We’re liberals and we run the show: we don’t need your steenking history
Leon Wieseltier of The New Republic is happy about recent political developments. Very happy.
After decades of wandering in the Republican desert (and he includes the Clinton years as a craven accommodation to Republicans), the good guys (liberals) are finally in the driver’s seat where they belong.
But he would be even happier if Barack Obama would declare himself as a proud, big-government liberal—in contrast to those selfish, lying, hypocritical Republicans.
If your health can take it, you should read Wieseltier’s piece because of the light it sheds on the triumphant liberal mindset of today. He is drunk with his Aquarian vision of government on a white horse riding to the rescue.
If this picture requires ignoring or distorting history, so be it. History is messy; belief is beautiful.
How shall I fisk thee, Mr. Wieseltier? Let me count the ways [I will put the Wieseltier quotes in bold; my responses will follow in regular type].
The public has not yet broken the grip of the conservative discourse that has dominated America for a generation.
Just how has the conservative discourse dominated America for a generation? When last I checked, liberals were quite talkative (not to say loud)—on TV, in academia, churches, newspapers, periodicals, blogs, You Tube, and in fact most of the current sources of information except for talk radio. But despite the overwhelming representation of liberals in media and academia, the fact that conservatives have sometimes been in power during the last twenty years is interpreted by Mr. Wieseltier as “dominating” the discourse.
Consider the insane headline on Newsweek’s cover, “We Are All Socialists Now”: an exclamation of its inner Hannity, as if the president is preparing to abolish private property or expropriate the means of production.
Wieseltier is either ignorant of what socialism is, or purposely deceptive about it. But just for the record, socialists have never agreed that private property should be abolished or that the state should control the means of production. That’s Communism, which is an extreme subset of socialism.
Here’s a summary of socialism’s rather big tent:
Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy. Socialists inspired by the Soviet model of economic development have advocated the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a state that owns all the means of production. Others, including Yugoslavian, Hungarian, Polish and Chinese Communists in the 1970s and 1980s, instituted various forms of market socialism, combining co-operative and state ownership models with the free market exchange and free price system (but not prices for the means of production). Social democrats propose selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies and tax-funded welfare programs and the regulation of markets. Libertarian socialism (including social anarchism and libertarian Marxism) rejects state control and ownership of the economy altogether and advocates direct collective ownership of the means of production via co-operative workers’ councils and workplace democracy.
All that is happening, comrades, is that our democratically constituted central government is acting to protect the whole of our economy by taking over, for a period, a part of our economy.
Oh, is that all (see above definition of socialism)? I guess if you say it will be for our own protection, we’ll believe it, Mr. Wieseltier. And if you say it’s only temporary, we’ll believe that too. But if you look at the actual history of socialism (or even of FDR’s New Deal), I’d say the facts argue otherwise.
The Republicans are not only heartless, they are also hypocritical, since the cause of all this [financial] misery was the market abandon that they promoted so messianically.
Actually, there was another earlier cause, and you would find that cause in too much government regulation, regulation that ignored market realities.
Which side of this argument is correct can be debated, of course. But Mr. Wieseltier doesn’t feel the need to do this; he merely states his position as an established fact. That’s probably because he’s preaching to the choir.
The supposed “heartlessness” of Republicans is a popular meme on the Left. It’s the result of either a misunderstanding or a willful distortion about Republican beliefs. The truth is that most Republicans and Democrats aspire to helping people have good and prosperous lives. They disagree on the best means to go about doing that.
If one is to evaluate which group has the better ideas on the subject, it’s best to look at the evidence of results rather than focus on intentions. But Mr. Wieseltier elevates the latter over the former—and imputes evil motivations to Republicans, as well.
I want the president to tell the American people that, contrary to what they have been taught for many years, government is a jewel of human association and an heirloom of human reason…
Republicans venerate our Constitution, the founders, and their intent. It’s the practice of government they tend to distrust, and with good reason.
Does Mr. Wieseltier really believe his rosy words about government’s performance, as opposed to its ideals? Almost any personal encounter with government would tell him otherwise.
…that government, though it may do ill, does good; that a lot of the good that government does only it can do…
No disagreement here; and conservatives agree. The disagreement is about how much is too much.
…that the size of government must be fitted to the size of its tasks, and so, for a polity such as ours, big government is the only government…
Again, assertion of a philosophy with no backup history or evidence, and ignoring the many times and places where big government has led to even bigger problems.
