June 6, 2018
MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey
Why the Modern Conservative Movement (AKA, Neoconservatism) is
Dangerous to the Health of the American Nation:
Essays by Buchanan, Gottfried and Kerwick
Friends,
First, I urge you to remember in your thoughts this significant day--this anniversary--in American history: D-Day, the 6th of June, 1944, seventy-four years ago, and the Normandy invasion. Most of the wizened veterans of that momentous day, indeed, of World War II, are now gone. But we must never forget that day in our history, or the sacrifices the greatest generation made....
This
morning I am going to limit—well, at least try to limit—my comments, because I
want to send on several very pertinent and useful essays, actually extremely valuable
analyses by friends (Drs. Paul Gottfried and Jack Kerwick and columnist author
Pat Buchanan). And that will take up the
space I would ordinarily employ for my extended commentary.
I
continually get questions about my attacks on what is termed Neoconservatism,
and, in particular, on certain of its specifically identified leaders. Over the
past several years I have written extensively about that “ism,” but mostly
deferred in my columns to much more detailed studies and critiques, notably by
Paul Gottfried, Claes Ryn, Gary Dorrien, Jack Kerwick, Mel Bradford, and
others.
The
one question that is asked of me the most is this: can’t we support the Neocons
when they say and do things that are “good”—that is, that seem to be favorable
to the defense of our Western and Christian traditions and culture? In other
words, isn’t there a way to support those things advocated by them that we
support, while not supporting those things that we disagree with?
The
problem here is with the question, itself.
Obviously,
if you are a member of Congress and Lindsey Graham proposes legislation to
raise the pay of members of the military, the answer is probably “yes.” Indeed,
if Senator Chuck Schumer were to do the same thing, the answer would most
likely be “yes,” also. But what about Graham’s staunch support for what
essentially would be amnesty? Or his allegiance to globalist trade treaties and
regulations? Or his extreme advocacy of American intervention to impose liberal
democracy on every God-forsaken oasis or jungle on the face of the globe?
Raising
military pay ordinarily is not an ideological issue, but perforce, questions
about committing American boys in wars to impose equality and democracy, or about
support for “moderate feminism, or whether to enact amnesty, or whether
Confederate monuments should be taken down, I would suggest, are.
In
the past, if you have read my previous essays, you’ll see that I have offered
severe criticism of, among others, the following leaders of Neoconservatism: Ben
Shapiro, Jonah Goldberg, Victor Davis Hanson, Bill Kristol, James Kirchick,
David French, Kevin Williamson, George Will, Dinesh D’Souza, Guy Benson, John
Bolton, Nikki Haley, Rich Lowry, Max Boot, and some others. Many, if not most
of these gentlemen write for the National Review (or The Weekly Standard). And
most of them appear with some frequency on Fox News. [If interested, ask for
references; there are too many to list here.]
To
the earlier question, let me pose a counter-question: How long would it be if
you support the Neocons on some issues,
before you end up supporting them on the other
issues they write about? Let me state it in a simpler way: if you begin to
trust Writer X because he seems to be writing what you think is “good” and
right on one or two points, is there a moment when you begin to trust and then
believe Writer X on the other points he writes about? Is there not a slippery,
ideological slope here—I read Writer X on two or three issues, I see him on Fox
and he sounds “good,” so I probably can believe him and, eventually, I may share
his views on other things, as well.
In
short, it becomes a seductive educational process, or, in effect, a process of acculturation
and gradual acceptance of views that perhaps, if I thought them clearly
through, I probably would reject.
Yet,
this is exactly what has happened to the old “conservative movement” since its
intellectual heyday in the 1960s, and specifically with the migration into it
and control of it by those ex-Trotskyite Marxists from the Left, the
Neoconservatives.
Since
then the essential vision, the views of conservatism have been radically
transformed, and those “Old Right” conservative writers and scholars who
continued to believe those older views have been dis-authorized, banned from
publications, had their reputations and careers attacked and damaged, if they
don’t tow the new and authoritarian Neocon party line (which is, curiously,
just like their praxis in the “good old days” when they were full-fledged, open
Marxists). The list of those Old Right
conservatives who’ve received this censorious treatment is long, and includes
such scholars as Gottfried, Kerwick, Mel Bradford, most of the writers
associated with the Lew Rockwell/von Mises Institute, Chronicles Magazine, and
various others.
So,
my response would be to that initial question: any “good” thing that a Neocon
pundit or writer has written or said, has, without doubt, been written or said better
by a more reliant and less Leftist-infected writer of the Old Right…and without
the ideological baggage and infectious afterbirth that almost inevitably
accompanies a “good” statement from a Ben Shapiro or a Victor Davis Hanson.
