DEUCES
WILD
Anybody
can say or do anything, and still claim to be a conservative:
it's gotten almost as easy as claiming to be a "libertarian."
Bill Buckley once claimed to be a libertarian on the grounds
that his magazine, National Review, had defended NR
editor William F. Rickenbacker's refusal to cooperate with
the Census Bureau. Jessie Ventura lays claim to the mantle
of libertarianism on the grounds of his fashionably liberal
social views as well as his generally loutish demeanor. In
our postmodern Babel of transgendered transnational politics,
all bets are off, and anyone can say (or do) anything no
matter what their political "orientation." Bill Kristol, the
little Lenin of neoconservatism, can metamorphize into a McCainiac,
and celebrate the centralized state as a sign of "national
greatness" – just as Lenora Fulani, a self-proclaimed
Marxist, has jumped on the Buchanan bandwagon, as part of
a strategy to break the political monopoly of the regnant
elites. As a friend of mine used to say on certain days: "What's
the moon in?"
BLEEDING-HEART
CONSERVATISM
The
moon is certainly in a strange place, at least politically,
these days: I see no explanation other than an astrological
one for the recent National Review Online article
by Jonah Goldberg, written at least in part as a response
to my critique of his previous column, "A Continent Bleeds."
In his original
piece, Goldberg advocated a US-led invasion of the African
continent. We have to clean up the place and give Africans
the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of Western "civilization"
– voluntarily, if possible, at gunpoint if necessary.
It will all be done for their own good, of course,
and so what if certain multinationals make a few billion in
the process? After all, it's for the children. Or,
as Goldberg puts it:
"I
wonder whether some of my correspondents – liberal and conservative – have even the meager intellectual and moral confidence to
say that wholesale atrocities, starvation, and murder are
wrong. Are they so passively or actively racist as to believe
that these Africans want to or deserve to live this way? Conservatives
are supposed to be opposed to notions of collective and intergenerational
guilt. Why then are they so willing to say, in effect, that
millions of starving children deserve their fate?"
DEJA
VU ALL OVER AGAIN
Ah
yes, "it's for the children"! Now, where have we heard that
one before? The Clintonization of the Republican Party,
a phenomenon first noted and named by columnist Robert Novak,
has found its voice in Jonah Goldberg. If you dissent, you
must be a racist – this is a page ripped right out of
the Clintonian play-book. The appeal to base emotions, and
the complete lack of any logic, gives the argument that we
must intervene to prevent "wholesale atrocities, starvation
and murder" a distinctly Clintonesque air: you can almost
hear Bill saying, portentously, "Because it's the right thing
to do."
THE
UPPER WEST SIDE BRIGADE – TO THE RESCUE!
Goldberg
writes that the response to his "let's invade Africa" column
was "overwhelming," and claims that it was mostly supportive
– especially from "military types." I guess that means
Jonah will have plenty of company in the jungles of the Congo,
wading through a serpent-infested swamp, holding aloft the
beacon-light of Western Civilization. They can call it the
Upper West Side Brigade, the post-millennial equivalent of
the old "Abraham Lincoln Brigade" and the various other "international
brigades" that fought in the Spanish Civil War – that
ought to be good for a couple of dozen columns and a book
contract. Unfortunately, he does not quote from any
of these gung-ho internationalistas, but does give
us a taste of what the few disgruntled dissenters had to say,
which boiled down to: "So, how do we do it?" This, according
to Goldberg, "was the most common question from advocates
and dissenters alike. The short, humble answer is, 'How the
hell should I know?'"
THE
WHITE MAN'S BURDEN
Is
this sophomoric cynicism really fashionable among American
conservatives? Or is it something about the air – or
perhaps it's in the water – of New York City that encourages
such extravagant displays of arrogance. What he is saying,
in effect, is: I don't know, please don't bother me with the
details, we should "build schools, and churches and markets
(with enforceable contracts!)." Whatever. "It might also be
necessary to erase a lot of the pernicious boundaries created
by the colonialists, borders that were designed to pit tribe
against tribe." Naturally, the same Westerners who created
those terribly divisive borders will be drawing the new ones,
but that's all right, because you see it'll be Jonah and his
friends, this time around, who will take up the White Man's
Burden with both hands.
