“Defending The West”
Posted on January 13th, 2009
by Daniel Larison |
|
Richard has an article on Israel in Gaza that included this line:
The recent conflict is the “frontline” (where have we heard that before?) in a struggle between “the West”—that great abstract, vacuous construction we’re supposed to defend—and “those waging holy war” on “civilization.”
Richard was describing the view put forth by Melanie Phillips, but it could just as easily have come from Ilana Mercer’s recent VDARE piece calling on paleos to rally to Israel’s defense. More on that in a moment. As Richard’s statement suggests, “the West” is a phrase that can have many different meanings. One of the advantages of its vacuity is that it can be used by just about everyone living in western Europe and North America to refer to whatever they happen to value. Thus Christopher Hitchens can claim to be defending “the West” (i.e., secular modernity) against religious fanaticism, while John Hagee, say, could claim to be defending “the West” against Islam by glorifying the bombing of Lebanon and I could claim to be defending “the West” by opposing Christopher Hitchens and John Hagee in their respective obsessions. Hitchens, of course, is extremely critical of Israel, and Hagee is slavishly supportive of Israel adopting the most militaristic policies imaginable (which is to say that he is considered “pro-Israel” in Washington), and both could probably come up with some way to claim that each position is a true expression of their commitment to the values of “the West.” If we are going to get anywhere, I think we will first have to stop using this evasive, imprecise phrase and talk about what it is, really, that we want to defend. For the most part, “the West” has been a phrase used to justify dragging Americans, directly or indirectly, into other people’s wars for several generations. We should be concerned about the American interest and leave defenses of “the West” to someone who puts some stock in this meaningless concept.
Where Mercer goes wrong is in her assumption that paleos actually took the Serb or Russian side during the ’90s and ’00s in their conflicts. It is worth noting that interventionists frequently invoked Western “values” in both the Balkan and Chechen wars as reasons to side with the separatists or at least punish the government attempting to suppress a rebellion, so it is natural that we should be a bit wary of arguments that are couched in similar terms. She describes the paleo position as supporting “Western interests” in these conflicts (and includes Cyprus to boot), when the general paleo position on the Balkan and Chechen wars was one that said that the United States should not side with separatists against their governments (nor should the U.S. side with the governments against their separatists–they are internal matters!). Because there was no American interest in intervening on either side, much less on the side of rebels (and particularly rebels with connections to jihadism), paleos counseled neutrality and non-intervention in these cases. Of course, it is true that there was sympathy for Serb and Albanian civilians when they were being bombed by NATO, and there was sympathy for Russian victims of Chechen terrorism, but generally there was an understanding that these conflicts were internal or regional problems that were best solved by those directly involved and by the nations most directly affected by the conflicts. What we objected to most strenuously was taking the side of these rebel groups and in some cases even actively aiding them with military action. In the absolutely implausible event that NATO or some international force intervened on behalf of the Palestinians against Israel, I imagine that most of us would be among the first to oppose the action.
Part of our sympathy with and respect for Europeans is the conviction that European conflicts are for the Europeans to settle. Whether or not they are capable of settling the conflicts, it is their business, not ours. It is the consistent failure to remember this that has cost America so much over the last century. If I can speak for most paleos, our view of Near Eastern conflicts is much the same: just dealings with all nations combined with neutrality. Of course, a pragmatic compromise position would be one that recognizes that we are not going to depart from the region anytime soon, and so we should maintain good relations with the allies we have but should not therefore endorse foolish, counterproductive and ultimately self-damaging policies by those allies that end up harming both them and us. Mercer’s argument does not allow for the possibility of a position that permits criticism in the context of continued support. This, of course, is the same false choice that has been presented to Americans time and again: endorse foolish government policy X or be deemed anti-American or unpatriotic.
