277. It's Not the Religion, It's How It's Taken

OK, both our religions, Christianity and Islam, urge violence here and there in their ancient scriptures.  There's no difference between Christians and Muslims on that score.  But there is a difference in how those scriptures are taken.  There are more Muslims who want to impose Shariah, a law for an ancient desert people, than there are Christians (or Jews) who want to impose the laws of the Old Testament.

I think we can go on and say the more dangerous (because we're on the edge of prejudice and persecution) thing: that Muslims generally are more willing to obey or approve ancient commands to violence than Christians are.  And pushing to the edge, that that makes them a greater danger to a state.

So we can argue accidental superiority.  History has given Christians a sociological condition that is more favorable to state security than it has given Muslims.  This superiority is functional and temporal (See my Post #77).  It does not allow claims to any other superiority (race, ethnicity, origin, genome, etc.) but in states needing to protect themselves it needs to be recognized.

In preceding posts I suggested that we could avoid prejudice and persecution by keeping our eyes only on security and the laws necessary to it.  But, raising our vision, we saw that for long-term security we needed something more.  I suggested a nationwide mandatory educational program which, in light of the above, would for Muslims help correct the accidents of history that had made them dangerous. 

When we think that way we can't help opposing strong liberal instincts: to avoid invidious comparisons of cultures; to find the merciful and humane in every scripture; to say that that expresses the true nature of the religion; to oppose restrictions on freedom; to resist mandates from the central government, particularly in education; and beyond that to make no moves whatsoever toward a totalitarian state.

Yes, and there before us in my last post is my move: broaden the definition of incitement to violence so we can arrest more people, make every school in the country, every private school, every religious school, even every home school, hold to the curriculum that will best protect the state, and specify the exact courses that will make children grow up our way.

And to what noble end?  I'll put it bluntly: so that our grown-ups won't become fundamentalists.  So that children raised in a religion will say something like this, "Well yes, there's God's law, and yes, it's there in our Scripture, and it's a wonderful guide to life, but shucks, it does go to extremes sometimes.  It's just got to have a few tweaks."

"You want to get that out of fundamentalists?  They're all, Christians, Jews, and Muslims, dead against tweaking.  If they tweaked they wouldn't be fundamentalists.  And you want to make tweaking, religious tweaking, into a virtue."

Not exactly.  I want to make refusal to tweak into a vice.  The Jewish settler on the West Bank who says, "The Law says God gave us this land and I don't care what law, Israeli or International, says otherwise, I'm following a Higher Law," that settler is threatening the peace of the world, and I consider such threatening a vice.  And I consider support of that threatening a complicit vice.  The American fundamentalists who support the settlers for the same reason, that the words are in Holy Scripture, are complicit.  My fundamentalist, tweak-abominating mother was complicit, and the grateful letter she got from Binyamin Netanyahu confirmed it.

"Ah, but refusal to tweak is just what made our ancestors strong.  Their fundamentalist religion strengthened their spines and gave order to their lives.  It helped them survive, out on the prairie, far from the home city, or in a new country, far from the old one."  I know I can hear the same from an Arab fundamentalist.  "It helped us survive, out in the desert.  It gave order to our lives."

I don't deny that.  I'm just saying that there's a flip side, a dangerous side, an even vicious side, to their virtue.   And I don't deny that by softening that vicious side with a liberal education we may be softening the virtuous side, and losing a character valuable to the nation.  I just believe that for our nation's, and maybe the world's, security, all fundamentalism now has to be exposed to the education that will destroy it.

"And you're confident that your liberal education will destroy it?  You'd better be sure about that before you go mandating it in every school.  David Ben-Gurion, you know, thought that in an Enlightened Israel Jewish Orthodoxy would just 'wither away.'"

Yes, my confidence is high because my expectations are low.  I don't expect a Muslim teenager in Britain to come out of school taking the Koran the way an Anglican adult takes the Bible.  You know, with gentlemanly ease.  I just expect him to take it with a little more salt.  From the French mines, from Voltaire.

"And you'll get that in your education for democratic citizenship?"

