Asymmetrical Information

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

More from the world of paper and ink

American Heritage Magazine ran a special double issue (November/December) with all kinds of good stuff on the World Trade Center and the war on terrorism. Unfortunately, the most interesting article, entitled Can History Help? ("We put a question to several historians: What can history tell us about how we are going to get through the time ahead") is not available on the web. Barbarians. I would like to go up to midtown and strangle the editorial staff but I have carpal tunnel syndrome from re-typing quotations.

The contributors put the attacks in perspective against a variety of prior events, most notably the Wall Street Bombing of 1920, covered in a separate feature, and the German detonation of the Black Toms munitions dump in New Jersey. Both of these attacks damaged internationally known public symbols - the Morgan building and the Statue of Liberty, respectively. The Morgan building still bears the scars. I walk by it all the time.

Stephen Ambrose probably wishes to rewrite his assertions that "every enemy soldier (in Afghanistan) will be ready to die in defense of his country", as well as the claim that "few of those high tech weapons will make much of a difference in Afghanistan."

Paul Berman, however, does a beautiful job drawing the obvious historical parallels between the radical arab/islamic nationalists and the other "enemies of liberal culture", Bolshevism, Italian Fascism, Nazism and the Spanish movement to restore the reign of Christ the King (and they are worried about our death penalty now!). "...liberal values and practices arouse a wild fear in some people, and fear pushes them into violent acts." He also offers this:

The Arab world might have found a way to see in a Jewish state a marvelous opportunity for the rest of the Middle East, an opportunity for everyone in the region to become more creative, more diverse, and more modern.

Joseph Ellis points out, remarkably in this context, that "historical lessons are more like tea leaves than neon signs, so anyone who claims to see one clearly had best look again." True, but he ends his short blurb with "If we manage to put both pictures together (the supposedly contradictory short and long view), we shall at last be capable of irony." Well, I've always said that what this country needs is a more robust irony capability. Maybe a strategic irony reserve. What does he mean?

This wouldn't be a "warblog" (TM-Matt Welch inc.) if I didn't leave you with some stupidity from the "brought it on ourselves - its all about oil" camp, so here we go with John Lukacs:

...Yes, we live now in the twenty-first century [!], and the structure of history - of how and why things happen - is changing. The American people must make up their minds. Must America be "the dictatress of the world," what John Quincy Adams warned against 180 years ago? Must Americans be tol, and believe that they are the chosen people of humankind - indeed, of God?

Sometime during the twenty-first century, the United States will withdraw from the Middle East instead of expanding further. Sometime during the twenty-first century, Americans will pay much more for gas and oil and no longer depend on Middle Eastern oil. Sometime during the twenty-first century, Americans will begin rebuilding their railroads instead of building bigger and bigger airports. Sometime during the twenty-first century, Americans will begin to guard their frontiers seriously instead of opening them indiscriminately

OK - 1) We still have no idea what he means by the meaningless "structure of history is changing" assertion. The beginning of this piece is dedicated to praising the bravery of the highjackers and makineg sure we don't call this a "war". So the "structure changing" idea comes from thin air. If this is the standard to which he holds his students no wonder there's grade inflation.

2)the criticism is pure straw man: We might as well say "must we make our homes out of play-doh and feed our children to dogs?" We don't. The material hiding behind the "must we" rhetorical device is pure sweeping generalization nonsense. For John's sake, I hope that "sometime in the twenty-first century", he, and other isolationist defeatists of his ilk (maybe Pat Buchanan), will live in the wretched conditions they so clearly desire. If this is his optimism, what does he sound like when he's being pessimistic?

3) why can't he say "this century?", since to anyone capable of reading American Heritage and/or a desk calendar it is abundantly clear that "we are living in the twenty-first century." Except, apparently, Lukacs.

Having retyped all this, I've decided to do something more productive during the lunch hour. Perhaps roll an acorn to South Street Seaport using only my nose.

Posted by Mindles H. Dreck at December 5, 2001 08:52 AM | Technorati inbound links