Posted on 09/24/2001 4:44:51 PM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl
Thomas Sowell (archive)
September 24, 2001
Although most Americans seem to understand the gravity of the situation that terrorism has put us in -- and the need for some serious military response, even if that means dangers to the lives of us all -- there are still those who insist on posturing, while on the edge of a volcano. In the forefront are college students who demand a "peaceful" response to an act of war. But there are others who are old enough to know better, who are still repeating the pacifist platitudes of the 1930s that contributed so much to bringing on World War II.
A former ambassador from the weak-kneed Carter administration says that we should look at the "root causes" behind the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. We should understand the "alienation" and "sense of grievance" against us by various people in the Middle East.
It is astonishing to see the 1960s phrase "root causes" resurrected at this late date and in this context. It was precisely this kind of thinking, which sought the "root causes of crime" during that decade, creating soft policies toward criminals, which led to skyrocketing crime rates. Moreover, these soaring crime rates came right after a period when crime rates were lower than they had been in decades.
On the international scene, trying to assuage aggressors' feelings and look at the world from their point of view has had an even more catastrophic track record. A typical sample of this kind of thinking can be found in a speech to the British Parliament by Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in 1938: "It has always seemed to me that in dealing with foreign countries we do not give ourselves a chance of success unless we try to understand their mentality, which is not always the same as our own, and it really is astonishing to contemplate how the identically same facts are regarded from two different angles."
Like our former ambassador from the Carter era, Chamberlain sought to "remove the causes of strife or war." He wanted "a general settlement of the grievances of the world without war." In other words, the British prime minister approached Hitler with the attitude of someone negotiating a labor contract, where each side gives a little and everything gets worked out in the end. What Chamberlain did not understand was that all his concessions simply led to new demands from Hitler -- and contempt for him by Hitler.
What Winston Churchill understood at the time, and Chamberlain did not, was that Hitler was driven by what Churchill called "currents of hatred so intense as to sear the souls of those who swim upon them." That was also what drove the men who drove the planes into the World Trade Center.
Pacifists of the 20th century had a lot of blood on their hands for weakening the Western democracies in the face of rising belligerence and military might in aggressor nations like Nazi Germany and imperial Japan. In Britain during the 1930s, Labor Party members of Parliament voted repeatedly against military spending, while Hitler built up the most powerful military machine in Europe. Students at leading British universities signed pledges to refuse to fight in the event of war.
All of this encouraged the Nazis and the Japanese toward war against countries that they knew had greater military potential than their own. Military potential only counts when there is the will to develop it and use it, and the fortitude to continue with a bloody war when it comes. This is what they did not believe the West had. And it was Western pacifists who led them to that belief.
Then as now, pacifism was a "statement" about one's ideals that paid little attention to actual consequences. At a Labor Party rally where Britain was being urged to disarm "as an example to others," economist Roy Harrod asked one of the pacifists: "You think our example will cause Hitler and Mussolini to disarm?"
The reply was: "Oh, Roy, have you lost all your idealism?" In other words, the issue was about making a "statement" -- that is, posturing on the edge of a volcano, with World War II threatening to erupt at any time. When disarmament advocate George Bernard Shaw was asked what Britons should do if the Nazis crossed the channel into Britain, the playwright replied, "Welcome them as tourists."
What a shame our schools and college neglect history, which could save us from continuing to repeat the idiocies of the past, which are even more dangerous now in a nuclear age.
Neville Chamberlain = Clinton Admin./UN/EU/pacifists ping.
Today is Sept. 24th. Against American cries for retaliation, and misguided pacifists cries for negotiation, the Bush administration is doing what needs to be done in a wise and thorough fashion. No one can claim with any credibility that we are "rushing into war."
The Clinton clean-up is more extensive than any of us could dream.
When the terrorists and the host countries end their internal fighting...we'll mop up the rest of them!
Great line.(^:
The Chamberlin quote about "understanding their mentality" would make a nice quiz question for pacifists that you may come across. At least Chamberlin eventually saw the mistakes he made. "Professor" Robert Jensen never will.
Jesse is complaining about hate crimes? How about the 10,000 or so committed on September 11? I have yet to see Jesse Jackson on national TV since then. Am I just lucky, or have the networks actually decided that he has noting of substance or relevance to add to our nation at this time?
I agree. We expect this from Jackson, but a few press heads should roll, IMHO. Doing a search to see if Ken Timmerman, the author of the original InsightMag piece does a follow-up. If not, FR will. A vanity with the title, "Why is the Press Lying About Jesse Jackson?" could be a simple way for us to provide links, comments, draw the attention of the negligent press lurkers...What do you think?
The one who whipped the moneychangers from the temple, who said to his apostles "whoever of you has not a sword, sell your cloak and buy one", was not a pacifist in the modern sense.
We have two main flavors of pacifist:
Like Havisham, Sowell is one of my constant touchstones for the tradition of Burke and Kirk. That being said, it's unfortunant that Sowell didn't cite the America First crowd, Taft and other conservatives from the 1920-1941 era who were so isolationist that they served as virtual pacifists. Some of the Paeleo-Conservative and Libertarian writers carry on that tradition to this day.
While a majority of conservatives of all stripe condemned the Kosovo campaign, even that wasn't universal. The question is when does the conservative tradition of non-involvement in foriegn wars outside our stategic interests stop and assisting the liberal pacifictic tendancy begin? Even R. Kirk condemned Desert Storm, echoing Burke in asking "going to war over an oil can?" (a position where I differed with Kirk, my other touchstone)
Some, such a Antiwar.com, claim the mantel of libertarianism and cite even our situation now as resorting to war too soon and improperly.
I believe War is the final arm of diplomacy. Discourse between nations starts with words, and in the best of times ends with words and agreements fostering just relations. In the worst of times, war is the answer -- not the problem. It would have been better if Sowell had cited and acknowledged the muddled message of broad conservatism on this issue. It would have made the condemnation of liberal pacifism that much more concrete.
What he says is certainly visible in the events since 9-11. World leaders are definitely getting behind our program, because they know we've got the power and they also know we have the will to use it.
When an American president has 91% approval ratings, after making statements like "...pretty soon they're gonna hear from ALL of us!", the terrorists and dictators have good reason to be quaking in their booties.
Just like all these animal rights/environmental nuts who don't realize that if it weren't for them living in such a cushy free society, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
See this page: Jesus is not a pacifist
Also explains some about why God allows evil (evil= lack of love)
Good point. Maybe Dr. Sowell will tackle the subject next week after the need to vent about the Universities and leftist / international busybodies cools. You are very wise. I still want to kick Janet Reno's clymer.
Jeb will take care of Janet, don't you fret.
The reply was: "Oh, Roy, have you lost all your idealism?"
In the flaring parks, in the taverns, in the hushed academies, your murmur will applaud the wisdom of a thousand quacks. For theirs is the kingdom.--Kenneth Fearing
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.