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.
<- Prev Page 2 of 2
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
83 Comments
1. Christopher:This was an absolutely brilliant piece. It reminds me of the fundamental points included in the Michael Crichton novel, “State of Fear.”
Both political parties fundamentally use fear as an instrument to extort donations from their bases. As a result we see an interesting dichotomy in this election cycle. For all intents we are engaged in a “war of fears.”
The progressives needed something to counter the fear of death and terrorism. As a result they’ve adopted environmentalism. Unfortunately the two aren’t fungible.
They progressives also have a problem where *all* conservatives/Republicans are environmentalists, but in a more pragmatic manner. No rational person will knowingly pollute, no one desires smog-filled air, or cloudy drinking water. However, a cornerstone of the progressive platform is trying to convince us that those items might be equally deadly to the threat of foreign born terror.
Society has protected the environment for decades, things have improved, and we haven’t gotten any closer to mass ecological disaster. Unfortunately, as the Pope had indicated in his published remarks, the scientific process is being corrupted by “fear-mongering”. This is a sad situation because it is politicizing a discipline that has remained mostly nonpartisan. Life, death, and war, have always been political issues, thus motivation through fear isn’t necessarily corrupting anything that wasn’t already within the realm of politics.
Nonetheless, I think both parties have worthwhile causes. However, the resulting issues need to be placed in perspective. One can be resolved over decades; the other is slightly more pressing. I also believe that the conservative approach to terror is slightly more pragmatic than the progressive approach to the environment. Until environmentalism “matures”, their issue won’t be taken seriously by the other side.
Ironically, the perfect example of this situation is “fear” itself. Progressives worry about losing supporters to fear of terrorism (call them the “Reagan Democrats”). Conservatives don’t seem to worry about losing their base to the environmentalists.
Dec 13, 2007 - 5:22 pm 2. Ritchie Emmons:Well written sir. I agree with you completely here. I confess that I’ve grown rather tired of those who refuse to be intellectually honest and adresss the problem of Islamic radicalism seriously. There are a few reasons I suppose for this. One is the simple and shameful cowardice you mentioned. Another is the a blind faith to the ambiguous tenets of multiculturalism. Another is a result of “Bush Derangement Syndrome.” Anything that GWB supports must by definition be something to oppose.
Dec 13, 2007 - 8:35 pm 3. Thomas:Enjoyed the article. I think you have P. Krugman down pat. He and his paper fit each other well.
Dec 13, 2007 - 9:59 pm 4. reliapundit:THE LEFT ARE MORE AFRAID OF WHAT THE ENEMY MIGHT THINK OF US THEN WHAT THEY MIGHT SO TO US.
Dec 13, 2007 - 11:37 pm 5. gus3:Thank you, Mr. Silver, for your defense of fear as a valuable motivation. We do not have the irrational, paralyzing fear of a phobia, but the fear of what we have seen and are coming to understand.
As for the regressives and their hypocritical claim of “fear,” ask of them the following, and watch their reactions:
“Why are you using your right of Free Speech in defense of the suppression of Free Speech in [Afghanistan/Iraq/Uganda/other]? Why is Free Speech something you do not want to bring to oppressed peoples?”
In my experience, the reaction is either confusion (due to intellectual vacuousness) or anger bordering on rage (due to intellectual dishonesty). Either way, the point is made: their emperor of “fear” has no clothes.
Dec 14, 2007 - 3:16 am 6. Brian H:Richie;
I think the BDS sufferers actually feel rage and resentment — that GW has managed to act and achieve a great deal that they swore to prevent. And now shows signs of having succeeded where they were sure he had failed utterly. And thus their “fear”: that his remaining year will be full of even more defeats of their defeatism.
As to rational vs. irrational fear, as it is at base anticipation of loss the question is whether that loss is possible and probable, and what can be done to prevent it. If the tiger is real, ignoring it won’t help, and running away probably won’t either.
Dec 14, 2007 - 4:29 am 7. Jeb:What seems to be overlooked here is the difference between recognizing a threat then responding rationally as opposed to fear and the unreasoning responses it provokes.
Yes, Al Qaeda et al pose a threat but it is certainly not an existential threat, as some would characterize it and we have faced far greater threats in the past 70 years. Yes that threat needs to be responded to, but both no reaction and overreaction do us harm.
