July 30, 2003
Mr. Sullivan says it well
Again, Andrew Sullivan gets it exactly right. This article is an attack on the anti-war peaceniks. He also has a link to an essay that points out that the BBC has a history of this kind of thing: they opposed Churchill before WWII, and the director of the BBC at the time was "an admirer of both Hitler and Mussolini." These people are enemies of the West and civilization. They are the 21st century barbarians. What the Vandals did to Rome, they're fixing to do to us. Let's give 'em what for before they do.
How precisely do you plan to "give 'em what"?
Posted by: mesh at July 30, 2003 10:55 AMI've gotta agree with you and Sullivan Dawg. But I'm not sure rising (or lowering) ourselves to their level is the right approach. I say I'm not sure, because I just dunno where the line is between giving them the ol' heave to and "being above" actually rests...
Posted by: JosiahQ at July 30, 2003 11:51 AMMesh, I'm not suggesting violent revolution (though I do think they will be the first against the wall when the revoultion comes ;), I'm mostly suggesting that we ignore them as much as possible. Also, spreading both a counter-message and the word about the idiocy and deceit of the left couldn't hurt.
Josiah, I'm not sure what you mean by "being above".
Posted by: ryan at July 30, 2003 12:08 PMI dunno, don't you think there might be a higher calling, something above getting pissed off at them and pointing out their "idiocy" etc.?
Isn't there a deeper level?
Posted by: JosiahQ at July 30, 2003 02:06 PMBut when you're only talking politics, who really cares if there's a deeper level? Just have fun!
Posted by: nick at July 31, 2003 09:36 AMBecause real people exist on both sides.
Posted by: JosiahQ at July 31, 2003 01:49 PMWhich, coming full circle, is why I like Brooks' writing so much. He focuses not on political debate, which in today's society tends to be shrill and polarizing, but on the worldviews (a word he uses) of the people behind the debate. In article after article, his point has been that Americans are locked in our own subcultures, without knowledge of any other social groups - our nation is not so much divided as tribalist. What he argues for is to peer over our sociological fences and get to know the parts of America we most dislike, that are least like us. Live in NYC? Go to a megachurch one Sunday. Content in the suburbs? Work for a food bank. Interested in film and music, you young hipster, you? Hang out with the theology geeks, or the InterVarsity boys.
Yeah, people can be idiots -- NPR liberals or Covenant College neo-Calvinists. But as Jean Renoir said, everyone has their reasons. And any debate will be pointless unless you understand the person on the other side. Brooks does: he's a writer with empathy, which makes him rare.
Posted by: mesh at July 31, 2003 03:24 PMplus he has a cool last name. brrrroookssss, brrroox, just kinda rolls of the tounge...
Posted by: JosiahQ at August 1, 2003 08:52 AM