John Tierney of the NYT is in denial once again, this time trying to co-opt John Lennon’s vision of a world without war in his column “Give Peace a Chance.”
He puts forth a caveat which completely devastates his argument—notwithstanding the genocide in Darfur and the occupation of Iraq (which constitute only some the most horrifying examples of violence on the globe), the level of “organized violence” has dropped in recent years. What about “disorganized” violence—manifest in bombings, stemming from social inequality and frustration over U.S. hegemony—the brand of violence the “war on terror” purports to be combating, and so ineptly addresses? This column is just another one of his desperate attempts to convince people that “freedom is on the march,” similar to his hairbrained notion that the news media is blowing violence in Iraq out of proportion, and that naturally the logical solution is to cease reporting on the violence. Sure, if there’s a war in a forest and there’s no one around to document it, it probably isn’t happening. See no evil, hear no evil--Iraqis are handing soldiers flowers.
Tierney has imbibed Julian Simon and the other irrational cornucopians from Cato. Their favorite argument is essentially that “the globe is a hollow sphere filled with oil, and the dynamic duo of the market and human ingenuity will save us even if we suck it dry.” This makes me want to tear my hair out:
“‘I predict that the incidence of war will decline,’ [Simon] told me in 1996, two years before his death. He based his prediction on the principle that there is less and less to be gained economically from war. As people get richer and smarter, their lives and their knowledge become far more valuable than the land, minerals and natural resources they used to fight over.”
I’ve really come to resent this blind idealism—it’s weakly supported by economic theory that neglects any of the external factors that exist in the real world. “The market will set us free,” “the market will lift all boats”…assuming your boat’s a yacht.
It’s no surprise that conservatives want to maintain the status quo. Representing the wealthier, aristocratic echelons of society, they’re the prime beneficiaries of their own corporate-happy imperialistic tendencies. So of course they would be loath to admit that the war in Eurasia is going poorly and the deregulatory juggernaut is speeding impending environmental disaster. They’re content to remain perched in their ivory towers, handing down regressive, militaristic mandates under the guise of the world’s “benign power,” spouting platitudes as they single-handedly send the world careening towards destruction. I dare say that not even they would be safe from climate change and wars of subsistence over fuel and water.
Conservatives often have popular support because they tell people what they want to hear--take the blue pill, maintain the delusion that everything is peachy.
Progressives want to make changes in policy that will benefit the greatest number in the long term. Change isn’t easy, and neither is admitting the path you're on isn't the best one. Progress requires a critical examination of a situation—acknowledging reality—then recognizing the challenges on the road to improvement, and following through. This flies in the face of the ignorance and false ideals of those who would prefer to put on blinders and go on “faith” alone.
This won’t come as a surprise, but we have our work cut out for us. Rather than go soft and centrist, we’ve got to open a can of New Deal era whoop-ass and give Americans an alternative to the lies and false security. We could hardly go wrong if we employed some of our opponent’s aggressive tactics—minus the lying, cheating, and scumbaggery—to not only defend the progressive stance and put forth positive policy, but to dismantle the right, and call them out for what they are: greedy, selfish, short-sighted, stuck in the past, and—in the infamous words of John Stewart—hurting America.
(side note: expanding the audience a bit--posting diaries on dKos now.)
No comments:
Post a Comment