REASONED
DEBATE PLEASE
NOT ARMCHAIR PSYCHOANALYSIS
By: Red Phillips
Recently Lawrence Auster wrote an article for Front Page Magazine
entitled "The Antiwar Rights Bent View of the World." It has received
much comment on internet sites such as Freerepublic.com, lewrockwell.com and Antiwar.com.
In fact, Antiwar.com was one of the websites the article skewered. Mr. Auster it seems has
hit a nerve. Of course the reaction has been as expected, praise from the pro-war neocons
and outrage from the antiwar right.
The problem is not that Mr. Auster is belligerently pro-war. He is not. It is that he
has tried playing armchair psychoanalyst and questioned the psychological balance of the
antiwar right activist.
For the record, I went to Mr. Austers blog and found at least some things to
recommend him. He seems genuinely skeptical of intervention, and he is restrictionist on
immigration. Likewise, Front Page Magazine has taken a strong stance against
political correctness and affirmative action. However, Front Page Magazine proved
itself to be on the wrong side of the great debate when it and its editor, David Horowitz,
prominently sided with the tyrant Lincoln, in the ongoing Lincoln idolaters vs. Dr. Thomas
DiLorenzo (The Real Lincoln) feud. Frontpage has also been unequivocally
pro-war. |
Mr. Auster is being extremely hypocritical here. He begins by
questioning the tendency of the left to frequently impugn the psychological motivation of
those on the right. The left asserts that the right is reacting to fear or anger or
resentment. Mr. Auster is absolutely correct to question this tactic. This strategy of the
left reached its height with the publication of The Authoritarian Personality by
Theodore Adorno, et. al. in 1950. This pseudoscientific hatchet job basically asserted
that anybody who wasnt a dyed-in-the-wool leftist was a closeted fascist. Of course
the Soviet Union perfected the practice of detaining resistors and critics under the
auspices of mental health.
Based on this long and sorry history, this is an incredibly dangerous road to travel
down, and Im disappointed Mr. Auster has chosen to do so. It is certainly true that
individual members of any large group will have some psychological baggage. It is also
inevitable that individuals will make observations about others mental health. Propriety
dictates, however, that these observations should be kept to ones self. It is
grossly inappropriate to make blanket, scurrilous psychological accusations about a whole
group of people.
The trouble with this form of attack is that it is usually done by people who
arent trained in psychology, it is painting with a broad brush, and worst of all, it
is not falsifiable. Mr. Auster states "
at bottom many antiwar critics were not
motivated by a love of country or a belief in truth, but by resentment." That is bad
enough, but then he throws gasoline on the fire by adding, "It was exactly the kind
of resentment normally associated with the left, the impotent fury at a traitorous father
figure or a supposed "oppressor"
" This is gutter ball stuff and Mr.
Auster knows it. How is someone on the antiwar right supposed to respond to this kind of
accusation? "No I dont resent my father." Of course the obvious response
is, "You are in denial." Hence, as I stated above, this is not falsifiable and
therefore, not at all useful. It inflames the debate, it doesnt advance it. It also
likely results in counter accusations such as Justin Raimondos comments that Mr.
Auster is part of the "racialist" right (whatever that means) that appeared on
Antiwar.com soon after the publication of Mr. Austers article. That response was
certainly not helpful either.
Cant we all just act like adults, here? Since one of Mr. Austers primary
concerns seems to be the questioning of the Cold War, then if he believes US intervention
was necessary during the Cold War to prevent the spread of Communism, then so argue. If
Mr. Raimondo and other antiwar rightist believe that Communism was economically
unsustainable and would have inevitability collapsed under its own economic dead weight,
then so argue. Making accusations about "traitorous fathers" is schoolyard and
unproductive. Unless, of course, the product you are seeking is to intimidate people into
silence. That is the aim of many on the left. I will give Mr. Auster the benefit of the
doubt and assume that is not his motivation.
Mr. Auster has promised to write more on this subject. Please spare us. The enemy of
freedom in this country is not the antiwar right. It is the left and the leftist
masquerading as mainstream conservatives, some of whom write for Front Page Magazine.
Why not direct your attacks at them?
Published originally at
EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."
Mail
this article to a friend(s) in two clicks! |
|
Red Phillips is a physician from
Georgia. He is a new columnist for Ether Zone.
Red Phillips may be contacted at: redphillipsmd@yahoo.com
Published in the December 21, 2004 issue of Ether Zone
Copyright 1997 - 2004 Ether Zone.
We
invite your comments on this article in our forum! |