- #1
N_Quire
[SOLVED] Is America as Tolerant as we like to Imagine?
George Bush has shown himself to be an effective leader. He makes up his mind, sticks to his decision and keeps his team united along the way. He has experienced great success, so much so that he boldly talks to the world about freedom, democracy, tolerance, etc. Most of this is good, as I see it.
But there's a dark side too. Bush's simplicity, his use of us/them imagery, simple good/evil dichotomies, encourages intolerance of anyone who does not agree wholeheartedly with his government's outlook.
I am aware it is difficult to have a full and open debate when a war is going on, that criticism is seen as disloyalty to troops willing to sacrifice their lives, but surely a fully tolerant society should allow, even encourage dissenting voices to be heard. It doesn't make the war harder to win if folks such as Susan Sarandon, Martin Sheen, Tim Robbins and the Dixie Chicks woman are alalowed to say what they feel on TV and don't have to suffer for it as a result of commercial cowardice.
I backed the war, fully and completely. I think getting rid of Saddam was a great thing and a fine victory. But I think the treatment of war critics and protesters was very poor. They were denied a voice on national media (except at the very beginning before the war had started). Once the first shot was fired, all the networks became pro-war with virtually no balance. Hardly ever did they feature an Arab commentator, a critic or opponent. At most we got retired military who wanted a quicker victory.
America can be intolerant of diversity at times of crisis and that is frightening. It was a breath of fresh air to see the British Parliament energetically debating the war even while it was in progress, and no one can fault the commitment of Tony Blair nor the British miltary in assisting the Americans.
(Please don't tell me to go live in Syria. I am as pro America as they come but I do like Susan Sarandon
George Bush has shown himself to be an effective leader. He makes up his mind, sticks to his decision and keeps his team united along the way. He has experienced great success, so much so that he boldly talks to the world about freedom, democracy, tolerance, etc. Most of this is good, as I see it.
But there's a dark side too. Bush's simplicity, his use of us/them imagery, simple good/evil dichotomies, encourages intolerance of anyone who does not agree wholeheartedly with his government's outlook.
I am aware it is difficult to have a full and open debate when a war is going on, that criticism is seen as disloyalty to troops willing to sacrifice their lives, but surely a fully tolerant society should allow, even encourage dissenting voices to be heard. It doesn't make the war harder to win if folks such as Susan Sarandon, Martin Sheen, Tim Robbins and the Dixie Chicks woman are alalowed to say what they feel on TV and don't have to suffer for it as a result of commercial cowardice.
I backed the war, fully and completely. I think getting rid of Saddam was a great thing and a fine victory. But I think the treatment of war critics and protesters was very poor. They were denied a voice on national media (except at the very beginning before the war had started). Once the first shot was fired, all the networks became pro-war with virtually no balance. Hardly ever did they feature an Arab commentator, a critic or opponent. At most we got retired military who wanted a quicker victory.
America can be intolerant of diversity at times of crisis and that is frightening. It was a breath of fresh air to see the British Parliament energetically debating the war even while it was in progress, and no one can fault the commitment of Tony Blair nor the British miltary in assisting the Americans.
(Please don't tell me to go live in Syria. I am as pro America as they come but I do like Susan Sarandon