their opinions on the Bosnian civil war in terms that echoed thernofficial statements issued by the U.S. State Department. Objectivityrnand impartiality, so it seems, have come to mean that arnreporter is on the side of the angels who could never give anrneven break to the other side without spotting their snow-whiternrobes.rnAlthough Sir Thomas More said he would give the devilrnhimself the benefit of law, journalists like Walter Lippmann,rnHerbert Agar, Walter Winchell, and Drew Pearson, reportingrnon World War II before Pearl Harbor, saw nothing wrong inrncooking their stories according to recipes handed to them byrnBritish intelligence, and their successors in the 1990’s havernbeen even more “even-handed” —or rather, one-handed —inrnreporting on events in the Gulf War, the Balkans, and the formerrnSoviet Union,rnSome Americans (and, I suspect, most of our readers) knowrnbetter than to believe professional journalists or State Departmentrnspokespersons, but how are they to respond to the Islamicrnworld? There are two challenges: The first is to refuse to give inrnto the temptation, so artfully manipulated by the professicmals,rnto demonize all Muslims and all Arabs, especially those whornare living in Islamic countries. The “terrorists” who attackedrnthe U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon and the members ofrnHamas who are killing Israeli policemen and settlers are notrncowards: They are brave and sometimes honorable men whornare willing to lay down their lives for their people. Even if wernend up having to kill every one of them, let us treat them asrnbrave men and worthy adversaries and leave the “camel jockey”rnand “Gaddamn Insane” stereot)’pes to late-night talk radio.rnThe second, which is not quite the opposite of the first, is tornkeep up a stout heart for the coming confrontation between insurgentrnIslam and decadent Ghristendom. As Chesterton understoodrnat the beginning of this century, Islam is our enemy,rnnot only in a geopolitical sense, but metaphysically: The Islamicrnrage against the Incarnation manifests itself in opposition tornart that represents the human person and in condemnation ofrnthe wine that our Lord used both to signify the joys of life, in thernwedding at Cana, and, in the communion that He instituted,rnthe sacrifice of His Blood.rnMy fear is that Christendom has entirely lost its nere. Eastrnmay still be East, but West is no longer West. So far from resistingrnthe Muslim invasion of Europe, we may ourselves bernsuccumbing to an Islamic temptation in the mistaken beliefrnthat, while Muslims are free to be men, we Christians are condemnedrnto be something like Ralph Reed. In The Flying Inn,rnChesterton depicts a decadent England falling under the spellrnof a teetotaling and Nietzschean version of Islam. (Think ofrnArmin Mueller-Stahl or Tomislav Sunic in a hirban.) The enemiesrnof life are defeated only by a drunken, half-mad Irishman,rnwho moves an inn-sign from place to place and defies therndechristianization of his countr)-. But where, in these sober andrnprogressive times, are we going to find a drunken Irishman whornkeeps the Faith?rnWe know that our governments will do nothing to resist thernislamicization of the West; we also know that the only politicalrnleaders who have breathed a word of defiance are Jean-MariernLe Pen in France and Umberto Bossi in Italy—leaders at thernopposite ends of the spectrum—who have both been demonizedrnfor wanting to preserve their nations. If we do find therncourage to resist, let us be at least as civilized as Richard Lionheart,rnand if we cannot match his courage, let us surpass him inrnhumanity. c:rnDICTATIONSrn’Take short views … and trust in God’rn”A t the end of the day,” declared the minister—orrnbleated the commentator or droned thernLexpert But why continue? Phrases like df f/iernend of the day are useflil signposts, saying: IGNORE THErnFOLLOWING COMMUNICATION.rnOther such warning signs include: “the bottom line”rnand its Italian equivalent in fin dei conti, “it is generallyrnagreed,” and “no one would defend the practice.” Wlien Irnused to attend conferences, the joke went around that myrnnom de guerre (like that of Odysseus) was Nobody, becausernwhenever some little professor declared, “Nobody todayrnwould defend the Roman father’s right to kill his children”rnor “Nobody now would oppose women’s suffrage,” thatrnwas my cue for doing just that. These expre,ssions are therntell-tale indications, the unconscious tics of people whornnot only haven’t thought through a subject but positivelyrnrefiise to think about anything. It was the Republicans’ answerrnto Jesse Venhira, when he said that red light districtsrnwere an idea to consider: Some ideas cannot be considered.rnPeriod. Wvdt they really meant was that no ideas arernever to be considered.rn”At the end of the day” is even more pernicious thanrnmost of its rival expressions, because it implies that afterrnconsidering all the aesthetic nuances and moral textures ofrna question, all that really matters are the practical consequencesrnin the long run. “In the long run,” quipped JohnrnMaynard Keynes, “we’re all dead.” Keynes was only joking,rnsort of, but “at the end of the day” puts the kibosh onrnany consideration that goes beyond the bottom line. Itrnrules out argument, eliminates controversy, and kills anyrnoriginal idea becau.se, for all intents and purposes, the realrnfact of the matter is that all you have to do is run it up thernflagpole and see who salutes it.rnPeople cannot live without cliches, and this sort of conversationalrnshorthand can be iisefiil: It fimctions as the oralrnequivalent of punctuation marks and paragraph breaks,rnmeaningless in itself, but assisting the flow of communicationrnbehveen human beings who have not really masteredrntheir native tongue. Middle American businessmenrnwould be lost without their stock of wise adages, such asrn”Beats a poke in the eye with a sharp stick” and “Wliat canrnI do you for?” ‘Hie first icw hundred times, they may evenrnevoke a smile, and evenhially they become inaudible.rnThe conversation-stopping formulas are different.rnThey are designed to stifle dissent, and it is no accidentrnthat “at the end of the day” is flie signature tune of spinelessrnEnglish bureaucrats. The phrase has taken on a newrnlife in Mr. Clinton’s America, and if one can judge fromrnthe current state of political discourse, the silencers arernver- effective.rn—Humpty DumptyrnFEBRUARY 1999/13rnrnrn