Barone On The Stain Of Anti-Americanism
The always-intriguing Michael Barone is on a roll today in his discussion of what ‘progressive’ moral relativism has wrought:
In our war against Islamo-fascist terrorism, we face enemies both overt and covert. The overt enemies are, of course, the terrorists themselves. Their motives are clear: They hate our society because of its freedoms and liberties, and want to make us all submit to their totalitarian form of Islam. They are busy trying to wreak harm on us in any way they can. Against them we can fight back, as we did when British authorities arrested the men and women who were plotting to blow up a dozen airliners over the Atlantic.
Our covert enemies are harder to identify, for they live in large numbers within our midst. And in terms of intentions, they are not enemies in the sense that they consciously wish to destroy our society. On the contrary, they enjoy our freedoms and often call for their expansion. But they have also been working, over many years, to undermine faith in our society and confidence in its goodness. These covert enemies are those among our elites who have promoted the ideas labeled as multiculturalism, moral relativism and (the term is Professor Samuel Huntington’s) transnationalism.
At the center of their thinking is a notion of moral relativism. No idea is morally superior to another. Hitler had his way, we have ours — who’s to say who is right? No ideas should be “privileged,” especially those that have been the guiding forces in the development and improvement of Western civilization. Rich white men have imposed their ideas because of their wealth and through the use of force. Rich white nations imposed their rule on benighted people of color around the world. For this sin of imperialism they must forever be regarded as morally stained and presumptively wrong. Our covert enemies go quickly from the notion that all societies are morally equal to the notion that all societies are morally equal except ours, which is worse.
These are the ideas that have been transmitted over a long generation by the elites who run our universities and our schools, and who dominate our mainstream media. They teach an American history with the good parts left out and the bad parts emphasized…
That’s a bit too broad; I do agree that academia has a pervasive stench of moral relativism, but I don’t believe that to be the case with most of the mainstream media; instead, they see themselves more as ‘dissent is the greatest form of patriotism’ questioners of those who hold power.
Barone is right on target with his critique of moral relativism, however; I particularly want to repeat this line:
Our covert enemies go quickly from the notion that all societies are morally equal to the notion that all societies are morally equal except ours, which is worse.
Barone’s conclusion?
We have always had our covert enemies, but their numbers were few until the 1960s. But then the elite young men who declined to serve in the military during the Vietnam War set out to write a narrative in which they, rather than those who obeyed the call to duty, were the heroes. They have propagated their ideas through the universities, the schools and mainstream media to the point that they are the default assumptions of millions. Our covert enemies don’t want the Islamo-fascists to win. But in some corner of their hearts, they would like us to lose.
If that seems a stretch, just go by the Huffington Post, Daily Kos, and firedoglake, and observe the perverse glee with which the latest setbacks in, say, Iraq are greeted. It’s more important that the ‘neocons’ be proven wrong than it is for America to win the War On Terror. Indeed, many ‘progressives’ deny there even is a NEED for a War on Terror, which is nothing more than surrender by way of a faulty premise…
UPDATE 12:51 p.m.: Please see the comments for some very good discussion from our friend jpe, who argues that the point is not moral relativism at all, but rather a stubborn belief in the ‘inherent’ correctness of a position…
The Leftist Fifth Column
Michael Barone on our covert enemies. RCP:Our covert enemies are harder to identify, for they live in large numbers within our midst. And in terms of intentions, they are not enemies in the sense that they consciously wish to destroy…
Barone says the words “moral relativism” but then goes on to describe a moral system that, far from relativistic, is the inverse of our own. Rather than indifference to American victory, there is hostility. Rather than support for the democratizing Western project, there is opposition. (I don’t buy these factual claims, but assuming them ex arguendo).
I guess it gives his banal, rambling essay a schmear of thesis. He only proves, however, that he’s a semantic relativist (‘the word “relativist” no longer means relativism, it describes any ethical system I disagree with,’ he tells us). Or, more likely, he’s just stupid.
So, let me get this straight, it’s not ok for someone to criticize the president and implicitly call him a traitor (even while summarizing someone else’s position [i.e. Bergen], and furthermore, your point suggesting she implied he was a traitor is quite farfetched, but it’s a tangential point really), but it’s perfectly ok to explicitly call the entire lot of people who practice any form of moral relativism (pot calling kettle black much for neo-con cheerleaders?) traitors? Are you kidding me? Pardon me while I throw up a little in my mouth. Or, do I have to be explicit in saying you just made me sick a little in order for it to be acceptable behavoir?
You do realize you are being very Kos-ish here…
Kossacks: Bush is worse than Osama.
Mark: The left (who are apparently the only ones that practice moral relativism) is worse than Osama.
