Recently, I ran across a blog by some fringe uber-liberal blogger mourning the death of Bin-Laden as a misguided hero willing to sacrifice his life for the sake of "oppressed". Her words turned my mind to the question that puzzled me for a long time. Why is contemporary liberalism simultaneously anti-American (more generally anti-Western in the sense of Western cultural values) and anti-Israel in nature? What is that psychological trait which turns people born in USA and Europe to hate values on which their native civilization was founded? What is it that makes liberal Jews, to whom Israel did nothing bad personally, to hate it that much?
Obviously, liberals are against capitalism, and this explains their hatred for such things as individualism, private property, economic freedom, limited government. Capitalism was invented in the West, and US is perceived as the country embodying it the most, thus the anti-West and anti-US sentiments of the liberals are quite natural. What is more puzzling is why they always go hand in hand with loathing for Israel, which is a country with long-lasting socialist traditions.
In an attempt to find the answer to this question, let me begin by noting that liberalism is based on the idea, originating from Marxists class struggle theory, according to which people belong to one of two categories: they are either oppressors or the oppressed. The latter deserve sympathy and should be defended, while the former must be anathematized and, when possible, destroyed. Practical application of this idea depends, of course, on how one determines who the oppressor is, and who is being oppressed. This is where liberals very successfully play their favorite linguistic game redefining words and giving them new meanings. For me oppression is associated with Stalin's GULAG or with Hitler's gas chambers, but this is not what liberals mean by “oppression” these days. Nothing helps to understand the actual meaning of the words than looking at their usage.
The main favorite oppressor these days is, of course, Israel. Never mind that nobody heard about concentration camps build by Israel for Palestinians or about mass extermination of the latter by the former. (And, yes, I do know about certain incidents perpetuated by Jewish groups in 1948, which, while definitely, regrettable, were committed in the midst of the war and never became official policies of the State of Israel). In modern Israel, Arab citizens have the same civil rights as Jews including their own representation in the Knesset. Living conditions of even those Palestinians, who do sit in Israeli prisons for such insignificant things as blowing up Israeli civilians, are often better than that of their “free” compatriots. There has been a press report recently about two Palestinians refusing to leave the prison so that they could complete their education. So much for being oppressed! But it all does not matter because liberals learned very well Lenin’s dictum: “A lie told often enough becomes the truth”. Their demonization of Israel has been so persistent that now everybody is convinced that Jews are the most evil people in the Middle East, and “the pain in the asses” as one famous movie director put it recently.
When liberals do not blast Israelis, they like to talk about global guilt of the West before underdeveloped countries in Africa or Latin America or the same Middle East. Before WW 2, the Western countries "oppressed" the rest of the world directly by colonizing them. What does it matter that those “oppressors” built infrastructure, provided education and medical services to those whom they oppressed? So what that after "liberation" most of this infrastructure, medical and educational institutions fell in disarray, and the newly free nations, especially in Africa succeeded mostly in killing each other? While after the war Europe engaged in restoring their cities and developing their economics, Africa self-destructed. Instead of accepting responsibility for their people, African leaders helped by Western liberals, succeeded mostly in the blame game and stealing whatever resources the West had sent to their countries. The West is being blamed for everything including AID epidemics. The idea that one has to use condoms during sex turned out to be much less appealing than suggestions that the Western countries created HIV virus in order to get rid of Africans and to appropriate their resources. And it does not matter how many financial and human resources western countries wasted in Africa, it is never enough. If Africans are miserable, it is because of West's colonial, neocolonial or postcolonial policies.
The faces of oppressors and oppressed back home in the "Land of opportunities" are also well known. The most obvious oppressors are of course the "fat cats” from the Wall street, greedy bankers, and the biggest and the scariest one – the Corporation. Vilification of corporations in liberal media became so beyond any reason that it appears that Corporations are some evil monsters from outer space rather than just one of many ways to organize ownership and governance of a business. Liberals seem to forget that corporations provide hundred thousands of people with jobs and manufacture those things, which liberals do not feel any shame to use in their daily lives.