Yes, out of this curriculum that I'm sure any number of my liberal arts colleagues could quickly provide.  I myself would make Introductory Logic and Speech 1 (making sure it included debates) mandatory.   And heavens, English Composition, the most important one of all.  ("Address the question, avoid prejudgments, cite evidence, anticipate objections, be skeptical, suspect absolute generalizations" — I've quoted it a hundred times.)  Out of my colleagues' arguments we could add more — a political science course, a history course — to the list of required courses.  Taken somewhere along the line.  No degree without them.  I'm willing to say, "No degree in engineering, no degree in any technological field, without them."  That would include students from all Enlightenment-deprived countries.  No going back loaded only with the results of skeptical, scientific thinking.  You've got to learn the Socratic-scientific way.

"And to enforce this?"

No way but the Teutonic, I'm afraid. "Achtung!  Make it so."  From the President, after Congressional approval.

"And what do the president's subordinates then say to school boards, 'No government money unless you comply'?  To colleges, 'No student loans'?  To foreigners, 'No scholarships' or worse, 'No visas'?" 

You're showing how unrealistic my plan is.  But surely our academic realists could come up with something not too far from it, couldn't they?  I know that our Socratic-scientific inheritance is a strong force in them.  I know they're willing to sacrifice a lot for our long-term security.

276. Negotiating Muslim Culture

To change tomorrow, change children.  If we've got adults who don't distinguish private religious responsibility from public political responsibility, who take their Holy Scripture as literal and unchanging truth, who think that dying attacking unbelievers is rewarded in heaven, and who take insults to their Prophet with deadly seriousness, and if we don't want to live with such adults in the future (see preceding post), then we've got to change them.

It's a problem of education, also called (in the marketplace) brainwashing, indoctrinating, robot-making, and cookie-cutting.  I decided I had to face it when I saw that short-term measures to live with Islamic fundamentalism were not sustainable.  In the metaphor I had going at the time we just can't afford to have our young fish maturing in that kind of water.

We in the West can avoid that only under the constraints imposed by our dominant culture, that of (still) the Enlightenment.  Here it's the need to preserve freedom.  We were restricting freedom of speech when we justified having lawmen sitting in on imams' sermons, listening for our newly defined incitements to violence.  Here it's the freedom of local governments, specifically school boards, that we want to restrict.  Should a school in Birmingham, England, be free to teach Islamic principles?  Should a school in Kansas be free to teach the Bible creation story?

My answer, minus its development, is, "Yes, as long as they're taught in an academic way, and as long as they're not a substitute for the teaching that prepares youth for democratic citizenship."

The academic way is the way Socrates taught the West, testing beliefs in an impersonal fashion and abandoning those that fail.  The way of science.  Presentation of its results requires disinterestedness.  An academic presenting the creation story says, "This is what Christians believe."

The teaching that prepares youth for democratic citizenship is less distinct, though the ideal product is clear enough, at least for me.  It's that voter who takes up a candidacy or an issue the way a Supreme Court justice takes up a case, holding his or her thinking to what has consequences in the practical world.  Ms. Perfect Voter is Sandra Day O'Connor acting under a time constraint, as Ms. Perfect Journalist is Barbara Tuchman writing in haste.  Perfect-in-the-World is a university scientist without the leisure or the grants.

I believe that a Western democracy's need for something close to this in its citizens is so great that I am willing to reduce almost any of democracy's associated values that get in its way.  Freedom of local citizens from control by the central government is a long-held value in the United States, especially in the Heartland.  I want to say, to the citizens of Ohio, and now Colorado, "Here is something every school must teach.  You are free to teach other things, but you are not free to substitute anything for this."  And I will present them with what I think will make their students most like Sandra Day O'Connor, the curriculum for ideal democratic citizenship.

The benefit of this constraint (I'll get around to the curriculum) is that, like many constraints, it allows greater freedom elsewhere.  Be recognized as an approximation of Sandra Day O'Connor and you can say nearly anything you want, anywhere.  That goes for Muslims who have achieved the approximation.  Regardless of how they started out.  We trust our mandated education.

We also trust the social pressure O'Connor approximations can bring to bear.  Slam an ethnic group, as you are free to do, and O'Connor will show the irrelevance of your slam to the issue at hand.  No gratuitous slaps among her kind, not without bringing a blush.  Her kind attack a belief by demonstrating its consequences.  Call that a slap and you'll blush from the opposite direction. 

