I remember reading Friedman's column and feeling that he had somewhat missed the point. Ray makes good observations about Friedman's own involvement in our current mess, but that's not what I'm talking about. What I'm seeing here is a dangerous trend towards idealism, from people like Friedman who feel that the Youth of Today need to make louder noises, from the Bush administration, which is so sure of its own role in making everyone in the world a citizen of a freedom-loving democracy... one that is also open to trading with America, of course, and even from the Gargoyle Senior Editors (unfortunately unnamed here), who think an activism calender filled with well-attended events is a great thing to strive for.
The main problem that all these people have is a trust in idealistic, one-sided worldviews. Even though I'm liberal in my political affiliations, I am still often disturbed by the way some Uni students are willing to accept any liberal viewpoint without questioning it. I find it almost as disturbing as the way the country accepted the weak rationalizations for the Iraq war. More so, in some ways, as I pride myself on having come to my conclusions through rational thought, and it's not pleasant to see them swallowed so unquestioningly. Many people here seem ready to blame racism for just about anything, or never consider the fact that a large corporation's advertising campaign might not be soul-subverting evil. But that's not really what I'm talking about either; what I'm trying to do here is establish that I have little love for any of the viewpoints in question here, and am ready to introduce my own.
To summarize: Friedman wants more idealistic activism from our generation, Bush wants an idealistic acceptance of worldwide democracy and a War on Terror that can be won, and the Gargoyle editors want more idealistic activism from the Uni population, and also for the older generation to stop blaming us for not fixing what they screwed up in the first place. This last point I totally agree with, but the way in which everyone wants people to go about fixing things is not the best one.
Idealism never proves very useful in the end; idealistic philosophies ignore anything contrary to them and are not good for compromising on. Look at Communism. Now there was a good idea. Yet supporters of Communism failed to compromise on any issue. Reading Lenin's writings, I was struck by the vehemence with which he dismissed liberals and moderate socialists. To him, they were as bad as the extreme capitalists. If the communists had been willing to compromise, perhaps they would have survived without falling prey to Stalin's dictatorial ambitions. Either way, their idealism hurt them. Or how about bringing democracy to Iraq? Another great idea: overthrow the undoubtedly cruel and dictatorial Hussain, bring democracy, peace, and stability to the region, and secure some cheap oil to boot! That noble cause was unattainable, and many administration higherups knew it,but their faith in the propensity of the Iraqi people to rise up in a glorious American-style revolution overrode wiser voices, and we went to war with disastrous results. In all these cases, idealism in the end compromised the hopes of the idealists who were unwilling to compromise their stance.
Idealism prevents two parties from working towards compromises and solutions because each is so entrenched in their respective positions they cannot ever see working together. Idealism is therefore dangerous, unproductive, and to be avoided. Encouraging idealistic actions will not solve any of the complex problems of the modern world, and indeed will only create new ones or exacerbate old ones.
My political philosophy holds that the the days of marches and protests are over. Such tactics worked forty years ago, but today governments are smarter. A close reading of all that was said by the administration about the war during the leadup and the occupation itself shows that they were doing their utmost to minimize the impact of protest on the war effort. Waving signs at the problem will not fix it. What we need to do is continually educate ourselves about the current state of affairs, and instead of getting up in arms about what we see is wrong and trying to overthrow the whole system, we should band together to consider each issue and work towards a compromise. Things like carefully deciding who to vote for are more important than protesting the war. Electing leaders who will do what we want is the best way to get what we want done. In the end, we must work for small, slow, steady steps along the road to a better society. More activism from the young won't change that fact, nor will less blaming from the old, or more misguided crusades from the administration, or more speakers at Uni. They are all shouting the same thing, and it's time for everyone to stop listening to everything they say and start thinking realistically for themselves.
I didn't originally intend to write such and essay, but please do me the courtesy of reading the whole thing if you want to respond. I'm not sure if we can edit posts; if we can, I might come back through here and clean this up at some point. The wording and structure is subject to change, but I do stand by my main point that idealism is useless and destructive, so attack that all you want.
