![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Glory Game, or Can I Buy a Clue
Sep. 23rd, 2013 01:20 pmI just read this very (very, very) long post on John C. Wright's journal. The post is driving me nuts, because it's several thousand words based on some horribly flawed thinking. Hopefully I can present my thoughts without killing nearly as many bits as Wright did.
The story starts as a reflection on Keith Laumer's 1973 novel The Glory Game. In the book, our intrepid hero, Space Commodore Dalton, is caught between two Terran political parties. In Wright's terms, one party is the Stupid Party, which wishes to dismantle the Space Fleet despite the presence of a hostile if (currently) militarily inferior alien race. The other party is (again Wright's term) is the Evil Party, who wishes to drum up a war on a pretext and then go wipe out all the aliens.
At (great) length, Wright then says, "The Cold War [novel written at height of same] was being fought by a nation that was continually being told by our intellectual class that we were in the wrong and the vilest lying-ass butchers and mass murderers in history were in the right."
If Wright had produced a physical book, at this point I would have thrown it across the room, gone over to pick it up and stomp on it, then toss it around some more.
Here's the thing - there never was nor never will be a "Stupid Party" to use Wright's term, and the intellectual class in the 1970s was not saying that "we" were wrong. Since it's clear that Wright sees these groups of people as the same, I'll use the term "Stupid Party" throughout the rest of this post. (Not that I like it, but for brevity's sake.)
What the Stupid Party really wanted in both cases was a recognition that "we" and "they" could in fact coexist. I can't speak for the aliens in the novel, but what the Stupid Party understood in the 1970s was that the Soviet Union was merely paying lip service to the idea of expansionism. In point of fact, the Soviet economy could not support expansionism, as evidenced by the hash they made in Afghanistan. What the Stupid Party (incorrectly) thought in the 1930s was that Germany was no more of a problem then founder-of-fascism state Italy, and that both states would make militaristic noises and confine their activities to beating up on Third World outposts. In short, at no time was the Stupid Party willing to hand over their freedom to some foreign aggressor.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, so meaning well is not the end of the debate. There is also a good moral discussion to be had over whether or not we should allow other people to suffer under dictatorships. There is also a good debate over the tactics of the Cold War, but that's not germane to my point.
My point is that Wright, Laumer and a number of other commentors I could think of are demonizing their political opponents. "They" don't agree with "us" so "they" must be evil or stupid or both. No, no, a thousand times no! Social and human conduct is not a math problem, with one right and clear answer. There can be multiple right answers, and even more answers that appear to be right. Failing to understand that is a recipe for stupid, irritating and condescending screeds.
The story starts as a reflection on Keith Laumer's 1973 novel The Glory Game. In the book, our intrepid hero, Space Commodore Dalton, is caught between two Terran political parties. In Wright's terms, one party is the Stupid Party, which wishes to dismantle the Space Fleet despite the presence of a hostile if (currently) militarily inferior alien race. The other party is (again Wright's term) is the Evil Party, who wishes to drum up a war on a pretext and then go wipe out all the aliens.
At (great) length, Wright then says, "The Cold War [novel written at height of same] was being fought by a nation that was continually being told by our intellectual class that we were in the wrong and the vilest lying-ass butchers and mass murderers in history were in the right."
If Wright had produced a physical book, at this point I would have thrown it across the room, gone over to pick it up and stomp on it, then toss it around some more.
Here's the thing - there never was nor never will be a "Stupid Party" to use Wright's term, and the intellectual class in the 1970s was not saying that "we" were wrong. Since it's clear that Wright sees these groups of people as the same, I'll use the term "Stupid Party" throughout the rest of this post. (Not that I like it, but for brevity's sake.)
What the Stupid Party really wanted in both cases was a recognition that "we" and "they" could in fact coexist. I can't speak for the aliens in the novel, but what the Stupid Party understood in the 1970s was that the Soviet Union was merely paying lip service to the idea of expansionism. In point of fact, the Soviet economy could not support expansionism, as evidenced by the hash they made in Afghanistan. What the Stupid Party (incorrectly) thought in the 1930s was that Germany was no more of a problem then founder-of-fascism state Italy, and that both states would make militaristic noises and confine their activities to beating up on Third World outposts. In short, at no time was the Stupid Party willing to hand over their freedom to some foreign aggressor.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, so meaning well is not the end of the debate. There is also a good moral discussion to be had over whether or not we should allow other people to suffer under dictatorships. There is also a good debate over the tactics of the Cold War, but that's not germane to my point.
My point is that Wright, Laumer and a number of other commentors I could think of are demonizing their political opponents. "They" don't agree with "us" so "they" must be evil or stupid or both. No, no, a thousand times no! Social and human conduct is not a math problem, with one right and clear answer. There can be multiple right answers, and even more answers that appear to be right. Failing to understand that is a recipe for stupid, irritating and condescending screeds.
