LIBERAL FASCISM 6
I continue this mini-series on Jonah Goldberg’s 2007
book Liberal Fascism.* (In these
Posts, Jonah Goldberg will be shortened to ‘JG’.)
JG considers the Sorelian “vital lie of the left” to
be the following excuse: “if only the right reactionaries hadn’t [fill in the
blank] we would today be living in a better, more just and more open-minded
country”. (p.199)
Certainly since the 1960s this sly presumption has
been insinuated into public discourse by ‘liberals’ from all the organized
advocacies for all of the now-embraced Identities: that if only it weren’t for
the ‘backlashing’ then the liberal agenda could demonstrate its marvelousness
and carry the country to fresh sunlit uplands.**
Decades ago this was the mantra used to stampede
public opinion over the doubts, concerns, questions and objections that were
raised by a still-robust public and political discourse: our agenda is being
impeded by nothing more than backlashers and marginalizing oppressors who don’t
want to give up their power … and if that’s the type of people who are
resisting these great new agendas then clearly the agendas and their proponents
must be Good and the objectors Evil.
Today it is used as an excuse for the
non-performance and the failures and the ill-consequences of all the Beltway
impositions of all the preceding decades. Once upon a time there was a Camelot
of possibility in this country and if only the agendas had been fully and
properly implemented then so much would have been better … but there’s still
time to hope this time around!
JG characterizes the current ‘liberal’ position
further: “Western civilization was saved when the barbarians were defeated in
the early 1970s … we should not only be grateful for our slender victory but
vigilant in securing it for posterity”. (p.199)
I would only modestly disagree. Because it was not
very long into the 1970s before the totalitarian and Gramscian and more recent Eurocommunist
sources of so much ‘liberal’ philosophizing (to justify the ‘reforms’) revealed
themselves: ‘Western civilization’ was rotten to the core – being dominant and
hegemonic and oppressive and marginalizing – and had to be done away with; its
patriarchy and (the current buzzword) ‘whiteness’ has to be eradicated and
replaced with “diversity” in every possible way. The post-1972 ‘liberals’ were
never ever out to ‘save’ Western Civilization (hey, hey, ho, ho – it had to
go!).
But I would agree that that ‘liberal’ (as nowadays
defined) impetus did succeed far too well – thanks to the Beltway’s supportive
and impositional embrace. Not only the shape and structures of the American
culture and ethos, but also the political first-principles of a functioning
constitutional democracy, were twisted out of shape, and even the very
competence and seriousness of the public discourse by which the Citizenry
deliberates on matters of grave import to the national common-weal … all
corrupted and corroded by all the well-established totalitarian methods for
manipulating public opinion in order to marginalize it, thus clearing the path
for the New Order and the New Shape.
It becomes clear, then, that all of this puts into a
stunning new light Harding’s exhortation following Wilson’s era that he wanted
the country to experience “a return to normalcy”. Not the brightest bulb in the
chandelier, yet Harding was no fool; the era of Wilson’s ‘war socialism’ – with
its ‘mobilizing’ and controlling the public, its surveillance and censorship
and jingoistic exhortations to “100 percent Americanism” (as Wilson defined it),
and its Progressive version of Bismarck’s ‘top-down revolution’ – had addled
and deeply deranged the country, its ethos and its polity, for too long. Now,
with the Great War over, Harding was looking to return the Great Vessel to an
even-keel and steadier course.
Harding has effectively (and not completely
inaccurately) been spun by Progressive/liberal thought as a doltish and
small-souled seat-warmer of less than sterling morals and ethical judgment. But
I would say that in his visceral awareness that somehow Wilson’s schemes and
visions and machinations had created fundamental derangements that promised
great ill for the country he was spot-on. In the welter of historical
actualities during his Administration, that – I would say – was the
‘alpha-stream’, the core stream of insight that, in the intelligence field, has
to be identified and isolated from the booming, buzzing scrum of events and
interpretations that surround all historical phenomena.
