This whole epistemic closure debate-- and I don't have to provide all the links, I think, as anyone interested is well aware of all of this-- the whole debate has grown pretty tiresome to me, and I imagine that I am not alone. Additionally, I am a total outsider to this debate. I am no kind of conservative. Though I am concerned with conservatism, as I am concerned with the direction of my country, I have very little right to take part in an inter-conservative argument.
However, I just want to respond to this post by Ross Douthat by echoing a point I made in the comments at the American Scene: first, how am I to know that Mark Levin's book is entertainment, if it isn't explicitly such? I have my doubts about whether Levin thinks Levin's book is entertainment. I understand that, to a degree, Douthat is arguing that Levin's attitude should be irrelevant to whether his book is taken seriously. But take my outsider's position for a second: as a leftist academic, if someone cited Levin's book, and I said, "Oh, that's only entertainment, it's not to be taken seriously"... wouldn't that be exactly the elitist, condescending attitude that creates such angina on the right? Wouldn't I be confirming the idea that people on the left are unfairly dismissive of conservative argument? One might say that it's only a sin to dismiss a book if it isn't worthy of dismissal, but come on-- in the actual political conversation we have, that sort of thing wouldn't go over no matter what conservative book I was talking about. And I'm not sure that's not the way it should be.
Of course, you could say that how this affects how people on the left talk isn't really Ross Douthat's concern. I'm just not sure you can fix a movement's internal conversation by having separate rules for internal and external criticism. To be sure, there are conservative books that I do dismiss, but I have to dismiss them with recourse to argument. (Short version regarding that particular book: I've actually read Giovanni Gentile and Benito Mussolini, thanks.) Saying "that's entertainment" is an easy way for me to confirm all of the worst stereotypes of leftist argument.
All of this, by the way, the whole thing-- I think it is a part of a central dynamic of our political discussion: the existence of an unspoken but rigorously enforced two tiered system of political argument, a kind of political affirmative action that reduces the expectations on conservative argument, a soft bigotry of low expectations that creates the conditions where a Mark Levin is discussed with equal seriousness as a Jim Manzi, a situation that could not possibly be less conducive to intellectual and philosophical renewal....
5 comments:
If one side of a debate shows an inability or unwillingness to qualify their position in the light of contradictions or counter-arguments, then the only polite conclusion to draw is that they are not serious. (The impolite one is that they are stark raving mad.) And passing that judgement from time to time is not about enforcing a two tiered system of political argument - it's about establishing the parameters for any kind of rational argument whatsoever.
Those who have a vested economic or political interest in certain positions generally aren't that concerned with the parameters of rational debate, because they're simply unwilling to change their position in the light of the better argument (although they may change their tactics). So with their infinite resources they fund various media to carry on a pseudo-discussion which promotes their not very serious ideas. That's the root cause of the "two tiered system of political argument". Whether those who are not part of that pseudo-discussion dismiss it as mere entertainment or try to engage it critically won't make the slightest difference, because in the end it's concerned only with promoting the interests of the powerful, not with the power of arguments.
Do you mean "dismissed" in the sense of "didn't read" "Liberal Fascism"? If so, I'd say that's a mistake. It's a very interesting book; although it seemed like it got away from what its author intended, and accidentally explained more about Fascism (and Conservatism) than he meant it to.
No, I read it. Wouldn't critique it otherwise. My major problem is twofold: first, the most elementary and consistent definition I found of Goldberg's project, both in the book and in the ancillary commentary from him, is that his point is to prove that fascism "was a phenomenon of the left." I simply find that a historical nonstarter.
Second, as Austin Bramwell described in his review so well, Goldberg just doesn't seem to want to pick any particular meaning or set comparison at all. This is a neat trick, as it allows him to get the maximum shock value from his title (and cover) without actually standing on one position that you can argue with.
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/jan/28/00028/
You claim to have read Goldberg’s book and to be familiar with Gentile and Mussolini and yet you are quick to dismiss Goldberg?!
