27 Comments

1. chuck:

Ask not what you can do for the party, ask what the party can do for you.

Feb 20, 2005 - 8:47 am 2. PJ:

Re calcifaction of thought: When I walk around campus and see the white-haired profs in their sandals and “Bush is Satan” t-shirts, I think they are the new fuddy-duddies, just as closeminded as some of the older generation in the ’60s. People say to me in alarm “how you’ve changed” as if study and thought and change are bad things. Their dogma is played out, their day is done.

Feb 20, 2005 - 8:52 am 3. Charlie (Colorado):

We need only look at Robert Novak and Pat Buchanan to see that conservatives as conservatives have nothing to be smug about. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that conservatives — the people who stand athwart the course of history, yelling “stop!”, in Buckley’s famous formulation — are always and inherently going to be against the promoition of democracy. (I don’t doubt that Buckley himself was referring to the Marxist notion of the progress of history, but he none the less said something significant about the Novaks and Buchanans.)

However, I’ve got a question. I think it may apply to your book, and while it might be controversial, I don’t mean it to be smug or to start a fight (as opposed to an argument.)

Here’s the question: I know that I had a couple of advantages, in that I had both a more than normal streak of anti-authoritarianism, and family that directly participated in the Hungarian Revolt in 1956. By the time I was in high school, in 1969, it was pretty obvious to me that the great Socialisms might preach the withering away of the State in some abstract future, but they practiced a bone-crushing, spirit-deadening authoritarianism as obnoxious as, and functionally indistinguishable from, the Fascisms of Hitler and Mussolini.

But so many smart, well-educated, sensitive intellectuals of the left didn’t see that.

Why?

Feb 20, 2005 - 9:11 am 4. Sun-Tzu:

Roger,

The irony, of course, is that Deng Xiaoping was condemned in China for precisely the pragmatic, centrist thinking that you are talking about.

Deng was twice sentenced to internal exile for the temerity of being a “capitalist roader,” believing that ideology was less important than pragmatic results-oriented thinking.

One wonders, with the rise of Howard Dean and his avowed intention to resist “Republican-lite” policies, and the apparent shift on the part of many liberals to an irreconcilable antagonism against Bush (and, for much of the Left, American interests), whether the Dems wouldn’t shun a Deng Xiaoping for failing to maintain ideological rigor.

CO Charlie:

It is noteworthy how many scientists were beguiled by the visions of socialism. One is tempted to argue that this is due to a combination of:

1. The importance accorded scientists (but not necessarily science) in Marxist-Leninist regimes, being made Heroes of the Soviet Union, insulated from having to raise money or grants or the like, usually members of the nomenklatura, etc.

2. The greater “order” apparent in such regimes (since the trains ran on time, according to “scientifically derived” principles).

3. Historical myopia (see, for example, the widespread belief that it was the US that initiated the Cold War, as though little issues like the Berlin airlift or the North Korean invasion of the south were but piffling details).

I’d throw in a dash of curmudgeonly “I love humanity, it’s people I can’t stand,” “You can’t make an omelette w/o breaking eggs (i.e., selective pragmatism, in the service of the “greater good”),” and romantic “The current system is so flawed, it must be overthrown (see Lee Harris’ thoughts on “Fantasy Ideology”),” to varying degrees for each individual.

Feb 20, 2005 - 9:23 am 5. PJ:

They can’t admit it, Charlie, because they never experienced it. They lie to themselves that the cruelties of communism are just propaganda and fantasize that if only they could be in charge and try it here, things would be different. There’s a little bit of the fascist inside every one of them.

Feb 20, 2005 - 9:27 am 6. Final Historian:

To paraphrase Mao’s response to Deng:

What Republican said that!?

Ideological purity often means more to partisans than the truth. This is the case with those on both the left and right.

Feb 20, 2005 - 9:31 am 7. chuck:

But so many smart, well-educated, sensitive intellectuals of the left didn’t see that.

Don’t know Charlie. I have to admit that most of my own basic opinions were formed between the ages of 12 and 16 and there was little direct influence from my teachers or others; mostly my ideas came from observation of animals and my age peers and a bit of thought. In fact, there were “star” teachers in high school who attracted followings, but I didn’t find them interesting. When I got to college my impression was that few of my fellow students had actually *thought* about anything from first principles: observable reality. They were smart, yes, but thinkers? No. It may just be a personality trait.

Feb 20, 2005 - 9:34 am 8. VRWconspiracy:

Social self description — what an apt phrase. I think you have it right. I wonder how many do it knowing full well what they are doing — the cowardly cynics — and how many do it without realizing that they are buckling to peer pressure — the dunces.

