Reflections  

The enemy is us, as usual — As of this writing, U.S. military casualties in the War on Terrorism have come mainly from friendly fire, inadvertent U.S. killing of U.S. troops in the field.

This was also true in Kosovo and in the Gulf War.

Has the power of the U.S. military grown so great that our strongest ally for a noninterventionalist foreign policy is OSHA? — Ross Levatter

Thousands died at the hands of the safety Nazis — The Sept. 11 attacks and the U.S. military response in Afghanistan are both easily seen. What is generally unseen is the joint responsibility of New York City politicians, Port Authority bureaucrats, and eco-demagogues for many of the deaths.

For a steel-frame skyscraper to survive a large fire, the structural steel columns must be insulated because steel loses most of its strength when red hot. The Empire State Building (and all other steel-frame skyscrapers of its era) enclosed the steel support columns with a couple of feet of concrete to provide this thermal protection. This added a great deal of weight and cost to the buildings while also consuming a substantial amount of interior space.

In 1948, Herbert Levine invented an inexpensive, compact, lightweight, spray-on structural steel thermal insulation comprised of asbestos and rock wool. This did much to improve the economics of skyscrapers and played a major role in the post-World War II office tower construction boom.

In 1971, in the middle of constructing the two WTC towers, New York City banned the use of asbestos. This created a real problem for the WTC's builders. The structural steel in the first 64 floors was already insulated with asbestos. Use of the traditional heavy, thick concrete insulation for the remaining 54 floors was impossible with the existing lightweight construction. The Port Authority wasn't about to tear down the half-completed towers and start over again. So the builders jury-rigged a nonasbestos substitute. Back in the 1970s, Herbert Levine said, "If a fire breaks out above the 64th floor, that building will fall down." He was right. — Durk Pearson

The second casualty — Randolph Bourne famously observed that "war is the health of the state." The present undeclared war against the Taliban government of Afghanistan and the stateless army of al Qaeda suggests that his observation is true, even when a war is undeclared and won quickly and — so far as most Americans are concerned — inexpensively.

Despite the ease with which the U.S. military has dispatched its puny enemy, the American public has gladly surrendered liberty in ways great and small. The terrorist attack of Sept. 11 has been a rationale to raise taxes to pay for everything from rapid transit to the subsidy of travel agents. And consider the new developments on the regulatory front.

While one administration official tells Americans that, when they fly on commercial aircraft, they must stand ready to attack hijackers, another has made it illegal to carry onto an airplane anything that might be used as a weapon, including fingernail clippers and crochet hooks. I suppose the idea is that passengers should attack with the plastic forks they are given to eat their airline "food."

As government grows more powerful and more expensive, support for its further growth and its confiscation of more of our liberties and more of our treasure also grows. Recent polls show that the federal government is more popular than at any time in memory.

The era of "the era of big government is over" is over. — R.W. Bradford

The cost of empire — War has united America, for the moment. But under the surface, thoughts are dissimilar. One of the keys to what we think is how we answer the question, "Why do they hate us?"

President Bush had an answer in his speech to Congress Sept. 20: "They hate what we see right here in this chamber — a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms — our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other." They hate us for who we are.

The other answer is that they hate us because of what our government has done. Osama bin Laden has said the three most hateful things America has done is to support Israel's hegemony over Palestine, to embargo Iraq, and to put military bases in the holy land of Saudi Arabia.

Consider what these answers imply. If people hate us because of what our government has done, we have to examine what that was. Something may need to be changed. If they hate us because we vote, because our women drive cars, or because we don't pray five times a day, we need to think no more. If they want to kill us for that, it's time for a war.

Bush's war has divided the right, and this disagreement is fundamental to that. For the pro-war side, consider Cathy Young in Reason: "There is every reason to believe that our current enemies, fundamentalist Islamic militants, are motivated by far more than U.S. support for Israel, the plight of the Palestinians, economic sanctions against Iraq, and the presence of U.S. troops on the Arabian peninsula, the main canards of the finger-pointers. In fact, what makes America the Great Satan in their eyes is precisely what libertarians cherish — 'our secular culture of freedom, reason, and the pursuit of happiness,' as philosopher David Kelley put it."

Patrick Buchanan summed up the view of the "finger pointers" on KVI-AM radio, Seattle, in November: "These acts of cataclysmic terror are a direct result of us playing Roman Empire all over the world."

I agree with Buchanan. For me, the key to the question is not to examine the terrorists — I haven't had a chance to examine any — but to listen to ordinary Middle Easterners. It may be that a handful of terrorists hate everything about America, from its foreign policy to what it drinks at lunch; it may be that one cannot be a mass killer unless one's bile runs pure. But what of the population from which the terrorists recruit?

And that answer is easy. There is a widespread anger. Anybody from Egypt, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan can tell you about it. And what they say is, We don't dislike Americans, but we don't like what your government has done to people like us. These are not terrorists with 100-proof hatreds. Their complaints are political. They may have some cultural complaints about America — so do many foreigners — but what angers them is our political acts that affect them.

It is comforting to think we are hated for who we are. We know we are good, and if we are hated for our goodness, voilˆ, we can hate right back. Bombs away!

