June 5, 2005

Once More Into the Breach
Everett

Well, after that marathon post on economics, I wade in again, tired but unbowed to address a topic that is both more interesting and potentially a little more touchy: Opalys' accusation of racism against Faerlas.

Normally, I have no time for a charge like this for two reasons. The first is that from slavery and the abolitionist movement to Jim Crow segregation and the Civil Rights movement, race, racism and dealing with these things have been extremely serious and divisive issues throughout American history, and frivolously throwing about the charge of racism trivializes these issues and those who fought and even died trying to solve them (just like comparing George W. Bush to Hitler trivializes the evil of Hitler and the Holocaust). The second reason is that the accusation of racism is something that kills honest debate. Instead of refuting an argument, it acts to render the argument illegitimate regardless of the merits of the argument in question.

However, I think in this insatnce a response is called for, espcially because if what Faerlas wrote can be considered racist, how much more can my comments be considered to be so? More importantly, Opalys, your reaction seems to me to be an honest one and so should be dealt with on the merits. Ultimately, the question of whether or not Faerlas' statements (or mine, for that matter) rise to the level of racism in the common sense of the word (It doesn't even come close to the dictionary meaning of the word.) depends upon whether or not they are rooted in a reflexive opposition to and hatred of anything French. This is complicated somewhat by the fact that the French government has declared that its mission on the world stage is to act as a brake on American power, a position supported wholeheartedly by a large majority of its people. Still, this does not mean that opposing French national objectives or being angry at (or disdainful of) their attempts to thwart American foreign policy objectives is inherently racist.

Both Faerlas' and my problems with the French are political in nature, not racial. If the French were to suddenly endorse U.S. foreign policy objectives, embrace the free market and globalization and the like, I'd be leaping for joy. However, France has set itself the goal of making itself a counter to the United States on the global stage, again with vast popular support, and it seems to me that if the French position is to opposed to the exercise of American power and/or influence to advance American interests (i.e. anti-American), then supporting the advance of American interests must necessarily be anti-French.

Now, there is also the question whether it is appropriate to react angrily to the actions of the French (and Germans for that matter). Faerlas brings up the issue of an historical debt of gratitude. France helped the United States during the American Revolution, and so there has been a decent rapport historically between France and the United States (though the United States almost declared war on France too during the War of 1812), and the United States came to the aid of the Allies in both World War I and World War II. Now, I know they did it for reasons of self-interest, but the fact remains that American intervention in both wars was necessary to first preserve and then liberate France (Besides, France helped the United States in the Revolutionary War in order to harm the British.). I tend not to give much weight to this argument because nations always have and always will act in their own self-interest, though I do applaud the nations of Eastern Europe who clearly have supported the United States out of a sense of gratitude.

What I find more upsetting is the rank hypocrisy and duplicity with which the French acted in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. They spent months arguing that the acting without UN approval was inherently unilateral and thus unacceptable as the will of the "international community" trumped the interests of any one country no matter how vital. They then proceeded to send an occupying force to the Ivory Coast unilaterally and without UN approval. They also concealed their significant financial interests in preserving Saddam Hussein's regime. In the final analysis, France's opposition was motivated purely by self-interest, and their prcincipled stand was only a sham, and the failure to conduct the debate on honest terms.

To be completely honest, when I look at what France has become and what it was, my primary reaction is one of sadness. France was once a great nation, and since 1789 it has thrown itself off a cliff. Now it is in the grip of a suffocating welfare state bound one day to collapse, and it is desperately trying to regain what it once had without losing what it has become, not realizing that what it has become is incompatible with what it was and that what it has become will collapse in ruin in the near future.