A remarkable transformation has occurred in American thought. It's one of those transformations that's imperceptible while it's happening, but seems breathtaking when looked upon in retrospect. I believe historians will almost certainly remark upon the 1990s as the linchpin decade that marked a radical shift in the American mindset.
Consider a 1950 book called Liberal Imagination: Essays on Literature and Society, by Lionel Trilling. In it, Trilling wrote:
In the United States at this time liberalism is not only the dominant but even the sole intellectual tradition. For it is the plain fact that nowadays there are no conservative or reactionary ideas in general circulation. This does not mean, of course, that there is no impulse to conservatism...but [they] do not, with some isolated and some ecclesiastical exceptions, express themselves in ideas but only in action or in irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas.
Trilling was concerned that, with such a dearth of intellectual challenge, liberalism would become soft, complacent, flabby. He went on to talk about John Stuart Mill, who encouraged liberals to get to know the thinking of Coleridge:
Mill, at odds with Coleridge all down the intellectual and political line, nevertheless urged all liberals to become acquainted with this powerful conservative mind. He said that the prayer of every true partisan of liberalism should be, "Lord, enlighten thou our enemies...; sharpen their wits, give acuteness to their perceptions and consecutiveness and clearness to their reasoning powers. We are in danger from their folly, not from their wisdom: their weakness is what fills us with apprehension, not their strength."
An important thing to keep in mind is that Trilling wasn't being sarcastic. This wasn't some barb he was throwing at his conservative opponents. He meant it. He didn't have any conservative opponents. He worried that, if liberalism is about open-minded truth-seeking, then a dearth of rigorous and logical dissent would lead to the decay of liberalism itself.
In The Age of Reagan, 1964-1980: The Fall of the Old Liberal Order, historian Steven F. Hayward discusses this same intellectual trend, which carried on through the 1960s and 1970s. Conservatism was looked down upon with condescension, when it wasn't feared or demonized. Conservatives themselves tended to internalize this assumption of intellectual inferiority. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a famous liberal intellectual who worked in the Nixon White House, noted how the conservatives he worked with tended to be defensively thick about intellectual ideas. He characterized them as people who withdrew into a turtle-like shell, saying "Middle America is with us" when confronted with arguments they didn't like.
As anyone who remembers that era knows, it was simply considered axiomatic: conservatives were nonintellectual, not very well-educated, not very bright. Or they were dangerous. Not much else.
Yet, a bit over 50 years after Lionel Trilling wrote the words I quote above, one Charles Krauthammer, in the summer of 2002, wrote the following:
To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil.
The entire column is worth reading. But an important thing to keep in mind is that Krauthammer isn't being sarcastic. This isn't some barb he's throwing at his liberal opponents. He means it.
He's not the first to say it. In March of this year, David Galernter said, "I hate to put it in such bald terms. But right-wingers are just smarter than left-wingers. A lot of people didn't feel that they could say it. But since September, it has become slightly easier to admit that you have your doubts about some aspects of the liberal agenda."
Once again, an important thing to keep in mind is that Gelernter isn't being sarcastic. This isn't some barb he's throwing at his liberal opponents. He means it.
You can argue as to whether or not Galernter is right, but you can't argue with Krauthammer about what conservatives have come to believe. Nor is this a childish, "We're not stupid! You're stupid!" argument. Conservatives just plain believe this. Most would, I hazard to guess, consider it axiomatic. As one guy I know put it: Anyone who thinks tax cuts in the 1980s caused deficits, when you can go right to the U.S. Treasury's web site and see that it ain't so, is just plain dumber than dirt. How can you treat someone like that seriously?
It's also hard not to notice, when surveying the American political landscape at the moment, that there are no great Liberal intellectuals anymore. There are a few bright-minded self-described liberals; Robert Reich comes to mind, as does Susan Estrich. Camille Paglia has a truly original and interesting mind. But aside from a few rare exceptions, most "liberal" argumentation seems to come from one of four places:
1) People who disagree with me are racist.
2) People who disagree with me are warmongers who glory in violence.
3) People who disagree with me want the poor to starve and suffer.
4) People who disagree with me are blinded by corporate brainwashing.
