Criticisms of 300: When History, Morality and Human Nature Collide

I have not seen the movie 300, and because I have young children and a limited time with them, I probably won't see it until it comes out on DVD or Pay per View. But I do know the history behind the graphic novel that inspired the movie and it comes a little surprise that some liberal film critics, as documented by Megan Basham and David Kahane, are calling it a movie that glorifies war, that has a political stance that is unpopular today (because King Leonidas reminds reviewers too much of President Bush) and story line that is achingly familiar. But the real problem liberals are having with 300 is that it asks very difficult questions about human nature, the nature of war and the nature of one's enemies, questions whose answers must run counter the standard liberal orthodoxy.

According to history, a group of 300 Greek soldiers confronted a Persian army of tens of thousands at Thermopylae, a narrow pass through which the Persian Army had to pass in order to conquer Greece. The battle was a minor part of a larger war between Persia and Greece, but the stand by the Spartans against Xerxes and the Persian Empire is the stuff of legend. I don't know if the movie keeps with the actual ending of history, (in that in a battle of 300 vs. tens of thousands, the smart money is on the thousands), every one of the 300 died, but that is beside the point. The reviews have been brutal, depicting the movie as a jingoistic expression of military might makes right (despite the obvious problem with that position), a celebration of all that is wrong with the Bush White House and its dealings with terrorists, the war in Iraq and oh yeah, the racism and cultural imperialism of the west.

But as Jack Cashill wonders, what really has the leftist media so up in arms about this movie? For Cashill, part of the reason, he believes, is that the heroes depicted in 300 are masculine, almost to a fault, contrasting

For the rank and file, progressive opinion shapers glorify passivity, petulance, self-absorption and sexual ambiguity.

In short, 300's heroes are not the progressive archetype and therefor a threat.

While Cashill has a solid point, well supported in his piece, the larger issue for the left is that the movie about war against incalculable odds presents liberals with a far more difficult question than what kind of men to emulate. The underlying issue is one that runs counter to the appeasement-minded, cut-and-run, "we just have to understand the terrorist" mentality so prevalent in liberal circles: That Warfare is a part of the human condition. A dark and nasty part of the human condition to be sure, but a part of being human nonetheless.

Warfare existed long before King Leonidas and the 300 and will continue long after George W. Bush, Harry Reid, Hilary Clinton, Donald Rumsfeld, you and I are pushing up daisies. But the larger question that stems from the human condition is the question most difficult to ask and confounds many people, particularly on the left, is why do we fight?

The question of why and whether nations should fight is a common one, even in modern times. Every nation is regularly called upon to answer the question, why do we fight? Leonidas had to ask the question, as did his nemesis, Xerxes. George Washington and the Founding Fathers had to ask the question as did King George III. Osama Bin Laden and George W. Bush had to ask the question.

Since the 1980's and the rise of terrorism, we have been called upon to answer that question with regard to terrorist, should we fight? Where and when do we fight back? How do we fight an enemy that is far different than any we have fought before? Most importantly we have to ask ourselves the question, why do we fight?

Robert Heinlein, in his book Starship Troopers, (get the book not the movie--the movie sucked) presented his hero, Johnnie Rico with that very question. Why do we fight? Johnnie's instinctive reaction was "We fight because we are M.I." (Mobile Infantry was Johnnie's military unit). Johnnie then thinks that he was salivating like Pavlov's pooches. Heinlein then goes on to explore the reasons why a society will go to war. As part of that discussion, carried on later, the question of whether it is worth the expenditure of arms, men and money to fight for one person was enough of a reason for a nation (or in Johnnie's case, a federation of planets) to go to war. In the end, Johnnie decides for himself why he fights.

Heinlein's discussion in Johnnie's head is a valuable lesson about the reasons we fight wars. The reason to fight stems not only from geopolitical concerns, although such factors play a significant role. The reason to fight also does not stem from the death of a citizen, although vengeance has long been a common theme in warfare. The foundations of why a nation fights a war stems from a moral code. But for that moral code to be the foundation of the decision to fight, there must obviously be a moral code to understand and adhere to. For Heinlein's Johnnie Rico, that moral code stems from the political system under which he was raised, where the ultimate service was the willingness to place one's life and limb between the beloved home and the nasty brutishness of a enemy bent on destruction of that home. Service, not just military service, but service in general was the only means to obtaining the right to vote. In short, one has to place the interests and needs of an entire people, an entire nation above their own personal comfort and safety. Johnnie learns and accepts that the continuation of his way of life may mean the sacrifice of is own life so that other may continue to live the life they choose.

In this, the liberal establishment meets the most difficult question. What is their moral code? What is so foundational to their lives and the lives of their loved ones and fellow countrymen that it is worth placing life and limb in harms way? In short, what is so important to a people and a nation that they are willing to fight? What about our nation is so worthy of protection that we must be willing to sacrifice the lives of young men and women? Are they willing to lay down lives to further some larger goal and what would that goal be?

It is an uncomfortable question to ask for such question necessarily means that liberals must make a judgment as to what is most important. When deciding what is most important, a person has to prioritize and that means making value judgements about the worth of various peoples, ideas and ideologies. Making such judgments runs counter to the liberal, multi-culti, "we are all just the same" mentality that undergirds their philosophy. But a necessary corollary to the liberal "can't we just get along" philosophy is that there is nothing evil in the world.

Make no mistake about it, despite liberal protestations to the contrary, there are evil men in this world. Men who view their life mission as the destruction of another culture, another way of life. Is the comparison between Xerxes and the Persians in 300 and the Osama Bin Laden and the terrorists of the 21st Century uncomfortable? Perhaps, but none the less real. Human nature leads to conflict and conflict cannot always be solved with "a dialogue" or "an understanding of what motivates those who hate us." Sometimes conflict must be resolved at the tip of a sword. We understand why bin Laden hates us and he has made clear that the destruction of the West and any non-believers is the only acceptable outcome. The left refuses to believe that such a person can exist and yet he does. Denial of reality will always lead to defeat. The only victory possible for the West is to embrace the idea that warfare is real and, while nasty and not to be undertaken lightly, it is often necessary.

The reason for the outrage and criticism from the left about 300 is not the glorification of violence (many liberal movie critics like violence in other forms) nor is it the obvious comparisons to modern problems. No, 300 calls to mind the necessity of three things running counter to liberal philosophy. First, that warfare is part and parcel of human nature, despite our aspirations to be above war. Second, that war requires asking oneself the most difficult question, for what and why do we fight? Third, the liberals must confront the idea that their moral philosophy runs counter to human nature, there are people who are willing to die to kill us and we must be willing and able to kill them, for in this battle, no quarter is asked and no quarter should be given.