HI,
IT'S ME
But
the dissenters' rudeness did not end with questioning Goldberg's
means; the ones that really got on his nerves were
those who dared question his "humanitarian" ends, and
wanted to know "Who are you to say that Americans should die
imposing your ideas?" His embarrassing answer:
"Well,
I'm me. Take it or leave it. I make a living writing things
that I think. If you disagree, so be it. But clearly this
doesn't satisfy everyone. Indeed, there is a disturbingly
obnoxious attitude among many isolationists which tries to
close off all debate by saying "unless you are willing to
fight yourself, you have no right to suggest other people
should." Sure, sometimes this is a perfectly legitimate, though
hardly sufficient, argument. But it is hardly the trump card
many isolationists think it is. "
SHUT
UP AND SIT DOWN
This
silly answer satisfies no one – probably not even its
author, for all his faux-bravado. What is disturbing
and obnoxious is not the propensity of some unnamed "isolationists"
to question the motives of our laptop bombardiers, but Goldberg's
brazen indifference to the horror of war by one who would
not deign to fight it himself. If Goldberg is seriously convinced
that the cause of bringing "order" to Africa is worth other
peoples' lives, then why isn't it worth his own? This is an
entirely fair question, and should be asked of anyone and
everyone who make a similarly light-minded proposal. Indeed,
this should be the standard by which all of our legislators,
and every American citizen, judge American intervention overseas,
by asking the question: would you send your own son or daughter
to die for – Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, Africa, fill in the
blank.? Would you die for it? If not, then shut up
and sit down.
WEIGHING
THE MERITS
Goldberg,
however, is bothered by this question, and whines because
some have had the utter temerity to raise it:
"Leaving
aside what I myself am or am not willing to do, I always thought
the merits of an idea should be weighed at least somewhat
independently of its author. If I were in uniform, would my
idea suddenly become great? Perhaps the fact that so many
military folks agree with me makes this point moot. In case
it doesn't, let me ask: Does this mean that people in wheelchairs
must be pure pacifists? After all, they can't fight, so what
right do they have to advocate sending off the able-bodied?
I do not want to be a police officer; does that mean I shouldn't
open my trap about my view that cops should do dangerous things?"
JUST
AN IDEA
If
war were just an "idea," then Goldberg's point that the arguments
of its proponents have to "be weighed at least somewhat independently"
of the authors would have some validity. But war is not
just an idea, it is nothing less than mass murder, and
madness on a scale that only a few – notably Paul Fussell,
in Doing
Battle: The Making of a Skeptic – have been able
to communicate in print. If Goldberg were in uniform, then,
yes, his arguments would carry more weight – just as
General Colin Powell, if he suddenly went mad and endorsed
Goldberg's campaign to invade Africa, would undoubtedly carry
considerably more weight than the opinions of our latte-swilling
liberationists. And if anyone in a wheelchair had the nerve
to "volunteer" their son or daughter for guard duty on the
African front, I would personally be tempted to wheel them
straight into oncoming traffic.
ARE
WE TO BE SPARED NOTHING?
What
really takes the cake, in Goldberg's case, is a supercilious
offhand remark that reveals much more than the author intends:
"We do have a volunteer army, by the way, and I see nothing
wrong with asking for volunteers for this mission. I hope
that makes everyone happy." In other words, war is for all
those dummies who don't have laptops and haven't found their
niche in the "information economy" – we have to come
up with something for these dolts to occupy their time,
for gosh sakes! Aside from evading the obvious – how
long would we have a volunteer military if we took
on such Herculean tasks? – this argument raises the question:
is there any limit to the arrogance of our self-appointed
elites? Is there anything they will not say, or write, just
to fill a lull in the conversation or make a deadline?
THE
WELLSPRINGS OF BITTERNESS
At
the end of his screed, Goldberg acknowledges the real point
of his rambling column, and bemoans the fact that there is
"a
serious wellspring of bitterness among the belligerent pacifists
of the Right. A good example is an attack on me and my article
from some guy named Justin Raimondo. Honestly, I had never
heard of the guy before (and, after reading his columns, I
can see why). Writing for the cranky, often nasty, and thankfully
irrelevant anti-everything website antiwar.com, Raimondo simply
makes up a lot of stuff about me that isn't true."
