Horizon

What were you doing in upstate New York?

Now, I know that some people think my habitual way of seeing humans and the world generally as absurd is not to be universally admired, but something like this always comes along to vindicate me.

And it vindicates Orwell too. I remember first reading the book I thought the slogans were really going too far -- too obvious. But no, Orwell had it just about right; they are not nearly as exaggerated as everyone would like to think they are.

Hate to break it to you, Bobby, but this was on Larkin Street in San Francisco.

And the last time I saw the pediment of the Springfield, Massachusetts county courthouse, it really did say, engraved in stone, "Obedience To Law Is Liberty."

Although not phrased in the most felicitous way, I do think there's an important distinction between saying that war is peace (a statement of identity) and war is for peace (a statement of process).

Saying that war is for peace doesn't strike me on the face of it as any more absurd than saying war is not the answer. They're both crude generalizations with an element of truth.

Do you think that war is never the answer, Martha?

Sure. In the case of "war is for peace", it's that sometime the only way to ensure genuine lasting peace is to confront an implacable obstacle to that peace: the cliched but inevitable example that comes to mind is Germany in 1939, which couldn't realistically have been dealt with in any way other than violent confrontation.

In the case of "war is not the answer", it's that war tends to feed upon itself and that sometimes a violent response to a challenge can lead to a long and dismal spiral of violence. Other methods of negotiating problems are often preferable.

Both statements have their merits. The problem is that neither is by itself a sufficient answer to the problem of war and peace.

- in case anyone's wondering the above was a response to something Alan H posted, but which seems to have subsequently disappeared.

I have this bad habit of posting a comment and then immediately thinking better of it. In any case, it just asked Alan to explain what he thought these elements of truth were.

Anyway, what you say it true as far as it goes, but there is one big difference between them. One is a simple statement against war. The other, though not an equation, suggests that war is a kind of precondition for its opposite, peace. It's also misleading in that war is never really "for" peace, it's for peace on certain terms, or for power, or whatnot. As such it is just another way of varnishing the reality of war.

Sometimes you go for peace with the war you have.

"Obedience To Law Is Liberty."

That's a very Massachusetts sentiment, if David Hackett Fischer is to be believed. If you're curious on other takes on Liberty over the past two hundred forty years of this country, I highly recommend his Liberty and Freedom, a enjoyable ramble through American iconography.

The other, though not an equation, suggests that war is a kind of precondition for its opposite, peace.

Well, the threat of war (against a potential aggressor) could certainly be described as a precondition for peace. I don't think there's anything particularly new or controversial about suggesting that.

It's also misleading in that war is never really "for" peace, it's for peace on certain terms, or for power, or whatnot.

Sure it's for peace on certain terms. Does any of us really believe in 'peace at any price', that no possible condition, no provocation, no outrage, is worth the price of war? I don't. I don't really think anyone does, although they might pretend they do. And I don't pretend that the desire for peace is never wrapped up with other desires also. But there's no necessary contradiction between wanting to maintain power and also thinking peace is a good in itself.

As such it is just another way of varnishing the reality of war.

Possibly, though you could just as easily say that peace is not the answer is just another way of varnishing the reality of peace.

One last thing ...

One is a simple statement against war.

I don't think it is. It is actually a very complex statement with a host of assumptions behind it, some of them highly dubious, pretending to be a simple statement - because it's also pretending that the problem it claims to solve is simple. I mean, if war is not the answer, what is the answer then? Indeed, what is the question?

Does any of us really believe in 'peace at any price', that no possible condition, no provocation, no outrage, is worth the price of war? I don't.

No, and likewise I think you could argue that the noble justifications for war (as opposed to the ones people'd usually rather not talk about -- hence "fighting for peace") usually look more like happy side effects than real motivations. What would have happened if the Nazis had ended their expansion with Poland, say, and then quietly set about killing people without threatening the rest of Europe?

But there's no necessary contradiction between wanting to maintain power and also thinking peace is a good in itself.

