The varieties of pacifism: (Part IIB)–responses to 9/11

The New Neo Posted on by

[See previous posts in the series: Part I (Gandhi); and Part IIA (Quaker history).]

For some reason, this post was much harder to write—and far longer!—than I ever expected it to be. So I apologize, especially for the length. I hope I haven’t bitten off more than I could comfortably chew, or expect readers to chew. In it, I’ve tried to summarize the belief system of pacifists as a whole, and then to describe the varied Quaker responses to 9/11 in terms of that belief system.

BACKGROUND

Pacifism sometimes seems illogical and naive to those who don’t espouse it. But the key to the logic of pacifism—and it definitely has its own logic—is that it is a belief system. As such, it’s based on certain premises which are accepted as articles of faith and that, to pacifists, can stand outside the realm of proof.

Certain broad Quaker pacifist beliefs underlie their responses to 9/11. These beliefs are by no means limited to Quakers, so this essay should be relevant to the reactions of many other types of pacifists as well.

There are two main strains of modern-day Quaker belief about how pacifism would actually work in practice. The first approach (which I’ll call the “love” approach) is both individual and transcendent: the pacifist refuses to fight, but understands that others will. The pacifist sees him/herself as serving as an example of another way of being in the world, an alternative and spiritual way. This is the sort of pacifist who might refuse to bear arms but would volunteer to serve as an ambulance driver in the theater of war. This first strain of pacifism also contains the hope that, by meeting hatred with love, and also acting as an example, the pacifist will effect a spiritual and emotional change in the hard heart of the violent person, a turning towards peace (this is also the Gandhian view). Often, as with Gandhi, this pacifist approach assumes that if a large group of individuals could make the decision to meet hatred with love in this manner, the whole enterprise would take on a different aspect and effect a very real change in the conduct of a war, including the possibility of ending that war.

Pacifists of this first variety fervently hope (and believe) that meeting violence with love will cause the tyrannical to have a change of heart. But what if it’s tried, and the approach fails to work as planned? Then those who are nonviolent could easily end up being slaughtered by the violent. Most pacifists don’t look on that prospect with anything like Gandhi’s chilling equanimity.

So, if fighting in a war isn’t allowed, what’s to prevent a slaughter of the innocents? How can the problem of defending against tyranny be solved? What does the pacifist propose as a replacement for a muscular and violent defense to prevent this slaughter from happening?

As we found in Part IIA, many Quakers would answer that at that point, in a clearly defensive situation, it may be time to fight, even for Quakers. They would say that each person needs to make an individual decision about this after some intensive soul-searching.

But many pacifists have trouble with that approach. Absolute pacifists would say instead, as we saw with Gandhi in Part I, that it would be better to allow oneself to be slaughtered and meet death with exemplary courage than to fight and live another day.

Both alternatives can be problematic for pacifists, of course: the choice is between a bang or a whimper. So there is a second pacifist approach (which I’ll call the “law” approach), one that emphasizes prevention and/or alternative resolution of conflict, and can either exist independently of the first approach or complement it. This second approach is both institutional and legalistic: the belief in the structures and rules of international law as the alternative to war. It constitutes a sort of safety net for pacifists: if it works, the pacifist doesn’t need to make the hard decisions to either fight or be slaughtered, because the situation for that choice won’t arise.

EXAMPLES

If you’ve read my history of Quaker pacifism in Part IIA, you may recall that the first approach has its roots in the views of Fox and Penington, the second in those of William Penn.

Here’s an excellent and representative example of the Quaker “love” approach, a document entitled “Speak Truth to Power,” published by the American Friends Service Committee in 1955. It fully captures the flavor of this approach—individual, idealistic, faith-based:

Our truth is an ancient one; that love endures and overcomes; that hatred destroys; that what is obtained by love is retained, but what is obtained by hatred proves a burden. This truth, fundamental to the position which rejects reliance on the method of war, is ultimately a religious perception, a belief that stands outside of history.

As “a belief that stands outside of history,” the faith that love conquers all cannot be challenged or disproven by facts. That’s what makes it a religious—or quasi-religious—belief rather than a proven approach, although I don’t think pacifists would be adverse to proof if it were offered. But such proof is not required.

