NO
PLACE FOR THE HOI POLLOI
If
you aren't an internationalist, then you're obviously an uneducated
dolt with dirt under your fingernails and a single-digit IQ.
To be "well-informed" is to agree with the Opinion Leaders
who, by definition, know what's best for us Nobodies. The
pretensions of the Pew Center aside for the moment, this division
of the world into the Power Elite and the Powerless is unfortunately
not just an affectation but also reflects reality – especially
when it comes to foreign affairs, a realm long dominated by
the pin-stripes crowd, the "best and the brightest" architects
of disaster. Foreign policy has traditionally been the purview
of a very elite group of "experts," ostensibly bipartisan
but representing a very narrow range of opinion, and this
exclusivity carries over into the punditocracy. Now that Pat
Buchanan is writing campaign speeches instead of newspaper
columns, there are only two nationally-syndicated columnists
that I can think of who can be relied on to represent the
foreign policy views of the Powerless Majority: Charley Reese,
of the Orlando Sentinel, and Robert Novak.
THE
MAIN ENEMY IS AT HOME
This
elite/hoi polloi dichotomy also carries over into the
conservative movement, that hotbed of "isolationism" and know-nothingism,
where the split between the leadership and the rank-and-file
on foreign affairs is even wider. While Dubya's foreign policy
advisors would rewrite "America the Beautiful" to say "America,
the Hegemon," and Heritage Foundation policy wonks write heavily-footnoted
tomes on the necessity of extending NATO to the Ukraine and
beyond, the average outside-the-Beltway conservative activist
is focused on the enemy at home. It wasn't Slobodan Milosevic
who crashed through the door of the Gonzalez family home and
seized a six-year-old boy at gunpoint. It wasn't the Attorney
General of Yugoslavia who incinerated the martyrs of Waco.
It wasn't the Russian federal police who visited death on
a small cabin in a place called Ruby Ridge.
THEIR
NATIONAL GREATNESS, AND OURS
But
the conservative elite, centered in the Upper West Side of
Manhattan as well as the Washington Beltway, while occasionally
pandering to the radicalized hoi polloi, disdain this
vulgar anti-statism. A whole school of thought has erupted,
like a small pimple, in these haughty circles, in opposition
to what they regard as outright subversion and even treason.
Embarrassed in front of their liberal friends to be seen with
such obviously lowbrow Neanderthals and isolationists, they
have come up with an alternative all their own – "national
greatness conservatism." Here, at last, is a way to ditch
all that radical-sounding rhetoric about cutting back government
and tearing down the monuments of the welfare state: instead,
we'll be building some monuments of our own: bridges,
roads, airports, statues, and other public works that embody
an ostensibly conservative vision of a strong American state.
The Weekly Standard, that barometer of Manhattanite
Reaction, was the first to take up the cry, but the
"national greatness" bandwagon really picked up speed
when John McCain took the reins, and then all the neocons
hitched a ride. A short ride, but a heady one, and don't think
that this is the last we are going to hear of either McCain
or "national greatness." Of course, what really got the neocons
all excited about McCain was his bellicosity: oh yeah, let's
go after all those "rogue states," overthrow the governments
of Iraq, North Korea, and Yugoslavia, and confront Russia
and China while we're at it. This is the really dangerous
aspect of the "national greatness" concept: it's application
to foreign policy.
CHARLES
KRAUTHAMMER IS 'MY FAVORITE MARTIAN'
If
the Kristol-Kagan article outlines the theory of "national
greatness" applied to foreign policy, then Jonah Goldberg's
"A
Continent Bleeds," posted at National Review Online,
illustrates the utter absurdity of the concept in practice.
The piece is portentously subtitled "Taking America –
and our responsibilities – seriously." Uh oh, this sounds
ominous, and it is: We are treated, in the opening paragraphs,
to a litany of Africa's afflictions: AIDS, hunger, corruption,
and war. Goldberg, a columnist usually given to cute one-liners
but nothing really all that weighty, clues us in at
the beginning: "This ain't a funny column." But the best humor
is unintentional, and Goldberg's extended remarks on how we
might aspire to national greatness are good for more than
a few guffaws. For young Jonah, who is identified as the Editor
of National Review Online, is not interested in anything
so prosaic as bridges. He just loves this national greatness
stuff, but the trouble is that "greatness conservatives are
slow to realize that we do not live in an age where we need
another department of agriculture, some more land-grant colleges,
or a push to bust the trusts." He kind of likes Charles Krauthammer's
suggestion that we re-launch the space program and colonize
Mars, because
"Great
civilizations create great cathedrals, and the cathedrals
of this generation should be in outer space. Cathedrals inspire
rich and poor people alike to believe great things are possible.
