NAIVETÉ?
Third Way versus Middle Ground
Or as Jonah Goldberg put it in the title of his book: Liberal
Fascism?
Having attempted to digest Goldberg's arguments I am forced to reexamine and
rethink. But this is the purpose of intellectual investigation; it's how one learns. My
purpose here is not to refute Goldberg but to reevaluate what I have discussed with
regard to what he has presented. He is not wrong, so the question is, is there room
for middle ground in light of human nature; in other words, is what I have been
pursuing even possible?
Golberg is Jewish and very conservative, thus his discussion includes many
references and arguments with respect to both constituencies, as would be
expected. We cannot purge ourselves of our beliefs and when writing they come to
the fore. One reviewer dismissed Liberal Fascism arrogantly as the same old
collection of conservative hype. Some of the conservative dogma is surely there,
and along with it some of the same criticism of liberal dogma and hype. But to
dismiss his thesis as did this reviewer is short sighted at best and blindly ignorant
at worst. Today's liberalism (not, incidentally classical liberalism) is
unquestionably fascistic, using the proper definition of fascism, and Golberg's
discussion of how it developed that way it very informative, and as he continually
points out, not necessarily wrong.
The April 21 2008 cover story in US News and World Report put it this way in its
title: "The Return of Big Government." Without rehashing it let it suffice to say that
US News summed it up as: "Americans want Uncle Sam to solve their problems."
I think that is an accurate summary and I have said similar in many ways as I have
labored over my perceptions of the evolution of our culture and the conclusion which
I have been approaching: it's about economics and our increasing ignorance of it
and its results. In short there is ample evidence that when governments tinker with
the economy and attempt to plan for what is best for us they are more likely to screw
it up than to make it better. Yet, there also must be some controls over the
unbridled greed that would ensue if self interest were allowed to proceed
unchecked. This is the contested middle ground I have attempted to address.
Companies, corporations, are likely, if unrestricted, to act like individuals to which
they are legally compared: they will pursue self interest. Yet government, when
unrestricted, will also act like the individuals of which it is made up: arrogantly,
assured that it has the answers and must pursue achieving them through whatever
means are necessary. The latter is that to which Golberg alludes, and his logic is,
in my opinion, irrefutable. Concentrated power will almost always lead to abuse,
however well intended it might be, and those who wield it are almost inevitably
susceptible to the conceit and arrogance that they know best; when they pursue
that belief it is fascism.
The point this brings up is whether a middle ground is realistic, or even possible,
or, as the title of this section suggests, is it naive within a culture that is increasingly
convinced that government needs to solve all of our problems? Middle ground
suggests that there are areas in which government needs to assume a role and
there are areas in which it needs to allow market forces to "work their magic" and
that is the challenge I envision. Goldberg's contribution in bringing up fascism
suggests that the voters' susceptibility to propaganda and ignorance of the basics
of economics and the historical experience it has provided us (that is the historical
experience the world has gained by juggling market forces and controls) makes it
problematic; but impossible?
We have been drifting toward increased government controls with increased
complexity of the economic and social forces with which we are faced. Man, despite
appearances to the contrary, realizes his inadequacies both individually and
collectively and feels frustrated with his inability to do anything about it. Labor
unions served their purpose at one time, and have atrophied. Is Democratic politics
doing the same? If so the reasons are the same: power corrupts and most that
achieve it are incapable of resisting its lure to abuse it for their own benefits. We
see those who have it tend to abuse it, or so it would seem, and those who would
have it use every opportunity to show us how those that have it are abusing it. Of
course, when they do achieve it somehow they find themselves in the same
position, and so it goes. The problem as we all should well know, though we are
constantly lulled otherwise, is the corruptibility of human self interest.
