The intelligentsia, history, and the existence of evil intent
Ruth Dudley Edwards has written an article that appeared in the Telegraph, entitled “Sleepwalking With the Enemy.” It’s about the tendency of so many in the West, especially the intelligentsia, to make excuses for and downplay the threats of Islamist fundamentalist totalitarians such as Iran’s Ahmadinejad.
Her personal background, as she outlines it in the article, positions her to see things a bit differently than some of her colleagues in the British writing world:
I grew up in the Republic of Ireland under an authoritarian religion that bossed about submissive governments; as a British public servant, I saw the damage done by pusillanimous jobsworths; as an historian of the 1930s, I learnt how the wishful thinking of the deluded intelligentsia helped Hitler and Stalin; researching a book on the Foreign Office I came to understand the limitations of a diplomacy that believes the best of everyone; and fascination with the wilder shores of Irish republicanism that I encountered at my mad granny’s knee led me subsequently ”“ as a journalist and campaigner ”“ to spend many years in intellectual combat with militant Irish republicanism, struggling, with some success, to understand the terrorist mind.
Another example of how personal history colors our political outlook. But the part that really caught my attention was this, her description of her experience studying that instructive first draft of history, the newspaper:
When I left the public service, researching and writing the biography of the publisher Victor Gollancz, creator of the Left Book Club, and then a subsequent history of The Economist, made me realise how many clever people are fools…I read enough Times and Economist leaders written by Oxbridge double-firsts welcoming the encouraging signs of statesmanship emanating from Herr Hitler to disillusion me forever about the wisdom of the commentariat: the default mindset is still to resist the notion that evil exists and that when bad people say bad things, they may just mean them.
It does appear that there’s often something about the intelligentsia that makes them especially hobbled in seeing the existence of evil intent. And I say this as a person with some experience in academic life. Perhaps it’s some combination of the rather protected lives many intellectuals lead, the insular bubble in which they live; the hegemony of multiculturalism, and postmodernism with its moral relativity; the sincere desire for the world to be at peace, and the need for psychological denial in order to believe that goal is achievable–and, unfortunately, another factor one should least expect in academics, ignorance of history.
the default mindset is still to resist the notion that evil exists and that when bad people say bad things, they may just mean them.
This reminds me of a visit I had as a teenager in the 1970’s with an elderly Dutchman named Max.
Max talked about his life, which was a fascinating capsule of European history. He had served in the bureaucacy of the Dutch navy in the 1930’s, and wound up working in the Royal Navy after the Germans invaded Holland in 1940.
I was entertained and respectful of his age and experience, but not so much so that I did not, eventually, interrupt with a question that had begun gnawing at me during his narrative.
“OK, so you were in the Dutch government during the 1930’s,” I said. “Didn’t your country feel threatened by Hitler’s rise?”
No, Max said. “Back then, that was not at all how it seemed. We all thought that Hitler was so good for Germany. The Germans had got a bad deal from the Versailles treaty, you know? So they were depressed, they were resentful, and their economy was a complete disaster. And that spread out through Europe, what was bad for Germany was bad for all of us littler countries, you see? But with Hitler, they had their pride back, their economy was recovering, they were a good trade partner, we all benefitted. What was good for Germany, was good for Europe.
“Oh, we all knew he had this thing about the Jews,” — this accompanied by an apologetic hand wave, “but everyone has their strange obsessions. But overall, Germany was so much better, and they made a better neighbor, you know?”
Max shook his head, as if still puzzled. “Then all of a sudden he just went crazy and started conquering people.”
“But, but,” I spluttered, “he wrote all of that, I mean about acquiring territory, ruling Europe, in Mein Kampf! It wasn’t exactly a spur of the moment decision!”
“Yes, of course,” Max allowed, “but who could take that seriously?”
Oops.
I think the moral of the story is that when a head of state, or maybe any ideologue with a following, says he wants to kill or conquer you, you had best take him at his word.
I blame it on the movies. “Willful suspension of disbelief,” and all that.
