Richard Pipes on Sovietology.
One can’t help but draw some striking parallels upon reading Richard Pipes’ historical account of the curious Western academic discipline known as Sovietology, a field dedicated to studying the Soviet Union. (*) It’s tempting when reading it to just replace “Soviet Union” with “radical Islam,” “Sovietology” with “current academic thought,” and “Richard Pipes” with “Daniel Pipes” (his son) (†) Note this passage of the elder Pipes:
The Sovietological community was first and foremost committed to bringing the the [sic] adversaries together and in so doing ignored or downplayed whatever ran counter to this objective. As a result, it grossly misunderstood the nature of communist regimes and the forces that animated them.
This approach enjoyed popularity because it carried a comforting message. It appealed to those who had no sympathy for communism but were frightened of nuclear war and liked to think that patience and understanding would persuade the Russians to adopt a more friendly stance. Evidence to the contrary was rationalized.
Sound familiar? Note importantly the word rationalized. This is exactly the reaction to Islamist terror attacks like 9/11 by the Western Left, which is now little more than a bunch of professors and intellectuals anyway.
So many people ask: why do they hate us? They are asking that question because they are personally afraid of the terrorists, and they want to do anything but stand up to the terrorists. These people are behaving in a cowardly manner.
Cowardice is the real motivation behind Bush hating. The President is taking the offensive against terrorism. In the cowardly, irrational mindset of many liberals, however, taking the offensive is liable to provoke further attack. The mindset becomes, “Bush is going to get us all killed. Better to just play defense.” This leads battle shirkers to direct their ire not at the enemy, radical Islam, but at their own president.
In the Cold War, as today, the “enemy within” was not malevolent and truly hostile, as the Ann Coulters and the David Horowitzes believe. Instead, the most strident dissenters are essentially cowards, preferring to run and hide rather than stand and fight.
It is of great importance to have a leader who can unite the people with a common objective against a real enemy like radical Islam, Communism, or the fascist powers. A great leader can stiffen the backbone of a people and channel society’s energies into establishing victory. FDR did this in World War II. Only a few intellectuals dissented. People in both parties trusted him with the country’s security. Ronald Reagan also inspired this level of trust, and partially as a result, won the Cold War. Unfortunately, George W. Bush has not risen to such heights of inspiration in the War on Terrorism. Perhaps Gephardt, Clark, or Kerry could. Perhaps not.