I have contended that the unique measures taken by those that brought about the
structure of the government of the United States - particularly federalism, rule of law,
checks and balances (and a viable middle class, without which are not likely to be
tenable) - worked to counter the natural tendencies of the elite that are chosen to
rule, but also of the voters that are prone to their own tendencies. They are, of
course, not perfect nor can they ever be, as those in power (as well as those who
want to be in power) find ways to circumvent them and use them to their own
advantage - this includes,incidentally, those that want to be taken care of as well as
the power elite. But they have at least provided for a rough stability of countering
and replacing - let's call it keeping the pendulum swinging. On the other hand the
feelings of inadequacy and frustration ever increase with complexity, and there is a
human tendency to seek someone to take care of us. The history of religion
supports that, but the tendency is fairly obvious everywhere where there are leaders
to whom we look for guidance and support. The fascist argument points to a
tendency to seek the same with secular "religion" with government taking over a
similar role, which of course is a precept of fascism wherever it has been practiced.
So, back to the question: is a middle ground practical? Even Possible? I think it
is, theoretically, assuming those who seek power and those who elect them to it are
sufficiently knowledgeable of the economic ramifications of their decisions and are
really interested in maintaining what we have achieved, even when it is not in their
own personal interests to do so, in the face of continued international competition
and turbulence. Perhaps another word for middle ground is dialog. Is it possible
to create an environment in which facts and logic can be discussed intelligently and
with civility to weigh both challenges; actions; and possible resulting
circumstances, including unintended - particularly economic?
Oh my, what a challenge. But note that it does not suggest that we change
human nature as some would wish, but will not occur, at least in any foreseeable
future. It suggests only that we continue to be able to maintain the ability to curtail
the ambitions of those who would permanently subvert our interests to theirs - as
well as balance the interests of the rest of us - and force all others into honest
dialog. In that light I would suggest suspicion of the phrases "in the public interest"
or "for the general good". They are siren song phrases that sound so good, but
conceal a serious flaw: who determines what that general good is, and how far are
they willing to go, as related to those who get in their way, to achieve it? Yet at the
same time let's beware of the cult of rights; when everyone's rights are sacrosanct
we have achieved anarchy, a state that cannot last beyond the next pocket of power
that emerges. Middle ground is all we have; let's hope we can keep it viable, if by no
other means than the continual swing o f the pendulum.
So, naiveté? Perhaps it is. But what are the alternatives? To surrender, just
give up? That we will never achieve perfection is not an excuse to abrogate. The
middle ground goal - concept - is valid, even if the hopes of achieving it are limited
at best. I shall continue to contend that extremism needs to be marginalized - and
a middle ground is the only place that can occur, however minimally. Hopefully, in
the long run even if not endowed with the necessary knowledge we will have the
sense to see the alternatives, and turn back toward the middle. Pray not for
knowledge, as that may be unrealistic; pray instead for good sense, as that is
possible - and even realistic.
Or as Jonah Goldberg put it in the title of his book: Liberal
Fascism?
Having attempted to digest Goldberg's arguments I am forced to reexamine and
rethink. But this is the purpose of intellectual investigation; it's how one learns. My
purpose here is not to refute Goldberg but to reevaluate what I have discussed with
regard to what he has presented. He is not wrong, so the question is, is there room
for middle ground in light of human nature; in other words, is what I have been
pursuing even possible?
Golberg is Jewish and very conservative, thus his discussion includes many
references and arguments with respect to both constituencies, as would be
expected. We cannot purge ourselves of our beliefs and when writing they come to
the fore. One reviewer dismissed Liberal Fascism arrogantly as the same old
collection of conservative hype. Some of the conservative dogma is surely there,
and along with it some of the same criticism of liberal dogma and hype. But to
dismiss his thesis as did this reviewer is short sighted at best and blindly ignorant
at worst. Today's liberalism (not, incidentally classical liberalism) is
unquestionably fascistic, using the proper definition of fascism, and Golberg's
discussion of how it developed that way it very informative, and as he continually
points out, not necessarily wrong.
The April 21 2008 cover story in US News and World Report put it this way in its
title: "The Return of Big Government." Without rehashing it let it suffice to say that
US News summed it up as: "Americans want Uncle Sam to solve their problems."
I think that is an accurate summary and I have said similar in many ways as I have
labored over my perceptions of the evolution of our culture and the conclusion which
I have been approaching: it's about economics and our increasing ignorance of it
and its results. In short there is ample evidence that when governments tinker with
the economy and attempt to plan for what is best for us they are more likely to screw
it up than to make it better. Yet, there also must be some controls over the
unbridled greed that would ensue if self interest were allowed to proceed
unchecked. This is the contested middle ground I have attempted to address.