Our resident leftie commenters, TC and Wild Rice will no doubt be chiming in on this one…with posts that absolutely, concretely prove the worth of Neo’s thesis. After all, I’ve been having this same conversation about Hamas and Israel in the comments on the “Neocons” thread below for days.
From Matthew Yglesias (http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2007/02/at_their_word/)
The only problem with this principle is that it’s totally nuts. For one thing, is there a reason we take threats at face value but not other kinds of statements? Presumably we don’t, as a rule, take all statements made by foreign leaders at face value. We don’t do this for the same reason we don’t, as a rule, take all statements made by people in general at face value: Sometimes it serves people’s interests to lie. If it sometimes serves people’s interests to lie, this applies to foreign leaders as well. It applies to both the threats and the non-threats of foreign leaders. You should always, obviously, take into account what people are saying to you. In general, however, and especially in international politics, it rarely makes sense to evaluate statements at face value.
To take an example, when George W. Bush promised to “end tyranny” as a general phenomenon around the word, should the People’s Republic of China took his threat to overthrow their government at face value? Launched a pre-emptive nuclear strike? Of course not. That would be stupid. People say things for all kinds of reasons — responses need to be tailored to the actual situation, not to remarks others utter. What’s more, think how easily foreign leaders could push us around if they knew all threats would be responded to as if they were 100 percent credible.
There is a corollary, which Some Guy alludes to. Bush’s statements are taken very seriously, for example, when he identified his ‘Axis of Evil,’ and when he declared other nations are either for us or against us. He received huge amounts of criticism for these statements, and particularly the ‘for us or against us’ line is blamed for losing the US support.
On the other hand, when tyrants make even wilder statements, like Israel will soon cease to exist, their statements are written off as mere rhetoric.
This has been a clear double standard for years now. One which should, if it exists at all, be reversed.
Some Guy, part of the answer to what statements we take seriously is to look at the situation, as you suggest. The fact that Bush is head of a democratic state and needs to get a lot of people to agree with him before he can take major actions should actually give him a much wider latitude for rhetoric. We understand that he can’t just up and nuke China; he doesn’t have that power.
On the other hand, the fact that Ahmadinejad is the mouthpiece for a small group of oligarchs who only need to decide amongst themselves, in secret, to carry out any policy whatsoever, would indicate to me that we take his statements very seriously. The mullahs could very well decide their messiah is imminent so they can freely nuke Israel at any time. They don’t need to have public debates before Congress, they don’t need anyone’s permission, and they don’t have to answer to anyone or face impeachment for carrying out genocidal policies or acts of national suicide.
And when the leaders of Hamas say “there is no Israel” and start lobbing rockets, it’s pretty fair to conclude they mean what they say.
Khruschev said “We will bury you”…it didn’t happen, but not for lack of trying.
I always thought that the intelligentia’s problem was (1) craven fear combined with (2) ingrained condescension. They were so afraid of the Nazis’ savagery that they tried to impute more statesmanship to it than warranted, in hopes that this fawning attention would give Hitler more self-esteem and mellow him out.
Honestly, I still hear people talk this way about the enemy–treat them like decent people and they’ll start acting that way. What really happens is they take you for a fool.
The problem with identifying evil is that then you have to do something about it, usually something unpleasant, difficult, and often requiring the Ultimate Sacrifice.
It’s much easier to pretend that it’s No Big Deal, that they’re just thumping their chests, or that they’re such a tiny minority they don’t matter. Hit the snooze button on 9/12 and go back to sleep.
If you haven’t read it already, I’d recommend Paul Johnson’s “Intellectuals”. An entertaining account of some of the more prominent intellectuals on the Left.
I’ve known many of the “better people” liberals for a long time. They are more like the Stupidigentsia.
There’s a darker side to it, which one also sees in histories of the 1930s. Intellectuals seem to be fascinated by, and not a little attracted to evil. There’s the guilty fun of silencing people rather than engaging them in respectful debate. There’s the nihilistic pleasure in vicarious violence against one’s own society. There’s the practically hard-wired worship of the physically strong by the physically weak.