Here is more in the same vein, in which “reason” is explicitly rejected:

If ever truth reaches power, if ever it speaks to the individual citizen, it will not be the argument that convinces. Rather it will be his own inner sense of integrity that impels him to say, “Here I stand. Regardless of relevance or consequence, I can do no other.” This is not “reasonable”: the politics of eternity is not ruled by reason alone, but by reason ennobled by right…

The early Friends realized only too clearly that the Kingdom of God had not come, but they had an inward sense that it would never come until somebody believed in its principles enough to try them in actual operation. They resolved to go forward then, and make the experimental trial, and take the consequences. So we believe and so we advise.

So the “love” approach is a leap of faith into the unknown, an experiment based on a belief system. This message is considered to be a timeless one. Although the document was written in 1955 and intended in the fight against Communism, the website on which it appears specifically recommends it as still being relevant and timely in the post-9/11 fight against terrorism.

As for the “law” approach, here’s a good post-9/11 example. It was issued by several Quaker groups around the time of the invasion of Afghanistan:

We regret the decision by our nation’s leaders to launch military strikes against Afghanistan, and we call upon them to halt the bombing and other military attacks.

We recognize the responsibility of the international community to apprehend and try, under international law, those responsible for the recent terrorist attacks… History teaches us that violence leads to more violence. We expect that these massive military strikes by missiles and bombers against this already devastated, starving country will almost certainly make it easier for the leaders of this terrorist struggle to recruit more people to their cause. We must break the cycle of escalating violence.

The struggle against terrorism will indeed be long. To succeed, it will have to undermine the ability of those who would use terrorism to recruit new people to carry out such attacks. This requires ending, or greatly diminishing, the tremendous anger and hatred toward the United States and its allies felt, in particular, by many in the Muslim and Arab world. This can only be done with prolonged, nonviolent efforts for reconciliation, justice, and long-term economic development. It cannot be done through massive bombing and military attacks.

Here’s another Quaker post-9/11 “law” response; this one quite divorced from reality, I’m afraid, since it calls for the UN to settle things in Iraq:

…the troop presence in Iraq has lost the support of the Iraqi people and, by most accounts, the U.S. public. All of these events confirm our long-held belief that violence can only beget further violence. The U.S. must give way, so that the UN and other agencies, working with the Iraqi interim government, can bring peace and stability. The AFSC believes that the United States has lost the moral standing to achieve the necessary healing, but remains responsible to support financially those institutions and agencies which can do so.

Here we have another example of the legalistic point of view, written by a Quaker named Mary Lord after 9/11. It calls for international tribunals, special courts, weapons trade limitations, stopping the financing of terrorists, and a host of other peaceful international cooperative approaches (curiously, Ms. Lord maintains that most of these things have not been done, although in fact many have been performed in tandem with the military approaches).

Here is Ms. Lord explaining the pacifist belief system:

Pacifism has been called naé¯ve and unpatriotic. But I ask you, which is the greater naiveté””to believe that the frustrating but productive path of using and strengthening international law is the path of safety, or to believe that a never-ending worldwide war against loosely defined terrorism fought with weapons of mass destruction will make us safe and secure in our gated communities?

The path of war is always, as history proves, the more naé¯ve. War almost never works. Even when it seems to, for a short time, or after a long struggle, it is with a horrific cost of life, and property, and treasure, and the fouling of the earth, and the killing if its creatures. Almost always, similar ends could have been achieved through negotiation or international law and peacekeeping, with far less cost.

This last sentence, which I’ve taken the liberty of highlighting in bold, I find extraordinary in its assertion of facts without any even an attempt to marshall evidence. But, as with the “love” approach, facts are not the issue here; belief is, including the oft-stated belief that war “doesn’t work.”

What is meant by this statement that war doesn’t work—or, as sometimes put, that it never solves anything? On reflection, I’ve come to the conclusion that what is really meant is that war doesn’t solve everything. In other words, no war eliminates all problems, or even eliminates every aspect of a single problem. For example, the Civil War eliminated slavery, but was followed by the anguish of Reconstruction and inequality. But the fact that a war hasn’t solved all problems, or hasn’t even solved a single problem (discrimination against blacks, for example) in its entirety, does not mean that the war didn’t solve some problems, at least partially or in whole. Slavery is no longer with us. The concentration camps are gone. The pacifist belief that war doesn’t solve things not only ignores evidence that it sometimes does (at least partially), but it also fails to take into account how much worse things might be if appeasement had been the order of the day.