Feb 20, 2005 - 9:49 am 9. Todd Pearson:

Yesterday, I was talking to a friend of mine who hates Bush. I was trying to get her to tell me exactly why she hates him, going through various issues. Her response was eye-opening. This is very close to what she said (I didn’t write it down.)

“The mistake that you make is that you think that people think through things logically and dispassionately. Most of us don’t, and you can quote me on that. Most peoples’ politics are driven by visceral, emotional reactions and my visceral, emotional reaction to Bush is to despise him.”

I changed the subject.

Feb 20, 2005 - 9:50 am 10. richard mcenroe:

Ya gotta remember, Roger, only about one third of Americans thought democracy was worth building in this country, to begin with…

Feb 20, 2005 - 10:07 am 11. Terrye:

Not long ago I got in an argument with Allah on this site. If I remember correctly the subject was whether Americans should send troops off to fight for democracy in other countries. His position [or perhaps it was just a question] was that we had some obligation to these young people, that they should not have to die for other bankrupt cultures that refuse to die for their own freedom.

My feeling was that our national security and the democratization of other nations were connected, and always had been. Often times in our past young Americans have left home to fight and they were fighting for an idea more often than they were fighting to protect the west coast from invasion.

I think this might be where the divide is. Daily Kos says it all: screw em. That pretty much covers the liberal attitude as to the suffering of others, unless that suffering serves a higher political purpose.

I also think that much of the attraction to the left began in the 60’s and can be traced to the civil rights movement. Fighting civil rights was one of the greatest mistakes conservatives ever made. Many people went left because going right meant George Wallace.

Feb 20, 2005 - 10:30 am 12. Terrye:

IK went to that link and there was a another poll mentioned that put Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton as the top presidents.

Lincoln and FDR came in behind them both.

That is surprising. I would not put Bill Clinton in the top ten, much less the top two.

Feb 20, 2005 - 10:36 am 13. Curmudgeon:

Hey man, what was so bad about Pinochet? I’d argue that Chile, and South America in general, are better off for his actions.

I think “fighting for democracy” got a bad name during the war in Vietnam, when the government had unfettered access to young men, and squandered them in ill-planned military ventures. The need to attract and keep people with the right skills and attitudes in the services in the post-draft era has done a lot to make politicians more accountable and the military more professional. Additionally, the people involved in the action are both more motivated and more likely to be self selected warriors/soldiers. I know my own aversion to military service had little to do with fear of death (A remote abstraction to most 18 year-olds) and much to do with the way I was treated during my pre-induction physical. I didn’t mind the idea of killing people, but I hated taking orders. As I’ve grown older, I’ve come to appreciate those who can much more than I did at the time.

Feb 20, 2005 - 11:17 am 14. Rick Ballard:

Terrye,

As long as Hillary shows potential viability for a presidential run you will not see Clinton drop to his earned position.

People still think of Kennedy as a better than average president due to the two Teddie’s (Sorenson and White) great hagiographies. Just as people don’t remember that the civil rights movement owes a great deal to Eisenhower for his promulgation of the voting rights acts of ‘57 and ‘60 and to his AG, Herbert Brownell for pushing the ‘57 act’s enforcement. We tend to not be reminded of one of Clinton’s Democrat predecessors, Orville Faubus, using the Arkansas National Guard to block desegregation of Central High until Eisenhower ordered the Guard’s federalization and withdrawal, while sending elements of the 101st Airborn to assure compliance with the Brown v. Board of Education decision.

Just as we are seldom reminded that the rationale for Goldwater’s opposition to the ‘64 Act was based upon the concern that the bill would “require people to discriminate on the basis of color or race or religion” despite Humphrey’s offer to eat the bill “one page at a time” if those fears were realized. Goldwater proved prescient and Humphrey reneged (why am I not surprised?). Oh well, Affirmative Action has only been around for 30 years, maybe it was worth it. Or not.

Feb 20, 2005 - 11:36 am 15. richard mcenroe:

Everything that needed to be said on this subject was said by Congressman Rangel (Democrat-Narcoleptic, NY) when he said, “the American people do not want to send their children to die to bring freedom to other countries.”

Anything that bottom-feeding parasite believes, I oppose, thank you very much.

Feb 20, 2005 - 12:01 pm 16. Katherine:

Why is it that people always want to fight ìfor democracyî, but never ìfor libertyî? Granted, democracy is a process that is most conducive for liberty to flourish, but it is only that, a process, and can be used for evil gains.