…that a government based on rights cannot exclude from its concern the adversities of the people who confer upon it its legitimacy, or consign their remediation to the charitable moods of a preferred and decadent few…
Once again: Republicans are also concerned with adversity, and they want the best for people. However, they disagree with Democrats on which governmental policies are most likely to promote it. And Wieseltier ought to learn a bit more about how grassroots charity works in this country.
…that Ronald Reagan, when he proclaimed categorically, without exception or complication, that “government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem,” was a fool…
Here again, Wieseltier is either ignorant (and, I might add, abysmally, unforgivably ignorant) or lying. Reagan, when last I checked, was not an anarchist.
Here’s the Reagan speech Wieseltier is referencing; notice the “exceptions” and “complications.” Reagan, appropriately enough, was speaking of the economic crisis he inherited from his liberal predecessor, Jimmy Carter. His words in their full context bear repeating—because, strangely enough, they fit today’s economic situation as well (fancy that):
You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we’re not bound by that same limitation? We must act today in order to preserve tomorrow. And let there be no misunderstanding: We are going to begin to act, beginning today.
The economic ills we suffer have come upon us over several decades. They will not go away in days, weeks, or months, but they will go away. They will go away because we as Americans have the capacity now, as we’ve had in the past, to do whatever needs to be done to preserve this last and greatest bastion of freedom.
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we’ve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price.
Did Wieseltier even bother to check the sentence he quoted to see when and where it had been said, and what Reagan might actually have meant by it? Since Reagan wasn’t in the habit of stepping up to the podium, stating a single sentence, and then withdrawing, wouldn’t it have been logical to assume that there was some sort of qualification and/or context to it? And it wouldn’t have taken too much time (it took me about ten seconds, max) to find out—because the context is embedded in the sentence itself: “in this present crisis.”
But no, that would be too factual, and too fair, for Wieseltier, who is more interested in glorying in the achievement of liberal hegemony than to bother with such pesky details as facts.
There’s more to fisk, but why bother? I think the point is clear enough. But I’ll close with one more quote from Wieseltier:
In an open society, therefore, it is the intellectual duty of the citizen to search for the warrant for his views, to raise opinions into beliefs by means of reasons, right reasons, reasons conceived in the bravery of arguments. This is the only way to resist the regimentations of demagogues and entertainers.
I agree with this, actually—except that I would add that those “reasons,” and that “bravery of arguments,” should be founded in facts and history rather than mere opinion and yearning.
Also, I have a sneaking suspicion that Mr. Wieseltier resembles one of those demagogues he is warning us about. Whether he is also an entertainer—well, I’ll leave that up to you.
[ADDENDUM: For a bit of pertinent history, here’s Reagan’s actual speech. Enjoy (the relevant portion begins around 5:05).]
I have admired Leon Wieseltier in the past, when he seemed capable of skepticism and humor and a fine, passionate capacity for scoffing at buffoons like Cornell West, whom he called a “bullshitter.” But this piece shows that he has gone into “tilt” mode, rather like Andrew Sullivan. This seems to happen to good minds sometimes.
Neo (squared)con,
Great post with lot of relevant info (not to say all your posts aren’t the same :o> ). You are right about the demagoguery – which is EXACTLY what Reagan warned about. Mr. Mouseketeer (mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa -[thrown in for those “ardent” Catholics Pelosi and Biden] – Mr. Wieseltier) just suffers from a very advanced case of the democratum bacterium delirium that most liberals suffer from – what I have called for a long time – intellectual arrogance.
I’m in limbo on my opinion of Obama; neither dissatisfied or satisfied.
Pingback:Anybody else notice that the one thing missing from James Wolcott’s latest overwrought parcel of word piffle…
[neo-neocon: please edit; too long]
History is becoming unfashionable. It’s being seen kind of like the way The One described the man who hitherto had been his mentor, spiritual guide, and originator of the title of his book: “The Crazy Uncle in the Attic.”
Just yesterday I wrote a trifle on the subject, whihc I think is funny.
Here tis:
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/nolanimrod/blog/2009/02/19/doomsday_book_banned
Pingback:Scrubbing the News for Obama | The Anchoress
forgot to put in the link, sorry.
Frederick Engels 1847
The Principles of Communism
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm
though i find it interesting that you chastise him for what you didnt do very well either.