Because we think we have enough of O'Connor's kind out in the marketplace we let people there slap and slam as they will.  Satire is fine.  (It's an Enlightened Western country's substitute for violence.)   Incitement to ridicule is OK.  Insult is expected.  Developed populations can call undeveloped populations benighted and barbaric.  Undeveloped populations can call developed populations decadent and rapacious.  All because such callers can be put in their place by better-educated callers, who in Enlightened countries will, like Supreme Court Justices, carry the greater weight.  We in Enlightened countries trust in our education system to supply that weight.  When it does we don't need laws against such speech.

For the weight-supplying curriculum I am going to impose on every local school, I look first to what produced Sandra Day O'Connor.  And I will present school governors with what I think will make their students most like her.   I can make a pretty good guess about what was taught in her El Paso high school, classic college-prep, and an even better guess about what was taught at Stanford, where she got her B.A. in 1950 (my time in school): classic liberal arts.  For the latter, in American colleges, the key course was English Composition.  It was the course, then and now, that was counted on to introduce newcomers to the academic way.  "Address the question, avoid prejudgments, cite evidence, anticipate objections, be skeptical, suspect absolute generalizations" — those were the big imperatives in nearly every composition handbook.

And I would require that they be obeyed in English.  Because that is the language in which democratic debate goes on in America.  It is the language of the marketplace out of which votes come, determining elections. The marketplace.  Where the need for the protection of free speech arose in the minds of our founding fathers. 

So our advice to Muslim leaders is, "Get in on the marketplace scrimmage, friends.  Mix it up.   There are so many things you can attack: our drone strikes, our behavior at Abhu Graib, our insensitive satires of the Prophet.  Go beyond that immediate ugliness; attack our materialism, our hypocrisy, our arrogance, our vulgar popular culture, our all-consuming consumerism, our pornifaction of the inner life.   If you go too far our Sandra O'Connors will put you to shame.  If you incite to violence our police will put you in prison."

275. Responding Safely to Islamist Terrorism

The trouble with my saying that a culture can be a threat to a state (preceding post) is that Hitler would love it.  Jewish culture spawned subversives.  It was the water Bolsheviks swam in.  And Bolsheviks, who were they eliminating?  Anybody spawned in bourgeois culture.  All Stalin's executioners needed to see in a Ukrainian was a mark of it.

There it was, the clearest warning sign the twentieth century left us, and I was skating right up to it.  I was suggesting that Muslim culture encouraged terrorist acts.  Take my suggestion and you'll be persecuting those people.  Your thought police, your virtue squads, maybe even your executioners, are on the way.

How can we make sure we don't go past the sign?  I suggest that we begin by doing what Supreme Court justices do: not even consider the question until we have a case before us.  A legal case.  Concrete, particular, with consequences in the practical world.

We move into court to unburden ourselves.  So much of our thinking is abstract, or polemical, or competitive, or self-serving.  So much of our knowledge is inert.  In front of a case our load is lighter.  The abstractions fall to academic theorists, the polemics to pundits, the one-ups to bloggers and tweeters, and the ego-trips to confessors and shrinks.  As for knowledge, the heaviest burden, the excess is stripped from us by the test of relevance.  We are like a CIA director sorting through a mountain of intelligence.  "Is it actionable?" he asks.  In our case that becomes, "Does what we know about Muslim culture justify a change in our law punishing incitement to violence?"  All other knowledge falls to the marketplace, and takes its place in the general scrimmage.

OK, we know enough about Muslim culture — that the religion that determines the culture does not distinguish private religious responsibility from public political responsibility, that a very high percentage of its followers take the words of its Scripture and its preachers as literal and unquestionable truth, that it glorifies martyrdom, that it takes insults to its Prophet with blood seriousness — to justify considering a change in our laws about public violence.

So we set the law in front of us.  In Ohio (typical) it makes incitement to violence a crime only when the conduct "takes place under circumstances that create a clear and present danger that any offense of violence will be committed" or when "it proximately results in the commission of any offense of violence."  We close our ears to all shouts from the marketplace, all name-calling, all accusations, all guilt-thrusts, all cries of pain, all yells of triumph.  We close our minds to all judgments of moralists, preachers, priests, wise men, God.  We focus only on the danger.  Does it have to be "present"? 

We say no because we have seen Muslims inspired by the words of imams commit violence well after the words were spoken to them, as when training in Afghanistan or Syria intervenes.  That's a danger and our security is not ensured.  So we drop "present" from the first condition and scratch the whole second condition.  (See Post 273.)

Is the danger "clear"?  We're looking at another of those objective-sounding, confidently used terms (like "reasonable" in "reasonable doubt") that conceal their subjectivity (clear to whom?  reasonable to what mind?).  But, seeing that our common, liberal way of thinking about religions, inductively, will in this case leave us insecure (we're not worried about majority behavior) we think deductively and conclude that this religion encourages, and at least allows, such behavior (see Post 273). In any case we can accept whatever meaning of "clear" accumulated court decisions have given it. 

All right, let's go back and look at that warning sign.  Are we still on the right side of it? 

 I don't see how we can be on the other side, but I do see how we've opened ourselves to complaints about the law enforcement our change in the rules entails.  Our police are going to discriminate among ethnic groups and profile for one of them in surveillance.  Detectives are not going to be sitting in Methodist churches, guards are not going to be flagging Catholics.

I think most of these complaints can be silenced by pointing out that, no denying it, we are discriminating and profiling, but we are doing it in the sense of those words before they acquired the sense that racists, by their arbitrary and random actions, gave them.  Unless they can tail every citizen in the country equally our police will have to discriminate and profile.  It's a concession to their limited manpower.

For the people most directly affected by our discriminating and profiling, our Muslims, we can transpose the problem to Israel (as I did in Post 273).  Illegal settlements are being set up on the West Bank. You're a law enforcement official.  You know that in the line at check points there are going to be people who, taking their Scripture very seriously, believe that God gave them that land.  Do you want your guards to know which ones?  Do you want these believers taken aside for questioning?  And for that would you like to know which synagogue they attended and what the rabbi was saying to them?  A yes answer approves the kind of discriminating and profiling called for in our changes to our incitement-to-violence laws.

To settle an appeal in any of these cases statistics alone are sufficient.  People of this religion, holding these beliefs, have this probability of acting in this illegal way.  Our knowledge of them, our intelligence, is actionable.  We are still on the right, the objective, side of the twentieth-century's warning sign. 

That gives us security in the near future.  But dropping the word "present" also opens up the far future.  Suppose that, while reduced by the measures above, Islamist terrorist attacks are taking place ten years from now.  We can't see any reason that they won't.  The religion and culture are the same.  There's no change in the water in which these fish thrive.  Can we, within the limits our values allow us, do something about that?  Would we be justified in changing the water?  Or even, God help us, exchanging it for fresh?  

Like it or not, capable of it or not, we are in the business of manipulating culture.  How?  With what justification?  Being over-length already I'll have to take up these questions in another post.

274. Getting Serious about Islamist Terrorism

Somewhere in Mao's little red book, I forget where, he refers to Chinese peasant culture as "the water we [revolutionaries] swim in."  So, Communist soldiers, if you find an encouraging culture, go with the flow.  Don't buck the current.

Mao's metaphor condenses an obvious truth about cultures: that some encourage or tolerate particular behaviors and others discourage or inhibit them.  The comparison is so apt.  A fish thrives or sickens according to the chemistry of the water.  Guerrillas operating behind enemy lines thrive or sicken according to....  and you supply whatever mores, belief systems, myths, narratives, theology, and whatever else makes up the accommodating social chemistry.  Perfect.

OK, an obvious truth, but it arrives with a clunk when you're in the middle of a debate about Muslim religion.  Does that religion, as a determinant of culture, encourage or does it not encourage acts like the one in Paris recently or the one in New York thirteen years ago?  Is Islam the water those terrorists swim in?  Answer yes and we're making accomplices of every Muslim believer.  Answer no and we're letting nearly all of them off.

The answer doesn't matter much if you're in a faculty lounge, scoring scholar points, but if you're in a governor's chair or legislator's seat, or on a court bench, deciding what action to take or allow, it's thunder.

There you can't blow away what responsible surveys show: that there is significant support in the broader Muslim community for extremist groups.  Across eleven countries 13% of Muslims have a favorable view of Al Qaeda (Pew, 2013).   France doesn't distinguish among French voters but a survey there shows that 16% of them support ISIS.  Where else can the support come from if not from Muslims, among whom the percentage must be fairly high? 