Hardy har har.
Mike, who said the left was worse than Osama? Certainly not me…
And I am talking about a particular brand of leftist who goes by the label ‘progressive’. For a perfect example of the excuse-making these moral relativists engage in for anything and anyone against the U.S. and Israel, see this cowardly letter by Noam Chomsky, Gore Vidal, and associates:
The latest chapter of the conflict between Israel and Palestine began when Israeli forces abducted two civilians, a doctor and his brother, from Gaza. An incident scarcely reported anywhere, except in the Turkish press. The following day the Palestinians took an Israeli soldier prisoner–and proposed a negotiated exchange against prisoners taken by the Israelis–there are approximately 10,000 in Israeli jails.
You see Barone’s principal in action, I hope; the kidnapping of soldiers is justified because Israel has arrested terrorists in the past, and specifically, because two mythical kidnappings that only Chomsky and company seem to know about, of two victims without a name, are what started the recent battle – because Israel JUST HAD to be the aggressor…
Note, Mark, that the moral logic you cite isn’t moral relativism. If anything, it’s some version of Sartre’s theory of “dirty hands,” but it certainly isn’t moral relativism.
jpe, perhaps I (and Barone) are guilty of fuzzy use of terminology here – your point is taken…
Still, the seeds of the moral disease he perhaps improperly diagnoses are spilt from the moral relativist stance, though…it’s not a far journey from “all ideas are equal” to “hey, why is my equal idea not getting the play these other equal ideas are getting? It must be because those other ideas are oppressing mine”…
It’s an even shorter journey, though, from “my ideas are clearly – clearly! – correct, and the others wrong” to “the only explanation my idea gets no coverage is because of politics.” And that attitude is the exact opposite of the one you posit.
Sorry, maybe it’s because it’s a Monday, but I didn’t follow your last point – can you clarify a little?
Thanks.
Let me add this, then I’ll stop my mountains/molehills comments. First, it’s amusing that the only way to coherently claim moral relativism vis-a-vis moral disagreement is to be, oneself, a relativist (‘moral relativism means moral disagreement because I believe it does, despite its actual meaning’). Secondly, and more importantly, the proliferation of claims of moral relativism is symptomatic of our inability to just let moral disagreement be moral disagreement. It’s some strange original sin thesis of disagreement: behind every disagreement must be some deep, philosophical split, some state of fallen-ness.
Thirdly, and most importantly, everyone needs something to be obnoxious about. Some people pick grammar, I pick metaethics.
Ok, I’ll stop wasting your time.
What I meant was that the more likely explanation for thinking one’s ideas aren’t accepted is that one believes they’re really correct. If I think all ideas are equal in truth content, it shouldn’t surprise me if they’re not widely accepted. But if I think my ideas are self-evidently correct (this being the opposite of relativism: a relativism doesn’t believe in truth per se), then the only explanation for the non-belief of others is that they’re utterly, utterly wrong, and the truth of my beliefs are being suppressed. This would describe Chomsky, for example, who, far from being a relativist, is a good old-fashioned modernist.
jpe, I gotcha now…thanks for the elaboration. You make a very good point re:the sloppy use of the term here. I’ll concede (just this once!)…
Mark: In that case, since you’re a stickler for details, how about this?
Kossacks: Bush and the neocon, evangelical, fundamentalist right are worse than Osama.
Mark: The “progressive” left (who, apparently, are the only ones that practice moral relativism) are worse than Osama.
Yet, it is THEY who are perverse. By royal decree!
Hardy har har.
How about this: people currently disagree in America. It makes us stronger. Let’s keep our eye on the ball. Calling significant portions of the country “the enemy” becaue of their political beliefs adds absolutely no value to the nation as a whole. It’s destructive. It’s what the Kossacks do on a daily basis with Bush and the neocons. I think “the enemy” is the idea of the fictitious chasms between the political thought processes that simply don’t exist. They’re boogeymen.
A moral relativist would not say “No idea is morally superior to another.” They would say “The statement ‘No idea is morally superior to another.’ has no meaning”. It’s a slight, but at the same time, a very large difference in a moral relativist’s eyes. In fact, a moral relativist would read paragraph 3 and think “wow, that paragraph doesn’t SAY anything, it’s hogwash”.
Hogwash.
Moral relativists read Vonnegut. The traitor that he is. And that Einstein guy? Traitorous lout! How fun this must be to a moral absolutist. Ha ha ha. Hardy har har. All day, all night.
Or, is my understanding of moral relativism incorrect, jpe? Is not Vonnegut a moral relativist?
“Everything was beautiful and nothing hurt” – Vonnegut
Mike, you’re tilting at windmills – I didn’t say progressives were worse than Osama, either…you came up with that ludicrous statement and expected me to defend it as if I had said it.