All of which apply just as much now as in Hitler’s day.
SG: … responses need to be tailored to the actual situation, not to remarks others utter.
Remarks uttered are part of the actual situation, and that’s why actual threats need to be taken at face value. Bush didn’t threaten to overturn the government of China, and if its government took his remarks about ending tyranny to be referring to themselves that’s simply their own guilty conscience speaking. On the other hand, Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and countless other mideast actors have repeatedly threatened to destroy Israel, and have also tried to do just that, repeatedly. What should actually be done about such threats is another matter, and will vary according to the actual context — but one thing that should not be done is to ignore or dismiss them.
I work hard and try to better myself. It’s a foundation of conservatism: self reliance and self-improvement.
It seems to have made me an intellectual. While I’m not a professional scholar, I’m an expert in my field.
I’m conservative. I am concerned with national security. Apparently I’m also a self-made member of the intelligensia.
Ms. Neocon, with respect I point out that you could be considered one of the elites in your field. It’s sad that in today’s language, that sounds like an insult.
I’ve worked hard to get where I am. I don’t feel I need to apologize for it. Conservatism isn’t about sneering at the “elites.”
You mention an ignorance of history among academics; I respectfully point out the fate of Poland’s intellectual patriots of World War II.
OV, if you hang around I think you will find neo of similar mind.
I wonder often about this, and pick up what I can about it. Chris Hitchens’ book on Orwell has been illuminating.
I wonder how much the overvaluing of talk and negotiation as a foreign policy strategy comes from the intelligentsia’s wishful thinking that their skills would have higher status in such a world. Guys used to come up to the band and say “y’know what would really be great in your band is a harmonica/cello/glockenspiel.” Oh really? Let me guess. You play the harmonica/cello/glockenspiel.
AVI, ever try a mandolin?
Let’s see how this wierd train of thought goes: Sting actually said something profound once(only one that I recall) in a song: “The thing that will save me and you; I hope the Russians love their children, too.” Considering how the Islamists incite their young to martyrdom and deliberately place them in the line of fire for propaganda and sympathy, just how much are we going to rationalise to ourselves that they want peace as much as we do? Or that it’s our fault for callous “collateral damage”?
Also, as to Bush and the Tyranny quote, yes China has very much taken it to mean that. Not only that, but I also believe that was the meaning of the words.
However, with them it is a culture “war”, not a war where we fire bullets, rockets, and bombs at each other. We are doing so by selling them our culture and goods that increase their populaces ability to not be bound by the govt and learn about the rest of the world (things like cars, the internet, and even American branded clothes – which are amusing enough probably made in china) while not selling them items that allow the govt to oppress (planes, tanks, bombs, etc).
Of course, people prefer to think of it as profiteering and some of it certainly is (none of the companies that sale good we allow over there are doing so for altruistic reasons). But this will not be the first country we have done this too, nor do I think it will be the last. Once we get an open society in then we go into full profiteering mode and sell planes, tanks, bombs and such.
Unfortunately this is another program that will go by the wayside if the Dems get their way. At the least, one would assume so since selling/giving weapons plans to them and other dictatorships in return for promises not to use them was the position of the Clinton administration and the current complaints about taking such a hard cowboy like stance.
I don’t think the problem lies with academics, neo. I think the problem lies with the culture and inner decay of the West.
Book had a post on Iran and I put up a comment on the subject I speak of here
i once had the privilege to interview Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic. When he was introduced to me as an ‘intellectual’, he immediately waved it away “Oh no!” he said “All intellectuals are leftists.”
Neo says, for example, that ‘intellectuals’ were seduced by the allure of Hitler and Stalin. Maybe some were, but they were hardly alone. Hitler didn’t exactly fill his rallies with literature professors, and Stalin didn’t get the ‘intelligentsia’ to sacrifice themselves by the millions for his Soviet Union.
In more modern times, anyone who cares to read the history of postwar Iraq will find the Green Zone full of bright young go-getters for whom everything was theoretical and whose complete detachment from reality contributed in large part to the mess we have on our hands today.