As I’ve said, though, pacifism is a belief system, not requiring proof in the eyes of its adherents. But not all Quakers are uninterested in facts or proof. Some pursue them, no matter how upsetting the results. For example, Swarthmore Quaker historian J. William Frost undertook a lengthy study a few years ago:

…aimed at finding an answer to the question, “has religion ever prevented or stopped a war?” Or as he put it more pointedly, “is there historical evidence that religious leaders have stopped wars from beginning or shortened their duration?” His sobering answer, in sum, is: No. There is very little such evidence.

The record of western history, as Frost reviewed it, shows that a church “cannot prevent war, because it has neither theology, mission, nor the leverage in society to do so.” Even the largest, most “established” denominations have lacked real leverage, he found….

I could find no similar studies of whether international law had ever stopped a war. Perhaps the answer would be too depressing for pacifists to even contemplate. The results of Frost’s study certainly must have been.

But pacifism has other benefits beyond the practical, at least to its believers. There is the wonderful feeling that comes from a sense of oneself as being spiritual, moral, kind, and loving; and of being part of a group of like-minded individuals engaged in working for a worthy and noble cause (see this previous post for a further explanation of this feeling of “circle dancing,” especially the Milan Kundera quote on the subject.)

Here’s a good example of this genre, in which the feelings of the pacifist about him/herself within the small group of loving Quakers, and the exaltation of the mission, give the author (who became a Quaker post-9/11) hope that such peacefulness is a possibility for all humankind:

I don’t know how it happened. It could have been the anthrax that closed the Princeton Post Office that fall that made each mail day seem like our last. Or maybe it was simply that I liked the architecture of the Meetinghouse. It could have been how Irene, the woman who led the Young Friends Meeting, spoke in a quiet voice and the children listened. Whatever it was, I took to this place. I liked meditating in the creaky-benched silence of the meetinghouse, and how the people I met seemed to have light in their faces, despite the building’s lack of wattage.

By spring, I felt that I’d found a spiritual home. I was so moved by a feeling of at-oneness, that on Easter Sunday, I peeled myself off my bench to stand up and thank everyone for being there…”Let there be peace on earth, and let it begin with me,” is a song I probably sang too much as a child. I feel it happening, though, as I participate in Meeting. This spring, as with the Gulf War, I am writing letters to the government and joining protests. But it’s different. This time around, it’s not just my voice and that of a few friends. It’s a whole community I’ve chosen to be part of. This time around, I actually feel the peace I want for the world, and because I feel it, I actually believe it can be possible for others.

Of course, the world is not composed of a circle of peaceful Quakers, a fact of which many Quakers are well aware. And of course, as we’ve learned, not even all Quakers are dancing in the same circle; Quaker belief and tradition allows for an individual response.

So I close with the words of another post-9/11 Quaker statement, this one by a Quaker who challenges pacifism and casts his lot on the other side of it for this conflict. NPR broadcaster Scott Simon says:

One of the unforeseen effects of being in journalism is that your first-hand exposure to the issues of the world sometimes has the consequence of shaking your deepest personal convictions. I happen to be a Quaker; this is known, I have written about this…I covered conflicts in Central America and the Caribbean, the Middle East and Africa. None of them shook my belief that pacifism offers the world a way to foment change without the violence that has pained and poisoned our history…

And then, in the 1990’s, I covered the Balkans. And I had to confront, in flesh and blood, the real life flaw””I am inclined to say literally fatal flaw””of pacifism: all the best people could be killed by all the worst ones…

So I speak as a Quaker of not particularly good standing. I am still willing to give first consideration to peaceful alternatives. But I am not willing to lose lives for the sake of ideological consistency. As Mahatma Gandhi himself once said””and, like Lincoln, the Mahatma is wonderful for providing quotations that permit you to prove almost any point you choose”””I would rather be inconsistent than wrong.” It seems to me that in confronting the forces that attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the United States has no sane alternative but to wage war; and wage it with unflinching resolution…

We are living in a time when we must remind ourselves of the imperfections of analogies. But let me press ahead with one that has recently been on my mind.

