More on how Americans substitute slogans for reality

I recently catalogued the series of earlier, wildly touted “turning points” in the Iraq situation that turned out to be mere annexes to yet later wildly touted “turning points.” Prior to the January 30th election (which Bush supporters have treated as though it were the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the battle of Trenton, the Treaty of Paris, the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, Lee’s surrender at Appomattox, VJ Day, and the Second Coming of Christ all rolled into one), there was the previous Glorious Event, the Battle of Fallujah, the Mother of all Battles, the Battle to End All Battles. (Note: I am not disrespecting our magnificent fighting men in Iraq and the hardships and sacrifices they’re undergoing; I am finding fault with the home-front people who keep fantasizing in overdrive about what’s going on over there.) My discussion last November about the Bushites’ extravagant self-deceptions concerning Fallujah, as well as the excellent discussion among VFR participants that follows it, is highly relevant to the current situation. Also, this comment of mine, quoted and slightly modified below, explains how our utterly irresponsible and simple-minded effusions about “freedom” and “democracy” (the good is defined by whatever people freely choose in a popular election) can lead to our getting into wars that we can’t win, and sanctify such results as Shi’ite theocracy and anti-American jihadism, without our ever getting a clue about why this is happening:

I agree that the abuse of “democracy” is what led us to this. It’s the basic contradiction of liberalism, the contradiction that (as Jim Kalb once said) makes it impossible for people in a liberal society to think rationally. Life involves a concern for all kinds of substantive goods. But liberalism has no language for those goods. It only has language for equality, rights, democracy. So we have no principle or approved language for the things that really matter, and we must sneak them into our world through unprincipled or illogical means. In the case of Iraq, what we really want is a stable, reasonably decent society that will be pro-American and anti-terrorist. Those are all substantive goods. But the only way a late liberal like Bush can articulate any concept of the good is in terms of “freedom” and “democracy.” So he calls for “democracy,” even though such a democracy may lead to an Iraq that is unstable, indecent, anti-American, and pro-terrorist.

98 percent of contemporary Americans are unable to get out of this conceptual box or even realize that they are caught in it.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 07, 2005 06:18 PM | Send