Mercer certainly does not want to play the Near Eastern Christian card in her argument in the wake of the war in Lebanon, unless the Maronites and other Christian communities there are to be ignored in all of this. No one I know among paleos has any illusions about the status of Palestinian Christians. We know that the PA discriminates against and harrasses Palestinian Christians, but then we also know that Christian churches are subject to harrassment from the Israeli state in part because of the Arab ethnicity of their members and bishops.
Filed under: foreign policy, politics
Well said, Palestinian Christians are marginalized and abused by both Palestinian Muslims and Israel (since they are both Arabs and Christians, they are doubly despised).
And ironically, much of the Lebanese Maronite leadership cided with Hizbullah during the 2006 War and has/had concerns about the Siniora/Hariri alliance which is supported by the Saudis (much more intolerant of Christians than Hizbullah and Iran are) and which has also attracted some salafi/jihadi support.
The imperialist/interventionist/colonial views of the bloggers you mention (if one can use those tired words still) have little to do with a “defense of the West” as I would wish to see it. A true defense of the West is traditionalist and conservative – not into neocon social engineering – it is defensive – more about Lepanto or May 29, 1453 than Operation Iraqi Freedom or the GWOT.
(Sorry, I made a mistake in that post.)
To be succinct, Americans traditionally are averse to European conflicts which they saw first as emanating from imperial conflict and religion, and later from ideology. I think that animates much paleo thinking (and at least mine.)
Also, paleos are more sober and realistic about the dispute; reocgnizing that Israel has been a self-serving and violent actor as well as the various Arab terror groups. They also recognize that, contra the hysteria that even Ms. Mercer engages in, Israel faces no strategic threat from Hamas or Hezbollah (or Iran, for that matter) and is not in danger of eradication. Rather, they recognize her as having a large strategic military and economic advantage over all other states in the region. So, contra Ms. Mercer or Mr. Wilders (and I am likewise suspicious of the seeming propensity of these European Rightists to be athiests, which means it is ideology and not the “permanent things” that animate them) Israel’s is not a manichean conflict with radical Islam. It is simply a conflict over land and resources that has lasted decades and the actors have evolved to where a formerly Marxist, nationalist and secular enemy has becoming more Islamist. But none of that means we need to lose our senses in a misguided belief that Israel is engaged in a “battle for her life.”
And that’s why paleos are critical of our ME policy and unquestioning support of Israel. And that’s what Ms. Mercer can’t seem to understand.
Mr. Larison,
One wonders if these war hawks who invoke “the West” have read Tolkein too many times.
Possibly. If so, they completely failed to understand what Tolkien was saying about the nature of power.
Umm…what does:
“I am likewise suspicious of the seeming propensity of these European Rightists to be athiests, which means it is ideology and not the “permanent things†that animate them”
mean? Are the “permanent things” that apparently animate non-atheists not also ideologies? Or is this just the recurring theme of suspicion of those whose opinions do not arise from the proper religious point of view, that seems prevalent in discussions here?
I was using “permanent things” in reference to the term used often by Russell Kirk. It refers to the traditions, values and worldview that has animated conservatism at least in its proper manifestation. It is rooted in place, people, language, culture, art, etc., as opposed to abstractions. And, yes, I think atheists have little but ideology and abstractions to animate them because they are cut off from the Truth. Even “the West” (as Mr. Larison pointed out) can be an abstraction.
And no, these are not ideologies, unless one uses an invalid definition of ideology to simply mean a worldview.
I’m not “suspicious” of “those whose opinions do not arise from the proper religious point of view” since (1) I don’t even know what that means; and (2) rejecting the validity/correctness of a person’s viewpoint is not “suspicion.”
And, your post further illustrates the ignorance of the irreligious toward religion, Mr. Larison (who is Orthodox) and I would have quite significant disagreements on religious questions. So the notion that people must have “the proper religious point of view” to agree with him is rather silly; unless by proper you simply mean a Christian within the scope of orthodoxy (in the small “o”) sense. That is a rather broad swath of people.
