Hanson’s amazingly flawed thinking process

“Victory” Hanson, rejecting his unsteady former neocon allies who have had Second and Third Thoughts about Iraq, powerfully demonstrates at FrontPage Magazine that he himself has never had any thoughts on the subject at all, except for the truncated and obtuse thoughts that put us on the road of “democratizing” the Muslim world in the first place. He restates the familiar rationale for democratization: Allying ourselves with Arab and Muslim tyrants over several decades led to terrorism, therefore only democracy could drain the Mideast of its discontents and lead to peace. But he does not address the most important question that had to be answered for any such analysis to be viable: even if democracy could drain the swamp, even if democracy is beneficial, what makes him think that Muslim countries want it or are capable of sustaining it? The fact that something is desirable does not mean that it is obtainable. Hanson never asks if Muslim democracy is obtainable. He merely re-asserts its desirability and necessity. And because it’s desirable and necessary, he devoutly believes—and we’re all supposed to believe with him—that it’s obtainable as well.

It becomes evident that Hanson could not think his way out of a paper bag. Yet—and here’s the ever-amazing and appalling thing—it was on the basis of such grossly flawed thinking that the Bush Doctrine was launched and has been disseminated and defended with such passion these last several years.

True to his ideals, Hanson closes his article by simply re-asserting the Bush Doctrine, as if those years had not taken place:

Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri will still connive to bring the new caliphate to Afghanistan, Iraq and beyond. And they won’t be stopped by either cruise missiles or court subpoenas, but only by a resolute United States and Middle Eastern societies that elect their own leaders and live with the results.

We can demonize President Bush and former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld all we want, or wish they presented their views in a kindlier and more artful fashion. We can wish the United States were better at training Iraqis and killing terrorists to secure Iraq. But the same general mess in the Middle East will still confront Mr. Bush’s and Mr. Rumsfeld’s successors.

And long after the present furor over Iraq dies down, the idea of trying to help democratic reformers fight terrorists, and to distance America from failed regimes antithetical to our values simply will not go away. [Italics added.]

That tough idealism will stay—because, finally, it is the only right and smart thing to do.

Hanson has learned nothing—no Third Thoughts, no Second Thoughts … and, as I’ve shown above, not even a First Thought.

- end of initial entry -

Paul K. writes:

I gave up reading Victor Davis Hanson some time ago, but someone sent me his latest from the Wall Street Journal assuring me it was “really great.” Not only is it a hopeless mess intellectually, but it contains some of the worst writing I’ve ever seen in a reputable journal. Is Hanson so revered among the neocons that no editor dares tamper with his words?

Here are two examples of stunningly bad sentences:

“Third, examine why all these incidents took place in Europe, where more and more the state guarantees the good life even into dotage, where the here and now has become a finite world for soulless bodies, where armies devolve into topics of caricature, and children distract from sterile adults’ ever-increasing appetites.”

“But [al-Qaeda’s] genius was knowing of our own self-loathing, of our inability to determine their evil from our good, of our mistaken belief that Islamists were confused about, rather than intent to destroy, the West, and most of all, of our own terror that we might lose, if even for a brief moment, the enjoyment of our good life to defeat the terrorists.”

But this one takes the cake:

“Rushdie was an overrated novelist, whose chickens of trashing the West he sought refuge in finally came home to roost.”

I think Hanson should submit some of his work to the annual Bulwer-Lytton Award for bad writing.

LA replies:

Hanson’s column-writing was always a mess, a flow of verbiage and free association sustained by ego and adrenalin, with no conceptual thought process holding it together. But I agree this is the worst I’ve seen. Perhaps, as his policy is falling apart, so is his writing.

Spencer Warren writes:

Hanson ignores totally the results of these free elections:

1. Hamas wins in the West Bank;
2. Hezbollah does well in Lebanon’s elections;
3. Orthodox Shiite parties win big in Iraq;
4. Turkey;
5. Algeria some time back—the Army overturned the election when the fundamentalists won;
6. Egypt—gains by Muslim Brotherhood in recent election;
7. Pakistan, if it held an election, might be lost.

How could an intelligent person not discuss these facts?

LA replies:

You ask: “How could an intelligent person not discuss these facts?”

Answer: Check your premises!

I’m not saying that he’s not “intelligent,” but that he’s never had a First Thought. His thoughts are ideological formulae and syllogisms driven by desire for a liberal world, not thoughts that consider reality.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 29, 2006 03:22 PM | Send