On Heinlein’s Cant

           On Heinlein’s Cant

 

          During a town hall meeting for Obama, one man showed up bearing an incendiary sign and a gun. Christopher Matthews gave him a tough interview; the guy was shifty-eyed. He said, among other things, that “An armed society is a polite society.”

That bit of cant dates back to Robert Heinlein. It is at best unreliable, and often grotesquely false. For instance, compare Sweden and Japan to Israel and Somalia. The first two societies are unarmed and well-mannered; the last two are well-armed, but not noted for politesse.

          Or consider the military. Well-armed? Yes, by definition. Regimented, too. Disciplined, ideally. But polite? Tell it to the Marines!

          I suppose that one can validly say that a well-armed society ought to be a polite society; that it had better be polite; but the world as it is often falls far short of the ideal.

          You could say that Japan and Sweden had, in the past, samurai and Vikings; an experience that taught them a lesson they still remember. So I suppose one could validly say that a formerly well-armed society is a polite society.

          I don’t think that was what Heinlein meant. His absurd snark makes me visualize two French petty noblemen, rapiers at their waists, bowing and scraping to each other because the only alternative is for them to run each other through on the spot. But in what sense is that a virtue? Is a man who says “have a nice day” while thinking “**** you” a better person than a man who says “**** you” while thinking “have a nice day”?

As near as I can tell, Heinleinian politesse is a shoddy euphemism for hypocrisy and terror.