Fear is an understandable first response to threat, but if the threat is to be most effectively countered that fear needs to be put down and the threat must be faced coolly and rationally.
Remember fear is the primary weapon of this enemy. If you succumb to that fear and act irrationally you have given them a victory.
Here Mr. Silver correctly notes the genius of our system and how it corrects its abuses and overreaches, then with no sense of irony lashes out at the primary mechanism of that correction. Without vocal dissent none of the corrections he has mentioned in this article would have been corrected. Apparently fear can make it difficult to notice unintended irony.
As to what should be/should have been done, that would require a post much longer than the original article.
Dec 14, 2007 - 5:59 am 8. Tim:Brilliant article, Mr. Silver.
I cannot help but recall the following from a speech that Ronald Reagan made back in 1964, where he said:
“We are at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it has been said if we lose that war, and in doing so lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening.”
Be you a fan of the former President or not, the words still ring true, though the adversary has changed. There is no room, nor has there ever been, for compromise regarding the gift of freedom.
Keep up the good work, both on and off the screen.
Dec 14, 2007 - 10:45 am 9. David:Ron,
Thank you for the post.
The tendency to make a subjective analysis of an issue based on a pre-existing worldview seems to hamper the partisans of this country.
Some were willing to objectively study the Middle East, and discover the overwhelming evidence of a bloody ideology espoused by hundreds of millions. Some discovered the overwhelming evidence of violence fueled by Islamic doctrine — predating not only US foreign policy, but the US itself.
Some, like Mr. Krugman, were not able to be objective, and continue to make unsupportable assumptions and bizarre causal analyses.
I voted for Gore in 2000. Then the second intifada and 9/11 happened, and I went back to the books and did my homework. I am terribly proud that I did this.
Best,
Dec 14, 2007 - 10:54 am 10. Bill Bradley:David
Ron, you’re a great guy. But I’m not quite tracking this.
Dec 14, 2007 - 11:00 am 11. Grace Farmer:Gavin Debecker adresses this in his book “The Gift of Fear”.
Dec 14, 2007 - 11:07 am 12. tanstaafl:I think “fear” can be immobilizing and whipped up by politicians (and NYTimes columnists) for self serving gain.
I cannot believe that the Krugmans and Riches of the world actually “believe” as they do. I must conclude they are in the grips of a self-aggrandizing agenda (as is Al Gore) that is more about them personally being “right” than it is about them making rational observations about the state of our world.
Instilling “fear” is a central component of Radical Islam. Even these days of (relative) immobilization of AQ’s agenda, Osama’s (putative) missives from “the cave” carry a continue to do this at your own peril message.
Terrorizing and instilling fear in the Iraqi population was a major point of al Zarqawi. The Iraqi people, it seems, finally have had enough.
Conscientious planning and methodical thwarting (and some big successes “interrupting” terrorist plots, especially in Great Britain) will continue to frustrate Radical Islam’s agenda and serve us much better than fear.
As for a general comment on “fear”, today’s parents seem so fearful for their children (thank you relentless media) that they seem to be raising hothouse flowers rather than human beings.
Dec 14, 2007 - 11:26 am 13. ex-democrat:jeb: “it is certainly not an existential threat.”
Some 2000 New Yorkers might (posthumously) disagree with you there.
“As to what should be/should have been done, that would require a post much longer than the original article.”
no, it would require something you lack: intellectual honesty.
Dec 14, 2007 - 11:34 am 14. Jeb:ex-dem,
Dec 14, 2007 - 12:30 pm 15. Dan S.:Perhaps you need to educate yourself on what is meant by and existential threat. By your logic, traffic accidents are a continuing existential threat to the US.
The axis powers in WWII and the Soviets during the Cold War had the potential to eliminate the US and its allies. In contrast Al Qaeda et al are in no position to end the existence of the US or Europe or any developed nation. They can inflict pain on these nations and they can kill some citizens of these nations, but that is the extent of their power.
Why aren’t we seeing people like you run for office, Ron? Geesh. You’ve basically distilled this whole “fear mongering” thing down to its base essence. Why can’t we get people running for office, writing things like this? Thompson comes close, but not quite good enough. I’m serious, Ron… you really need to think about running for office.
