Ron Paul said "They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East [for years]. I think [Ronald] Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. Right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting."
To which Rudy Giuliani replied "That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11"
In defense, Ron Paul said "I believe the CIA is correct when it warns us about blowback. We overthrew the Iranian government in 1953 and their taking the hostages was the reaction. This dynamic persists and we ignore it at our risk. They’re not attacking us because we’re rich and free, they’re attacking us because we’re over there."
To this Former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer, who headed the CIA's team of bin Laden specialists for years, agreed with Paul's statements:
"I thought Mr. Paul captured it the other night exactly correctly. This war is dangerous to America because it’s based, not on gender equality, as Mr. Giuliani suggested, or any other kind of freedom, but simply because of what we do in the Islamic World – because 'we’re over there,' basically, as Mr. Paul said in the debate."
In response, a petition was initiated to counter the Republican national commitee attempt sponsored by Saul Anuzis to ban Ron paul from further Gop presidential debates.
This latest development while fascinating in that it illustrates the importance of the newest trend in philosophy, which I refer to as Informationism, and its impact upon free speech and ideology, brings us at last to the original focus of the topic at hand, the fallacies of Neo-Conservatism.
Bertrand Russell, co-author of the Principia Mathematica suggests that the criteria for analyzing a philosophy should follow three basic criteria.
- Is the statement logically valid?
- Is the statement consistent with the general concepts of the entire body of work within the philosophy?
- Is the philosophy agreeable?
A general evaluation of the Neo-Conservative position regarding the War on terror would follow that these people are crazy, they are evil. They have been fighting wars for over 1400 years, and they want to kill us because we are free.
Furthermore, if anyone questions this position, as I witnessed firsthand in response to my post Soccer Mom's in Baghdad they are called delusional, naive and Anti-American.
- The first fallacy inherit to this position is the Fallacy of Converse accident, when we apply a principle that is true to a particuliar case to a great run of cases. When we say "they", we have not defined who they are. In general "they" would refer to Islamic Jihadists who employ terrorist attacks. However the dialogue of the neo-Conservative has a tendancy to invoke the image of all the followers of Islam as being part of this group. Further the statement "us" implies that we are the intended target. In reality, terrorism, while it does target innocent civilians, is in protest to the institutions that are promoted by our society. the Terrorist attacks of 9-11 for instance targetted the World Trade Center and the WhiteHouse, not shopping malls and Churches.
- The second fallacy of the Neo-Conservative position is the Argument ad Hominem, Abusive. It is the attempt to disparage the character of the opponent. This takes shape in two forms. The Islam is referred to as evil and crazy in an attempt to dehumanize the enemy. Further, any who challenge the position of the neo-Conservative is ridiculed as being delusional, and naive. Other examples of this is in Hannity's favorite catch phrase, hypocrasy. These premises are irrelavent, however they persuade by the psychological process of transference. When the attitude of disapproval toward a person is evoked, the field of emotional disapproval may be extended to include disagreement with the assertions that person makes.
- The argument ad Hominem Circumstantial. This is the irrelavent connection between the beliefs held and the circumstance of those holding it that gives rise to the mistake. An opponent ought to accept (or reject) some conclusion merely because of that persons employment, or nationality, or other circumstances. This is to say that it is anti-american to oppose the war, or that Ron Paul cannot be a conservative republican, and speak out against the war.
- False Cause. The nature of the connection between cause and effect- and how we can determine whether such a connection is present or absent are central problems of inductive logic and scientific method. For instance, in the U.S. we enjoy a great amount of freedom and prosperity. This however, is not sufficient evidence to link a causality between Terrorism and freedom. Many countries in the world have a good deal more freedom than is found in the Middle-East, for instance Canada, Australia, Switzerland, the Netherlands, ect. If the U.S was targetted for it's freedom, then why not these countries?
- ad Misericordiam, or the threat of force, is a subtle ploy of the Neo-Conservative position. The basic utilization of the argument is if we don't fight in Iraq, the terrorist's will follow us back home. So the argument doesn't actually make a direct appeal to force as a measure of persuasion, it instead asserts the threat of violence from a second party if we do not follow thier direction. In any case the appeal to force is the abandonment of reason.
