SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: JohnM who wrote (33954)7/8/2002 9:38:59 PM
From: Win Smith  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Well, I find most discussions of deconstruction and postmodernism pretty impenetrable; digressive writing would not be the worst of sins in that area. Bennett took some lumps in the Book Review this week too.

More coherent arguments are found in two books, by prominent conservative thinkers, that disagree profoundly about the nature of the United States and the goals of its foreign policy. ''Why We Fight: Moral Clarity and the War on Terrorism'' by William J. Bennett, the former secretary of education and drug czar, is devoted to fulminations against public figures whose statements about the terrorist attacks were informed by moral relativism or left-wing anti-Americanism (to his credit, he also rebukes Jerry Falwell ''and the other blame-America types on the Christian Right''). Most of Bennett's targets, like Noam Chomsky, Arundhati Roy and Katha Pollitt, have been repeatedly criticized since last fall, not least by many thinkers on the left. More interesting and provocative is the chapter ''A War Against Islam?,'' in which Bennett expresses a justified skepticism about claims that political violence is alien to the spirit of Islam and draws attention to the vicious anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism disseminated by the state-sanctioned media in many ''moderate'' Arab countries.

''Why We Fight'' loses credibility, however, when Bennett turns to the controversial question of what, if any, connection the Arab-Israeli conflict has with Al Qaeda's war against America. The consensus in the Bush administration and the world community holds that, despite the use of comparably evil tactics by Al Qaeda and some Palestinian militants, there is a difference in kind between the theocratic crusade of Osama bin Laden's tiny sect and the struggle of the Palestinian people for a Palestinian state. Even a former Israeli justice minister, Yossi Beilin, has said that the Palestinians ''are not a group of terrorists like Al Qaeda'' but a ''big nation, with several millions of people who wanted their state.'' Bennett, like most neoconservatives, rejects this nuanced view. ''In the immediate aftermath of the Six-Day War of 1967,'' he observes, ''Israel was eager to negotiate a return of the land it had conquered in exchange for peace and diplomatic recognition by the Arabs.'' There is no discussion of the Israeli settlements. Of the Palestinians living under Israeli military rule, he writes: ''For all the undeniable tribulations of occupation, it is a matter of record that they, too, have enjoyed a higher standard of living and a broader range of rights than their brethren anywhere in the region can dream of.''

According to Bennett, the ''essential human kinship with Israel'' he attributes to Americans is based on ''an understanding, almost religious in nature, that to our two nations above all others has been entrusted the fate of liberty in the world.'' Entrusted by whom? ''I myself am one of tens of millions of Americans who have seen in the founding and flourishing of the Jewish state the hand of the same beneficent God who attended our own founding and has guided our fortunes until now.'' The belief in two chosen peoples has its origin in Protestant fundamentalist prophecy theories.

Bennett's attempt to blur the distinction between the nonsectarian republicanism of America's founding fathers and the ethnoreligious nationalism of the Israeli right should not go unchallenged. In ''A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America,'' which influenced Hamilton, Madison and Jay as they wrote The Federalist, John Adams had this to say about constitution making in America: ''It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had any interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the inspiration of Heaven. . . . Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretense of miracle or mystery . . . are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.''
nytimes.com

It's just so unfair when people quote the Founding Fathers as being not totally in concurrence with the "Christian Nation" "strict constructionist" school of history. Only someone sadly lacking in "moral clarity" would even think of doing that.



To: JohnM who wrote (33954)7/9/2002 3:41:35 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Good selections from Fish.... a hard time getting to the point

As the piece I posted to Win pointed out, he evades the point. Here is an except from Goldberg's Monday Column.

Dangerous Ideas
Stanley Fish plays dumb.
by Jonah Goldberg, NRO
......In the latest issue of Harper's , Stanley Fish has a long defense of postmodernism, which has been under assault since September 11. The doctrine that there are no moral absolutes, it seems, is fun to play with when arguing about the president's pants or the meaning of "is." But when thousands of Americans are murdered by zealots, the demand for postmodern analysis over the last few decades all of a sudden seems like the intellectual equivalent of the tulip-bulb craze of the 17th century: a huge market built up around an amusing but essentially valueless commodity. Fish, the George Soros of the PoMo market, has been working overtime to protect his investment.

I'll leave it to others, Peter Berkowitz, for example, to take Fish's efforts head-on (though you might take a gander at my "Facts and Firemen"). But what's set me off is Fish's claim that postmodernism is simply "a rarefied form of academic talk." Fish would have people believe that postmodernism is simply what postmodernists do in their hidden English-department laboratories.

Well, not only did the virus of postmodernism escape Fish's lab, but he and his henchmen ground it up into fine particles and sent aerosolized packets of it to every magazine, newspaper, publishing house, and movie studio in America. Fish's hypocrisy is stunning. The PoMo virus has infected millions, destabilizing traditional institutions across the social landscape. And yet when confronted, he says "I'm not responsible for what happens in the real world, I'm just a lab technician." Well, this high priest of the cult of the twelve monkeys is responsible.

When Fish is on the defensive he can make postmodernism sound humble and useful. Postmodernism, he says, merely holds that people from different or opposing belief systems cannot appeal to objective truth in order to persuade each other who is right and who is wrong. "Postmodernism maintains only that there can be no independent standard for determining which of many rival interpretations of an event is the true one," he writes. Assuming he's not being an intellectual Arafat, saying one thing in English to the American public and another thing in his "rarefied academic talk" to his minions, that actually sounds somewhat reasonable. It certainly isn't a radically destructive idea.

But whether that's the truth or just a propagandistic lie is entirely irrelevant. Fish damn well knows that millions of people think postmodernism means something very, very, very different, even if they don't know what postmodernism is. For lots of Americans, the idea that there are no objective standards of truth or morality is incredibly sophisticated and intelligent. The authors who write the clever novels, the film directors who get awards and rave reviews for blurring the lines between good and evil, the professors who claim George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden are morally indistinguishable: These are the "thoughtful people" in our culture. Meanwhile, the people who talk in terms of right and wrong are ridiculed by the sophisticates.

Call it feminism, critical race theory, critical legal studies, queer theory, whatever: It's all shrapnel from the same postmodern bomb, broadly speaking. These doctrines haven't all been terrible for America, but their misapplication and over-application have. Scientists take responsibility for the damage they do. English professors take speaking fees. Conservatism, which does not fetishize the masses, understands that even an intelligent idea can have horrific consequences if let loose upon a society. The uninformed, the lazy, the affected, the ambitious, and the dumb can adopt sharp-edged ideas and use them as blunt cudgels if we are not careful. The authors of postmodernism have not been careful.

I keep thinking of the exchange in the film A Fish Called Wanda. Otto, played by Kevin Kline, is an idiot and a bully who also fancies himself an intellectual (he thinks the central message of Buddhism was "every man for himself"). Wanda, played by Jamie Lee Curtis, says to him: "To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people! I've known sheep who could outwit you. I've worn dresses with higher IQs, but you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?"

Otto objects, "Apes don't read philosophy."

To which Wanda replies, "Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it!"

There are legions of Ottos out there who believe postmodernism means there is no truth, no right, no wrong, no good, no bad. They believe it because they either misunderstood Fish and his disciples or because they understood them all too well.

Stanley Fish knows all this. And, a few throwaway lines notwithstanding, he clearly thinks it's great. Indeed, if he didn't think so he would not devote his energies to defending postmodernism. Rather, he would, like Dr. Frankenstein, run through the village trying to make amends for the damage all of his Ottos have done.
nationalreview.com