Dec 14, 2007 - 1:15 pm 16. Tom Zampino:I nominate Ron Silver for President in 2008. If that’s not to be, then how about Secretary of Defense?
Ron, once again you have brillantly illustrated that you do indeed “get it.” I can only hope that the current crop of Presidential candidates read your blog.
Dec 14, 2007 - 1:54 pm 17. John:Well, those innocent folks had their existence ended. For them, the existential threat proved real.
But what you are really saying, Jeb, is that those losses are tolerable. You say that threat should be reacted to, but as typical, provide no indication of what precisely that response should be or how you would contrast that with the administration’s choice of direct confrontation of that threat. You are full of things you wouldn’t do. That much is certain.
Do something, but not too much I suppose. At what point, precisely, would you take the gloves off? “Perhaps after losing Seattle, San Francisco, Chicago or Atlanta…”
Dec 14, 2007 - 2:13 pm 18. Jim:Jeb, you’re the one who needs to educate himself. I suggest you sit down with a good history book. The great civilizations of the past weren’t toppled by powers of equal or even comparable strength. As Andrew Roberts wrote in his recent review of *God and Gold: Britain, America, and the Making of the Modern World* by Walter Russell Mead, “Willpower, rather than wealth, will decide. The Romans were more prosperous than the Huns; the Ottomans were more affluent than the Moghuls; the Aztecs vastly overmatched the Conquistadors in wealth, just as Weimar was richer than the Nazis and the Romanovs than the Bolsheviks. America cannot look to her treasure to protect her if she fails to elect politicians willing to undertake the job of pretecting her hegemony.” Superiority in wealth, numbers, and firepower mean nothing without will — and a willingness to see and respond to the very real threat rather than bury your head in the sand.
Dec 14, 2007 - 2:15 pm 19. MarkD:Jeb,
Your protestation reminds me of Shaw’s “Madam, we’ve already established what you are. We’re just haggling over the price.”
How many thousand of us do they need to kill before they are an existential threat? How much damage must they do? Would a million dead from some genetically engineered plague sway you? How about a radiological dirty bomb that contaminated a major city? Would you set the threshold at decimation, thirty million? Or would it take more?
Submit or die. They’ve told us their intentions. They only need to succeed once.
Dec 14, 2007 - 2:23 pm 20. Mike Mennard:Ron Silver may just be the smartest pundit to enter the scene–no acting pun intended–in a while. I have made this particular column a must read for my Media class today, and it generated more discussion (all constructive!) than anything I’ve done in some time.
I second the nomination of Silver for Secretary of Defense–if not a post higher. And Marc Steyn as press secretary!
Thank you Mr. Silver for a job well done!
Bravo!
Dec 14, 2007 - 2:37 pm 21. David Thomson:“…as well as Nixon’s use of the government to punish his personal enemies.”
I must play the role of the nitpick. Both John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Baines Johnson also used the government to punish their personal enemies.
I am also one of the idiots who bought into the 1992 Bill Clinton campaign con job that “It’s the economy, Stupid!” The world will always be a dangerous place. The fall of the Soviet Union did not change this harsh fact of life. Our elected Commander-in-Chief must first, last, and foremost, protect us from our enemies. All of their other responsibilities are of secondary importance. Rudi Giuliani is probably the best man for the job.
Dec 14, 2007 - 2:54 pm 22. Tom Hilton:Shorter Ron Silver: “We have nothing to fear but not enough fear itself.”
(And should anyone be inclined to respond with the standard ‘terrorists are real’ line, let me ask you this: on an objective basis–i.e., realistic potential for loss of life, loss of sovereignty, etc.–do you honestly believe Al Qaeda is more to be feared than Japan & Germany (during WWII) or from the Soviet Union (during the Cold War)?)
Dec 14, 2007 - 2:56 pm 23. Gandalin:FDR said we have nothing to fear but fear itself.
Then he declared war on Japan & Germany; interned tens of thousands of Japanese-Americans, German, Italian, and Japanese nationals; recruited and conscripted a host of 16 million men and women; executed German saboteurs after secret military tribunals; set in motion the invasion of North Africa, Sicily, Europe, and Japanese-held Pacific Islands; and ordered the fire-bombing of German and Japanese cities.
