Casualties of Enlightenment

National Review ^ | 3/19/03 | Adam G. Mesereau

[Cosmo]

   

March 19, 2003, 9:20 a.m. Casualties of Enlightenment Peace (of mind) at any price.

By Adam G. Mersereau

he more we hear from the antiwar movement, the more evident it becomes that the antiwar movement is not entirely antiwar. War and the brutal killing of innocent people per se do not seem to offend many of the opponents of the pending military action in Iraq. After all, it is Saddam Hussein who is courting war by his defiance of U.N. resolutions and the peace accord that ended the first Gulf War; it is Saddam Hussein who harbors terrorists and hosts training camps for them; it is Saddam Hussein who has orchestrated the deaths of and disappearances of hundreds of thousands of people; it is Saddam Hussein who cuts out the tongues of Iraqi citizens who speak poorly of him; and it is Saddam Hussein who orders the rape of women in front of their children just to get political leverage with their husbands.

 Yet the general consensus within the antiwar movement is that that President Bush — not Saddam Hussein or even Osama bin Laden — is the evil one. They have compared President Bush to Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda and have concluded that Saddam Hussein and the terrorists pose the lesser of two threats.

The anti-war movement's misguided conclusions make sense only if we first examine the underlying force that drives and unites their diverse movement: a total and utter disdain for moral certainty. Many people who are antiwar are antiwar not merely because war is violent and inhumane, but because war is the ultimate statement of moral certainty — it is the ultimate in "judgmentalness." The pending war against Iraq is particularly distasteful to them because President Bush presents it as one against "evil" forces. Nothing is more offensive to today's "sophisticated" mind than this kind of moral certainty.

During the Enlightenment, Western philosophers rediscovered the ancient Greek concept of systematic skepticism. They labored to discredit the idea that anything can be known with certainty, especially matters of morality. Enlightenment thinkers encouraged mankind to abandon the search for Truth and embrace a perfectly delightful and reassuring uncertainty about Truth and morality. "Good" and "evil," they preached, are the cultural jetsam of a darker age. Today, it is the very essence of intellectual sophistication to believe that the only thing that is absolutely True is that nothing is absolutely True. (Choosing to ignore the inherent contradiction is part of the game.) The truly enlightened person therefore believes that the only "evil" man is the man who points to evil and calls it "evil;" and that the only liar is the man who says that men can know Truth.

Under this belief system, which is prevalent in Europe and (at least) among the cultural elite in America, each man becomes a god (of sorts) unto himself, with the personal authority to reject summarily all external moral guidance and to declare for himself what is "good" and what is "evil." Western culture has thus wrapped itself in relative morality like a warm blanket. Moral relativism finds diplomatic expression at the United Nations, where representatives of murderous, oppressive and otherwise criminal regimes cast votes of equal value as those cast by representatives of pluralistic democracies. Because all agree that there is no objective morality to be sought, morality is defined by a majority vote; and anyone who doesn't find the safety that is supposed to exist in numbers is deemed a renegade (or, if they happen to be from Texas, a cowboy).

For the enlightened person, war is never the answer because he can never identify with certainty an evil that must be confronted, or a cause that is unquestionably just. We see this viewpoint at work in any number of social and political disputes, particularly in the gun control movement, which is the domestic version of the antiwar movement. Have you ever wondered what type of person would deny fathers and mothers the right to own a gun to defend their homes and their children against violent intruders? Only someone who refuses to distinguish between the good and noble act of protecting one's family and the evil act of endangering that family. Only someone who is not certain that the attacker is in the wrong.

Many politicians engage in "God talk" to add gravitas to their speeches. But now comes President Bush, who seems more sincere about it than most, speaking of good and evil in the arena of public policy. He asserts — outside the four walls of a church, mind you — that our notions of good and evil are real, and that mankind has a responsibility to deal with them. He is spoiling the game that is being played by the enlightened. No matter what Saddam and the terrorists have done, they are not guilty of this unforgivable secular sin. Consider this antiwar rationale by Francois Heisbourg, the director of the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris, which recently appeared in the LA Times: "The biblical references in politics, the division of the world between good and evil, these are things that we simply don't get."

To all who have swallowed the Enlightenment's pill, President Bush does indeed pose a more dangerous threat than Saddam Hussein and the terrorists. For if we are truly responsible to confront evil in Iraq, North Korea, and Iran, then we are most certainly responsible for confronting it elsewhere, even in our own hearts, to whatever degree it lurks there. Mankind has spent millennia devising (and sometimes distorting) worldviews, religions and philosophies that will help him to deny more plausibly the existence of good and evil and that will relieve him of the duty to honestly examine his own heart. Many in Europe and America are not about to allow a Christian politician to bring his Biblical view of our "fallen" race — for which war is abhorrent but sometimes necessary — into the public square.

So thousands of people in Europe and America have taken to the streets in protest. Many of them cannot even articulate their reasons. But this we know for certain: They are willing to risk their lives (in future strikes against America) rather than engage in the real human struggle against evil. Unfortunately, they are willing to risk their neighbors' lives, too, just to maintain their self-delusion.

What could be more frightening?

