<- back to page 1

Johnny Goes to War (continued)

However, one Gorenfeld piece actually caught attention in a more positive way. A few months ago he wrote an article called “Dear Leader’s Paper Moon” for the magazine American Prospect. Unlike when writing for his own blog, John probably had to observe some quality standards and came up with something that made better reading. The most redeeming factor of the article is the high amount of information per square foot – and there are quite a few of them.
 

However, the basic remarks about friendly crowd and the resulting near-zero depth in research still apply here. Again, at the very beginning he blesses his readers with an obsolete opinion taken from a U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee report, “Investigation of Korean-American Relations,” dated October 31, 1978. That’s during Brezhnev’s time at the helm of the Soviet Union and Jimmy Carter’s time in the White House.
 

The article obviously seeks to capitalize on the current crisis and negative sentiments surrounding North Korea and attempts to put Moon into bed with stooges of that totalitarian regime. Gorenfeld makes some effort to ‘expose’ Moon’s connections but all throughout the article it remains highly doubtful whether there is anything to expose. That’s especially true in light of the fact that he shows no qualms about Hyundai doing big business with the North.
 

Again, Gorenfeld leaves it to his readers to project the statements of the antiquated quote from a different era towards the current US administration. He himself either hasn’t done any research or didn’t find anything more current that could have made an impact.
 

He does present some rumors, though, and is conscientious enough to say so when he does. Toen Trading – a Japanese company most probably without connections to Moon, thank you, John, for saying it so clearly – sold discarded Japanese submarines as scrap metal to North Korea. The statement that this obsolete scrap metal might have helped to improve a facet of North Korea’s missile technology implies a lot about that regime’s readiness for war.

However, a sophisticated reader would require more to stimulate the mind.
 

John also quotes a lot of other rumors. Had he settled for the facts that would have made him look less like an opportunist. But a friendly audience with opinions firmly fixed anti-Moon may enjoy his approach - adding to the quantity of incriminating (mis-) information – shooting everywhere and settle for what sticks.
 

But ...

But still, the slightly enhanced quality of writing – compared to the blog - allows to relax and meditate on greater things. In that state of meditation one can then notice something that appears to be a fundamental problem of the movement’s observers - a problem that actually seems to afflict most of its members, too: The inability or at least extreme difficulty to see more than two colors clearly.
 

Very often in contemporary reporting issues are presented as either white or black – or red or blue, whatever. Everything between these extremes appears to be highly suspicious to the observer. One can be a conservative or a liberal – but not both. In an environment, where issues take back stage over positions someone who finds good and fault on all sides will be walking on thin ice most of the time. That person must either be crazy or a self-serving opportunist.
 

The history of Sun Myung Moon’s involvement in public affairs, business, religion and so on can serve as one large case study in this regard. When he first came to the USA, mayors of major cities bent over backwards to receive him and offered him golden keys to their cities. People from all walks of public life didn’t shy away from a photo opportunity with this exotic Korean evangelist.
 

Over time, his strong stand against communism got him increasingly associated with right wing politics - remember the one-color-only principle. Finally, when he opposed the impeachment of Nixon the liberals wouldn’t have any more of it.
 

According to Moon’s own words at that time he actually was more concerned about the presidency itself rather than the individual. That kind of fine grained view doesn’t fly well with the public, though.

Today, to an outside observer America looks like a frog that is boiled alive slowly. In 1988 Gary Hart still had to withdraw from the race for the presidency because someone saw his girl friend enter the office through the backdoor one night. One decade later an American president – a good friend of Billy Graham, by the way – apparently had the Oval Office for himself and his playmates. During his impeachment proceedings he didn’t need any help – his public approval ratings were at 70%.
 

People whose views are rooted in more absolute values than public opinion naturally have a hard stand here. The fact that Moon was strongly anti-communist had to be the proof for him being a capitalist. Now that he apparently entertains private and business contacts with North Korea - that last recluse of communism - he must be a self-serving opportunist. What else?
 

When Moon first introduced the term ‘headwing’ in the middle of the cold war, even members of the movement had a hard time coping with the concept. Relate to the enemy, left wing politicians, philosophers from the dark side of the force? To many of his supporters that kind of thing looked more like a call to high treason – let alone the intellectual challenge that came with it.
 

Over the years the old man has shown remarkable consistency in finding right and wrong on every side of any spectrum - to the dismay even of his own followers. His approach to the chronic crisis in the Middle East can serve as an example – an example also of the highly, if not deeply, diverse attitudes within the movement itself.
 

Within the Unification Movement it is fairly common knowledge that the old man didn’t support the idea of going to war with Iraq and that he prayed extremely hard that it would not come to it. Finally, after Bush decided to attack, we heard some faint, mainly diplomatic remarks, in support of the administration – an obvious sign of support in spite of fundamental differences.
 

Still, discussions within the movement showed a surprising majority strongly in support of the war in spite of its intermediate setbacks, citing all the future benefits as if there had been no alternative.
 

Sun Myung Moon usually promotes the concept of natural dominion or natural ‘subjugation’. That means in essence here that lasting peace can only be based on free, voluntary, mutual consent of all related parties. The approach includes repentance and forgiveness - translated into real life politics - on all sides. A war is generally a bad starting point for that kind of a solution.
 

This approach could certainly make for constructive and effective problem solving in complex situations, like the chronic crisis in the Middle East, across the Taiwan Strait, Africa or the standoff in North Korea. But a tough stand certainly makes for better action than a more internal focus on things like repentance and forgiveness – especially when that repentance and forgiveness is expected from all sides.

It is not clear at this point why Gorenfeld doesn’t deal with the whole breadth of the issues and settles for assembling a heap of information. May be he just wants a cheap ride with a friendly crowd – after all, one has to make a living. It could also be genuine incapability to grasp complex issues or a lack of desire for that and the natural reflex to use tunnel vision to reduce that complexity.

As long as that works for him, we may never know for sure.
 

Copyright © Cultural Communications, foreignlands.org, 2005. All rights reserved.

the old man