Reader Nicholas Frankovich made an important clarification of my general observation that American liberal intellectuals have not come to terms with their moral mistakes. He points out that Susan Sontag spoke up against the self-complimenting anti-anti-communism of the Left. Excellent observation. And the controversy was a sign of just how heretical her moral clarity was in liberal circles.
Obviously, some American liberal intellectuals are quite clear-minded about the failures of liberalism. But as a whole, I’ve found that elite liberal culture is terribly provincial and not inclined toward self-criticism. Conservative intellectuals, on the other hand, tend to be well-informed about alternative views.
The universities are partly to blame, because they have allowed themselves to become so ideologically homogeneous that the sorts of searching debates that ought to occur simply don’t. Things today are not different from my college years thirty years ago. The extremists on the Left provide critical friction to the minds of mainstream liberals, not conservatism. It is a plain and painful fact that a person who holds moral and cultural views roughly akin to those of George Bush will be blackballed in academia. By contrast, no position on the Left is censured. End result: an echo chamber on the Left.
But perhaps the ideological complexion of modern politics provides a deeper explanation. I would like to think that a conservative does not invest politics with ultimate significance. This can lead to an unattractive complacency on the Right. By contrast, liberalism tends to ascribe moral urgency to questions of public policy—the war against poverty, and so forth. The result is often political messianism, a fevered commitment that cannot countenance criticism.
This explanation is probably too pat. But I’m fairly sure that there is a critical deficit on the Left, a refusal to come to terms with the failures of modern liberalism that invites us to wonder why.
December 23rd, 2009 | 10:32 am
Invincible Ignorance. The late Pope John Paul II is always good for a succint definition.
December 23rd, 2009 | 10:42 am
*applause*
December 23rd, 2009 | 10:43 am
The mainstream media and academia are dominated by liberals, and from their perch atop our “chattering” institutions they are in a position to fire verbal broadside after broadside at all things conservative, which makes it impossible for conservatives to avoid hearing criticism of their positions from the left. The opposite is not true. Insulated as they are from criticism, it may well be the case (and I personally believe it is) that many liberals believe their views are so obviously true as to be impervious to good faith criticism. It is analogous to the story one heard after one of the Bush elections about the Manhattan socialite who could not believe Bush had won the election. After all, no one she knew voted for him.
December 23rd, 2009 | 10:51 am
Liberals (actually, “Illiberals”), for the most part don’t have to deal with opposition in their social milieu. No challenge to their beliefs in school, at the club, from any media or popular culture source. They could go years without being casually exposed to genuinely opposing views. What they get are strawmen of conservative viewpoints held up for derision, not the real thing.
So this is why they all will bark “Rush Limbaugh preaches hatred” when no one who listens to him will find him doing so, while their own fellows casually toss out venomous bile wishing ill to befall their class, race, or gender enemies.
December 23rd, 2009 | 11:08 am
Were this were true. William F. Buckley’s admirable lessons to Conservativism are being unlearned alarmingly at this very moment. The John Birsch Society, which he ostracized for its racist and anti-semitic ideology (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/goldwater–the-john-birch-society–and-me-11248), is now sponsoring at CPAC (http://www.cpac.org/sponsors.html).
Some good self-criticism on the Right about this would go a long way towards proving your point.
December 23rd, 2009 | 12:10 pm
Yair, just pointing out that the Right needs to practice self-criticism too doesn’t let the Left off the hook for its mistakes. That’s just Alinsky style, deflecting tactics. When someone points out a problem with the Left, start lobbing insults at the Right, yes, we know, heard it all before.
By the way—what do you think of the Obama’s new ruling on Interpol? The Anchoress has the story, over at her blog.
December 23rd, 2009 | 1:05 pm
RS, You should probably read the posts being questioned before being so dismissive of critiques. Reno’s point is, in her own words,
“American conservatism has countless things to regret. Reading William F. Buckley on civil rights in the 1950s provides a good example. But American conservative intellectuals have come to terms with their past, and we do not hold the the absurd and morally corrupt notion that we have no enemies on the Right. Not so liberals, who have failed to come to terms with their historical legacy of blindness to and complicity with enemies on the Left.”
