Obliviousness is not a belief system / p m carpenter

[Demeter]

http://pmcarpenter.blogs.com/p_m_carpenters_commentary/2007/06/obliviousness_i.html


There was a time when world leaders probably thought that George promoted muscular unilateralism because he believed, rightly or wrongly, in muscular unilateralism. It has its pros, it has its cons, but after weighing both, the "uni" was distinctly advantaged over the "multi" in this complex and cross-purposed world, so he opted for the uni. In other words, George had actually put some thought into the matter. But comments made and intentions revealed at the G8 meeting this week surely have advertised toworld leaders that there's no such underlying reasoned-out system of belief or charted course of analysis that led to the one over the other in George's thinking. Rather, George is simply out of it, awash in the smallest of small worlds, one in which his sandbox is quite literally the only sandbox that counts. If one wishes to call it a belief system, fine; but it's that of a toddler's, who, because of limited reasoning capacity, simply can't see that he and his needs aren't at the center of the universe and that others have real needs as well. George's demonstration of this "thinking" at the G8 came fast, furious and compacted -- and it must have left the others flabbergasted.


First, "the White House effectively derailed a climate change initiative backed by one of President Bush’s strongest European allies, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany" -- a blatant derailing that sent both nations careening onto entirely different tracks. George, however -- and I'm now convinced he said this with utmost sincerity -- publicly observed that any such characterization of derailment would be a "gross distortion."


While he was at it, blindly and further alienating the world, George also lectured Russian President Vladimir Putin that the missile defense system he wants to plop down in Russia's backyard is nothing for Vladimir "to be hyperventilating about." Now, the U.S. may have regarded Russia's installation of missiles in Cuba way back when with something less than equanimity, but I question if George honestly reflected on this incongruity, or that it even came to his mind.


Yet, right smack in the middle of all this unilateralist thinking, George launched against his fellow leaders a devastating critique of -- what else? -- their shortsided, insulated, indifferent national self-interest, that being the backbone of rugged unilateralism. "I'm frustrated that the international organization can't move quickly enough" on Darfur, he said. "I don't know how long it's going to take for people to hear the call to save lives. ... Enough is enough."


Was George being hypocritical? No, not really, not if he's intellectually incapable of comprehending just how stupendously hypocritical his hypocrisy is. Others see it and can't help but trip over it -- it is, after all, a hypocrisy that announces itself with banners, skyrockets and the Marine Corps Band -- but George is oblivious, even guilelessly oblivious, to its every strand...It must have been this toddler-like obliviousness -- the very opposite of any reasoned-out worldview -- that nurtured George's unilateralism. Nothing else so nicely accounts for its artless puerility.