Matthew Yglesias makes an interesting point about how people generally opposed to war never end up as national media pundits, while those who seem to favor it in every instance don't appear to have the same problem. Take Bill Kristol, who is now calling on the United States to bomb nuclear capable North Korea, as an example:
As you probably know, a certain number of people are down-the-line pacifists. They believe that war is wrong, no matter what the cause. And as you've probably realized, none of them are major newspaper columnists or television pundits focusing on national security issues. Nobody takes the views of someone who's a pacifist in general seriously on a specific question of war and peace. But if you're Bill Kristol, and every time an issue comes up your idea is that we should launch a war, then you get to a Washington Post columnist and a constant TV presence. Here he is with Brit Hume calling for "targeted air strikes" against North Korean missiles...
Now, setting aside the "serious" question of whether we should start a war with North Korea for a moment, I would like to take this opportunity to present my pet theory on why calling for war makes you a "serious" pundit worthy of a national media position, and why being a pacifist (which I'm not, but it is a position that I respect) precludes you ever holding such a position.
Being "serious" in the way that the progressive blogosphere has often mocked the center-right national punditry for being primarily means demonstrating a willingness to use power in a way that will hurt lots of people, but which will benefit either you or powerful institutions. That is, you are not deemed worthy of holding power unless you demonstrate a willingness to, in at least some instances, use that power to seriously damage other people.
Whether or not the people in question deserve to be hurt is besides the point, as demonstrated by the rarity with which the hundreds of thousands of excess deaths in Iraq are discussed in national debates on our troop deployment in that country. If 5% of a country dies as a result of our use of military force, well boo-hoo. The civilian deaths, no matter how large or how small in number, are entirely besides the point to a "serious" discussion on the use of American military force. Rather, such discussions only care about whether or not the military presence benefits the United States in some way.
A pacifist is excluded from holding prominent national media positions not because of the invalidity or unpopularity of such a position, but primarily because they clearly do not demonstrate a willingness to use our power to damage and destroy other people. As such, they are not "serious." Whatever else someone can say about pacifism, it is an inherently non-exploitative position, and thus actually dangerous to powerful, exploitation institutions.
You aren't serious until you demonstrate that you are willing to use power to damage other people. Take Tom Friedman's "suck on this" justification for the Iraq war as a perfect example. In Freidman's rationalization, the entire point of the Iraq war was to damage other people because we could damage them. Seriousness means a willingness to exploit and damage other people. And that, really, is why people like Bill Kristol have jobs as national pundits, but no pacifists can say the same. |
