NR’s editor says words mean nothing—when it suits him

A reader has further reflections on Richard Lowry’s glib dismissal, as mere “symbolism,” of the Iraq leaders’ legitimization of jihadist armed resistance against the U.S. forces in Iraq:

I re-read the brief note by Lowry on the Cairo declaration. Putting on my libertarian hat, I tried to see the world as he does, in mainly economic/individualistic terms. All I could come up with was this:

• It’s just words, they are just saying stuff to get the Sunni on board, this is no more than a “sense of the House” kind of declaration, it is just words.

• We don’t care what they say as long as we can get them hooked into the world commerce system. Put enough Playstations/TV’s/home appliances in the Islamic world and they will become consumers and thus Just Like Us…

Of course, the irony is that in other places and times, National Review has gotten pretty worked up about the fact that “words mean things,” and thus what people say does matter. Witness how the Cornerites react to the ongoing attacks on Bush from the Sheehan left, just to pick one example. So do we believe that words mean things, or that they can be redefined at a whim? Gosh, there’s a hard question…

But let’s go with the notion that this is “just words,” and that the delegates are just doing a political act to get the Sunni on board. What about all the other words they have said, about freedom and democracy and so forth? Are all those declarations “just words” as well? Lowry would have us not take the Iraqis seriously when they say one thing, but take them very seriously when they say other things.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 23, 2005 02:56 PM | Send