[...] Decision ‘08 Barone Leftist Liberal Orwell Relativism Filed in: Moonbats, Politics | No Comments » [...]
“Pardon me while I throw up a little in my mouth.”
Please keep him vomiting, Mark – it’s the only way he’ll learn to try to say something that actually makes sense before he attempts to open it.
By George, I think he’s right. It’s kinda like that John Carpenter movie, They Live. Only in reverse. Amazing how those Librul Lenses distort reality.
Mark: Your take on moral relativism is completely incorrect. You make it out to be some sort of evil. An evil comparable to our overt terrorists. You say this implicitly in your endorsement of Barone’s article. Why else are they brought up in the same breath (yes, by Barone, but you are the one that flagged it as worthwhile) other than to compare the two and perhaps suggest one may be worse than the other? This is what the kossacks do. This is what you are doing. Even if you don’t explicitly state “worse than Osama” that logical jump is dying to be made with the post.
If you want to discuss strawmen, how about your last paragraph of your original post regarding lefty sites taking glee in the setbacks. There is no glee on those sites. There is only anger at the current administration. I cannot fault them for that, even if their logic is flawed because of it. Maybe through the lens through which you view those sites you think they are literally smiling as they write, but I guarantee there is a deep deep remorse for our current situation not only because they would rather us not have gone to Iraq in the first place, but because there are very few ways to get out of their with any semblance of dignity.
I could also point to faulty logic regarding your questioning of the left’s denial of a “Need for the War on Terror”. There are many ways in which to solve a problem (terrorism), declaring a phantom war on the problem is not a terrific solution in my eyes. To me that is nothing more than stating the obvious. We may as well declare a war on drugs. Oh, yeah, that’s right…that one went so well and all…
Your entire post was an attack on my whole moral code and I had to defend it, especially when I am implicitly compared to a terrorist.
Well, Mike, I don’t how many ways to make it plain to you: I didn’t compare you to a terrorist. My point was that progressives (and you can lump yourself in there if you want, I didn’t) don’t take the War on Terrorism seriously – you chide me for that, and then prove it in the same breath:
There are many ways in which to solve a problem (terrorism), declaring a phantom war on the problem is not a terrific solution in my eyes. To me that is nothing more than stating the obvious. We may as well declare a war on drugs. Oh, yeah, that’s right…that one went so well and all…
That’s your right to not take the War on Terrorism seriously – and it’s my right to disagree with you, and to say why, and to, further, say why I think it’s harming our country.
If you read that as a comparison between yourself and Osama, I think you’ve got the sensitivity meter turned a little too tight…
Mark: To say I’m not taking the “War on Terrorism” seriously is a complete misunderstanding of my position. I don’t think the “War on Terrorism” even exists. It is a nonsensical statement that makes a mockery of what you are trying to accomplish. Perhaps we could declare a war on domestic violence? I’m sure it kills more people per year. We could declare a war on abortion. No, my position is that declaring wars on anything (besides a sovereign nation) is not the best way to solve the problem. To call me an “enemy” for doing such is deliberately obtuse, just like kossacks do when they do the same to Bush. Just stop the terrorists. Do the activities necessary to this end. Calling it a ‘war on terror’ does nothing but instill fear in the populace. It’s unnecessary to declare a war on terror. It adds no value. Just lead the effort as a nation to stop the terrorists.
So, what you’re saying is you don’t feel you’re calling “progressives” covert enemies like Barone?
Then what is the meaning of this statement:
“Barone is right on target with his critique of moral relativism, however; I particularly want to repeat this line:”
“”Our covert enemies go quickly from the notion that all societies are morally equal to the notion that all societies are morally equal except ours, which is worse. “”
Is this not directly calling me a covert enemy (even though I, nor any progressive, actually made this argument Barone calls out, but in your own little world we all have)? If so, how is it you are not comparing me to a terrorist who is an overt enemy? If you are not comparing us, why even mention the overt enemies? Why use the same word to describe the two of us (enemy), but a different adjective (covert vs. overt)?
More fun, this statement:
Indeed, many ‘progressives’ deny there even is a NEED for a War on Terror, which is nothing more than surrender by way of a faulty premise…
is quite ironic in my eyes as I feel that very statement is claiming victory by way of a faulty premise.
By the way, what value did declaring a ‘war on drugs’ add to our national discussion regarding drugs? It added none. Am I completely mistaken there?
Mike, one more time, really slowly: I never called you an enemy, or worse than Osama, or anything of the nature.
I did call you wrong on this matter, and so did Barone. Further, I think your position harms America – does that make you an ‘enemy’? No, it just means you’re on the wrong side of this issue.
