[lbo-talk] Fashionable Insanities

[Peter Hart Ward]

I often recall David Mamet's "liberal fallacy" when I engage in any  
kind of discussion with liberal intellectuals. I.e., just because you  
can perceive the problem it doesn't mean that you aren't de facto  
part of the problem.* But I feel this is especially true in  
discussions about religion or ideology. Take Zionism, for instance.  
In the first place you must be precise as to what a Zionist is, and  
them you must show that in fact their exist people who could be  
described as Zionists. So far we haven't got a definition let alone  
seen any facts to show that a Zionist (in this sense) exists.

	I would like to propose that we stop worrying about (imaginary)  
ideological classifications and rather focus on what people are  
doing, what action they are or aren't undertaking. Palestinians are  
being driven from their land and murdered by Israel. The only serious  
question is how do we prevent this action. In other words, what are  
WE doing wrong? But I would urge that this is true in every case. Of  
course blind adherence to a creed backed by strong sentiment is bad,  
and this is true not just of nominal religions but other faiths as  
well--atheist Marxism, e.g. Since we all are prepared to face facts  
cooly, debunking is for not required and, in my opinion, a waste of  
valuable time.

	So what if you're confronted with a fanatic? Then show him or her  
the facts, perhaps supplemented with a little theory or philosophy  
sprinkled on top. In my experience this works oftener than you might  
imagine, but if it doesn't then there's nothing more you can do  
anyway. You just have to move on--besides, they could be correct.

	My conclusion: try to avoid what Norman Finkelstein calls  
"intellectualizing"--if you must intellectualize, then be sure to  
define your terms clearly and stick to your definition (think about  
what you mean when you say 'religious', e.g. NB: reading analytic  
philosophy can help!)--and direct everything you argue toward a  
concrete objective, one that you comprehend clearly. Or: think about  
what's wrong not with his beliefs, or even his actions, but what is  
wrong with MY actions?**

*A true of false statement irrespective of Mamet's apologetics re:  
Israel, although I admit the irony of quoting him in this context.

**Like everyone else you have "the right" beliefs, this is a given.  
And true beliefs can be change by will even if you wanted them to.