My problem with Ms. Mercer’s call to arms in defense of Israel as the West, is that it is entirely opportunistic. A cursory examination of Jewish history reveals that Jews have defined themselves as distinct apart from the West for as long as we have records. Otherwise, who were the Maccabees’s and who followed Simon Bar Kochba? From their first contact with Greco/Roman culture, Jews define themselves in opposition to our culture. If Israel is part of the West, I missed the part where Israeli soldiers fought side by side with us in Korea, or Viet Nam or anywhere else for that matter.
But we should define The West. To me, it is that hi-bred culture of Greece, Rome and Christendom that animated Europe and all her colonial offspring for the past Twenty Five Hundred years or more. A desire to evade entangeling alliances should not blind us to our duty to preserve a Christian Europe if asked to do so. We would be poor children to desert our mother, Europe, from whom we derive out language, our faith and our legal system. As to others who would play the game of “let’s you and him fight,” The answer is, and should always be, no.
WRW, sorry if I have offended you; I’m curious. Generally, I didn’t mean to imply that you and Mr. Larison shared a Christian sect, but that your comment seemed very similar to his dismissal of conservatives who did not arrive at their position beginning with the proper biblical start point–that is, improper belief taints positions or conclusions not necessarily related to the belief. E.g., “proper manifestations.”
Do you believe that atheism springs unfounded from each individual atheist’s head? That there is no intellectual, philosophical or cultural history? And that on the other hand, every “proper manifestation” of conservatism is rooted in some geographical/cultural locus?
As a method of argument, you seem to be using this position both ways. You question the opinions of those who don’t share your religious/cultural history; and since I didn’t show sufficient agreement and deference to your statement, you assume I don’t have the appropriate cultural background. However, this is the internet; your ignorance of my religious background and education is, of course absolute; and your assumptions are incorrect.
WRW, perhaps you can help me distinguish:
“traditions, values and worldview”, from
a body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.
The latter being a definition of ideology. I hadn’t realized the term was insulting.
[...] Larison also sums it well in this Eunomia post and of course we have the wise words of Ron Paul to say cleary: It’s not [...]
les,
You haven’t offended. And I don’t reject the opinions or views of unbelieving conservatives, I am just suspicious (circumspect, if you prefer) of those views. I think they can veer off into speculative theories (such as with Derbyshire and evolutionary biology) or unrealistic passions (such as democratism or “GWOT”) because they are unmoored from the Truth. And I don’t accept your definition of ideology. As I use the term, ideology is prescriptive beliefs that, in particular, are in defiance of human nature (such as Enlightenment notions of perfectionism.) Traditional conservative certainly does not constitute that. It also is not universalist, in that its manifestations may differ according to place and culture and time. So perhaps we’re using the term differently.
WRW, thanks; I think I see what you’re saying more clearly–circumspect is more clear to me, anyway. That’s the dictionary on ideology, not me–I think the term may be damn near useless without agreeing on a definition up front; yours certainly helps my understanding of your position. I suspect I bring the concerns you express re unbelief, to opinions based in Truth–there are many Truths claimed, and they can veer off into solutions unmoored from context–or perhaps more accurately, moored to places, cultures and times not equivalent to here and now. It seems to me that many, if not most, who claim Truth are avowedly universalist. Still and all, we two seem to share a view of this bunch of events, if arrived at differently; so we can circumspectly agree and hope something like it prevails.
I appreciate the discussion.
Thanks, Les. I suppose I would note my adherence to “the Truth”, but I don’t think that’s a distinction you would make.
Humility in ambition and appetites is taught by the Truth, as I know it, and that certainly negatives ideology.
I agree ideology can be used in a neutral sense. The reason I use the definition I gave (which may be poorly drawn and I’m happy for revision or refinement of it) is that “ideologue” (which certainly has negative connotation) cannot really have meaning under the neutral definition. Elsewise, it would simply derogate those who are committed to beliefs, irrespective of the nature of those beliefs or the actions they are then led to; which I don’t think either of us would accept.
And I’ll use circumspect from now on as precision in language has its own reward.
All the best.