Well said!

Paul Cella writes at What’s Wrong with the World:

The month of August witnesses this old debate [about the ethical character of the atomic strikes against Japanese cities] renewed virtually every year. Often it is a tiresome recitation of old arguments and older outrage: but it must be done. The day the Republic ceases to debate whether her war leaders, in the midst of the greatest crisis of the modern age, should have employed the most destructive weapons ever produced by man, is the day she abandons her solemn duty of self-government.

However, if I may quibble with Mr. Cella, I wouldn’t describe self-government as a solemn duty. That’s like describing breathing as a solemn duty.

- end of initial entry -

Paul Cella writes:

I just saw your comparison of self-government to breathing. Got a good laugh out of it. Of course, I’ve never heard of a man committing suicide by deliberately ceasing to breathe (it’s probably impossible, as the application of even the most disordered will ends when you pass out), while many men of the West seem perfectly prepared to commit suicide by ceasing to govern themselves.

LA replies:

You’re right, breathing is not the best analogy, because, as you said, breathing is involuntary. I was trying to suggest an act as fundamental to an individual’s existence, as self-government is to the existence of a free people (i.e. a people that rationally orders its own affairs). Self-government is not their “duty”: it is a fundamental expression of their very existence as a free people. Let’s say a young person gets a job, leaves his parents’ home, and sets up his own home where he is no longer living under his parents’ authority but under his own authority. Was it a “solemn duty” for him to become an independent adult? No, it was a basic act of human existence.

But again, maybe I’m quibbling. :-)

(By the way, I’m not saying that all adults are required to live separately from their parents. I was using this as an illustration to express the idea of independent adulthood. Ahh, the difficulty of coming up with exactly the right analogy…)

Tom S. writes:

Mr. Cella is a bit too “paleo” for me on some topics, but he is most certainly right about the Atomic Bomb debate. The very fact that we are still debating this matter displays the moral superiority of Western Civilization. Would Islamic Civilization still be carrying on this debate, or Chinese Civilization? The question practically answers itself…

Also, I note that Derbyshire continues his anti-Christian Jihad, claiming that Christianity is the reason we cannot exclude illegal immigrants or combat Islam, forgetting the fact that for hundreds of years Christian countries DID keep out unwanted immigrants, and were in fact the ONLY force that proved capable of stopping the Islamic Jihad. Ever heard of the “Song of Roland”, Mr. Derbyshire? Charles Martel? Tours, where Europe’s CHRISTIAN knights turned back the Islamic tide? Bohemund, Richard I ring any bells? Don John of Austria? Lepanto? The Knights of Malta? Allenby, who when he captured Jerusalem from the Turks, led his horse down the street, because he refused to ride where our Savior had walked? Funny, all these guys were Christian. I guess that they didn’t know that they were supposed to lose…

I have tried to give Mr. Derbyshire the benefit of every possible doubt, but this is starting to resemble naked prejudice.

LA replies:

Here I go again quibbling over words, but I wouldn’t use the expression “moral superiority of Western civilization.” I find it too self-congratulatory. It implies that Western people or Western civilization are inherently better than other people and civilizations. But if Western civilization is indeed morally better than other civilizations, it’s not because any superior goodness that resides within Western civilization or within Western people. The reason for this is that man is not good. Man does not contain goodness within himself. The good is outside us. The moral difference between different individuals or between different societies is in the degree to which they follow the good, or fail to follow the good. To speak of our moral superiority to others is to claim that we simply possess the good, which is not true and sounds arrogant.

RWM writes:

Mr. Paul Cella is wrong—perennial “debate” about whether the atomic bombing of Japan was correct, justified, etc. is not an expression of the ideals of traditionalist conservatism. What ultimate good comes of this constant rumination? Can you not see it is a subversive activity? Self-identified conservatives are being duped into supporting the anti-Western grievance industry.