And
with that, I pass on five short essays, by Jack Kerwick (1), Paul Gottfried
(3), and Pat Buchanan (1).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Is America's
Cause in the World Today?
By Patrick J. Buchanan Tuesday - May 29, 2018
After being sworn in for a fourth term, Vladimir Putin departed the Kremlin for Annunciation Cathedral to receive the televised blessing of Patriarch Kirill of the Russian Orthodox Church.
The patriarch and his priests in sacred vestments surrounded Putin, who, standing alone, made the sign of the cross.
Meanwhile, sacred vestments from the Sistine Chapel were being transported by the Vatican to New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art to adorn half-clad models in a sexy show billed as "Heavenly Bodies: Fashion and the Catholic Imagination." One model sported a papal tiara.
The “show” proved a sensation in secular media.
In Minsk, Belarus, on May 17, to celebrate “International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia,” Britain's embassy raised the rainbow flag. Belarus's Ministry of Internal Affairs was not amused: "Same-sex relationships are a fake. And the essence of fake is always the same — the devaluation of truth. The LGBT community and all this struggle for 'their rights,' and the day of the community itself, are just a fake!"
Belarus is declaring moral truth — to Great Britain.
What is going on? A scholarly study sums it up: "The statistical trends in religion show two separate Europes: the West is undergoing a process of secularization while the post-socialist East, de-secularization."
One Europe is turning back to God; the other is turning its back on God.
And when Vladimir Putin and Belarus' Alexander Lukashenko are standing up for traditional values against Western cultural elites, the East-West struggle has lost its moral clarity.
And, so, what do we Americans stand for now? What is our cause in the world today?
After being sworn in for a fourth term, Vladimir Putin departed the Kremlin for Annunciation Cathedral to receive the televised blessing of Patriarch Kirill of the Russian Orthodox Church.
The patriarch and his priests in sacred vestments surrounded Putin, who, standing alone, made the sign of the cross.
Meanwhile, sacred vestments from the Sistine Chapel were being transported by the Vatican to New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art to adorn half-clad models in a sexy show billed as "Heavenly Bodies: Fashion and the Catholic Imagination." One model sported a papal tiara.
The “show” proved a sensation in secular media.
In Minsk, Belarus, on May 17, to celebrate “International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia,” Britain's embassy raised the rainbow flag. Belarus's Ministry of Internal Affairs was not amused: "Same-sex relationships are a fake. And the essence of fake is always the same — the devaluation of truth. The LGBT community and all this struggle for 'their rights,' and the day of the community itself, are just a fake!"
Belarus is declaring moral truth — to Great Britain.
What is going on? A scholarly study sums it up: "The statistical trends in religion show two separate Europes: the West is undergoing a process of secularization while the post-socialist East, de-secularization."
One Europe is turning back to God; the other is turning its back on God.
And when Vladimir Putin and Belarus' Alexander Lukashenko are standing up for traditional values against Western cultural elites, the East-West struggle has lost its moral clarity.
And, so, what do we Americans stand for now? What is our cause in the world today?
In World
War II, Americans had no doubt they were in the right against Nazism and a
militaristic Japan that had attacked us at Pearl Harbor.
In the Cold War, we believed America was on God's side against the evil ideology of Marxism-Leninism, which declared the Communist state supreme and that there was no such thing as God-given rights.
With the moral clarity of the Cold War gone, how do we rally Americans to fight on the other side of the world in places most of them can't find on a map?
A weekend article in The Washington Post discusses the strategic difficulty of our even prevailing, should we become involved in wars with both Iran and North Korea.
"You would expect the U.S. and its allies to prevail but at a human and material cost that would be almost incalculable, particularly in the case of the Korean example," said Rand researcher David Ochmanek. Added John Hopkins professor Mara Karlin, "If you want to ensure the Pentagon can actually plan and prepare and resource for a potential conflict with China or Russia, then getting into conflict with Iran or North Korea is the exact wrong thing to do."
One wonders: How many of these potential wars — with North Korea, Iran, Russia, China — could we fight without having America bled and bankrupted. What conceivable benefit could we derive from these wars, especially with a China or Russia, to justify the cost?
Looking back, only one great power survived the last century as a world power. The German, Russian, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires did not survive World War I. World War II brought to an end the British, French, Italian and Japanese empires.
The Soviet Union and the United States were the only great surviving powers of World War II, and the USSR itself collapsed between 1989 and 1991. Then, in 1991, we Americans started down the well-traveled road of empire, smashing Iraq to rescue Kuwait. Heady with that martial triumph, we plunged into Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen. Though still embroiled, we are now talking war with North Korea or Iran, or even Russia or China, the former over its annexation of Crimea, the latter over its annexation of the South China Sea.
Donald Trump is president today because he told the people he would "Make America Great Again" and put "America First."
