1. I’ve been getting a good number of strange emails complaining about my neocon, warmongering pseudo-realism, as well as about my hyper-technological love of cosmic conquest– of THE FINAL FRONTIER, as some say.
2. So here are some personal observations: I didn’t say and don’t believe that war with China is inevitable, and I’m not provoking the Chinese. But war is always likely eventually, and free and powerful nations have the duty always to be ready for it. The Chinese, of course, are getting more and more ready. That doesn’t mean they have a plan for invading us, but great powers, they assume, will collide. Thinking in terms of nations and wars and all that is part of getting over the postpolitical fantasy characteristic of contemporary elites, especially in Europe. A variant of that fantasy seems present in the resurgence of Midwestern isolationism on the “American conservative” right. Wars, that isolationist thought is, is caused by greedy capitalists, and so no more greedy capitalism, no more war. There’s also the libertarian (Ron Paul) variant of that theory: War is caused by people who want to be more than greedy capitalists by intervening politically in the affairs of others. As long as we don’t bother them, they won’t bother us.
But we postmodern conservatives who think politically–although not only politically–believe that it’s always prudent to be ready for war.
3. I personally have very little interest in space travel or in science fiction. I was bored by the moon walk (the real one–although also by Michael’s). A guy gets all dressed up in a huge, ugly, incredibly cumbersome suit to climb around on godforsaken rocks. Although some political theorists–such as Paul Cantor and Diana Schaub– find deep meaning in STAR TREK and SPOCK and KIRK, I always thought the show was pretty one-dimensional. I may be a nerd, but I’m not at all a TREKKIE nerd. I once went to a conference all about the discussion of Heinlein novels, and I was mostly pretty underwhelmed. I did appreciate the curious mixture of libertarianism and militarism of STARSHIP TROOPERS, with the distinction between citizen-warriors and apolitical or disenfranchised hedonists (our bourgeois bohemian libertarians). Heinlein: You can do what you want, but you can’t be a political actor without taking real or fighting responsibility for your country’s future. The shower scene in the movie version (which is mostly pretty bad) illustrates the core egalitarian teaching of Book V of Plato’s REPUBLIC. In general, almost all science fiction that’s about human life in space or on other planets seems dysutopian to me. THE REPUBLIC, Strauss says, is the leading example of dysutopian literature.
4. It seems to me that most people who are enthralled with the wonderful adventure that is space travel and planet hopping have “issues” with their merely human lives. Walker Percy, for instance, noted that Carl Sagan searched the cosmos for ETIs because he had theoretically reduced the actual people he knew to insignificance–to beings unworthy of knowing and loving. Percy asked and answered the question: “Why is Carl Sagan so lonely?”
5. Percy also asked why it makes sense to search the cosmos for “aliens” when the most strange and wonderful alienated beings imaginable–beings lost in the cosmos–already live right here on this planet. The big issue: What or who is more wonderful? Planets and stars and physics and such or people? I’m not saying there aren’t “aliens” somewhere else in the cosmos. I am saying we already know–more or less–what they’ll be like.
July 21st, 2009 | 12:05 pm
Peter, there is “readying yourself for war”…the putative role of the Department of Defense and then there is the reality, a Department of Offense that is spread on bases throughout the planet, attempting to fight wars of occupation from a video screen and in general, expecting the nation to further bankrupt itself in support of an overall goal that is inchoate at best. It is odd that a nation which found its independence through guerilla warfare would now be investing in a form of military expansionism taylor-made to fail in the face of guerilla war.
The military, a fine and robust institution in this nation is being improperly directed by a civilian bureaucracy that is becoming ever-more feckless, ever more history-averse and pathologically uneconomic. If this be politics, it is the politics of the manic-depressive.
Your statement “Post Modern Conservatives who think politically” would seem to imply that anyone who questions the current military and diplomatic and economic policy of the government is not thinking “politically”. Quite the contrary my friend, my concerns about the current tentative American Imperialism are directed specifically to its impolitic nature.
That is, unless you might believe the Athenian assault on Sicily did not have a political dimension and then we have a larger problem to deal with.
July 21st, 2009 | 12:16 pm
To be honest, I have recently developed a new ‘attitude’ about the Chinese. In years gone by, influenced by old G.I.’s who’d piled their sons by the hundreds up around our tanks up on the ‘Frozen Chosen,’ I’d thought they ate fish heads and rice, wore funny clothes, and were practicing commies. Now I think they’re a much more humane group, polluting their air and water in much the same manner we did back in the fifties and sixties when we had those jobs. It’s all very confusing for me, but I’ll deal with it as I buy their products at Wally World.
I was hoping that Peter was going to confess to be a card carrying Trekkie, alas…there goes three years of ‘comments’ to Peter’s posts!