I would have added "5) People who disagree with me want to oppress women," but that one seemed to fade away after Clinton's impeachment. (By the way, am I the first one to notice that?) In any case, the shorthand terms for all of the above are "right-winger" or "the radical right."
At times it's sad to watch. The mighty New York Times is now a laughingstock. Even people who share the New York Times worldview roll their eyes at it. Left-wing journals of opionion like The Nation and The New Republic tend to be humorless and, while they may be angry or resentful, are usually just plain boring.
Even in the blogosphere, it seems almost painfully obvious: there are few left-leaning blogs, and the ones that exist rarely rise above "Bush is a non-elected President!" and "Enron and Harken and Halliburton, Oh My!" The environment's still going to hell and corporations are still destroying us, according to the Left. But in terms of intellectual thought, serious and robust argumentation? Concrete proposals for change and innovation? The silence is deafening. There seems to be little but ad hominem attacks, seething resentment, and, well, let's face it: irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas.
Somewhere, somewhen, there was a sea change in the American mind. The Left is now generally viewed as being dominated by the desire for coercion and control, while the Right has grabbed "individualism and free choice" as its war cries. And, increasingly, people associate "liberal" with being just plain dumb. Fair or not, that is the ascendant view of the moment.
It's remarkable. Where did it start? I can't quite say. Where does it all lead? The mind boggles. Without question, there is arrogance in this view. Is it entirely without merit? I don't know. But I do know this:
If conservatives want to stay on the intellectual high ground, they might want to start praying: "Lord, enlighten thou our enemies. Sharpen their wits, give acuteness to their perceptions, logic and clarity to their reasoning. We are in danger from their folly, not from their wisdom."
By the way, two other links worth reading on this:
Stupid People Tricks by Andrea Harris, and,
Debate, Academy Style by Tony Woodlief.
Woodlief's piece is particularly interesting.
How much straw you want to go with that man?
Dean, you forgot another liberal tactic: snippy little one-sentence dismissals of your argument that imply your ideas aren't even worth the effort of refuting. Kind of like the one above.
I'll have more to say, but I am waiting for the caffeine to kick in.
As a liberal, I still believe in freedom of speech, equality of opportunity for all Americans, secular government, individual rights and the importance of education. Alas, the Democratic Party has abandoned these values (to the extent that they ever embraced them) and now prefers collectivist policies limiting speech, seeks coalitions of identity groups, and sees education as a political tool instead of a civic necessity. The American "left" is no longer liberal. The libertatians and even the Republicans appear more liberal than the Democrats do. I'm sure that many Americans still esteem progress and fairness. Maybe liberalism isn't in decline at all but just is not represented by neo-Marxist race-baiting Luddites.
I think it happened after liberalism won.
When I was a kid, I was very liberal. I believed that women should be the equals of men, and blacks should be equal to whites, and if any country was foolish enough to want to be Communist, it wasn't our place to stop them. (I admit to some naivete on this last part.)
But in 1979, in rural Missouri, this made me very liberal (believe it or not). Now it seems I'm conservative. My mind hasn't changed on most things---indeed, I've become *more* liberal on some issues. But liberalism has passed me by. It did that because it won the battles for civil rights, etc.
Now, liberalism looks extremely silly, when it doesn't look downright destructive. Is it because, once those battles were won, what had been "fringe liberal" became "mainstream liberal"? Or is it because the fringies are fonder of the struggle than of the better world that was to come from the struggle?
Or maybe I am just more conservative after all, and I'm just fooling myself when I think I'm not.
I've been writing a post about this, but it's long and I haven't had a chance to finish it.
I wouldn't lump The New Republic with The Nation. TNR is much more iconoclastic and very smart.
I too have noticed that many people who now define themselves as conservative believe in liberal positions such as equality of opportunity for women and people of all races, gay rights, appropriate foreign intervention, and some are even pro-choice and (market-driven) environmentalists.
Conservatives have shoved to the fringe their racist sexist fundamentalist nuts. These people are still stupid, bigoted and malevolent, but no longer represent the majority of conservatives as they used to.
The liberals won, and many became more free-market oriented and sophisticated in their political analyses. The ones who were left became left-wing nuts who read the Nation.
Conservative doesn't mean what it used to, and neither does liberal. The fringes on both sides are still the same as they were 50 yrs ago, but the vast majority in the middle are more similar to Trilling's definition fo liberal than they were then. And TNR belongs in this demographic.
Andrea has a good point. I've noticed an unhealthy habit among the liberals lately, now that the usual methods of ending discussion aren't working (calling someone a racist just doesn't have any "kick" these days...sorry, guys)--they've decided that dismissing the argument as a "straw man" is a swell way to avoid engaging the ideas. I had a run-in with a lib over at Live From the WTC, where I tried three times, completely restating my ideas in a different form each time, to get him to discuss the main point of the argument with me. Each time he dismissed it as a "straw man" without providing the slightest proof. I finally gave up in frustration.
Anyway, I'd say that "straw man" and "owned by corporate interests" have pretty much replaced "racist" and "Nazi" as the "discussion enders" of choice.
And now that you mention it, Dean, I haven't been called "misogynist" or "anti-woman" in years...and I live in San Francisco! That one has really passed its "sell by" date.
I can't seem to make my thoughts come together on this. Basically, Dean, what you say holds true for me. It's not so much actual worldly power (political, monetary) that the "left," the "cultural elite," the "liberals" -- whatever one may call them -- have grown fat and lazy enjoying, but the power over what one might call society's conscience. In the past they were challenged on this stance just enough to make them feel that they had fought real battles. Even ones they lost were Pyrrhic victories for the other side, because they left the battleground looking like heroes anyway (at least in their own eyes, the only ones they really cared about). This is what we see: they are grown fat on the approbation of their peers, their powers of discernment atrophied from disuse, their ability to expend mental effort wasted on petty infighting with their rivals in the field, they display the very human tendency to circle the wagons when one's group is "threatened" -- even if the "Indians" are imaginary. (Or are actually the cavalry, and meanwhile the _real_ attackers have been accepted into the camp and are polishing their long knives preparatory to the slaughtering and pillaging of the hosts, who have convinced themselves that they are going to be treated to a Charming and Instructive Native Folk Event called the "Knife Dance." No reference to any actual American Indians living or dead; no Native Americans were harmed in the course of building this metaphor.)
"Straw man" is a strong criticism if you're applying it to someone who's attacking someone for believing something they don't, or accusing them of saying something they didn't.
If someone accuses you of making a straw man argument, the proper response is to ask them what they mean by that. If they can't tell you, you have to wonder if they're serious.
As for The New Republic: It's a fine magazine. Although it was better when Andrew Sullivan was running it, before he went apostate like so many others on the Left. But it's hard not to notice that it's often boring, often humorless, and often ignores some of conservatives' most salient arguments. The American Prospect is cheeky, and isnt' boring, but also just flat-out ignores many of conservatives' most salient arguments, like they don't exist. Both tend to subtly imply that conservatives have a secret "white men only" agenda, which looks increasingly dumb when you look at the huge number of women, Jews, Asians, and even blacks writing for their publications.
People often ask me when did I get so conservative (i.e. turn Republican).
After a few thoughtful moments to reflect, my answer is always the same. It was when I grew up and found the age of reason (27).
I used to be a liberal and a really hardcore one.
I believed all the hype. I worked on Bill Clinton's campaign while in college. I recruited for the "Party". I was a believer.
I was stupid.
I am no longer stupid. I understand everything now. I saw them (the liberals) for what they were: hypocritical, race-baiting, selfish crybabies who lie as easily as they can drink iced tea...
I grew up.
As one who is, emotionally at least, a conservative, I feel some resonance with your post. But your assertion about the blogosphere just doesn't correspond to the reality of a medium that rejoices in people like Chris Bertram of Junius or Patrick Nielsen Hayden of Electrolite, to name but two bloggers who regularly challenge my assumptions from the liberal side.
In their case, and others, your prayer for enlightened "enemies" has been answered, and quite effectively.
I always considered the time of the left's fall obvious: Vietnam.
