A conservatism that warns against utopianism and calls for cultural sensitivity is useful. When it begins to question the importance or existence of moral ideals in politics and foreign policy, it is far less attractive. ~Michael Gerson
In other words, conservatism is acceptable to Gerson when it doesn’t get in the way of projects that he supports, but becomes annoying when it points out the moral bankruptcy of the policies he endorses. I am sick to death of the idea that apostles of aggression and warmongering have some claim to representing “moral ideals in politics and foreign policy.” Theirs is a fundamentally immoral position through and through, and their pose–and it is a pose–of moral superiority is the most infuriating of all. It isn’t a question of idealism vs. pragmatism, but one of corruption vs. decency. Gerson is a happy apologist for the former.
Gerson self-righteously writes:
It demands activism against sexual slavery, against honor killings, against genital mutilation and against the execution of children, out of the admittedly philosophic conviction that human beings are created in God’s image and should not be oppressed or mutilated.
What of the conviction that human beings should not be slain in wars of aggression, nor children ripped to shreds by cluster bombs (the “execution of children” is perhaps less abhorrent when the children are Lebanese or Iraqi), nor ancient communities uprooted and decimated by fanatics unleashed by ignorant meddlers? The victims of Mr. Gerson’s preferred policies are no less the children of God. Let him justify, if he can, the strange calculus by which he trades their lives and dignity for his abstract commitment to human dignity.
Gerson burbles still more:
Without a firm moral conviction that independence is superior to servitude, that freedom is superior to slavery, that the weak deserve special care and protection, the habit of conservatism is radically incomplete.
Yes, independence is superior to servitude, which is why conservatives deeply resent the immoral infringement on the sovereignty of other nations. The weak deserve special care and protection, which is why the Machtpolitik of hegemony is abhorrent to us. The only thing worse than the arrogance of power is the presumption that the possession of that power gives one a right to dominate the affairs of other peoples. A “moral vision” is necessary, and it is high time that Gerson and his allies acquired one that did not involve the shedding of other people’s blood.
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
October 9th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
sashal
Daniel,
admirable post.
Concise, precise, exact wording.
I wish you were heard more and in the more wide spread media outlets…
Is that possible, please….
October 10th, 2007 at 6:53 am
black sea
What makes Gerson’s OpEd particularly galling is it’s tone of thoughtless moral self-congratulation. Evidently, facing up to difficult questions is simply an impediment when building a better world. Who knew that, if only we stopped thinking, we might make a human paradise of our troubled little sphere?
Gerson asserts that “most people in all places, even the poor and oppressed, are capable of controlling their own affairs and determining their own rulers.”
And when these recently oppressed people start “controlling their own affairs,” but do so in a manner of which Gerson, or the president, or a coalition of private citizens, disapproves, what then?
Well, there are a great many degrees of response between absolute indifference and military assault. We need to be a little bit more grown up about our own inevitably morally-compromised status, and everybody else’s inevitably morally-compromised status, and the need to approach human shortcomings, and even horrors, with a mixture of compassion, clear-sightedness, and humility.
We seem not to learn much from our own failures, but, if nothing else, Iraq does serve as an ongoing example of the moral and physical dangers inherent in attempting to liberate other societies by imposing upon them our notions of how they should “control their own affairs.” Which of course means controlling their affairs in a manner consistent with whatever our leaders perceive our long-term interests to be.
We have a long history of dressing up our acts of agression and intimidation in morally crusading terms, but then again, so do most other powerful nations. This may not do much to win over the recipients of our ethical largesse, but it does help us feel better about ourselves once the blood starts flowing and the doubts emerge.
October 10th, 2007 at 8:14 am
bsebse
out of the admittedly philosophic conviction that human beings are created in God’s image and should not be oppressed or mutilated.
Does this not scream out for a comparison with circumcision?
October 10th, 2007 at 8:30 am
Roach
There is something demented and childish (and, if I may say, womanly) about a view of morality that only asks whether the goal is a good one and does not bother to connect ends and means, look to collateral damage, and ask serious questions about the costs (both financial and otherwise). This is the emotivist problem.
The second problem is one of hyper-rationalism: all people everywhere are equally deserving of our care and concern. No. I care more about my family and my countrymen than Europeans. And I care more about these folks, my cousins and civilizational fellow-travellers than strange-looking people from the Third World with whom I have little in common.