Replies
I remember reading Friedman's column and feeling that he had somewhat missed the point. Ray makes good observations about Friedman's own involvement in our current mess, but that's not what I'm talking about. What I'm seeing here is a dangerous trend towards idealism, from people like Friedman who feel that the Youth of Today need to make louder noises, from the Bush administration, which is so sure of its own role in making everyone in the world a citizen of a freedom-loving democracy... one that is also open to trading with America, of course, and even from the Gargoyle Senior Editors (unfortunately unnamed here), who think an activism calender filled with well-attended events is a great thing to strive for.
The main problem that all these people have is a trust in idealistic, one-sided worldviews. Even though I'm liberal in my political affiliations, I am still often disturbed by the way some Uni students are willing to accept any liberal viewpoint without questioning it. I find it almost as disturbing as the way the country accepted the weak rationalizations for the Iraq war. More so, in some ways, as I pride myself on having come to my conclusions through rational thought, and it's not pleasant to see them swallowed so unquestioningly. Many people here seem ready to blame racism for just about anything, or never consider the fact that a large corporation's advertising campaign might not be soul-subverting evil. But that's not really what I'm talking about either; what I'm trying to do here is establish that I have little love for any of the viewpoints in question here, and am ready to introduce my own.
To summarize: Friedman wants more idealistic activism from our generation, Bush wants an idealistic acceptance of worldwide democracy and a War on Terror that can be won, and the Gargoyle editors want more idealistic activism from the Uni population, and also for the older generation to stop blaming us for not fixing what they screwed up in the first place. This last point I totally agree with, but the way in which everyone wants people to go about fixing things is not the best one.
Idealism never proves very useful in the end; idealistic philosophies ignore anything contrary to them and are not good for compromising on. Look at Communism. Now there was a good idea. Yet supporters of Communism failed to compromise on any issue. Reading Lenin's writings, I was struck by the vehemence with which he dismissed liberals and moderate socialists. To him, they were as bad as the extreme capitalists. If the communists had been willing to compromise, perhaps they would have survived without falling prey to Stalin's dictatorial ambitions. Either way, their idealism hurt them. Or how about bringing democracy to Iraq? Another great idea: overthrow the undoubtedly cruel and dictatorial Hussain, bring democracy, peace, and stability to the region, and secure some cheap oil to boot! That noble cause was unattainable, and many administration higherups knew it,but their faith in the propensity of the Iraqi people to rise up in a glorious American-style revolution overrode wiser voices, and we went to war with disastrous results. In all these cases, idealism in the end compromised the hopes of the idealists who were unwilling to compromise their stance.
Idealism prevents two parties from working towards compromises and solutions because each is so entrenched in their respective positions they cannot ever see working together. Idealism is therefore dangerous, unproductive, and to be avoided. Encouraging idealistic actions will not solve any of the complex problems of the modern world, and indeed will only create new ones or exacerbate old ones.
My political philosophy holds that the the days of marches and protests are over. Such tactics worked forty years ago, but today governments are smarter. A close reading of all that was said by the administration about the war during the leadup and the occupation itself shows that they were doing their utmost to minimize the impact of protest on the war effort. Waving signs at the problem will not fix it. What we need to do is continually educate ourselves about the current state of affairs, and instead of getting up in arms about what we see is wrong and trying to overthrow the whole system, we should band together to consider each issue and work towards a compromise. Things like carefully deciding who to vote for are more important than protesting the war. Electing leaders who will do what we want is the best way to get what we want done. In the end, we must work for small, slow, steady steps along the road to a better society. More activism from the young won't change that fact, nor will less blaming from the old, or more misguided crusades from the administration, or more speakers at Uni. They are all shouting the same thing, and it's time for everyone to stop listening to everything they say and start thinking realistically for themselves.
I didn't originally intend to write such and essay, but please do me the courtesy of reading the whole thing if you want to respond. I'm not sure if we can edit posts; if we can, I might come back through here and clean this up at some point. The wording and structure is subject to change, but I do stand by my main point that idealism is useless and destructive, so attack that all you want.
-Jacob Druker