I was talking about this piece with my husband and he brought up this striking quote from Eisenhower, early in his Presidency:
“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.”
Eisenhower was no pacifist, of course; he'd been a general in WWII. But he had a strong understanding of the respect due to the tragedies of war. He also ended his Presidency with that famous speech warning about the dangers of the "military-industrial complex" and its political power. The political power of the arms industry is surely at least partly responsible for Shapiro's choices, here, as Jarvis Coffin notes. I don't think that's an excuse, though. Shapiro might feel bound to support his constituents and their industry, but this would not preclude him from nevertheless treating weapons and their deadly purpose in an appropriately sober fashion.
There’s something ephemeral and unreal about American opinions on foreign wars, like they’re championing a sports team or some fictional character’s romantic endeavours on a television show. Whether it’s Democratic sloganeering or David Sacks’ shitposting it’s all a semi-fictional ‘event’ to them that’s easily processed into culture war dynamics, and not something kinetic and physical. Nor does it really have to be, of course. The American dream is another continent, another world entirely.
The reality is that people in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia should be in command of their own destinations and not rely on American support that might vanish at any moment for reasons entirely unrelated to their local reality.
I don't think Shapiro and Haley are being hubristic by signing artillery shells. I think they're each cheering on their favored side in a war. And as an American who's delighted his country arms both Israel and Ukraine, I'm right there with both politicians in this case, even if they're also cynically playing to their supporters.
America is not unique among powerful nations in believing it has a moral mission. European imperialists thought they were civilizing the world. The Soviets thought they were waging a glorious class war. What arguably makes America unique is its belief that its values are universally applicable. If the thirteen colonies had lost, "all men are created equal" would have been forgotten. But they didn't lose, and despite knowing Jefferson didn't really believe in equality, many Americans can't understand a mindset that voluntarily rejects American-style freedom and democracy.
A challenge for Americans who (like me) want a moral aspect in our foreign policy is to fight for freedom, democracy, what have you, while understanding "the American way" is not the only valid and appealing way out there. The values in, say, the UDHR can be worth fighting for if they are American values but not universal ones. They weren't universal in 1948. The Soviet Union, Saudi Arabia, and South Africa didn't vote for them. Africans and Asians who were ruled by Europeans didn't get a say in the drafting. But if enough Americans believe in that or any other code of values, those values can be worth putting American power behind.
Being human, Americans will naturally sympathize with some peoples more than others. But that need not be inconsistent with a belief in freedom and democracy. If Americans sympathize with Israelis, Taiwanese, and Ukrainians rather than Chinese, Iranians, Palestinians, or Russians; if it arms those whose histories, cultures, politics, etc. it feels closest to; that's not mutually exclusive with wanting to make the world more liberal and democratic. It can mean a belief that the thriving of liberal democracy means the defeat of certain sides in certain conflicts. That was certainly the case with World War II and the Cold War.
I'm over my skis here, but I wonder if your cynicism comes from the fact that politicians have to adhere to a hierarchy of motivations/needs in order to stay elected, and this encompasses political decisions made by both Haley and Shapiro. Those decisions have a simple explanation: each has a narrative of good and evil that defines their moral trajectory and is the context for their motivations, such as signing munitions to kill the bad guys. But I agree that they will restrain themselves if they see it is expedient for their political survival because it outweighs their motivation to apply justice to some perceived wrong. Survival (perhaps justified as maintaining the chance to do good in the future) trumps the morality of the moment.
We are full of mixed motivations, and we'd do well to know which ones we hold highly enough to define our character, rather than our policy positions.
Maybe this is what makes a political actor great. It's the perfect storm of history aligning with narratives that requires little compromise in order to survive. I doubt either one of these politicians live in such times. I believe, at least, that Haley does not.
One thing is for certain. People of character do not usually make good politicians, something about compromise muddies the water too much for a virtuous hero... And we want those heroes in our stories, especially the American ones.
Nice note, Santiago, I can only speak for myself, but personally I thought it was idiotic and a bit grotesque. I would have no real problem with their doing it were these missiles aimed at an enemy we ourselves were fighting, but we are not in fact at war with Russia (nor should we be), and the whole business felt needlessly performative. At this point, anti-Russian sentiment seems to have become divorced from any actual consideration of what we ourselves want or don't want vis-a-vis Russia (I have joked before that many of the same or same kind of people who were doves during the Cold War have somehow morphed into anti-Russian hawks now that it’s over).
Whether it actually matters diplomatically (I suspect it doesn’t), this sort of stunt remains an expression of a kind of pointless bellicosity that makes one despair of our managing to conduct a serious public discussion of our national interests. My feeling here (as with many conflicts around the world—cf. the Middle East) is that these people really need to find a college football team to root for. It would offer a safer and healthier outlet for these thymotic outbursts.
I think the action of signing the shells is slightly different in each case and not too complicated. Haley is making her own moral statement. It is clear whose side she’s on and what action she believes is required. We decide for ourselves if she is right or wrong and vote accordingly. Shapiro has a different problem. He must confront that he represents arms manufacturers. Haley could condemn the war, but chooses not to. Can Shapiro condemn his constituents whose shells certainly find their way into every theatre around the world?