The Mars Polar Lander cost the average American the price
of half a cheeseburger. A human lander would cost the average
American more – perhaps even ten cheeseburgers! So be
it. That is no great sacrifice."
SO
BE IT!
Isn't
it great being a "greatness conservative"? All you
have to do is say "so be it!" and mountains are moved, cathedrals
rise, and slaves toil happily to the greater glory of Pharoah.
As for computing the cost of the Mars Polar Lander in cheeseburgers
– the usual measure of cost is dollars, which don't have
to be spent on cheeseburgers. But what if they are? Is government
empowered to trump any and all private desires with the overbearing
"greatness" of our noble elites? To concede this would indeed
be a great sacrifice of American liberties. This does not
occur to Goldberg, however, who blithely plunges on, opining
that
"If
great sacrifice is the measure of true greatness, then the
answer does not lie on the surface of Mars. One need only
look to the area on this planet where it appears time is moving
in the wrong direction. The average African is indisputably
worse off today than he was thirty or forty years ago. Of
what other place can you say such a thing?"
WELL,
ACTUALLY, I CAN . . .
Vietnam,
for one; North Korea, for another. The former Soviet Union,
for another, where the infant mortality rate is surpassing
Third World levels. The Arabs who live in the "demilitarized"
zone of Lebanon, annexed and perpetually bombed by Israel,
don't seem too much better off, and neither do the Iraqis
and the Serbians. I guess getting bombed at regular intervals
isn't too conducive to progress. As for America, even aside
from urban blight and the growing predominance of a neobarbarian
adversary culture, we are much worse off in the sense
that the citizens of the late Roman Empire were worse off
than those of the old Republic. But Goldberg, oblivious to
such fine distinction,s is impatient to get on with his Africa
thesis, which is this:
"I
think it's time we revisited the notion of a new kind of Colonialism
– though we shouldn't call it that. I don't mean ripping
off poor countries. I don't mean setting tribes against one
another and paying off corrupt "leaders" to keep down unrest.
I mean going in – guns blazing if necessary – for
truth and justice. I am quite serious about this. The United
States should mount a serious effort to bring civilization
(yes, "Civilization") to those parts of Africa that are in
Hobbesian despair. We should enlist any nation, institution
organization – especially multinational corporations
and evangelical churches as well as average African citizens
– interested in permanently helping Africa join the 21st
century. This might mean that Harvard would have to cut back
on courses about transgender construction workers. And it
might mean that some churches would have to spend more time
feeding starving people than pronouncing on American presidential
candidates."
BILLIONS
UPON BILLIONS
Oh,
and by the way, it isn't only Harvard that will be sacrificing
a few cheeseburgers: "We should spend billions upon billions
doing it," Goldberg avers, and if a few American soldiers
will have to be fed into the meatgrinder – well then,
so be it! See, now wasn't that easy? But that's what
"greatness" is all about – sending other people off to
die for your delusions. According to Goldberg, we must
"put
American troops in harm's way" and "not be surprised that
Americans will die doing the right thing. We should not be
squeamish, either, about the fact that (mostly white) Americans
will kill some black Africans in the process."
A
ZABAR'S IN UGANDA
Why
should Goldberg be squeamish? After all, he is not
going to get shipped to some African hellhole, it won't be
his guns that are blazing into the impenetrable darkness
of that jungled continent. He won't be camped out in
the middle of the biggest concentration of poisonous insects
and murderous predators, both animal and human, on earth.
He'll be sitting in his Upper West Side apartment, thinking
up new ways to celebrate his own greatness. We must bring
"civilization" to Africa – but what is that? A Zabar's
in Uganda? A cell phone for every Namibian? Must we hook up
every hut to the Internet? And they used to call the New Left
"condescending saviors," but even the social engineers of
the old Soviet Union could not have even conceived of taking
on such a grandiose project as Goldberg proposes. Before we
go on civilizing mission to Sierra Leone, perhaps we should
send an expeditionary force to certain sections of the Bronx
as a kind of test case.
HAIL
BRITANNIA?
Goldberg
claims that his brand of colonialism is "new," but he has
not even bothered to give it any new packaging. Not only does
he want to bring in the "multinational corporations," he wants
to get the churches in on the deal too – just like in
the old days of British imperialism, which Goldberg conjures
as a great and noble enterprise:
"The
British Empire decided unilaterally that the global practice
of slavery was a crime against God and man, and they set out
to stop it. They didn't care about the 'sovereignty' of other
nations when it came to an evil institution. They didn't care
about the 'rule of international law,' they made law with
the barrel of a cannon."
