Posted on 04/23/2003 6:21:20 AM PDT by xsysmgr
Last Thursday, the New York Post ran a piece of mine in which I compared the antiwar movement to a religious cult "hoist on tenets of faith rather than points of evidence — and, thus, in the final analysis, no more responsive to counterarguments than guys who stand on street corners in sandwich boards forecasting the end of the world next weekend . . . no, next weekend . . . no, next weekend."
It was, I thought, a clever little piece, and I knew it would get under the skin of protester types — which usually means a dozen or so e-mails telling me what a right-wing fascist I am, what a neocon blowhard, etc.
What I didn't count on was the column getting read on air, in its entirety, by Rush Limbaugh. (Memo to Rush: Next time you read a column of mine, mention my novel. It's called Africa Speaks. Now available in paperback.) In the space of three minutes, I was transformed from irritating stick insect to cause celebre. By the time I returned home after lunch, I had 175 e-mails, and over the next 48 hours, I received around 300. The first wave was overwhelmingly positive; among dittoheads, I was the bee's knees. But as the column made its way gradually leftward, the replies became more and more ferocious.
Now nothing pleases me more than antagonizing folks on the political left — it's an especially bloodless version of bear baiting — but in this case I noticed an odd phenomenon. The rage seemed to coalesce not only around the antiwar-movement-as-cult metaphor but also on another line, a throwaway, in which I mentioned that the blame-America mindset characteristic of the antiwar movement's true believers was difficult to maintain "in light of the manifest truth that America is the most benevolent world power in the history of the planet."
Astonishingly, that sentence just set people off. I say "astonishingly" because the proposition that the United States is the most benevolent world power in the history of the planet is only slightly more arguable than the proposition that the Nazis did mean things to Jews during World War II. Denying that the U.S. is the most benevolent world power in the history of the planet is indeed akin to denying that the Holocaust happened in the sense that it's so beyond debate that it's pointless to begin laying out evidence in support; the effort only dignifies the irrationality of those who would deny it. To deny it, in essence, is to deny that real world exists, that the past really happened — which perhaps excuses postmodern intellectuals, who deny such things on a regular basis. But the rest of us are left to ask who are America's chief competitors for the title of most-benevolent world power? Ancient Greece or Rome? The Mongols under Genghis Khan? France under Napoleon? The British Empire? Nazi Germany? Imperial Japan? The Soviet Union?
To be sure, America clawed its way to world-power status and left in its wake a trail of bloody victims. As is the case with all world powers, America is even now a blundering, big-footed Gulliver walking among squeaking Lilliputians; a certain degree of squishing comes with the territory. But in the century since its ascendancy, judged by the decency of its intentions or by the consequences of its actions, American benevolence is without precedent.
Still, one reader replied, "The U.S. has bombed over 200 countries since WWII. Good thing we did it benevolently. Cheerleading for the rich and powerful killers you worship has you in the gutter. Have fun wallowing in your bloodlust and ignorance."
Another wrote, "Why don't you tell 5,000,000 dead Vietnamese, 5,000 dead Panamanian citizens, every black American, or every single pure blooded Native American (there is not a single one left alive) that we are the most benevolent government there is?"
And another: "America being the most benevolent world power ever . . . you are really not a student of history are you? When was the last time you saw a large number of Native Americans? How much longer did America cling to slavery when the rest of the world had long since realized the evil of it? Who was the first and only country to ever use their weapons of mass destruction? Who has the largest store of weapons of mass destruction?"
And yet another: "'Most benevolent in the history of the planet' — and you're calling me a 'true believer'?"
There's something more significant going on here than a profound lack of historical perspective or a skewed understanding of the scholarly record. Both of those are signs of ordinary ignorance. But this is willful ignorance — which is much more insidious. It's as if the very suggestion of America's fundamental benevolence triggers an intellectual gag reflex among hardcore leftists. It cannot be tolerated; the system rejects it whole, regardless of the mental contortions that follow, because allowing it to penetrate would gum up the entire works.