I was talking about this piece with my husband and he brought up this striking quote from Eisenhower, early in his Presidency:
“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.”
Eisenhower was no pacifist, of course; he'd been a general in WWII. But he had a strong understanding of the respect due to the tragedies of war. He also ended his Presidency with that famous speech warning about the dangers of the "military-industrial complex" and its political power. The political power of the arms industry is surely at least partly responsible for Shapiro's choices, here, as Jarvis Coffin notes. I don't think that's an excuse, though. Shapiro might feel bound to support his constituents and their industry, but this would not preclude him from nevertheless treating weapons and their deadly purpose in an appropriately sober fashion.
There’s something ephemeral and unreal about American opinions on foreign wars, like they’re championing a sports team or some fictional character’s romantic endeavours on a television show. Whether it’s Democratic sloganeering or David Sacks’ shitposting it’s all a semi-fictional ‘event’ to them that’s easily processed into culture war dynamics, and not something kinetic and physical. Nor does it really have to be, of course. The American dream is another continent, another world entirely.
The reality is that people in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia should be in command of their own destinations and not rely on American support that might vanish at any moment for reasons entirely unrelated to their local reality.
I don't think Shapiro and Haley are being hubristic by signing artillery shells. I think they're each cheering on their favored side in a war. And as an American who's delighted his country arms both Israel and Ukraine, I'm right there with both politicians in this case, even if they're also cynically playing to their supporters.
America is not unique among powerful nations in believing it has a moral mission. European imperialists thought they were civilizing the world. The Soviets thought they were waging a glorious class war. What arguably makes America unique is its belief that its values are universally applicable. If the thirteen colonies had lost, "all men are created equal" would have been forgotten. But they didn't lose, and despite knowing Jefferson didn't really believe in equality, many Americans can't understand a mindset that voluntarily rejects American-style freedom and democracy.
A challenge for Americans who (like me) want a moral aspect in our foreign policy is to fight for freedom, democracy, what have you, while understanding "the American way" is not the only valid and appealing way out there. The values in, say, the UDHR can be worth fighting for if they are American values but not universal ones. They weren't universal in 1948. The Soviet Union, Saudi Arabia, and South Africa didn't vote for them. Africans and Asians who were ruled by Europeans didn't get a say in the drafting. But if enough Americans believe in that or any other code of values, those values can be worth putting American power behind.
Being human, Americans will naturally sympathize with some peoples more than others. But that need not be inconsistent with a belief in freedom and democracy. If Americans sympathize with Israelis, Taiwanese, and Ukrainians rather than Chinese, Iranians, Palestinians, or Russians; if it arms those whose histories, cultures, politics, etc. it feels closest to; that's not mutually exclusive with wanting to make the world more liberal and democratic. It can mean a belief that the thriving of liberal democracy means the defeat of certain sides in certain conflicts. That was certainly the case with World War II and the Cold War.
I'm over my skis here, but I wonder if your cynicism comes from the fact that politicians have to adhere to a hierarchy of motivations/needs in order to stay elected, and this encompasses political decisions made by both Haley and Shapiro. Those decisions have a simple explanation: each has a narrative of good and evil that defines their moral trajectory and is the context for their motivations, such as signing munitions to kill the bad guys. But I agree that they will restrain themselves if they see it is expedient for their political survival because it outweighs their motivation to apply justice to some perceived wrong. Survival (perhaps justified as maintaining the chance to do good in the future) trumps the morality of the moment.
We are full of mixed motivations, and we'd do well to know which ones we hold highly enough to define our character, rather than our policy positions.
Maybe this is what makes a political actor great. It's the perfect storm of history aligning with narratives that requires little compromise in order to survive. I doubt either one of these politicians live in such times. I believe, at least, that Haley does not.
One thing is for certain. People of character do not usually make good politicians, something about compromise muddies the water too much for a virtuous hero... And we want those heroes in our stories, especially the American ones.
Nice note, Santiago, I can only speak for myself, but personally I thought it was idiotic and a bit grotesque. I would have no real problem with their doing it were these missiles aimed at an enemy we ourselves were fighting, but we are not in fact at war with Russia (nor should we be), and the whole business felt needlessly performative. At this point, anti-Russian sentiment seems to have become divorced from any actual consideration of what we ourselves want or don't want vis-a-vis Russia (I have joked before that many of the same or same kind of people who were doves during the Cold War have somehow morphed into anti-Russian hawks now that it’s over).
Whether it actually matters diplomatically (I suspect it doesn’t), this sort of stunt remains an expression of a kind of pointless bellicosity that makes one despair of our managing to conduct a serious public discussion of our national interests. My feeling here (as with many conflicts around the world—cf. the Middle East) is that these people really need to find a college football team to root for. It would offer a safer and healthier outlet for these thymotic outbursts.
I think the action of signing the shells is slightly different in each case and not too complicated. Haley is making her own moral statement. It is clear whose side she’s on and what action she believes is required. We decide for ourselves if she is right or wrong and vote accordingly. Shapiro has a different problem. He must confront that he represents arms manufacturers. Haley could condemn the war, but chooses not to. Can Shapiro condemn his constituents whose shells certainly find their way into every theatre around the world?