“how many clever people are fools…”
Resonate strongly with Orwell famous notion that “only intellectuals can be so stupid”. This tendency to flirt with totalitarian ideology is not restricted to Western intellectuals or modern society. It was clearly seen in 19 century Russian educated class. This is universal phenomenon, I believe. University education and disconnection from common sense and popular cultural tradition predispose to utopian thinking.
The Leftwing intelligentsia seems to thrive on the assumption that it is shielded from the consequences of its ideas. As those of us that dwell in the trenches of the real world know full well, it’s the mistaken “assumptions” at the foundations of our ideas that eventually do us in.
“The Leftwing intelligentsia seems to thrive on the assumption that it is shielded from the consequences of its ideas. ”
Think think if they still can have their fine wine, books and sex, it’ll be okay and maybe entertaining to watch the destruction of the West.
But they can take all that away too.
No, Hitler didn’t fill his rallies with literature professors, and intellegntsia weren’t the ones who sacrificed themselves for Stalin; the intelligentsia never sacrifice themselves for any of the causes, or dictators, they persuade the rest of us to support.
The intelligentsia, however, acted quite effectively as aplogists and propagandists for both Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Russia. Many of them knew about what was going on in the Ukraine, and the truth about the famines in Soviet Russia, but kept quiet about it, because they wanted so desperately for the “People’s Paradise” to work (despite the obvious fact that it wasn’t.) Take a look at the inglorious career of Walter Duranty, writer for the influential N.Y. Times.
As for Hitler—go to google or clusty.com, type in “Eugenics movement”, and see how closely tied the Eugenics movement—which was very popular and widely supported by the intelligentsia, scholars and scientists of the time—influenced, and even supported, the Nazis.
I don’t understand your last paragraph at all. Are you being sarcastic? Are you saying that the blame for Iraq lies not with “bright young go-getters” (whoever you mean by that) but with the troops fighting there? (Who, I guess, by your definition, can not be bright, but only mindless tools of war?) Clarify, please.
My above was addressed to LA.
Don’t be silly, TK. What I meant was that, after the capture of Baghdad and the establishment of the CPA, control of the temporary government was handed over to enthusiastic young types from the Heritage Foundation and similar groups who believed they were going to re-make Iraq (the world’s oldest culture being a blank slate) as a shining model of neoconservative ideals, with free markets, privitization of everything, and American can-do spirit. And, since the Green Zone was (relatively) secure, orderly, and full of American comforts, they never felt the need to go out and examine what effect their policies were actually having.
As for the soldiers, so far as I know they didn’t have any control over such things, and can hardly be blamed for the failures which followed. My remarks were directed at the civillian leadership.
I could multiply this example if I needed to. My point is that blind idealism isn’t the sole provision of the Left that Neo seems intent on making it out to be.
The term “intellectual” shows us the problem. Intellectuals distance themselves from problems and intellectualize them so that they become abstract, bloodless constructs that they can then analyze and play with. The real blood on the floor, the stink of intestines and cordite and the wailing of those left alive that may result from their ideas put into practice is not something they think of or usually ever experience. They are quite happy, I am sure, to be at a great distance from the results of their intellectual play and since they never see the results or manage to shield themselves from them, they are very easily able to deny that these results would occur or had ever occurred.
Some Guy | 02.12.07 – 2:56 pm | #
“To take an example, when George W. Bush promised to “end tyranny” as a general phenomenon around the word, should the People’s Republic of China took his threat to overthrow their government at face value? Launched a pre-emptive nuclear strike? Of course not.”
Actually, China does understand that if by some action, with reasonable costs, that the US could overthrow the government of China… that the US WOULD indeed take the action. Ergo, China’s military and government do see the US as their primary threat… which is a logical and rational conclusion IMO…
And, as an American, btw, that is something I’d support (overthrowing the totalitarian government of China if the opportunity came up)…
When we discussed matters such as sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs, we touched on the physical courage, or its lack, among lefties (sheep).
