Baloney,
Brooks And Blair
By Thomas Riggins
17 May, 2007
Countercurrents.org
Reading
David Brooks, the ultra-right New York Times op-eder, never fails to
amuse. He is able to take the simplest facts and twist them around to
such a degree that they come out looking like the exact opposite of
what they really mean. A recent case in point is his article on Tony
Blair (NYT 5-11-07) which he entitled “The Human Community.”
His opening sentence reflects
the “the conventional view” about Tony Blair, a view that
is, incidentally, true so far as it goes-- i.e., Tony Blair “was
a talented leader whose career was sadly over shadowed by Iraq.”
Brooks thinks this view “is absurd.”
Brooks says that Blair wasn’t
making an error of judgment when he went into Iraq along with Bush.
His decision “grew out of the essence of who he is.” And
that would be? Well Tariq Ali says Blair is a second rate politician
with a third rate mind. That is one kind of essence.
He jumped into a war that
was the result of lies and is responsible, along with Bush, for hundreds
of thousands of needless deaths. That is the essence of who he is. Now
Brooks will pull out the baloney to try and turn this sad and rotten
essence into one of shining purity. God will even play a role (via a
theologian) in the redemption of a man with the essence of a mass
murderer.
We are told that Blair believes
that globalization is making us all more dependent on one another and
that “the world will flourish only if the international community
enforces shared, universal values.” Such values, I presume, as
waging wars of aggression and occupation on other people’s countries
without the sanction of the UN and clearly in violation of the wishes
of the international community.”
Actions speak louder than
words. Blair believes nothing at all about a world of shared, universal
values. He has his own values and if the world begs to differ, too bad.
Where do his values come
from? It all began long ago when little Tony was 11 years old. His father
had a stroke and Tony was led to the theologian John Macmurray. Brooks
quotes Blair. “If you really want to understand what I’m
all about you have to take a look at a guy called John Macmurray. It’s
all there.”
So, lets take a look. By
way of preface I can only say that the late John Macmurray would not
take comfort in the thought that he was the inspiration for a war criminal.
There are certain themes
running through the theology of Macmurray. One is that action should
prevail over thinking. First comes the act, then reflection. Well, Blair
did this in Iraq. First invade, then think about the consequences. It's
not really a very good philosophy, or in Macmurray's case "theology."
Macmurray has written that
science "is characteristically Christian." He calls it, "the
intellectual life of faith." But science deals with the physical
world and empirical evidence. Faith deals with hopes and unseen non-empirical
pseudo-entities. This is also characteristic of Blair who believes in
"Iraqi democracy" with reference to a militia dominated fundamentalist
Iraqi government. Faith based politics, yes, scientific understanding,
no.
Macmurray also bases his
thinking on the "God of the Hebrews" (the genocidal demon
that was worshiped in Old Testament days) not the God of the Greeks
(Zeus had a libido problem but he didn't engage in genocide.) I think
philosophical reason is really meant with respect to the Greeks.
More positively, Macmurray
was interested in the "human community." For him ""community
means a "common life" through religion while "society"
means a "common purpose" to be found through "politics."
Like many Islamists (and Blair's buddy George Bush), Macmurray thinks
politics should be suborned to religion. If Blair is really a Macmurryite
he is a strange ally for
the US which was founded on the separation of church and state. Maybe
not so strange since Britain has a state church and president Bush,
in complete violation of his oath to uphold the Constitution has. tried
to break down the wall of separation between church and state.
Macmurray says life has two
aspects. The first is the realm of the "functional" workaday
world in which we live, it is a sphere of inequality (this view is amenable
to conservative status quo thinking). The second is the realm of the
"personal" where human equality reigns. In other words, as
human persons we are all equal, but in the real world don't forget to
salute officers and bow and scrape before your betters. Or, as Macmurray
puts it: "The functional life is for the personal life: the personal
life is through the functional life."
One of the great values celebrated
by Macmurray is that of "freedom." And now we get to Brooks
again, and the "essence" of Tony Blair. Macmurray tells us
that: "We can preserve our freedom only by sharing it."
Tariq Ali is right. Only
a third rate intellect would interpret this lofty theological abstraction
as a license to wage an armed crusade against another people bringing
them death and destruction and calling it "freedom."
This is how Brooks tries
to dress up Blair's criminality and wretched chauvinistic beliefs. He
quotes Blair on the war and aftermath of 9/11: "This is not a clash
between civilizations. It is a clash about civilization [i.e., we are
civilized. our enemies are uncivilized]. It is the age-old battle between
progress and reaction, between those who embrace and see opportunity
in the modern world [such as being able to launch aggressive wars of
conquest] and those who reject its existence." Yes indeed. Tony
Blair's world of war and death, which he shares with president Bush,
should be rejected, it is definitely about civilization and Blair is
no spokesman for the side of the civilized.
Brooks now outdoes himself
in illogicality in describing how Blair concluded he must support Bush's
middle eastern crusade. Blair "concluded that Britain had to combat
those who would divide the human community even without the support
of the multilateral institutions that he cherished."
But the multilateral institutions
are the institutions that "the human community" has devised
in order to help preserve itself from war and misadventure. What Brooks
is saying is that Blair decided he must combat the human community to
save the human community. Third rate thinking at its best. Brooks's
baloney, on the otherhand, is first rate.
Thomas Riggins
is the book review editor of Political Affairs and can be reached at
[email protected].
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.
Click
here to comment
on this article