This fascination with E.T., space travel, ect. seems to me to be an indicator of a rather severe cultural case of alienation, mentioned in an earlier ‘comment.’
Point 5 is Lawler at his best.
July 21st, 2009 | 12:21 pm
I actually don’t disagree that much with some of what you say, purged of the exaggerations. Certainly the talk about ending lots of regimes about 9/11 was somewhere between imprudent and nuts. I don’t think that’s current American policy now. But I also think that we’re stuck with being somewhat imperialistic.
July 21st, 2009 | 1:34 pm
Again, I’m just thinking of the Chinese as a regulation size and rate great and going to get greater power.
July 21st, 2009 | 2:25 pm
But war is always likely eventually, and free and powerful nations have the duty always to be ready for it. The Chinese, of course, are getting more and more ready.
Do modern nation states really have the appetite – or the “need” – for large-scale conflict? I see lots of Somalia and Iraq and Afghanistan type wars in our future – low tech, confined geographic areas, populations feeling someone else is too much a part of their turf.
As for the Chinese…..in the coming decades they will have a lot of youngish men, few women, and lots of empty space next door in Russia……..therein is the contradiction, perhaps, to my sentiment above.
July 21st, 2009 | 2:45 pm
I really liked this blog posting because of the fact that it aptly describes walker percy’s main assertion in Lost in the Cosmos. I also liked it because it asserted very strongly that “postmodern conservatives who think politically–although not only politically–believe that it’s always prudent to be ready for war.”
I would only say that I dont think that politically Ron Paul would be against having a good millitary… but i certainly dont believe political libertarians necessarily believe that capitalism is the end all and be all of conflict.
July 21st, 2009 | 2:50 pm
The Chinese working age population peaks in the next 3 years. After which, their population starts into a Japan-like slow decline. Although it is always prudent to have some preparation for war (Machiavelli’s admonishment that states that have no defense are effeminate), I don’t expect a WWII style conflict with China. I do expect lots of Afghanistan or Somalia-like ethnic regional conflicts and occasional terrorism. We will have to deal with these matters from time to time.
July 21st, 2009 | 3:09 pm
“exaggerations”…? O.K. , I may have gotten a little florid, I’ll repent and simply assert “somewhat manic -depressive”.
July 21st, 2009 | 3:42 pm
Kurt9, “I do expect lots of Afghanistan or Somalia-like ethnic regional conflicts and occasional terrorism. We will have to deal with these matters from time to time.”
Why?
July 21st, 2009 | 3:47 pm
No question that the Chinese represent a formidable potential adversary. They also possess a history of outward thrust followed by somewhat unexplainable withdrawal, an equally destabilizing potential given current economic circumstances. Not to mention the potential internal unrest that generally manifests itself in the assigning of an exterior boogieman and all the hijinks there.
One of my favorite bits of trivia about the Chinese comes from some history textbooks in their schools which include a diagram explaining the history of their culture. It spirals out from a beginning at Peking Man. Kind of makes the voyages of Columbus look like a Bobby-soxer 50′s night in comparison.
I suppose our disagreement would revolve around the definition of the modifier “somewhat” when attached to “imperialistic”.
I did however, at the nudge of the enthusiastic Mr. Cheeks ,practice a little due-diligence and stumbled upon an article of yours that was less than a fully enthusiastic embrace of one of my favorite objects of noirish molto agitato: the liberal’s favorite Conservative, the N.Y. Times cockeyed idea of conservative thought: Mr. Brooks. As such, I shall refrain from using my more dirty Mexican Wrestling Moves whence pillorying you. The “Baying Donkey” is out till further notice. Mulish Moves are always the most pernicious.
July 22nd, 2009 | 4:07 am
By a similar logic James Cook or Francis Xavier should’ve just stayed home as there were plenty of wonderful and fascinating things in Europe.
The distances between stars does mean that really exploring the Universe would require years of separation from everyone. A separation even from communicating with others. I think wanting that is maybe a sign of something odd or alienated in a person. However I get the feeling that’s not what you mean. That even if we could go to Tau Ceti, and talk to the folks as easily as we do from Hong Kong, you’d still be against it. I’m getting a bit set-in-my-ways in my thirties, but not that much.
This planet really is just a small thing in comparison to the Universe. If we could meet other “children of God” and see other lands why would that be so terrible or a sign of emotional problems? That we can’t is something I find slightly sad. (Although I’m relatively convinced we can’t, not unless we’re willing to essentialy send an isolated colony of people on a decades long trip with uncertain results we’ll never really learn about)
July 22nd, 2009 | 9:35 am
Thomas R, So a good thought. Now I seem to have gone too far in the porcher, anti-exploration direction. I perfectly agree that the other aliens out there are children of God and in that way worth meeting. But we don’t have to meet them to know who a child of God is. I was mainly emoting my personal aversion above, to balance out my philosphic case for below. Still, I don’t think discovering new areas on our planet–which are bound to have both people and stuff we need–is the same thing as journeying to Mars.