But ‘normalcy’ was and is – of course – precisely
what Progressive and other forms of totalitarian thought and praxis cannot
allow. These approaches require ‘crisis’ and an ‘emergency’ in order to mobilize
and also distract public opinion, stampeding it beyond any normal rational and
prudent concerns it might have about proposed new agendas (that are about to be
imposed). There is a disturbing but profound accuracy to that moment in one of
the more recent Star Wars
installments, where the vast assemblage of galactic representatives cheer the Sith
Lord’s assumption of plenary power: says Princess (or Queen – apologies)
Amidala: So this is how democracy ends … with applause. Just so.
And whether that is the loud and raucous applause of
the ‘crowd’ and the ‘masses’, or the tastefully muted pat-patting ‘golf-clap’
applause of the grand ballroom … what difference, really, is that?
For the menu remains the same: the creation of
crises; nationalistic and ‘patriotic’ appeals to unity; the celebration of
martial virtues; suspicion of all who do not conform and go-along; the blurring
of the vital lines between public and private and between the personal and the ‘political’; the utilization
of mass media (formerly known as ‘the free press’) in order to glamorize the
state and its agendas; invocation of a total-unity ethos that served to unify
only in the negative sense of utter conformity and the squelching of any
dissent or doubt; the cult of personality of the Leader (whether 'strong' or 'sensitive', paternal or maternal); and all of the
Political Correctness administered by a “camarilla of the Keepers of the
Arcana” (the elite liberal priesthood of the Correct mysteries).(p.211)
This works out to “the birth of the liberal
god-state”, the state-as-religious-source. (p.215) There are ‘sacred’
personalities (FDR, JFK, LBJ, G.W. Bush as ‘the Leader’ and (with repellent
inaccuracy) ‘our commander-in-chief’ – Wilson is left out partly through the
passage of time and partly through the eclipse of even the appearance of
adulthood initiated by JFK’s presidency and the Kennedy Mystique); there is the
“cult of the state” which works out to “a religion of state worship whose
sacrificial Christ was JFK and whose Pauline architect was LBJ”. (p.215)
JG recalls Edward Bellamy’s 1888 book Looking Backward (an imaginary look at
America in the year 2000): workers belong to “a unified industrial army”; the
economy is run by all-powerful central planners; the citizens are drafted for
their occupations of mind or muscle because all of them are bound to work for
the state and the nation; the Umbrella State (rather than hundreds of thousands
of citizens each putting up a personal umbrella when history’s weather turns
stormy, the state will put up one huge Umbrella); and – generally – “the
kingdom of heaven on earth”. (p.215)
At precisely the same time back there in the 1880s,
young and up-coming Woodrow Wilson is writing dismissively of “horse-and-buggy”
democracy and its Constitutional machinery, that are utterly insufficient to
the challenges and glorious possibilities of modernity and the
rapidly-approaching 20th century.
It was this vision of Bellamy’s – says JG rightly –
that “captured Progressives” with its militarized, nationalized, organized,
socialist utopia. (p.215)
There was – he notes – even a ‘logical’ conclusion
that the individual States themselves were rapidly becoming obsolete because in
their diverse and obstreperous individuality and adherence to the ‘old’ ideas
of 1787 they would only serve to obstruct the achievement of Year One. (p.215)
You can’t help thinking of the post-1972 era in this country, that third-wave
of Progressive/totalitarianism, where the Feds – under the aegis of an insistence
that for the ‘marginalized’ (defined as such with increasing and intensifying
capaciousness) the whole country was really nothing more than the States of the
Jim Crow South; and the Beltway would have to man-up and step-in and take-over.