(http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2009/12/22/service-to-the-communists/)
My point above about the John Birch society – Buckley’s foe – at CPAC was a direct response. I think that, as you put it, “pointing out that the Right needs to practice self-criticism” is something Reno would agree with in this instance, given his above sentiment. But then again, go on and prove my point by backhandedly refusing to deal with an honest question on my part.
And thanks for questioning my sincerity, I really appreciate it. It certainly makes you look like the messianic left-wingers who also can’t deal substantively with genuine criticism of their party – and goes against the portrait of the self-critical Right painted in this post.
I posted my query hoping for a constructive response from Reno (why write otherwise?). He usually doesn’t disappoint, and now he has another example in your comment of the Right’s shrugging off of concerned criticism from sympathetic but worried observers. Maybe he’ll complicate his view now.
December 23rd, 2009 | 1:10 pm
Yes, it seems academia is a liberal echo chamber, but not in all schools and all disciplines. As a future PhD in business administration, I find many closet Conservatives and Christians. Even if it is not explicit, their views DO make their way into the classroom. There is hope for academia, and it might emanate from colleges and departments of management. Ok, probably not, but I like to think so..
December 23rd, 2009 | 1:45 pm
I do not doubt that R. R. Reno is correct about a lack of adequate self-criticism on the political left, insofar as there is such a thing in the U.S. Theologically considered, I should think searching and honest self-criticism requires nothing less than the power of the Holy Spirit, which is precisely why it’s not something political parties are likely to capture.
However, I’m not overly impressed with the level of self-criticism I find at Reno’s own conservative haunt, i.e., First Things. One day we get the Manhattan Declaration, which includes a mandate for all Christian believers to defend religious freedom around the globe, another we get Robert Wilken waxing affirmative about the Swiss ban on minarets. I haven’t noticed conservatives calling Wilken to account for betraying one of the three imperatives of the Manhattan Declaration. Examples of such unexamined contradictions could be multiplied.
Moreover, I’m afraid he following passage from Reno’s post is evidence of its ignorance, if not of the invincible variety then perhaps, as his phrasing suggests, of the willful one:
“I would like to think that a conservative does not invest politics with ultimate significance. This can lead to an unattractive complacency on the Right. By contrast, liberalism tends to ascribe moral urgency to questions of public policy—the war against poverty, and so forth. The result is often political messianism, a fevered commitment that cannot countenance criticism.”
I would like Reno to remember: Bush launched Operation *Infinite* Justice and the War On Terror, declaring on September 20, 2001: “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” First Things threw its weight behind Bush and his quest to unleash by force of arms a democratic domino reaction across the Middle East. Dissenting voices (I think of Hauerwas and Griffiths) were loudly and roundly condemned. For years we heard conservatives denounce critics of Bush’s approach to fighting terrorism anti-American or infected with Bush Derangement Syndrome, and I don’t recall strong efforts at First Things to separate the conservative wheat from the chaff over these excesses and failures to engage critics.
I don’t recall anyone at First Things noticing the messianism implicit in the title of David Frum and Richard Perle’s book “An End to Evil.”
Not for nothing did British theologian Michael Northcott write “An Angel Directs the Storm: Apocalyptic Religion and American Empire.” The G. W. Bush years were rather flush with conservative Christian versions of political messianism.
If neoconservatism is the home of liberals who have moved to the right, perhaps when it comes to self-criticism Reno’s apple hasn’t fallen that far from the tree.
December 23rd, 2009 | 5:24 pm
Charlie Collier writes, “The G. W. Bush years were rather flush with conservative Christian versions of political messianism.” I am gobsmacked. Mr. Collier, I defy you to give a single example of “Bush messianism.”
December 23rd, 2009 | 6:09 pm
Checks and balances:
I think Professor Reno gets nicely to the nub of the liberal conceit — the tendency toward immanetizing the eschaton. My liberal colleagues seek the “magic key” or “silver bullet” for problems, be they social, behavioral, political, medical, environmental, or other. Driven by impulses for some ideal world on earth, once in “possession” of a “solution,” any means to that end feel justified. In a limited terrestrial setting, ends may not justify means. But when one commands the path to the infinite, normal rules fail.