Companies, corporations, are likely, if unrestricted, to act like individuals to which
they are legally compared: they will pursue self interest. Yet government, when
unrestricted, will also act like the individuals of which it is made up: arrogantly,
assured that it has the answers and must pursue achieving them through whatever
means are necessary. The latter is that to which Golberg alludes, and his logic is,
in my opinion, irrefutable. Concentrated power will almost always lead to abuse,
however well intended it might be, and those who wield it are almost inevitably
susceptible to the conceit and arrogance that they know best; when they pursue
that belief it is fascism.
The point this brings up is whether a middle ground is realistic, or even possible,
or, as the title of this section suggests, is it naive within a culture that is increasingly
convinced that government needs to solve all of our problems? Middle ground
suggests that there are areas in which government needs to assume a role and
there are areas in which it needs to allow market forces to "work their magic" and
that is the challenge I envision. Goldberg's contribution in bringing up fascism
suggests that the voters' susceptibility to propaganda and ignorance of the basics
of economics and the historical experience it has provided us (that is the historical
experience the world has gained by juggling market forces and controls) makes it
problematic; but impossible?
We have been drifting toward increased government controls with increased
complexity of the economic and social forces with which we are faced. Man, despite
appearances to the contrary, realizes his inadequacies both individually and
collectively and feels frustrated with his inability to do anything about it. Labor
unions served their purpose at one time, and have atrophied. Is Democratic politics
doing the same? If so the reasons are the same: power corrupts and most that
achieve it are incapable of resisting its lure to abuse it for their own benefits. We
see those who have it tend to abuse it, or so it would seem, and those who would
have it use every opportunity to show us how those that have it are abusing it. Of
course, when they do achieve it somehow they find themselves in the same
position, and so it goes. The problem as we all should well know, though we are
constantly lulled otherwise, is the corruptibility of human self interest.
I have contended that the unique measures taken by those that brought about the
structure of the government of the United States - particularly federalism, rule of law,
checks and balances (and a viable middle class, without which are not likely to be
tenable) - worked to counter the natural tendencies of the elite that are chosen to
rule, but also of the voters that are prone to their own tendencies. They are, of
course, not perfect nor can they ever be, as those in power (as well as those who
want to be in power) find ways to circumvent them and use them to their own
advantage - this includes,incidentally, those that want to be taken care of as well as
the power elite. But they have at least provided for a rough stability of countering
and replacing - let's call it keeping the pendulum swinging. On the other hand the
feelings of inadequacy and frustration ever increase with complexity, and there is a
human tendency to seek someone to take care of us. The history of religion
supports that, but the tendency is fairly obvious everywhere where there are leaders
to whom we look for guidance and support. The fascist argument points to a
tendency to seek the same with secular "religion" with government taking over a
similar role, which of course is a precept of fascism wherever it has been practiced.
So, back to the question: is a middle ground practical? Even Possible? I think it
is, theoretically, assuming those who seek power and those who elect them to it are
sufficiently knowledgeable of the economic ramifications of their decisions and are
really interested in maintaining what we have achieved, even when it is not in their
own personal interests to do so, in the face of continued international competition
and turbulence. Perhaps another word for middle ground is dialog. Is it possible
to create an environment in which facts and logic can be discussed intelligently and
with civility to weigh both challenges; actions; and possible resulting
circumstances, including unintended - particularly economic?
Oh my, what a challenge. But note that it does not suggest that we change
human nature as some would wish, but will not occur, at least in any foreseeable
future. It suggests only that we continue to be able to maintain the ability to curtail
the ambitions of those who would permanently subvert our interests to theirs - as
well as balance the interests of the rest of us - and force all others into honest
dialog. In that light I would suggest suspicion of the phrases "in the public interest"
or "for the general good". They are siren song phrases that sound so good, but
conceal a serious flaw: who determines what that general good is, and how far are
they willing to go, as related to those who get in their way, to achieve it? Yet at the
same time let's beware of the cult of rights; when everyone's rights are sacrosanct
we have achieved anarchy, a state that cannot last beyond the next pocket of power
that emerges. Middle ground is all we have; let's hope we can keep it viable, if by no
other means than the continual swing o f the pendulum.
