March 21, 2003
Reconciling Other Views
I'm actually very uncomfortable having strong opinions. As soon as you put yourself out on the limb, you're more likely to be alone if you then realize you've missed something. And I don't like being "alone" in that sense; I believe new ideas don't have much worth if it's impossible for you to convince others of them as well. So when I have a strong opinion, I find myself wanting to tear it down to make sure it's really solid. Not all the time and not at the exclusion of everything else, but it's definitely a part of me.So I try to reconcile views in my head. How can I keep the strong, intelligent, opposing views in my head while also believing what I believe? Isn't it important to reconcile opposing viewpoints? (This is probably related to why I'm a programmer.)
So, I try and find strong pro-war arguments. Or I stumble across them. First, a funny one that scripts out a pretend conversation between a warmonger and a peacenik. I've read that one, I think it's pretty hilarious. Although it does of course cut the warmonger off at the knees. But for something that is more serious, read Tony Blair's Speech. I haven't actually gotten all the way through this one.
But I do know there are some complicated things to reconcile. Protesting how Bush has handled this is of course pretty easy. He's treated the nation like we're a bunch of schoolchildren. Contrast his speeches with Blair's. And clumsy diplomacy is a threat to our national interests, I firmly believe that. But it gets more complicated after that point. Bush's stated reasons for war are often idiotic, but does that mean there are none? I'm not saying there are, but even that question is enough to fracture the anti-Bush crowd just a little bit. And then you start arguing each of the reasons themselves. Saddam a murdering torturous evil thug? Well, sure, but... other world leaders have tortured people? Yes, but how many have a history of using chemical weapons on their own people? I don't actually know the answer to that but I think it throws a kink in the anti-war argument of "Well why aren't we invading all these OTHER countries with torture history?" I think that argument is stupid anyway because it points out an inconsistency that the anti-war folks would be against if it didn't exist. Do we really mean, "Well, if you also invade Saudi Arabia and North Korea and Columbia, then okay, I'm in favor of you invading Iraq"? I mean, duh. It's not an argument of integrity.
So, this is all incredibly hard to reconcile. When I think about what I'm not in favor of, I'm definitely not supportive of Hussein's regime existing over the last 12 years. How do I reconcile that with not invading? Of all the anger floating around, why do I not hear loud, widely marketed views about what we actually could have done to peacefully remove him from power? Do you believe those methods don't exist? As soon as I start to grudgingly think that someone's got to do something, I feel myself on a slippery slope. And when you're on a slippery slope it's because you've internally accepted something that you disagree with, it feels like a self-compromise. There's just got to be something we've missed here.