Hence, we get politicians bribing others (e.g. Nelson, Landrieu) using my money. It’s all for the cause, you know! Climate researchers fudging data, creating knowingly deceitful models, ruining dissenters’ careers, making hundreds of millions from their perfidy? No problem.
On the conservative side, and in fellowship with the Founding Fathers, perfection will not and cannot come in this world. The “perfect” order is God’s monarchy, certainly not the politics of this world (and, no, President O is not God). Hence, the need for checks and balances, and for subsidiarity. Progressives don’t need no stinkin’ checks and balances.
Admittedly, this presents two starkly differentiated archetypes — liberal/progressive and conservative. That is certainly a useful, but overly simplistic fiction. Of course there are messianic conservatives, although I missed GWB being one of them.
That said, my own experience bears this out. Or, is it just my own insular, echo-chambered musing?
December 23rd, 2009 | 7:16 pm
Mr. Arrington, I’m not sure why you’re gobsmacked. I would think that non-insular conservatives—the sort championed here by Reno—would be well-aware of the critiques of messianic strains surrounding the presidency of George W. Bush. I already provided some examples above. You tell me, Who is capable of providing “infinite” justice? And who is capable of bringing “an end to evil”?
I also pointed to Michael Northcott’s book, which I encourage you to consult for many, many more examples.
But if you need more evidence right now, I can assist you. Here’s the first paragraph of a piece by Fred Barnes from the Weekly Standard, from October 2001:
“ON THE AFTERNOON before his televised speech to the nation on September 20, President Bush invited 27 religious leaders to join him at the White House and draft an ecumenical response to the terrorist attacks on America. Bush spent more than an hour with the group, talking about his concerns as president and listening to their views. Later in the afternoon, six of the religious leaders—a Catholic cardinal, a Sikh, an imam, a rabbi, and two evangelical Protestants—talked and prayed with Bush in the Oval Office. James Merritt, president of the Southern Baptist Convention, told Bush he had been chosen by God to lead the nation in the fight to protect America and the world against terrorism. ‘I believe you are God’s man for this hour,’ Merritt said. ‘God’s hand is on you.’ The president nodded.”
Here’s Peggy Noonan around the same time in the WSJ, in a piece titled “God is Back”:
“I find myself thinking in mystical terms of President Bush’s speech to Congress and the country, and I know from conversations with many people that I am not alone.
It seemed to me a God-touched moment and a God-touched speech, by which I mean, in part, that little miracles surrounded it.”
And here’s some concluding lines from the President’s speech on the first anniversary of 9/11:
“This ideal of America is the hope of all mankind. That hope drew millions to this harbor. That hope still lights our way. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness will not overcome it.”
December 23rd, 2009 | 9:17 pm
Mr. Collier, “Bush Derangement Syndrome” refers not to criticism of the former President but the attribution to the President of ill motives and nefarious plans with an absence of evidence. Examples would be attributing our campaign in Afghanistan to a desire to make way for the Unocal Corporation to build a pipeline (Michael Moore) or fantastical tales of the Republican Party stealing the 2004 presidential election with the aid of the Diebold Corporation.
First Things threw its weight behind Bush and his quest to unleash by force of arms a democratic domino reaction across the Middle East.
I think the commentaries on this point could be enumerated on one hand and mostly consisted of exchanges between George Weigel and Paul Griffiths on the content of just war theory.
I don’t recall anyone at First Things noticing the messianism implicit in the title of David Frum and Richard Perle’s book “An End to Evil.”
Does David Frum write books on religious topics; if not, why are the editors compelled to review his books?
December 23rd, 2009 | 9:21 pm
The John Birsch Society, which he ostracized for its racist and anti-semitic ideology
The John Birch Society was notable for trafficking in fantastical nonsense (essentially that the occidental world was being run by a claque of conspirators collected in the Council on Foreign Relations, of which the international Communist movement was a subsidiary). I do not think you will find their official documents notably racist or anti-semitic, whatever the extra-curricular opinions of their members might be.
December 24th, 2009 | 1:18 am
You are absolutely correct. My conflation there.
The point about “enemies on the Right” (noted by Buckley, no less) and seeming Conservative obliviousness today (at CPAC) still stands the same, though.
December 24th, 2009 | 10:19 am
Charlie Collier, Nope. None of your examples comes remotely close to messianic spewings the liberals in the mainstream media regularly spout about Obama. Here’s an example: “He’s [i.e., Obama] sort of God. He’s going to bring all different sides together.” Newsweek’s Evan Thomas to host Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” June 5, 2009.
Give me a quote where a conservative attributes deity to Bush (instead of merely suggesting that perhaps he is blessed by God or being used by God), and I’ll be convinced. I won’t hold my breath waiting for you to find such a quote.
December 24th, 2009 | 12:57 pm
Barry, spot on. There is a vast difference between believing that I have felt the hand of God, and conflating myself with God or godhood. Step into any meeting of Alcoholics Anonymous or speak to many veterans of military campaigns, and you’ll meet many who have experienced God’s direct touch. Step into the White House, especially entering through the MSNBC portal, and…
Perhaps our president could better understand us bitter Americans if he were to follow these steps:
1) Sit back and remind yourself of how much smarter, more powerful, moral and righteous, etc. you are than “average” people; be detailed and rigorous
2) Try to understand that in our little minds, God is almost (probably not quite) that much better than you are
3) Take a deep, calming breath, and let your superior level of tolerance bring you back into balance
Perhaps Richard Dawkins could benefit from the same secular/spiritual exercise.
December 24th, 2009 | 1:00 pm
Mr. Arrington,
You’re demonstrating the very sort of stubborn refusal to take a point that Reno claims conservatives are less apt to display. Thus do you undercut Reno’s point, which I’m happy for you to do, since I think that’s what’s needed.
By all means, don’t hold your breath. Instead, take a deep one, and then think a bit harder about what’s being said. Reno’s own gloss on “political messianism” is simply this: “a fevered commitment that can’t countenance criticism.” Again, such a commitment seems to be on display in your own posts.
Evan Thomas’s claim is preposterous, indeed a form of secular messianism on the political left. I have no problem identifying it and denouncing it for what it is, which is ironic since, if pressed, I would identify more with the political left than the right and according to Reno I’m supposed to be ill-equipped to make these discriminations.
But Mr. Arrington, since I’m interrogating Reno’s point about the superior ability of conservatives to engage in honest criticism of problematic elements on the Right, frantically pointing out the errors of the other side really is not particularly helpful.
Moreover, “messianism”, whether construed very loosely as Reno has it, or whether considered more carefully in terms of the Jewish and Christian scriptures, messianism is not reducible to an explicit equation between a human being and God. Indeed, later Christian dogma about the divinity of Jesus Christ (not explicitly present in the New Testament) has never sat particularly well with Jews (who know a thing or two about messianism), as it seems a blatant violation of the first commandment. Rather, the messiah is “the anointed one,” the one is who is to come, the servant sent and chosen by God to liberate God’s people.
If you can’t see the messianic elements in the Bush doctrine’s conceits about liberating the world through the use of American power, in the claims by conservatives that by winning the war on terror we might “rid the world of evil,” in all the claims about “the spirit of God” being upon George W. Bush, and in so many other examples that might be cited, then perhaps Reno’s language of “invincibility” is apt here as well.
December 24th, 2009 | 2:16 pm
Mr. Collier, at least you’ve learned not to begin your posts with a condescending “sigh.” You’re making progress!
That said, your post is an example of the deflection techniques I see so often when debating leftists. My original challenge (“I defy you to give a single example of “Bush messianism”) remains unanswered. Instead, you expanded the definition of “messianism” to include any instance in which a Bush supporter mentioned God. Sorry, that dog won’t hunt. The concept of “messiah” necessarily focuses on a person. Consult any dictionary you like to confirm; I consulted several, and I remain unaware of any Bush supporter who came even remotely close to Evan Thomas’ hyperventilations about Obama.
Now if you want to substitute the word “millennialism” (loosely, “a hoped for period of joy and prosperity”) for “messianism,” perhaps we can agree. Both the left and the right tend to steer into that alley, especially at the beginning of a presidential term. We saw it with Bush. We are seeing it with Obama. Bush millennialism did not last long, and, I suspect, neither will the Obama variety.
Finally, I can’t let your blatant misrepresentation of the New Testament go unchallenged. The New Testament does explicitly teach that Christ is God. This is so glaringly obvious, that any contention to the contrary must be attributed either to gross and willful ignorance or a mendacious turn of mind. Charity compels me to assume that your statement may be attributed to the former. The following is quoted from gotquestions.org:
“In addition to Jesus’ specific claims about Himself, His disciples also acknowledged the deity of Christ. They claimed that Jesus had the right to forgive sins—something only God can do—as it is God who is offended by sin (Acts 5:31; Colossians 3:13; Psalm 130:4; Jeremiah 31:34). In close connection with this last claim, Jesus is also said to be the one who will “judge the living and the dead” (2 Timothy 4:1). Thomas cried out to Jesus, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28). Paul calls Jesus “great God and Savior” (Titus 2:13) and points out that prior to His incarnation Jesus existed in the “form of God” (Philippians 2:5-8). God the Father says regarding Jesus: “Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever” (Hebrews 1:8). John states that “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word [Jesus] was God” (John 1:1). Examples of Scriptures that teach the deity of Christ are many (see Revelation 1:17, 2:8, 22:13; 1 Corinthians 10:4; 1 Peter 2:6-8; Psalm 18:2, 95:1; 1 Peter 5:4; Hebrews 13:20), but even one of these is enough to show that Christ was considered to be God by His followers.”
December 25th, 2009 | 11:50 am
I always find it laughable when people like Yair try to dazzle everyone including themselves with their prose. Yair is a very proud individual yet seems so ignorant. Put some verbs where they need to be and write in common language. The smartest people are the ones that write and speak so everyone understands. They’re smart because they bring everyone to a common denominator. Yair, you sound like Thurston Howell III.
December 28th, 2009 | 9:28 am
Look people, Liberals tell Conservatives that they’re morally and intellectually superior to us all the time. AND that their policies, programs, laws, etc. are “progressive” as in “good for America”.
Uh huh. Now give us examples of this superiority, intellectual and moral AND the good things accomplished by massive programs and Liberal control over cities and states for several decades.
I was born in Detroit. Detroit has been controlled by Democrats my entire life. So they control the taxes, the schools, politics, the police, everything. One would presume that since they’re SO smart, SO ethical, SO wonderful the place ought to be a utopia. But it’s not. Why not? Who you gonna blame? Suburbia?
CA, NJ, MI, LA…. go through the states controlled by Democrats….education, criminal system, minorities’ family situation…. government competency… wherever the Party has ruled supreme for over a decade we find decadence, decay, ruin, and scandal, NOT utopian wonderful “progress”.
So go ahead and FEEL good about your “brilliance” and Moral superiority Liberals! Go ahead and show us evidence of how wonderfully the minorities you CLAIM to serve have fared. Homeschoolers taught by their parents and not “professional” teachers routinely outscore the best “public school” kids.
Non-profits run by Conservatives routinely provide more for less than liberal ones that absolutely require either massive tax funding or massive foundation funding to get anything done.
If you can’t turn major cities into utopias after 40 years of trying and untold millions of tax dollars….you might want to check the policies, programs, laws, and actual “professionals” in charge! If you can’t seem to balance a state budget…. you might want to check the political philosophical presuppositions you’re operating on! If your main political heroes continue to implode due to ‘marital problems’… or ethics violations or bribes, kickbacks, etc. … you might want to re-look at the whole moral superiority thing.
December 28th, 2009 | 12:39 pm
Ignorance I grant you. But what evidence is there that it is not vincible? Or even crass or affected?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact