Okay, my diary title is a little misleading.  But if I have got your attention, all of the items in the title are somewhat relevant to a wonderful op ed by James Carroll in today’s Boston Globe entitled Our war for ‘whatever’.   Regular readers here know that I hold a high opinion of the editorial pages of the Boston Globe, and I have previously focused in a diary on the work of Carroll, America’s Mortal Secret

Below the fold I will offer some selections with a comment or two.  As usual, I encourage all to go to the link above and read the entire column.

The opening paragraph, which set the tone:

A FEW years ago, while checking into a ”W” Hotel, I asked the clerk what the W stands for. She shrugged, ”Whatever.” The word so perfectly matched the insouciance of her manner that, for a moment, I believed her. The tossed off expression ”whatever” captures the mood of a contemporary minimalism, making it a fit inspiration for a mod hotel chain, where the understatement even of decor is itself overstated.

Let me offer an ellipsis which will include some selections from the third and fourth paragraphs:

We Americans of the early 21st century say something essential about ourselves by responding to a vast range of questions and experiences with the supreme offhandedness of ”whatever.” The word suggests indifference, lack of intensity, a refusal to commit, a rejection, above all, of conflict. The word proclaims a refusal to be responsible….

    At her court martial last week, according to The New York Times, Private First Class Lynndie R. England told the judge that when pressed to join in the humiliating of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, she responded by saying, ”OK. Whatever.” In that case ”whatever” consisted in an abandonment of human decency, but it assumed England’s prior abandonment of her own moral core.

Relating all this to the person of whom we normally think when we say “W”:

When President Bush announced the effective American abandonment of normal restraints in the global war on terror, he was saying, ”Whatever it takes.” Whatever we have to do. We will be bound by nothing but our own will, accountable to no one. Forget Geneva. In order to win, we will do whatever.

And now the brief next-to-last paragraph, which begins to connect “whatever” to Donald Rumsfeld:

When a youngster says ”whatever,” she implies she doesn’t really care. By now, in this unfolding tragedy, that is exactly what Rumsfeld has conveyed. Has he lost a night’s sleep? One of these days, he will announce his retirement, receive honors, and walk away, leaving wreckage in the wake of his service.

And the very last sentence, in which we can see the far broader connection.  Carroll notes that one would have thought that any sense of personal responsibility would have led to Rumsfeld’s resignation. But we have not seen that.  Why?  To me this sentence is somewhat scary.

But that assumes the idea of personal principle, which has itself been abolished in Washington, the city of whatever.

I have never been of the mindset that says the end justifies the means.   And I am certainly appalled by language that applies that there are no limits to where we will go or what efforts we will expend in pursuit of what we believe to be a justifiable end. In fairness, such expressions are bi-partisan.  We often remember negatively Godlwater’s expression in is acceptance in San Francisco of the 1964 Republican nomination,

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

.   And yet we seemingly do not react so negatively to a quote that I find quite similar in JFK’s inaugural address in 1961:  

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

Having expressed my concern at absolutist language of any kind, let me make clear that my negative reaction to such language does not mean that I am unwilling to make sacrifices, incluidng ultimate sacrifices.  Nor do I think it improper for our leaders to use language to inspire us and to put on notice those whose opposition might represent a threat to safety and peace.  

I offer this diary not to come to conclusions, but to perhaps inspire some to reflect upon how we use language, both in formal addresses such as the two I have just cited, or on everyday expressions, such as the “whatever” around which Carroll builds this op ed piece.

I invite conversation.