Jewish World Review Oct. 19, 2001 / 2
Mar-Cheshvan, 5762
Michael Long
If you want to see contempt for
both America and reality itself rolled up into one,
check out the anti-war crowd. Differences between
themselves and other Americans are far more than
disputes over policy. The questions I myself have
posed to the protesters (see "Questions for the Anti-War Crowd") represent a step-by-step procedure
to expose their fundamental hypocrisy and startling
naïveté.
The anti-war crowd is dangerous
less for their ideas (which are dangerous enough:
demanding that the U.S. forego retaliation; cutting
off Israel-as if appeasement would purchase peace;
and abandoning anti-Taliban rebels) than for their
toxic irresponsibility. That is, the arguments they
make are offered with the tacit understanding that no
one will take them seriously.
One can best appreciate the
bankruptcy of even their most detailed tirades with a
little thought experiment: What if someone in charge
actually did what the protesters said?
Consider the situation point by
point. How serious can an armchair president be if he
opposes the Afghanistan's Northern Alliance-the
leading opposition to the Taliban-because, as one
poster to Mother Jones online magazine put it,
"the Northern Alliance is not necessarily
remembered with fondness"? Who would defend our
right to be free from terror if no one fought
terrorists? Who would protect dissenters from
physical violence if no one stood against regimes
that deal in such violence?
Anti-war protesters reject that
there is any virtue in American power, though they
are quite happy to bask in its protection.
Here's a flash for the anti-war
movement: politics is rarely a matter of pure choices
between good and evil. The protesters are afraid of
moral imperfection, so they damn anything less than
the ideal. And while they wait for that ship to come
in, innocent people pay the price; lately in the form
of greater exposure to terrorism.
Because she is imperfect, the
protesters cannot stand the thought of supporting
her. But the question is not of America's perfection.
She isn't perfect. The real question is this: Is
America-or any other nation, for that matter-good
enough and tolerant enough to merit defending against
her enemies?
And the answer is obvious. Look
around-the greatest tolerance anywhere in the world
is found right here. Not in middle-eastern
theocracies, nor in socialist "utopias,"
nor in Fidel Castro's front yard, nor in a cave in
which a psychotic bully legislates the lengths of
beards that can be displayed under the Afghan moon.
Reasonable Americans across the
political spectrum instinctively understand this, and
thus we find no ideological monopoly of any kind on
standing up for America. Those who favor action come
from the Democratic Party; the Republican Party; the
ranks of independents; the occasional claque of Nader
voters; the remains of the Perot crowd. Nearly
everyone senses in their bones that something sacred
is at stake, something not easily replaced, something
that is worth fighting for.
Both liberals and conservatives
recognize that our differences are a matter of
degree. That is not to say that we differ on only
trivial things-far from it. But we hold in common
something far more important than our differences: we
understand that civilization itself-and civilization
is another word for systematic tolerance-breathes
deepest in the American system. We are invested in
it, and we will protect that investment for ourselves
and for those who come after.
On the other hand, the anti-war
crowd has no system to defend, no place to go home
to. Their passion for relativism has cut loose their
anchor. They are intellectually cornered and morally
paralyzed-they are marginalized and growing
trivialized-because of a crushing inability to
identify and acknowledge right and wrong in a world
where such a capacity is the key to survival.
When will they learn that when
someone kills six thousand innocent people, he
forfeits his right to be understood? Anyone who sees
terrorism as a reasonable means to a political end is
an enemy of civilization, utterly incapable of
defending or even recognizing even the lowest walls
that separate us from chaos and anarchy.
Put another way, apologists for
terrorists are terrorists themselves.
They preach tolerance, but they
don't really understand it. Tolerance is a kind of
love, but what good is love if it is not also
expressed through justice? Love without justice is
mere license, like a parent who refuses to say
"no" to a child because he or she
"loves" the child too much.
That's not love, that's immorality.
What a shock-and what a pity-that some folks still
don't know. 