I find myself in a meta-moral dilemma I think many others are in. On the one hand I am deeply troubled by both President Obama’s use of drone warfare (as I have said before) and now his justification for killing American citizens he deems a potential threat to national security without due process. I find these two policies to be morally repugnant, not to mention potentially dangerous to our standing in the world and our personal liberties. For our government to conduct them in our name makes me sad and angry. If this is the kind of country we have become out of fear, then the terrorists have managed to damage our moral character as a nation, a victory we should not have allowed them to win.
All governments justify immoral actions in the name of national security. What, then, makes us different? As far as I can see, nothing. So when the government of Syria kills its own people, when rebels in Somalia or the Sudan kill indiscriminately, by what moral standard or authority do we raise objections? The answer is none. The use of torture, and now these policies, have stripped away from our nation any claim to taking the moral high ground in international relations and conflict. These actions by our political leaders have diminished us a people, made worse by the fact that we are a democracy. They do what they do, and we elect them again anyway. George Bush served two terms as president. Barack Obama will as well. I think the actions of our government for the last twelve years represent the real moral decline of our nation.
At the other end of my moral dilemma, however, is the fact that while I find President Obama’s war policies morally repugnant, I feel the same way about the kind of criticism he has had to endure since taking office, especially from people who claim to be Christian. These people – religious and political – have shown themselves to be dishonest, racist, and mean spirited in their attacks on him. And make no mistake, their attacks have been and are directed at him, not his policies. From the day Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) yelled “you lie” during President Obama’s 2010 State of the Union address, he has experienced a level of personal disrespect unparalleled in modern American history. These attacks have been so relentless and outrageous as to fit the category of “shameless.”
This level of disrespect he has endured sickens me to the point where I am tempted to push aside my moral outrage at his war policies. These people simply hate President Obama as a person. So when I criticize his policies I feel like I am unintentionally lending support to a group of people for whom I have nothing but contempt. I don’t believe they give a damn about this country. But I do, and I believe President Obama does, so how can I stand up for what I believe in without throwing weight behind people whose words and actions represent the worst about this country.
That is the moral quandary all of us face who support many of his other policies, but cannot ignore the ones we find so morally unacceptable. I understand that no one does everything you like, but the moral outrage these specific policies stir up cannot be ignored either. At the same time. the personal attacks to which the President has been subjected are scandalous. So does criticizing the former represent de facto support for the latter? What does a citizen do in a situation like this?
I invite you to give your answer.
linnposts.com 
You can only do what you just did. I feel the dilemma as well, but blind support is as dangerous as blind opposition. Call ’em as you see ’em. (Not that you have trouble speaking up!)
I agree with everything you are saying, but I also resented all of the personal attacks on George Bush during his 8 years; it offended me that so many made fun of our President and in such a hateful way. I don’t believe in blind support, but what was gained by all of the degrading references to our President?
Good post Jan, I think only a Pollyanna would agree with everything the people we support do, but the opposition to everything Obama by the right is racism pure and simple.
I have little to add that has not already been said but to agree that the blanket rejection of President Obama’s policies is clearly motivated by racism as are the offensive personal attacks which are the cream of the crop of the current political incivility being spouted by the right wing “entertainment media.”
THANK YOU JAN…for once again clearly stating the dilemma most of us feel toward the Obama Administration. I believe him to be the President we need at this point in time but the issues you lift up are the same ones that trouble me.
It’s call DEMOCRACY…and it’s called POLITICS.
You make some valid points about “US”(and U.S.), and I think you hit the nail on the head with regard to the personal attacks on Obama.
To your first point: we are ‘going down the rabbit hole’, so to speak, and it isn’t good. But here’s where I take an alternate path. You are writing on the here and now, but our planet is filled with the history of societies whose lofty ideals and words did not match their deeds. The only difference between then and now is technology used to accomplish the task.
What seemed to be a ‘wonderful invention’ at the time, morphed into the unimaginable……just ask Alfred Nobel or Albert Einstein. The Politicians and the politics found justifications for its use…. and the masses bought it – for the most part. If your article was written in 1945, Harry Truman and Hiroshima would have been the subject matter and your blog (did they have blogs back then? Technology is the culprit!) would be just as relevant. However, at the end of the day it does boil down to ‘killing a few to save many’ (relatively speaking)…. still morally repugnant, but a necessary evil – with a wide margin for error.
Like it or not, we are in a war, unconventional by definition, but a war none the less. The use of an atomic bomb to ‘out’ insurgents would be really repugnant today – on all fronts…. but, in our hearts and minds we can deal with drone strikes….. because it’s the lesser of two evils.
As General Patton once proclaimed, “You don’t win a war by dying for your country. You win a war by making the other son-of-a-bitch die for his.”
And so it is, whether it’s a sworn foreign enemy, or the domestic within – we walk a fine line for all our rights and liberties.
Having said this, we can come to the conclusion that both sides have a point, neither is completely correct…. but at least we can raise awareness.
OK… I’m off the soap box!
I’d point out that almost all wars are for profit; for the banks, for the corporations, and stand by the points WW I Major General Smedley D. Butler stated in the 30s: “There are only two things worth fighting for, the defense of our homes and the Bill of Rights.” Not that we don’t have real enemies but, I’ve said this before, 911 was a “false flag”, an inside job for the benefit of the billionare class! So, any messages that have to do with critisizing the presidents policies which are morally wrong, trounce on the constitutiuon and brush aside international law must be spoken. Critisize the action, not the person.
Also, we don’t really understand the president’s environment. Lawrence Wilkerson, aide to Gen. Colin Powell, who authored his famous WMD speech at the UN, spoke on Democracy Now yesterday about how all the preidents operate in a “bubble” in Washington. Only his top advisors have the greatest access to him and other voices, often more balanced ones, have a hard time informing and influencing him. I think there is something to that. I’d hate to be in any of their shoes. Too many people with skewed interests tugging at that “cloak of power”, not enough ordinary folks. It was bad in Butler’s day and bad now. Now seems to be almost irretrievable. I hope not. Keep speaking out; every one!