The Ugly Side of Pacifism

The Ugly Side of Pacifism

David C. Stolinsky
Wednesday, Oct. 10, 2001

Pacifism is a noble ideal; the word means "making peace." Real pacifists are sensitive to human suffering and strive to mediate between hostile factions. But instead of using this active, idealistic approach, many who call themselves "pacifists" are merely indifferent — they stand aside, smugly looking down on humanity’s struggles. Rather than motivating them to action, their false pacifism is merely an excuse for inaction.

Pacifists used to come in two varieties. The first holds that all violence is wrong. Overcoming violent criminals often requires force, but strict pacifists reject this as unethical. They are unrealistic, but at least they are honest.

The second variety of pacifist allows some exceptions — especially horrible evil may be opposed with force if absolutely necessary. But these exceptions always seem to lie in the past. Pacifists in the 1930s opposed rearmament, despite the rise of Hitler, pointing out that no Genghis Khan was at the gates. Pacifists in the 1980s opposed rearmament, despite the growth of the Soviet empire, pointing out that no Hitler was on the horizon. Pacifists today oppose rearmament, despite the rise of global terrorism, pointing out that the Soviet empire is no more. That is, the exceptions are never relevant to the current problem — they aren’t really exceptions at all.

Recently, however, a third variety of pacifist has appeared. They hold that though all violence is wrong, defensive violence is actually worse that aggressive violence. Instead of being passive bystanders in humanity’s struggles, these pacifists are forced by this bizarre belief to become active participants — but on the wrong side. Consider:

It is "gun control" to further restrict law-abiding citizens from buying guns, but somehow it is not "gun control" to jail armed criminals.

Opponents of capital punishment are often supporters of euthanasia and abortion-on-demand up to the ninth month of pregnancy. That is, the state’s killing convicted murderers is wrong, but doctors’ killing innocent fetuses or patients is laudable.

The murder of innocent people, even babies, results in efforts to "understand," but let someone shoot a would-be rapist or murderer, and there is prompt condemnation.

When citizens, particularly teen-agers, use a weapon to defend themselves from armed criminals, pacifists often protest, "How did the kid get access to a gun?" The armed attack didn’t upset them, but the armed defense did.

After the 1992 Los Angeles riot, journalists repeatedly told us to "understand the rage." But Korean merchants who had to defend their lives and stores were called "vigilantes." There was no effort to understand them, much less sympathize with them.

Rules were enacted to prevent the CIA from hiring informants who had records of crimes or civil-rights violations. But how can Boy Scouts infiltrate terrorist or criminal gangs? Being defended by minor criminals outraged the purists’ sensibilities, but the prospect of being attacked by major terrorists didn’t disturb them.

The military has been made "kinder and gentler" as well as smaller, though it still troubles pacifists. But the fear that it has also been made less effective appears not to trouble them. And if our military is less effective, who will keep the peace?

Opponents of a missile-defense system object strenuously that our ability to stop incoming missiles will only make things worse. Yet they object less vehemently, or not at all, when terrorist states such as Iraq and North Korea develop biologic, chemical and possibly nuclear weapons. Weapons of mass destruction don’t scare them, but the possibility of blocking them does.

Even the horrific attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon evoke only sadness, while suggestions that we eliminate the terrorists bring forth strong objections, often with the question, "What would Gandhi advise?"

Gandhi was a great man, but we know of him only because he was fortunate enough to use his nonviolent methods against the British. Had he tried them on a more brutal foe, he would have wound up in a forgotten grave. Indeed, Gandhi advised the Jews not to resist the Nazis — perhaps the worst advice in history. Pacifists must choose their opponents with care.

Pacifists narcissistically assume everyone is like them, open to reason. They lack the imagination to see that some people do not use violence as a last resort, when other methods fail, but enjoy violence — revel in it. They cannot imagine that there are people who enjoy killing, and even some who look forward to dying themselves if enough "others" die also.

Many pacifists are zealous in protecting criminals’ rights, but they forget the rights of victims. Some time ago, a black store owner was robbed at gunpoint. He identified the robber, who threatened to kill him. The store owner applied for a gun permit but was denied. Later he used an unregistered gun to shoot the robber, who had been released from jail and tried to carry out his threat. The store owner was given a year in jail. Sympathy was used up on the robber — none was left for the store owner.

The word "peacemaker" has two basic meanings. The first refers to one who tries to calm hostility. The second refers to the Colt .45 revolver, which may be required if the first approach fails. Both types of peacemaker are needed to keep peace in the world.

Pacifists declare, "All life is precious," but what does this mean? I have seen the police photographing a corpse on a sidewalk, and two coyotes tearing apart a cat on a Los Angeles street. Every year coyotes kill many pets and occasionally attack a child, yet hunting or trapping them is illegal. In practice, "all life is precious" means that the life of a murderer is more precious than that of his victim, and the life of a coyote is more precious than that of a cat or dog. Pacifists stand aside in self-satisfied neutrality while predators roam free.

Pacifism is a luxury. Like golf, it can be enjoyed by a fortunate few, while most of us face a harsher reality. Pacifists often live in safe suburbs or gated communities, so they cannot understand why anyone feels the need for self-defense. They rarely work or live in high-crime areas, as do many poor people and minorities. They need not dirty their hands with weapons; gun oil has a pleasant smell with which they are unfamiliar. They depend on the police and military to keep them safe — and then look down with contempt on their protectors, while cutting their funding and hampering them with unrealistic rules.

As has been said, it doesn’t matter how many resolutions the sheep pass in favor of vegetarianism; the only thing that matters is whether the wolves are hungry. The world is full of hungry wolves. Sheep are too stupid to know this, so sheepdogs protect them. But what if the sheep were just smart enough to muzzle the sheepdogs, because the growls disturbed their peaceful slumbers?

Rather than a coherent philosophy of nonviolence and peacemaking, today’s pacifism is merely apathy and cowardice in fancy clothes:

"Give peace a chance." To do what? Allow more thousands of innocents to be slaughtered, while we stand aside feeling superior? Is that peace?

"Let’s sit down and talk." About what? How to identify body parts?

"There is another way." What, specifically?

"Stop the cycle of violence." What cycle? We did nothing after a hole was blown in the USS Cole and 17 sailors were killed. What good did our restraint do?

"Violence never settles anything." Really? What about World War II?

"We aren’t perfect." Neither is anyone. But this does not justify blaming the victims, and it does not excuse us from our duty.

Horrific as the Twin Towers atrocity was, it cannot obliterate the memory of the other 18,000 or so Americans who will be murdered this year. Violent death, crime and terrorism are realities we have been forced to face. We can no longer pretend that only others are at risk — others who live or work in "bad" parts of town.

We have been forced to face the fact that all parts of town, and of the world, can be "bad." There are people who want to see us dead. They don’t envy our free elections, free speech, religious pluralism, or women’s rights; they hate us because of these freedoms. They don’t want to take what we have; they spit on it. They don’t want to hijack our plane; they want to crash it. They want us dead. Not just soldiers. Men, women, and children. Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Confucians, atheists and even Muslims who disagree with their totalitarian agenda. All of us.

We are like the sheep that were just smart enough to muzzle the sheepdogs. If we are unwilling to defend ourselves, we can at least untie our protectors. Will we? Or will we look around for our missing companions, promptly forget about them, bleat about the high cost of dog food, and then go back to sleep, dreaming peaceful dreams, while our flock is picked off one by one?

An earlier version of this article appeared in the May 1997 New Oxford Review.

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
War on Terrorism
A product that might interest you:
Find out the truth about communists in America