In addition to large oppressors, there are smaller oppressors, which judging by Obama’s tax proposal, are everyone making more than $250 K per year. They may be not as evil and powerful as Big Oil or Big Farma or Koch brothers are, but they still oppress “less fortunate”, just by the virtue of possessing their “fortune”. One should admire Left’s linguistic abilities in inventing names designed to conceal the actual nature of phenomena they discuss. Term “less fortunate” is supposed to convey the idea that being poor has nothing to do with people making their personal choices, but it just a matter of good or bad fortune. Here are a few examples of those who are encouraged to think about themselves as oppressed. Students at my university feel so oppressed that a week before the finals, instead of studying, went to demonstrate and demand that more money were taken from those who has them and given to them. Another example: welfare mothers, a whole bunch of the “Precious”, who do not have the will and skills or even a desire to hold a job, but dream big about how they magically appear on a brightly lit stage, in a glamorous dress, and are admired by everyone. Also oppressed are the drug dealers and the drug users. The former sell drugs because they are not provided with other economic opportunities and the latter use them for exactly the same reasons. In general, oppressed are those who have “needs” they cannot fulfill and demand that other people were forced to provide for them.
Now, let us see if there is anything in common between these disparate examples of “oppression”. There might be more than one unifying motif here, but the one, which seems almost obvious to me, is that in all these cases oppressors are those cultures, countries, individuals who succeed, and the oppressed are those who fail. Indeed, Israel built a functioning state with a powerful army, modern economics, developed infrastructure, medicine, world-class education, and the level of life unseen in this part of the woods. Palestinians, at the same time, completely failed in developing their territories in spite of streams of money sent their way. This observation also helps me to understand why liberal Jews hate Israel so much that actually covertly want its passing to oblivion. They are psychologically frustrated. They would like to be able to be both good Jews and good liberals, which is not possible while Israel exists as a successful state. If Israel were no more and all the Jews (those who would survive) were scattered again all over the world and persecuted, they could be immediately moved to the category of oppressed. At this point, the liberal American Jews would find themselves in a very comfortable position - once again, they could be good liberals and good Jews saving their fellow compatriots and bringing them back under socialistic banners.
The same idea explains the general animosity of liberals toward principal Western values and their embrace of multiculturalism, which is just a code word for diluting western ideals of individualism, rationality, objectivity with cultural values from other much less successful traditions. The only consequence of this dilution can be diminishing role of those values that brought people from all other the world to the West to enjoy its achievements. The result is not difficult to predict: no more achievements.
One can argue that in the world of limited economic resources, the successful people and countries enjoying the fruits of their success consume too many resources leaving too little for those who are less successful, and therefore they become oppressors immediately once they claim their rights on the fruits of their labor. This argument, however, suffers from two fallacies. First, is the presumption that amount of wealth available for distribution is a conserving quantity so that if one has more than the other necessarily has less. Or if put in terms of the game theory, that economic activity is always a zero sum game. This is, of course, not so. Successful people create something, which would not have existed without them, and this defines their success. In very general terms, they create wealth, and by creating wealth, they increase resources available for everyone, including those who are “less fortunate”. Hayek in his “Road to slavery” gives a perfect example of this phenomenon. The labor of a minimally skilled worker by itself is not worth much. When, however, he becomes a part of a bigger enterprise, a factory, created by a successful individual with vision and talent, the worth of his labor increases by orders of magnitude. The second fallacy consists in the assumption that expropriating wealth created by successful people to achieve its more equitable distribution would have no influence on its overall amount. Ayn Rand showed that this is not so very clearly in her Atlas Shrugged, where she demonstrated with almost mathematical precision what happens to a society, which begins such redistribution.
OK, it is time to wrap it up, as I myself am not able to finish reading this post. To conclude: the liberals hate capitalism because they are ashamed of being successful. They believe that success of some is unfair for the others. It might be so, but to punish people and countries just because they succeeded while others failed is not just more unfair – it makes things worse for everyone, including those whom liberals are purported to defend.