Concede American benevolence — concede, in other words, what cannot be denied by a reasonable observer — and the epistemological underpinning of radical politics crumbles to dust. Can Gore Vidal continue to publish once that concession is made? Can Noam Chomsky continue to deliver speeches? Can Tim Robbins even go out in public?
In such circles, it's become a matter of self-preservation to posit America's essential evil. To posit, in short, a condition contrary to fact. Precisely because our policies seem so well intended, and their outcomes so often benign, critics who operate on the assumption of American malignancy must turn to conspiracy theorizing in lieu of inductive logic. Thus, for example, they will note that Bush has personal ties to oil company executives . . . and that Iraq has lots of oil . . . ergo, the true purpose of the invasion of Iraq must be to enrich oil companies. What's wrong with this analysis, apart from its dubious grasp of market economics, is that it takes as axiomatic moral monstrosity. It presupposes that the president of the United States would, in effect, commit mass murder in order to line the pockets of his friends; it presupposes further that the Republican party is wicked enough to nominate such a person, that the electorate is depraved or callow enough to support him, and — since there's no evidence of genocidal tendencies in Bush's past — it presupposes the innate capacity of the analyst to peer into the furthest recesses of his soul. You can dress up an argument of this type with rhetorical flourishes, and publish it in a respected journal, but, in terms of its sophistication, it's really of a piece with those "Bush = Saddam" signs that crop up at antiwar rallies.
It's just false.
The truth, I reiterate, is that America is the most benevolent world power in the history of the planet. If you cannot recognize this, you might as well be reading tealeaves.
— Mark Goldblatt is the author of the novel Africa Speaks, now available in paperback.
That is, the left is in basic denial of reality. It must deny reality, because to embrace it would require it to reject its most basic premises, which have been proven wrong time after time after time.
That is, the left is in basic denial of reality. It must deny reality, because to embrace it would require it to reject its most basic premises, which have been proven wrong time after time after time.
Not much subtlety on the left. They deal in extremes. But that is the only way they can justify their lunatic views. I guess to them it is more convenient to construct a view of things that is so outlandish that only a real nutter would believe them rather than confronting reality. Facing reality would mean having to give up that old commie dream.
Can Noam Chomsky continue to deliver speeches?
Noam, the guru. Noam, the epitomy of careful research. Noam, the deaf and blind but not dumb....no he can talk.
"In such circles, it's become a matter of self-preservation to posit America's essential evil."
While the author may be right about this for now, I fear that is short-lived. The truth is, in such circles, it has always been posh and popular to posit America's essential evil. As most of those who do are wealthy liberal elites (some in Hollywood, some in D.C., some running victims organizations which they themselves victimize), people without means and education will go on believing that liberalism is the way out of their condition. That's certainly the message that presidential candidate Hillary Clinton will be selling in '08. And in this country, I wouldn't take bets against her celebrity to win.
Conservatism is the application of learned knowledge of the ages. You conserve that knowledge, you learn from it, you apply it. The politics of prescription.
The political left is the antithesis of conservatism. Since conservatism is, at its core, based on reality and what can be learned from it, leftism must be based on rejecting reality and turning from it, rejecting the lessons of the past.
When I started lurking at Leftist boards like FreeDem and DU a few years ago, I was taken aback at the willful ignorance of the posters there.
I even took a screen name that reflected my astonishment of their willful ignorance, and posted challenges. I didn't last long, of course. I still lurk there, and am still incredulous, that those who think they have all the answers are so ignorant of even current events and recent history.
These idiots can't find the truth for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman.
Hillary may manage to win, but you'll notice one thing about her: For the most part, she has backed the war in Iraq. I doubt she would have done so, if she could see any political future in opposing the war.
I think there has been a paradigm shift that has left the peacenik, DU-type crowd outside of mainstream debate. Yeah, they will continue to have a few reps in Congress and they'll get their say in the media, but the peacenik left has been cut-off from power.
Even if Hillary becomes President, she will do so in a rightward shifted paradigm. It still wouldn't be good, but it should limit the damage she can do.