In 1933, the Oxford Student Union conducted a famous debate over whether it was moral for Britons to fight for king and country. The leading objective minds of that university reviewed the many ways in which British colonialism exploited and oppressed the world. They cited the ways in which vengeful demands made of Germany in the wake of the end of World War I had helped encourage the kind of nationalism that may have kindled the rise of fascism. They saw no moral difference between western colonialism and world fascism. The Oxford Union ended that debate with this famous proclamation: “Resolved, that we will in no circumstances fight for king and country.”

Von Ribbentrop sent back the good news to Germany’s new chancellor, Adolph Hitler: the West will not fight for its own survival. Its finest minds will justify a silent surrender.

The most intelligent young people of their time could not tell the difference between the deficiencies of their own nation, in which liberty and democracy occupied cornerstones, and dictatorship founded on racism, tyranny, and fear…

When George Orwell returned to England after fighting against Fascism in the Spanish civil war, he felt uneasy over finding his country so comfortable””so close to Fascism. His country, he said, with its fat Sunday newspapers and thick orange jam.

“”¦All sleeping the deep, deep sleep,” he wrote, “from which I sometimes fear that we shall never wake till we are jerked out of it by the roar of bombs.”

“The deep, deep sleep.” Sometimes, in sleep, we dream beautiful dreams of peace. And then we wake.

Gray Lady sings the blues

The New Neo Posted on by

It occurred to me today that the folks at the NY Times may in fact be suffering from depression, and I mean that in the clinical sense.

Why the sudden diagnosis? Well, Captain’s Quarters alerted me to this editorial about the Iraqi constitutional compromise in today’s NY Times (for contrast, compare the Times’s take on the matter with the elation of Iraqi blogger Mohammed at Iraq the Model).

As Captain Ed points out, with only a little hyperbole:

Each paragraph [of the editorial] starts out with some gloomy statement on what the Times sees as reality. Each statement relates back to American efforts to create this democratic environment, either directly or indirectly…

The torturous process of actually saying something meaningful about the Iraqi agreement on a new constitution in the days ahead of the vote grinds on through eight paragraphs written in this stultifying prose, as like a bad pop song with an unrelenting, unchanging bass line. It takes that long for the Times to admit that the developments this week give greater hope for unity after the plebescite and for greater Sunni participation in democracy thereafter. The editorial approaches masterpiece status for sour grapes and for burying the lede. Even its title, “A Flicker Of Hope In Iraq”, makes this major step forward seem little more than a mere footnote in an encyclopedia of misery.

“A footnote in an encyclopedia of misery.” Reading this, I had one of those sudden insights that seem to make what was formerly murky as clear as day: the entire editorial staff of the Times is clinically depressed. For here is exactly the sort of behavior one would expect from a depressed person: the inability to take pleasure in even good news, the constant “yes-butting” that negates anything positive before it can sink in or be savored. One can almost see the sad, heavy eyes of the writer, and hear the droning voice with its flat affect.

And now I also see the Times’s constant ignoring of the good news from Iraq in a different light. It’s another symptom of depression.

Oh, I know what those of you who still like the Gray Lady will say: they’re just being judicious and cautious, and rightly so. And indeed caution is in order. But I think the Times has a track record of going way beyond caution, into a gloom that can hardly be dispelled by facts.

It seems that lately I’ve been prescribing meds without a license. But I have yet another suggestion along those lines for those at the Times: perhaps a trial of SSRIs might be in order.

It could make that hope become a tad more than a flicker. Just a thought.

And now for some real news

The New Neo Posted on by

I am extremely heartened by the recently-announced compromise on Iraq’s constitution.

But rather than comment further myself, I’ll leave that honor to one of the many valiant citizens of Iraq, a man who was among the first to give us a window on that troubled and long-suffering country and its courageous people–Mohammed, of Iraq the Model:

At this moment, the National Assembly is holding a ceremony celebrating the new breakthrough agreement on the constitution which President Talbani described as the “Day of National Accord”.

