The modern peace movement is an interesting creature. Ostensibly about creating greater harmony and improving the world, it almost invariably finds itself taking the side of the most brutal regimes on the planet – usually dictators who owe their power almost entirely the use of brute force.
This article in City Journal (via the hated Instapundit) outlines some of these contradictions, but I think it fails on two major points:
1. It is entirely too overwrought. After six years of ANSWER and other Stalinist organizations holding rallies for “peace” and shamelessly taking bribes from dictators, is the corruption of the movement really news to anyone?
2. It fails to get to the heart of the matter and really discuss what makes these dictator-loving peaceniks tick.
That would be an interesting article. As it is, Bawer is basically making the same argument as Kevin Baker and pointing out, as Kevin did in the comments, that the Left has tried to seize the "commanding heights" of the media and university to convert the children of the next generation.
The problem with this theory is that the left - which runs the "peace movement" is losing its hold on both of those institutions. The rise of talk radio broke their stranglehold of the media and the advent of the Internet has resulted in catastrophic losses in media credibility.
Meanwhile, the academy has its own scandals. This is partly because the left's own dominance of the faculty lounge has left it lazy and intellectually flaccid. Its supporters can no longer win arguments; instead they bully students into agreeing with them.
No one likes to be bullied. Most students go along, but as soon as the class is over, they wash their hands of the whole business. Indeed, modern children are becoming masters of doublethink, able to parrot the party line on demand but secretly remaining true to the beliefs they have grown up with all their lives.
The Posse is living proof of this and we are far from unique. My goal in raising my children is to give them the intellectual tools to defeat these arguments - and the sense of when to fight their battles. If going along with the flow is what is needed to get the grade, fine. Tell them what they want to hear.
This doubtlessly has the effect of making the profs think they are more persuasive and powerful than they are, since hardly any of their students disagree with them - and they do, until they leave the classroom with a diploma in hand.
This is all out there and should be public knowledge. What I want to know, what interests me (as long time readers of the Posse know) are the motivations of these people. Why do they prefer despots to their own leaders? It is a strange situation where pacifists run around effectively asking to be taken hostage and then condemning their rescuers.
How is it that the left went from red-banner-waving fanatics to latte-sipping wimps in the course of a single generation? There lies the tale.