Paul Krugman, in a recent op-ed for the New York Times (Oct. 29th, 2007), began his column, noting: “In America’s darkest hour, Franklin Delano Roosevelt urged the nation not to succumb to “nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror.” But that was then. He goes on to make his point that “[t]here isn’t any such thing as Islamofascism-it’s not an ideology; it’s a figment of the neo-con imagination.” He continues, “in the wake of 9/11, the Bush administration adopted fear-mongering as a political strategy, instead of treating the attack as what it was-an atrocity committed by a fundamentally weak, though ruthless adversary-the administration portrayed America as a nation under threat from every direction.”
Apparently Mr. Krugman and many others have no fear that a couple of guys in caves with access to computers represent an existential threat to the way we live. Unless of course we give in to nameless unreasoning fear and destroy ourselves from within.
So allow me to try to name, provide a reason and a justification for our fears.
International Affairs 101 looks at intentions and capabilities. If my five-year-old son declares the United States his enemy and he intends to destroy it, call me crazy but I take it with a grain of salt. (Although I will monitor more closely what he’s watching on TV and check the parental controls on the computer.) If a group of people have the same intention as my son but they may represent the feelings of hundreds of thousands or more likely millions upon millions of people I take the threat more seriously. And when these folks have successfully attacked our military, our diplomats, and our cities and civilian population, well yeah, I take them at their word. Perhaps I didn’t when they officially declared war on us more than 10 years ago, but they’ve certainly got my attention now.
As to capabilities, the world we now live in has empowered individuals to do things unimaginable 20 years ago. Mr Krugman might want to consult his colleague Tom Friedman about the technologies available to students in Islamabad or miscreants in caves.
Digression: caves in the Muslim narrative have a resonance different from ours. We may associate caves with Neanderthals, but many a Muslim intuitively understand that it was from a cave that Mohammed received not only revelations (The Night of Power) but went on to conquer by sword much of the world.
In Krugman’s reading of history, our president has damaged our democracy more than the Alien and Sedition Acts during John Adams’ tenure; more than the suspension of habeas corpus during Lincoln’s, more than Eugene Debs (a leader of the labor movement who opposed Woodrow Wilson as the Socialist Party candidate in the 1912 presidential election) going to jail, under the Espionage Act, to serve a 10-year sentence for making an anti-war speech during the Woodrow Wilson years. The Espionage Act was passed at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson, who feared any widespread dissent in time of war, thinking that it constituted a real threat to an American victory.
And more than Roosevelt trying to pack the Supreme Court during peacetime and the subsequent internment of Japanese-American citizens, as well as Nixon’s use of the government to punish his personal enemies. The genius of our governance is that we have self-correctional ways of coming to terms with government excesses and have an electorate that is vigilant in making sure rights are not abrogated. This has always been and will remain a tension in our polity, along with liberty and equality and pre-Civil War amendments and post-Civil War amendments. Most First Amendment “rights” were developed during the last century, not at our founding. So-called “privacy” rights are the battleground now.
So, does Mr. Krugman really think it takes courage to critique U.S. policy, strategy and tactics in an ongoing war against our real enemies? His willful blindness is more of a danger to our Republic than today’s battles over the details of NSA surveillance, or whether section 215 of the Patriot Act is excessive and needs to be adjusted, or that the Abu Ghraib scandals were anything other than the actions of sadistic, rogue military persons and not representative of our armed forces. We will make the corrections over time. That is part of the genius of our Founders. But our civilization and its values may not have the time if we cave in to the Paul Krugmans of the world. I’m making an issue of Mr. Krugman (an expert in the dismal science of economics) because he has a forum in the New York Times. Although I’d gain a great deal of respect for his employer if they published the Danish cartoons or covered Muslim on Muslim violence with the same relish they cover our own government’s shortcomings.
