One key demand is that of practicality. We expect our government to be competent in dealing with all happenings in the best way possible so as to prevent any avoidable toll on our daily lives. This claim ranges from the demand that the government safeguard our economy, to our requirement of it to provide security that is impenetrable against determined enemy forces.
Our other expectation of the government is that of idealism. Americans have very strong ideas, though not always the same ideas, of what this country stands for. From the conception of the United States as a beacon of freedom, to claims that we should demonstrate truth and morality, Americans' satisfaction with their government is greatly determined by how much they see their country living up to the ideals that they have been raised to believe it has.
This profound expectation of both competence and perfection of purpose forces the government to perform within very narrow bounds, often placing it in a position where there is no popular solution to a problem. Interestingly, this type of situation has come up with a possible bill having to do with Armenians in the early 20th century. This controversy began in an ironically innocent fashion. The Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) , which is an Armenian diaspora group, successfully lobbied a House of Representatives subcommittee to unanimously approve the suggestion of a bill that would condemn the Ottoman Empire for genocide committed against Armenian nationals during World War I. This simple declarative and non-policy-affecting bill had no problem gaining support in the House, with many representatives voicing support ahead of the possible vote. The measure was approved by the House Committe on Foreign Affairs and was to be formally brought before the House floor by Speaker Nancy Pelosi. But suddenly, this bill became a complicated matter. The government of Turkey, which had just begun to hear stirrings of this possible condemning gesture, took great offense at the bill as an attack upon Turkish culture and national pride, and threatened the U.S. government with retracting the use of its military bases and airspace for American forces in the region. Both of these threats, confirmed as very real by U.S. State Department Officials, would have a highly destructive effect upon the U.S. war effort in Iraq. In reaction to these threats, several members of the House, who had formerly been very supportive of this bill, have withdrawn support of having it brought onto the floor of the House, citing the fact that it would be a dangerous thing for U.S. forces if it were to pass and Turkey was to carry out these measures.
With this controversy, the U.S. government seems to be in a very precarious situation. If it puts this measure to the floor and it passes, the U.S. will have upheld its idealistic pursuit of truth, but it will have impractically put its own armed forces at risk. If the government folds under the pressure from Turkey and suppresses this condemnation, it will have the exact opposite problem, that of behaving pragmatically but not living up to the ideals that many believe America embodies. The only solution to this problem, one that in my view will most fulfill both of these expectations, is to bend to Turkish pressure and stuff this bill in a drawer, but to make clear the reasons why this is happening. The American people must be reminded-and this is where the media can be a part of this solution-that the only opposition to this bill did not come from any actual historical argument against the fact that the Ottoman Empire at that time committed an act of genocide.
The arguments for and against this bill have not been historical arguments about actual happenings but have been arguments about whether these happenings should be acknowledged by the government and the potential ramifications of such recognition. If this essential fact is brought to light to the American people as a whole, then there will be much less of a problem in understanding that this wasn't a question of basic morality but rather of conflicting considerations.
In essence, this kind of solution would actually be exactly what the ANCA was looking for when it lobbied the house subcommittee. The main grievance of the ANCA is that, unlike other genocides such as the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide has been greatly ignored by the mass media and historical intelligentsia of the West. By proposing this bill and creating controversy the ANCA has stimulated a great amount of public interest in this massacre and this interest will soon put the genocide into the realm of common knowledge.
Also, with the rejecting of this proposal, the government will have satisfied another demand, that of being a practical and competent entity. It is simply ridiculous to expect any government to put its armed forces in serious harm's way merely to settle a historical grievance whose results would not change in the least. The defeat of this resolution will guarantee that the U.S. armed forces in Iraq have every advantage possible, something that a government in a state of warfare should put very high on its list of priorities.
The fact that the citizens of this country have high expectations of their government is a good thing. Through these expectations the people of the U.S. ensure that the government will be pressed to do its job well, acting practically but maintaining a large degree of moral dignity and strength of purpose. But the general public must realize that sometimes the government cannot do both and that it must settle for the closest fulfillment of these expectations.