Which bring us back to the question: What is America's cause today? Defeating Nazism and fascism was a cause. Defending the West against Communism was a cause. But what cause now unites Americans? It is certainly not Christianizing the world as it was in centuries long ago, or imposing Western rule on mankind as it was in the age of empires from the 17th to the 20th century.
Democracy crusading is out of style as the free elections we have demanded have produced Hamas, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Muqtada al-Sadr in Iraq, and nationalists, populists and autocrats from Asia to the Middle East to Europe.
Perhaps our mission is to defend and protect what is vital to us, to stay out of foreign wars where our critical interests are not imperiled, and to reunite our divided and disputatious republic — if we are not too far beyond that…
In the Cold War, we believed America was on God's side against the evil ideology of Marxism-Leninism, which declared the Communist state supreme and that there was no such thing as God-given rights.
With the moral clarity of the Cold War gone, how do we rally Americans to fight on the other side of the world in places most of them can't find on a map?
A weekend article in The Washington Post discusses the strategic difficulty of our even prevailing, should we become involved in wars with both Iran and North Korea.
"You would expect the U.S. and its allies to prevail but at a human and material cost that would be almost incalculable, particularly in the case of the Korean example," said Rand researcher David Ochmanek. Added John Hopkins professor Mara Karlin, "If you want to ensure the Pentagon can actually plan and prepare and resource for a potential conflict with China or Russia, then getting into conflict with Iran or North Korea is the exact wrong thing to do."
One wonders: How many of these potential wars — with North Korea, Iran, Russia, China — could we fight without having America bled and bankrupted. What conceivable benefit could we derive from these wars, especially with a China or Russia, to justify the cost?
Looking back, only one great power survived the last century as a world power. The German, Russian, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires did not survive World War I. World War II brought to an end the British, French, Italian and Japanese empires.
The Soviet Union and the United States were the only great surviving powers of World War II, and the USSR itself collapsed between 1989 and 1991. Then, in 1991, we Americans started down the well-traveled road of empire, smashing Iraq to rescue Kuwait. Heady with that martial triumph, we plunged into Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen. Though still embroiled, we are now talking war with North Korea or Iran, or even Russia or China, the former over its annexation of Crimea, the latter over its annexation of the South China Sea.
Donald Trump is president today because he told the people he would "Make America Great Again" and put "America First."
Which bring us back to the question: What is America's cause today? Defeating Nazism and fascism was a cause. Defending the West against Communism was a cause. But what cause now unites Americans? It is certainly not Christianizing the world as it was in centuries long ago, or imposing Western rule on mankind as it was in the age of empires from the 17th to the 20th century.
Democracy crusading is out of style as the free elections we have demanded have produced Hamas, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Muqtada al-Sadr in Iraq, and nationalists, populists and autocrats from Asia to the Middle East to Europe.
Perhaps our mission is to defend and protect what is vital to us, to stay out of foreign wars where our critical interests are not imperiled, and to reunite our divided and disputatious republic — if we are not too far beyond that…
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remaking the World in the Neoconservative Image
What they advocate isn't a
foreign policy; it's an ideological fixation.
New York Post, star
columnist Benny Avni has raised alarms that President
Trump may be getting too friendly with President Xi of China. This could cause
serious international complication if it prevents us from limiting Chinese
influence in the world: “A domineering China is bad for America and for the
world, as it presents a dictatorial model of governance aiming to compete with
Western democracy.”
An ardent partisan for
the Israeli Right but also closely tied to the neoconservative orbit, Avni can
be relied on to convey the neoconservative conception of world politics.
According to this script,
the U.S., our showcase democratic ally Israel, and Western European leaders,
like France’s Emmanuel Macron and Germany’s Angela Merkel, who control
nationalist impulses in their countries, stand for democracy. In contrast
Russia, China, the European Right, and Iran are the bad guys; and the rest of
the planet is waiting at the existential crossroads trying to decide whether to
go with Team A or Team B.
Those at the crossroads,
moreover, behave morally when they side politically with the U.S. and practice
the counsels of perfection when they obligingly adopt “Western democracy.” The
“West” of course means the U.S. and those in Western Europe who describe
themselves as Atlanticists and do what the American political establishment
wants them to do. The West also includes European globalists and parties of the
Left, providing they’re not anti-Israeli and providing they’re willing to
cooperate with our State Department. The West, needless to say, does not
embrace the nationalist Right, anywhere outside of the U.S., except in Israel.
The democracy that
neoconservatives wish to export to foreign countries involves adopting the
political culture that now prevails in America and in other advanced
democracies. Feminism and gay rights are now parts of the package, according
to younger
neoconservatives like Jamie Kirchik.
