|
Ah, The Simple Life!by
Charley Hardman A young friend of mine (yes you, Mikey!) recently accused me of having the astounding yet undesirable talent for turning every argument regarding government into an inarguable bundle of tidiness, usually through analogy. Though we'd been arguing much of that July 4th afternoon, it was the following approach which finally elicited the remark, as we ambled with his family to the fireworks display in their beautiful, rural Virginia town: "What would happen if you behaved in your neighborhood the same way the United States government has been behaving around the world? Let's say that you are the most powerful party in your neighborhood, by a large margin. You are walking down the street one day when you notice a dispute between two neighbors. Mindful of the relative value which each neighbor offers your situation, and seeing only part of the dispute, you pronounce one party as the good guy, the other the bad, and trounce the living hell out of the unfortunate short-end-of-this-particular-stick recipient. Topically, it appears that order has been restored, and we owe it all to you and your force. However, the neighbor you trounced is a human, capable of resentment and action, even if only a form of action which, in your opinion, is entirely dishonorable. Should you continue to behave as the coercive neighborhood cop, throwing yourself into one argument after another and picking black/white sides in a world of gray, you will eventually find your tires slashed, your daughter raped, and your house fire-bombed – all anonymously. You will call it terrorism." Thence followed the accusation of killing argument with a simplicity pill. As a servant of logic, I'm sensitive to the misuse of analogy, long ago instituting a personal policy of never attempting to use analogy as a proof. Its value for expanding and refreshing, however, can't be denied, even in cases where the analogy is seriously flawed. Sometimes discussing how it's seriously flawed can provide the breakthrough moment. What's happening with the neighborhood analogy is the direct opposite of friend Mikey's description. It is the analogy which attempts to show the true complexity of the oft simplified behavior of the United States, by taking the argument out of an antiseptic global fantasy world which none of us really knows, and putting it into an environment which every person knows through direct experience can be extraordinarily complex, despite smaller size. Average Americans see a 2–3 step transaction in global relations, and can retire to the rec room for beers and high fives after "we" have ruled by force. In that environment, the surprise and outrage following the 11 September 2001 human action was understandable. For those who approach it mindful of the difficulty in human relations (compounded at the global level), it was a brutal action, the meaning of which could not be ignored: The kicked party had not gone away cleanly, as a simple model would have it. The model was flawed. The problem is worsened further here because not only is there a tremendous lack of respect for the wishes of other people to live free of a US boot on their necks; the comparative wealth and happiness of Americans tends to lessen the knowledge of our effective neighborhood (the world). In such a content state, it is only the interested or curious who bother to find out details. After tragic action against us, that lack of knowledge for most Americans encourages outrage rather than introspection, and introspection in others is then regarded as ignoble, weak behavior – unpatriotic. Hence actions entirely in line with the clear opinions of the alternately lauded/ignored founding fathers become unpatriotic. Here is my reply to armchair statesmen when they give that easily recognized look signaling impasse after a long argument: "With the opinions you've voiced here this [insert day slice], you are asking me to believe that you are more intelligent than men such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, and James Madison. I intend no offense by this remark, but I do not find that your intelligence reaches so high as to eclipse their considered opinions, nor do I find your argument in any way compelling in isolation. Unwittingly, perhaps, you have aligned yourself with people such as George W. Bush in complete disagreement with the men and ideals most Americans hold up as icons. I simply ask that you pick sides explicitly. Don't pretend to honor all at once, for they are bitter enemies ideologically." Comparing a neighborhood to the world has flaws, of course, but its biggest flaw is the reliance upon things which might work in the smaller scale standing a good chance in the larger. Extending further, if you think something which doesn't work in the neighborhood can work when magnified and convoluted by a factor of thousands, you are bucking the odds in most cases. Odds can sometimes be bucked successfully, and it takes nerves of steel (or spacious minds). But don't buck the odds using my property, and put my life at risk for a scheme which has been demonstrated repeatedly as false. I am neither that stupid nor that much at your disposal. Young Mike is eventually going to agree with me, and I told him as much. It may take several more visits to the Virginia countryside (assuming I get invited back), but he appears to be smarter than I was at his age. The problem for our present world is that he is the exception.
Copyright © 2003 LewRockwell.com
|
August
8, 2003