I know who the enemies are – they are the terrorists, not the progressives. The progressives do not know who the enemies are: they think it’s the ‘neocons’ in the Bush administration. Is this a broad brush? Somewhat – but in this case, it’s largely true…
Now, it is true that Barone’s use of ‘covert enemies’ here is going too far; I’ll concede the point, and I understand now why you would think I would endorse it, since I highlighted it. Thanks for pointing it out; now that I reread it, I do see that you could get that impression, and that’s not a conclusion I endorse.
So, yes, you’ve indeed caught me on that point. Progressives are not the ‘covert enemy’, as Barone labels them, in my view; however, they do real and serious harm to our country in seriously misdiagnosing the threat of terrorism, an error that you continue with your bizarre questioning that the War on Terror even exists (tell that to the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, the 2,600 + dead American soldiers, and the tens of thousands of Iraqi casaulties who have largely been murdered by the terrorists – the War is real enough, Mike, it’s not just a label)…
Mark,
So, anyhow, that was my only point (regarding the “enemy” label). I wasn’t trying to do ‘gotcha’ but was forced to. I will try to remove my snark when making a genuine point.
As for the War on Terror I have no doubt that there are various activities that are ongoing to prevent terrorists from having the resources/support they need to function as such. You can call those activities the “War on Terror” if you so desire, but it is nothing of the sort. It’s an active defense of our nation from rogue aggression. But, “War on Terror” is much scarier and easier to report. How does one fight a war against an idea? At least drugs are a physical entity. Regardless, that is my beef with the idea of “the war on terror”.
I have not above, nor anywhere else denied the existence of terrorism. It is definitely disruptive and something that is not desirable to me and a terrible tragedy. But, the difference between left/right in my eyes isn’t a misdiagnosis of the threat it’s a different diagnosis of how the threat can be defeated.
I guess I’m confused by your statement “misdiagnosing the threat of terrorism”. How has the “progressive” left misdiagnosed the threat?
As for the last aside in your comment, I would say to the Taliban “Hopefully the War in Afganistan taught you something”. To Saddam and the 2600+ soldiers, etc. that the “War in Iraq”…
I suppose then you could call the Vietnam War part of “The Cold War”? How about the rest of those “proxy” wars?
Is the Cold War actually over? Terrorism became prevalent during the Cold War (in many of the same nations involved in the discussion today). Perhaps this is just an extension of it?
Oh, I definitely think Vietnam is part of the Cold War, without a doubt, and so was Korea…if you prefer to think of the War on Terror as an overarching framework as in the ‘Cold War’, rather than an actual war, that’s okay by me. But it is very real, just as the Cold War was…
Liberal society encourages open discussion of ideas, that the best will prevail.
Problem is, when the idea of liberty itself is not specially esteemed as sacred and superior to all other political ends (after all, an open forum of ideas makes no judgments as to right versus wrong, but doesn’t deny the existence of right and wrong) the very foundation of your ideas is pulled down. If theocratic/collectivist/totalitarian ideas are “tolerated”, there ironically won’t be much space for toleration before too long. Further proof that the call of moderation is critical, even in something as benevolent-sounding as tolerance.
“I have not above, nor anywhere else denied the existence of terrorism. It is definitely disruptive and something that is not desirable to me and a terrible tragedy. But, the difference between left/right in my eyes isn’t a misdiagnosis of the threat it’s a different diagnosis of how the threat can be defeated.”
Couldn’t agree more right here. While the “shock and awe” slamming is all well and good when the time calls for it, I’d like to see a more creative strategy for long-term victory. Nuking the Mid-East out of existence, or something on a bit lesser scale, while technically “victorious” is a pyhrric victory if there ever was one. Communism was defeated by patience, cautious diplomacy, and small-scale military operations to ensure that the status quo – the ever growing might of the capitalist world – would be maintained to the end. Fascism was defeated in Europe and Japan only because its support was undermined from the get-go, and easily ripped off its foundations by the war. Like Hezbollah, the Nazis could run a great machine to convince people that they didn’t need capitalist liberal democracy to be successful. But the Nazis held in their power a state that had felt the push of that system’s progress, particularily in the strengthening of parliamentary systems and economic progress to an industrial state. Most of the Islamic world is not in the same situation, lacking even the most basic foundations. Also, Islam lacks a core religious authority today to react against, as the Protestant reformers pushing for religion and education to be taken to the people (and away from the capitals and courts) had been able to do successfully in much of Europe. They simply do not have the same boosting pad as Europe did. I really don’t have much of a solution. But if one was that easy to find, or at least attempt, then we wouldn’t be in this mess after all.