What happened today is a historic event that will isolate the enemies of Iraq and freedom and will pave the way for a clear future for Iraq after important Sunni groups decided to actively join the political process in Iraq.

There’s a visible feeling of relief on the streets and I think the constitution is on the way to be ratified”¦the process has come out of the emergency room and recovery will follow.

Fire-breathing bloggers

The New Neo Posted on by

In my last post I suggested the blogosphere take a chill pill. Too much heat, not enough light right now. Does this mean I’m disillusioned with the blogosphere? Not a bit.

Blogs are a naturally “hot” medium, although each blog has its own signature temperature. Mine tends to be a bit cooler than most, by design; I try to reflect before I write, and not shoot from the hip. But for some bloggers and pundits, shooting from the hip is their stock in trade, their raison d-etre, and a good part of their considerable appeal.

One thing I never realized before I became a blogger was the extent to which the medium itself encourages outrageousness. How does one get attention in all the blooming buzzing confusion? One way is by being louder and tougher and more clever and hard-hitting than the rest. As one blogs more and more, there’s also a tendency to become more confident about what one says–and a lot of bloggers don’t start out too timid about their opinions to begin with, else why would they blog? So there’s a sort of ever-escalating feedback loop that encourages more and more hyperventilation in the blogosphere.

When I think about it, the absence of editors–formal or informal–is a large part of the phenomenon. Please don’t think that, by pointing this out, I’m calling for blog editors; I’m not. But the blogger is ordinarily alone with his/her thoughts–sometimes even in the wee hours of the morning, and usually in a hurry to get something finished and get on with “real life”–but almost always alone. Nothing between the blogger, the computer screen, and that “publish” button. And once the moving finger writes, it can’t be undone–not without someone noticing and raising a stink, anyway.

For the other writing I do in my life, I ordinarily will take far longer to compose something, edit it, mull it over, edit it again, and finally decide it’s more or less finished. Somewhere along the way I usually show it to at least one friend or family member. For years I’ve belonged to a wonderful writing group, at which I meet regularly with fellow-writers to offer and receive comments, criticisms, and suggestions on works-in-progress. Needless to say, I never bring my blog writing to those meetings–and not only because they are heartily sick of anything political, and mostly disagree with me on that score rather intensely–but because there’s simply no time. The medium doesn’t allow it.

“Taking a chill pill” requires standing back, reflecting, taking time. And taking time is something the blogosphere definitely does not encourage. But the blogosphere’s strength lies in the aggregate: even without much time, corrections tend to happen, because some other blogger will object. In a way, other bloggers–and commenters–act as ex-post-facto editors.

You might say we’re all members of a very large writing group.

It depends on what the meaning of “possible” is

The New Neo Posted on by

Well, now there’s a firestorm around Laura Bush, heretofore the most inoffensive woman on the face of the planet.

And just what is Ms. Bush alleged to have said? I’m not going to go into every detail. I’ll just link to this post at Big Lizards (via Instapundit), for your perusal.

So, did Laura Bush in fact declare that critics of the Miers nomination were motivated by sexism? Read the transcript; you be the judge (unlike the unfortunate Ms. Miers). Did Ms. Bush indeed, as Reuters alleges, make the nefarious claim that, “it was possible some critics were being sexist in their opposition to Harriet Miers”?

Well, if so, I would just like to point out that, last time I checked, the word “possible” meant “within the realm of possibility.” It does not mean “certain,” nor even “likely;” in fact, it doesn’t even mean “probable.” It simply means “not able to be absolutely excluded as impossible.”

If Laura Bush had answered the question Lauer posed as to whether “[s]ome are suggesting there’s a little possible sexism in the criticism of Judge [sic] Miers,” with the words, “No, absolutely not; it is categorically impossible,” she would have been criticized for being stark raving mad.

Of course it’s “possible” that somewhere, somehow, there are “some” critics who are indeed a little sexist in their criticism.

I think the entire blogosphere needs to take a chill pill.

Originalism: be careful what you wish for

The New Neo Posted on by

I have some questions for those who are clamoring for a strict originalist to be appointed to the Supreme Court.