Well Lev, nice to see you back on the blog! You've given me much to think about and discuss, and I doubt whether I can even touch on more than a handful of the points you bring up.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I have to say that I disagree at the outset with the very premise of your discussion: the notion that there is such a thing as 'liberalism' that bears even the faintest resemblance to your characterization. You've employed the rather common rhetorical tactic of characterizing a movement by its extremes. Yes, certainly you can find a few barefoot wild-eyed tree hugging crazies who mourn the death of Bin Laden, but I consider myself a liberal, and I have nothing in common with these people. Every ideological grouping has its extremes, especially those as broadly and vaguely defined as liberalism. But if you want to have a serious discussion, you should seek out the mainstream and treat the extremes as just that.
Once you find the mainstream of American progressive thought, it would help to look back at its history. I think you'll find that "liberalism" is as deeply rooted in American traditions and values as any present day trend. What was the American Revolution if not a struggle against "oppression?" What was the Civil War fought for if not for the abolition of slavery, that most odious form of oppression? (Yes, I know there were other factors, but slavery was always the elephant in the room) What motivated the reforms of the Progressive era if not the desire to protect ordinary people from the rapacious instincts of corporate interests? Where did Roosevelt's New Deal come from if not the realization that the state has an obligation to guarantee a minimum standard of living to its aged and infirm? Sorry Lyova, 'liberalism' is as American as apple pie. You're not going to write me out of history!
What are these "Western values" that you feel liberals betray? Could it be the notion of the dignity and sanctity of the individual? The idea that a civilized society does let its citizens get trampled into the dust; that those with power have an obligation not only to protect, but to give a voice to groups and individuals who are shut out from influence and privilege? Are you trying to tell me that these are not Western ideals?
After accusing liberals of being anti-American and anti-Western, you go on to accuse liberals of being anti-capitalist and essentially Marxist. It's times like this that make me nostalgic for the Cold War. At least back then the lines were drawn more clearly and it was easier to keep things straight. Back then, liberal was synonymous with moderate, and no one confused them with Communists. Here's the difference. As you know, Marxists believe that ideas are determined by economic status-the only interests that one can legitimately speak of are class interests. Any suggestions to the contrary were merely pretexts to confuse the proletarians and distract them from their true struggle. But liberals reject this. Liberals actually believe that there is such a thing as the Common Good--measures that serve to the benefit of society as a whole regardless of class. A liberal will say that it serves the common good for wealthy industrialists to moderate their profit motive and submit to state regulation, not because the liberals want to destroy capitalism, but rather because moderation preserves the balance of society and forestalls the inevitable upheaval that would result from unmitigated exploitation. I would even go so far as to argue (perhaps in a separate post) that liberalism, far from weakening capitalism, actually saved it from destruction.
ReplyDeleteLet's turn to the fallacies you list at the end of your post. The first, in which you note the essential role played by wealth in creating growth, is not particularly controversial. Again, you're painting liberals as Bolsheviks and they're nothing of the sort. Mainstream liberals understand perfectly the need for free market structures to foster innovation and economic growth. However, liberals believe that such a free market environment can not survive without some degree of state regulation, without the rule of law. Your second fallacy evoking Ayn Rand on the dolorous effects of economic redistribution flies of the face of the past hundred years of history. The Robin Hood state, taking more from the rich and giving more to the poor, has been the norm throughout the civilized world for the past 100 years. So where's the great disaster, the mega-implosion? I would argue that it was precisely the rise of the welfare state that averted the imminent threat of communist revolution. Capitalism in its bare-knuckles dog-eat-dog early nineteenth century variety was simply not viable. For capitalism to survive it had to prove Marx wrong and show that it had the capacity to reform.
more to come...
A quick correction: of course, I meant to say that a civilized state does not let its citizens get trampled into the dust.
ReplyDeleteOK, now on to the question of Israel, though not without some trepidation given the passions that the topic evokes.