Neoconservatives of an older generation, whom I knew while working in
Washington in the 1980s, required from our political friends a less rigorous
observance of the true faith, e.g., holding regular free elections and voting
with the U.S. and Israel in the UN. But the goal for Charles Krauthammer,
Joshua Muravchik, Elliot Abrams and
the National Endowment for Democracy has always been the same, converting the
entire globe to
American-style democracy.
Presumably countries will
continue to fight until this noble goal can be attained. Since democracies
presumably never make war on each other and since the U.S. presumably never
started a foreign war unless provoked by bad hombres, we won’t have to worry
about armed conflicts once “Western democracy” is instituted everywhere.
Right?
As the
Russian radical leftist (living in Paris) Alexander
Kojeve pointed out during the Cold War, having one superpower put in a position
to dominate the globe might indeed end armed struggles, albeit at the price of
establishing tyranny almost everywhere else.
Kojeve, who was an
admirer of Stalin, thought that the advantage of having a world at peace with
uniform set of beliefs was well worth the acceptance of Soviet domination. But
in Kojeve’s case we are not talking about international politics, but embracing
a brutal means for making politics go away. International relations assume the
operation of varying and often conflicting national interests that must be
brought into line in order to maintain stability. Avni and his friends at
the New York Post look forward to something very different,
namely a world controlled by people like themselves in which ideological and
significant political differences will no longer be tolerated.
Contrary to what
their critics have said, I see
no reason to doubt that neoconservatives genuinely believe in their unipolar,
ideologically homogenized view of the world. Even if they give a pass to Israel
by turning the other way when it expels thousands of African asylum seekers,
American neoconservatives may also be sincere when they articulate their
general vision of the global future. Presumably they’d like to see troublesome
ethnic identities vanish in most of the world and be replaced by their ideal
version of the American system. And they are genuinely
committed to having the U.S. lead the crusade to bend the world to their
vision.
This enthusiasm may be
re-enforced by certain personal considerations. Neoconservative journalists,
academics, and political advisers have attained a level of success that most
envy. They may therefore believe they’re doing humanity a favor by conferring
on them their preferred version of “American values.” The fact that
they continue to enjoy immense power in the Republican Party and the national
media and that their foreign policy is widely considered to be the only
“conservative” one suggests that they’re not expressing isolated views. I hear
lots of obliging followers repeat their clichés on Fox News and on Republican
talk radio. It would also not be a stretch to describe their “armed doctrine”
(to use Edmund Burke’s phrase) as a variation on the liberal internationalism
that has marked American foreign policy through most of the twentieth century.
What the neoconservatives preach is a more revolutionary as well as more
idealistic formulation of what our “democratic” and human-rights based dealings
with the rest of the world are supposed to look like.
Still neoconservatives
like Avni are advocating not a foreign policy but an ideological fixation. And
it may be a mistake to treat it as anything else, and least of all as a recipe
for serious diplomacy.
Paul Gottfried is Raffensperger Professor of Humanities Emeritus
at Elizabethtown College, where he taught for 25 years. He is a Guggenheim
recipient and a Yale PhD. He writes for many websites and scholarly journals
and is the author of 13 books, most recently Fascism: Career
of a Concept and Revisions and Dissents. His books have been
translated into multiple languages and seem to enjoy special success in Eastern
Europe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saying NO to the Imperialism, Racism, and Islamophobia of Neoconservatives
How times
have changed.
Love him
or hate him, everyone and anyone who is genuinely interested in achieving
“transparency” owes President Donald J. Trump an eternal debt of gratitude, for
had it not been for his meteoric political rise, it would still be possible for
some to doubt the existence and profound corruption of the
Government-Academic-Media-Entertainment complex (GAME).
Courtesy
of President Trump, this phenomenon is now axiomatic.
In the Age
of Trump, those who not long ago labored inexhaustibly to convince their
respective constituencies that they were mortal ideological enemies have pulled
back the curtain on this act so as to fulfill their sole objective:
For
example, Max Boot has long been recognized by friend and foe alike as the
quintessential neoconservative, a tenacious military interventionist whose
support for George W. Bush’s “War on Terror”—and every American military
engagement for which this has served as the pretext—has been uncompromising.
Yet Boot, doubtless because he is an outspoken Never Trumper, now appears
in the pages of the unapologetically anti-Trump Washington
Post.
In
December of 2017, in an essay published by Foreign Policy, Boot claimed that
for years he had been “a smart-alecky conservative who scoffed at ‘political
correctness,’” but “the Trump era has opened my eyes” on the reality of “white
privilege.”
Boot
represents the GOP-Neoconservative Media Axis—what I call “Big Conservatism,”
or “the Big Con”—insofar as he is a self-styled conservative who spares no
occasion to ingratiate himself to recognizable leftists by renouncing Trump and
his supporters as “racist.” George W. Bush, John McCain, Megan McCain, talk
radio host Michael Medved, Mitt Romney, the writers at National
Review, and a whole lot of other self-described conservative
(neoconservative) politicians and commentators have seized every available
opportunity to do the same.
For
reasons that I’ve listed repeatedly, I am usually the last person to hurl the
“R-word” at others. The main reason that I refrain from doing so is that
the term, perhaps from overuse, has become all but meaningless. However,
if a white “racist” is not someone who habitually
endorses actions that lead to the destruction of millions of non-white men,
women, and children, then there is no white racism.
The point,
though, is that Max Boot and every one of his Never Trumping neoconservative
fellow travelers have repeatedly appropriated their substantial resources for
the express purpose of waging war.
Almost
without exception, these wars have been waged against Third World peoples of
color.
Although
Boot and his comrades labor inexhaustibly to convince The
New York Times and The Washington Post of their
unmitigated contempt for the “bigotry” and “racism” of those to their right, it
is the latter who have no moral alternative but to unequivocally condemn the
racially and religiously charged imperialism of neoconservatives
like Boot.
Boot
claims to have belatedly arrived at the revelation that he has “white
privilege.” Whether this is an expression of sincerity or but another attempt
on Boot’s part to posture for the left is anyone’s guess. At any rate, that the
hundreds of thousands of dead, maimed, orphaned, and displaced brown and
Islamic peoples whose fate was sealed by the very wars for which he was the
loudest of cheerleaders didn’t suffice to awake Boot from the dogmatic slumbers
of his ethnocentric ideology, makes it all but a foregone conclusion that Boot
remains a champion of the same neo-imperialism that he’s always favored.
Max Boot
is the proverbial textbook illustration of the Big Con in another critical
respect:
He is
morally unserious.
The Boots
of the world compete with one another over who can come up with the greatest
number of adjectives in condemning the allegedly “racist” remarks of
a public figure on whom the left has set its sights. Yet they continue to
advocate on behalf of literally homicidal policies, of actions, that
result in seas of blood for legions of non-white men, women, and children.
If
“racism” and “Islamophobia” have any meaning at all, then surely Max Boot and
his fellow neoconservatives, given that their imperialist ideology is almost
invariably directed toward Muslims and people of color, are guilty of these
moral transgressions in spades.
Back in
January, Joy Reid, of MSNBC, accused National
Review writer David French of arguing that nuclear war was
worth risking because “it will only kill Democrats and
minorities.” Reid is a disreputable person whose
intellectual dishonesty renders her unfit to be a public figure. She radically
misread French. That being said, given that French is an Iraq War
veteran, and since he does indeed write for a publication that not only
vigorously advocated for this war that by now virtually everyone recognizes for
the catastrophe that it is but which, to this day, refuses to apologize for its
part in promoting it, can it be any surprise that some would interpret French
as viewing the loss of non-white lives as a price worth paying for a war that
he and his neoconservative colleagues regard as “just?”
When National
Review writer Kevin Williamson was hired by left-leaning The
Atlantic, the leftist rag Mother Jones blasted
Williamson and NR for their “race problem.” To make the point, Kevin Drum alluded to a 2014 piece of
Williamson’s in which the latter, in an ostensible critique of the Democratic
governor of Illinois, superfluously offered a depiction of black underclass
existence that featured an anti-white black kid using ghetto-slang, a kid who
Williamson said made “the universal gesture of primate territorial
challenge.”
By the
lights of this Mother Jones commentator,
Williamson’s “primate” reference in his description of the conduct of a black
youth convicts him and, by implication, his editors at NR of
having a “race problem.”
Mother Jones, but one more clog in the vast machinery
that is the Racism-Industrial-Complex (RIC), has zero credibility on questions
regarding race and “racism.” However, given NR’s extensive
track record of advancing preemptive invasions of foreign lands, the Third
World countries of peoples of color who, most recently, tend to be
overwhelmingly Muslim, it is not surprising that Williamson and his benefactors
are susceptible to charges of racism (and Islamophobia).
So as to
avoid any misunderstandings, it should be noted in no uncertain terms that the
neocons’ leftist critics are disingenuous. That they are concerned only
with defeating those Republicans who happen to be in power at the moment should
be obvious from two facts:
First,
leftist Democrats have favored the very same imperialist war-mongering for
which neocon Republicans are known. Barack Obama, for instance, launched
over 100,000 drone attacks on seven (Third World, non-white countries) over an
eight year period. No other American president has launched war in that many
places over that long a period of time.
Second,
for decades, leftists spent all of their time demonizing George W. Bush, John
McCain, and every other Republican national figure for their imperialism and
racism (and everything else). Now, though, and through the prism of
Donald Trump, leftists like Bill Maher claim to have discovered “a
new found respect” for those who they once reduced to
the status of devils or things.
The bottom
line is this: No one, least of all those libertarians and traditionalist conservatives
who, at considerable cost to their own livelihoods and reputations, have long
resisted the unnecessary and unjustified destruction of the lands of people of
color, should be subjected to lectures on racism by Max Boot, National
Review, and like neoconservatives.
Relative
to neoconservatives, the hands of those on the old right are as pure as the
driven snow. Moreover, the old right has defined itself to a significant
extent by its efforts to spare the lives of countless
numbers of non-white, often non-Christian, men, women, and children who
neoconservatives threatened with their militarist, imperialist policies.
No,
neither Max Boot nor any of his ideological ilk have an ounce of moral capital
with which to pontificate on matters of race, religion, and “racism.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gottfried on Goldberg: “Suicide Of The West”—Or Of "Conservatism"?
Paul Gottfried May 16, 2018, 07:15 AM
That is where the similarity ends. Unlike Burnham’s scalding indictment of liberalism
as “the ideology of Western
suicide,” Goldberg’s random opinions represent the very pathology that
Burnham railed against. Goldberg hates national identities (although
he makes an exception for
Israel), opponents of the
Deep State, immigration patriots, and those who imagine that democracy has
something to do with the popular will. Rather his “conservative” view of
democracy privileges public administration, the operation of multinational
corporations, and socially sophisticated journalists such as himself.
One need only cite this passage from Burnham’s
work to grasp the extent to which Burnham might have been thinking
of someone like Goldberg when he described the quintessential liberal:
"Liberalism has always stressed change, reform, the break
with encrusted habit whether in the form of old ideas, old customs or old
institutions. Thus liberalism has been and continues to be primarily negative
in its impact on society: and in point of fact it is through its negative and
destructive achievements that liberalism makes its best claim to historical
justification."
By now, however, Burnham’s Leftist hallmarks are “conservative”
positions. After all, Goldberg’s book, which abounds in the Leftist
virtue-signaling mandatory for Main Stream Media Token
Conservatives, is being sold by “conservative” book clubs. It is also
featured in a Crown Forum Series devoted to
conservative thought (whose editor pointedly refused to correspond with me
about a book proposal).
For those who may doubt whether the author is an authorized
“conservative,” one need only turn to National
Review, a publication at which Goldberg still holds an
editorship, or else watch him jaw with other
Fox News Allstars as a designated Man Of The Right.
I regard Goldberg as a prime example of the near-total
ideological primacy of the Cultural Marxist Left. We
are living in a time and place in which what would be crazy-Left up until about
two generations ago is assigned a “Right-Wing” label, in order to keep alive a
dialectic that is transparently phony.
All of this coming from Goldberg is utter chutzpah,
considering that he now happily accepts massive social engineering
in
order to overcome “discrimination” against certain groups.
His version of Suicide
Of The West indicts—in what by now is neoconservative ritual—Bismarck, the Prussian state and the
administrative model of late nineteenth century Germany. All these pernicious
forces allegedly laid the conceptual foundations of American managerial
democracy.
But in fact this development was by no means due mostly to
malignant Germans. Parallel developments took place at about the same time in
most Western states that had introduced universal suffrage and in which the
populace as well as political elites believed in a “science” of administration.
If Goldberg had deigned to read my work on the subject(which I
wouldn’t expect him to given my unpopularity among his employers), he might
have understood how widespread the growth of the democratic administrative
state was in the decade before the First World War. Curiously some of the most
zealous supporters of an expanded American welfare state, like Herbert
Croly, Thorstein Veblen, and (after a youthful infatuation with
Hegel) John Dewey, were by 1914
rabidly anti-German. In a heavily-researched study “World War One as Fulfilment: Power and Intellectuals,” Murray
Rothbard showed how Anglo-American progressives presented World War One as a
struggle between their Social Democratic project and German authoritarians who
only pretended to believe in the same ideal.
Although Goldberg deplores the beginnings of our
Administrative State, he has no trouble supporting some of its recent
expansions. For example, he offers these impromptu opinions after telling us how
thoroughly wicked the creators of the welfare state were:
Freed slaves certainly did deserve forty acres and mule (at
least!), as many post-Civil War Radical Republicans proposed. Similarly, the
early affirmative action programs targeted specifically to blacks in the wake
of the Civil Rights Acts have intellectual and moral merit.
This kind of inconsistency runs through Goldberg’s tome.
Although he vehemently objects to America’s early welfare state, later broad
government interventions intended to overcome “discrimination” are perfectly
fine with him. And, of course, Goldberg joins the post-Civil War Radical
Republicans in calling for punishing Southern whites during Reconstruction by
taking away their property and giving it to blacks.
Goldberg grovels shamelessly whenever he turns to racial
problems in the US. In contrast to the traditional Right, Political Correctness
is OK with him, providing it doesn’t get too nasty—and It’s not quite clear at
what point he would admit that occurs:
At its best, PC is a way to show respect to people. If black
people don’t want to be called “Negroes,” it is only right and proper to
respect that desire. If Asians object to “Oriental,” lexicological arguments
can’t change the fact that it is rude not to oblige them.
But what if (when) Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton or some other
Civil Rights leader decides he doesn’t want people of color to be called
“black” any longer because he finds it demeaning? Are we required to go on
changing the name of a particular group that enjoys a high victim profile in
order to show appropriate “respect”?
And why are certain other groups, like Southern white Christians
and those who want to preserve ancestral monuments that the Left and
(now) National
Review don’t happen to like, not to be accorded the same
sensitivity to group feeling?
Because in Goldberg’s eyes they’re not Left-certified victims
that professional Token Conservatives know they must acknowledge.
Thus Goldberg predictably goes berserk attacking the opponents
of Brexit, the supporters of the National Front in France, and “the story of
Donald Trump’s victory” as part of a “new global crusade against ‘globalism.’
“Those who participate in this neo-Nazi enterprise are supposedly undermining
democracy, like those Hungarians who overwhelmingly endorse what George Will
has proclaimed an “essentially fascist government” in Budapest. [ George Will: What artifacts from Nazi murder
machinery can teach the U.S. and the world now, MercuryNews, April
26, 2018]
What this means: democracy can only survive if citizens vote for
neocon-approved candidates. Otherwise, assuming Will is correct,
“Anti-Semitism” will be “coming out of the closet.”
I am intrigued how often Goldberg, who is essentially recycling
conventional views interspersed with chunks of history that seem to have been
extracted from a high school survey, uses the phrase “I tend to believe…”
Although he clearly shows no trace of research curiosity, he may
have no professional reason to do so. And so he can get away with idiocies like
this one:
I tend to believe that high levels of immigration, particularly
skills-based immigration, are economically desirable policies. Also, the
evidence that low-skilled immigration is a net detriment to the country is not
as cut-and-dried as some claim. (The field of economics that studies
immigration is shot through with methodological and ideological problems.)
Really! Are there no reliable studies (I’ve seen dozens of them)
that show that low-skilled immigration impacts negatively on low-income
earners in the US? And can’t most high-skilled positions that are
available in the US be filled by those who are already here?
Not surprisingly what Goldberg “tends to believe” corresponds to
the inclinations of the Koch brothers, Paul Singer and other patrons of National Review. (Full
disclosure: I’m putting together an anthology on the funding sources of
Conservatism, Inc.)
Goldberg inserts silly complaints about how
academic Leftists diss him and his pals from National Review, like Kevin Williamson, when they pop
up at universities to speak on “conservative” issues. (I note he did not
condemn the disruption of my own recent lecture at
Hamilton College.)
Personally, I can’t imagine what “conservative” teaching
Goldberg could possibly convey during his sojourn in academe. His book
conspicuously avoids taking hard conservative stands on anything. When he
complains about the breakdown of marriage, he noticeably stays away
from gay marriage, which he has already praised as a good
thing. [A banner day for gay marriage on the right, By
Jennifer Rubin, Washington
Post, March 15, 2013] Instead Goldberg blandly chides those
who live in “open marriages” and coyly alludes to his own marital bliss—as the
husband of Nikki Haley’s speechwriter, Jessica Gavora. [Why Is Nikki Haley Still Trump’s UN Ambassador?, by Philip
Giraldi, American
Conservative, July 7, 2017]
In the acknowledgements he lists Jessica as his “best
confidante, friend, and partner.” Perhaps it is this “partner” whom we should
blame for Jonah’s egregious book of opinions and recycled historical
platitudes.
A friend has described Goldberg’s enviable career as the “curse”
inflicted on us because his mother Lucianne (of Lucianne.com) betrayed the trust of Monica Lewinsky and ratted out Monica’s
secret affair with Bill Clinton to Republican operatives. Because of this
betrayal, Lucianne’s self-important son was launched on a legacy path as a
“conservative” luminary, the end of which is not yet in sight.
But this curse has not worked the same way as the fate that
befell the subjects of Greek tragedies or those who sinned in Hebrew Scripture.
There, the offenders and their descendants suffered the consequences of evil
acts. Here the son of the betrayer of confidences is lavishly rewarded, as the
beneficiary of his mother’s act, and the rest of us are made to endure his
insufferable presence.
