John, you read too much into Pipes's article. He doesn't do this:
That's not what's bothersome about Pipes. It's this tendency of his that pops up ever so often to call people who disagree with his sense of the world, "treasonous."
To disagree about the meaning of words is one thing; to drop the "traitor" word out there is the proverbial horse of a different color.
If a person is living in a modern society, then he certainly betrays it when he shouts support of anti-rational and anti-democratic rulers and ideologies. Such a person certainly is a traitor to reason and democracy when, in the cities of London and New York, he publically advocates support of terrorist acts committed by champions of tyranny.
Insofar as modern societies are reliant on the principle of rule of law, and not on rule of maximum rulers, families, clans, political parties or priests, such incitement to murder is an extremely grave transgression against it and merits serious penalties.
Pipes's article is interesting because he points out the notion of treason has fundamentally changed for many people and his description of how it's changed appears broadly correct:
...the notion of loyalty has fundamentally changed. Traditionally, a person was assumed faithful to his natal community. A Spaniard or Swede was loyal to his monarch, a Frenchman to his republic, an American to his constitution.
That assumption is now obsolete, replaced by a loyalty to one’s political community – socialism, liberalism, conservatism, or Islamism, to name some options. Geographical and social ties matter much less than of old.
He's correct in drawing these implications:
At present, loyalty to one’s home society is no longer a given; it must be won. Conversely, hating one’s own society and abetting the enemy is common. Traitor, like bastard, has lost its stigma.
This new situation has profound implications. In warfare, for example, each side must compete to attract the loyalty of both its own and the enemy’s population. In World War II, the Allies fought Germany and Japan; now, they focus not on whole countries but on the Taliban or Saddam Hussein, hoping to win Afghan or Iraqi allegiance.
This can lead to novel complexities: in the build-up to the Iraq war of 2003, antiwar organizations in the West effectively took Saddam Hussein’s side, while the coalition in turn emphasized its Iraqi supporters. In the war on terror, the battle to win allegiances looms large and is fluid.
Treason is defunct in the West. To succeed in war, governments need take this change into account.
For three thousand years reason and democracy have struggled against tyranny and during almost all of that time they have lost. And, as you know, they nearly lost again in the 20th century.
Our modernity has been won at great cost of blood and treasure and it's still vulnerable: but, ultimately, it's not vulnerable to the acts and ideas of its enemies unless it loses its dedication to the supremacy of reason and democracy.
Our enemies understand this and their efforts are concentrated on making us lose our focus on reason and democracy. This is ultimately Pipes's concern and I think he's correct in holding to it. |