July 22nd, 2009 | 10:41 am
Now now Mr. Lawler, my caricaturometer just clanged off a big report and I need to object, most strenuously , your tarring of all “porchers” as wheat-smacked luddites. I myself began the use of a microwave 2 years ago. Then again, to be honest, I’ll be honest and admit to certain oddball tendencies.
As to the welcoming committee for any aliens, I am put in mind of smallpox and the demise of somewhere north of 90% of the Pequots and Mohegans who seem to have been repaid, in the fullness of time with the largest grossing casinos in the Western Hemisphere. In other words, be careful what we wish for…all around.
July 22nd, 2009 | 2:52 pm
The fulity of hoping to escape the human condition through science or space travel or meeting aliens was summed up by the science fiction character Buckaroo Banzai. “Wherever you go, there you are.” Though I would add that quite a bit of science fiction (Babylon 5 comes to mind) deals with our inability to leave our humanity behind – for better and worse.
July 22nd, 2009 | 3:25 pm
Can’t there be a horizonal purpose for a culture in the goal of expansion into space, Peter?
And maybe biotech has taken the strange turns it has because of the end of the space race.
I’ve been calling for us to go to Mars for a year now, on exactly these grounds.
Jody
July 22nd, 2009 | 10:07 pm
All good comments. I realize that the porcher thing is all caricature for me. Bring back the peasants if you can, just so I don’t have to be one. I”m not for welcoming committees for aliens (see MARS ATTACKS), and the worry about the accidental introduction of diseases which will kill us all (as the European diseases did most of the indigenous Americans) is perfectly reasonable. I’m sticking with my personal view that Mars and its conquest just aren’t very interesting, but if there are those who are deeply inspired by it, more power to them. Jody’s argument seems to be an interplanetary version of national greatness conservatism, which I think is a real part of genuine or postmodern conservatism. Still, i have my doubts, as does Pete, that it would curb the human impulse to hope for indefinite longevity through biotechnology. For me, the horizontal purpose for the space program is primarily military necessity.
July 23rd, 2009 | 10:06 am
In regard to your statement in #2 above. You may rest assured that the Chinese most likely do have a plan for invading the United States; they also most likely have a plan for invading Taiwan, Japan, North Korea, Russia, India, etc. Thay is what the military of all nations does; they plan for war and all its contingencies. What do you think they do all day? I would suspect that the United States military has a plan for a ground and air war in China. At least I hope they do.
July 23rd, 2009 | 10:07 am
I do agree with what some of you are saying. I don’t think we’ll escape the flaws and foibles of the human condition by settling Mars or meeting extraterrestrials. I don’t think ETs are going to “save us.” I think I’ve felt that was unlikely since I was a kid.
I guess really I just think it’d be neat. And also helpful if Earth ever gets hit by an asteroid.
July 23rd, 2009 | 10:57 am
“Gort, clatu beratta nicto!”
July 24th, 2009 | 3:55 pm
[...] Lawler of the Postmodern Conservative attacks the motives of isolationism. Daniel Larison, of the American Conservative, goes on the defensive. [...]
July 26th, 2009 | 4:56 pm
[...] Peter Lawler at PomoCon: So here are some personal observations: I didn’t say and don’t believe that war with China is inevitable, and I’m not provoking the Chinese. But war is always likely eventually, and free and powerful nations have the duty always to be ready for it. The Chinese, of course, are getting more and more ready. That doesn’t mean they have a plan for invading us, but great powers, they assume, will collide. Thinking in terms of nations and wars and all that is part of getting over the postpolitical fantasy characteristic of contemporary elites, especially in Europe. A variant of that fantasy seems present in the resurgence of Midwestern isolationism on the “American conservative” right. Wars, that isolationist thought is, is caused by greedy capitalists, and so no more greedy capitalism, no more war. There’s also the libertarian (Ron Paul) variant of that theory: War is caused by people who want to be more than greedy capitalists by intervening politically in the affairs of others. As long as we don’t bother them, they won’t bother us. But we postmodern conservatives who think politically–although not only politically–believe that it’s always prudent to be ready for war. [...]
February 5th, 2010 | 9:24 pm
[...] Lawler has written a strange, disjointed post at Postmodern Conservative in which he makes the following bizarre claims: Thinking in terms of [...]
February 5th, 2010 | 9:25 pm
[...] Lawler said plainly that he thinks so-called Midwestern isolationists indulge in a postpolitical fantasy, [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact