{"id":5897,"date":"2009-07-13T12:02:17","date_gmt":"2009-07-13T20:02:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/?p=5897"},"modified":"2009-07-13T12:07:39","modified_gmt":"2009-07-13T20:07:39","slug":"dont-fck-me-up-with-peace-and-love","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/2009\/07\/13\/dont-fck-me-up-with-peace-and-love\/","title":{"rendered":"Don’t F*ck Me Up With Peace and Love?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Maybe this post by George Hawley, “Solving Non-Interventionism\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Tough-Guy Problem<\/a>,” wasn’t directed at Antiwar.com, but I’ll address some excerpts from it anyway.<\/p>\n

In the years since I abandoned my status as a typical neoconservative chicken hawk and adopted Old Right non-interventionism, I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ve been somewhat uneasy with much of the movement\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s rhetoric. Specifically, I often find much of the anti-war Right a little too reminiscent of the anti-war Left. That is, many anti-war conservatives and libertarians expend a great number of keystrokes lamenting the American war machine\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s innocent foreign victims (see Chronicles
\nor LewRockwell.com just about any day of the week for examples). This is often my own preferred argument. My concern is that this kind of rhetoric does little to grow the non-interventionist movement\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s ranks. …<\/em> <\/em><\/p>\n

Although their message is utterly vacuous, the Limbaughs, Hannitys, and Levins know exactly how to frame their arguments in a way that appeals to the GOP base. It\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s time for more doves on the Right to learn to do the same.<\/em>
\n<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

But, of course, we do make coldly consequentialist, self-interested arguments
\nagainst militarism, war, and empire. We also make arguments on moral grounds, from a number of different starting points (including conservative Christianity<\/a>, which I hear this GOP base is really into). Why make this an either\/or matter? Why should we drop half (or more) of our arguments when they don’t conflict with the other half? (There are<\/em> various types of “humanitarianism” that do conflict with non-interventionism, but we avoid those, so no problem there.)<\/p>\n

As for learning from Limbaugh and Levin, please. I know their audience. I was born into it. If I ever write a political memoir, I’ll name it Up From Hannity<\/em>. There is a Reasonable Right worth reaching out to, but it ain’t in talk radio. These people “think very little about foreign policy,” as Hawley puts it, not out of apathy, but on principle<\/em>, because thinking leads to questioning, and questioning is a mere Bic flick away from flag-burning, bin Laden, buggery, and Buddhism. The funny thing is, the warbots are not allergic to “humanitarian, we-are-the-world gobbledygook” \u00e2\u20ac\u201c in fact, they devour it when it’s in the service of American imperialism. Anyone who watches Fox News knows how quickly right-wingers can pivot from “kill ’em all” to “aww, purple fingers!” The problem is not that peaceniks have tried the wrong arguments on them; they will accept any argument, no matter how heterodox it appears on its face, so long as it reaches the correct conclusion, roughly summarized here<\/a>. But any argument that reaches a different conclusion, no matter how consonant it is with “conservative values” such as traditionalism, small government, fiscal responsibility, or national sovereignty, doesn’t stand a chance with that crowd.<\/p>\n

Lamenting the suffering created by harsh economic sanctions and bombing campaigns is a good way for non-interventionist right-wingers to suck up to their leftist friends and colleagues, but so what? The people moved by such arguments are already anti-war. Building a powerful anti-war coalition on the Right will require an entirely different rhetoric. At all costs it must avoid sounding like Code Pink.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This ignores the salvageable, non-Rush Right, whom we do address, and it seems a little confused about the purposes of advocacy. Not all arguments are about convincing someone to switch sides. Often, it’s more important to get those who agree with you on an issue to care more<\/em> about that issue, in both absolute and relative terms. For instance, much of our commentary since January has been aimed at convincing our lefty readers that they shouldn’t surrender peace and civil liberties for the various goodies Obama has promised them. We’re always trying to make people rethink their priorities, or merely come out of the closet. Even after a majority of Americans soured on the Iraq war, most remained sheepish, even silent, in their opposition, revealing it only to pollsters. Part of our job is to get people fired up, to translate their dissatisfaction into action of some sort. And you know what? Moral arguments are often good motivators, even for people whose default modes of analysis are amoral.<\/p>\n

Luckily, we already have a pretty good format that has worked pretty well in America\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Red regions, and can be applied to the cause of peace. There is a certain ethos that characterizes a great number of ordinary Republicans \u00e2\u20ac\u201c or at least the ordinary Republicans with whom I prefer to spend my time. For the lack of a better term, I will call this frame of mind, \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Who-Gives-a-Damn? Conservatism.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d This is the type of thinking that leads to support for standard GOP policies, but not for particularly-sophisticated reasons. I have no doubt that a great number of grassroots Republicans oppose ideas like universal health care and more federal spending on public schools because they understand, and find compelling, conservative and libertarian arguments about the utility of such policies. I suspect much of the opposition to these schemes, however, is based on a more primal emotion. That is, a lot of people don\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t like Big Government because they don\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t want to pay for it and don\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t really care about the people it is supposed to help.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

If you think most self-described conservatives really hate Big Government,
\nthen you stopped paying attention sometime around, oh, the Nixon administration. Good God, man, if they hated Big Government, wouldn’t they at least dislike<\/em> the most wasteful and intrusive government programs of them all, from the War on Terror to the War on Drugs? No, they love<\/em> Big Government, from its big, fat boots<\/a> to its big, fat head<\/a>. Oh, they’re angry that some of the loot falls on the, um\u00e2\u20ac\u00a6 undeserving,<\/em> but that won’t stop them from sucking the teats of Social Security and Medicare to the shape and texture of a deflated football. They won’t abide tax increases, but they see no connection between those and deficit spending. And why should they? Just keep those F-22s<\/a> coming, barkeep! The grandkids are buying!<\/p>\n

I do agree with this part completely:<\/p>\n

The neocons\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 democratist ideology should be treated as just another example of fuzzy-headed utopianism. Bringing \u00e2\u20ac\u0153liberal democracy\u00e2\u20ac\u009d and \u00e2\u20ac\u0153democratic capitalism\u00e2\u20ac\u009d to the entire world should be added to the category of ridiculous, never-going-to-happen ideas. The best argument against the neocons is that they are delusional. They are the eggheads dreaming up sentimental, utopian schemes, not us.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Couldn’t have said it better myself. Nonetheless, we will gain nothing from adopting the language and posture of the neocons and their fellow travelers. Non-interventionism’s only “tough-guy problem” is the widespread attachment to a mindset derived entirely from dumbass action flicks, which are about as useful a guide for foreign policy as romantic comedies<\/a> are for romance.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Maybe this post by George Hawley, “Solving Non-Interventionism\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Tough-Guy Problem,” wasn’t directed at Antiwar.com, but I’ll address some excerpts from it anyway. In the years since I abandoned my status as a typical neoconservative chicken hawk and adopted Old Right non-interventionism, I\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ve been somewhat uneasy with much of the movement\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s rhetoric. Specifically, I often find […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":15,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,22,82,7,95,20,8,167,47,30,80,16,10],"tags":[173],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-5897","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-antiwar-movement","category-culture","category-economics","category-empire","category-intervention","category-libertarianism","category-military-spending","category-military-industrial-complex","category-neocons","category-politics","category-us-military","category-terrorism","category-war-party","tag-neoconservatives"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"meta_box":{"disable_donate_message":"","custom_donate_message":"","subtitle":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5897","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/15"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5897"}],"version-history":[{"count":11,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5897\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5907,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5897\/revisions\/5907"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5897"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5897"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5897"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=5897"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}