Did Wieseltier even bother to check the sentence he quoted, to see when and where it had been said, and what Reagan might actually have meant by it?
basically everyone is trying to get thrugh all this with their favored cliff notes..
why read romeo and juliet? you have cliff notes…
why read engels and marx, you only have to read the cliff notes and completely trust the person on the other side when tons of our discussion is over propaganda making totalitarianism.
isnt this like foretting that drugs are illegal and asking the cop when your house is robed if you can have your cocain back?
once something is compromised, nothing is safe. one can not trust ANY part wihout knowlege.
knowlege is power, and if soros can pay someone to help make the farce of global warming true, how hard is it to attack wiki to put false inforamtion on it to make you act in a way that is no in your interests because you were eitehr ignroant, lazy, or trusting… any of the three will do…
Very well done, neo. Exquisite.
[Aside to Artfldgr: Cher dgr, you seem to be operating under the assumption that anyone here would read or care about your extensive and rambling thoughts with their endless CAPSLOCK mode switching on or off. Believe me when I say this: They Do Not.
Learn concision and capitalization. Until you do all you plop in longer than your handle will be scrolled past and seen by no one.]
I’m in limbo on my opinion of Obama; neither dissatisfied or satisfied.
I know what you mean! I feel the very same way about the dog turd on the running track.
I mean, it’s a satisfying dog turd: well formed and smelly, from an obviously healthy and well-fed dog.
I simply wish it were somewhere else.
Artfldgr,
I have to agree somewhat with vanderleun. I find some interesting stuff in your posts but sometimes I don’t have the energy to dig for it. Back when I used to record my original songs in the studio I learned very quickly (from some very talented musicians) that “when in doubt – leave it out”. Writing songs was a good learning experience. One has only a couple of minutes and limited lines to try to get often complex thoughts across. Keep posting – just pare it down to the essentials. And I apologize to all if I, myself, have at times gotten long winded.
The Wieseltier claim about conservative dominance of American discourse reminded me of the Fairness Doctrine and our recent debate here, as well as the Obama admin’s statement the other day that the FD should not be reinstated.
Out of curiosity I checked Kos — Mitsu did weigh in at Kos against the FD in a rambling, semi-obscene diary: Forget the Fairness Doctrine – let’s introduce the SYFPH Doctrine. (SYFPH seems to stand for Shut Your F___ing Pie Hole.)
There was only one comment after Mitsu’s, which was an expression of disbelief that the Obama admin could have taken such a position against the FD.
So two points for Mitsu for taking the effort and getting the Obama position right (at least for now); one point off for expecting the liberal/left world–at least as it occurs at Kos–to be firm against the FD.
Neo,
Touche
“History is messy; belief is beautiful.”
That is like so stolen
Oh Neo, I love it when you start fisking like that!
Pingback:Fatima & the Rosary | The Anchoress
Thoroughly enjoyed the fisk, Neo. You raked the hairless blowhard over the coals with exquisite skill. A nice Friday night treat, went down well with my top shelf margaritas.
Mucho Gusto, vieja.
Neo, thanks for putting up Reagan’s speech. The clear thinking, logical progression, and measured cadences of it make me ache with longing like a man in a desert thirsting for an oasis flowing with common sense.
The liberals will say Ooop’s when the jackboots show up and say “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you”. O’Dumbo will have most of the liberals in a re-education camp before the end of his first term or impeachment, whichever comes first.
Ms. con,
As always, your calm rationality in the face of this crap is heartening. Leon Wieseltier’s piece reads like it was ghost-written by Sean Penn.
Like you, I can remember a time when I admired Liberals for their intellection. The current tsunami of blather emanating from the elite makes me prouder than ever that I dropped out of college 40 years ago in order to get an education.
If possible, would you amend the Constituition to ensure small government, and fiscal responsibility?
If so, what would the particulars be?
Logern, no amendment needed. That would be the original Constitution, as written. You know, the one that modern politicians, of both parties, like to wipe their asses with.
Neo, I enjoyed the fisking. I knew that I couldn’t read Wieseltier’s original article. I’m pretty sure blood would have shot out of my ears.
I’ll leave you with the following quote from George Washington:
Well, it’s hitting the fan. It’s going to get on everyone.
A line will be drawn at some point, and America will have to decide what it is going to be.
As I said on another blog a couple years ago, we need to bring our military home for a single purpose; to ring our borders and protect us from outside influence, while the rest of us duke it out inside our borders until we truly decide if we are to remain a republic, or become a socialist nation.
The way things are lining up, those who can’t or won’t are going to further be given what the government thinks they need. And what is given them will be confiscated from those who can and do by that same government. The government looters and the moochers are ecstatic about it.
That this kind of nonesense even gets published is shocking. Thanks for unpacking this piece in your inimitable way.