Bush is the first politician I am aware of who actually speaks about individual freedom and I rather admire him for that.

We have been puzzling over and over again about the apparent blindness of ìgood peopleî even if their cherished ideologies visited unthinkable horror on other humans. Lee Harris answered it with his theory of ìfantasy ideologyî. Yesterday somebody posted another very good article explaining ìliberalism as psychologyî. It is a complement to the fantasy ideology Read it all.

http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/ebeltt_20040805.html

Excerpts:

ìWhy do seemingly good, intelligent people take positions that cause so much harm in the face of all the facts? (…) Liberalism isnít a political ideology; itís a psychology – the psychology of self-satisfaction to be precise.î

(Ö.)

ìNo where is liberal egotism more evident than in the way they argue and debate though. To conservatives, debate is about the issues, which can make arguing with liberals quite frustrating, since to liberals, debate is about them. Liberals argue, not to show the value of an idea, but to show the value of themselves, either to the other person, or to some other observer. They either want to ìproveî their superiority or the other personís inferiority (or more often both). Rationality simply isnít required as long as they can feel good about themselves in the end.î

(Ö)

ìAnything liberals can do to avoid facing damage to their ego, they will do, both consciously and unconsciously. But they rarely put real thought into the consequences of their positions, because those consequences simply donít interest them. They engage in politics solely because it feeds their ego.î

I will also add that it is relatively easy to dehumanize ìgood peopleî into doing horrific deeds. In the ìRape of Nankingî there is rather telling confession from a Japanese soldier who, when first instructed to bayonet live, defenseless Chinese, recoiled with horror. But he was ORDRED to do it ñ or he would face serious consequences ñ and everybody else was doing it, too. In the end he went along and found much enjoyment in rape and pillage, as did other soldiers. After all, these were ONLY Chinese who were being killed and tortured, werenít they?

It is clear that the first step one needs to take on that road is to treat the enemy as something not quite human. That is why I am not entirely easy with the ìI hate Republicans” rhetoric. Somebody might start taking himself a bit too seriously out there.

Feb 20, 2005 - 1:01 pm 17. JB:

“Many people have no real politics at all other than social “self-description.” They hypnotize themselves into sets of beliefs they feel are in keeping with club or team membership. Then the franchise moves to another city and they switch beliefs to keep their rooting status.”

That’s true, but the alternatives must be mentioned: a genuine shift in beliefs following cataclysmic events (like 9/11) and simple calculation/weighing of issues.

Feb 20, 2005 - 1:05 pm 18. chuck:

In the end he went along and found much enjoyment in rape and pillage, as did other soldiers.

Yes, I think that there is a tendency to overlook the fact that such acts can be enjoyable. It is not that only evil persons do such things, it is that ordinary human beings can do such things and enjoy the doing. That is why I prefer a religious outlook that says that we must guard against sin and temptation. The easier philosophy that says that one should express their inner feelings and do what feels good is a dangerous temptation. I believe history bears this out.

I have been having this discussion with my boomer cohort since the early 70’s. What a generation!

Feb 20, 2005 - 1:48 pm 19. Roberts:

Roger, who are these people who call themselves “liberals” ? I don’t recognize them at all anymore.

My opinion of them before was a bit cartoonish and stereotypical, I admit. But they’ve grown to match my cartoon stereotype – not the opposite.

Feb 20, 2005 - 1:49 pm 20. Kevin P:

Roger:

Much of the left sounds like Buchanon and he is now a hot ticket on the Pundit circuit because his isolationist policies dovetail perfectly with the lefts opposition to the war. The man that the left was calling a caveman and a thug after his Houston speech has become their ideological darling of the left. Politics makes strange bedfellows.

Feb 20, 2005 - 2:16 pm 21. holdfast:

“The Fall of the Berlin Wall was a milestone and a cause for rejoicing.”

Well, yes, I suppose so among the soft left or polite left – but among the more serious socialists, I don’t think so. I’m sure that you felt that way, but are you really so sure about all of your contemporaries?

Feb 20, 2005 - 6:59 pm 22. Steven Mitchell:

“Wisdom” is not equal to “Intelligence” is not equal to “Education”. Even a highly intelligent, highly educated person is perfectably capable of being a fool. Acting the fool I kind of like; being one is only acceptable for those that don’t have the mental equipment to be anything else.

Some people are educated beyond their intelligence. Some ideas are too stupid to be believed unless one is first educated into believing them. In my experience, this is a not uncommon way that the liberal sensibility rots. (Conservatives tend to rot in other ways, when so inclined.)

