Every construct becomes a double edged sword when used in an
operation that contradicts the purpose for which it was designed. If the
construct is a physical conception such as a baseball bat or a bathtub, it can
be used as intended and do good things for its user or it can be used in a
manner that was not intended, thus hurt or kill its user or do the same to
someone else.
Likewise, a philosophical or moral construct can be used to
do good things, or it can be used to do bad things. Democracy is one such
construct that is both moral and philosophical. It can be used as intended and
do good things for its practitioner or it can be abused in a way that was never
intended, and result in causing bad things to its practitioner, and perhaps to
someone else as well.
For example, some things are not meant to be spoken in front
of a child by the parents because the child will most certainly repeat those
things in front of strangers. Likewise, every nation has secrets that must
never be debated in public lest they be used by domestic or foreign enemies to
harm the nation. And so, in a democracy where the right of the public to know
competes with the right of the nation to keep some secrets, the line separating
the two becomes difficult to draw in the best of times, and almost impossible
to maintain when the trust between the government and the press has diminished.
In fact, much has happened in America during the last fifty years
to diminish the trust between the government and the press with the unfortunate
side effect that the dispute has affected the public in a way that was
unexpected. Instead of engaging the public in a useful debate, the dispute
caused the nation to turn apathetic toward the whole business of disseminating
information. It stayed away from it altogether, leaving it up to the government
and the press to whip up a legal framework that may eventually benefit both parties
but do so at the expense of the public.
Domestic issues are usually the sort of concerns that can be
deal with easily unless they touch on a subject that involves national
security. But when it comes to a foreign issue, the subject has the potential
to cause heated debates because no matter how innocuous an issue may look on
the surface, it will always contain a national security angle. This can be seen
in the John Bolton article: “One Korea , one less problem,” published
in the Pittsburgh Tribune on March 15, 2014.
Of all the Jewish writers in the English language, John
Bolton has been for many years the most vociferous advocate of a hawkish
militaristic foreign policy. And he never shied away from saying that when it
comes to choosing between spending the available money on bread to feed the
nation, or spending it on guns to shoot someone abroad, he would choose the
guns any time, every time, all the time.
But time being a great teacher, it taught Bolton
the simple lesson that his kind of extremism was getting him nowhere and never
will. Thus, he softened his position by curtailing the emphasis on the need to
spend more money on armament, and by dropping the idea that America should
go it alone on every mission which aims to solve the world problems. If America must
have the support of someone, let them be members of the Western alliance such
as NATO. This being the rule, there is an exception to it as we shall see in a
moment.
It is that despite that lesson, Bolton 's
main preoccupation remains unchanged. What consumes him is that America remain mobilized at the highest level to
see to it that Israel
receives what it needs and more. But instead of saying so openly or advocating
the bombing of a neighbor such as Iran – which he used to do
incessantly – he now takes a longer run, and a more subtle one to make those
points. Thus, he advocates the involvement of China
in the effort to deal with North Korea 's
nuclear weapons so as to make the link with Iran 's nuclear ambitions –
something he does very deftly at the end of the article.
The old fire is still in his belly, however, and so he feels
compelled to land a punch bellow the belt to his nemesis, Barack Obama, early
in the article ... before proceeding with the rest of the presentation. He thus
asserts: “This childlike, willful blindness is especially misguided in Pyongyang 's case.” What
he does after that shows with absolute clarity (to everyone but himself) why
the so-called Western Liberal Democracies can only be in one of two states.
Either they conquer other nations and subjugate them, or they turn into warring
fiefdoms ruled by religious dogma and fantasy – something for the world to
laugh at.
Unable to grasp the simple principle that a big nation like
China may not like what it sees happening inside its North Korean neighbor and
still do little or nothing to change the situation, he fails to see the wisdom
in restraining the self because most of the time, interfering would lead to the
worst of all possible outcomes. This is something that the leaders of most
nations know instinctively except for the Western Liberal Democracies that have
tried to play policeman of the world, and got their noses rubbed in the mud
time after time.
And now that John Bolton has decided to deal with the
Chinese in an effort to incite them to turn against the North Koreans, he uses
the same approaches he has used on America 's politicians. He tells the
Chinese leaders they are doing the wrong thing, and he urges someone else – the
Americans Kerry, Obama, maybe even Bush – to tell them they are doing the wrong
thing. To that end, he reminds the Chinese that they “said repeatedly [they]
oppose Pyongyang 's
nuclear program.” And he shames them: “China
has done almost nothing to stop North
Korea 's weapons capabilities.” As to the
Americans, he says this: “Kerry's statements underline the unreality of Washington 's North Korean
policy. Neither Obama nor Bush pressed China
to do what it alone can do: put pressure on Pyongyang .”
Not realizing that this alone is enough to “turn off” the
Chinese leaders from wanting to hear the rest of his message, he goes on to
commit the biggest sin of all. He speculates as to what the motives of the
Chinese leaders may be in refraining from doing what they must do. In the
process, he may truly reveal some of the weaknesses that plague the Chinese
system, or he may only put those ideas “out there” for every pundit that has
nothing better to do, to exercise their “liberal democratic” right of adding to
the confusion.
As if to shatter your illusion that he could not do worse
than that, he does. He speaks of a split in the Chinese leadership along the
generational line – which is a no, no in a culture where age is venerated more
than anything else. Bolton put it this way: “many younger Chinese leaders
realize that North Korea
is no longer a strategic asset.” What do you believe the older Chinese leaders
will think of that?
He goes on to make a few more idle speculations to finally
come to his favorite part: “Considering both North Korea and Iranian advances in
nuclear technology and ballistic missiles, the worldwide proliferation threat
is rising rapidly.”
The worst part is that deep down, he believes he has
motivated the Chinese leaders enough to have them jump in front of the
television cameras and bark something to the effect that they will not allow
the North Koreans to cross this line, walk over that ridge or march across the
zone over there.