It’s worth hitting again.
For one thing, denying that an obvious enemy is an enemy means that the idea of having to fight him goes away. If having to fight terrifies you, this is a good thing. In the short run.
When I used to attend college football games (Big Ten) in the student section, I was struck by a difference. The weedy, ectomorphic types shrieked for blood [only slightly an exaggeration] while the obvious jocks discussed the play. Perhaps the lack of capacity for physical violence leads one to idealize those who have it in spades. The real bad guys. The don’t give a damn guys who are free of constraints because they can do as they like and nobody can stop them. The thrill some lefties seem to get from flashing eyes and brandished AK47s is almost sexual. So perhaps the intellectuals don’t have to be presumed to have been entirely innocent of the knowledge of the horrors of Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany. In one corner of their mind….
A version of the Stockholm Syndrome.
The idea that the right idea is the one the majority doesn’t hold. That’s the only way to be morally superior. Hold the opposite idea.
Rebecca West, in her “The New Meaning of Treason” asked why Britain’s brightest, whose lives had been sheltered in the lee of the British Navy, who had been more secure than any in history, eschewed Britain in favor of the viciousness of communist ideologies and Stalinist Russia.
One idea, more practical than the above had two components. They had learned from their parents and parents’ age-mates of the struggles for socialism as it was in Britain at the time. Great moral superiority. Problem was, the coal mines were already nationalized, there were old-age pensions, a national health system. To regain the fun of being in revolt–of a non-violent but eminently worthy type–you had to go further left to find yourself in opposition.
As you can see, there don’t seem to be many obviously worthy reasons for the intellectuals to act as they do.
Neo says, for example, that ‘intellectuals’ were seduced by the allure of Hitler and Stalin. Maybe some were, but they were hardly alone. Hitler didn’t exactly fill his rallies with literature professors, and Stalin didn’t get the ‘intelligentsia’ to sacrifice themselves by the millions for his Soviet Union.
Doublethink is a method of thought control, which translates to behavioral control. It works for everyone, but not to the same degree. To smarter folks, it works better, since a smarter a person is, the more conflicting ideas he can hold in his head at once. It is convenient because once a person sets up this conflicting scenario in their own head, their identity becomes tied in with maintaining the fiction. So that person does not need to be constantly lied to in order to maintain the web of illusion, because the person’s own self-survival instincts will do it for us.
Intellectuals, of whatever brand, are always the most susceptible to mental control.
Of course I’m well aware that Hitler’s ranks weren’t filled only with intellectuals. That anyone should think anything in this post indicates I might think otherwise is puzzling and even bizarre.
I’m pointing out, however, that intellectuals, particularly in the West, should have known better when they looked at Hitler and read his works than to expect of him anything other than exactly what he did. And the fact that so many of them saw him as relatively benign, and his threats as empty and meaningless, makes it very difficult to trust them on the subject of understanding the aims of today’s tyrants and the seriousness of their threats (actually, it was Ms. Edwards who was pointing this out, although I was seconding the motion).
LA, next time just make it clearer exactly what you mean. And do you have any links, or references, to the sort of work you say the Heritage Foundation is doing in the Green Zone?
As for the actual subject of this thread, Neo answers you better than I ever could.
Bottom line; the fact that intellectuals were blind to the menace of both Hitler and Stalin makes it difficult to trust them now.
Blind idealism isn’t the sole province of the Left—but the Left is highly influential among intellectuals, and Leftwing/progressive types haven’t done a very good job of protecting mankind against tyrants such as Stalin and Hitler—in fact, all too often, they’ve defended them, and covered up their crimes.
(Did you google “eugenics” by the way?)
I once asked a Paleo why he thought intellectuals were drawn leftwards. “Because we think most things aren’t worth saying and those that are have already been said”. Fair enough. Guess you won’t sell much vinyl siding to somebody who lives in a stone castle.