You have nothing to fear but fear itself when your plan of action is total war.
Dec 14, 2007 - 3:00 pm 24. Angie Schultz:“Ron, you’re a great guy. But I’m not quite tracking this.”
Bill Bradley, you’re a great guy. But I think you’re suffering from a cognitive disorder.
Dec 14, 2007 - 3:03 pm 25. Pantera:While Al-Qaeda probably does not pose an existential threat to our freedom like Communism did, I think that overereacting to it would be far batter then under-reacting.
Dec 14, 2007 - 3:08 pm 26. tyree:Jeb said, “In contrast Al Qaeda et al are in no position to end the existence of the US or Europe or any developed nation.”
Dec 14, 2007 - 3:08 pm 27. Tom Hilton:The history of the spread of the Musilim religion would indicate that the “et al” part of the equation is extremely dangerous. Lebanon might qualify as their most recently re-conquered territory. “That is the extent of their power,” you write. Winston Churchill once called WWII the “Unnecessary War” because the British Empire, acting alone, could have stopped Hitler in 1936. Instead, 100 million people were killed. If we do nothing, the world will still change, and no one can prove that it will change for the better.
While Al-Qaeda probably does not pose an existential threat to our freedom like Communism did, I think that overereacting to it would be far batter then under-reacting.
That’s certainly how Austria-Hungary felt about Bosnian terrorism.
Dec 14, 2007 - 3:21 pm 28. William Smith:Ron, this is an outstanding piece. Kudos to you, sir.
Dec 14, 2007 - 3:30 pm 29. Steve White:First, thanks for an excellent column, Mr. Silver.
The reader tanstaafl wonders if Mr. Gore and Mr. Rich actually believe what they say and write. While I can’t enter their minds, one way to judge this is to observe whether their actions match their words. If you honestly believe that the current President is a greater threat to American liberty than al Qaeda, then you should act on that. People such as Mr. Rich believe that we have a ’slow-motion coup’, that the Bill of Rights is being trampled, and that the Patriot Act is wrecking our Constitution. If that’s really true, what is the proper response?
Among the proper responses, I’d suggest, would be 1) to head for the hills 2) to head to exile in another, more enlightened country 3) to foment revolution to ‘take back’ the country, and/or 4) to generate a massive, non-violent movement to do the same (e.g., a ‘Blue Revolution’).
But Mr. Gore, Mr. Rich., et al., aren’t doing any of these things, nor does it appear that they or other like-minded people are living in any fear at all of our current government.
So their actions do not match their rhetoric. Color me surprised.
Dec 14, 2007 - 3:38 pm 30. KSM:Anyone who is sure that Al Qaeda is not an existential threat should consider what Al Qaeda would do if it procured nuclear weapons and then were able to smuggle them into the United States.
Their failure to do this thus far is not due to a lack of desire.
They only have to succeed once.
Dec 14, 2007 - 3:43 pm 31. robert r.:In the 1990s, when the president was of the other party, the roles regarding “fear of terrorism” and the “patriotic dissenters” was reversed.
http://www.peeniewallie.com/2007/07/monkey_wrenching.html
Dec 14, 2007 - 3:51 pm 32. David Ross:Yeah, but… Austria-Hungary was right about Bosnian Serb terrorism.
The fools in that saga were the Germans, for building a provocative blue-water navy and for attacking France; and the Russian court, for not seeing that its truest enemy was its own sclerotic system, alongside some homegrown violent nihilists (Gavril Princip’s spiritual kinsmen). Britain and France messed up too by not counseling the Germans to stay away from the West.
But the Austrians were right.
Dec 14, 2007 - 3:57 pm 33. Robert:Mr. Silver
Dec 14, 2007 - 4:02 pm 34. Tom Hilton:There are very few people I agree with almost 100 percent of the time but you are one of them.
PLEASE consider a run for Congress to represent your home district in Manhattan. You would be a fine Congressman.
Yeah, but… Austria-Hungary was right about Bosnian Serb terrorism.
They were right that it existed. Their overreaction (in concordance with other blunders by other parties) was catastrophically stupid.