It’s too easy to critique the reflexively anti-American wackos (you know who you are). But it’s what Lenin used to call “useful idiots” that may cause the real harm. As the quite sober English weekly the Economist noted last week, Frank Rich of the New York Times accuses the Bush administration of conducting a “quiet coup, ultimately more insidious than a blatant putsch like General Musharraf.” The Economist goes on to say that everyday “thousands of would be Riches and Coulters inject similar sentiments into the blogosphere.” A coup? A putsch worse than Musharraf? This is not you, me and with all due respect Ms. Coulter on her website but the New York Times, the alleged paper of record. When will the editors have the courage of their convictions and publish a picture of the president, resplendent in brownshirt and little mustache?
The critics of our national security policies know we have the means to sort things out in finding the proper balance between civil liberties and security. What they haven’t figured out is how to deal with the real enemy so they avoid talking about it. They don’t like what we’re doing but they offer nothing else. I believe they’re afraid to take on our real adversaries.
In fact we are not afraid enough. Perhaps after losing Seattle, San Francisco, Chicago or Atlanta a great many of our citizens will realize that George Bush was not the person to be afraid of. Although I have every confidence they will find a way to blame him. Classic displacement-redirecting an impulse (in this case fear) onto a substitute target.
Since 2001 it has become apparent to me that many people are indeed afraid. It has also become apparent to me that the people who are most afraid are behaving hypocritically and cowardly. I do not make these assertions lightly. It’s a horrible thing to call a person or persons cowardly. A little less so with hypocrisy, a little bit of which attaches to all of us. Cowards, in that the fear of confronting the real enemy who wishes us harm is displaced by ranting against a liberal democracy where they know no harm will come to them. Is it so heroic to make a film or a speech that has the support of everyone in your community? What kind of courage does it take to go after the Bush administration if you’re a member of the Hollywood community, and most everyone agrees with your position and will reward you for it — or you’re part of the political class in Washington, D.C. or in New York or in parts of California? Forget the tenured and not so tenured academics, who while not being able to change the world in 1968 have devoted their lives to teaching future generations about the evils of the one, seemingly dispensable sovereign nation that evidently makes the world unlivable. Our country.
When a novelist has a death sentence on his head, when a filmmaker is shot in the street and then stabbed through the heart for making a film that the murderers found offensive, when newspaper editors and publishers, as well as network executives, refuse to show us the cartoons that created havoc and mass protests around the world, I think something more than good taste is involved. The reason we haven’t seen the cartoons in the New York Times (apparently this was news that wasn’t fit to print) or Newsweek, or on our TV screens, is fear. Of what? Pissing them off? From my perspective they are apparently quite pissed off already.
Now it is not our parents but certain politicians and media pundits who are trying to convince us that fighting (yes, I do mean fighting, not cajoling, negotiating, persuading or understanding) the folks who are pointing that gun at our heads telling us that they are going to kill us, then behead us and mutilate and drag our bodies through the streets and blow up our cities, would be futile and counter-productive. If I misunderstand their position and misrepresent their way forward I would very much like to hear how they might confront the “problem.” A clearer definition of the “problem” might be useful as well. Who exactly wishes us and our civilization harm? I’d appreciate a bit more specifics other than through “diplomacy” and the “international community.” Personally, I think it’s prudent to take the enemy at their word. Particularly when they have a mountain of evidence backing up their threat. Then do something about it.
What I would not do is to minimize the threat and construct an alternate universe that lives by the rules we value. In Lee Harris’ book Civilization and Its Enemies: The Next Stage of History (Free Press, 2004) Mr Harris makes the point that we live “In a civilization with an intellectual culture that is reluctant to take the idea of an external enemy seriously; its enemies, though have no such qualms… we are caught in the midst of a conflict between those for whom the category of the enemy is essential to their ways of organizing all human experience and those who have banished even the idea of the enemy from both public discourse and even their most innermost thoughts.”
As for my parents’ propaganda about the many ways I needed to be alert regarding the dangers I would experience as I made my journey without their help and guidance (No Virgil in my life), it was only a matter of time before I realized that many naughty kids grew up and had many toys and were feted accordingly, enjoying much holiday cheer. I myself have crossed against the light at times and am still here to tell the tale. Is there anyone, notwithstanding the optimism that most Americans by default have in their DNA, who is not dismayed by the experience of seeing evil triumph. Even if many of us no longer repair to Scripture for daily consolation and guidance, we know that these questions have been central to theological reflection from time immemorial and for many, without faith, have found the consolations wanting.
But in this world we inhabit we know darn well what prevents the darkness to prevail. Our willingness to confront, sacrifice and defeat it. Do we have the will or will the feckless and fearful among us triumph.
I fear the ending will turn out badly if we abide politicians who insist that “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Or our own government
For those of us who are willing to confront these realities, Mr. Rothstein’s concluding sentence, “for those prepared to accept Mr. Harris’ premises, there is nothing to fear but the lack of fear itself,” serves as a reminder.
Be reasonably afraid. Be very reasonably afraid. And act accordingly.
Jeb, now you’re simply echoing the EUro multi-culti elite. To solely place the blame at the feet of European institutions is to absolve Islam of its responsibilities. While freewheeling welfare, Western self-loathing, multicultural worship, high unemployment, and loose immigration policy do play a role, you simply can’t assert that Islam has nothing to do with it. Fundamentalist immigration with Wahhabi funding is never a good mix. Rather than list a thousand facts on why modern Islamic immigration is different and worse than other types of immigration, let me simply submit to you that other minorities have had a much better go at living in peace with their native European neighbors. And they certainly don’t DEMAND accomodation, like their Muslim peers.
Considering that the US entered WWI about 4 years after its start, your question is sort of a strawman. That’s a long time for other factors to play a role.
Ron, your right on the money.
Oh, and BTW…
“I am legend”-Will Smith!
This is sooo off topic, but within the bounds of the “culture war”.
I just saw “I am legend”.
American Flags proudly displayed every where from start to finish.
There was a genuine family prayer to GOD in the middle of the action.
NOT ONE single ANTI-Bush/Republican/America item in the whole film.
And…It’s awesome!!
Ron, if ya see Will, tell him Steve Comins loved it!
Oh, and the reason a child touches the stove ONE TIME is due to fear. It is our friend. It keeps us safe. I want the nation afraid of Islam. If we dont fear the people who want us in berkas, the people who want Ron and I dead ’cause we are Jews, then all America is lost.
Ron, please make a movie about an America in the future that has given up to Islam…
Steve
It does seem a paradox that so many of the first tier actors like Marlon Brando, Sean Penn, Robert Redford. and, at the other extreme, Mel Gibson are such jerks politically despite their undeniable talent. And a second tier actor like Ronald Reagan has achieved the kind of greatness and historical significance that they can imitate on the screen but not in their public pronouncement.
You would do better to read what I actually wrote.
Many of the institutional barriers to integration in Europe countries are lower or absent in the US consequently we have done far better at integrating immigrants of all religious backgrounds.
Read about the Paris riots to see why you are wrong on this point. There have been some incidents that were sparked by religious tensions, but they are in the minority. Poverty, unemployment, addiction, and having no stake in the society at large play a much larger role. Fundamentalist Islam does pose some problems in European immigrant communities, but the level of those problems is not at the level that Anon’s histrionics suggest nor are they at the level you apparently think they are.
Re: WWII
How about France and the UK then? Did they pick the wrong side, ultimately forcing us to come in on the wrong side?
Anon,
The child, however, is not well served by a phobia of stoves. Much better that the child learns what is dangerous about the stove, what is good about the stove, and acts accordingly rather than hating and wanting to destroy all stoves.
Mr. Silva, or Ron:
I could not agree more with the sentiment expressed here by several folks:
Give serious consideration to running for office, I am sure we would disagree on certain topics, but this country needs folks with clear rather than fractured thinking. I hope you will consult your master mind -group, see Earl Nightingale “The Greatest Secret” and take a shot at this. good luck and keep writing.