Notice how opponents of the war never give the hardheaded reason for withdrawing from it, namely we can't save this house built on sand, so let's pull out and live to fight another day. They can't. It's un-heroic, brutal, realpoltik, especially living in a time where the glorious WWII was still fresh in the minds of many. Their egos could not deal with taking the un-heroic but perhaps necessary route, so they invented a glorious opposition, even if it meant borrowing the positions of flakes. The US and the USSR are same. The US is a brutal, inherently evil imperialistic monster. The Kennedys were murdered by the military, the corporations and the New Orleans homosexual community in order keep us in the war. blah blah blah...
It introduced a strain of intellectual dishonesty into liberal politics that just kept building and building. It dominate the left to such a degree now, that it should be no surprise that a charlatan like Clinton could go all the way to the top.
This is probably what happened to conservatives in the 30s. Their pride was damaged to a degree that they retreated into their own world.
If this gets double posted. I apologize. Just a few more weeks till I can afford replace this infernal unstable piece of crap I am using now.
I have a good quote from the book The Yogi and the Commissar, by Arthur Koestler, who also wrote the novel Darkness at Noon about the Stalinist police state. Those who have ideals cherish them and ignore all facts and reality that contradict their beliefs. He is talking about European communism and socialism in the 1930's, but his point is that self delusion and lack of logical thinking leads to exactly the opposite of what you're trying to achieve. "The disastrous results of this policy for the European Left are on the records of history. All over Europe the Communist parties played the role of involuntary midwives to Fascism....Such unconditional surrender of the critical faculties always indicates the presence of a factor which is a priori beyond the reach of reasoning. One might be temped to call it a neurotic complex but for the fact that the true Believer (whether in the Christian or the Soviet myth) is as a rule happier and more balanced than the atheist or the Trotskyite. Deep rooted archetypcal beliefs lead to neurosis only when dought provokes a conflict. To keep doubt away a system of elastic defences is established....Arguements which penetrate into the magic aura (of the belief system) are not dealt with rationally, but by a specific type of pseudo reasoning which he develops. Absurdities and contradictions which outside the magic aura would be rejected at once are made acceptable by specious reasoning"
Nowadays I spend some time in chat rooms talking to people while I read the news on the web. I remember one very typical liberal arguement ,that all cultures are the same and should not be judged by others. Taken to its logical conclusion as one liberal did, she said that slavery in Africa is not as bad for them because they are used to it and it's part of their culture....a very odd position. I also get a lot of liberals who attack me defensively, one actually saying, "for everything I say, you attack me!" I was merely giving a good rational argument from the conservative side, which drives them nuts. The above system of ignoring an arguement and attacking the conservative is more common than getting a logical argument in return.
Taking Africa as an example, I was very provocative one day and said liberals are doing a good job in controlling the excess population through famine, war, mass rape and AIDS. It's not politically correct to mention that most of the problems Africa has are man made, and most of the men who make them live in Africa. Their silence is deafening, and makes them responsible for not speaking out and fixing it because they will feel bad about themselves.
As someone coming from a reasonably liberal background, I grow tired of the assumption that "ad hominem attacks, seething resentment, and... irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas" are things somehow unique to left-leaning commentators. While I don't deny the Left is responsible for some terrible garbage, they don't exactly have a monopoly on it.
Dean: Great piece! Your list of liberal "arguments" perfectly encapsulates why I parted ways with the Left. I got sick of the sanctimonious tone and moral certainty of leftists, when it was pretty damned obvious to me that the world was a much more complex place. In this, the liberals I knew resembled right-wing Christian fundamentalists as people absolutely convinced of the righteousness of their cause. The only difference is, the liberals aren't fanatics; the reason is that their mind-set is reflected in almost every aspect of popular culture, so you absorb it without even noticing it. (At least that's how it happened to me in my middle-class upbringing.) Breaking free of that mind-set requires more intellectual effort than saying "well, Harvard University sociologists are against it, so it must be right." (That was an argument I used once in college.)
Amazing how ideas truly come into our minds simultaneously, BEFORE we start re-inforcing them with each other.
Allow me to post part of an email I sent to a Robert Fisk loving friend of mine, just after "warmongering" Bush's state of the union address. I sent this before I discovered the joys of the blogosphere....
------
Do you know what interesting reaction I get see from conservatives lately when they look at the left? I am fascinated, because it is exactly what I felt when I went to inauguration and the IMF protests. The somewhat strange reaction? DISAPPOINTMENT! Genuine disappointment. Like someone gearing up for a major chess match, only to have his opponent sit down on the big day and say..."What does this horsey thingie do again??"