The point about Wieseltier’s story is not that it is true, but that it is BELIEVED. Furthermore, the people who cling to it probably can’t understand the world in any other way. They have been deeply indoctrinated with a meta-narrative that tells them who they are and why they matter. More importantly, it tells them why they don’t have what they want.
Whether the narrative corresponds to reality is immaterial as long as some one else can be made to absorb the costs of fantasy. To become an ex-liberal, you have to get mugged by reality.
I expect that this will happen to some over the next 4 years. But the balance of power will shift long before then, as the liberals overreach and alienate the populists. Attorney General Holder is already doing his part
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTY0YzM2Y2I5YzIyZDdkMGRjZjRiYjY1MmIyY2QxNTI=
I don’t think he can help himself. Nor can Rahm Emmanuel keep his hands off the Census.
The New Republic? Isn’t that the magazine that was a cheerleader for Mussolini? /snark
By the way, nice fisking, neo.
On the founders:
All these were honored in their generations, and were the glory of their times.
There be of them, that have left a name behind them,
that their praises might be reported.
And some there be, which have no memorial; who are perished, as though they had never been; and are become as though they had never been born; and their children after them.
But these were merciful men, whose righteousness hath not been forgotten.
With their seed shall continually remain a good inheritance, and their children are within the covenant.
Their seed standeth fast, and their children for their sakes.
Their seed shall remain for ever, and their glory shall not be blotted out.
Their bodies are buried in peace; but their name liveth for evermore.
The people will tell of their wisdom, and the congregation will shew forth their praise.
Ecclesiasticus, Chapter 44
This is another reason why when my New Republic subscription lapses–and I’ve been a subscriber for decades–I’ll let it go and probably get, for want of a better choice, the Weekly Standard.
Oblio has it right. Wieseltier is writing for the true-believing socialists. They are giddy and drunk with power now, after being in the wilderness for many years. All the more reason we should fear them, because that arrogance and smug self-assurance is already manifesting itself in over reach.
neo, the thing that always astounded me, both during and after my decade on the Left, was how socialists/Communists would avow their superior understanding of history – and then demonstrate their inability to absorb and grasp the particulars. So, when they talk “history” they really mean the Marxist appropriation of the Hegelian dialectic of history. I think Hegel was wrong, and so was Marx. There is no science of history.
To Mr. Wieseltier I would submit the abysmal failure of Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” experiment – which left us with higher crime, destroyed black family life, and generations of welfare dependency. All of that money being spent was not ending poverty and never could. The liberals/socialists would argue that we didn’t throw enough money at the problem. Well, how much money could be thrown into a black hole whose dynamics were not going to change because you keep adding zeroes after the digit?
“History is messy; belief is beautiful”. Very nice — I plan to borrow it. You write well.
Pingback:Maggie's Farm
I was trying to make sense of what appears on its face to be nonsense, namely that the conservatives have “dominated” discourse “for a generation.” So this is since 1980 (advent of Reagan) or perhaps 20 years (i.e. 1989, let’s remember what happened in 1989).
Then I started thinking about the progressive decoder ring, in which many words are perfectly well understood to mean something different what what they appear to mean on the surface, if not the OPPOSITE of what they appear to mean. For example, “peace” and “justice” don’t mean what you think they mean.
Let’s try a few:
“Peace” = surrender or appeasement
“Justice” = progressive social engineering and economic redistribution
“Treason” = patriotism (remember General Betray-Us?)
“Patriotism” = giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the US, and making propaganda on their behalf
“Fairness” = discriminatory preferences
“Bipartisan” = do it our way or else
“Dialogue” = shut up and listen
We could probably go on and on. In fact, there should probably be a website with a dictionary of progressive speech, if it doesn’t already exist. Otherwise normal folks are going to hurt their brains trying to follow the argument.
In this context, I think “conservatives dominated the discourse” means “we haven’t FELT SAFE to say what we really want since Reagan and the fall of the Soviet Union.” And they haven’t felt safe because a) they have been completely aware that overt Leftism is electoral suicide, and b) they lost self-confidence when the communist states collapsed and it became clear what a mountain of lies the Leftists and fellow travelers had told about what was really gong on. Socialism as a religion was discredited.
We should welcome the fact that the Left feels free to show it’s true colors. Their mistake. Overt Leftism in America is still electoral suicide.
