Posted by Eugene Volokh:
"Objectively Pro-Fascist":
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_06_28-2009_07_04.shtml#1246464903
[1]Roger Simon writes (thanks to [2]InstaPundit for the pointer):
I don�t know much about Honduras, but I do know something about
Iran. And Obama�s bizarre behavior, taking days to come to the
conclusion any decent person knew immediately, indeed other world
leaders like Merkel and Sarkozy had demonstrated as much - that
there were very clear good and evil sides in the Iranian election,
even though the good wasn�t perfect. (Is it ever?) So when I heard
that our President had joined Chavez and Castro in condemnation of
the supposed coup in Honduras, this time with immediacy, I felt a
tightening in the gut. Chavez particularly was on the side of
Ahmadinejad in the recent Iranian brutality.
This was a side I didn�t want to be on, didn�t want our country on.
I heard many suspicious things about Zelaya, the booted Honduran
president, including allegations of drug ties. Also, he was running
for succor to the UN, the very organization just weeks ago I had
personally seen embrace Ahmadinejad in Geneva. So when I read this
message from a Honduran on The Corner, I wasn�t surprised.
Obama has strange friends. He equivocates and equalizes in
disturbing ways. Is he �objectively pro-fascist� as George Orwell
memorably wrote in his famous essay �Pacifism and the War�?
I give you Eric Arthur Blair. Make of it what you will. For me, the
word �pacifism� could be replaced by some coinage (it�s too late
here in LA for me to come up with one, if I could anyway) that
encapsulates Obamaism in its supposedly even-handed international
policy: �Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary
common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you
automatically help that of the other.�
Now I have nothing helpful to say about the Administration's actual
policy on Iran and Hondarus; but I do want to repeat something I
posted about the "objectively pro-fascist" locution [3]six years ago.
In a [4]Dec. 8, 1944 column, it turns out, Orwell himself repudiated
the assertion that Simon quotes:
The same propaganda tricks are to be found almost everywhere. It
would take many pages of this paper merely to classify them, but
here I draw attention to one very widespread controversial habit --
disregard of an opponent's motives. The key-word here is
"objectively".
We are told that it is only people's objective actions that matter,
and their subjective feelings are of no importance. Thus pacifists,
by obstructing the war effort, are "objectively" aiding the Nazis;
and therefore the fact that they may be personally hostile to
Fascism is irrelevant. I have been guilty of saying this myself
more than once. The same argument is applied to Trotskyism.
Trotskyists are often credited, at any rate by Communists, with
being active and conscious agents of Hitler; but when you point out
the many and obvious reasons why this is unlikely to be true, the
"objectively" line of talk is brought forward again. To criticize
the Soviet Union helps Hitler: therefore "Trotskyism is Fascism".
And when this has been established, the accusation of conscious
treachery is usually repeated....
In my opinion a few pacifists are inwardly pro-Nazi, and extremist
left-wing parties will inevitably contain Fascist spies. The
important thing is to discover which individuals are honest and
which are not, and the usual blanket accusation merely makes this
more difficult. The atmosphere of hatred in which controversy is
conducted blinds people to considerations of this kind. To admit
that an opponent might be both honest and intelligent is felt to be
intolerable. It is more immediately satisfying to shout that he is
a fool or a scoundrel, or both, than to find out what he is really
like. It is this habit of mind, among other things, that has made
political prediction in our time so remarkably unsuccessful.
Naturally, appeals to authority can only count for so much, especially
when the authority has contradicted itself. And perhaps Orwell�s
change of mind was occasioned by the change from the dark days of 1942
to post-D-day, post-Stalingrad 1944. It is easier to be generous to
those who, in your view, helped Hitler (even unintentionally) when
Hitler is nearly defeated.
Yet I think that Orwell�s second thoughts, whatever their reason, were
objectively the right ones. Explaining why your adversaries� positions
unintentionally help fascists is eminently legitimate. But expressly
acknowledging that this effect is likely unintentional is both fairer
and more likely to persuade the other side, as well as the undecided.
References
1.
http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2009/06/30/iran-honduras-is-obama-objectively-pro-fascist/
2. http://instapundit.com/
3. http://www.volokh.com/2002_12_15_volokh_archive.html#90069697
4. http://home19.inet.tele.dk/w-mute/AIP48.htm
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