"ANTI-EVERYTHING"
–
AND PROUD OF IT
As
to exactly what "stuff" I made up, this is never specified,
and the hapless reader is left to fend for himself since this
is a web-column devoid of any links. I therefore invite
any and all interested parties to follow this
link, and decide for themselves if my brief bio of Goldberg
is in accordance with the facts. All I did was observe that
the last time I saw him he was on some talk show discussing
the legal and sexual intricacies of l'affair Lewinsky. If
Goldberg is offended by this reminder of how he earned his
journalistic meal-ticket and his place at the conservative
table, then I'm sure he has his reasons. Leaving aside the
question of who has heard of whom – and why this matters
– I would only add that the description of antiwar.com
as "anti-everything" rings a positively Clintonian note. Oh,
those "cranky" right-wing "extremists," who are "irrelevant"
naysayers in any event, they're just against everything!
Isn't it just too too terrible? If by "everything,"
Goldberg means the world Bill and Hillary and Madeleine are
building for us, then antiwar.com proudly pleads guilty to
the charge – and so does any conservative worth his or
her salt.
COWARDS
ALL
After
averring that no one should take anything on this website
seriously, Goldberg then launches into a torrent of words
to refute it, all to no avail. He concedes that the Founders
would be "horrified" by his proposal, but avers that "not
all the great conservative thinkers would be." Oh yeah, like
who? Well, "there are certainly some religious conservatives
– John Paul II, to name an obvious one – would be
very sympathetic." Oh really? Well, there was a time when
the Vatican raised its own armies, and could put thousands
of fighting men into battle, and if His Holiness looks with
favor on Goldberg's proposal then perhaps this tradition could
be revived. Indeed, it would have to be, since no American
President who wants to stay in office would embark on the
conquest of Africa, and no Congress would put up with it.
Is this cowardice? Yes, according to Goldberg, who writes
"I
doubt that the Founders or any conservative worth his salt
would be as cowardly as those people who simply hide behind
the skirts of moral relativism or try to dismiss an idea by
attacking its author (an old Communist trick, by the way).
I have no problem with people who say Africa can't be saved
(they may be right). Or with people who say we shouldn't try – if they are saying so because they think it can't be done.
But people who say they don't want to do it simply because
it offends their sensibilities or because they think Africans
aren't worth saving, well, shame on them."
CHAPTER
AND VERSE
If
the Africans could be "saved" from themselves, at the cost
of expending most if not all of our own resources – not
to mention untold thousands of lives – would it be worth
it? This is probably just another "old Communist trick" on
my part, but I can't help wondering: who is going to
make that decision? Let us hope and pray it is never Jonah
Goldberg. I don't presume to know if Africa can or cannot
be "saved," but certainly it deserves to be saved from such
condescending "saviors" as Goldberg and his fellow interventionists.
It is hardly "moral relativism" to observe that not all cultures
value human life to the same degree, and that while McDonald's
may be well nigh universal, the effort to impose a higher
universalism is bound to end in disaster – for the "saviors"
as well as the saved. This is the lesson of history, of all
the great empires that expanded and fell under the sheer weight
of their own hubris: empires corrupt, and worldwide empires
corrupt absolutely. But it is futile to lecture the neoconservative
know-it-alls, and Goldberg blathers blithely on: "Regardless,
conservatism is not supposed to be against change or progress
(I can quote you chapter and verse if you like)." Chapter
and verse of what, I wonder – Caesar's Commentaries?
BEFORE
A FALL
To
believe that we have all the answers – or even most of
them – that we can impose "civilization" on peoples the
world over, in spite of their perpetual unwillingness to cooperate,
is to live in the same dream-world inhabited by socialists,
Clintonians, and other would-be social engineers. But the
impracticality of the Goldberg Africa Project is not the principal
objection to it. I don't want to "save" Africa not only because
it can't and won't be "saved," not merely because it would
cost too much and lead to countless unnecessary deaths, but
because I oppose the dangerous conception of the US as the
world's combination nanny and cop, a global social worker
armed with the latest in weapons technology, for its sheer
presumptuousness. It reeks of a sinful pride, and since Jonah
was the first to bring in religion, and invoke the moral authority
of a Pope to buttress his claim to the ethical high ground,
I would remind him that excessive pride, according to Catholic
doctrine, is also a sin – and that it cometh before a
fall.
|
