Clinton as UN Secretary General?
Over the years, there have been secretaries-general from Europe, Asia, Latin America and Africa, but never from North America. Add to that fact the interesting detail that the U.N.'s towering Secretariat Building on Turtle Bay (First Avenue and 42nd Street to New Yorkers) is more than 50 years old, crumbling and is overdue for rebuilding. That takes money — the kind of money only the long-suffering U.S. taxpayer can give, plus a cash-grabbing fund-raiser.Add one more fascinating fact: a well-known (notorious to most of us) American is looking for the secretary-general's job — William Jefferson Clinton.
[...]
Now, here is the truly frightening aspect — the fix is in. There are reports that Bill Clinton already has lined up support for his candidacy from Germany, France, England, Ireland and New Zealand. A handful of African states, led by Nigeria, are rooting for Bill. And Hillary has brought in Morocco and Egypt. The Russians have let it be known that they would not object to Clinton as the next secretary-general, and the Chinese love Bill almost as much as Monica did.
In Latin America, Ecuador and Brazil's new labor-loving, rabble-rousing populist presidents are Bill's type of politician, and in Asia, many Indian leaders think warm and fuzzy thoughts about the former U.S. president.
I think I'm going to be sick.
Bill recently told the Democratic Leadership Council, "We don't have to be more liberal, but we do have to be more relevant in a progressive way." To that statement, he added his new doctrine: "When we look weak in a time where people feel insecure, we lose. When people feel uncertain, they'd rather have somebody who's strong and wrong than somebody who's weak and right."
My emphasis.
I'm nauseous especially after reading that. What else needs to be said? It's both a damning reflection of political crassness and lack of moral integrity and a depressingly accurate example of today's mass movement culture. My only consolation is in Paul Wolfowitz's recent comments about the declining relevance of the United Nations, which I consider accurate. It would be simply stunning if Clinton got the lead spot in the UN, but it would be sweet indeed if he ascended to find an organization weakened, crumbling, and unable to enact the anti-capitalist regulation it wishes to.
Via SK Bubba.
Comments
clinton would rock the world with peace. if you think his private sex life is more relevant to US and world politics than peace, maybe you are the one who needs to think about your morals.
Posted by: kate | October 21, 2004 09:34 PM
Kate, I don't give one damn about who Bill Clinton in sexually involved with, where it happens, or the details of what happens. It certainly shines a light on the quality of his character, but there ARE more important things than cheating on your wife.
Such as the ideas behind the statement that I italicized: "When people feel uncertain, they'd rather have somebody who's strong and wrong than somebody who's weak and right." I find that attitude repugnant. It reeks of authoritarianism and state-worship; worse, it represents a direct assault on reason. Clinton may defend himself by saying it is the public who believes such things, but he repeats it here ( http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=106&subid=122&contentid=251216 ) without criticism and implicitly supporting the idea that the Democratic Party should take note of it and accommodate what it means. I find that just as disgusting.
No one man can keep the world peaceful without resorting to raw coercive force against other people, thereby violating the very nature of what that person wants to accomplish. Clinton may have great communication and political skills, but as long as the United Nations is a superficial club for all nations on the planet that seeks to impose its will on the citizens within those nations, it'll never accomplish the admirable mission to keep countries from fighting each other.
Posted by: Drizz | October 22, 2004 01:32 PM
Has nobody seen the pro-global capitalism aspect? With Bill Clinton as Secretary-General of the UN, there's likely to be a friendly merger (or takeover) with these United States once his wife becomes the next American president. I expect the last hurrah of the current plutocrats to be known as USN (the United States and Nations).
Posted by: Arkhipov | October 22, 2004 10:38 PM
Drizz,
If you cannot interpret the meaning of Clinton's remark about strength and weakness, you must be out of your mind. First of all, he is talking about the US election and the reasons why people vote for Bush instead of Kerry. It is not only totally unrelated to Clinton's potential as the UN Secretary General, it also has nothing to do with authoritarianism. If I had your address, I would send you a dictionary.
Mark
Posted by: Mark Andriesse | December 10, 2004 09:23 AM
Mr. Andriesse, if I recall correctly, Senator Kerry announced his bid for the Presidency on September 2, 2003. Bill Clinton's remarks were made many months before that on December 3, 2002 and the article I referenced above was adapted and posted on February 11, 2003. Calendars are cheap and useful, dude. Let me know if you want one.
However, that is irrelevant to my central point. Unfortunately for me, it turns out I may have been wrong after all...just in a different way. Here's the quote in its entirety:
"Without a strong position on national security, Democrats won't be listened to on other issues. We cannot overestimate the psychological impact of Sept. 11. Pulling together after the attacks, the American people felt a deep need for unity and strength. When people feel uncertain, they would rather have somebody who's wrong and strong than somebody who is weak and right.
That's why Democrats bear just as heavy a responsibility to unite the nation on national security as does the party in the White House."
After reading this closer, it appears to me that he was actually referring to President Bush and Republicans as "wrong and strong" rather than calling for the kind of starkly authoritarian system I railed against previously. If so, then I assumed too much from the original op-ed's out-of-context quote. My apologies.
On the other hand, I'm still right regarding the real-world implications of that quote.
Imagine a "strong but wrong" leader in the White House. Let's say he's objectively wrong on national security but has the political power to get legislation and regulation changed to follow his agenda. Assuming that by being wrong he'll do more harm than good and multiplying that by the natural reticence his opponents will have in the face of strong popular support, you can begin to get the picture of the society I fear. People are more likely to muffle their criticism and shush others' when they are motivated by fear, want near-term security, and look to someone who says he'll put an end to the former and provide the latter. That sets the environment for all manner of government abuse of our freedom that otherwise wouldn't get further than the planning stage.
See what I mean? And when I mentioned this being a direct assault on reason, I meant it in the frame of people preferring the incorrect, the illogical, and the nonsensical over the correct, the logical, and the sensible. My original stance remains. I was just wrong about who the target was.
Posted by: Drizz | December 10, 2004 10:40 AM