Leave it to the bad boys of Exile magazine to bring you the latest in Moscow-style conspiracy theory about Sept. 11. If you have the stomach for a throat-scorching dose of ex-pat cynicism, take a look at Mark Ames'tale of John O'Neill. Even the friendly folks at your local Lyndon-Larouche corner might have trouble beating it.
Monday, September 30, 2002
TIRED? POOR? YEARNING TO BREATHE FREE? FIND YOUR FATE IN THE US ARMY.
Emma Goldman detested conscription, as she made abundantly clear in her address to the jury, delivered during her anti-conscription trial in New York City on July 9, 1917.
Explaining her status as "conscientious objector", Goldman states:
"Now, who and what is the conscientious objector? Is he really a shirker, a slacker, or a coward? To call him that is to be guilty of dense ignorance of the forces which impel men and women to stand out against the whole world like a glittering lone star upon a dark horizon. The conscientious objector is impelled by what President Wilson in his speech of Feb. 3, 1917, called 'the righteous passion for justice upon which all war, all structure of family, State and of mankind must rest as the ultimate base of our existence and our liberty.' The righteous passion for justice which can never express itself in human slaughter--that is the force which makes the conscientious objector. Poor indeed is the country which fails to recognize the importance of that new type of humanity as the 'ultimate base of our existence and liberty.' It will find itself barren of that which makes for character and quality in its people."
Goldman is right to mourn the character of a country that does not recognize the value of dissent. She might have added that the maintenance of character and integrity is the prime motivation for choosing the status of conscietious objector. If an individual deems a particular action of the state to be contrary to his moral or religious responsibility-- if it would lead to something like a fragmentation of his character-- then his ability to be a rational, thoughtful citizen would be compromised by the ethical schizophrenia resulting from unswerving support of the state.
The condition I have called "ethical schizophrenia" comes to my attention most prominently and indisputably in the post-communist study of communism's sociological effects on the human psyche. Communism, in the form embraced by Ceausescu's Romania or Stalin's Soviet Union, made an ethical life impossible for its citizens by requiring total allegiance to the state. All social, cultural, familial, religious, and historical loyalties dissolved before the almighty State. To be a human-- moved by hopes, dreams, love, or faith-- proved incompatible with everyday survival. Individual intergrity meant nothing when all interests were assumed to be state interests. (Interestingly enough, similar characteristics can be observed in contemporary nationalist movements.)
"... If I understand you correctly, you think that Western Civilization has rested upon the principle that, whatever else was permitted or forbidden, the one heinous act which would destroy the world was to do precisely this--- the deliberate act of tampering with human beings so as to make them behave in a way which, if they knew what they were doing, or what the consequences were likely to be, would make them recoil with horror and disgust."
On this line of reasoning, moral disorientation might be the only way to mold individuals into the absolute servants of man or state. Yet the consequences eventually undo the gains, as the citizens' loyalty to the state depends on their disloyalty to themselves as ethical human beings. While humans might act with self-hatred sometimes, the very lust for survival prevents them from acting this way all of the time; and when ethically-conscientious humans recognize the existence of other ethically-conscientious humans, their fear of authority diminishes, thereby allowing them to act in concert, to rebel.
Rather than bemoan the lack of "Americanism" or patriotism plaguing the nation, American citizens and politicians alike should praise pluralism and public dissent for the check it provides on federal government activity. The sound of freedom rings from the cacaphony of voices rising to preserve the integrity and honor of the American idea.
Monday, September 30, 2002
NATO GETS A NOSE-JOB
At this point, should anyone really be surprised to discover that the American and European governments, who can't agree on the effects of gravity, finally "agreed" on NATO's new post-Cold War mission? The Bush administration's post-911 rapprochement with Russia served to fill in some of the gaps in NATO's new anti-terrorist mission, agreed upon at the recent defense ministers'meeting in Warsaw. No longer will NATO be a collective security arrangement to counter the Soviet threat. After ruling against a re-definition of NATO as "container of the mighty communist Cuba", Bush switched foes to expand the NATO mandate to include the Middle East.
No matter that NATO's mission in the Balkans earned it the ire of citizens throughout the region. If the Balkans can't appreciate their Kosovo protectorate, NATO will take its good intentions somewhere that can. Its critics fear NATO expansion is a done deal. Not only are they correct-- NATO will probably pursue the largest possible enlargement at the Prague 2002 summit-- but they underestimate the extent to which this expansion will include new members and new geographical territory unconnected to member-states. The costs will prove enormous.
In his tedious game of "I spy an American interest", Bush relegates geo-strategy and rational foreign-policy to the backburner. And I smell what some would call a "conflagration".
Monday, September 30, 2002
THE NEW AND IMPROVED HOLY WARRIOR, TYPECAST BY DR. JAMES DOBSON
Sometimes my attempted open-mindedness results in exposure to the absolutely irredeemable, which is precisely what happened last night when I tuned in to watch Larry King Live interview Dr. James Dobson, president of Focus on the Family. Dobson glowed with God's grace as he stated, "Israel exists primarily because God has willed it to exist". For Dobson, this obviously leads to the conclusion that it is a God-given American mission to protect and guard the Holy Land. In a letter co-authored by Bill Bennett this year, Dobson repudiated American Christians advocating that the Bush administration take an "even-handed" approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Even-handedness is a tactic to be used in political wrangling, certainly not a tactic to import into a holy war.
For all his professed "love" and religiosity, Dobson, who claims to have "accepted the Lord into his heart" at the age of 3, lacks that New Testament virtue that distinguishes Christianty from Judaism, namely, the humbleness encouraged by Jesus Christ. In making God such a large component in his life, Dobson let the glory get to his head by assuming that he could read the mind of God. Or cast judgement for God.
Not even the Pope (whom I currently respect very much) would venture to suggest that Muslims are "more likely to be violent people" than Christians because they lack a "loving God" like Christ. In fact, the current pope has called for forgiveness and kinship between Muslims and Christians-- not war or recrimination. What does Dobson think about the Catholic Church? When King asked Dobson his views on the Enron and Worldcom scandals, Dobson declared: "There is corruption in all parts of American culture today. There is corruption in businesses, corporations,government, pornography, the Catholic Church..." At this point, Dobson shares more opinions with religious fanatic Osama bin Laden than he does with the Pope.
An "expert on behavior", Dobson recounted the harrowing experience of eighteen months spent in service to his God, his country, and Edwin Meese on the Attorney General's Commission for Pornography. What Dobson learned in those eighteen months was that the "addiction to pornography grows over time". At least Dobson retains the courage of his convictions/compulsions. However, his constant reference to child porn during the interview struck me as slightly, dare I say, pornographic?
More disturbing that his unmitigated war fervor the line of reasoning Dobson used to support it. Dobson's thinking goes something like this: Saddam is a tyrant, like Stalin and Hitler. Negotiation or deterrence does not work with tyrants. Therefore negotiation or deterrence will not work with Saddam. In fact, Dobson made it clear that Saddam will do no less than "take your shorts if you try".
Apart from the falsity of his second premise-- that deterrence or negotiation does not work with tyrants-- the foul image of Dobson having his shorts taken by Saddam corrupts the mind as surely as it disgusts the senses. Deterrence does work with tyrants, as evidenced by the fact that nuclear war was avoided during the Cold War, and the many tyrants ruling during that time were deterred from attacks on the United States.
How do you solve a paradox like Dobson? How do you reconcile his Christianity with his belligerence? When one of the callers grilled Dobson about his pro-Israeli position, Larry King attempted to conceal his annoyance at Dobson's reponse with some paper-shuffling. As the caller pointed out, it makes little sense for Dobson to comment on the fact that heaven is limited to the 9-11 victims that were Christians. Such self-limiting and exclusive compassion also does little to explain why he wishes to "save and protect" the Jews of Israel, whom he believes are eternally damned anyway-- just as much as the Muslim inhabitants of the region.
Seeking consistency, one is left with the uncovetous sense that Dobson supports war because he believes his religious faith requires it. Perhaps Huntington should reframe his clash of civilizations argument to reflect the rise of this modern holy warrior, in which case, the clash would not be between East and West, but between those (like bin Laden and Dobson) who are willing to wage ruthless war for their faith and those whose faith does not lead them to advocate such hubristic, power-hungry violence. Those who strive for power will use any means or justification, including religion, to assert it. Those strive for spriritual and ethical integrity understand the assertion of power often precludes individual spiritual and moral development.
More coming...