But it is not plausible to assume that the ordinary, anti-American Middle Easterner is deeply and personally interested in who we are. We are not interested in who he is. Is it not more reasonable to assume that he is interested mostly in himself, and people like him? If that is so, it surely must frustrate him when the Americans, possessing so much power and so little sense, brush off his complaints by saying he hates American freedom.

The millions who resent the United States, and the distilled few who hate Americans with criminal intent, have feelings about us that began with what our government did. To admit that is not to forgive the terrorists for willing the deaths of innocents. It is not to give up on capturing bin Laden. It is to recognize that events are complicated, that blame comes in different strengths and sticks in more than one place. Anyway, blame is not the only thing to think on. There is the practical question of safety, and we are not making ourselves safer by kidding ourselves about the motives of people who oppose us. — Bruce Ramsey

Image is everything — Like anyone who enjoys Rand's novels, I get a thrill when corporations have the guts to defend themselves in the court of public opinion. Galt knows, it's not that often. But there are currently a few corporate "image" ad campaigns that promote not just a particular product or company, but capitalism itself.

My favorites are the MasterCard ads that show how seemingly trivial purchases can add up to create priceless spiritual moments. You know the ones. "Kneepads: $35. Dark Blue Dress: $80. Dry Cleaning: $0. Bringing a president to his knees: Priceless." Ralph Nader's presidential campaign did a satire of these ads that prompted MasterCard to file an injunction. MasterCard had to, because if you don't zealously defend your trademark, case law says you could end up losing your right to the trademark entirely.

Another of my favorites is the NASDAQ ad campaign that profiles some of the innovative high-tech companies sold on that exchange. Unfortunately, they don't air it much now that NASDAQ has became a swearword. There are also some terrific ads from the American Plastics Council that show how a product as boring and vilified as plastic improves and even saves our lives. And don't forget the Shilo Inn radio ads that extol the "American free enterprise system" as the fountainhead of excellence.

But these ads are exceptions. Most corporate image ads are suicidal. They have a subtext that basically says: "Yes, we know we are evil, but now we're doing some good things, too." The absolute worst has to be the British Petroleum campaign. They've got an ad that says, "Imagine a company becoming a force for good . . . "

I'd love to see British Petroleum unveil an ad that says, "Listen up, all you left-wingnuts who think that we oil companies conspire to thwart the development of solar power. It just so happens that the best solar panels in the world are made and marketed by British Petroleum."

The cigarette companies are getting their butts kicked in the ongoing ad war with anti-tobacco activists. And no wonder. Tobacco ads are regulated every which way but loose. I'd love to see a tobacco council ad with Tom Hanks walking along a Normandy beach saying, "Cigarettes helped win World War II. They calmed soldiers' nerves and kept them alert. They offered a moment of pleasure in a world of horror. And one of the reasons these men fought fascism was for the freedom to enjoy simple pleasures. Like a Philly cheese-steak, a beer, or a cigarette. Don't let today's fascists take that freedom away." But, of course, the sellers of cigarettes can't mention their own product on TV or radio.

And not only are anti-tobacco ads free to say whatever, wherever, and however they want (they're even allowed to show someone smoking, albeit through a hole in her throat), they are often funded by the government. In Idaho, for example, the State Department of Health has launched an anti-tobacco campaign involving a series of billboards showing two rugged cowboys riding slowly into the sunset with the caption, "Bob, I miss my lung." Not only are the cowboys dressed, staged, and photographed exactly the same as in a real Marlboro ad, the type font is exactly the same. I'm no intellectual property lawyer, but this looks a little like a copyright violation to me. Or maybe confiscation of a trademark. But I digress.

When image ads aren't undermining capitalism, they are merely wasting their owners', and ultimately consumers', money. The point is that many of these image ads are pointless. They're defensive without defending anything. Take for example the poignant Phillip Morris ads telling how they helped flood victims and refugees. They're swell ads, but do they make Phillip Morris' enemies suddenly love tobacco companies? And these activists have been crowing that Phillip Morris spent more last year on that ad campaign that it did on the actual charity. Oops.

Speaking of charity, ads aren't the only way corporations waste money trying to cultivate a public image. Corporate charitable giving may offer tax advantages, but from a purely PR point of view, who do they think they're impressing (or appeasing)? I have yet to hear someone say, "Yeah, that Bill Gates is a greedy bastard and Microsoft is the Evil Empire, but you know, they do donate a lot to charity, so let's buy more of their products and tell the government to get off their backs." It's one thing for Microsoft employees to donate their own resources to charity, but as a stockholder I don't want the company spending time and money on anything other than making more money. And as a customer, I don't want to bear the costs of that charitable giving.

And don't get me started on the image-conscious pressure to be seen "giving back to the community." Giving what back? The revenues they already paid to employees, suppliers, and investors? As one of Rand's heroes might say, "After all I've done for you, you want me to 'give back to the community'?! Okay. I'll give you back the entire corporation, just as I found it: an empty field overgrown with weeds."

Actually, come to think of it, many environmentalists might go for an ad like that. — Tom Isenberg

© Copyright 2008, Liberty Foundation

Send editorial comments to letters@libertyunbound.com.
All letters to the editor are assumed to be for publication unless otherwise indicated.

Send web site comments to webmaster@libertyunbound.com.