I have finished Jonah Goldberg’s book, Liberal Fascism. I posted a review on Amazon but have a few other thoughts about the book. It is a very interesting book and he has done a good job with the history. Chou En Lai was once famously quoted about the French Revolution. When asked his opinion of its consequences, he answered that “it is too soon to tell.” Even Iraq War critics use the anecdote in discussing historical analogies. Goldberg raises the issue of the French Revolution to assert that Robespierre is the philosophical father of the Progressive Movement of modern times.
In fact, Rousseau has been called the precursor of the modern pseudo-democrats such as Stalin and Hitler and the “people’s democracies.” His call for the “sovereign” to force men to be free if necessary in the interests of the “General Will” harks back to the Lycurgus of Sparta instead of to the pluralism of Athens; the legacy of Rousseau is Robespierre and the radical Jacobins of the Terror who followed and worshipped him passionately. In the 20th century, his influence is further felt by tyrants who would arouse the egalitarian passions of the masses not so much in the interests of social justice as social control. Let us take Rousseau for the literary genius he was and appreciate his contribution to history; let us look at his political philosophy with great skepticism.
Robespierre himself has spoken about this issue:
“Terror is nought but prompt, severe, inflexible justice; it is therefore an emanation of virtue; it is less a particular principle than a consequence of the general principle of democracy applied to the most pressing needs of the fatherland.”
Maximillien Marie Isidore de Robespierre
Address, National Convention, 1794
The authoritarian temptation of the political left is the subject of Goldberg’s thesis. Fabian Socialists like George Bernard Shaw, American Progressives like Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt all figure in a continuous line in Goldberg’s book. I think he makes excellent points. This essay on Robespierre makes several points that echo those of Goldberg.
Robespierre and his compatriots, especially Louis-Antoine Saint-Just and George Couthon, envisioned a French Republic based on virtue, wherein economic class distinctions would cease, wherein it would be criminal to own an excess of wealth, wherein the highest and noblest goal of any citizen would be service to the state.
Here is the origin of Socialism. Robespierre acknowledged a great debt to Rousseau:
From Rousseau, Robespierre adopted the Social Contract theory of government, which was later to be accepted by the Jacobins. Man is by nature good, but becomes corrupt through unjust institutions and laws; he is born free, but becomes a slave to injustice. Government is literally a contract entered into by people; each individual brings into the larger group a share of its power and authority. Moreover, the contract can be changed at any time the “general will” desires.
The conservative concept of freedom, property and the right “to be let alone” is not part of the “Social Contract” according to the Rousseau concept. A straight line is drawn from The Terror to “An Inconvenient Truth.”
I’ll have more to post on this later.
The conservative concept of freedom, property and the right “to be let alone” is not part of the “Social Contract” according to the Rousseau concept. A straight line is drawn from The Terror to “An Inconvenient Truth.”
This is precisely the point I was trying to get across at the Swamp last week in relation to my entries about the Democratic assault on individual liberties and the history of the Republican Party. The essential difference is Locke’s concept of individual liberty – freedom from state interference (enshrined in our country’s founding documents) – and Rousseau’s “Social Contract”, which despite it’s lofty statements in favor of positive rights is in fact a mechanism by which state power is strengthened and individual freedom weakened.
Regrettably, some are just too ignorant or apathetic to care. Friedrich Schiller’s saying about the gods laboring in vain against stupidity comes to mind.
Goldberg does a good job with his history in the book. Any suggestions on the Wilson Administration for reading ?
Hi, Professor LaRoche:
Good to see your post; I always enjoy your posts, whether or not we are in agreement. Tru dat regarding the whole Rousseau business. I have long seen his philosophy as being corrosive to Western culture.
I’m starting to wonder if many, many not-so-great things originate in France, in fact! Too much, I know, but I remember de Gaulle.
Dr. K., I’m in complete agreement: I recommend Goldberg’s book, too. The criticisms I have read on Amazon are amusing. The people who don’t like Goldberg carry out all sorts of personal attacks (mind you, these are the people who continually lambaste conservatives for carrying out personal attacks). My favorite is one character attacking Goldberg’s scholarship, when the attacker has less education than Goldberg. But that isn’t the kicker. The kicker is that the critic in question has NOT read the book, but feels perfectly comfortable being insulting of the author and even attempting to dissect the book he has not read.
That approach is not unique to that particular critic.