Nor did Bellamy confine himself to political and
social thought. He also wrote Jesus the
Socialist, which sought to corral the still-robust Christian elements of
Progressivism with religious, theological, and spiritual (however defined)
arguments. And there was devised a ‘salute’ – with the arm extended
straight-out and up; in the late 19th century perhaps a heark-back
to the Rome of the Caesars, but within a few decades adopted (from Us!??) by
Mussolini and the German guy with the funny moustache.
All the marquis presumptions of Bismarck’s approach
were present, JG notes: a centralized and united government (its unity imposed
from above) “without the messiness of excessive democracy” that impedes the
visions of Great Men of Action; an elite and executive disdain for “limited
government” or classical Liberal Constitutionalism since they only created
boundaries and fences that would impede executive ‘progress’ (precisely as the
cattle barons of the American West opposed fences and small-holds because they
interfered with the progress of trail-bossing the great herds); and even a Kulturkampf, a ‘culture war’ precisely
intended to undermine popular support for what the elites now saw as
‘obstructions’ to their ‘progress’.
And Bismarck was specifically aiming this Kulturkampf at the Catholic Church, that
bastion of ‘tradition’ that constituted the most politically potent center of
opposition to his plans. Which has an eerie familiarity to it nowadays.***
But what was the problem? Science, after all, was
not open to “democratic debate” and wasn’t Progressive governance “scientific”?
(p.221) But, of course, the trickery was in how Scientific Method is actually
conducted. While there are the occasional individual brilliant scientists who
crystallize a particular Big Thought, the vast corpus of scientific development
is conducted by a rigorous and vigorous and broad-based Conversation among many
scientific researchers, each publishing discoveries and theories so that all
other interested researchers can critique them or verify (or falsify) them
through independent analysis and experiment.
So while the scientific ‘laws’ – so-called – are
possessed of a certain indisputable validity that is not amenable to
‘democratic’ debate (or PR spin), yet the very process of Scientific Method
that establishes that validity is profoundly democratic and independent indeed.
And those scientific ‘laws’ apply to the material
universe; not to the vastly more complex and un-controllable productions and
phenomena of human history and human activity, so profoundly enmeshed with
human desires and passions and the exercise of the human will.
Thus – JG observes acutely – modern American
Progressive/liberalism cannot be judged merely by its good intentions or – in
the words of contemporary academic social thinker Alan Wolfe – merely by its “concern with the impact of social
environments on individuals”. (p.246) [italics mine]
‘Concern’ is all well and good. But it is the beginning, not
the conclusion, of what should be a stringent and acute and free-wheeling
independent analysis of proposed policies and laws that would seek to address
that ‘concern’. ‘Concern’ and ‘good intentions’ are utterly insufficient as
justifications that would claim to trump or obviate the vital and abiding need
for serious and mature and broad analysis and deliberation and public debate.
This is one of the vital “roots” that “American
Progressivism shares with European fascism” (including its communist variant).
(p.246) Progressivism precisely and intentionally sidesteps such broad and
‘democratic’ public analysis. After all, why have such a democratic involvement
if most of the Citizenry ‘just don’t get it’ in the first place? Best to leave
it all to those who do ‘get it’ and know what will work out to be best for
everybody. Do ranchers take a poll among the cows and steers of the herd before
implementing some great new ideas in animal husbandry?
You can see clearly in all of this – I think –
precisely why contemporary ‘liberalism’ really isn’t interested in broad and
deep and independent historical analysis, or really any sort of analysis at all
(except if it’s Correct ‘advocacy analysis’ that somehow jiggers the results to
come out as precisely justifying what the elite cadres have decided to do).
Historical analysis would reveal some of the darker
dynamics that lie at the heart of the history of Progressive/liberal thought
and praxis, exposing assumptions about ‘democracy’ and the entire foundational
basis of the American Experiment in popular self-governance.
Such analysis of current events would merely create
‘obstructions’ to the rapid imposition of new-Order agendas and policies and
enabling legislation.
