But How Can We Remember You If You Won't Let Us Forget?

So it seems that Guy Fawkes is not going away any time soon. As most everyone knows by now, on Nov. 5, libertarian GOP candidate Ron Paul's supporters launched a money-bomb fundraising campaign, inspired by the image of Fawkes from the 2005 movie V for Vendetta. As Jacob T. Levy (who I just discovered) explains here, this is more than a little weird, and heavily ironic.

I was never a fan of V, mostly because I don't accept that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter: the definition of terrorism as use of force/violence either against or to cause terror in a civilian/non-combatant population in order to influence state policies is well established, and condemned as a crime by most major moral traditions. Like murder, terrorism is by definition wrong.

Ironically, the premise of the comic makes sense, and, in spite* of the torture, it raises excellent questions about the role of governments, the meaning of patriotism, and the protection of liberty. But all of that is lost on an American audience, and so we end up with a libertarian using a terrorist as a campaign gimmick.

And in light of all of this, I'm doubly glad Washington banned Guy Fawkes Day celebrations- both in protest to the actions of the British monarchy, and also because the alternative seems to be honoring a terrorist.


(Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan)

*There can never truthfully be an 'in spite of' with regards to terrorism- once it enters the picture, all moral legitimacy is lost

Guy Fawkes, American Exceptionalism and Good PR

I wrote in the Federalist Paper No. 3 entry that Americans have long characterized ourselves as 'exceptional' and repeatedly rejected the practices and politics of Europe. Yesterday (Nov. 5) was Guy Fawkes Day, a holiday in Britain celebrating the foiling of a Catholic plot to blow up Parliament in 1605. However, Fawkes' torturing, and the anti-Catholic propaganda employed by the monarchy eventually tarnished the holiday, leading George Washington to ban its celebration in the US. All very noble, democratic, rights of man, etc., right? Perhaps not.

The Corner at the National Review discusses the reality of the situation: Washington wanted the friendship of the Canadians (hmm, especially since we wanted the British out of the neighborhood- dangers of foreign force and influence possibly?) and since the Quebecois were all Catholic, celebrating 'Anti-Pope Day' might not have been very politic.

So again, its not necessarily that American leaders can be any less realist than Europeans, its just that they're expected not to be- although, really, I'd say they're victims of their own success. A brilliant professor of mine once said that words create reality: if we say that we are idealist and above realpolitick, then we will be, even when we're not. Contradictory and confusing? Of course, but that's human nature for you.

(I stole the picture and got the links from AndrewSullivan.com. I hope he doesn't mind)