Here is Paul Johnson on Jonah’s book:
“Indeed, what precisely was Fascism? The party was founded by Mussolini, a former socialist singled out by Lenin for praise, on March 23, 1919, and Goldberg quotes its purpose in detail. It was essentially left-wing and democratic: universal suffrage (which meant giving the vote to women), the eight-hour day, a minimum wage, old-age pensions, measures against church wealth and the secular rich, workers’ councils, and some nationalization. Mussolini himself called Fascism “the refuge of all heretics, the church of all heresies.” His first three years in power, 1922–5, were comparatively liberal and marked by freedom of speech and of the press. Jews played a prominent part in setting up the regime. Previous governments since Italian unification had been inefficient and corrupt, and the world, including many intellectuals, gave Fascism in its first phase a favorable reception. Goldberg reminds us that an early version of the Cole Porter song read:
You’re the top! You’re the Great Houdini! You’re the top! You are Mussolini. The number of world-famous figures who paid tribute to what Mussolini was doing in the 1920s — combating malaria by draining the Pontine Marches; building roads, railways, and magnificent railway stations; suppressing the Mafia — included Lloyd George and Churchill. But, following the murder of Giacomo Matteotti in 1924, and its consequences, there was a radical move toward authoritarianism, announced in a speech by Mussolini on October 28, 1925. It is worth reading because it marked the real beginning of Fascism and the corporate state. Opposition newspapers were banned, and opposition leaders confined on a penal island. Opposition, said Mussolini, was unnecessary because it already existed sufficiently in himself and his powers of self-criticism. This was a beautiful piece of Leninism. Then came his famous formula: “Everything within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.”
...
Hitler’s Nazi party had virtually nothing in common with Fascism other than its generally left-wing viewpoint. Its 1920 platform, which Goldberg quotes, owed more to Leninism. Hitler’s chief aim was to abolish the Versailles settlement and introduce pan-German racism, which involved expelling the Jews. If war came, the “Final Solution” of the “Jewish Problem” would take place. The most characteristic expression of Nazi theory, once the regime was installed, was the Nuremberg Laws, which were racial.
...
The question of nomenclature was permanently confused by the skill of the Soviet Communists in propaganda, and its amplification by the intellectual Left everywhere. The Soviets were initially perplexed by the rise of Mussolini, and still more by Hitler. There was nothing in Marx, or even Lenin, to prepare them for the rise of populist parties of the Left that could beat the Communists in both the streets and the voting booth. Goldberg quotes the Communist ideologue Karl Radek explaining in 1923 that “Fascism is middle-class socialism and we cannot persuade the middle classes to abandon it until we can prove to them that it only makes their condition worse.” This went some way toward the truth; but an alternative explanation, by Leon Trotsky — that fascism was the last gasp of capitalism — was more popular among Marxists because it could be supported by Marxist texts.
Also, the word “fascism” could be generalized into a denunciation of anything the far Left hated. In 1928 the Third International, dominated by Stalin, produced the useful formula of “social fascism.” This could be applied not only to Nazism as well as the original Italian form, but also to all varieties of Western democratic socialism. They were all equally evil and to be resisted."
I think the story is more complicated (and favorable to Jonah's theory) than your liberal brain can handle.
Arminius,
There are many similarities in Marxism and Fascism in that they were both modernist totalitarian movements. This is well understood among historians and polisci academics of both right and left flavors. So it is kind of a non-point in Goldberg's book, like a guy writing that the sun rises in the east every morning and behaving like it was some sort of amazing conspiracy crushing insight.
Where the bullshit - as a category of logic - comes into the picture is when Goldberg tries to tie principles and practices of historical 20th century fascism and Marxism to 21st century American Liberalism. American liberalism and american conservatism come from the same branch of the political tree. They share the same founding principles and respect the same ground rules when it comes to political legitimacy and authority.
What has changed (accelerating from the 50s onwards) is that modern American conservatism has redefined itself from an ethos or a traditional cautious approach to events based on tradition into a political theology that worships private interests in the market and demonizes government participation in the market. This was not true of 19th century conservatism which simply saw market and government as tools rather than ends. The private market has taken the place of God in the conservative value system. A God that must be loved and obeyed (the human nature of the market disappears and is ignored, but hey it's a political theology it doesn't do human. Adam Smith would not be amused) It is only by projecting American conservatism's current private market worship into the past and creating a hierarchy of good and evil based on how much a political party or philosophy championed or opposed a completely private market that Goldberg can bring American liberalism and historical European fascism together, because like all other political philosophies past and present that are not current American conservatism, they do not put the private market as the top of the value hierarchy. It's a clever trick that appeals to the biases of his audience since not only are they likely to agree with the judgement, but they can not imagine that in the past such distinctions as government or market were not seen as important to political life or defining of what a political party and philosophy was, so they can't begin to see Fascism as it truly was, on its own historical terms.
So what Goldberg has really done is take history and subject it to the judgement of current American conservatism's values. It's interesting but not because it is truthful, it is because it reflects the mindset of the current American right, which is utopian and dogmatic and possibly as dangerous as the utopian and dogmatic movements that plagued the 20th century: fascism and communism. If you want a more scholarly treatment John Grey has a great book on this called Black Mass, I highly recommend it.
Post a Comment