Those figures make it hard to say that the terrorists swim in entirely different, or counter-cultural, water.  And the figures we got a few days ago, about the number of Muslim school children refusing to observe the moment of silence in memory of the slain, those figures really put it to you:  200 different incidents of disruption (Education Ministry, cited by Reuters, 1-22-15), 75% of the pupils in one class disrupting (Éric Bettancourt's class, in Clichy-sous-Bois, cited NYT 1-22-15).

Or do they make it hard?  Maybe the students misunderstood the issue.  Maybe they thought the challenge put to them was, "Do you approve of mocking The Prophet?"  Maybe they didn't see that the challenge, if there was one in the memorial silence, was, "Do you approve of the killing of those who mock The Prophet."  Young children don't always get things straight, you know. 

Whatever it was, the far right jumped on it.  Cherry-picked figures and anecdotal horrors.  And at the American extreme the usual howlers: wouldn't have happened "if the Europeans weren't for the most part unarmed"; "France needs a dictator to save itself now like Napolean."

Oh that far, and sometimes not-so-far, right.  How hard they make it for us to resolve our doubts about Muslim culture by putting any kind of challenge to Muslims.  David Cameron tried it recently with a letter to 1000 Muslim leaders in Britain and was told by some leaders that he "sounded like the far right."  The last people a liberal wants to sound like.

Cameron's challenge, though put moderately and gently, is essentially the challenge all of us Westerners would, I think, like to put to mainstream Muslims:  "Distinguish yourselves.  Show that you take these acts as seriously as we do.  Satisfy us."

And, I think, we would like to make it clear that "sounds-like" counter-challenges are not serious.  They are moves in the guilt-by-association game, the game postmodern Westerners are so good at and Easterners are learning.  It's Tom Smothers' game.  Tell Tom his shirttail's out and he'll ask why you hate him.  (See Post 97.)  Serious responses address what's out there, visible in behavior and doctrine. 

Most Muslim leaders in Britain responded seriously, but enough didn't to make you wonder.  Talha Ahmad, of the Muslim Council of Britain, told Sky News that the Cameron-approved letter had "all the hallmarks of very poor judgement which feeds into an Islamophobic narrative"  (The Nation, 1-20-15).  How does Cameron deny the feed?

What would it take to persuade Mr. Ahmad that he's not being serious?  How about citing the way some mainstream Jews have responded to criticism of settlements on the West Bank?  Fundamentalist, extremist Jews, claiming that God gave Jews that land, power the settling.   When mainstream Jews say that complaints about it feed into an anti-Semitic narrative, or that they unjustifiably connect the Jewish religion with the settlers' actions, or that the settler's religion is not the same religion as that of mainstream Jews (i.e., that they are not all swimming in the same Hebrew water), those Jews, you (and half the world) say, are not making a serious contribution.  Right, Mr. Ahmad?  Right, mainstream Muslims?  We've got some shirttails out here.

This is such a complicated, difficult issue, and people on both sides are so wired about it, that you wonder if we'll ever get anyplace.  Maybe we won't.  But we'll be making a good start if we can agree on what is a serious contribution to the debate and what is not.

273. Western Liberal in Agony

Man, these French Muslims are tying us Western liberals in knots.  Like:  The president of a mosque is asked by a mayor to help keep their town's Muslim youth from going jihadist in Syria and he (according to Midi Libre) says, "This is their choice.  It is not for me to judge them.”

They are free citizens of a free country.  Until they harm a fellow citizen that country, by the central principle of Mill's On Liberty, cannot justifiably do anything to them.  They are exercising their human right. 

So Lahoucine Goumri (the mosque president) can stick it to the mayor of Lunel (and me): Do you want me to condemn a man for simply exercising his human right? to make his own moral choice? to hold his own beliefs?

And we (at least I) find ourselves answering, "You're damned right we do.  We can't wait for those beliefs to play out into consequences.  They're too awful.  And they follow so obviously.   Believe the history (that ever since the Crusades the West has been out to get the East), believe the sociology (that Westerners exploit Easterners when they live together in the same country), believe the morality (that abstinent, God-fearing Easterners are ethically superior to indulgent, God-defying Westerners), believe the theology (that there's a special place in Heaven for Eastern martyrs) and you've got a high probability of an attack on Westerners.  Including Westerners whose faith in John Stuart Mill keeps them from making you a security risk."

So here I am, a Mill liberal, patrolling as a thought policeman.  How painful.  And the pain gets worse when the New York Times tells me that "instead of condemning the surge of young recruits, Mr. Goumri told local news media that the policies of President François Hollande were the main culprit and complained that it was not his job to denounce the jihadists when nobody protested French citizens who traveled to Israel to help the army 'kill Palestinian babies.'"

Unless there's protest on the other side terrorist acts by Islamists — taking down airliners, blowing up schools, killing Western journalists — are justified.  If he believes that he's dangerous.  And if he believes that martyrdom is a good thing he's more dangerous.  Dangerous beliefs make dangerous people.

Dangerous people?  Because of what they believe or how they worship?  That's the thought of a fascist.  And of medieval persecutors.  "You're the sort of people who need Christian blood for their matzo balls." 

I'm hurting.  But with Mr. Goumri twisting the knife at least I've got a pain I can calibrate.  I see that it will vary directly with the guilt I feel for supporting Israel in its actions against the Palestinians (see Post 214).  Israeli strikes have killed Palestinian babies.  Go all the way backing the original takeover of Palestinian land (from which nearly all horrors inflicted by Palestinians follow blamelessly) and I'm crushed under it.  Back only the measures to stop rocket attacks from Gaza and my head is nearly high.

So the best I can do is turn the dial down.  I don't back the original takeover but I back protecting what's taken over. 

"Not back the move into Palestine?  You'll deny the poor Jews of Europe, those remaining after the Holocaust, a sanctuary in their ancient homeland?"  

It's the old contest, the voice of the tribe against the voice of mankind.  And with me the first drowns out the second.  As it did earlier when I walked into Israel (see Post 214 again) and recognized my Judeo-Christianity.  So I have to support the takeover of Palestinian land.  Mr. Goumri has a case.

All I can do now is argue that it's a weaker case than mine, which has to be strong enough to justify serious restrictions on Mr. Goumri's freedom.  I can't argue it properly here but I can sum it up in one sentence: Since your beliefs are a threat to me and my people I am entitled to act against you.

There you are, right away, what we liberals all gag on.  To swallow it you have to, first, credit the claim that beliefs play out into consequences.  Then you have to quit thinking inductively about religions.

A good test of your gag reaction is found in Israel, where we have fundamentalist Jews sneaking into the Occupied Territory to set up illegal settlements.  Do you gag on the notion that this action has something to do with their belief that God literally gave them that land?  Would you say that somebody who holds that belief is more likely than others to take extreme, illegal action?  If so you have sufficiently suppressed your gag reaction to swallow the notion that those Muslims who hold certain beliefs (like those historical, sociological, moral, and theological beliefs listed earlier) will be more likely than others to take extreme, illegal action.

You may note here that you have quit thinking inductively about religions.  An inductive thinker asks, "What behavior is characteristic of believers?"  He discards the exceptional, the extreme.  If he's a traditional liberal he will go on to make a case for tolerance.  The deductive thinker asks, "What behavior follows logically from these beliefs?"  It won't matter whether the behavior is characteristic or not because the correlative questions are, "What behavior do they encourage?  What do they allow?" 

We are distinguishing among religions by looking at their edges.  We discriminate for purposes of our own security.  In the case of terrorist acts that kill thousands one tenth of one percent will suffice. "What deeds do its alienated youth characteristically perform in order to feel what all alienated youth want to feel, powerful and admired?  What turns its losers into winners?  What satisfies its psychotics?" The answer will vary with the religion and when we find one that threatens our security we are justified in restricting the freedom of its preachers. 

That, to my mind, makes a stronger case than Mr. Goumri can make.  I don't know how accepting it would play out in France, but I can see how it would play out in the U.S.  Say Mr. Goumri lived in Ohio, my state.   The law (Ohio Revised Code, Title 29, Chapter 2917) now makes incitement to violence a crime only when

(1) The conduct takes place under circumstances that create a clear and present danger that any offense of violence will be committed;

(2) The conduct proximately results in the commission of any offense of violence.

The legislature would vote to remove the words "and present" from the first specification and drop the second.   By deduction from the beliefs of the religion Mr. Goumri preaches the danger is clear.