The older idea made much better sense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 6, 2018
Corporate America and the Left
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/03/corporate_america_and_the_left.html#ixzz599xfBryt
By Paul Gottfried
By Paul Gottfried
A
distinguished social economist of my acquaintance, Carl Horowitz, produced a
penetrating essay, which is available in the latest issue of Social
Contract, on "The Alliance of Corporate Capitalism with Political Radicalism." Carl demonstrates that black
nationalists, revolutionary socialists, and off-the-wall feminists have loyal
benefactors among the corporate boards of high-tech enterprises and in older
corporations like Pepsi-Cola and Citibank. Carl's illustrations are
vivid and shocking, and his well-constructed speech leads me to raise two
questions occasioned by his evidence.
One:
Carl describes his targets as people who are betraying the free enterprise
system that has allowed them to flourish, but it might be asked whether this is
really the case. Can't it be argued that someone like Mark
Zuckerberg, the socially radical billionaire founder of Facebook, is being
economically rational even when he indulges his infantile leftist fantasies and
sports a Che Guevara shirt? Many of those who avail themselves of
Zuckerberg's invention hold the same political and cultural
beliefs. I'm not even sure that the decisions made by Facebook and
Google here and in Western Europe to kick political conservatives off their
sites is a bad business practice. Perhaps most users of these
internet conveniences welcome P.C. intolerance. They may be like
those college students who are demanding safe spaces and who cheer anti-fascist
demonstrators keeping "intolerant" views from being expressed on
their campuses. Political pressures are coming almost entirely from
the cultural left, and it might make perfectly good business sense to
accommodate these politically engaged customers.
Capitalists
a hundred years ago were generally on the political right. But that
was owing to very different circumstances from our own. Unlike Mark
Zuckerberg and Bill Gates, Cornelius Vanderbilt, John D. Rockefeller, and
Andrew Carnegie were devout Protestants, and they lived in societies in which
both rich and poor were expected to conform to certain bourgeois proprieties
that hardly exist anymore. In any case, the old "sexist,
racist, homophobic" morality has been replaced by the equally demanding
standards of political correctness, and there can be no doubt that those
figures whom Carl blasts are obsessively scrupulous in observing our post- and
anti-bourgeois social morality. Also, we are now living in an age of
global capitalism and multinational corporations, in which the exaltation of
diversity may have considerable advertising value. Because the
traditional right (to which Carl and I both belong) may not value the cultural
destruction that we see happening all around us, that does not mean it's bad
for business.
There
are those lower down on the capitalist pecking order – e.g., purely American
enterprises run by serious Christians, like Hobby Lobby – that try to uphold
traditional cultural values, often at great expense to
themselves. These lower-end capitalists put up with widely
proclaimed boycotts from the left and with government pressure in order to be
true to their principles. We should also note the presence of much
smaller, ideologically independent mom-and-pop businesses. The
owners of these enterprises really don't have to worry about being politically
out of step unless they are located in some leftist enclave like Greenwich
Village or Haight-Ashbury. But those at the top of the economic heap
showcase their culturally leftist positions because it helps them
commercially. It also protects them against boycotts from an
activist left, whose collective strength is totally unmatched by anything on
the right. One would have to be sight-impaired not to notice that when
representatives of the left pulverize Confederate memorial statues, there is no
significant physical response from the other side. As in Western
Europe, the anti-fascist left raises Cain, through boycotts and violent
demonstrations, without evoking an equivalent response from its presumed
adversaries.
Two:
I have to wonder whether Carl's villain "Marxism" has much to do with
what he's lamenting. Marxist slogans may provide window dressing for
some on the left with whom our global capitalists are partnering, and this ism
may still be tried in a ruinous, selective fashion in some South American
countries. But the feminists, black nationalists, transgendered, and
other designated victims whom Carl mentions are rarely obsessive
socialists. They are for the most part anti-bourgeois,
anti-Christian, anti-white radicals who are trying to extract benefits from the
modern administrative state. It is possible that their political and
cultural enablers here and in Europe were onetime Marxists or members of
communist parties. But this continuity is not so much ideological as
personal. Those who hated or feared the inherited social order or,
in the cases of former European communists, wished to remain relevant to a
changing left have adapted themselves to a new age. They have moved
from being Marxist to post-Marxist leftists. Carl notes this transformation
when he explains: "Most importantly, Marxists have shifted their primary
focus from class to race and sex. This is not to say they have given
up the class struggle. But their most passionate identification for
the last several decades has been with 'people of color,' women, and
gender-bender sexual minorities."
The
question that should be asked is whether, once having retailored Marxism, the
modern left is still recognizably Marxist. In my judgment, the
current left has forfeited that identity. Marxists and
Marxist-Leninists are right to denounce this multicultural reformulation of
Marx's socio-economic critique of capitalism. A corporate executive
who insists on transgendered restrooms in public buildings or who demands
gender-inclusive language in the workplace does not become a Marxist or a
Marxist sympathizer by taking this cultural stand. Rather, he shows
himself to be what he is: an easily intimidated or morally unprincipled
capitalist.
No comments:
Post a Comment