Nic Bernstein

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

May 6, 2003

11:09:31 pm

Jim McGuigan is Right.

Dear Editors,

Jim McGuigan is right.

That seems to be the gist of his most recent column; McGuigan is right, and the peace movement is not. This kind of moral absolutism seems all the rage these days -- You are either with us or against us. When you utter an absolute like that, you effectively squelch debate. Never mind if the facts aren't on your side; a prominent pulpit, a loud voice and enough repetition will suffice!

As the White House has proven, once you state the absolute you can start to muddy the logic and drag the conversation your way -- Either you support war on Iraq, or you support Saddam Hussein. Never mind that there is probably not a single American protesting the war who supports Saddam Hussein, it really doesn't matter when your point is to create consensus to action and you don't care how well informed that consensus is. "Either you support the President, or you don't support our troops!" Bingo! The modern day equivalent of calling an American a lily-livered-commie-pinko!

Do I support our troops? I don't know that I even know what that means. Do I support what about them? Through taxes I pay their salaries, but something tells me that isn't the point here. I am sure they are a nice bunch of folks. They are probably a generally representative cross section of our society, slanted toward the poor, drawn by the ready job and educational funding, or toward the gung-ho gun-toting sector, who want to legally use really big weapons. I do know that I don't want them to die in Iraq, or any other unjust war. I fear that is not patriotic enough a sentiment these days, though.

Jim McGuigan (who, you may recall, is right) tells us "most Americans learned" that to not support our troops is, among other things "insensitive" and "an abject display of ignorance" following the debacle in Vietnam. Oh, and it is also "un-American." But aside from carrying an American flag along with your anti-war placard, McGuigan gives us precious little guidance on what he, or anyone else, means by "Support our troops." A quick Google search would seem to indicate that I can do so by purchasing any number of flags, pins, stickers, signs, or other trinkets. It is not apparent just how this supports those brave men and women, however, but if it will ensure that I am not insensitive, it may be worth the money. My ignorance is probably another matter (abject or not.)

During the build-up to the war, I caught some coverage of an anti-war protest in England. A woman who looked to be in her sixties was asked by the reporter if she supported the troops. I was quite surprised by her answer (to paraphrase,) "No I don't support them. This is not a just war, so their actions are unjust. Haven't we learned from Nuremberg? 'Following orders' is no answer to injustice." Wow! Well I guess that gives us an idea of what not supporting our troops sounds like.

Do I agree with the English woman? I think not, though it is food for thought. But I don't think, either, that I agree with Jim McGuigan, right as he may be.

Our rhetoric must be at least as finely grained as our reality, and language like "We need to know they are with us -- the majority of Americans." sounds disturbingly totalitarian to me.

Disturbing, and ridiculous! In McGuigan's essay, just two paragraphs earlier, he writes "Over 70% of Americans support the war." How, then, can one "speaking out against the war" possibly be "with" McGuigan's "us?"

"If they expect us to listen when they lift up their voices" he writes, "they should lift up their flags so we will know they are one of us." Ouch! This us-versus-them stuff is decidedly unhealthy in any debate, and particularly distasteful here. Who is us? Who is them?

Perhaps all of the thems should be made to wear little patches on their clothes to identify them as them, while all the us-es carry flags. But something tells me that simply carrying American flags would soon not be enough to prove ones us-ness, and thus the slippery slope begins.

Best regards,

-nic