Wednesday, August 06, 2003
(8:44 PM) | Adam Kotsko:
My Advice for Nicholas Kristof: Die, die die
In Nicholas Kristof's recent op-ed "Blood on Our Hands?," he has some somber reflections on the atomic bombings that ended World War II in Japan. (This article was pointed out to me by a very good post by the Slacktivist.) The very act of placing a question mark after the title shows that what we're about to get is not rational argument, but apologetics -- how could a nation that instantly incinerated 200,000 people not have blood on its hands? I don't care about the what-if scenarios that are thrown around to justify the decision. Here's a what-if that's never thrown around: if the Japanese were supposedly so dedicated to their cause that they would run the risk of a nuclear bombing (as Kristof points out), then the big "what-if," the "what-if" that American policy makers need to be held accountable for, is "what if the bombing didn't work?" What if we had to keep destroying city after city and they never gave up? At what point would the math have tipped the other way? What if post-WWII Japan turned into another Vietnam? Would he still put the question mark after the title then?
This reminds me of a lovely Kristof article (now you have to pay for it; I'm pretty sure this is the abstract) in which he argued that we should be grateful for the corporations that pay virtual slave wages in the Third World, because it sure beats farm work! He claims to be this heroic liberal, and his original reporting on the impending famine in Africa is really admirable, but then he has to pull this shit where all he does is turn into an apologist for America.
Why was it okay to drop the bomb on Japan? Because the official line on the bomb in Japan is that it was okay and necessary. Why is it okay to criticize the policy in Vietnam? Because the official line on Vietnam is that it was a horrible mistake. Why is it okay to congratulate companies that bravely employ Third World workers? Because the official line is that global corporations are helping to bring civilization and hope to the Third World. Why is it okay to criticize farm subsidies? Because officially we're in favor of free, unfettered trade (and officially, we leave out the part about "only insofar as it benefits America").
And do you know what has come of Kristof's reporting on Africa? Nothing. Have you heard about any aid money for that? I sure haven't. I've heard a lot about the war in Iraq, which, among other things, was increasingly clearly not an emergency situation, and I've heard about how Bush wanted to piss in the ocean of Africa's AIDS problem, but as far as a genuine impending disaster, I've heard nothing. Absolutely nothing. E-mail me if I'm wrong. Oh, also, in Liberia, where the situation is already a huge, embarrassing disaster, I've heard that maybe, just maybe we can be bothered to help out. Kristof's touching apologia for the two most brutal and horrifying days of the 20th century, his praise of the brave men who saw that reality only left them with one horrible option, is a good way of distracting us from a government that creates a false sense of emergency to promote its own pet policies, all the while completely ignoring actual, honest-to-goodness emergencies in a sickeningly callous manner. How about you write about that, Kristof? How about you write about the states that can't afford to provide basic services because of Bush's idiotic tax cuts? How about you write about all the kids with no fathers now because of Bush's idiotic war? Oh, I know -- because that would take some balls, and the only Times columnist with any balls right now is Paul Krugman (and sometimes, ironically enough, Maureen Dowd).
Nicholas Kristof is a tool. His concerned, yet realistic liberalism is a perfect cover for the idiocy that keeps going on at the national level, every day. He has a twice-weekly forum in the most respected newspaper in America, and all he wants to do is argue in favor of the status quo. I would claim that his failure to excite any public debate over the famine in Africa broke his spirit, but he was a tool way before he even thought about writing those stories. A couple stories about a genuine pressing concern do not make up for his relentless advocacy of absolutely nothing of substance.
