There are the things that one believes that one is "part of the mainstream of the United States' opinion." There are others that one has to admit--at least to oneself--that one is not part of the mainstream at all, and secretly or not so secretly believes the United States to be so broken as to be incredible.
I am sure I have many of these latter items, but the two I'm willing to admit in my blog are soccer (upcoming post) and honor. I don't often link to Harper's articles because I figure people see them on the Harpers blog, but this one by Walter Lippman is really nice.
I feel weird saying it, but I take honor very seriously--I am not baffled by, although I adamantly
condemn, some of the honor-related behaviors that to most in the US seem incomprehensible such as honor killings of relatives and the suicides of military officers or corporate executives. Honor is an internal force that almost 'pushes' men to behave in ways that seem "inconvienent, unprofitable, or dangerous." We live an age when even the most trivial of inconveniences (cutting a turkey without electrical power!) is considered intolerable and so honor has taken a dramatic downturn. I cannot say that this for the worse, as there are men whose honor is taken to extreme of harming others. I still feel a twinge, though, when I see people who act without any concern for honor.
My disgust at the Bush administration is, in truth, at the harm that they have done to the honor of the United States. Although I would like to claim that my humanitarian credentials are polished by my sympathy for the victims of torture, I can't say that this is my primary problem with the torture issue. (I don't think anybody should be treated that way and I do have sympathy for the victims, it's just not the primary issue.) We gave our word to the world about how we would behave and through some of our darkest times and under incredible strain--World War II and Vietnam--we behaved honorably.
Clinton certainly did damage to the honor of the United States, and the office of the president, by renting out the Lincoln bedroom, getting involved with an intern and then twisting the truth ("is is") when asked about it under oath. That said, he was never forced to answer questions about his governments breaking of the Geneva Convention by members of our press; members of the press outside the US have already decided we are in violation and don't bother asking. Clinton's behavior hurt his honor a great deal in my eyes, but did only a little damage to my passport. Now, under Bush, I'm looking for ways not carry navy blue through international airports.
I feel humiliated, my honor offended, at the very idea that the POTUS is forced to discuss whether various interrogation procedures are torture or not. Under any other administration the answer would be "I will not dignify that question with a response." Now, we have an administration with teams of lawyers to argue if method X or method Y or method X+Y is over the line. Further, they conceal the very discussion from the American people.
I continue to be flabbergasted that the US Military's senior officers--men who take honor with the gravest concern--have not all resigned in disgust, and perhaps disgrace, and serving under this commander.