Whereas what’s really sought by Progressive/liberal
governance is a Gleichschaltung, that
ominous German concept of ‘conforming’ or 'bringing into alignment' every aspect of national life to the
overriding (and government-controlled) Vision that will have to become the
guiding standard for the country and the people (das Volk).
You will conform or – on its own authority as sole
source of national morality – the government will Correctly label you as Evil
or an abettor of Evil.
And then you really will ‘get it’. Or else.
Just how long any constitutional democracy – and
specifically Our constitutional democracy – can survive such a philosophy of
governance is the primary Question facing Us today.
NOTES
*Goldberg, Jonah. Liberal Fascism. Doubleday: New York, 2007. ISBN: 978-0-385-51184-1
(hard cover). It’s also out in paperback.
**A just-published cultural history of San Francisco from 1967 to 1982 – the 15 years that spanned the Summer of Love to AIDS – by David Talbot demonstrates precisely this point of JG’s. Talbot dreams that such radicalism as there was on the Left was merely sparked and actually caused by “reactionary” opposition from the Right and/or by CIA infiltrators of what would putatively have been non-radical organizations. As if the organizations – either through the embrace of actual revolutionary violence or through the valorization of ‘creative cultural destruction’ and ‘creative transgression’ – weren’t already well-along on a violent and destructive path.
**A just-published cultural history of San Francisco from 1967 to 1982 – the 15 years that spanned the Summer of Love to AIDS – by David Talbot demonstrates precisely this point of JG’s. Talbot dreams that such radicalism as there was on the Left was merely sparked and actually caused by “reactionary” opposition from the Right and/or by CIA infiltrators of what would putatively have been non-radical organizations. As if the organizations – either through the embrace of actual revolutionary violence or through the valorization of ‘creative cultural destruction’ and ‘creative transgression’ – weren’t already well-along on a violent and destructive path.
And – neatly – that while sexual activity was “readily
available”, yet “predatory behavior was not allowed”. Of course. Which limns
precisely the type of Boomery sexual utopia that had lured so many of them in
the first place, while neatly avoiding any connection with the inevitable
predatory behavior that accompanies such sexual licentiousness (it’s not just ‘repression’
that generates predation). In Talbot’s telling, they had a utopia – but then mean
old nasty reactionaries came in and wrecked their sand castle on the beach by
the Bay.
***And again I return to the thought that when the
Vatican opposed the development of European ‘Modernism’ in the late-19th
century it was concerned not simply for the Flattening of the human existential
experience into the Mono-plane of a purely this-worldly vision. Rather, it was
acutely aware of the fact that you couldn’t reach ‘socialism’ without running
the real risk of armed revolution and bloodily disordering or dis-Ordering
Western societies as well as Western Culture.
And further, that while it had to be educated by the
American hierarchy that ‘democracy’ as it was conceived and developed by the
Framers in 1787 was profoundly not
the ‘democracy’ of the French Revolution with all its blood and Terror, yet
perhaps the Vatican realized – as the American hierarchy in its ‘American’
enthusiasm did not – that with the waxing ascendancy of American Progressivism
the dynamics and visions of the French Revolution (through its descendants, the
totalitarian brood of communists, fascists, and the more radical socialists)
had indeed managed to migrate to the New World.
And that the ‘top-down socialism’ of Bismarck had
already resulted in a government-sponsored Kulturkampf
against the Church in the German states, and would probably produce the same
results in the New World. (Which did happen, although not until Progressivism’s
third-wave after 1972.)
And thus perhaps the Vatican also saw that even if
the American Framers’ approach to ‘democracy’ was far more prudent and
well-grounded than the lethal French excitements of 1789, yet – if perhaps the
Vatican read Wilson’s early books more closely than did his own countrymen – it
had become clear that America’s commitment to its own unique political heritage
was itself being eroded, mutating into precisely the statist and Mono-planar
path of the Old World governments.
Labels: American political development since the Sixties, American political history, contemporary liberalism, fascism, Marxism, Progressivism, socialism
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home