LA replies

A fascinating response by RWM. He dislikes such discussions about the A-bomb because he sees it as a vehicle by which the left, with the help of presumed conservative useful idiots such as Cella and myself, can undermine American legitimacy,

By contrast, I agreed with Mr. Cella’s comment about the value of such discussions, because, far from such discussions allowing the left to put down America, they enable our side to challenge the present liberal orthodox position, which is that the atomic bombings were a horrible crime that stains our country.

What RWM fails to appreciate is that the current default position is not that America was right, and therefore further discussion allows the left to disturb this happy consensus and say that America was wrong. Rather, the current default position is that America was wrong, and therefore further discussion allows reasoning patriots to demonstrate that what America did was necessary and justified. I’d say such a debate is obviously relevant to any conservative or traditional politics.

But it’s not just about our side versus their side. Cella is also correct that the morality of one of the most destructive acts in history is an intensely interesting question, and that discussion about such a subject is worthwhile in itself and a mark of civilization.

Does RWM not feel that the recent discussion at VFR about the leafleting of Hiroshima and other Japanese cities was worthwhile?

Terry M. writes:

As regards your search for the right analogy, and your lamenting that just the right one—some might say “perfect one”—is rarely to be found, I’ve always been enamored by the fact that such analogies (perfect ones) are never to be found in spite of the fact that analogous language is so essential to a complete dialogue on a given subject.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’ve always looked upon the idea of a “perfect analogy” as a contradiction in terms. (I’m not trying to equate your “just the right analogy” rendition with the idea of a “perfect analogy,” btw, it’s just an observation on the concept(s) which here is probably unnecessary, but nonetheless.)

People generally tend to be inclined to point out the defect in a given analogy these days, as opposed to trying to understand the underlying message the chosen (inherently imperfect) analogy is intended to convey. But this is simply an aspect of dialogue itself I suppose.

It’s good to see that process of making a statement that appears to beg the question, quibbling with it on that basis, and so on, tending to refine the arguments and the choice of language on both sides. I would only add that the term “self-government” as used in this context may be taken wrongly, and therefore may convey a message foreign to the author’s intent. As far as solemn duties go, I would consider self-control, or, self-restraint as one, this being the primary signification of the term self-government. Some would have the primary signification to mean “self-determination,” which strikes me as not being a particularly solemn duty.

LA replies:

Yes, you’re quite right. A perfect analogy is by definition impossible, since an analogy is not a comparison between different things, but a comparison between some corresponding aspect of different things.

Alan Levine writes:

This may surprise you—perhaps it should surprise me as a professional historian who has published on the subject—but I think there is much to be said for RWM’s grumbling about the perpetual debate about the A-bomb. He is right in suspecting there is something sick about the whole business. The only problem with his position is that if the left, and not just the left, but our extermal enemies like Al Qaeda continually lie about it about and use it as an instrument against the West, we have little choice but to at least try to bring the discussion down to the plane of reality. The attacks on the use of the bomb have long since passed the borders of sanity.

Bobby writes:

I would just like to point out that to a certain extent, debating the atomic bomb, at least in many communities around the U.S., is almost exclusively centered around leftist subversion. A few years ago, while in Los Angeles, I noticed commemorative “moments of silence” for the victims of the bomb, were being funded by far-left groups and ethnic solidarity groups. Other events were completely unrelated to the bombing, but included things like the abolition of nuclear weapons, environmentalism, lectures on the evil of U.S. foreign policy and other far-left subversive activities made to indoctrinate folks into an anti-american view. It should be noted that there were no V-day Japan celebrations to honor our few remaining WW2 veterans, nor was there anything to honor those who fought and died against Japan. Events like these are held all over the nation and do nothing to show the moral superiority of the West, merely the moral confusion of our civilization and the triumpth leftism and multiculturalism.

LA replies:

But those observances are going to continue. Doesn’t that point to the need for conservatives to present different arguments, such as we’ve been doing here, to resist the general drift?

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 22, 2007 09:07 AM | Send