One of the more recent issues to be addressed in the media was the Don Imus incident. One of the important side issues was that it captured the essence of neo-conservatism at work. The people that lobbied pressure at the advertisers to dismiss Imus were immediatly refered to as "nail-biters". The conservative talk show host made appeals to the freedom of speech, and said that now their jobs were in jeopardy, and this was taking away from their right to the freedom of expression. Then they placed the blame for this on the blog-community, as being unedited. And further, as giving this issue a life of its own, that was disproportionate to the actual offense.
As the events unfolded, Hannity, the top yellow journalist in the industry, engaged in a series of debates with the Reverend Al Sharpton. As I watched the final debate, which was given an entire hour, in the first segment, after being accused of hypocrasy, Sharpton made a simple compromise. I will agree to any name that you wish to call me, the worse the better. Now may we move on to the important issues at hand?
Hannity would have none of it. After a half an hour of rhetoric, and emotive attacks riddled with logical fallacies, one could detect the frustration in Sharptons eyes. When given any chance to speak, he clearly controlled the debate on issues, and so he was silenced, censored by sensationalism.
A short time later Hannity addressed the issue of global warming. To this issue he stated that Leonardo Dicaprio and Al Gore were hypocrites because they had private jets. Sound familiar? The answer to both global warming and racism identical? I would have thought that they were entirely different issues?
And again, when Ron Paul challenged the general neo-conservative position in the last republican debate, the issue of censorship was raised, as it was with Rosie Odonnell.
So how is it that a platform that supports the right of a shock-jock to make derogatory comments as the exercise of free speech, finds itself so quick to suppress the ideas of others, through ridicule, and the manipulation of logical fallacies, for merely disagreeing with their position?
The third criteria is the question as to whether the philisophical is agreeable? At this point it is important to differentiate the between the philosophy of conservative libertarianism and neo-conservatism.
Conservative Libertarianism is largely a blend of innovation as the product of competition, as expressed by Adam Smith. The view that the actions of man in the state of nature are bound by the self-evident laws of nature, which thus imply that within reasonable limits, individuals are free to pursue their own Life, health, Liberty, and possesions, as expressed by the social contract of John Locke. And finnaly the conservation of motion as defined by Spencer.
To this philosophy, I find myself in agreement with Spencer, in that the conservation of motion is largely consistent with the two fundamental building blocks of science, Occams Razor, and Universalism. In regards to Locke, I find his arguments from an ethical view to be largely consistent with the theological propositions asserted by the Apostle paul in Romans 2:14-15 As to the arguments of Adam smith, I do not think that they adequately address the question of economic crisis, and so I lean towards Keynesian Economic theory and the Nash Equilibrium as more adequate policies. (This is why I am ultimately a liberal, despite my conservative tendancies)
In contrast the Neo-conservative platform is a post-modernist philosophy that utilizes the Hegelian dialectic to divide people so that it can pursue its ultimate agenda which is the nihilistic philosophy of Nietzsche, as expressed in the doctrine, the Will to Power. In this critique of society, mankind is in a constant struggle for supremacy, for the powerful destroy the weak. Therefore, in order to live, one must maintain a position of power, to relinquish this power is to bring about the inevitable destruction of ones own position.
To this end, as the neo-conservative manipulates the conservative libertarian to give rise to the illusion that its agenda is constitutional and republican in nature, it manipulates the church with wedge issues such as abortion, and homosexuality to give it the appearence of being Judeo-Christian. Since its doctrine supports that "the people" are prone to a herd mentality, this is justified as following a superior virtue.
The ultimate fallacy, however of the neo-conservative is not however in its logic, nor is it in its premise. The folly is that the Alpha-Dog mentality of neo-conservatism is self defeating.
Empires are rarely destroyed by external forces, rather, like the body, they decay from within, due to the injustice of time. From an Orwellian model a society could be said to be composed of three social and economic spheres. That of the working man, of the middle-class comprised of merchants, and professional tradesman, and finnaly the elite or aristocracy within the society. In order to remain as the elite, there must be the premise that the elite are of superior quality to the common man, and hence worthy of their status. This leads to a growing alienation and division amongst the people, which leads to an "us and them" mentality, and a state of factionalism. This process can be seen today in the increasing tensions between the Left and the Right wing positions of the United States. It is at this point that an Empire becomes vulnerable to external forces.
Yet there is hope for our world, it has been handed down to us through the generations, and it is found within the lessons and stories contained within our scriptures.
By turning the other cheek, by seeking spiritual richness instead of material gain, by being first a servant, and leading through example, we can change the world. Yet it is an act of faith, and it requires courage, the courage to take the road least travelled.
No comments:
Post a Comment