Toby's Unyielding Defense: 'They'll Like Us When We Win'
Plot Beats
The narrative micro-steps within this event
Andy challenges Toby's speech, asserting America doesn't hold moral authority over the Arab world.
Toby counters Andy's critique with stubborn logic, drawing a line between respecting religions and condemning extremism.
Andy accuses Toby's rhetoric of fueling anti-American sentiment, triggering his defiant 'They'll like us when we win' manifesto.
Toby's physical retreat against the wall underscores ideological intransigence as the argument reaches impasse.
Who Was There
Characters present in this moment
Frustrated passion laced with principled urgency
Andy passionately debates Toby in his office, wielding the U.S. Constitution to defend Islam's pluralism against the speech's rhetoric, accusing it of fostering hatred through American moral exceptionalism, repeatedly interjecting 'Toby...' to press her points amid escalating tension.
- • Persuade Toby to revise the inflammatory UN speech draft
- • Expose the risks of hawkish rhetoric alienating global allies
- • America lacks a monopoly on moral rightness
- • Reducing Islam to fanaticism violates pluralism and breeds resentment
Resolute defiance masking underlying relational strain
Toby stands firm in his dimly lit office, countering Andy's every critique with sharp defenses of the speech, insisting on naming fanaticism and institutionalized oppression, culminating in his iconic retort on winning respect and physically leaning back against the wall in resolute posture.
- • Defend the UN speech's bold rhetoric against dilution
- • Assert America's moral imperative to confront global threats
- • Fanaticism must be unequivocally named to combat it
- • Victory through strength earns international respect
Organizations Involved
Institutional presence and influence
Islam emerges as the rhetorical faultline, with Andy accusing the speech of reductive fanaticism labeling that violates pluralism, while Toby clarifies it targets only oppressive elements—not the faith wholesale—intensifying the debate on how to address institutionalized grotesqueries without blanket condemnation.
The United States is defended by Andy via its Constitution's protection of religious pluralism, countering Toby's speech for allegedly reducing Islam to fanaticism; this anchors her argument against moral arrogance, positioning U.S. foundational values as a bulwark against inflammatory global posturing.
America is invoked as the central moral actor in the heated debate, with Andy denying its monopoly on righteousness and warning of Arab backlash, while Toby champions its right to assert ethical superiority and act decisively against oppression, framing the rhetorical clash around national identity.
Narrative Connections
How this event relates to others in the story
"Toby's defense of the UN speech's aggressive rhetoric parallels his later ideological clash with Andy, both highlighting themes of power, diplomacy, and moral authority."
"Toby's defense of the UN speech's aggressive rhetoric parallels his later ideological clash with Andy, both highlighting themes of power, diplomacy, and moral authority."
Key Dialogue
"ANDY: "The U.S. Constitution defends religious pluralism. It doesn't reduce all of Islam to fanaticism.""
"TOBY: "It's fanaticism whether we call it that or not, so were going to call it that.""
"ANDY: "This is why they hate us.""
"TOBY: "There's a lot of reasons why they hate us. You know when they're gonna like us? When we win.""