Exactly, and it's probably because people have a hard time recognizing this that they feel the need to make such slogans (that applies to both of them).

The point we seem to be arguing is the relative absurdity of the two slogans. To me, suggesting that war, generally, is a kind of crusade for peace is the kind of extremely simplistic inversion (though you can justify it in various ways) that I think Orwell had in mind. It is not the same, Orwell was exaggerating, but while Orwell supported the war he was always also careful to be very straight about it's nature (consider, for instance, the essay about the horror of bombing). I consider such a slogan to be moving toward this conflation and that's what makes it seem especially absurd to me.

I don't know whether the pursuit of peace by powerful nations is merely a happy side effect or not, but it's certainly a happy side effect I can live with.

I think there's a point of agreement emerging here, and that's that cute statements about war and peace tend not to be very enlightening (even if there's at least of grain of truth to them). My original reason for commenting was really this: if Martha had seen a war is not the answer bumper-sticker, as I have, would she have felt the complusion to make a bewildered the-times-we-live-in post about it? And yet, that statement is no less absurd (and arguably even dangerous) than war is for peace. Though I grant you that the addition of dumbass does make for a powerful rhetorical flourish.

I don't know whether the pursuit of peace by powerful nations is merely a happy side effect or not, but it's certainly a happy side effect I can live with.

See, I'm still uncomfortable with characterizing the waging of war as "the persuit of peace".

Otherwise I get your point.

The absurd element of the bumpersticker is pretty obviously its assumption that all wars are beneficial activities that have mainly happy effects.

The absurd element of the bumpersticker is pretty obviously its assumption that all wars are beneficial activities that have mainly happy effects.

I agree.

Though it's no less than absurd than the opposite claim.

'if Martha had seen a war is not the answer bumper-sticker, as I have, would she have felt the complusion to make a bewildered the-times-we-live-in post about it?'

This is the kernel: sappy slogans that say what you want to hear are not comprehensively nitpicked. How else can so much specious air-punching in, say, rock and roll, go un-nitpicked by the Chomskyistas? In England the air-punching bandwagon issue du jour that is exercising the great and the good (you know, Coldplay, Robbie Williams and Oxbridge comedians) is ending third world debt (a few seasons ago it was End Racism). Almost everyone who likes to advertise their moral virtue in nice short word chunks is dropping that into their conversations. And in many ways it fulfills Orwell's prophesy about political mantras mouthed by people with one eye on each other. A general atmosphere is then set up; we see this in the whole attitude emerging in western culture, art and academia: first world bad; third world good; the primitive favoured over the sophisticated. In other words: Caliban, man.
The devilish details around Third World Debt wouldn't enter the Coldplay singer's mind as he writes 'Fair Trade' for Africa on his fist before a performance. The only monstrous and barbarous tyrant he can bring to mind is George W Bush.
This attitude of righteous sarcasm and ignorance dominates and while it does, sloganeering will be very popular.

"Obedience To Law Is Liberty."

It was probably put up in an age that couldn't conceive of the satanic mendacity of the future. The modern lefty shirks this slogan because it might mean that people who like buggery and recreational drug abuse might feel left out. It presumably doesn't occur to them that if more people were obedient to the basic laws of humanity (a lefty says: ugh, you talking 'bout that ten commandment shit muthaf*cka?), there would be a great deal more liberty for all.

The rule of law is one thing, and a good thing actually, but it implies a compact under which the people respect the laws and the elected government respects the rights of the people. The exaltation of "obedience to law" *by itself* lacks the balancing factor. You'll recall how the "Letter from Birmingham Jail" notes that all the N*zi atrocities were legal in their own place and time.

Ben, it's an interesting point but I vaguely think the current courthouse is newer than that.

'...notes that all the N*zi atrocities were legal in their own place and time.'

Why did I know they were going to get brought in as evidence...

Since we're talking Massachusetts we could substitute the Palmer Raids, which were particularly aggressive in that state, but I don't know how widely the reference would be understood.