I agree almost totally with you on this. However I cannot support HOW the administration has gone about it. The corruption, scandle and soldier-killing bad planning has been staggering! First of all I still believe that we should have focussed on Afganistan first. We were actually welcomed and had a good chance of makng a stable, secular nation there. If G. W. succeeds it will only be by stumbling into it, not by smart, or ethical planning by the highest powers. It will be because the Iraqi people are sick of death and the American SOLDIERS do triple duty to offset the Admins horrible lack of respect for them.
I think I understand the choices yu have made though. Like Heinlein supporting Goldwater; You feel that of the, not so quality, choices The Rebubs are the best to deal with this issue at this time. I can’t say I totally disagree. Though given the climate of 2001 I felt more that it was good that a Rebub. was in office simply because they had proven with CLinto that reality meant NOTHING compared to political victory. They would have hounded Gore no matter WHAT he had doen and kept anything from being accomplished all to prevent a Democratic victory. Do you really think the Party that had hounded a sitting president for 8 years would have let his former VP score a coup the magnitude of winning a war?
Why not be mad at the sorry bastard when he makes it so damn hard to talk to Liberals about the Muslim reality? Why not be mad at the Coulter’s et al. who do their best to keep us all polarized over gays and God and not focussed on COMMON enemies? I certainly agree with you on one thing though. You can’t TALK to either side. To the Lefties you are Joe McCarthy crossed with Nixon crossed with Newt Gingrich and to the Foaming Righties you are as Liberal as Marx and as spinless as a jellyfish.
I do share the belief (hope?) though that our system WILL keep us from swinging too far to one side or the other.
Oh, I also have always enjoyed your movies. You have a great taste in scripts and directors from what I have seen : – )
Mr. Silver–
Thanks for putting your thoughts to page once again. You have elevated the dialogue.
Just as the VENOVA files, released in 1995, proved how massive the Soviet intrusion was into our government was, so too will future release of secret NSA intercepts in this war do a similmar job vindicating our government’s vigilance.
Since FDR had Nazi spies shot within weeks of capture he would not have thought twice about waterboarding KSM. No Habeaus Corpus for them. No ACLU lawyers in the wings.
Even if these facts were presented to them, the Krugmans of the world would remain in denial of the world as it is. Krugman would remain in constant suspicion of our leaders, not of our adversaries. It is theoretical to him. Iran is a “peace-loving nation” because they say so. Just as the Soviets did in 1962. Word for word. Look that up–Pravda
“…Civil libertarians do not deny that FISA hampers our ability to counter terrorists. Citing the abuses alleged by the Church Committee, however, they argue that chronic insecurity is the price we must pay to preserve our liberties.
But the U.S. was not a fascist dictatorship before Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter rode to the rescue. Our current surveillance rules are neither constitutionally required, nor traditionally American. They were observed neither by Mr. Kennedy’s elder brothers, nor by any presidents or attorneys general before the Carter presidency. For the first two centuries of our country’s history, threats to our national security were countered without warrant. And the Supreme Court, from Olmstead v. U.S. (1928) to U.S. v. U.S. District Court (1972), has allowed warrantless surveillance in national security, as opposed to criminal, investigations…”
–Mark Riebling
“Uncuff the FBI”
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110001797
Those who are so ready to use FDR’s admonishment against fear fail to recognize the context in which it was made. It was made in the face of snowballing economic woes largely brought about by mass panic and initially unreasonable fear leading to self-fulfilling prophesy. Failing banks in the Depression were often a result of fear-driven runs (see “It’s a Wonderful Life” again, if you need a dramatized example). The problem is they try to offer the advice as pablum for all situations. One should note, however, that this was not the speech FDR gave after 12/7.
I agree with Christopher. This piece was brilliant and hits the nail right on the head. What I fear most right now is the optimistic blindness that leads people to think that the current administration is over-reacting and that if we just get out of Iraq everything will be OK. I also fear that right now we need a hero in the White House — a veritable superman who will open America’s eyes and make them understand that ALL OF US have to be alert, determined, and ready to fight to maintain our way of life — but none of the presidential candidates seem ready or willing to don that red cape.
I’ve quoted you and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2007/12/re-fear.html
Mr. Silver I’ve looked in vain for future articles, I hope you are saving up for a new round. Any comment on David Mamet’s becoming a Libertarian?
