Christopher Hitchens thinks he's honourable
Christopher Hitchen�s article �New York City - Stranger in a Strange Land - The dismay of an honorable man of the left� (http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/12/hitchens.htm)
In Australia, journalist P. McGuiness rejoices in the �Re-emergence of a Rational, Libertarian Left� (Editorial, November 2001 issue of Quandrant Magazine), referring to the recent writing of Christopher Hitchens. I couldn�t agree less.
Hitchen�s writes:
��The majority of those "progressives" who take comfort from Stone and Chomsky are not committed, militant anti-imperialists or anti-capitalists. Nothing so muscular. They are of the sort who, discovering a viper in the bed of their child, would place the first call to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.�
Mr Hitchens has a serious failure in rational thinking here. What a ludicrous analogy! In response, I offer to extend the analogy further � putting Mr Hitchens in the camp of say, the �DHMLs� (the Dismayed Honourable Men of the Left).
�The DHMLs, upon discovering a viper in the bed of their child, rush next door to their neighbour (who keeps pet snakes, they�ve heard), and upon discovering that the neighbour is out of town at a snake admirers� conference, shoot the neighbour�s wife and children, and then burn their house down (although they only meant to burn the snake enclosure down). The DHMLs are further dismayed when their progressive neighbour (on the other side) suggests that perhaps the first thing to do would have been to call an expert snake handler in, then go to the courts to deal with the neighbour�s keeping of dangerous snakes in the suburbs. The DHMLs respond by pointing out that �hey, we don�t know where the snake went, but it doesn�t really matter, we�ll get him eventually, and anyway it is important that we stop this kind of thing in its tracks now.�
Mr Hitchens continues with:
�I believe I can prove this by means of a brief rhetorical experiment. It runs as follows. Very well, I will stipulate that September 11 was revenge for past American crimes. Specifically, and with supporting detail, I will agree that it was revenge for the crime of past indifference to, and collusion with, the Taliban. May we now agree to cancel this crime by removing from the Taliban the power of enslavement that it exerts over Afghans, and which it hopes to extend? Dead silence from progressives. Couldn't we talk about the ozone layer instead?�
Not so, Mr Hitchens. Actually, the progressives are saying �OK, we agree, lets remove from the Taliban the power of enslavement that it exerts over Afghans. In fact, lets do better than that, let�s find the actual perpetrators and planners of 9/11 and bring them to justice as well. Now let�s discuss the best way to do this. Maybe the USA could set a real example to all on how such conflicts could be dealt with.�
This is where the progressives and DHMLs actually depart company. How we do it.
The way that has been chosen is the time honoured, well proven approach of power, driven by anger, fear and revenge. The way that has been chosen is the way of �might is right�. As Thucydides said "Large nations do what they wish, while small nations accept what they must." It is very understandable, it is very human, but it not different to the morality of the perpetrators. This (different view of what is moral behaviour) is they key difference between Mr Hitchens and those he calls calls �progressives�. The opportunity to show (what I consider to be) a higher level of morality is rejected, seen as unacceptable and weak. The inevitable result will be more violence. Not necessarily next week, next month or next year; maybe in 10 years time when the presently 9 year old angry and confused Afghan survivors have grown up.
No, I don�t think Mr Hitchens represents the re-emergence of a �rational� left. He eloquently portrays the understandable emotional reaction of someone who has been deeply shocked (perhaps even in some personal way) by the horror and evil intent of this act. But he shouldn�t confuse attempts at explanations for the events of 9/11, and attempts to find alternative ways of dealing with it, with weakness, lack of moral judgement, or some kind of justification.
Christopher Hitchen�s article �New York City - Stranger in a Strange Land - The dismay of an honorable man of the left� (http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/12/hitchens.htm)
In Australia, journalist P. McGuiness rejoices in the �Re-emergence of a Rational, Libertarian Left� (Editorial, November 2001 issue of Quandrant Magazine), referring to the recent writing of Christopher Hitchens. I couldn�t agree less.
Hitchen�s writes:
��The majority of those "progressives" who take comfort from Stone and Chomsky are not committed, militant anti-imperialists or anti-capitalists. Nothing so muscular. They are of the sort who, discovering a viper in the bed of their child, would place the first call to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.�
Mr Hitchens has a serious failure in rational thinking here. What a ludicrous analogy! In response, I offer to extend the analogy further � putting Mr Hitchens in the camp of say, the �DHMLs� (the Dismayed Honourable Men of the Left).
�The DHMLs, upon discovering a viper in the bed of their child, rush next door to their neighbour (who keeps pet snakes, they�ve heard), and upon discovering that the neighbour is out of town at a snake admirers� conference, shoot the neighbour�s wife and children, and then burn their house down (although they only meant to burn the snake enclosure down). The DHMLs are further dismayed when their progressive neighbour (on the other side) suggests that perhaps the first thing to do would have been to call an expert snake handler in, then go to the courts to deal with the neighbour�s keeping of dangerous snakes in the suburbs. The DHMLs respond by pointing out that �hey, we don�t know where the snake went, but it doesn�t really matter, we�ll get him eventually, and anyway it is important that we stop this kind of thing in its tracks now.�
Mr Hitchens continues with:
�I believe I can prove this by means of a brief rhetorical experiment. It runs as follows. Very well, I will stipulate that September 11 was revenge for past American crimes. Specifically, and with supporting detail, I will agree that it was revenge for the crime of past indifference to, and collusion with, the Taliban. May we now agree to cancel this crime by removing from the Taliban the power of enslavement that it exerts over Afghans, and which it hopes to extend? Dead silence from progressives. Couldn't we talk about the ozone layer instead?�
Not so, Mr Hitchens. Actually, the progressives are saying �OK, we agree, lets remove from the Taliban the power of enslavement that it exerts over Afghans. In fact, lets do better than that, let�s find the actual perpetrators and planners of 9/11 and bring them to justice as well. Now let�s discuss the best way to do this. Maybe the USA could set a real example to all on how such conflicts could be dealt with.�
This is where the progressives and DHMLs actually depart company. How we do it.
The way that has been chosen is the time honoured, well proven approach of power, driven by anger, fear and revenge. The way that has been chosen is the way of �might is right�. As Thucydides said "Large nations do what they wish, while small nations accept what they must." It is very understandable, it is very human, but it not different to the morality of the perpetrators. This (different view of what is moral behaviour) is they key difference between Mr Hitchens and those he calls calls �progressives�. The opportunity to show (what I consider to be) a higher level of morality is rejected, seen as unacceptable and weak. The inevitable result will be more violence. Not necessarily next week, next month or next year; maybe in 10 years time when the presently 9 year old angry and confused Afghan survivors have grown up.
No, I don�t think Mr Hitchens represents the re-emergence of a �rational� left. He eloquently portrays the understandable emotional reaction of someone who has been deeply shocked (perhaps even in some personal way) by the horror and evil intent of this act. But he shouldn�t confuse attempts at explanations for the events of 9/11, and attempts to find alternative ways of dealing with it, with weakness, lack of moral judgement, or some kind of justification.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home