had "lost its moral bearings" under his predecessor, he will have a hard time defending any presidency.
After all, if waterboarding is a war crime, the dropping of an atomic bomb on a couple hundred thousand innocent civilians surely deserves some serious consideration for rebuke. At the very least, it's a fair topic for discussion.
Just as surely, Franklin Roosevelt's presiding over the destruction of Dresden and incinerating 30,000 to 40,000 civilians in mere days is at least as terrible as long-term sleep deprivation.
If Bush deserves war crime status for holding terror suspects in Guantanamo Bay (which Obama has yet to close), then we can safely say that FDR merits more of a historical lashing for the forced internment of 100,000 Japanese-Americans to "war relocation camps."
If Bush is a war criminal for denying terror suspects habeas corpus, then what is one to make of Abraham Lincoln suspending habeas corpus for all American citizens during the Civil War? Or of President Woodrow Wilson, who backed the Espionage Act that forbade Americans from using "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" about the government?
Because, if we buy the argument that the ends never justify the means, we can't give presidents a pass. If you argue that the times and morality have evolved, that situations have changed, or that some causes are greater than others, then you're offering up distinctions and you should accept some, as well...