Of course, what the critic–and others like him– is really upset about is Goldberg’s book sales, because he has never done anything remotely like it. Oh well. As always, the best revenge is living well, right? Cue the green pity spotlights, I guess.
As for our current politics, I am reminded of this great quote by the great but former Senator Alan Simpson of Wyoming:
“We have two political parties in this country, the Stupid Party and the Evil Party. I belong to the Stupid Party.”
That may be the most succinct summary I have seen of the philosophical differences at stake this year!
Here is a good Simpson article from a long time ago:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/12/column.shields.opinion.stupid/
Goldberg’s book is worth reading. The most amusing thing is how often his critics attack the book as saying that Democrats are Nazis…when he does nothing of the sort. But our friends at Kos and elsewhere seem perfectly willing to call GW Bush a Nazi, which is just ignorant.
Anyway, Dr. K., nice post. I look forward to your review on Amazon.
Dr. K., I’ll get back to you on Wilson. Like me, my brother grew up thinking him a truly great man. Not so much. I started reading my brother (a history politics type) the section in Goldberg’s book on Wilson, and he started agreeing and carrying on.
I’ll get some good references.
Any suggestions on the Wilson Administration for reading ?
In Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism, Ronald J. Pestritto provides a good analysis of Woodrow Wilson’s progressivism and how Wilson’s political thought (and later presidential policies) contrasted with the traditional constitutionalism of America’s founders.
I just ordered Goldberg’s book a few days ago. I’m looking forward to reading it.
Hi, Professor LaRoche:
Good to see your post; I always enjoy your posts, whether or not we are in agreement.
Thanks, Eric. I love that quote by Alan Simpson – it describes our present political scene quite accurately indeed.
Mike K – link to your Goldberg review, please.
Dana, I haven’t seen Dr. K. review of Goldberg’s book up yet, but the review sectin for that book is filled with trolls enough to make your toes curl. Anyway, here is the link to Dr. K.’s reviews on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A1CVM427QH52BL?sort_by=MostRecentReview&x=5&y=6&display=public
Dr. K., when will the Amazon people put up your review?
Hey Doc, Mike L., Dana and Eric, would love to hear your thoughts on the below-linked new post from Right-Thinking.com. I’ve also posted about it back at the ol’ Swamp. Whatever you might think of siteowner Lee’s antipathy toward religious believers, he’s at least something of a brave individual, no??
http://right-thinking.com/index.php/weblog/hey_pig_yeah_you/
It is a little puzzling that my review has not yet been posted by Amazon but it is the weekend. I do see more fake reviews posted from the past two days, however. I wish now that I had saved it elsewhere.
The whole Muslim sensitivity thing , I think, is a sign of some increased militancy on the part of many Muslims. These riots are being stirred up by imams who may not be telling the truth to the rioters. There are few expressions of real public opinion in Arab countries that are spontaneous. Most is organized by someone.
One aspect of the Goldberg book that I did not emphasize in my review is the fact that he is quite critical of Bush in the later chapters. Similarly, Peggy Noonan has now come out and written that Bush “destroyed” the Republican Party. I don’t agree that it is that extreme but he is going to take some hits on his domestic policies and even on foreign policy if he keeps trying to make nice with the Palestinians.
Israel has made a couple of clever moves with allowing the Gaza barrier between them and Egypt to be torn down and with a trial balloon of returning East Jerusalem to the Palestinian control. The Jerusalem Arabs were quickly heard to threaten “a new intifada” if they were returned to the chaos of the West Bank. They aren’t that stupid.
Well, Dr. K., we will be looking for the review! With all the Trollish Reviews™ on Amazon, they may be checking post by post!
Given the electorate, I honestly don’t think that a full-on conservative can reasonably win a national election right now. I’m sure others can disagree. So “destroy” is a strong term. I would simply ask the question: what does it mean to be a Democrat? What does it mean to be a Republican?
It may be time to revisit this question.
I can’t be sure, but I honestly believe that many of the educated observant Muslims in the world are confused by Western culture. We say that freedom of expression is one of the things that makes us different from Muslim culture. Yet the news is full of attempts to shut down or show sensitivity toward various forms of speech in this country and in Europe. Is it any wonder that they are trying to apply those rules to their own faith?
Too much of anything can be a bad thing. Maybe our PC culture is creating some of the problem.
I do think that most Americans put religious issues in a very different box from social issues. Many Muslims can’t see why the two are distinct.
Just my opinion.