Peggy Noonan on the New York City Police Department report on what turns westerners into terrorists.
I believe the anti-Americanism of large segments of our "elite" also contributes. Like a husband who claims he loves his wife but continually belittles her, these characters hold the United States to a utopian standard never achieved by any nation in the history of the world and search for evil or venal motives in its noblest actions. They don't favor terrorism but neither do they support the bulwark against terrorism.
4 comments:
Did you have any specific examples in mind?
I'm genuinely curious, you're one of my favorite reads, but I wonder if you'd consider me one of those who "hold the United States to a utopian standard never achieved by any nation in the history of the world", because, well, that's what I thought was special about America. We are a country founded on ideals of freedom and justice, unlike any other.
Pete,
Good question. I share your feelings about the importance of our nation's being founded on ideals of freedom and justice. We need to strive to achieve and maintain those but with an understanding that otherwise good nations can lapse without becoming evil. If the brush is too broadly and quickly used then the stigma of bad conduct begins to be devalued. Paul Hollander's book on Anti-Americanism cites examples in which such feelings can be rational or irrational and I'm far from thinking the U.S. is flawless. Although there will always be extreme takes (Robert Scheer's assertion that the U.S. was terrorist due to its use of nuclear weapons against Japan comes to mind.) my greater concern is with the tendency in some circles such as Hollywood to blame America first or to use a moral equivalence that equates a nation that liberates another from a brutal dictatorship with groups that would impose a fascist system simply because both sides use violence. To paraphrase Churchill, it is important to know the difference between the arsonist and the fire deparment.
Thanks for your thoughtful response Michael. It sounds like we do share a lot of common ground. Films and TV thrive on two-dimensional analysis, it's not often that you see a plot where both sides think they're doing the right thing, or both have mixed motives.
As you say in the post above, environmental activists will be noble, and that requires their opponents to be wicked. Erin Brockovich and the under-reported controversy about the science behind it is a classic example.
I'm just not convinced that a film like Farenheit 9/11 is really bad for America, or weakens our defenses, even though it's wrong. Part of our system's strength is a loyal opposition. The way to expose errors and improve what we're doing is to have a debate, and one-sided polemics are a traditional part of that. Saying that this sort of passionate, wrong-headed, advocacy hurts our "bulwark against terrorism" doesn't seem right to me.
Anyway, thanks again for indulging me here, and for your impressively prolific and always-interesting output!
Pete,
I'm honored to have you as a reader. There will always be a need for a loyal opposition - I caution my clients to be more worried about unanimous opinions than about dissent - and our system is blessed with restraints on power. We disagree on the extent of the damage to the "bulwark" - I'd like to see more self-imposed discretion by dissenters - but that may be a pipe dream!
Post a Comment