Dec 14, 2007 - 4:03 pm 35. Josh Fogel:Ron, you tell it like it is! The freedoms that we have are useless without fear, for freedom in a bubble isn’t freedom, it’s just childish hippie fantasizing, with the same destructive results: charles mansons in every neighborhood. As far as I’m concerned, if the liberal wingbats aren’t scared, then maybe it’s time to give them something to be scared of. If there was one good thing about 9/11, it reminded the liberal elitists that we were right all along. For about 1 year the Manhattan elite felt the fear we’d always told them to fear. Now they’re getting not just weak and flabby, but outright seditious. They’re more afraid of the Patriot Act than they are of Bin Laden! Personally I fear for my republic, and I hope that the next president has the courage to do what Lincoln did to save the Union. Yes, that means suspending Habeas Corpus, and vigorously countering all of the lies of the Left which make people feel too comfortable. The Islamofascists want us to feel comfortable so that they can strike again, kill Americans, and kill our freedom. In order to save this precious freedom, we will have to partially deny it to those who do not appreciate it enough to fear for its future.
Dec 14, 2007 - 4:04 pm 36. Anonymous:“In contrast Al Qaeda et al are in no position to end the existence of the US or Europe or any developed nation. They can inflict pain on these nations and they can kill some citizens of these nations, but that is the extent of their power.”
So the Emperor Honorius thought with regard to the Goths. After all, he had such a fine army, and such a fine general to command it. What do you mean the general’s a Vandal? What does that matter? Just move your headquarters and they can’t possibly hurt you. Oh, so they sacked Rome, big deal. Symbolic gesture, utterly meaningless.
You are aware that some of the loudest screamers of Jihad are people who have grown up in Europe, right? You have heard that unless current trends change, that Muslims will outnumber everyone else in Europe by mid-century, right?
Would you like to wonder whether we want Europe to be dominated by jihadis? Would that constitute an “existential” threat to Europe?
Be serious for just a moment.
Dec 14, 2007 - 4:04 pm 37. BillW:Great observations and Al Gore’s “projection” is food for an additional article. How else can one explain him accusing others of fear mongering when they’re interfering with his fear mongering over global warming.
Dec 14, 2007 - 4:10 pm 38. Eric:I actually think you give Krugman too much credit. I think his motivations are more narcissistic.
Try this method I learned in college:
1)Postulate a hypothesis for a person’s behavior.
2) Work out the ramifications of it.
3) Compare it to actual observations and see how it fits.
With respect to Paul Krugman (and other elites like him):
1) NOTHING matters more to PK than his own sense of moral superiority and independence.
2) The ramifications of this ethos mean that actions PK takes will have their top priority of reinforcing that sense of superiority.
3) How does this jive with PK’s observed behavior?
Dec 14, 2007 - 4:58 pm 39. JayHub:a) Criticizing the US, Pres.Bush, Republicans, conservatives et all directly contributes to PK’s sense of moral superiority. Criticizing moslems does not. The left self-derives a great deal of superiority for “being for people of color” and most moslems are not white males and therefore cannot be criticized without enflaming cognitive dissonance.
If you analyze PK’s actions from the perspective of “can he feel superior” and his inactions from the perspective of “would it make it harder for him to feel superior” the predictive value is very high.
I think the “existential” argument misses the point. While I agree that at present Islamofascism does not have the ability to destroy the US, they have and continue to seek the ability to hurt us unacceptably. While losing Chicago would not destroy the US, I, for one, would sure miss the Windy City. How could we get along without the Cubs?
So, the only question is what is the best practical response to the threat to prevent unacceptable attacks on the United States? That’s not an easy question to answer since in this case there is no country we can simply defeat to end the problem. Islam has been “crusading” against the rest of the world for more than 1000 years, sometimes with brilliant success, but with little but failure in the last few centuries. They understand that history on the radical edge of Islam and wish to step up the fight, but we have totally forgotten. [Christianity certainly was also guilty in the past of "crusading" against the world, but appears to have outgrown propagation of the faith by violence and conquest.]
Will Islam outgrow the recent rebirth of its violent expansionist past? Perhaps, but how long will that take, and what do we do till then? It’s a very complex and long term fight we face.
