- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
As are many aspects of Christianity. The French Revolution wanted to establish a modern, liberal democracy. All have been associated with terrible violence.
Nietzsche said it best - "It is not their love of man, but the impotence of that love that keeps the Christians of today from burning us."
If you truly, honestly believed that you had a unique insight into what is good, then you have no choice but to believe that your leadership is a positive benefit to others. If you believe that the good you possess is a form of final, ultimate good, then any opposition must be aligned with evil, whether it realizes it or not. And there is no fate worse than being aligned with evil. Anything you do to an opponent is a net benefit if it gets them off their false path, or prevents them from persuading others from adopting their false path.
Many people witness the atrocities of history, and falsely blame the notion of good. They think that if people did not have a universal, ultimate vision of right and wrong, they would not perpetrate atrocities. These people are misguided.
The Crusades and the Inquisition were not about Christianity. The reign of terror was not about fraternity, liberty, and equality. The soviet purges were not about establishing a classless state. What they were about is something more fundamental and non-ideological - the fact that reasonable persuasion and good intentions can not get people to do what you want.
These issues are more complicated than a single issue, of course, but central to them is the fact that these people, who knew they were only trying help, and knew they had only the best intentions, went out into the world and met people who refused to be converted. Worse yet, they actively worked to reverse the progress that had already been made. How do you respond to that?
It's not an easy question to answer. It's not false to assume that some opponents of these movements were in fact as wicked as they were portrayed (not every ideological conflict is between people of good will). Violence is tempting because it is a way of decisively removing people who refuse to listen to reason.
And that's the trap.
In a climate of violence, reason becomes impossible. The sort of wise and cautious people who advise moderation and reconciliation become enemies every bit as vile as ideological foes. Criminals, thugs, and soldiers ascend to the highest ranks of power. Inevitably, whatever good was initially sought is lost - the ability to decisively remove one's opponents becomes the only arbiter of influence. At its worst, you elevate people like Stalin or Napolean, figures who are the antithesis of what the original ideologogues valued.
The ideology was never the problem. The problem is the adoption of military force as an acceptable means of enforcing the ideology.
This is a problem that will persist for as long as people with humanitarian vision continue to feel the irrational shame that comes along with pacifistic impotence. Thugs, and only thugs, have the ability to force compliance.
