A2 Isaac 02

Isaac is wrong
Steger 02 , PhD, 02
( Manfred B. teaches political and social theory at Illinois State University and the University of
Hawaii-Manoa Ends, Means, and the Politics of Dissent Reply to Jeffrey C. Isaac , Dissent , Fall)

Isaacs version of campus left pacifism is a grotesque caricature that works well for rhetorical
purposes but hardly corresponds to the real world he extols in his essay. To be a pacifist
means to believe that peace is better than war, social justice better than injustice; it does not
lock pacifists into an absolutist position. Even the two grand figures of twentieth-century
pacifismMohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.consistently acknowledged the
difficulty of reconciling ethical principles with political power. In fact, Gandhi counseled his son
to choose violent resistance to evil over indifference and cowardice. He admitted that perfect
nonviolence and absolute moral truth remained ultimately unrealizable, but nonetheless
emphasized that ahimsa (non-harming) and satya (truth) constituted central ideals that ought to
guide political action. King, too, noted that nonviolence always contains a disruptive
dimension. In a 1967 speech, the civil rights leader coined the phrase aggressive or militant
nonviolence to refer to forms of direct action designed to interrupt the functioning of unjust
institutions and social forces. Moreover, King consciously relied on police and federal troops to
enforce laws repealing Jim Crow. As he put it, I believe in the intelligent use of police
force.And I think that is all we have in Little Rock. Its not an army fighting against a nation, or
a race.Its just policeseeking to enforce the law of the land. And thats exactly the position
taken by many groups on the pacifist campus left: respond to the attacks of September 11 with
the intelligent use of police force within the framework of international law. Such alternative
strategies consistent with the Gandhi-King tradition are easily distinguishable from the
conventional militaristic posture favored by political realists. Idealizing Realist Politics
Another reason for the systemic distortion and marginalization of the campus lefts pacifism is
the widespread idealization of so-called realist politics. Throughout his article, Isaac adopts
the questionable metaphysical assumptions that underlie the realist paradigm: In the best of all
imaginable worlds, it might be possible to defeat al-Qaeda without using force and without
dealing with corrupt regimes and political forces like the Northern Alliance. But in this world it is
not possible. And this, alas, is the only world that exists. Note how Isaac claims for himself the
same omniscient vantage point that he so dislikes in the campus left. This arrogant spirit of
ontological absolutism pervades his essay. Here is another example: To accomplish anything in
the political world, one must attend to the means that are necessary to bring it about. Of
course, having defined what counts as the political world, Isaac employs the term necessary
to imply war-like activities. In short, the only way to fight terrorism is to declare a large-scale
war on it, thus fighting violence with greater violence. Anybody challenging Isaacs conclusions
or his underlying realist metaphysics is nave, unpragmatic, vague, irrational, an accomplice of
terrorism, andthis is my favorite charge out of touch with the preoccupations and opinions
of the vast majority of Americans. Isaacs cheap rhetorical appeal to common sense, is,
indeed, an embarrassing move for an intellectual descendent of the gadfly Socrates who
contributes regularly to a progressive magazine titled Dissent. he idealization of realism is very
much part of the dominant ideology of violence. Once people accept that largescale war
constitutes the only realistic response to September 11, then its many failings are easily
shrugged off as unavoidable byproducts or collateral damage, while its often meager
achievements are blown out of proportion to maintain the publics faith in the effectiveness of
violence. A truly realistic evaluation of the retaliatory violence employed by the United States
and its allies in the war on terrorism reveals the remarkable ineffectiveness of the violent
method. What has actually been achieved? We toppled the Taliban regime, but the fighting in
Afghanistan hasnt come to an end. We killed between a thousand and thirty-seven hundred
Afghan civilians. The oppressive situation for Afghan women has improved only marginally. The
example of a large-scale war on terrorism has been copied by various regimes to justify
aggressive action against subversives. Take, for example, conflicts in Israel/Palestine,
India/Pakistan, Colombia, Central Asian republics, and so on. Although the war on terrorism
costs U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars, our government has steadily expanded it to other parts of
the world. The United States has struck questionable alliances with groups and nations that are
profoundly undemocratic and have long records of human rights abuses. Civil rights and liberties
in our country are being undermined in the name of national securitythink of the 2001 Patriot
Act. Finally, Osama bin Laden, Ayman alZawahiri, Mullah Omar, and other leading Taliban and al-
Qaeda members have not been captured. This is by no means a great scorecard for the violent
method, but because large-scale war is supposedly the only realistic course of action, most
Americans tolerate the failures of our military response. Let me emphasize, finally, that I agree
with Isaacs assertion that finding a proper relationship between means and ends is the most
difficult challenge for both political thinkers and activists. Contrary to his account, however, I
believe that the pacifist campus left has played a constructive role by countering realist
mainstream arguments that favor an all-out war on terrorism. This overreliance on military
means has only pulled us further into the apocalyptic scenario of terrorist strikes,
counterstrikes, and deepening misery. It has also contributed to the rapid buildup of a national
security regime that threatens our liberties and democratic arrangements. Isaacs pigeonholing
of the pacifist campus left is wrong; on balance, its members have expressed morally nuanced
opinions and offered pragmatic alternative strategies. (74-5)