« The Perils of Not Reading History | Main | No, No; It's Worse Than That »
September 26, 2005
Naming Conventions
Jay Tea is trying to figure out, if the other side in the Western debate about what to do about terrorism is called "anti-war", what should the side that favors freedom be called? Jay Tea suggests that "pro-freedom is too vague" (and I concur), and that therefore "pro-victory" would be good. I have what I believe to be a better suggestion: how about "anti-tyranny"? After all, we aren't looking for victory over the enemy for the sake of victory over the enemy, but for the sake of advancing freedom and thereby ending tyranny in all its forms.
If you're trying to define the terms of the debate, make the "anti-war" guys explain why war is more horrible than tyranny, rather than anti-tyranny people having to explain why war is sometimes necessary.
There is an older term, much in use in the United States during the Revolution but since having become too politically overloaded to use (so overloaded, in fact, that I cannot myself take on the name): republican.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.caerdroia.org/MT/mt-tb.cgi/481
Comments
There's nothing inherently wrong with "anti-tyranny," but it doesn't meet two of the criteria I set for myself when I started thinking about "pro-victory."
First, I wanted it stated positively, not negatively. Secondly, I wanted something specific. "Anti-tyranny" kind of obligates us to take tyrants everywhere, and that's a lot of work. By limiting it to "pro-victory," it's confined to just the current conflict. I'm not saying that we shouldn't take them on, too, but first things first.
J.
Posted by: Jay Tea at September 27, 2005 6:47 PM