"Third, we could, while denouncing them both as illegal, have acquiesced in them both and thus remained neutral with both sides, although not agreeing with either as to the righteousness of their respective orders"
About this Quote
The line is the sound of a statesman refusing the seduction of “neutrality” as a moral alibi. Norris sketches a tempting option: condemn two opposing actions as illegal, then quietly accept both anyway to keep diplomatic balance. It’s a neat rhetorical trap because it exposes how a government can launder complicity through procedure. You can file the protest, stamp the disapproval, and still cooperate in practice - all while claiming your hands are clean.
Norris’s intent is diagnostic, not merely argumentative. By laying out the third path in calm, almost bureaucratic syntax, he mimics the very mindset he’s criticizing: legality reduced to paperwork, ethics reduced to posture. The phrase “although not agreeing…as to the righteousness” does extra work. It separates law from righteousness, then shows how leaders exploit that gap: if you can say “illegal” out loud, you can treat the underlying violence as someone else’s problem.
The subtext is a warning about political centrism under pressure. “Neutral with both sides” sounds prudent until you hear what it requires: acquiescence. Norris is suggesting that neutrality isn’t an absence of choice; it’s a choice to preserve relationships, markets, and strategic convenience while pretending to occupy higher ground.
Contextually, this is classic Norris: a progressive-era Republican, fierce on civil liberties and skeptical of imperial swagger, speaking in an America repeatedly tempted to manage foreign conflicts with carefully worded objections and quietly continued cooperation. The sentence is long because the evasion it describes is long - an escape route built out of clauses.
Norris’s intent is diagnostic, not merely argumentative. By laying out the third path in calm, almost bureaucratic syntax, he mimics the very mindset he’s criticizing: legality reduced to paperwork, ethics reduced to posture. The phrase “although not agreeing…as to the righteousness” does extra work. It separates law from righteousness, then shows how leaders exploit that gap: if you can say “illegal” out loud, you can treat the underlying violence as someone else’s problem.
The subtext is a warning about political centrism under pressure. “Neutral with both sides” sounds prudent until you hear what it requires: acquiescence. Norris is suggesting that neutrality isn’t an absence of choice; it’s a choice to preserve relationships, markets, and strategic convenience while pretending to occupy higher ground.
Contextually, this is classic Norris: a progressive-era Republican, fierce on civil liberties and skeptical of imperial swagger, speaking in an America repeatedly tempted to manage foreign conflicts with carefully worded objections and quietly continued cooperation. The sentence is long because the evasion it describes is long - an escape route built out of clauses.
Quote Details
| Topic | Justice |
|---|
More Quotes by George
Add to List
