Michael Barone has a terrific column today on the enemy within. He is not referring to underground cells of Islamofascists but rather to a set of subversive ideas.
Using terms like “the enemy within” (my phrase), “covert enemies” (Barone’s term), “subversive,” etc., inevitably calls to mind comparisons with what we’ve come to know as McCarthyism, although that term is a misnomer because the practices we mean both pre- and post-dated McCarthy.
In my former life I was — and in this life I remain — a critic of the violation of civil liberties that we associate with the McCarthy period. Since I find myself considerably less troubled by many current practices that are often criticized as McCarthyite, however, I am both interested in and troubled by the comparison to the earlier unfortunate era.
One fact that I find highly relevant in considering this comparison (I’ve found that when issues are complex and confusing, facts, often ignored, can be quite helpful) concerns the degree and nature of the threat. Briefly, the threats McCarthyite measures were intended to thwart (domestic subversion, revolution, etc.) were for the most part invented or greatly exaggerated (no, this is not to say there were no commie spies, just that their existence did not justify firing garbage men or professors). Now, however, the threat is real. It’s almost as though the McCarthites were crying “Wolf!” when the wolf was distant and not a domestic threat, but now the wolf is both at and in the door.
This wolf, however, is not what Barone means by “our covert enemies.” Instead, he points to something equally, if not more, subversive:
…. These covert enemies are those among our elites who have promoted the ideas labeled as multiculturalism, moral relativism and (the term is Professor Samuel Huntington’s) transnationalism.
At the center of their thinking is a notion of moral relativism. No idea is morally superior to another. Hitler had his way, we have ours — who’s to say who is right? No ideas should be “privileged,” especially those that have been the guiding forces in the development and improvement of Western civilization. Rich white men have imposed their ideas because of their wealth and through the use of force. Rich white nations imposed their rule on benighted people of color around the world. For this sin of imperialism they must forever be regarded as morally stained and presumptively wrong. Our covert enemies go quickly from the notion that all societies are morally equal to the notion that all societies are morally equal except ours, which is worse.
“Moral relativism” is another way to describe an abandonment of principle, of the very idea of principle itself. The high priest of the abandonment of principle is, of course, Stanley Fish — whose views I discussed, among other places, here, here, here, here, here, and here — but, in The Trouble With Principle and most of his other writings, he has provided a convenient intellectual veneer to others who want to abandon principle whenever it gets in the way of their desired policies.
In my view the first, and emblematic, principle Fish and his school abandoned was what Gunnar Myrdal had once — now, it appears, quaintly — called the “American creed,” namely, that every individual should be treated “without regard” to race, creed, or color. After abandoning the “American creed,” discarding other principles came easy.
I guess ideas are dangerous to some people. Dangerous enough to compare to the acts of terrorists. Sad really.
Sure, ideas are dangerous. Especially when they lead to terrorist activity and/or create apathy and distrust that surpasses one’s innate sense of survival.
of course ideas are dangerous actus. I know you mean that as a sneer. but everything starts with an idea. you’re looking at this in the usual liberal way, imagining that conservatives are scared of what you regard as liberal ideas. imagine that most people adopted the idea that racial equality was nonsense, that david duke was on TV all the time preaching his philosophy, and people said well let’s not judge him because all ideas are equal. how would that affect the daily life of people (and don’t say that it’s like that now. it’s not!).
You’re right. Maybe Ideas can be dangerous. From the comments to barone’s piece:
“We need to be MEAN. We need to HATE. We NEED strong, DEADLY emotions- and we NEED to act on them. We are dealing with a thought system – IS-SLIME – (not “Islam” – because this is a proper noun. The correct name. This betokens respect. I do NOT respect sand n!ggers. I HATE them – and I want them DEAD. ALL of them – as I’ve stated before – any little sand n!glet blown to bits, today, means some little human child – Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Rastafari, whatever – gets to NOT be blown to bits, tomorrow) – a thought system that is PURE hatred, and annihilation.”
“imagine that most people adopted the idea that racial equality was nonsense, that david duke was on TV all the time preaching his philosophy, and people said well let’s not judge him because all ideas are equal.”
Its not that all ideas are equal, but that ideas aren’t equal to actions.
Actus,
It’s disengenuous to pull a comment out of a thread and use that to tar all people opposing your statement. I could, quite easily, go to Huffington Post and pull literally hundreds of moonbat posts that would sound at least as hateful as the one you used. But doing so proves nothing. To say that “ideas aren’t equal to actions” is rather silly, since most bad actions start with ideas. And criminal law would be quite different if we didn’t consider ideas.
“It’s disengenuous to pull a comment out of a thread and use that to tar all people opposing your statement.”
Actually that comment makes me more sympathetic to your side, makes think about the possibility that ideas ARE dangerous. So it doesnt really tar people opposing me.
“To say that “ideas aren’t equal to actions” is rather silly, since most bad actions start with ideas.”
I know. Thats part of the difference. And a not silly difference either.
“And criminal law would be quite different if we didn’t consider ideas.”
Oh most certainly. Don’t stop idiots from whining about ‘thought crimes.’ But hey, you cant be limited by that can you?
“Oh most certainly. Don’t stop idiots from whining about ‘thought crimes.’ But hey, you cant be limited by that can you?”
Hey, if you want to concede the idiocy of hate crimes legislation or speech codes, then maybe we will agree.
“Hey, if you want to concede the idiocy of hate crimes legislation or speech codes, then maybe we will agree.”
If thats what you read in my sentence, we’re goign to have hard time agreeing, disagreeing, or doing much discoursing at all.
You said “don’t stop idiots from whining about ‘thought crimes,'” didn’t you? I’d love for idiots to stop whining about thought crimes. Like hate crimes legislation, which is all about thought. But you are right that I doubt we would find much to agree on.
“Like hate crimes legislation, which is all about thought.”
Let me clue you in on something: people pushing for hate crimes legislation are not the ones that whine about ‘thought crimes.’ Its the opponents.
“We need to be mean …”
Was this comment removed? I don’t find it there.
“Let me clue you in on something: people pushing for hate crimes legislation are not the ones that whine about ‘thought crimes.’ Its (sic) the opponents.”
Actus, the original purveyors of “hate crimes legislation” whined that it was racism (i.e., their thought) that made the crimes worse.
“Actus, the original purveyors of “hate crimes legislation” whined that it was racism (i.e., their thought) that made the crimes worse.”
But they did not whine about “thought crimes.” Do you note my use of quotes? Did you see the promoters or opponents of the legislation whining using hte words in quotes?
That should settle it, no?
“But they did not whine about “thought crimes.” Do you note my use of quotes? Did you see the promoters or opponents of the legislation whining using hte words in quotes?
That should settle it, no?”
So, your argument is that using quotes makes your argument more valid? I thought the point was that “ideas aren’t dangerous.” Isn’t that what you said? Yet hate crimes legislation trades on the idea that “ideas ARE dangerous” because they make murdering someone worth a harsher punishment. Is that not so? Or is it that they “did not whine about ‘thought crimes'”? They certainly did whine that the “thought” made the crime worse. So, which is it? Are ideas dangerous?
“So, your argument is that using quotes makes your argument more valid?”
My argument is that by using quotes, I’m referring to people who use those specific words in the quotation. You know what quotation marks are used for right? So the people who whine about “thought crimes” are the ones who oppose bias motivated crime legislation. Because they actually are the ones whining and using the phrase “thought crime.”
So, ideas ARE dangerous. Thanks for clearing that up.
“So, ideas ARE dangerous. Thanks for clearing that up.”
I thought thats what I said around here: “Posted by: actus | August 22, 2006 10:04 AM”
Actually, this is what you originally said:
“I guess ideas are dangerous to some people. Dangerous enough to compare to the acts of terrorists. Sad really.
actus | August 21, 2006 5:03 PM”
Which doesn’t have quite the same ring to it.
“Actually, this is what you originally said:”
I know, and then I updated that later. I changed my mind when I saw those ideas I quoted on August 22, 2006 10:04 AM.
But it took you till August 24, 2006 7:23 PM to figure it out.
Actually, I got it but I liked rubbing your face in it, particularly after all the snarkiness about quotation marks and such.
“Actually, I got it but I liked rubbing your face in it, particularly after all the snarkiness about quotation marks and such.”
Ya. imagine that. I use things in quotes to mean I am quoting a phrase. And that’s ‘snark.’
“Ya. imagine that. I use things in quotes to mean I am quoting a phrase. And that’s ‘snark.'”
Well, it was a snarky comment about thought crimes, wasn’t it? You couldn’t just admit that you’d been wrong. Instead you had to try one more swipe. But we’ve come to expect that from you.
“Well, it was a snarky comment about thought crimes, wasn’t it?”
Well I honestly do believe that for all that criminal law places legitimate concern on the mind of the defendant there are still people out there that whine abot ‘thought crimes.’ Snark away, but they do.
[…] posts below (here) I discussed an excellent column by Michael Barone on “our covert enemies,” by which he meant […]