Satisfying the law is one thing; satisfying the liberal conscience is another.  The latter tells us that we are discriminating, we are profiling, we are seeing harm where no harmful acts have been performed, we are curbing freedom of religion, we are denying freedom of speech. 

Each will answer his conscience in his own way, and I don't expect it to be easy.  We are seeing harm where no harm has been done, we are curbing freedom of religion and freedom of speech.  That will torment us unless we see that we are doing it all for the sake of our security, to which we give a higher priority.  (If you don't give it a higher priority now, conscience, you've got more explaining to do than we have.)  As for discriminating and profiling, I think they are handled by getting the conscience to think a little harder about those words "discriminate" and "profile," which have larger application than the liberal conscience customarily assigns.

272. The Lying, Cheating London Economist

I refer to The Economist the old way because I'm thinking of integrity.   It was the soul of it.  Now I have received in the mail from that newsmagazine an offer for subscribers to the New York Times which tells me, in big type, in a box, that instead of the regular price of The Economist for twelve weeks, $334.97, I can pay $15.00.  This, with the goodies broken down and individually priced, is repeated in a column below, with an adjacent column showing that all come to me with my one payment of $15.00, the number now displayed in a red box.

Then on the detachable Preferred Discount Order Form, following the biggest YOU PAY ONLY, is the $15.00 again, in the biggest box.  Only when I look at the fine print above where I give my credit card number and sign up do I get the operating words: "You will be billed $15 on your credit card immediately and then $15 every month thereafter."

This didn't really harm me because I am onto what the Economist is up to — sort of the way a Muscovite was onto what Pravda was up to.  You don't expect straight shooting.  The only problem is that this is coming from people I thought were straight shooters.

"No, it's coming from crooked shooters they hired, experts in the subscription scam."

Makes no difference.  Hire a crook, become a crook.  You cause the harm.  If one of our low-mentation, bad eyesight residents here falls for this scam she is harmed.  The Economist did it to her.

Luckily my mentation is still high enough for me to avoid this harm, bank account harm, but still, even if no bank account in the whole place is harmed, something is harmed.  I think it's the culture.  No, not the American culture (though that may be harmed too) but one of those sub-categories we now freely call "cultures" — the culture of Wall Street, the culture of book collectors, the culture of pool players.  Here it's the culture of liberal letters, the culture of, as I see them, readers of the New York Times and The Economist. 

We went so long thinking, as John Stuart Mill did, of harm as individual harm that we still have a hard time getting our minds around social harm, which is only vaguely felt anyway.  We cry out much more readily over the first.  It's the clarity of a bank account against the obscurity of an unsatisfying tennis afternoon.  It's your score on the wire against your knowledge that you played dirty pool.

You have to be there and feel it.  I feel it when Jimmy Connors comes over and rubs out the ball-mark his opponent has asked the judge to inspect.  The culture of tennis is harmed.  As the culture of baseball is harmed when our high school's hero, impersonating a fielder's teammate, yells "I got it" near a descending fly ball.  The culture of all athletes is harmed when Mohammed Ali says "I am the greatest."  When these actions are admired (as Howard Cosell admired Mohammed Ali, and led the nation's admiration) the culture is changed for the worse.  (I reveal a culture that scorns cultural relativism.)

The harm deepens when you become complicit.  I play dirty pool because everybody around me is playing dirty pool, and no longer calls it that.  I yell "I got it" close to the fielder because that's the way to win, however many painful collisions follow from my poisoning of their system.  The harm radiates because now the language is harmed, the trust of words within a culture. 

Trust in words.  Oh how our culture, editors of The Economist, depends on it.  How it distinguishes us from salesmen at the door, from hucksters on television, from voices on the phone trying to suck you into a "survey."  That culture.

I'm not laying the Decline of the West on you, editors.  All print people have to make their buck too, especially now.  I know that there's a price to pay for free-enterprise capitalism, my country's system, the system I have accepted as the best.  I know that the Invisible Hand gets dirty sometimes.  But geez.  You were my hero.  You should be the last to play dirty pool.

271. A Dream After Reading Memoirs by Presidential Advisers

First decree of the Word Czar:  No memo submitted to the President by a security adviser will contain the words "evil," "vile," "depraved," "vicious," "monstrous," "heinous" or any other word indicating that the nation is dealing with a ruler of despicable character.  Nothing that a ruler does entirely inside his country or to his own people will be referred to in the context of security.

