In my last two columns I discussed the terrorist threat to America and the threat from weapons of mass destruction. I attempted to explain the complacency of the American public and the apparent inaction of the government in sociological terms. What I wrote was descriptive, not prescriptive - as follows: (1) serious protective measures [against terrorists and nuclear armed enemies] ... would cause a severe recession with predictable social and political consequences. The "negative" attitudes attending the proposed "maximum security" state are economically depressive, not only in terms of closing the borders, restricting trade and the free movement of people between countries, but also in terms of investment and public spending. (2) Citizens are not going to accept facts, logic or testimony that effectively forces them to relinquish their life style or limit their choices. Surrendering the consumer economy and the shopping mall regime [in favor of border controls, effective surveillance and expensive security measures] is not an option. (3) One of the issues that the president and many other U.S. leaders have emphasized is that they are not simply defending the country. They are also defending a "life style." In other words, the United States government is not properly oriented to defend the United States of America. It is oriented to defend a particular life-style.
In response to these points, one unsettled reader demanded that I "quit writing articles like this...." Another expressed disappointment in my "fascist/statist conclusions." I was asked if I really believe the answer is for "the U.S. government to halve the standard of living [and] curtail liberties?" But as I stated in my column, "the U.S. government is not free to halve the standard of living, curtail liberties and expel millions of resident aliens." In other words, we are not free to give up our freedom in exchange for security because our freedom entails an addictive hedonism that envelops itself in its own delusions. The shift toward fascism or statism (as the reader calls it) is not an option prior to a massive terrorist assault on the country. Once such an assault occurs the liberal dispensation will come to an abrupt end and a new dispensation will begin. Such a shift will be involuntary and forced by circumstances. In writing these words I offer no prescription. I merely state the obvious so that all readers might understand where the proliferation of nuclear weapons on this planet inevitably leads.
Wherever we stand in history, war and economic hard times lie somewhere ahead. Such is not the end of the world, but a change in living conditions that continually fluctuate. Readers should understand that this is not an ideological statement, but a fact of history. You can berate the "bearer of bad news" as a "fascist" all you like, but Santa Claus isn't a real person and libertarianism isn't a panacea (even for a registered Libertarian like myself). Honesty requires realism. If you prefer dishonesty, any proposition will do (the sillier the better).
Latter-day capitalist democracy refuses to fully recognize or oppose its enemies because recognition of the above points implies that peace is precarious and prosperity fragile. At present, the great economy has overextended itself on the opposite assumption; namely, that peace arrived at the end of the Cold War and universal prosperity follows in its wake. In truth what followed was a bubble, promising nothing less than a crash. The great engine of progress - economic optimism - cannot tolerate the precarious and the fragile reality that persists throughout. The self-deceiving foray of Francis Fukuyama, who cleverly suggested that civilization had come to "the end of history," clumsily dismissed Nietzsche's description of the "last man" (who is arguably the final product of democratic capitalism). Men know what they want and freedom has given America an unprecedented bounty. And yet we refuse to face the question, raised by Nietzsche: What do men become after decades of security, permissiveness and unprecedented wealth? "No shepherd, and one herd! Everyone wants the same; everyone is equal: he who has other sentiments goes voluntarily into the madhouse," wrote Nietzsche in his famous description of the "last man." The subtlest of the last men say that, "Formerly all the world was insane."
To the comfortable creatures that dwell at the "end of history," the truth of history is beyond understanding. Bin Laden is beyond understanding. But only because understanding itself has dwindled under a regime of comfort and happiness. President Bush correctly pointed out during his recent speech that the Islamic terrorists are "not insane." They are differently rational, according to their religious convictions. The war between Christians and Muslims still simmers in Bosnia, the West Bank and Kashmir. Centuries of enmity cannot be dismissed as "insanity." There were reasons for the wars of the past, and these reasons are coming alive in the present - inconvenient and disruptive as they are to democratic capitalism. If we look back at Genghis Khan and say that he was "insane," or that Hitler was "insane," then we have missed the truth about ourselves. What prosperity has deadened in the American soul is not deadened in the Islamist or the Chinese communist, because the happiness of America is not the happiness of the world.
Men hate other men and begrudge their happiness. They justify war and all its sacrifices by artful means. Men have always done this. War was a fact of life thirty centuries ago and it remains a fact of life today. When free societies are faced with war, they adapt by shifting toward the collectivist end of the spectrum. Liberty is best in peace, but discipline is best in war. The soldier has no liberty, unless liberty is defined as following orders. And the soldiers of terror are, as Terry McDermott detailed in his book, "Perfect Soldiers."
Our delusions form a chain. Each link is connected to the next. Consider President Bush's Thursday speech about the "war on terror." He declared, as he must, that we are fighting a handful of extremists who misrepresent Muslim tradition. The president is obligated to predicate his policy on this idea. Contrast and consider the opposing statement of Azzam al-Amriki, an al Qaeda terrorist. "Jihad isn't something that al Qaeda made up," explained Azzam. "Ruling by Islamic law wasn't started by the Taliban. Hamas didn't invent the concept of martyrdom." In response to the president's definition of the enemy, Azzam stated: "I'd like to tell these people, this is our religion. If you don't like it, that's your problem. But don't tell me that ... I'm the extremist.... We are holding fast to genuine Islam at a time when it's under siege from all sides.... We have strong support from within all sectors of Muslim society and from within all Islamic groups. This is what terrifies the enemies of truth and causes them to resort to this sort of accusation. It is wishful thinking on their part. It's like they're telling themselves, 'Maybe if we repeat the lie often enough, it will come true.'"
America dismisses its enemy as "small and insignificant." In saying our enemy is an "extremist," we are belittling him in a way that makes him less terrible. Somehow the teachings of the Prophet are thought to be compatible with American sensibilities and secular civilization. But how can this be? Serious Christians tell us that secular civilization has abandoned the teachings of Christ. Why is it so hard to believe that this same civilization is offensive to the teachings of Mohammed?
The War on Terror (so called) does not signify the mobilization of the United States. The government does not ration consumer items or draft soldiers. The consumer economy remains at center stage. The general public (with the exception of military families) is disconnected and disengaged from a war that is no more real to its daily concerns than an old World War II movie. We refuse to know our enemy, and we do not know ourselves.