So, naiveté? Perhaps it is. But what are the alternatives? To surrender, just
give up? That we will never achieve perfection is not an excuse to abrogate. The
middle ground goal - concept - is valid, even if the hopes of achieving it are limited
at best. I shall continue to contend that extremism needs to be marginalized - and
a middle ground is the only place that can occur, however minimally. Hopefully, in
the long run even if not endowed with the necessary knowledge we will have the
sense to see the alternatives, and turn back toward the middle. Pray not for
knowledge, as that may be unrealistic; pray instead for good sense, as that is
possible - and even realistic.
Political Party Power
There is another problem that could elicit
a charge of naiveté, and it poses the most
important challenge to the concept of a
middle ground. It has to do with political
parties as practiced in the American system.
Politics in the US is dominated by two
major political parties and they vie for control
- for power to push their policies and political
views. Others are allowed, and attempt to
compete, but since none has gained national
competitiveness voters fear that voting for
other than one of the two major parties is
"wasting a vote" - that is in essence taking a
vote away from exercising power, since no
third party has been able to achieve sufficient
strength to effect power balance - or for that
matter to even electing representatives.
So it is unlikely that there will be a "middle
party." At least it would be difficult to envision
how it could happen. So the middle ground
cannot be conceived as a power base, but as
a philosophy. That is not attractive to
politicians that crave power and tend to
adhere to the commands of party leadership
- not always, but usually. Many newly elected
representatives enter congress with hight
hopes and sincere aspirations to do the right
thing, and make a contribution for what is the
best for the country. Unfortunately most are
quickly disabused of this futile dream by the
party leadership which disparages middle
ground that is not in consonance with party
positions and dictates.
Does that make middle ground, based on
individual conviction naive? In the real world
it probably does, in today's environment, and
that is perhaps a good deal of the problem.
But naive or no, it's not wrong to strive for it -
to preach it? And to be fair there are
representatives, even politicians, that stand
for their principles, and more than that, there
are many, even today, who do a lot more
compromising than might be evident. Horse
trading? Hey, that's politics - and
representing constituents. It happens more
than one might think - but not enough, in my
opinion. So naive or not, the preaching is
worth the effort.
I continue to stand for middle ground,
naive or not.
There is another problem that could elicit
a charge of naiveté, and it poses the most
important challenge to the concept of a
middle ground. It has to do with political
parties as practiced in the American system.
Politics in the US is dominated by two
major political parties and they vie for control
- for power to push their policies and political
views. Others are allowed, and attempt to
compete, but since none has gained national
competitiveness voters fear that voting for
other than one of the two major parties is
"wasting a vote" - that is in essence taking a
vote away from exercising power, since no
third party has been able to achieve sufficient
strength to effect power balance - or for that
matter to even electing representatives.
So it is unlikely that there will be a "middle
party." At least it would be difficult to envision
how it could happen. So the middle ground
cannot be conceived as a power base, but as
a philosophy. That is not attractive to
politicians that crave power and tend to
adhere to the commands of party leadership
- not always, but usually. Many newly elected
representatives enter congress with hight
hopes and sincere aspirations to do the right
thing, and make a contribution for what is the
best for the country. Unfortunately most are
quickly disabused of this futile dream by the
party leadership which disparages middle
ground that is not in consonance with party
positions and dictates.
Does that make middle ground, based on
individual conviction naive? In the real world
it probably does, in today's environment, and
that is perhaps a good deal of the problem.
But naive or no, it's not wrong to strive for it -
to preach it? And to be fair there are
representatives, even politicians, that stand
for their principles, and more than that, there
are many, even today, who do a lot more
compromising than might be evident. Horse
trading? Hey, that's politics - and
representing constituents. It happens more
than one might think - but not enough, in my
opinion. So naive or not, the preaching is
worth the effort.
I continue to stand for middle ground,
naive or not.