There is a special study of this phenomenon – book named “Treason of the clerks”. “Clerks” here denotes educated elites. Link:
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_17_55/ai_107223572
Wow you guys like intellectuals about as much as Hitler and Stalin did. Damned intellectuals, with their books…fine wine…and sex! When do we start lining them up for the firing squads?
Richard brings up the fairy-tale sheep and the wolves and the war-shy left again – so isn’t it time for someone to post that extremely long list of neocon “wolves” who somehow always found better things to do than serve in the military?
Also, can you just try to stop bringing up the Nazis for once? They are just not relevant. Ted Galen Carpenter of the CATO Institute persuasively argues:
“The closest historical analogy for the radical Islamic terrorist threat is neither the two world wars nor the Cold War. It is the violence perpetrated by anarchist forces during the last third of the nineteenth century…We must recognize that terrorism poses a frightening and tragic but manageable threat to the United States. Gingrich, Podhoretz and other panic mongers do us a huge disservice by exaggerating its danger…The only way the current struggle could ever become a world war is if American leaders followed their advice and escalated our response into a war between the West and Islam.”
LA, as he so often does, muddies rather than clarifies the issue here. First, he apparently doesn’t understand the term “intellectual” since he seems to apply it to any civilian policy-maker in Iraq. Second, without so much as noticing the topic of the intelligentsia’s peculiar blindness regarding evil intent, he makes an irrelevant remark about the dearth of literature professors at Nazi rallies, and then promptly falls back on what he likely considers his tried, tired, but true theme of the “mess in Iraq”. And third, even on this off-topic topic, he can only provide the usual banal, condescending “analysis” — in hindsight and at a distance — of administration failures as due to “American can-do spirit”. With that kind of sneering, I’d say he’s got the makings of at least a wannabe intellectual himself.
“so isn’t it time for someone to post that extremely long list of neocon “wolves” who somehow always found better things to do than serve in the military?”
So isn’t it time to put the “chickenhawk” argument to rest? Taken to its logical extreme, it argues—as did Robert Heinlein in “Starship Troopers”—that the only people deserving of citizenship are those that have put their lives on the line for the state. I’m sure UB wouldn’t care for that. That people continue to trot out this tired old canard is pitiful. It’s like saying that the only people who can have opinions on cars are mechanics; the only people who can have opinions on food are chefs…you get the drift. How many policy wonks on the left are military/Middle East experts—and I’m not talking about “scholars”, I’m talking about people who have spent time (preferably years) in the service or the countries in question? Yet we give them credence just the same. What qualifications does Noam Chomsky have to pontificate about anything other than linguistics, for example?
And I’m not an expert on anything (just heading off the flamers….)
Stumbley, don’t you understand? Unknown Blogger has never served, so, that DOES make him a “peace” expert.
Although, it always amazes me that all the lefties who have never served presume to be experts when it comes to military strategy, operations, and tactics.
Yo, UB:
Want to throw any of that “chickenhawk love” al-Sadr’s way?
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/IraqCoverage/story?id=2872953
Godwin’s Law, anyone?
Just a note about that Galen comparison of islamist terrorists to 19th century bomb-throwing anarchists: I think he’s badly mistaken, but at least he’s arguably so. Quite different are the lefties who try to make use of such an argument for their own appeasement-oriented ends. This is apparent when we see the hand-wringing over lefty “root causes” and “why they hate us”; when we see the sudden reluctance amongst left-liberals to give religious offense whenever muslims might be antagonized; and whenever we get told by agitated lefties that there are billions and billions of muslims in the world and you can’t kill them all!!
The last point is actually significant for why Galen’s comparison is so badly off. Let’s count just some of the reasons:
1) In an era of weapons of mass destruction, even the isolated bomb-thrower can do vastly greater damage than anything contemplated in the 19th century.
2) Victorian era anarchists were usually more interested in attacking property than people and rarely tried for simple mass slaughter.
3) In any case they were much less likely to be suicide killers, which so altered the balance for the counter-terrorists.
4) And they didn’t have in back of them a seething mass of religiously-indoctrinated humanity on the verge of murderous riot at the slightest pretext, and ready to supply new suicide killers with the promise of sexual paradise.
