A conversation with historian Robert Dallek

with Robert Dallek
in Current Affairs
on Friday, January 21, 2005 * * * * *

Sorry, this video isn’t available at the moment; please check back soon.

play

E-mail this video:

Distribute this video:

Share on:

Close
Description

A conversation with presidential historian Robert Dallek about his impressions of President Bush's first term and what he expects will follow in next four years of the Bush presidency.

Video Share Options
Share
Buy Amazon DVD
Keywords:
President Bush
historian
Bush first term
Bush administration
Robert Dallek

In order to download Charlie Rose podcasts to iTunes for transfer to an iPod, you must have iTunes installed. If you do, please click the following link to download the podcast for this interview:

itpc://www.charlierose.com/view/itunes/1080

Otherwise, close this window to continue viewing.

Close
  • Comments 1
    Post new comment
    1. Pierre  05/16/2007 12:06 PM Report

      "Americans" do believe that to be American is the true accomplishment of human nature, since the values on which their country is founded are intentionally humanistic, universal and natural (in the philosophical sense). The fact that the US, as the rest of Americas, is a country made by immigration makes that idea credible, that the US is the place for human beings to be. What the â??Americansâ?? do not realise adequately is that they have their own specific culture, besides their common human nature, and that this more important to what they are that they may think. For one, if people around the world, sometimes, may share some or many of the â??universal valuesâ?? of the â??American peopleâ??, it is certainly true in the West, they do not necessarily want to embrace the whole â??Americanâ?? culture. There are in all likelihood many ways or forms in which these values can be expressed. To be an â??Americanâ??, culturally, is one way among others, not worse but not better than others. For two, having humanistic values which pretends to be universal, having good intentions in this matter, does not have as a necessary consequence that ones truly understand the complexity of human nature and of human culture. The error is not to seek for those universal values, and even dedicate the ideals of a nation to that quest, but to think they are already found and well understood, ready to be brought to the rest of the world as a â??divineâ?? gift. There is a great difference between proposing a way to be human, through generous ideals, and imposing a standard way to be human, moreover if it goes as far as shaping humanity according â??American standardsâ??. US is not resented, except by a few, because they proposed, in their ways, generous humanistic values, and hopefully practice those values. US is generally admired for that. But it is resented when it does not practice those values it pretends to practice and/or it is resented when it tries to impose its own standards to others (as if it owns Godâ??s standards or simply universal truth). What I mean is beware of not moderating the expression of your valuable ideals beyond what you can truly represent for others, i.e. not the perfection, not the only way to be human, not the only valuable culture on earth. What you are for us is not decided by you. For the better or for the worst it is like that. Sometimes I wonder if this will to bring democracy to the rest of the world result from a true care of others fate or if it comes from a desire to strengthen yourself in the validity of your ideals, like a kind of self-reassurance of your own value and may be like a re-assertion of your right to be in the world (as the Declaration of Independence has founded). Probably both. Unfortunately we, in the world, do not consider ourselves as your â??faire-valoirâ??, hostages of US needs of self-reassurance and re-assertion.