The Editors Have Bested Me Once Again

God damn it.

1. Here:

The great untold tragedy of our age is how often I get the feeling that Public Enemy songs are secretly about my life.

Don't miss the article by Robert Higgs to which the Editors point:

In a characteristically unwitting way, President George W. Bush himself stumbled upon a resolution of the seeming paradox when he told Time magazine’s interviewer last summer that the war had proved to be a “catastrophic success”... the term “catastrophic success” does express the character of the war precisely. We need only bear in mind that the catastrophe afflicts one set of people, whereas the success accrues to an entirely different set.

Moreover, to appreciate the war’s success, we must keep in the forefront of our thinking the instrumental rationality of its perpetrators. We must ask: Who bears the responsibility for launching and continuing the war? What are these individuals trying to achieve? And have they in fact achieved these objectives? Having answered these questions correctly, we shall be obliged to conclude that the war has been a huge success for those who brought it about, however disastrous it has been for many others, especially for the unfortunate people of Iraq.

It was, of course, also a disaster for the American dead and wounded.

This makes me think of nice liberals who criticized Ariel Sharon during the most violent phase of the recent intifada. They'd say: Ariel Sharon has failed! He hasn't kept Israelis safe from terrorism!

Which always made me wonder: Uh... what makes you think Ariel Sharon was trying to keep Israelis safe from terrorism?

It always seemed to me that Ariel Sharon's goal was getting into power and staying there. It's not that he wants Israelis to die. (Well, probably he doesn't.) It's just that if keeping Israelis safe and him getting into and staying in power come into conflict, well... lots of Israelis have to die.

2. And here:

Remember: sometimes, up is down AND up.

I myself have always planned to make the same general point made here by the Man de la Poor. But I never got around to it. Thus, I am embittered.

In this specific case, we had this progression:

A. Gigantic tsunami
B. Desperate need for assistance from richer nations
C. Shamefully small offer from the US
D. Vociferous criticism of shamefully small offer
E. Bitching and moaning, like that by John Podhoretz, about vociferous criticism:

Even as tears spring into the most hard-hearted person's eyes at both the unimaginable scope of the tragedy and at the wrenching individual stories of loss, opinion leaders just can't help themselves. They are using this cataclysm as little more than cheap debate fodder about the nature and character of the United States, its president and its citizens.

F. Heat felt by George Bush and others via vociferous criticism
G. Huge increase in aid from US in attempt to reduce heat

As the Editors say:

It's not pretty, but it's the way things work... not nice to look at, but it moved $300+ million in the right direction.

Yes: the way things work. The people in charge don't do the right thing because they are nice. You don't get to be in charge by being nice -- not here and now, and not in any country ever. But the saving grace of democracy is that the people in charge WILL do the right thing, if they're made to feel NOT doing the right thing means they'll stop being in charge. That's what they actually do care about, and that's why vociferous criticism matters.

I guarantee if you dug up old Soviet newspapers from after the Chernobyl meltdown, you'd find bitching and moaning just like that of Podhoretz -- bitching and moaning about how liberal elites were saying the Soviet government should be more open and do more to help the people effected by the disaster.

In fact, Podhoretz is so lazy, maybe he just swiped an editorial from Pravda and changed a few words:

Even as tears spring into the most hard-hearted person's eyes at both the unimaginable scope of the tragedy and at the wrenching individual stories of loss, opinion leaders just can't help themselves. They are using this cataclysm as little more than cheap debate fodder about the nature and character of the Soviet Union, its politburo and its citizens.