George Washington And Israel

Daniel Larison details a classic example of intellectual dishonesty in the modern conservative movement, covering the rather nasty winger response to Ross Douthat's argument that Glenn Beck and friends are entertainers more than anything else, and that some criticism of these conservative political figures is not only allowable but badly needed.  (There I go agreeing with Douthat again.  Go figure.)   However, there's a larger point here:

The other day, Ross called for other conservatives to be more critical of Republican politicians and conservative “entertainers,” and Jim Manzi made the mistake of taking up this challenge and applying intellectual rigor and honesty to a prominent conservative radio host’s book on a subject he understands fairly well. The inevitable circling-of-the-wagons that has followed illustrates perfectly the problem Manzi was trying to address in Levin’s work. Not only do Manzi’s colleagues automatically defend Levin’s sub-par arguments, but they regard it as horribly bad form to dare criticize those arguments with the vehemence that their poor quality would seem to merit. Small wonder that there are so few “magazines and conservative columnists…willing to call out Republican politicians (and, to a lesser extent, conservative entertainers) for offering bromides instead of substance, and for pandering instead of grappling with real policy questions.”

One need only quickly read Levin’s chapter “On Self-Preservation” to find that the sloppiness Manzi skewers so effectively is not limited to the discussion of climate change. In the early part of the chapter, Levin begins by misrepresenting the content of Washington’s Farewell Address:

The address makes clear he did so not because neutrality was an end in itself, but because he feared that taking sides could split the country apart. (p.177)

Now, Larison is certainly right here, but that farewell address by our first President is deserving of a second look.

This is a good example of a deeply misleading half-truth. Washington was concerned about passionate attachments to other countries partly because of the domestic political effects, but he also explicitly argued that the American interest dictated that we remain free of foreign political attachments for many other reasons:

Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

And what George Washington said over 200 years ago still applies to modern politics today, especially with countries like Israel.  Washington wasn't afraid of splitting the country, he was afraid that we'd get into an entanglement that threatened our national security when an ally inevitably decides to do what they see is best for them, and not us.  Washington's words still ring true today in the 21st century.  We've literally gone to war because of our relationship.

Will Iran be the next war we fight on behalf of Tel Aviv?  The same intellectual dishonesty that prevents criticism of conservative leaders prevents criticism of Israel as well, and it prevents any sort of substantial policy discussions as Larison says.  For his part, President Obama is resisting calls to give in to Israel.  The grumbling that Israel will soon have no choice but to go to war with Iran is exactly what George Washington feared the most and warned America about so many years ago.