Friday, February 1, 2013

Searching for the Opposite of Senseless

Just stealing and posting what's below for the sake of preservation. Comments are worth reading. I suspect the thing will disappear at some point.

President Obama issued a statement yesterday to commemorate International Holocaust Remembrance Day. He noted that survivors who bore witness to “the horrors of the cattle cars, ghettos, and concentration camps have witnessed humanity at its very worst and know too well the pain of losing loved ones to senseless violence.” (We noted below how some in Europe chose to mark the day, which takes place each year on January 27, the day Soviet troops liberated Auschwitz.)
The idea that all violence is “senseless” violence is one that has taken deep root on the left; it’s also, unfortunately, one that poses a major impediment to understanding the world.
Nazism may have been an ideology to which the United States was — and to which the president is — implacably opposed, but it is hardly “senseless.” By the early 1930s, the Nazi party had hundreds of thousands of devoted members and repeatedly attracted a third of the votes in German elections; its political leaders campaigned on a platform comprising 25 non-senseless points, including the “unification of all Germans,” a demand for “land and territory for the sustenance of our people,” and an assertion that “no Jew can be a member of the race.” Suffice it to say, many sensible Germans were persuaded.
On September 12, 2012, President Obama also lamented the “the kind of senseless violence that took the lives” of four Americans in Benghazi. That, you may recall, is the day the president supposedly said the murders occurred as a result of a non-senseless terrorist attack carried out by jihadists.
This sanitized version of events, both past and present, is surely more comforting. It’s also truly senseless.
Where's the Jonah Goldberg response?


Pundits and non-pundits on both the left and the right have reacted with derision and horror to a Corner post in which I criticized President Obama for referring to those who perished in the Holocaust — as well as the four Americans who were murdered in Benghazi — as victims of “senseless violence.” I argued that violence carried out in the service of ideology is a more serious threat than violence that we typically refer to as “senseless” or “random,” and that, as a result, it deserves more serious attention and analysis.
I’ve since been accused both of justifying Nazism and of anti-Semitism. This is not only wrong, but cheap.
The opposite of “senseless” is not, as many have suggested, “sensible.” Nor is it “good.” According to Merriam-Webster, “senseless” means “destitute of, deficient in, or contrary to sense: as: unconscious,” or “foolish, stupid,” or “meaningless.” Even the most cursory understanding of Nazi Germany reveals this to be a poor description of its behavior. It was precisely the threat posed by the “organized and calculated violence” of the German state and the “party organization, several millions strong, who derive all kinds of profits, good and bad, from the upkeep of the regime” to which Churchill sought to awaken his countrymen. Were the gravestone of the Third Reich a monument to caprice, its consequences would likely have been less dire. 
Many tragedies are indeed “senseless.” Those, by and large, are the ones that occur despite human attempts to understand and prevent their causes: the hurricanes that have ravaged large swaths of the country in recent years; motor-vehicle accidents; terminal illnesses; acts of violence that are truly random in nature; events, in other words, to which nearly any one of us, at any time, could fall victim.
Those carried out with forethought, purpose, and intent by men who have convinced sensible people — yes, sensible people — that the murder of innocents is justified in the name of Communism, Nazism, fascism, or Islamism are a different matter altogether. Dismissing such acts, and their perpetrators, as senseless demonstrates a failure to engage with a reality that is much more complicated; one in which politics, ideology, and human nature have combined to produce with careful planning some of the greatest episodes of evil in human history. Not for nothing did Churchill refer to Nazi Germany as a “monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark lamentable catalogue of human crime.” The lamentable crime to which he referred was more premeditated murder than manslaughter; sadly, it was not senseless, but the logical conclusion of a perverted worldview that was distressingly popular in its era.
The hysterical reaction elicited by my post underscores precisely the point I intended to make–that the notion, now deeply ingrained on the left, that violence is by definition senseless and incomprehensible poses an enormous impediment to understanding the world and the forces at work in it.
Somehow the right-wingers at the start of the post turned into left-wingers at the bottom. Funny how that works.


Smut Clyde said...

Just stealing and posting the comments at SN and LGM for the sake of preservation.

Smut Clyde said...

The most charitable construction I can put on Ms Johnson's words is that she wants Obama to describe violence as "reasonable and rational" every time he talks about Nazis or al Qaeda, and then to reject the arguments used by the people who are killing Americans. And if he does that, the likes of NRO will stop denouncing him as sympathetic to terrorists.

Substance McGravitas said...

I think you have to take "Suffice it to say, many sensible Germans were persuaded" and append "of the wisdom of the horrors of the cattle cars, ghettos, and concentration camps."

I might be a little soft in the head but I think the set of eliminationists is larger than the set of eliminationists who revel in gore.

Smut Clyde said...

Speaking of Churchill, whatever happened to that Ward Churchill guy who reckoned that the 9/11 crew had actual motivations and reasons which it would be helpful to understand?

Smut Clyde said...

The hysterical reaction elicited by my post underscores precisely the point I intended to make

"People disagreeing with my post shows that I touched a nerve and am therefore on target."
Johnson doesn't seem to have been in the business for long and writes as if she is the first person to think of these arguments.

Substance McGravitas said...

It's a real display. Do you figger Jonah approves?

Smut Clyde said...

I imagine he is flattered to have imitators.
It is like the continued existence of GG Allin cover bands.

M. Bouffant said...

it would be helpful to understand
All you need to know is that THEY HATE US FOR OUR FREEDOM!!

the set of eliminationists who revel in gore
They're just squeamish about it, & would prefer someone else do the heavy lifting/murdering. (Pretty much their attitude about all physical activity, actually.)

Big Bad Bald Bastard said...

I couldn't resist trolling, responding to a guy who wrote that the negative comments gave him a better view of the NRO readership:

Most of the commentariate for this post navigated over from "lefty" sites because this stupid post went viral. Most of the regular NRO readership is crying in their pillows right now, while "stalwarts" like Rob Crawford try to split semantic hairs in a failing effort to make this article seem less than horrible.
Ordinarily, I'd rather be caught in public reading "Furry Orgy" magazine than "National Review", but I'm here to watch a slo-mo train wreck of epic proportions.