— Adam G. Mersereau served in the enlisted and officer ranks of the United States Marine Corps from 1990 to 1995. He is now an attorney in Atlanta, Georgia.

  National Review [Selections from the 3/24/03 issue]

NR Preview After Saddam

   

  The Latest NRO Guest Comments:

Taheri: French Arab Policy  3/19 Hawkins: Vietnam Syndrome  3/19 Ratzlav-Katz: Arafat’s Man  3/19 Epstein: Wanting to Stay Sealed  3/19 Mersereau: Price of Peace  3/19 Loconte: Just-War Distortions  3/19 Marlowe: The Afghan Model  3/19 Geraghty: Daschle’s ”Failure”  3/19 Hibbs: Weird Willard  3/18 Schanzer: Survival of the Skittish  3/18   Kurtz: Wood’s Diversity 3/19 10:00 a.m.

Hawkins: Vietnam Syndrome 3/19 9:50 a.m.

Ratzlav-Katz: Arafat’s Man 3/19 9:45 a.m.

Epstein: Wanting to Stay Sealed 3/19 9:25 a.m.

Mersereau: Price of Peace 3/19 9:20 a.m.

Loconte: Just-War Distortions 3/19 9:15 a.m.

Derbyshire: Mutual Incomprehension 3/19 9:10 a.m.

Mowbray: Sami al-Arian Defense 3/19 9:00 a.m.

Marlowe: The Afghan Model 3/19 9:00 a.m.

Robbins: On Eve of Battle 3/19 9:00 a.m.

Ponnuru: Dem Crackup 3/19 9:00 a.m.

Owens: The Chem/Bio Threat 3/19 9:00 a.m.

Geraghty: Daschle’s “Failure” 3/19 9:00 a.m.

WFB: What Mr. Bush Left Out 3/19 9:00 a.m.

Looking for a story? Click here

 

   

     NRO Store . . . shop our expanded line of branded products!

 

 

 

 

 

     NR Book Service . . . save 20% to 30% on hot conservative titles

 

 

 

 

  Home

Find an Article

Find an Author

Advertise

Subscribe

Help

     

[Cosmo]

Sorry about not deleting all that junk below the article! What a mess!

[Mr. Mulliner]

Many people who are antiwar are antiwar not merely because war is violent and inhumane, but because war is the ultimate statement of moral certainty — it is the ultimate in "judgmentalness."

Excellent!

[rudypoot]

Speaking of moral relativism, I got into an argument about the impending Iraq war with one of the "enlightened acolytes" of this broken line of thought in a bar one night. He stated that "there is no right and wrong, it's all gray area." I responded, "If you don't know the difference between right and wrong, then why do you care, or even have an opinion about anything?"

Boy, that got him mad. He huffed and puffed and preached to me about how much more he knew than me for about five minutes. After the first long pause I looked him straight in the eye and smiled. He left right after that, but here is the suprizing part: everyone at the bar that overheard us talking bought me drinks for the rest of the night. Now I am a firm believer in the silent majority.

[Cosmo]

yeah, I posted this article because I though the author went a long way towards explaining the core of the anti-war crowd's credo. glad you liked it

[Mr. Mulliner]

I've been seeing the anti-Bush element in the anti-war movement so clearly and believe, as many others do, that there is simply no way for President Bush to gain the approval of many of these people.

But moral relativism is really one of the main underlying points of opposition to our president, to the Republican party, and to conservatives in general.

Their "enlightenment" is what causes them to brand all conservatives, and especially President Bush, as "stupid."

[Mr. Mulliner]

I read this interesting argument in favor of war last night. It's by a leftie, someone who hates Bush and thinks he's stupid, but has now seen through the weakness of the anti-war arguments. Interesting read, though you may have to hold your nose in a few places.

So Let's Have a War Already

[ecomcon]

Clear and Concise Summary Bump!

[LiteKeeper]

bump the bump

[Cosmo]

Well, I can't buy ya a drink, but here's a cybertoast to ya!!

[JasonC]

I think it is at least a solid half of the explanation. In particular this part -

"if we are truly responsible to confront evil in Iraq... then we are most certainly responsible for confronting it elsewhere, even in our own hearts...Mankind has spent millennia devising ...philosophies that will help him to deny ...the existence of good and evil and that will relieve him of the duty to honestly examine his own heart."

They don't want to live in a world in which morality is real. They think they can avoid doing so by lashing out at every person and every situation that makes clear to them that it is real. If you look around, you will see this one issue all across politics and the culture wars, in a hundred disguises.

I think it is actually deeper than all the pretend sophistication or the average lefty's actual intellectual commitment to pop relativism. It is the psychological core of the matter, the reason they buy into that dogma in the first place. The seduction, the payoff, in that dogma, is the promise of a subjectively "fault-free" existence.

They know it isn't true. Reality intrudes. But they just toss it out again with a hayfork, because they don't want to deal.

[Behind Liberal Lines]

Excellent analyis of how "enlightenment kills".

And guess which city was voted most enlightened (ie, liberal) city in America by the ultra left Utne Reader....

Yep.

You guessed it.

Ithaca is the City of Evil.

(Hmmm..."enlightenment kills"....might make a good bumpersticker....)

[Fixit]

I made this up while watching the bombing start.

And in convenient bite size.