Skeptic
3rd November 2003, 10:25 AM
Those who are not advocating the USA should do the "rational" thing and run away (in Iraq and everywhere else there's trouble) call themselves the "peace movement". I think this is a serious misuse of both words. I am not concerned here with whether their recommendations, in addition to being for "peace", are also cowardly, pathetic, and unwise. I think they are... but that's another issue. The problem here is that they seem not to understand what either "pacifism" and "movement" really mean.
Let's start with "peace" and "pacifism". What is pacificism? It is the declaration that you will not use violence against fellow humans. It is, I think, an insane policy, but it requires energy and determination. The poster boys for pacifism were St. Francis of Assizi, and perhaps Walt Whitman; they were, whatever else you say about them, determined people who nothing could discourage or tire.
Let us move to "movement". It is precisely the energy, the ACTIVITY involved, which is why pacifism can be called a "movement" when lead by the likes of St. Francis or Whitman: a "movement" means (ideally) a group of people with a real conviction who had definite goals. The goals can be evil--as in the nazi movement, for instance--but it is, indeed, moving. It is an active, not a passive, sort of thing. If anything, the more SEEMINGLY passive a real movement's goals are, the more determination it requires. Anybody can join a movement which claims (like the nazis) that they are wonderful and superior to all others, but to die as a martyr for pacifism (or christianity) instead of breaking your vows of non-violence or renouncing your fate requires steely determination and single-mindedness.
So much for what a real "peace movement" would look like. But could anything be farther than THAT than what we see in the current so-called "anti-war movement"?
What we see from the "anti-war movement" is NOT pacificism. It is not even any sort of MOVEMENT, in the real sense of the word. There is no real determination, no real energy, no real independent thought, no real goals, in the whole thing. It is merely following the path of (momentary) least resistence, intellectualy, politically, and morally. It has no positive plan, most of the time, beyond vague hand-waving. All it does is have a stimulus-response reply to whatever is the latest thing in the news at the moment: the newspapers said the economy is hurting, so let's smear Bush. An American chopper was downed in Iraq, so let's run away.
The movement's "philosophy" is encapsulated in the popular bumper sticker, "anyone but Bush in 2004". The one thing the owners of these bumper stickers know is that they are sick of Bush. The one thing they are for is--you guessed it--following the path of least resistance and immediate satisfaction, and "getting rid of Bush". To replace him with WHO? To pursue policies different than his in WHAT WAY? For an America different from Bush's HOW? No answer. That doesn't matter; what matter is merely that Bush annoys them, so the "most important thing" is to remove him.
This is not a movement. It does not have any convictions beyound "I'm sick of this". It does not have any alternative suggestion except for "let's get rid of X". It does not have a worldview beyound "I don't like it". It is merely a case of WEARINESS AND SHORT SIGHTEDNESS: war weariness, economic weariness, intellectual weariness, leading to the incredibly short-sided "stimulus-reponse" reactions: let's just get rid of Bush, and everything will be fine. Let's just run away from Iraq, and things will get better. Hey, what's the worse that can happen?
Of course, all this is covered up with vague rationalizations: "well, to expediate our redeployment from Iraq will not mean abdicating our responsibilities..." and other pseudo-intellectual arguments about peace and freedom, "understanding" the terrorists, putting the moral blame on the USA, etc. But this is getting it backwards. It's not as if there is some sort of general idea, or some unifying thought, behind the criticism or rationalizations. They are all merely employed as an excuse for running away from whatever it is that itches right now.
Let's start with "peace" and "pacifism". What is pacificism? It is the declaration that you will not use violence against fellow humans. It is, I think, an insane policy, but it requires energy and determination. The poster boys for pacifism were St. Francis of Assizi, and perhaps Walt Whitman; they were, whatever else you say about them, determined people who nothing could discourage or tire.
Let us move to "movement". It is precisely the energy, the ACTIVITY involved, which is why pacifism can be called a "movement" when lead by the likes of St. Francis or Whitman: a "movement" means (ideally) a group of people with a real conviction who had definite goals. The goals can be evil--as in the nazi movement, for instance--but it is, indeed, moving. It is an active, not a passive, sort of thing. If anything, the more SEEMINGLY passive a real movement's goals are, the more determination it requires. Anybody can join a movement which claims (like the nazis) that they are wonderful and superior to all others, but to die as a martyr for pacifism (or christianity) instead of breaking your vows of non-violence or renouncing your fate requires steely determination and single-mindedness.
So much for what a real "peace movement" would look like. But could anything be farther than THAT than what we see in the current so-called "anti-war movement"?
What we see from the "anti-war movement" is NOT pacificism. It is not even any sort of MOVEMENT, in the real sense of the word. There is no real determination, no real energy, no real independent thought, no real goals, in the whole thing. It is merely following the path of (momentary) least resistence, intellectualy, politically, and morally. It has no positive plan, most of the time, beyond vague hand-waving. All it does is have a stimulus-response reply to whatever is the latest thing in the news at the moment: the newspapers said the economy is hurting, so let's smear Bush. An American chopper was downed in Iraq, so let's run away.
The movement's "philosophy" is encapsulated in the popular bumper sticker, "anyone but Bush in 2004". The one thing the owners of these bumper stickers know is that they are sick of Bush. The one thing they are for is--you guessed it--following the path of least resistance and immediate satisfaction, and "getting rid of Bush". To replace him with WHO? To pursue policies different than his in WHAT WAY? For an America different from Bush's HOW? No answer. That doesn't matter; what matter is merely that Bush annoys them, so the "most important thing" is to remove him.
This is not a movement. It does not have any convictions beyound "I'm sick of this". It does not have any alternative suggestion except for "let's get rid of X". It does not have a worldview beyound "I don't like it". It is merely a case of WEARINESS AND SHORT SIGHTEDNESS: war weariness, economic weariness, intellectual weariness, leading to the incredibly short-sided "stimulus-reponse" reactions: let's just get rid of Bush, and everything will be fine. Let's just run away from Iraq, and things will get better. Hey, what's the worse that can happen?
Of course, all this is covered up with vague rationalizations: "well, to expediate our redeployment from Iraq will not mean abdicating our responsibilities..." and other pseudo-intellectual arguments about peace and freedom, "understanding" the terrorists, putting the moral blame on the USA, etc. But this is getting it backwards. It's not as if there is some sort of general idea, or some unifying thought, behind the criticism or rationalizations. They are all merely employed as an excuse for running away from whatever it is that itches right now.