Substituting Talk For Action
Mark Steyn explains the difference between democracies and tyrannies in terms so simple even a left wing academic could understand. It's not about risk-free dissent, it is about action.
At some point during this past week, it was decided that the relevant Ahmadinejad comparison was to Nikita Krushchev. The Soviet leader toured America in 1960, was taken to a turkey farm, paid a visit to Frank Sinatra and Co. on the set of "Can-Can" and pronounced the movie "decadent." And yet the republic survived. As one of my most distinguished fellow columnists, Peggy Noonan, put it in the Wall Street Journal, Krushchev's visit reminded the world that "we are the confident nation." And, as several e-mailers observed, warming to Noonan's theme, back then hysterical right-wing ninnies didn't get their panties in a twist just because a man dedicated to the destruction of our way of life was in town for a couple of days.
Whether or not this was a more "confident" nation in 1960, it's certainly a more post-modern nation now. I don't know whether Stina Reksten, as a 28-year old Norwegian, can be held up as an exemplar of American youth, but she certainly seems to have mastered the lingo: We've invited the president of Iran to speak but let's not confuse "the very dire human-rights situation" – or his nuclear program, or his Holocaust denial, or his role in the seizing of the U.S. Embassy hostages, or his government's role in the deaths of American troops and Iraqi civilians – with the more important business of applauding ourselves for our celebration of "academic freedom."
So much of contemporary life is about opportunities for self-congratulation. Risk-free dissent is the default mode of our culture, and extremely seductive. If dissent means refusing to let the Bush administration bully you into wearing a flag lapel pin, why, then Katie Couric (bravely speaking out on this issue just last week) is the new Mandela! If Rumsfeld is a "fascist." then anyone can fight fascism. It's no longer about the secret police kicking your door down and clubbing you to a pulp. Well, OK, it is if you're a Buddhist monk in Burma……
That then is the difference. Democracies talk, tyrannies act. In Burma, the junta has acted ruthlessly while democracies expressed concern. In Iran, Ahmadinejad hangs homosexuals; democracies invite him to speak at Columbia. Post modern democracies have forgotten all the lessons of history. At some point talk no longer works. Woodrow Wilson tried talk right up until he saw that it would not work. Then the doughboys went to France. Franklin Roosevelt was all for talking, until the bombs shattered the quiet of a bright, sunny morning in Hawaii. Then he was all-in for the war. Truman was willing to talk right up until the North Koreans crossed the 38th parallel. Then he sent the Army. John Kennedy talked up a storm until the missiles arrived in Cuba. Then he sent the Navy to blockade.
In the post modern west, the default is talk until talking fails, then start a new round of talk. Express concern when the militias in Sudan butcher humans. Send a bit of food aid so the targeted villagers present bigger targets for the tyrants who prefer acting to talking. Express concern about those monk guys over in Burma while the junta cracks their skulls with batons or shoots a few holes in them. Howl endlessly if a western leader acts instead of talks. Screech and whine your risk-free dissent against that risk-free target and ignore the real monsters. Or invite them to talk at Columbia. Or even to attend classes at Yale.
Forget the lessons of history.
Civilization, History, Left Wing | Gaius Sunday, 30 September , 2007
Other Links to this Post
-
Blue Crab Boulevard » Talk Versus Do — Sunday, 30 September , 2007 @ 5:02 pm
-
Blue Crab Boulevard » The End — Monday, 1 October , 2007 @ 9:49 pm
By Mwalimu Daudi, Sunday, 30 September , 2007 @ 10:51 am
While I agree with most of what you and Steyn wrote, there does seem to be a sizeable percentage of leftists that have far darker aspirations. When I (occasionally) visit the underworld that is Daily Kos, MoveOn, and Huffington Post I am alarmed at the number of folks there whose only apparent goal in life is to be concentration camp guards in a future Islamist or socialist America.
I also have to wonder how much of the leftist fawning over Chavez, Castro and Ahmadinejad is actually motivated by hero-worship and envy rather than shared ideological goals. What common goals could gay activists at Columbia and the gay-slaughtering Ahmadinejad have, for example? Most of the armchair fascists who comprise the bulk of the MSM, the Democrat party and the left-wing blogsphere would probably faint dead away at the first sign of actual blood. For them, it’s all jaw-jaw and nothing else.
The maniacs in Venezuela, Cuba and Iran, on the other hand, are living the twisted dream that these leftists would love to see come true here. Absolute power vested in a central authority, kangaroo courts, rigged judicial systems, a lying press corps, persecution of political and religious minorities – what not to like about these hellholes if you are a true dedicated leftist?
By Kathy, Sunday, 30 September , 2007 @ 6:16 pm
Absolute power vested in a central authority, kangaroo courts, rigged judicial systems, a lying press corps, persecution of political and religious minorities – what not to like about these hellholes if you are a true dedicated leftist?
All of those, except the last, are already a reality in the U.S.
By Gaius, Sunday, 30 September , 2007 @ 6:36 pm
Yeah, that’s why you’ve been silenced, alright. Oh, wait. You still come over here to try to pick fights. Gee. I guess that absolute authority isn’t working worth a damn.
Keep repeating other people’s words, Kathy. Whatever you do, don’t ever look behind the curtain.
By Kathy, Sunday, 30 September , 2007 @ 6:57 pm
Gaius, I am not trying to pick fights. I don’t know why you see things in those terms. If I were trying to pick fights, I would not express myself in the courteous way that I usually do. My posting occasional comments here is actually a compliment (of sorts) to you. I never post comments at Michelle Malkin (now that she has them), or Dan Riehl, or Little Green Footballs, or Jihad Watch, or Newbusters, for example. I hope you understand what I am implying about those blogs, and yours.
I almost never agree with what you write, but I think you write well, and I think that your “voice” is that of a decent, humane person. I think you are sincere in your views; you are not malicious or hateful. I just disagree, deeply, with your view of the world. And that’s why I post here.
I did not say I had been silenced, Gaius. But as a student of history (and someone who, like me, did not fall off the apple truck yesterday), you surely must know that by the time people are totally silenced, their freedom has been curtailed little by little over a long period of time. Police states do not happen overnight. They happen incrementally, to the extent that people accept each new infringement and do not protest.
I am not repeating anybody’s words. I am stating my own beliefs, in my own words. I could throw this back at you and tell you that you yourself constantly repeat Republican and pro-Bush talking points, but that would not be fair, since I don’t appreciate it when you say the same thing to me.
As to your substantive response to what I wrote, the political outcomes referred to above may not be complete reality here yet, but we are on that path, and to a large extent it’s happening. The absolute authority of a central power is very much what Bush and his associates want the executive branch to look like. They have an expanded view of presidential power that amounts to a chief executive who is accountable to no one and can do anything he likes. That it is not completely that way yet does not mean that the Bush administration would not like it to be that way, and to a large extent has made it that way. Also, the fact that I choose to speak and write what I wish is just that — a choice; and it is a choice accompanied by risk, of which I am well aware. And I’m not talking about from you, I trust you realize that.
By Kathy, Sunday, 30 September , 2007 @ 7:05 pm
Newsbusters, not Newbusters. And I also want to add, in case it’s not clear, that when I wrote that I choose to speak and write what I wish, knowing there is an attendant risk, I meant to imply (but it might not have been clear) that not everyone is willing to take those risks. Many people who strongly oppose the war and Bush’s incursions on civil liberties and his administration’s treatment of detainees are afraid to say anything publicly, which includes even to co-workers or people they don’t know well. I have heard and read this fear expressed, so I know it’s real.