Walt and Mearsheimer and Me?
My piece on the recent conference held by Christians United For Israel is online now. There is a funny feeling when a writer picks a "hot" or "radioactive" topic. The last time I wrote something that could ruffle feathers, it was a big piece. I got compliments from the strangest places for weeks and weeks. Through back channels, I was told I was persona non grata by others. I found out that famous people in this business would get the issue of that magazine and flip immediately to my piece. I know why they did it. It's like watching a young demolitionist handle the most eruptive chemicals for the first time in an open environment. "Is he going to destroy himself, or others?" They didn't read it primarily to discover something new about the subject - that's a bonus - but to find out about me. I survived that scrutiny, for now.
Even a few months later, I stood at the back of CPAC with two writers whose careers I would love to emulate. One of them had even vetted the piece a little before publication (without my knowledge). They speculated that I had done no damage to my career - which meant that I had done something good for my career. I said with a hint of regret, "I'm not so sure." They both leaned in almost begging to know what I had brought down on myself. "Either way, it's puff-pieces from now on," I joked.
Anyway, you'll discover that I didn't get "the Jew thing" John Derbyshire talks about. It's not all that hot, and besides Max Blumenthal's video ridiculing the conference attendees has been up for weeks. I'm safe.
As for Walt and Mearsheimer, like Matt, I've got a copy around here somewhere and plan to get to it and hope it sparks a debate. The problem with the issue of "the Lobby" is that it becomes not only a debate about American foreign policy, but Israel's policies in the territories. And soon people are accusing each other of sanctioning some kind of mass murder or another. One side believes the other to be the heir of "1930s isolationism" - which is considered to be operationally anti-Semitic. Then those people are accused of retreating from human rights, sanctioning all sorts of abuse and setting up a double standard. And who wants to sort out these veiled accusations of dual loyalties, or anti-Semitism? I just don't see any seismic shift in this debate coming soon - because its just such a pain to begin talking about it.
Michael Brendan Dougherty
in Politics
|
13 Comments
Share this: del.icio.us | Digg | Google | Ma.gnolia | Reddit | Stumble Upon | Technorati
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (13)
We can start by affirming that yes, we do not accept the bogus theory of "human rights." There is nothing in "nature" to suggest "natural rights."
Perhaps I'm just fantasizing about the remote possibility of this debate playing out in an erudite and gentlemanly tone. Forget it. The looney left and the zany Zionists will dominate this game forever.
Nothing except the very facts of our physical selves and consciouness. We are each distinct and separate individuals not members of a hive or (with rare exceptions) physically attached to one another.
What we decide to do with ourselves: our speech, our religion, our associations manifest themselves with our individual bodies. Respecting the right of someone to do with themselves, and only themselves, as they wish is the basis for a rational form of freedom and justice because this standard can and should be applied across religious and ethnic boundaries.
Just because there is no manifestation of human rights in other species or in the operation of large planetary systems does not mean that it is not a logical framework to draw from our very physical existence.
No, *that* is the domain of the Zany Zionists. But the Loony Left is certainly the dominant strain in the argument against their insane proposition, and THAT is a real shame, because the Loony Left has proven itself intellectually inept, immoral, and rather insane itself for quite some time. If anyone doubts this, let me ask, honestly: has leftist political sentiment had ONE original thinker since, say, Karl Marx?
"What we decide to do with ourselves: our speech, our religion, our associations manifest themselves with our individual bodies. Respecting the right of someone to do with themselves, and only themselves, as they wish is the basis for a rational form of freedom and justice because this standard can and should be applied across religious and ethnic boundaries."
I submit, as Dr. Fleming argued not long ago, that we do not belong to ourselves, but to our spouses, families, kin and communities, and ultimately to God--though as I'm not sure what if any deity you believe in, let us leave out that last bit for common ground's sake. In any case, otherwise, how do you justify the prosecution of grave-robbers and worse, necrophiles? Can one commit a crime against the dead?
My problem with Ellen Brenna's "self-as-evidence" argument is that it lends itself to a Cartesian circle: as Fr. Seraphim Rose pointed out, human beings "cannot provide from within what can only be given from without"
A clarification: I am not suggesting that ALL people who sympathize with leftish tendencies are necessarily intellectual lightweights. From what I have seen, however, the brilliance of a leftist is in general a phenomenon rather separate from his political inclinations (i.e., it can be intelligent so long as he is not commenting on political theory itself [even if, in spite of wrongheaded worldviews, leftists can be right on practical issues--see the Iraq War]).
There is no access to community, family, religion except through the self. The body is the mediator of experience and it is the means of expressing that experience but just because identity begins with the self does not mean it ends with the self.I am American, I am a New Yorker regardless of where I may be located at the moment, I am member of my family, that family loves me, the community accepts me, this country is my true home. Having the right to control my self,to potentially reject those things, does not mean that I inevitably will do so.
Your body belongs to you, you cannot justly be compelled to worship or compelled to stop worshipping, you cannot be compelled to violate your own religion and ethics with regard to yourself and I assume this is what you do not agree with, you cannot compel others to follow your religion and ethics with regard to themselves. Human rights mean you are given the respect to access the divine however you see fit and to declare there is no such thing as human rights but without human rights all "freedom" is a matter of exercising enough power, frequently through coercion and violence, to guarantee your own personal rights while assuring the control of others.
Ellen assumes that Nicholas wants to compel others to follow his ethics. That makes it sound like something rather nasty and presumptuous on his part.
Nicholas assumes that the modern view of human rights is a rejection of the concept of duty as he accepts and understands it. He doesn't accept that he has the right to disobey God, or the just demands of his community and family - even if he has the ability to do so.
The debate - from there trails off in several directions. What is the proper role of the state? Do our duties to precede our rights? Is Nicholas' view of his position before God merely a belief to which he is entitled?
Seems like a big debate for a comment box. No?
My refusal to participate has no bearing on the meaningfulness of his belief and no bearing on my willingness to defend his personal religious practice politically.
Casual comments about the non-existence of human rights are bound to prompt a dissenting view.
"Casual comments about the non-existence of human rights are bound to prompt a dissenting view."
I have a response in mind, but not wanting to drag this on more than is appropriate for a thread meant to muse on the players in the Israeli-Palestine debate, I'll take my full share of the blame for misinterpreting Michael's mention of "rights" as a call to take up arms in the battle.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I must be off to my Inquisitorial Tribunal.