Second decree: No memo submitted by the Secretary of Defense will contain the word "policy."  The words "objectives," "aims," and "strategy" will be used only with respect to goals already determined by the Secretary of State and the President.  Corollary:  the position Under Secretary of Defense for Policy will be eliminated.

Third decree: The CIA is subject to the above restrictions and in addition is ordered to eliminate the word "action" from its memos.  That agency's memos will be restricted entirely to information.

Fourth decree: No security advisor will be permitted to use, in memos referring to people outside this country, the words "liberty," "freedom," or "self-determination" with respect to their aims, or "oppressed," "exploited," or "deprived" with respect to their condition.

Fifth decree:  Atrocities will never be spoken of as actions characteristic of particular peoples; all peoples will be assumed to be, under the right conditions, capable of atrocities.

Coda:

(1) No decree of the Word Czar is binding on the Political Adviser, or any adviser for whom words serve the power that gives power to all in the executive branch.  For example, if voters want to hear talk about human rights then the Political Adviser may freely advise talk about human rights.

(2) No decree of the Word Czar is binding on the Diplomatic Adviser (the Secretary of State), or any of his or her subordinates for whom words serve international power.  For example, if talk about human rights weakens a nation or faction (say by causing internal division) that the Secretary of State finds it useful to weaken, or strengthens a nation or faction that the Secretary of State finds it useful to strengthen, then he may freely advise talk about human rights.

(3) No decree of the Word Czar is binding on the Legacy Adviser, or any subordinates for whom words serve to influence historians.  For example, if the Legacy Adviser thinks talk about human rights will, by indicating that those rights are an aim, raise historians' estimates of a President's performance, then he may freely advise talk about human rights.

Note:  All decrees are issued on the understanding that the restructuring of the Executive Branch is complete.  See the President's orders

(1) that all functions of the National Security Adviser and the National Security Council will be subsumed under the Department of State or the Department of the Interior (expanded to include Homeland Security);

(2) that all functions of the CIA having to do with action, covert or overt, will be taken over by the Department of State (to which any agent may be transferred);

(3) that the President will meet regularly only with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Interior, the White House Chief of Staff, and the four new appointees, Political Adviser, Linguistic Adviser, Resource Adviser, and Legacy Adviser (the Permanent Advisers);

(4) that all other meetings of advisers with the President will be ad hoc, or contingency,  meetings, with attendance determined by the contingency and the expertise or wisdom available to meet it;

(5) that for help in selecting attendees at contingency meetings the President will employ the Resource Adviser, charged with matching contingency to available expertise or wisdom, in which he or she will become expert;

(6) that official position will not be a qualification or a disqualification for attendance at contingency meetings (the Vice President will be an attendee only if selected, though he is expected to attend as an observer);

(7) that the Resource Adviser may attend any meeting, as an observer in order to gain knowledge for future selections;

(8) that the Linguistic Adviser (the adviser charged with keeping verbal and conceptual order — the Word Czar) may attend any meeting, as an observer, in order to gain knowledge for future decrees.

Note for those expecting to be observed: It will be well to keep in mind the purposes of the President's restructuring: (1) to avoid the transfer fallacy — taking expertise in one area to be transferable to expertise in another, as, say, from warfare to foreign policy; (2) to avoid the personality danger, where a person (say a general), or a type (say military) has such force or charisma (as gained, say, through past success, as in World War II) that his lack of expertise or wisdom with respect to the immediate contingency goes unrecognized.  (The President's gratitude to and respect for the Joint Chiefs of Staff should not conceal from you the fact that their removal from all advisory meetings — the Secretary of Defense will speak for them — reflects his desire to avoid the charisma danger, clearly evident in their imposing presence in the past.

The President recognizes as a final danger that you, particularly if you come from within the government structure (remember, the Resource Adviser draws on the entire nation for expertise), may be so intimidated by the presence of the Linguistic Adviser that your advice may not be as free and full as it would otherwise be.  That adviser recognizes the problem but believes that if you give single-minded attention to the contingency before you, defining it and locating it to the best of your ability, you will forget him, see what is required, and go on to give the President the best advice he can get.