I was surprised to learn that American liberals in general and American Jewish liberals in particular loathe the state of Israel. This is certainly news to me. In fact, my impression was always quite the opposite. Israel, it always seemed to me, was one of those "third rails" of American politics--touch it and you're dead meat. Can you name a single prominent American liberal political (who isn't to the left of Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinuch)who has gained a reputation for sustained hostility to the state of Israel? Certainly not my Senator, Frank Lautenburg; certainly not the now infamous Anthony Weiner, one of most aggressively outspoken liberal congressmen, who was sorely missed at this year's Israel Pride parade--he's always been a regular; certainly not the late Ted Kennedy, that liberal icon, whose support for Israel was always unwavering. That's not to say that there are not strong voices on the left in opposition to Israeli policies. But for better or for worse, when it comes to mainstream politics, these voices are marginalized.
But here's what I don't understand: why can't we treat Israel like any other country on the face of the earth? With any other country we can appreciate the culture, technical achievements, geopolitical significance, etc. etc., without feeling that we have no right to voice disagreements. For example, I feel a deep bond with England, having lived there as a child, but it never occurred me that if I were to criticize Margaret Thatcher's handling of the universities, or Tony Blair's kowtowing to the Bush administration, or David Cameron's economic austerity program, that someone would accuse me of existential loathing. On the other hand plenty of Americans got very angry at the French when they refused to join Blair on Bush's lap. I thought it was all pretty silly--the freedom fries and pouring good French wine into the gutter--but I would never have thought to accuse these people of wishing for France's destruction.
So why is it that if I happen to find some positions taken by Israeli politicians to be counter-productive, then automatically, I am assumed to be anti-Israeli, even if my criticism may correspond directly with the views of centrist and leftist groups in Israel itself? Why is that we are somehow beholden to the extreme right of the Israeli political spectrum such that we're not even allowed to repeat the more moderate views of the center and left?
Overall, I must say, I find this whole business of branding people 'anti' this or that rather distasteful. It's as if the people doing this branding are taking upon themselves the right to declare unilaterally what it means to be American or Israeli or whatever, and excising those who disagree from the body politic. It evokes the ethos of the McCarthy era and the discussions back then of who is and is not a 'true American.' If fact, the mainstream of politic opinion is determined not through these kind of unilateral declarations, but through dialogue, airing of opposing views, exchanges. Only when a variety of critical positions can be aired, will we find the real middle ground.
For me a greatest irony of unconditional support for Israel from American side is that Israel is more communist country than any other country in the region. Yes, some Arab countries claimed "socialism" as an objective but it was a "money and arms for ideology" game with the Soviet Union. Many Americans by mistake called the Soviet Union "a communist country" but it was wrong. Soviet Union citizens had some property even in very limited terms. It was nothing close to "kibbutz" which is a 100% communist society unimaginable in the socialist(!)Soviet Union. This is a special story why it happened but once again this is a great irony that semi-communist Israel was supported by the United States so strongly.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the Israel lobby, there is a very good book "The Israel lobby and US foreign policy" written by John Mearsheimer and Steven H.Walt which explains the story but still this is a very curious fact in history when the most ultra-market and freedom-seeking country in the world supports the country with such strong nationalist and socialist attitude as Israel.
It will be funny for members of Republican party which are so proud of supporting Israel that Israel has a universal health care. Republicans hate "Obamacare" but from Israel's point of view it could be "unfair". No private health care, no insurance companies nothing! Health care is running by government. Terrible thing for Republicans but this is how it works in any civilized country. Who calls Obama a "liberal"? He should be ultraconservative politician in Israel.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, education in Israel including higher education also comes from the government. Terrible thing for any "true Republican" but again this is the policy in Israel which in my eyes makes it a civilized country. How Tea Party members can hate "Obamacare" and like Israel with universal health care I can not understand. But who can understand these .... not very smart people which do not know even history of their own country?
The origin of tea and coffee taxes is that British government decide to decrease land taxes for 25% - analog of tax breaks for rich which Tea party endorses so enthusiastically. To compensate these losses you should scrutinize all other citizens - exactly the idea of Paul Ryan's budget plan.
It means that the term "Tea party" is completely wrong. They must call themselves "King Georges III party". This is a right name.