I mean, we conservatives expect better of these people! Really, I mean it. For a movement based largely on intellectualism to be so UTTERLY stuck in the past and bereft of ANY new ideas, and so totally lost at sea after 9/11 is almost tragic. We have lost, as Churchill said of Rommel, " a gallant foe, worthy of our steel".
(clarifyfing above - I live in DC, and go to protests by and large for kicks, not for politics. - Now back to our regularly scheduled broadsheet.)
Andrew X wrote: "Do you know what interesting reaction I get see from conservatives lately when they look at the left? I am fascinated, because it is exactly what I felt when I went to inauguration and the IMF protests. The somewhat strange reaction? DISAPPOINTMENT! Genuine disappointment."
I saw something like this on the WBW chatboard--it was a conservative (I think) regretting that (paraphrasing) "for all the legitimate things that the Bush administration's war effort could be criticized for on civil liberties, we're stuck with THESE nuts making the case."
Interesting food for thought, Dean, but I found your characterization of "liberals" to be more a caricature than anything I recognize in the liberal commentators I respect (Ken Layne, Nick Denton, Mickey Kaus, Timothy Garton Ash, Salman Rushdie....). The majority of my friends are left of center, and I can't think of two who would come close to *ever* saying that:
1) People who disagree with me are racist.
2) People who disagree with me are warmongers who glory in violence.
3) People who disagree with me want the poor to starve and suffer.
4) People who disagree with me are blinded by corporate brainwashing.
I didn't even know what the term "multi-cult" meant before Sept. 11, when all my new righty friends began hurling it around pejoratively.
Well, that's good to hear, Matt. I'm glad your experience doesn't match mine. What I find interesting is that many others do share these experiences. And see it in the press.
As for multi-cult--it's big in the university environment and in certain corporate cultures. When you encounter it it's striking, but it's easy to go through life without encountering it. It all depends on what circles you run in and where you live, I guess.
HUMANISM - An Unworthy Worship
Human knowledge is a fraction of the whole universe. The
balance is a vast void of human ignorance. Human reason
cannot fully function in a void, thus, the intellect can
rise no higher than the criteria by which it perceives
and measures values.
Humanism makes man his own standard of measure,
however, as with all measuring systems, a standard must
be greater than the value measured.
Based on preponderant ignorance and an ego-centric
carnal nature, humanism demotes reason to the simpleton
task of excuse-making for the rule of appetites, desires,
feelings, emotions, and glands.
Because man cannot invent criteria greater than
himself, the humanist lacks a predictive capability.
Without transcendent criteria, humanism cannot evaluate
options with foresight for survival and progression.
Without foresight, man is blind to potential consequence
and is unwittingly committed to averages, mediocrity,
and regression - and worse. Humanism is an unworthy
worship.
The void of human ignorance can easily be filled with
a functional faith while not-so-patiently awaiting the
foot-dragging growth of human knowledge and behavior.
Faith, initiated by the Creator and revealed and
validated in His Word, the Bible, brings a Transcendent
Standard to man the choice-maker. Other philosophies and
religions are man-made, humanism, and thereby lack
what only the Bible has: 1. Transcendent Criteria and
2. Fulfilled Prophetic Validation. The vision of faith
in God and His Word is survival equipment for today and
the future. Selah
The way you define 'human' determines your view of self,
others, relations, institutions, life, and future. Important?
Only the Creator, who made us in His own image, is qualified
to accurately define us. Choose wisely.
Man is earth's CHOICEMAKER. Psalm 25:12 He is by nature
and nature's God a creature of Choice - and of CRITERIA.
Psalm 119:30,173 His unique and definitive characteristic
is, and of Right ought to be, the natural foundation of
his institutions, environments, and respectful relations
to his fellow-man. Thus, he is oriented to a Freedom
whose roots are in the Order of the universe. Biblical
principles are still today the foundation under Western
Civilization and the American way of life. Let us proclaim
it. Behold! The Season of GENERATION-CHOICEMAKER. JOEL 3:14
Semper Fidelis/Always Faithful PRAY
Jim Baxter
a former humanist...(weren't we all?)