Dec 14, 2007 - 5:13 pm 40. Jeb:KSM,
It would be a terrible tragedy and we should be and are acting to prevent such a disaster, but if it were to happen it would not end us. Do you have such little faith in your nation and your society that you think one or even a few well placed suitcase nukes would end us?
BTW invading and occupying Iraq has made that scenario no less likely and has arguably made it more likely.
No, those are words you put in my mouth to construct your straw man.
Going in to Afghanistan was reasonable and I supported/support that. I think we should have relied less on the warlords, established a heavy enough presence to make real infrastructure improvements quickly, and we should have had that well in hand before we initiated another conflict.
Jim, MarkD, etc.
No. I advocate a rational judgment of the threat and effective response to that threat rather than going off half cocked at every potential threat regardless of any negative externalities associated with that action. This is particularly true when among those negative externalities are the creation of more terrorists than we kill, greater regional instability, the strengthening of the position of our principle rival in the region, and driving a wedge between us and our allies.
tyree,
1) Lebanon does not fit the bill.
2) Islam’s past conquest was based on economic, technological, and military superiority. At present they are distantly behind in all.
This doesn’t mean we should ignore them. It means we should not pretend that they are so much more than the actually are.
That depends an awful lot on the consequences of overreacting.
Dec 14, 2007 - 5:43 pm 41. william:Anon,
I have been living in EU for a few years now, but will be moving home soon. Your characterization of the situation here is so far off base as to be surreal.
Eric,
Perhaps you should turn that analysis inward.
It is encouraging to note that someone in Hollywood is more distrustful of Moslem fanatics than Republican Rotarians. There are many white southerners and Germans who have examined and tried to expunge their hateful feelings. From Napoleon thru Lenin and onto Chavez, artists and intellectuals have given their enthusiasm to some of the most malignant excrements that mankind can produce. And they have never once examined the alienation that produces such blunders in judgement. I do not know what is the perfect strategy for countering Islamo-terrorism. I do know, however, that Saddam was an evil man, and George Bush is not.
Dec 14, 2007 - 6:28 pm 42. David Fletcher:It may have been Eli Weitsel that said (I’m not sure), in regard to the Nazi’s: “If someone says they want to kill you, it’s a good idea to believe them.” I think this is the essence of this piece, and I agree.
Dec 14, 2007 - 7:23 pm 43. Archie Waugh:G** DAMN.
Dec 14, 2007 - 8:07 pm 44. John Moore:Nail on the head. As a long time theatre-person, I am surrounded by the idiocies of the “artistic left”, and must keep a low profile politically with these people. My admiration for you not only as a celebrity with a viewpoint but as a genuine intellectual with actual ability to articulate a sensible point of view grows day by day. Thank you for your good work, I only wish more people could be persuaded to the common sense aspects of this essay.
Thank you again,
Archie Waugh
Palmetto, FL
Great essay!
BDS is an extreme variant of Cognitive Disorder of Progressives”
You are right to call them cowards, but they are also delusional in many other areas.
What such people fail to understand is that modern technology has greatly magnified the ability of a small group to do vast damage, at the same time that millions of the world wish us will, and when we are so divided we can’t even muster the will to defend ourselves.
No wonder these useful fools are frightened into delusional states.
Dec 14, 2007 - 8:19 pm 45. Mike:Jeb: you claim that the situation in EU is much better than what Anon has describied. I beg to differ. I assume you haven’t been anywhere near Marseilles or Oslo. Europe has a HUGE problem with their Muslim populaiton….do you actually deny this?
Tom Hilton, do you really think the Austro-Hungarian Empire overreacted? They wanted to participate in the investigation of an assasination of theie heir, ArchDuke Ferdinand, and the Serbs spurned them. Considering that the Serbs were most likley complicit in the assasinaiton attempt, can we really blame the Empire for taking military action?
Also, it a common myth that the Germans jumped to War. Far from it, they wished to prevent it…read the Kaiser’s notes on this…
Dec 14, 2007 - 9:33 pm 46. Mark:I’m guessing since you have a clue, you’re not a popular ‘A’ list actor right now.
Dec 14, 2007 - 11:56 pm 47. el duderino:Well done Ron, well done.