On the other hand, if the liberal sensibility doesn’t rot, and the person doesn’t turn into a conservative–then whatever amount of wisdom, intelligence, and education is available can be put into advancing liberal ideas.

One reason that conservatives don’t tend to go down the “educated into foolishness” road is that conservatives already accept it as a fact that highly educated and intelligent people are as likely to be complete morons in leadership posts as anyone else.

Feb 20, 2005 - 7:46 pm 23. Kenneth Almquist:

Roger, as I understand your argument, you are comparing the views of group A (the group of liberals/leftists that you used to be a part of) with the later views of group B (self-identified liberals in a poll), assuming that the groups are basicly the same, and concluding that the difference is due to changing opinions. I question that assumption, because it seems to me that group A must be much smaller than group B.

I’m a member of group B, but like most Americans I haven’t paid a lot of attention to South America. I never formed an opinion about whether the United States should attempt to replace the Pinochet government with a democracy because I didn’t know that the people in group A were raising the question. The big foreign policy question at the time was how to deal with the Soviet Union, and to the extent that I thought about foreign policy, that’s what I thought about. Group A is limited to people who spent enough time thinking about American foreign policy that they could think about Chile as well as the Soviet Union, which means in contains a small minority of the American public. In contrast, group B is a fairly large chunk of the American public (otherwise it wouldn’t be broken out in poll results). If this is correct, it is impossible for your assumption to be true. Even if every member of group A is a member of group B, most members of group B are not members of group A.

What you need is logitudinal data, and you have at least one data point available. You are a member of group A, and your opinions have changed. Does your hypothesis explain these changes? Admittedly, a sample size of one is hardly conclusive, but I would think you would look at it anyway, if only because its a sample that must be of particular interest to you.

Feb 20, 2005 - 8:00 pm 24. Roger:

Mr. Almquist, I am puzzled that you believe Mr. Simon’s dislike of autocracies is restricted to South America, if that’s what you mean. I read his reference to Pinochet as just one example among many, but Mr. Simon should speak for himself in that regard.

As to your larger point, I am somewhat older even than our host and distinctly recall Republicans in the Fifties and Sixties to have been consistently more isolationist than Democrats. The reverse now seems to have occurred, with the exception of the Buchananite wing of theRepublicans who have become, oddly something of heroes to the far left as noted above.

Feb 20, 2005 - 8:44 pm 25. Kyda Sylvester:

I’m one of those “self-described” conservatives (is there a 12-step program?), life-long but never, I hope, stunted. I try not to be smug, but I will admit these days it is sometimes difficult.

Conservatives, by nature, are pragmatists (even at times hardheaded pragmatists). For conservatives, the bottom line for any foreign adventure was “Show me the strategic and/or economic value to the United States” (and, yes, for many conservatives, Vietnam passed that test–we really, really hated Communism and feared its spread). One of the reasons I voted for Bush in 2000 was his natural skepticism of “nation building” (I remember Condi Rice at the convention talking about how the world had to get out of the habit of “dialing 911-USA”).

Then came September 11, 2001. By the time the South Tower crumbled, I was a new kind of conservative. The sea change for many conservatives that day was just as significant as it was for those of you who were catapulted over from the left. We all became something different that day, something better I think.

Feb 21, 2005 - 7:43 am 26. Mark Poling:

Re: academia’s continuing fondness for socialism.

An academic will tend to prefer a neat theory to messy reality any day of the week. A command economy (with limited centralized actors) is just a hell of a lot easier to model than a demand economy (with unlimited independently-motivated actors).

It’s like that old saw about the drunk looking for his wallet under the streetlight. He didn’t lose it there, but at least the light is good….

Feb 21, 2005 - 10:06 am 27. Kenneth Almquist:

“Mr. Almquist, I am puzzled that you believe Mr. Simon’s dislike of autocracies is restricted to South America, if that’s what you mean.”

No, I just used Pinochet as an example because that is the example that Mr. Simon used.

“As to your larger point, I am somewhat older even than our host and distinctly recall Republicans in the Fifties and Sixties to have been consistently more isolationist than Democrats. The reverse now seems to have occurred…”

The Democratic party has changed a lot since the 1950’s, but at least part of that is that is due to conservatives switching to the Republican party. I don’t know how much of the change is due to individuals changing their minds.

That’s why I raised the question of why Roger Simon changed his views. The answer might or might not generalize to other individuals, but at least we would know we were talking about an individual changing his mind.

Feb 22, 2005 - 10:54 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: