Looming Red

Pacifism, by its proper label, is very often an undesirable name. Because it has not been redefined like many of the modern redefined old terms have been, the label of pacifist will be denied by most people who can be defined with no other word. Hilaire Belloc, in his typical fashion of single article poetry, forever explained the absurdity of pacifism in his poem, “The Pacifist”:

Pale Ebenezer thought it wrong to fight,
But Roaring Bill (who killed him) thought it right.

With such a blunt and precise excoriation, a pacifist must continue to redefine his or herself by other terms. The modern pacifist goes to great lengths to tie his pacifism to religion, political affiliation, intellectual pursuit, or a myriad of other other disguises. Pacifists express many different motivations all covered by an assumption of moral exaltation. Sometimes a pacifist is so because he has interpreted religious text to demand such a position. A pacifist may have had some experience with his own violent tendencies that have caused him to shy away from violence like an alcoholic from Oktoberfest. Perhaps the pacifist is simply a cowardly person who justifies his cowardice with a pacifist philosophy. Still, few dare call it pacifism. It is always some other name.

You will see a person arguing a very pacifist point-of-view in a television debate and take great care to state, “Now listen, I am no pacifist.” This is usually said after the individual has gone on and on about how one must under no circumstances seek military intervention, private gun ownership, capital punishment for the worst offenders, and so on and on. They don’t want the label, but they want the position because it just feels good.

Pacifists generally are people who don’t define themselves in any way. They often people who feel their ways through life. They don’t think beyond the first stage: If I decline to fight, then what? They never answer the “then what?” question. They just want to feel good about how they refuse to hurt someone else.

A pacifist will admit the necessity of some past conflict by which their timidity to hold positions could not be offended. They will refer to a war that popular culture has accepted was necessary, but they will not do so in any other way than 20/20 hindsight.  They do not ever put themselves in the shoes of those who knew at the time that some action needed to be taken. They are pacifists by whatever motivation who relent under the strain of undeniable peer pressure.

This need to justify a pacifist position, however, does much to muddy the water. In a need to deny the term of pacifist, the pacifist will align him or herself with groups who promise pacifist goals, but are usually far from aligned with pacifism. A communist American in the 1950s may have demanded peace, but hoped for communism’s success. An anti-Semite might have called for talks with 1930s German leaders, but just really liked what those guys were saying about Jews. A slave-owner might have spoken of anti-aggression, but really he wanted to retain ownership of his slaves.

This alliance of non-pacifists with pacifists through deceptive rhetoric permeates our contemporary society. Presidential candidates will bloviate on and on about how the oppose war and then pass laws to take property by force of law. They will support dictators abroad, confiscation at home, and generally pursue aggressive action that is far from pacifistic. Since no politician or official will accept the label of pacifist based on rhetoric, the actions never have to be pacifist. They can’t be called a hypocrite, because they accepted no definition for their dogma. It’s just beneficial that their words appealed to the pacifist who padded their victory margins to power.

This entry was posted on Monday, February 1st, 2010 at 11:41 pm and is filed under Topical. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.