A little background: in 1973, the Supreme Court famously ruled in Roe v. Wade that states could not outlaw abortion because the Constitution contains a right to privacy that would be violated by such laws. But repealing Roe v. Wade would not automatically outlaw abortion again. It would simply leave that option open to the states.

So here’s my first hypothetical for everyone who is a strict originalist: let’s say that Roe v. Wade is repealed, and although every state is now free to outlaw abortion, all states defeat proposed laws against it, and actually end up continuing to allow abortion. Would you be satisfied with such a result, since a strict originalist ruling was followed, even though abortion would remain every bit as legal as it is today?

Griswold v Connecticut, the 1965 case that established the right to privacy on which the Roe decision relied, concerned the right of married couples to have access to contraception in the state of Connecticut, which had banned contraceptives even for the married. So my next question is this: If an originalist court overruled the right to privacy which had been established in Griswold, and as a result some states passed laws prohibiting access to contraceptives for married couples and actually enforced those laws, what you be satisfied with the result, because a strict originalist ruling had been followed?

These hypotheticals may indeed be exaggerations, but they are certainly not impossibilities. I think they illustrate two things: (a) whether a person really is a champion of originalism or whether that person actually just wants a certain result from application of the doctrine, and (b) some of the possible problems inherent in strict originalism (at least, as I read it).

Personally, I agree with those who think judicial activism and “legislation from the bench” can sometimes represent an overreaching, and that less is often more. But, as with many things, it’s a balancing act; sometimes a bit of judicial stretching can be a way to protect our rights from legislative and/or executive overreaching. Would you feel comfortable if states were free to make laws such as the banning of contraceptive devices for married couples? And, if there were no constitutional right to privacy, what would be the legal principle on which such laws might be overruled, if passed? I wonder in particular what the stance of libertarians might be on this?

One further question: do you know that one of the bases for Roe was what could arguably be called an “originalist” interpretation of the word “person” in the US Constitution? The Court found in Roe that fetuses should not be considered “persons” protected with the full rights as such under the Constitution, because at the time of that document’s writing, abortion was legal and fetuses were not considered to be persons.

Be careful what you wish for.

[NOTE: I know I said yesterday I was planning to declare a Miers moratorium. Well, this post is close to being about Miers–but it’s not. Look, I didn’t even mention her name!–until now, anyway.]

The turning point

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s always a tough moment, and it’s getting tougher all the time as fuel prices skyrocket. But there comes a point when the bone-chilling wet cold gets to me, and shuffling around the house in multiple sweats and sweaters, or huddling in the bathroom near the space heater, just doesn’t cut it any more. That’s when I break down and perform the act I’ve been putting off for weeks: the turning on of the furnace.

I hate it. Hate it. Like most New Englanders, I delay it as long as possible. It’s a point of honor, a sort of competition for who’s managed to hold off the longest. Hint: it’s not me. I know people who stonewall well into November.

But it can be in the thirties here at night, even in September, and during the day there’s just not enough warmth to dispel the feeling of being in a meat locker when I’m in my home. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak, and so down I go to the basement, flip that little switch, hear the satisfying “pop” of the gas being lit, and return upstairs to that wonderful sensation of slowly spreading warmth.

Looking at the big picture: a question for conservatives

The New Neo Posted on by

The fallout from the radioactive Miers nomination has revealed a rift on the right that was always there but was never quite so clear before (at least to me): a gap between those whose overriding focus is the war on terror/Islamofascism, and those who would throw it all over in a heartbeat for a chance to fight for a strict constructionist majority on the Supreme Court and other aspects of the conservative domestic agenda. And all this before the latter group even knows for sure whether Miers wouldn’t in fact be pretty closely aligned with them in fighting for that conservative domestic agenda.

Weigh the two against each other and see which is more important. Remember, we’re not talking about a gaggle of Chomskyite far-leftists who think the war on terror is a crock anyway, and who see Al Qaeda members as persecuted victims of the West. No, we’re talking about people who, just a few short days ago, thought the war was of paramount importance and that Democrats could not be trusted to run it.

But, surprise, surprise; it turns out that, at least to a certain segment of conservatives, having the Supreme Court populated by an originalist is far more important, important enough to concede the next four years to the Democrats.