Dec 15, 2007 - 1:14 am 48. Jeb:Mike,
There is an assimilation problem with immigrants in several EU countries. This problem is in large part due to the institutional barriers to assimilation in these countries. Muslims are a significant fraction of these immigrants, but are not the only poorly assimilated immigrants. The riots in Paris for instance were about this failure of assimilation of Muslim, Animist, and Christian immigrants. That being said Anon’s description of the problem is either woefully misinformed or delusional.
Given the tone of Anon’s remarks I would hazzard a guess that he/she buys into the Reconquista delusion as well.
Since you believe Austria-Hungary was in the right does that mean you think we chose the wrong side in WWI?
Dec 15, 2007 - 5:44 am 49. Deb D.:Thanks for this, Mr. Silver. A wonderful quote (not sure where it came from) seems appropriate here:
“Courage is fear that has said its prayers.” That’s the way to deal with the threats we face.
Dec 15, 2007 - 7:08 am 50. jeff:Thank you Mr. Silver for a very well-written essaay. I’ll be bookmarking your blog.
One thing that struck me as incredibly ironic is how Al Gore’s shrill science fiction epic “An Inconcenient Truth” is fear-mongering as high art. Sad.
Dec 15, 2007 - 9:15 am 51. Mike: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.
Dec 15, 2007 - 6:31 pm 52. steve comins: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!
Dec 15, 2007 - 7:33 pm 53. Anonymous: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…
Dec 15, 2007 - 7:40 pm 54. william: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.
Dec 15, 2007 - 8:54 pm 55. Jeb: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.
Dec 16, 2007 - 5:30 am 56. Duncan Harvey:Mr. Silva, or Ron:
Dec 16, 2007 - 3:51 pm 57. Guy Whitney: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.
Dec 16, 2007 - 4:36 pm 58. sahakawa: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
Dec 17, 2007 - 4:39 am 59. submandave: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.
Dec 17, 2007 - 12:22 pm 60. Alice: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.
Dec 18, 2007 - 3:51 am 61. Consul-At-Arms:I’ve quoted you and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2007/12/re-fear.html
Dec 18, 2007 - 10:23 pm 62. Mike: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?
Apr 29, 2008 - 8:51 am 63. Javelin: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.
May 5, 2008 - 6:23 am 64. Brian Lombardo:RON, WHERE ARE YOU?!?!?!
Aug 25, 2008 - 8:01 am 65. Mike:“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.
Sep 10, 2008 - 6:35 pm 66. Charles:NY Times
Sep 12, 2008 - 9:41 pm 67. Charles: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
Sep 13, 2008 - 6:24 am 68. Charles: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.
Sep 17, 2008 - 5:19 am 69. Alex: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.
Jan 28, 2009 - 6:33 am 70. Nick G.:RIP Ron.
Mar 15, 2009 - 5:45 pm 71. Minerva:Good night, sweet prince…
Mar 15, 2009 - 8:12 pm 72. Minerva:Good night, sweet prince…RIP
Mar 15, 2009 - 8:13 pm 73. Alan Rockman: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
Mar 15, 2009 - 11:08 pm 74. Pajamas Media » The Late Ron Silver’s Message on Fear:[...] Read the entire piece here. [...]
Mar 16, 2009 - 4:03 am 75. wpb: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.
Mar 16, 2009 - 4:55 am 76. Patrick: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
Mar 16, 2009 - 9:38 am 77. Triton'sPolarTiger:@ 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
Mar 16, 2009 - 11:51 am 78. Yan S:Dear Sir,
I hope we’ll meet in the next World. May God bless you and your family.
יהי זכרך ברוך
Mar 16, 2009 - 12:27 pm 79. Mitchell:Rest in peace…you will be missed.
Mar 16, 2009 - 1:50 pm 80. henri:I created an online memorial for Ron. Please visit and leave a message, light a candle, etc. Thanks.
http://www.ilasting.com/ronsilver.php
Mar 16, 2009 - 4:00 pm 81. Delia:Gone too soon and what a beautiful mind.
Mar 16, 2009 - 5:12 pm 82. henri:I created an online memorial for Ron.
http://www.ilasting.com/ronsilver.php
Mar 17, 2009 - 3:54 pm 83. Jimmy Arone:God bless Ron Silver.
The man was truly a mensch.
May his sweet soul forever rest in peace.
Mar 19, 2009 - 9:46 pm