Related ArticlesOut of the 'Quagmire'
Source Insight; Published:| April 14, 2003; Author: J. Michael WallerThe Forces Of Anti-Americanism Seek To Intimidate The Press
Source: Toogood Reports; Published: April 11, 2003; Author: Cliff KincaidThe Relativist Left and the War: The antiwar movement is a product of the Left's refusal to reason
Source: FrontPageMagazine.com; Published: April 8, 2003; Author: Elizabeth NicksonAntiwar Greens Given Orders To Use 'Any Means Necessary'
Source: Insight Magazine; Publishe: April 3, 2003; Author: Michelle MalkinDavid Horowitz: The war refutes the opposition
Source: Jewish World Review; Published: April 3, 2003 - 30 Adar II, 5763; Author: David HorowitzFoundation cash funds antiwar movement
Source: The Washington Times: Published: April, 2, 2003; Author: Julia DuinGreens and Socialists Unite to Oppose War
Source: CNSNews.com Commentary from the National Anxiety Center; Published: April 1, 2003; Author: Alan CarubaDoes Columbia University Hate America?
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: April 01, 2003; Author: | Daniel Pipes and Jonathan Calt Harris'Anti-American' - Noble Ideas, But Shameful Actions
Source: Toogood Reports; Published: | March 19, 2003; Author: Paul E. ScatesThe Left's Dream
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: March 18, 2003; Author: Daniel PipesThe Fifth Column Left Declares War
Source: Townhall.com; Published: March 18, 2003; Author: David HorowitzAnti-War Protests Have Big Price Tags
Source: FOX News; Published: March 18, 2003; Author: Dan SpringerThe left /fascist 'peace' coalition
Source: The Washington Times; Published: March 17, 2003; Author: Martin GrossLeftwing "Peace" Saboteurs, Anarchists go Shopping
Source: www.frontpagemag.org; Published: March 17, 2003; Author: Brian SayreAsk Dr. Ridgley: What's the Post-War Left to Do?
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: March 14, 2003; Author: Stanley K. Ridgley, Ph.D.ANSWER's Steering Committee: Traitors, and Commies, and Jew-haters - oh my!
Source: FrontPageMagazine.com; Published: March 12, 2003; Author: Ryan Anderson O’Donnell"Workers World Party", Other Leftist Orgs Paying For Protests
Source: Fox News Channel; Published: March 12, 2003Where were critics during Kosovo?
Source: Washington Times; Published: March 11, 2003; Author: Larry ElderUseful Idiots And Useless Arguments: The Depressing Iraq War Debate
Source: Toogood Reports; published: March 10, 2003; Author: W. James Antle IIIAnti-War Activists Map Their Strategy (FR mention)
Source: AP; Published: March 9, 2003; Author: Jeff DonnAnti-War Or Anti-Reality?
Source: Toogood Reports; Published: March 5, 2003; Author: Paul E. ScatesBarbara Stanley: America: Land Of The Free, Even Free To Be Traitors
Source: Toogood Reports; Published: February 28, 2003; Author: Barbara StanleyCongress Mulls Probe of Communists' Ties to Appeasement Movement, Radical Islam
Source: NewsMax.com; Published: February 28, 20003; Author:| Wes VernonExposing the Anti-War Movement, Part I: MoveOn.org
Source: Citizens for Fair and Balanced Funding; Published: February 28, 2003; Author: David WareIf antiwar protesters succeed (by Iraqi citizen)
Source: CS Monitor; Publisghed: February 26, 2003; Author: unsigned opinionMarxist Groups in the Anti-War Movement
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: February 25, 2003; Author: Paul M. WeyrichAnti-war Protestors: Shades Of Stupidity
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: February 21, 2003; Author: Rachel MarsdenWho's Paying for It All? [re: anti-war demostrations]
Source: INSIGHT magazine; Published: February 18, 2003; Author: J. Michael WallerAnti-War Protestors Are Warmongers for Our Enemies
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: February 11, 2003; Author: Alex EpsteinThe Peace Movement’s Mumia Connection
Source: National Review; Published:| January 28, 2003; Author: Byron YorkReds Still [re: The story no one wants to hear about the antiwar movement]
Source: National Review; Published: January 23, 2003; Author: Byron York
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.