Dear Nathan,
ReplyDeleteI am sorry but I have to point out that you keep playing the
linguistic games with me. You call the American revolution an uprising
against the oppression. But what kind of oppression was it? It was not
oppression in the sense, in which this word is used by today’s
liberals. Foremost, it was the oppression of individuals by the
arbitrary power of the King, the oppression through unreasonable
taxation. Modern day liberals demand more and more power for the State
and more and more taxation. American revolution was about freedom of
individuals to exercise their individual rights, while modern liberalism
is about rights of a collective to sway power over an individual.
The civil war was indeed the war against slavery, which was a noble
cause. But what does it have to do with progressivism? Once again it
was a struggle for individual’s right to freely exchange his labor for
the fruits of labor of other people, while progressive movement insist
on forcing people to forfeit some of what they earn for the sake of others.
In other words, they are forced to work, involuntarily, for
other men. And this is a return to a mild form of slavery.
So sorry, but I cannot agree with you that modern progressive movement
has any roots in earlier American history. Actually it did not play
any significant role until the Great Depression, and while one can argue
that may be New Deal have prevented a social upheaval at that time,
one can also argue that it set the country on the course to its
gradual undoing.
About Israel
ReplyDeleteWhy cannot we treat Israel as any other country? This is an interesting question. Let's see. Is there any other country in the world that is completely surrounded by enemies, which do not accept this country's very existence? Is there any other country that fought 5 bloody wars with it's neighbors whose population by orders of magnitude exceeds it's own in just 20 years of its existence? Is there any other country whose closest neighbors are set on it's destruction and use terror against it's civilians as a weapon ? Is there any other country whose very survival is questioned every moment? When degree of Israel's security will be on par with that of Britain, or France, I will agree to treat Israel just as any other country.
As of now, Israel is the only representative of Western civilization in the Middle East and even with all it's socialist tendencies is the only bearer of Western values in that part of the world. Israel is the only natural and culturally close ally of US and Europe among completely alien Islamic countries. This us why behavior of Europeans toward Israel is, in my view, the main sign of Europe's treason of it's own culture.
As far as animosity of American liberals toward Israel, you do not have to go to far to find it. Just read Hendrik Hertzberg or Amy Davidson of New Yorker. Look at the policies advocated by J-street movement of which many prominent Jewish liberals are members (for instance Tony Kushner).
On political arena, Obama's administration is the most Israel unfriendly administration in the recent history, and it says a lot because Bush was not a greatest friend of Israel either. Demanding that Israel negotiates with Palestinians without them unconditionally accepting Israel's right to exist and denouncing violence is anti-Israel policy. Demanding that Israel returns to 1967 borders means to ask Israel to commit suicide. Not to state unequivocally that there can be no return for Palestinian refugees to Israel is to admit a possibility of Israel's destruction.
So the animosity toward Israel among European and American liberal elite is not a figment of my imagination. The tipping point in my realization of this fact was a recent gruesome murder of a family of 6 in one of the Israel settlements in the West Bank, in which little kids were beheaded or had their throats slit. Not a single main stream media outlet reported this story! Indeed, what is to the "Brave New World" a few brutally murdered in their slip Jewish children? Nothing to talk about.
To ILDAR :
ReplyDeleteIsrael is not and has never been a communist country. Kibbutzes were voluntarily formations of the people wanting to live this way. Communes like this existed even in US. In Israel kibbutz movement was quite popular but coexisted with so called moshaves, which are agricultural cooperatives based on private property. It is not surprising that pretty soon kibbutz lost their competitive edge against moshaves. Now Israel 's agriculture is almost completely based on moshaves, and kibbutzes play very limited role. I want to emphasize, however, that even at their pick nobody forced people to become a kibbutz member and it has never been a state policy to force kibbutzes on everyone. It is communism only in mind of someone who knows nothing about communism and/or Israel.
As far as the book that you cited it was long discredited as one-sided anti Semitic treatment of the issue. No one serious ever uses this book as a reference. Actually, using this book as a references is somewhat akin to citing "The Protocols of Zionist Elders" as a legitimate source.
Now, support of republicans for Israel has nothing to do with Israel internal policies. I am not happy with Israel version of socialism, and as far as I know many Israelites are not happy with it either. But all this beyond the point. In general, I would say that American politics toward Israel of both Republican and Democratic administrations is the prime example of political schizophrenia and multiple personality disorder. Countries do have to choose who are their friends and who are their enemies, and behave accordingly. The idea that you can be friends with everybody is a reflection of idealistic view of the world with no support in reality.