I don’t know what percentage of conservatives feel this way. But here’s one of them, a commenter at the Anchoress:

I admit that this nomination may well fracture the right for an election cycle. I’m perfectly happy to do that if it means that the right returns stronger and more resolved to integrity and the core principles the right has championed for decades. I’m more than willing to cede the Presidency to the Democrats for four years if it means that we spend that time remembering what it is we really stand for on the right.

“What it is we really stand for on the right.” So okay folks, what is that? Is it the domestic conservative agenda above all? I understand that you feel that Bush’s nomination of Miers has betrayed this aim, and that in his presidency he’s betrayed other basic conservative principles, such as limitations on government spending.

But is all that really more important to you than the war against Islamofascism? That’s a real question, not just a rhetorical one, by the way. And yes, of course Bush has made mistakes in the conduct of the war. The important issue is whether you think the Democrats would do better.

So, do you prefer to stick it to Bush and allow the Democrats to handle that, and let the chips fall where they may?

[Note: after this post I just may declare a Miers moratorium for a while.]

[ADDENDUM: Dr. Sanity, whose conservative bona fides are strong whereas mine are nonexistent, asks the same question. And the good doctor doesn’t pull her punches.]

The trend continues: so long, Schroder

The New Neo Posted on by

Lost in the cacaphonous din of the Miers nomination is the following news: Angela Merkel of the Christian Democrats (now, there’s a party title unlikely to fly in this country) appears to be on her way to becoming Germany’s next Chancellor.

Although the government under her will be rather evenly mixed, the result of a compromise between her party and Schroder’s Social Democrats, her replacement of Schroder as Chancellor continues a worldwide trend noted here.

The trend? In general (with the noted exception of Spain), in countries which have had post-Iraq war elections, those who backed the coalition have been electorally victorious, while those who bucked it are gone.

Forget the Law of Thirds at your peril

The New Neo Posted on by

Some time ago–long before I became a blogger, or even a neocon–I noticed a certain phenomenon and gave it what I thought was a unique name: the “Law of Thirds.”

Well, it turns out the phrase also refers to a recommendation for photography composition, as well as a math principle involving random numbers. I guess it’s harder than I thought to be original.

But no matter. Basically, my law refers to the fact that the populace of the US seems to be divided roughly into thirds, at least in the political sense: one-third on the entrenched left, one-third on the entrenched right, and one-third in between. It was something I’d noticed over and over in public opinion polls, and it seemed to be stable over time.

You all know where I stand–in that middle third. I think it’s actually where I’ve always stood, although I used to be positioned towards the leftish end of that middle, and now I stand pretty much in the very middle of that middle. It’s from this moderate middle third that elections are generally decided.

For the past few years we’ve been hearing a great deal of noise from the third on the left, the ones who suffer from the ailment known as Bush Derangement Syndrome. And now, with the Miers nomination, we’re hearing the din emanating from the right third. To me, it’s not a whole lot more attractive a sound, although it’s a very different one in a very different cause.

Yesterday I wrote about what I think motivates those on the right who are rushing to judgment on Miers. Since then, I’ve done some more reading on conservative blogs about Miers, and some of the comments of those who are dead set against her have reminded me–as if I needed reminding–of just why I’m happy to call myself an independent, and of just how much the extremists on both sides resemble each other in their rage, their rigidity, and their sense of entitlement and grandiosity.

Here, for example, is a reader’s dissenting comment to what I consider a very practical and evenhanded post at Polipundit. I offer an excerpt from the comment to illustrate the sort of thing I’m talking about:

What is so disappointing about the Miers nomination is the missed opportunity. No, not the missed opportunity to get a high-powered known-quantity conservative. That certainly could have failed, probably would have failed, as many have noted, given the likely apostasy of several GOP senators. So what? The battle itself would have been the prize:

(1) It would have forced the issue onto public consciousness in a way that the Miers nomination never will. Nobody, NOBODY, outside the respective bases and political junkies will give a whit about or pay a shred of attention to the Miers nomination. A teaching opportunity simply thrown away.
(2) It would have put on record the names, ranks and serial numbers of the apostates to blame for the failure to confirm. Not that we really don’t know who they are, but they should be forced on record with their apostasy, with all the consequences that might follow thereunto. It’s simply too easy to let them, in effect, kill the nomination of some Really Qualified conservative nominee without ever lifting a finger, and without taking explicit responsibility for the assasination. In the long-run, the best way to instill (enforce) conservative loyalty is to force the wishy-washy “moderates”; (and, truth be told, outright liberal Republicans)to own up to, act upon, and live with the consequences of their betrayals…

The final conclusion from all this: Bush is not a President of, for, or by the conservative movement. He is “conservative”in many (but certainly not all) of his instincts and policy preferences. But he is not a conservative warrior. He really believes in all that “get along together as Americans”, “set a new tone and rise above partisanship”; bullshit. He wants to be a good President for America, pure and simple, not a crusader for the conservative movement. Thus all the reasons I’ve advanced for his pressing the fight for a conservative nominee he very likely would eventually lose have no appeal for him.

Now I, for one, become very nervous when accusations of “apostasy” get thrown around and don’t seem to be meant as some sort of joke. The comment tells us quite a bit, I think, about the far right reaches of conservatism, which is rather like the far left reaches of “progressivism,” to wit: “tow the most extreme version of the party line or we ostracize and/or destroy you.”

The most telling sentences to me are the ones I’ve highlighted in boldface. If I understand the writer correctly, they’re meant to be a condemnation of Bush. In my opinion, they ought to be a recommendation.

Those who are considerably to the right or left often seem to have another thing in common: when their party happens to get into power, they believe it means that the Law of Thirds has been repealed, just for them. It hasn’t. As far as I know it’s still in operation, and has been for quite some time. Anyone from either radical third who thinks the American people will be happy to give his/her third a permanent ascendance in American political life is quite wrong, IMHO, and that person will be soundly rejected by said American people if he/she arrogantly and openly displays the hubris of thinking so–whether that person’s name be Howard Dean or Newt Gingrich or whomever else would be an even better example of the genre.

Right now I’m not sure whether the vocal conservatives whom Ed Morrissey of Captain’s Quarters refers to as the “Rebel Alliance” actually think they can win more elections behaving this way, or whether they just don’t care if they do or don’t as long as they get what they want now. Either way, the electorate is watching, and my guess is that the rest of the middle third isn’t liking what it’s seeing any more than I am.

By the way, if anyone wants to read an exceptionally reasonable conservative voice on the matter of Harriet Miers, please visit BeldarBlog. Beldar been hard at work ever since the Miers flap began, and he’s somehow managed to stay informative, circumspect, and fair to all concerned. It can’t be easy.

The left is alive and well and living in the royal family of Holland

The New Neo Posted on by

A recent comment here (from my old buddy “anonymous,” natch) questioned the influence of the left on current American politics. Scroll down at the link for the discussion which followed, if interested.

Whatever the influence of the current left in the US, here’s a piece by Peaktalk‘s Pieter Dorsman, indicating that the influence of the very furthest reaches of the left are quite strong on at least one segment of the Dutch royal family, the queen’s sister Princess Irene.

Princess Irene has said recently, in a statement indicative of a fairly extreme version of one wing of pacifism (more about that soon: Part IIB of my pacifism series is in the works):

“Western leaders of government have to take some steps. Talking to al-Qaeda and demonstrating that by doing that you can put an end to the classic enemy-view with real and open discussions”, according to Irene.

And here’s Irene on the genesis of Al Qaeda:

The root causes of Islamist violence can, according to Irene, be found in poverty, trade barriers, and wrong relations. “The differences between the haves and have-nots is totally out of balance.”

Ah, but of course. A classic case of simplistic and incomplete explanations/excuses (although I’m not entirely sure what she means by “wrong relations;” that could cover a lot, including something akin to truth).

And lest you think Irene is just a blithering idiot to whom no one listens, here is more, from Pieter:

Don’t laugh. There are a lot of people who actually believe this nonsense, especially when it has a royal imprint. And the Dutch royal family is known for its willingness and ability to influence decision making in The Netherlands, not being hindered by any astute sense of what’s going on in the real world. Or by the constitutional tradition for royals to not interfere with or comment on politics.