Unleashing The Slogans
Good grief. The man talks about ideas out-competing one another as if a marketplace of ideas actually existed, or as if the marketplace of ideas in the Near East wasn’t controlled by the local oligopoly that sets all the “prices” and makes all the “products.” If have ‘better ideas’, we win. Oh, okay, why didn’t anyone ever think of that before? Can liberty work? Work to do what? For whom? To what end? In other words, what is he talking about? Is he asking if it can reduce terrorism? Maybe, if we assume that all the people who have elected governments are somehow cured of the desire to solve political grievances by the use of violence, which is a very difficult habit for people to shake–it is the habit that a large proportion of all people has always had. It is entirely conceivable that the successful establishment of free, democratic governments will irk and outrage the dedicated Islamists as much as the repressive dictatorships our government has sponsored in the past–these democratic regimes, if they are not themselves taken over by the Islamists in elections, will probably be regarded as just as repressive–because they will be seen as imposed and alien in origin–as the secular dictators and monarchs the West has backed before them. Perhaps then we might see that it is not stability vs. freedom, but intervention vs. nonintervention that will really determine whether Islamic terrorism increases or decreases. |
There continues to be something genuinely unsettling about this talk of “ideological struggle” and references to liberty as an “ideological weapon.” The first phrase is certainly Leninist, but the whole concept of liberty as an ideological weapon would not be entirely out of place among the Jacobins. There is no sense here that liberty is something historical, contingent and related to a particular political tradition, and it is also not simply something universal, but something readily transferrable to new climes and new situations at the drop of a hat that you use as a kind of propaganda. Indeed, when someone says “ideological weapon,” my first thought is: “They mean propaganda.” This is not a battle of ideas, but an exchange of slogans. They say jihad, we say freedom; they say justice, we say democracy; they say liberation, we say liberation; they inaccurately call us crusaders, we inaccurately call them fascists. No, ideas have nothing to do with any of this. Ideology is surely the right word for what’s going on–the question is why are conservatives and Americans putting up with this atrocious rhetoric and this appalling kind of thinking?
Comments