The idea that US or Europe can be friends with Islamic countries in the Persian Gulf and maintain their Western values is at best naive and at worst treacherous. Islam (as well as catholicism and christian orthodoxy) is not compatible with ideas of individual freedom, and, therefore, until Islam experiences reformation similar to Luther's revolution in Christianity, there always be animosity between the West and the Islam world. Unless, of course, the West will re-reform itself and accept Islam values.
Lev, what strikes me about your response about Israel is how immediately everything is framed in existential terms--to be or not to be. Maybe this made sense in 1967 or 1973, but in this day and age it merely muddies the waters. Yes, you can find voices in the American media that are sharply critical of Israeli policies, I know of no one who is actually saying that Israel in some form should not exist. Certainly any politician who offered such a view would be instantly vaporized. Yes, Israel faces challenges, but not from a lack of American support.
ReplyDeleteMy larger point, which I think you missed, is that Israel, to its credit, it a vigorous and contentious democracy with a wide range of opinion--from Peace Now leftists to ultra-nationalist settlers. Obama's recent points are not a whole lot different from what many Israelis have been saying for quite some time. So how can you say that these proposals amount to some kind of betrayal of Israel? Why is that if we don't parrot the views of the Israeli extreme right, we are accused of treason? This is a classic example of how the right wing demonizes its opponents and precludes the possibility of dialogue. Why is it so hard to accept that one can be critical of hardline Israeli policies (as many Israelis are themselves) and still be supportive of Israel?
You see, Nathan, I frame it in the existential terms because it is existential. It is to be or not to be, no matter if you like it or not. Israel is a sore point in the eyes of many Europeans, and they would rather have it vanish and not to disturb them any more. Heard of recent ban on books printed in Israel implemented in Scotland's public libraries, or of permanent calls for divestment from Israeli companies, for boycotts of Israeli scientists and Universities? Of course, one can put his head in the sand like and ostrich and "see no evil", "hear no evil", but how will it change the reality? The ring of "hate" around Israel is getting narrower and narrower, and Israel is running out of options to remain a viable state.
ReplyDeleteIsraeli leftists are no better in this respect than anybody else. They put their ideological priorities ahead of the interests of the state.
The entire history of Israel-Arab conflict shows that it does not matter how much land Israel yields, it is never enough. It does not matter what Palestinian leaders say in public, they will accept only one solution of this conflict. And this solution does not allow for Israel to exist. So it is existential.
However, I do not want to make this discussion just about Israel. I think that in my post I have made some interesting points about relation between anti-Israel policies of the left and their anti-capitalistic stance, but somehow, these points remain unnoticed.
ReplyDeleteAgreed! I also wanted to move on to your other points. Just one quick thought. It seems me your position is untenable because it leaves no alternative but the physical elimination of the Palestinian population either through ethnic cleansing, genocide or some combination of the two. As you present it, any peaceful solution to the problem is unacceptable, and the very presence of the Palestinians is a threat. Either they will have to be kept in a state of permanent apartheid or they will have to be eliminated. You can see why this implicit logic doesn't go over too well around the world, and why even hard line leaders like Ariel Sharon eventually come to the realization that the situation has to change.
ReplyDeleteThis is not so. All what Palestians and other Arabs have to do is to accept that Israel is there and stop trying to destroy it, formally accept Israel as a Jewish state, accept that it must have defendable boundaries, dismantle their terror infrastructure , stop persistent incitement against Israel in the media, drop the ridiculous claim for the right of return and finally assimilate those refuges. After that Israel can start negotiating the border issues, and something tells me that even East Jerusalem issue might be resolved. But nobody put any pressure on Palestinians to do that. All pressure is on the Israel, and in my post I tried to explain why
ReplyDelete100 years of successful welfare state experience, really?
