Author Article Directory

Having good intentions may or may not be a good thing. Often good intentions remain only that; most good intentions are not followed up with action and therefore are of no real value. That seems to be the fate of countless good intentions in this world. Sometimes that works out for the best.

Good intentions that are followed by action may lead to positive outcomes or may be implemented with absolutely disastrous results. There is nothing automatically favorable about good intentions. The best of intentions often lead to the worst results. It really depends on what is intended and the appropriateness of the intention in the first place.

Good intentions on a grand scale (usually conceived and carried out by politicians ) that are followed up by action are usually the brainchild of do gooders. The problem with do gooders is that they tend to measure what should be done only by what they feel should be done from their own narrow biased point of view.

The values and cultural beliefs of those that they are trying to help may be completely cast aside. The do gooders think that they know best what is best for others. This assumption invariably turns out to be wrong and can cause considerable grief, disappointment and major big league trouble.

Let’s use Woodrow Wilson, the twenty-eighth elitist two term President of the United States (1913-1921) as an example. Before entering the political world Wilson was an academian, serving as the President of Princeton University. Wilson often receives high ratings from others in academian as an outstanding American President. Fancy that.

Based upon his record as a do gooder does he really deserve high marks? You be the judge.

Wilson took America into World War I as a war promoted at home as a war worth fighting “to make the world safe for democracy.” He coined the phrase of fighting a “war to end all wars”. Wilson believed that by bringing America into World War One that he would build a basis for peace that would prevent future wars and needless future death and destruction.

 

No doubt that he had good intentions. And wanted to build a lasting legacy for himself. It seems to me that Wilson’s decision to involve America in an European war was at least partially responsible for the deaths of millions of combatants and civilians as his action prolonged the war. To cause millions of people to be killed and maimed in the present in order to prevent an unknown amount of possible future deaths was IMHO a questionable, if not crazed decision. 

But then I have the luxury of hindsight, with almost 90 years of follow on history to examine, so perhaps making such a definite statement about events in 1917 that must have seemed to be terribly threatening at the time is a bit unfair.

No doubt Americian participation in World War One caused the war to drag out longer than need be. We supplied unending convoys of ship loads of war materials long before sending in our troops. We then loudly complained when Germany attacked our supply ships. Wilson pushed for a clear “victory” rather than for an negotiation even when it appeared that the war weary Europeans were ready to negotiate.
I do find the politicians use of sound bite phrases like “making the world safe for democracy” and “stay the course” and “winning with honor” and “the only option is victory” a bit depressing. Especially, when they are coming from the mouths of elitist do gooders who have never felt the heat of combat themselves.

In order to curb what he called “defeatism” at home Wilson supported the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 to suppress anti-British, pro-German, and anti-war opinions. Thus in “making the world safe for democracy” he suppressed free speech and the right of people to exercise their democratic rights at home. During this time he also pushed for deportation of people that he and he alone perceived as being foreign-born radicals. Sound familiar?

Between 1914 and 1918, President Wilson caused the United States to intervene in Latin America, particularly in Mexico, Haiti, Cuba, Nicaragua and Panama. The U.S. maintained troops in Nicaragua throughout his administration and used them to select the president of Nicaragua. The US also occupied Haiti between 1915 and 1934 and Wilson’s man with the assistance of US troops was made President of Haiti.

After World War One ended Wilson was instrumental in the formation of The League of Nations although the United States did not join the League due to resistance in the US Senate. He was activity involved in the draft and approval of The Treaty of Versailles, where the harsh terms of that treaty directly lead to a horrible hyper inflationary spiral in post war Germany, the destruction of the German middle class, the emergence of Nazi Germany and Hitler, and World War Two.

All of the above historical events occurred as a result of “good intentions”on the part of Wilson and other politicians of the day.

Wilson’s foreign policy sought to reconstruct the world to “make it safe for democracy”. That means, I suppose to make the world more like America and those pesky, ungrateful, ignorant, stupid, foreigners more like Americans.

When the world resisted, perhaps having other ideas as to what should take place within their own borders, Wilson thought that it was perfectly acceptable to use pressure, and military force if need be, to act upon and to implement the United States good intentions. Thus our legacy of being the policemen of the world wss born.

History does have a way of repeating itself, doesn’t it?

I believe that President Bush and his neo con buddies had and still have the best of intentions, however misplaced they may be. I do wish that the powers in the Bush administration had studied and learned a few lessons from the “Do Gooder” presidency of Thomas Woodrow Wilson prior to invading Iraq. I suppose the mission is now to make Iraq safe for democracy. At least for now. Or is it shifting to declairing victory, shaking hands, saying good luck, and getting out? We will soon know.
The unintended unpleasant consequences of the neo con “libration” of Iraq, with the ensuing rapid destabilization of conditions in Iraq and the entire region are far from playing out.

The legacy of Bush’s do gooder presidency is looking increasingly grim. But what do you expect? Do gooders who operate on a grand scale have a terrible track record. Just read a few history books.

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!