>>>”government is a jewel of human association and an heirloom of human reason…”
Caligula
Nero
Ghengis Khan
Vlad Dracul
The Committee of Public Safety
Stalin
Mussolini
Hitler
Hirohito
Mao Tse Tung
Pol Pot
Mugabe
Yeah, that’s a bleedin’ agora right there.
I don’t believe Republicans are heartless, but they are hypocritical, which is why I left the party and became Libertarian.
I haven’t met a Republican yet who wouldn’t allow some large swathes of government control of the economy. Hell, the first TARP was put together by alot of Republicans.
Democrats are worse because they are unapologetic and totally devoid of a basis of thought. Their history is all “relative”, which really means “totally subjected to how I view things”. I call liberals “sloppy thinkers”.
Oblio,
I am of the opinion that it is perhaps a good thing that they are feeling braver about putting out there what they really want and what they really mean. They are out of the closets now. In the short run, this is bad for America. In the long run it is good for America. We have a lot of kids (and many adults) who don’t know history, especially the history of failed socialism. Well, they are about to get that lesson for the next four years.
This guy and his Party are gonzo by 2012. We will start to see it happen in 2010. The Democrats will then be fully known as European Social Democrats (socialism lite) and it may be a long time before the Democrats will be trusted again.
Jimmy Carter II will be much worse than Jimmy Carter I. But it is the lesson we need, especially the younger voters who either were not born yet or were just toddlers at the time.
But will we take names this time? Last time, everyone got amnesty. It could all be ascribed to an excess of youthful enthusiasm and lack of information. They aren’t so youthful this time.
Since Obama’s victory, more than one liberal “friend” has tried to engage me for the purpose of self-entertainment, and they make me feel bad because I’m the one who ends up being entertained. Before finger-waggling begins in earnest I ask for their agreement on two centrist precepts:
1. You really shouldn’t adopt, let alone advance, the belief that someone is a clueless moron if you haven’t personally made that person’s acquaintance (*cough* Sarah Palin *cough*);
2. You cannot use your conversion to, or occupation of, a point on the ideological spectrum to manifest some inner decency or goodness; bad people have good ideas & good people have bad ideas every single hour of every single day.
I’ve yet to have met one hardcore liberal who showed even token resistance to agreeing to these.
And I have yet to meet one hardcore liberal who, having agreed to these, went on to triumphantly make their point in the manner in which they envisioned when they decided to challenge me to their absurd little Fox-n-Hound exercise.
Your Mister Wieseltier needs to cogitate somewhat on centrist precept #2, I think. Or he should’ve done that before he started writing. Could have saved himself some embarrassment at your merciless, flensing hands.
Way too late now.
Well done, Mr. Freeberg! More dinner party techniques for when progressives trap you in the corner, and what you really want is another glass of wine. I’ll bet they get a cagey and hunted look when you propose RULES.
Rick, do you think enough Republicans will defect to cause the party to implode and reform under purer libertarian principles? I can’t see that happening.
FGOS, I am a Republican, and I supported federal capital infusions and other steps to keep the banks solvent. Secretary Paulson pretty well botched the operation. And almost all parts of the economy–banking above all–are and have been controlled through regulation.
Rick, you might find this link amusing. http://mises.org/quiz.aspx
I think I scored about 75. I hope that doesn’t make me a hypocrite.
Rick, if you want to find your TARP money, I think this is it: it’s still in the bank.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/Current/
Dear Neo,
There is a good book, The Breaking Point, about Hemingway, Dos Passos, and Jose Robles, which details the perfectly vicious, scandalous treatment Dos Passos received at the hands of “The New Republic,” according to the book because he was insufficiently Stalinist. They published vicious, defamatory untruths then. They haven’t changed. They don’t care. It’s one big masturbatory, solipsistic extravanganza.
Nolanimrod: See this.
“I want the president to tell the American people that, contrary to what they have been taught for many years, government is a jewel of human association and an heirloom of human reason…”
I’ve been reading this in other places in other forms. One being ‘government / taxes or lord of the flies, pick one’.
Anyway, they must have slept through 20th century history. Who murdered those 100 million plus civilians and sparked those mega wars? Small government types?
Pingback:Ed Driscoll » He Says He Wants A Revolution
Pingback:» “Love me. I’m a liberal” - Blogger News Network
Pingback:“Love me. I’m a liberal” : Stop The ACLU
Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy.
Has anyone besides me (and Jonah Goldberg, of course) noticed that the latter half of that is pretty much what Hitler and Mussolini did? — or at least the smokescreen they hid behind. I know Hitler had “bigger” things on his mind than the economy.