Fine, let’s fight Islamo-fascism, or whatever you want to call it. But what did Iraq have to do with it? Saddam kept a lid on his own crazies and kept the crazies in Iran in check. We should have invaded Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and took their oil instead.
RON, WHERE ARE YOU?!?!?!
“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
Ben Franklin
This administration has constantly and shamefully played the fear card. Thanks, but I won’t be surrending my rights just to feel better.
NY Times
Published: September 11, 2008
Figure in Rosenberg Case Admits to Soviet Spying
NY Times
Figure in Rosenberg Case Admits to Soviet Spying
September 11, 2008
LA Times
Case Closed Rosenberger were Soviet Spies
By Ronald Radosh
September 17, 2008
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-radosh17-2008sep17,0,864776.story
Julius and ethel Rosenberg were executed 55 years ago, on June 19, 1953. But last week, they were back in the headlines when Morton Sobell, the co-defendant in their famous espionage trial, finally admitted that he and his friend, Julius, had both been Soviet agents.
It was a stunning admission; Sobell, now 91 years old, had adamantly maintained his innocence for more than half a century. After his comments were published, even the Rosenbergs’ children, Robert and Michael Meeropol, were left with little hope to hang on to — and this week, in comments unlike any they’ve made previously, the brothers acknowledged having reached the difficult conclusion that their father was, indeed, a spy. “I don’t have any reason to doubt Morty,” Michael Meeropol told Sam Roberts of the New York Times.
With these latest events, the end has arrived for the legions of the American left wing that have argued relentlessly for more than half a century that the Rosenbergs were victims, framed by a hostile, fear-mongering U.S. government. Since the couple’s trial, the left has portrayed them as martyrs for civil liberties, righteous dissenters whose chief crime was to express their constitutionally protected political beliefs. In the end, the left has argued, the two communists were put to death not for spying but for their unpopular opinions, at a time when the Truman and Eisenhower administrations were seeking to stem opposition to their anti-Soviet foreign policy during the Cold War.
Fear is a motivational tool that works well when thoughtfull strategy, common sense and deliberation are present. Otherwise it is a knee jerk reaction that will multiply original problem many fold. If there isnt sound cohesive strategy in place to offer as the solution, we end up with far more issues to handle.
This was written in early December 2007, the news of Fed transferring over 2 trillion out of the banking system was public in December of 2008, after this was written. While we were being told to be afraid, the federal reserve was looting the credit system, which has caused massive worldwide banking crisis and credit collapse. Americans were being told to fear Muslim extremists, nobody told us to fear International Bankers.
This is the achilles Heel of strategy based on Fear, it diverts attention from balance of issues and problems that may be more relevant.
RIP Ron.
Good night, sweet prince…
Good night, sweet prince…RIP
Ron Silver,
As they say, only the GOOD Die Young.
You will be missed, Sir. May Baruch HaShem bless you and comfort your family.
Alan Rockman
I think there should have been a bolder note somewhere that this was “in memorium”…some of the commenters here seem to be expecting Ron Silver to respond to them. Talk about cognitive dissonnance.
Dear Ron,
I’ve always enjoyed watching you perform, and I’m very saddened to hear of your passing. Rest in peace my friend.
-Patrick
@ 74 wpb
Given that the date of Post 68 was Sept 2008, and that Post 69 forward, all of which recognize that Mr Silver is no longer with us, are dated from March 15th 2009… your comment doesn’t make a damn bit of sense, you elitest poser.
Triton
Dear Sir,
I hope we’ll meet in the next World. May God bless you and your family.
יהי זכרך ברוך
Rest in peace…you will be missed.
I created an online memorial for Ron. Please visit and leave a message, light a candle, etc. Thanks.
http://www.ilasting.com/ronsilver.php
Gone too soon and what a beautiful mind.
I created an online memorial for Ron.
http://www.ilasting.com/ronsilver.php
God bless Ron Silver.
The man was truly a mensch.
May his sweet soul forever rest in peace.