No religious ideology can survive without the ritualistic repetition of a catechism.<\/p>\n
I can think of no other explanation for the fact that the editorial page of the New York Times<\/em> constantly hammers away at the same moralistic themes that are undoubtedly already familiar<\/em> to readers but which presumably only become articles of faith <\/em>through regular recitations.<\/p>\n The sacred only lives through sacrifice, responsibility, productivity, and work<\/em>. In a nutshell, the so-called Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. The valorization and celebration of sacrifice–as an end unto itself; as synonymous with all that is Good–is the core of the New York Times<\/em> editorial catechism.<\/p>\n I’ve posted about this before, on “holy” days of the secular calendar, especially September 11th<\/a> and Thanksgiving<\/a>.<\/p>\n The sacrificial motif provides the ideological unity behind any sign of editorial diversity at the NY Times<\/em>.<\/p>\n Sacrifice is tie that binds the hearts of both pro-war and anti-war columnists.<\/p>\n In one recent column–“Make Them Fight All of Us<\/a>“–Thomas Friedman criticizes Bush and Cheney for an effete, unmanly approach to war. It seems they don’t understand what a real “surge” is all about:<\/p>\n Mr. President, you want a surge? I’ll surge. I’ll surge on the condition \tthat you once and for all enlist the entire American people in this war \teffort<\/strong>…<\/p>\n But the way you have fought this war – with our pinkie<\/strong> – is \tcontemptible…<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Put down that pinkie! Presumably, a real surge requires something more.<\/p>\n [I]f the rest of the world saw all of us sacrificing to win this war<\/strong>, \twe might actually be able to enlist them to help a little…<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Friedman is hardly new to the sacrifice theme. Here, for example, is “Learning From Lance<\/a>” from July 2005.<\/p>\n What I find most impressive about [Lance] Armstrong [and his cycling \tteam]… [is] their abilities to meld strength and strategy – to \tthoughtfully plan ahead and to sacrifice today for a big gain tomorrow – \tseem to be such fading virtues in American life<\/strong>…<\/p>\n Oh, well, maybe we have the leaders we deserve. Maybe we just want \tto admire Lance Armstrong, but not be Lance Armstrong. Too much work<\/strong>. \tMaybe that’s the wristband we should be wearing: Live wrong. Party on. \tPay later<\/strong>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The anti-war crowd at the NY Times<\/em> draws from the same playbook, as if anti-war mobilization were necessarily identical to pro-war mobilization. Check out Andrew Rosenthal<\/a> from August 31, 2006.<\/p>\n Or Bob Herbert’s recent essay on the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr., “The Lost Voice of Protest<\/a>” (also here<\/a>):<\/p>\n [N]ot enough voices of protest are being raised…The anger quotient is \tmuch too low. You can’t stop America’s involvement in a senseless war… \tif your greatest passion is kicking back with pizza and beer and tuning in \tto “American Idol.”<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n As it happens, there are voices of protest<\/a> being raised in Washington today and that is all to the good.<\/p>\n Of course, some of those good people were apparently misled by the signs on the buses in DC that said, “Free Shuttle to the Mall.” A simple misunderstanding.<\/p>\n But I cannot see why it is that liberal anti-war critics at the Times<\/em> can’t keep there hands off my pizza, beer, and television. And my salted peanuts<\/a>.<\/p>\n Presumably, one of the reasons to go out and make all those fine speeches is to get on TV (or at least C-SPAN) and sway public opinion against the war. But the vast majority of Americans are already opposed<\/a><\/em> to this war. They like pizza and do not like war. Where is the conflict?<\/p>\n Herbert invokes the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr. and he is surely right to claim King for his cause. Like Herbert, King was a communitarian moralist. Herbert writes:<\/p>\n And too many black Americans are willing and even eager to see themselves \tin the culturally depraved lineup of gangsters, pimps and whores.<\/p>\n Dr. King would be 78 now, and I can’t believe that he would be too \tthrilled by what’s going on. In his view: “He who passively accepts evil<\/strong> \tis as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts \tevil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n But isn’t there something to be said for those who passively reject<\/em>? After all, much of King’s tactical r\u00c3\u00a9pertoire involved passive resistance<\/em>. Moralistic rhetoric aside, King often located specific forms of leverage in the refusal to participate. Exhibit A: the Montgomery Bus Boycott.<\/p>\n What would it mean to begin by identify all the specific ways in which an unacceptable status quo is preserved through active participation<\/em>. Just to get the ball rolling, I propose two major areas where there is enormous leverage–and far more pleasure–in passive resistance than in active participation: work and war<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Suppose They Gave a War and Nobody Came? Too busy with the gangsters, pimps and whores, I guess.<\/p>\n