There’s more, but that should do for now. I’d say, contrary to Galen, that the best way for the current struggle to turn into a world war would be for American and western leaders to make the fatal mistake again of trying to appease or make deals with those who only desire our end or subordination — with the result that we only make them stronger, and make more terrible the day of reckoning when it finally comes.
“The only problem with this principle is that it’s totally nuts. For one thing, is there a reason we take threats at face value but not other kinds of statements? Presumably we don’t, as a rule, take all statements made by foreign leaders at face value. We don’t do this for the same reason we don’t, as a rule, take all statements made by people in general at face value: Sometimes it serves people’s interests to lie.”
Back when, if you made remarks about a fellow’s mother, you’d best be ready to fight, there were many fewer commentaries made about mothers.
I don’t think it serves us well to encourage the use of threat in this fashion.
In dealing with national defense issues I certainly think that it helps if you served in the military. There are all sorts of situations, ideas and ways of thinking that military service exposes you to that civilian life just doesn’t. These experiences, attitudes and familiarity with the military mindset and even military terminology are very useful in evaluating military issues.
19-century terrorists could use only crude home-made explosives, at worst case. Nowdays thay they have governments who train them, give them sophisticated weapons like explosion-formed penetrators of Iran making and openly threat to give them nukes. This is exactly the reason to go to war with these governments, overtly and secretly, and topple them. Nothing less can save us from this threat.
It’s about the tendency of so many in the West, especially the intelligentsia, to make excuses for and downplay the threats of Islamist fundamentalist totalitarians such as Iran’s Ahmadinejad.
A somewhat related problem is the tendency to refuse to name the enemy. The enemy is usually named “Islamism”, “radical/militant Islam(ism)” or “Islamic/Islamist extremists”, whereas in reality the enemy is in fact Islam.
Islam Skeptic is right. In WWII the enemies were not the Germans, Japanese and Italians, per se. They were Facism, Shinto Emperor Worship, and National Socialism, the ideologies that incited people to violence. Thus it is with Islam.
This is one thing I love about you guys, and it happens alot, not just in this case. It goes like this:
Somebody brings up the idea that “liberals are scared to go to war.”
Now, who can deny that the unspoken next line there is “The right is NOT afraid to go to war?” To respond, I point out that there are many, many hawkish people on the right who have never served in the military.
And then I promptly get accused of dragging out the “chickenhawk” argument.
So the debate is just shut down. Someone please tell me then, other than just shut up and accept it as fact, how is one supposed to respond to such an assertion as “Liberals are afraid to fight”?
Re the Anrachist analogy, you have described how terrorists are more dangerous today, and I think Galen addressed those points well.
What no one has yet done is explain how the Nazi analogy, so beloved around here, is more apt.
UB is known as a troll — i.e., as a commenter who’s more interested in provocation and disruption than actual debate — but occasionally he makes what at least looks like a more serious effort, and it can be a useful exercise to take it at face value. So:
Someone please tell me then, other than just shut up and accept it as fact, how is one supposed to respond to such an assertion as “Liberals are afraid to fight”?
By considering and addressing the point of such an assertion. It’s not mere name-calling — everyone is, or should be, “afraid to fight”. What’s important is what you do with that fear when fighting can’t easily be avoided. For some, the fear gets translated quickly and instinctively into efforts at appeasement, and then into trying to cloak that frightened impulse beneath layers of blustery rectitude about “peace”, “chickenhawks”, etc. On the whole, you find more of these on the liberal-left side of the political spectrum. (Of course, some are genuine pacifists, who I think are mistaken, profoundly, but are respectable.)
The “chickenhawk” slur on the other hand — it’s hardly an “argument” — is just name-calling, since it makes no sense and isn’t intended to. If you took it seriously you’d have to say that only those who have served or are serving in the military would ever be able to have a legitimate opinion in favor of fighting, but anyone at all could have an opinion against it, thus ensuring a perpetual majority for the appeasers (in any society not overwhelmingly militarized). For some reason, the appeasers never see this and seem to think that just saying “chickenhawk” actually constitutes an argument.
you have described how terrorists are more dangerous today, and I think Galen addressed those points well.
No, he barely addressed them at all.
What no one has yet done is explain how the Nazi analogy, so beloved around here, is more apt.
See the remarks about appeasement above. The analogy isn’t perfect, since no analogy is, but it certainly fits better with the current situation than the analogy with the largely isolated cases of 19th century bomb-throwing anarchists. While they’re not a single party, the islamists consist of a number of fairly coherent groups dedicated to the victory of a particular culture, and culturally-based ideology; they have the resources of a number of more or less supportive states to draw upon; and they are fueled by the grievances of a large mass of people who are unwilling or unable to accept their responsibility for their own sorry plight. It would perhaps be nice to think that all we face are a few violent, disaffected individuals — but it would also be wrong.
UB,
What you did was just that, a version of the “chickenhawk” argument. I have a child who will never have the honor of serving, should my child support some future war, I am sure some future you will point out that my child didn’t serve and shouldn’t talk.
Not everyone can, not everyone should, serve in the military. Nor can the military take everyone. Nor should it.
Get over Vietnam, would you please.
Tendency of the intelligentsia to flirt with totalitarian political movements is not restricted to the West: in 19 century Russia lots of educated people admired revolutionaries and terrorists of all stripes. Dostoevsky paid attention to this trend, and in many novels studied it profoundly. His most heinous villains are intellectuals: Ivan Karamazov, Raskolnikov in “Crime and Punishment”, Peter Verchovensky and Stavrogin in “Demons”. Dostoevsky noted that the ultimate reason for their crimes was fascination, even possession by some abstract idea, described as nihilism, atheism and moral relativism. (The first draft of “Karamazov Brothers” was named “Atheism”.) And there was admirable historic rhyme to contemporary American neo-cons: a group of Russian religious philosophers published in 1909 a manifesto named “Vekhi” (Landmarks). Dostoevsky was to them what Leo Strauss was to neo-cons: spiritual leader and founding father. This collection of essays in English translation exists in Internet. It contains deep analysis of liberal intelligentsia as social, political and spiritual phenomenon, its inherent flaws and deficiencies. All these Russian philosophers were converted to this new political credo from their previous leftist convictions: socialism, secular humanism and revolutionary activism. Now their heritage is the most influential in Russian liberal thought. See
Vekhi: Landmarks a Collection of Articles about the Russian Intelligentsia.
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24526012
Let me see if I understand your point:
When someone makes the blanket statement that “lefties lack physical courage” based on no data whatsoever (see Aubrey above), that is a valid assertion which merits consideration. Or should just be accepted as fact. like saying “the sky is blue.”
Yet when someone points out the extraordinarily long list of architects of and advocates for the Iraq invasion who have *never* served a day in the military, that is just nonsensical, irrelevant name calling, and the “troll” should just “get over Vietnam.”
Really, why do I even bother?
Because that is where you were going. Had you stated it differently, I might have given you the point.
Besides, you totally ignored my point that the vast majority will never be in the military for a number of different reasons, and physical cowardice would only be one among many. Without looking, I believe only about 10% of males served in Vietnam (someone correct me if they have the accurate percentage)with a draft going on also. The “chickenhawk” term was used widely during that period, thus my reference to Vietnam.
I don’t take anyone’s lack of service in the military as de facto proof of physical cowardice. I do take “talk, talk, talk”, or “appease, appease, appease” as a likely, but not absolute, indicator. Running to Canada, or lying to a ROTC officer, as an even more likely indicator. I also consider pacifism as immoral.
I believe the phrase “challenging asinine neoconservative assumptions” leaves you little room for balance.
I did not call you a troll. At this juncture. Would you prefer that I do?
Sally,
That was another good variation on the problem of logic and the “chickenhawk”. The other is, of course, the Heinlein terminus, where only those who have fought may vote.