How to Get Cut Out of Foreign Policy Discussions

One of my conspecifics complained to another today that he thought the latter should not criticize the actions of Israel or the US in the Middle East but should save his criticism for the “bad guys”. Why focus on “our” misdeeds and mistakes when the “bad guys” are out to get “us”. Seriously, this is how an adult, college educated person in his sixties sees the world. He thinks that he is part of a good and benevolent “us” engaged in a struggle with an evil “them”. It’s that simple for him. He identifies Israel as a critical ally and part of the “us”, and anyone who opposes Israel in any way is a “bad guy” or an anti-Semitic sympathizer with “bad guys”.

“Israel is not my ally,” I remarked, to which he had no response. “Hezbollah is not my enemy, either.” These statements simply did not register with him as meaningful constructions in the English language, and he went on with his rant to our antiwar co-worker as if I had not spoken. My left wing, antiwar conspecific understands my point of view but disagrees with it. He is almost as collectivist as the wingnut, but he prefers his collective to be less bellicose and to act as an honest broker in the Middle East rather than looking to make war with everyone. The wingnut is downright excited by the prospect of a widening war with Syria and Iran, though he is skeptical whether the current administration is fit to pull it off.

My conspecifics no longer engage me much in foreign policy discussions. They are unable to relate to the way I frame the issues in terms of individual actors with their own agendas in relation to other individual actors. I always bring any issue back to a personal level, and this makes no sense to them. I think it creates cognitive dissonance and makes them uncomfortable. Eventually, I may be spared their uninformed blathering about foreign affairs altogether.