Yes,
and look where they are now: shrunken to a shadow of their
former imperial "greatness." Shriveled by socialism and debauched
by imperialism, they are the victims of their own overweening
arrogance. Is this the Goldbergian prescription for "national
greatness" – that we should end up utterly impoverished,
exhausted by our imperial adventures and dreaming of better
days?
TARGET
AUDIENCE
In
reading this piece, it was possible to forget that one was
reading an ostensibly conservative magazine, and toward the
end he directly addresses leftists, who, it seems, have been
his real target audience all along:
"Recently,
we've heard a lot from the Left about how great Cuba is because
it has free health care. American liberals are perfectly willing
to countenance Cuba's state-sanctioned murder and the abrogation
of virtually all civil rights in exchange for free mammograms
and tonsillectomies. Ending poverty and hunger – barely
– ought to be worth a mighty price for these men and
women who spout daily about the right to burn flags and receive
government payments for artfully arranged fecal matter. One
wonders what they would be willing to accept for African children
to grow up with arms and families intact. As for what conservatives
would be willing to accept, I have no idea. But I have a sense
quite a few of them will tell me."
THE
LIFE OF THE PARTY
It
is slightly odd that an editor of National Review has
"no idea" what conservatives will think of his Napoleonic
altruism, but even odder that he doesn't seem to care. I realize
that NR has long since ceased to be the literary epicenter
of American conservatism – although I am old enough to
remember a time when it was – but it is still sad to
see that under the editorship of that P. J. O'Rourke-ish looking
fellow it has degenerated to the point of printing (or posting)
pieces directed at the author's leftist friends instead of
the magazine's actual readers. Who cares what the left
has to say about health care in Cuba – do really we have
to send American boys (and girls) to the oozing swamps of
deepest darkest Africa so that Jonah Goldberg can lord it
over the trendy-lefty partygoers at some Manhattan loft?
UPWARD
MOBILITY
I
don't mean to take Goldberg's column too seriously –
after all, most of his columns are meant, I think, to be humorous
– but perhaps it does tell us something about the Influentials,
the Opinion Leaders, and the way they get appointed these
days. The first time I ever saw Jonah Goldberg he was sitting
next to Lucianne Goldberg, his mother, describing – in
some detail – just how that stain happened to get on
Monica's infamous dress. The Lewinsky scandal spawned a whole
new wave of instant "experts," whose job it was to provide
grist for the endless media mill; just as the O.J. Simpson
trial made several media careers (CNN's Greta van Sustern),
so the Lewinsky/impeachment affair produced a new generation
of scandalmongers, of whom Lucianne Goldberg was certainly
one of the most colorful – and enterprising. With the
Lewinsky tapes in her hot little hands, Lucianne was momentarily
at the center of l'affaire Lewinsky, and she managed to spin
a radio show off of her notoriety, a website, and, it seems,
instant appointment of her son as a resident foreign policy
guru at the flagship magazine of the American Right. From
Lewinsky-ology to geopolitics – in the conservative movement
of today, the transition is quick and almost effortless.
FROM
HERE TO ABSURDITY
I
don't mean to be unkind – really I don't – but Goldberg's
article is a virtual parody, albeit unintended, of the globalist
idea. Drawing out an absurd premise – that the US must
right every wrong, heal every wound, bear every burden and
pay any price – to its logical conclusion, he demonstrates
its self-evident impossibility. Evident, that is, to any ordinary
conservative, but not to the Opinion Leaders and other high-falutin'
folks, in government and the media, who only have to declare:
So be it! – and suddenly governments are building
bridges, raising cathedrals, colonizing Mars, and, most important
of all, starting wars. But before we get started, the rest
of us have a few questions. . . .
IN
THE VANGUARD
There
are not nearly enough American troops to patrol the African
continent; will Goldberg have us bring back the draft, and
thus force every young American to aspire to his kind of "greatness"?
But the big question is this – will Goldberg himself
volunteer for this noble mission to bring civilization to
Africa? Asking whether the Cuba-loving Left would be willing
to accept the challenge of lifting Africa up out of oppression
and poverty, he concluded his article by noting that "quite
a few" conservatives will tell him what they think of his
proposal. Well then, here goes: I'm for it Jonah, but only
on the condition that we send you over there first,
as a kind of scouting party, with the rest of the invading
army to follow not too long after you give the signal.
And don't worry, we'll give you plenty of mosquito nets –
and your choice of a farm in Zimbabwe or UN headquarters in
Sierra Leone.
|