ReplyDeleteNathan says that viability of the redistributive state was proven by 100 years of successful history of welfare states. Well, let's see what happened in last 100 years. The idea of welfare state was invented by Bismark some more than 100 years ago, which collapsed as a result of WW 1, but was picked up by Lenin in Russia, Hitler in Germany and Mussolini in Italy. Now, in a hindsight, we regard those regimes as evil, but in 30th American liberals were very much fond of "Russian experiment", and Hitler had quite a number of sympathisers, of course, before he started the war. Ideas of welfare state were catching up with other European states resulting in Chamberlain polices in Britain and Vichy government in France. Modern European welfare states are the product of last 50 -60 years, and the results are quite mixed. There are some success stories in small "Low Countries", but as far as the rest of the Europe goes the picture is much darker. Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland went down, Italy is on the verge. The Britain cannot afford to own an aircraft carriers and has to share one vessel with France. If I were British, I would have died of shame right that day, when this happened. The European military is as weak as ever and cannot project real power anymore. How are they going to defend their vital interests should the need arise? Argentina might as well invade Malvinas again, Britain cannot do a thing about it now. This does not look to me as a successful history.
There is one political figure which can say that she loves Israel sincerely and I will trust her. Her name is Nancy Pelosi, and Israel is accomplished so many things from her political agenda: universal health care, free access to education etc. Barak Obama? I do not think so. His health plan is Republican by spirit, as we all know his plan is de facto "Romney care".
ReplyDeleteAs for true conservatives not like Barak Obama, especially Tea party supporters they MUST hate Israel from the bottom of their heart. Otherwise it will be the same story as "Arab countries with socialist orientation" - they just want money and support and nothing else.
There's no apartheid of Palestinians. Since Obama has no friends, it's really hard to explain to him why humans treat their friends in a special manner.
ReplyDeleteThis discussion needs to be somewhat compartmentalized to eventually bring satisfaction to its participants. I propose:
ReplyDelete1. US support of Israel
2. Future of Islamic countries
3. Nancy Pelosi, liberalism, or whatever.
I agree with Yura. None of the Comments actually discussed the central thesis of my post (which is probably i reflection of the quality of my writing), which is: The main psychological component of liberal ideology is the attitude toward one's success as something shameful or inappropriate. May be we should divide this thread into several posts making some of the comments into independent posts.
ReplyDeleteWell Lev, I don't even know where to begin--the history of American progressive movements, the European welfare state, Israeli politics... Needless to say I disagree adamantly with almost all of the positions you've taken on these matters, but there just aren't enough hours in the day to cover all the points. So rather than chasing you down these winding paths, I'd like to return to the central premise of your original post--the notion that there is a 'culture of failure' inherent in the liberal worldview. As you put it liberalism does its greatest harm by coddling the "failures" of society and draining resources from the "successes" (i.e. the wealthy and powerful)in order to support them. Aside from the thorny question of how one defines success and failure, what strikes me is just how reminiscent your views are of good old late 19th century Social Darwinism. You know the old song--life is a struggle for existence and only the fittest survive and thrive. As for the rest, they had best content themselves with what they have in life, for they're lucky to have even that.
ReplyDeleteThe nice thing about Social Darwinism was how it provided such a convenient justification for just about anything you might want to justify: savage economic exploitation--the workers are "unfit:" failures don't deserve any better; racial genocide--the inferior unfit races must yield to the master; eugenics--substandard specimens must be eliminated from the national stock so as not to weaken the vitality of the whole.
In fact, Social Darwinian constructs, with their pseudo-scientific veneer, were a particularly potent ingredient in the toxic ideological brew that nourished the vipers of early twentieth century politics--extreme nationalism, anti-semitism, 'scientific' racism, and, of course, fascism. What all of these movements hold in common with Lev's model of a 'culture of failure' is a willingness to dispense with the sanctity of the individual and simply write off people and groups as "failures"--human refuse whose existence on the planet no longer serves a useful purpose.
(to be continued)
I am sure that Lev would not go so far as to advocate a cleansing of the earth's human refuse, although it's not entirely clear what he thinks should await the failures of the world. But the logic of the argument is inexorable--it's truly a slippery slope. Entire classes of people--students, welfare moms, drug dealers (where are your libertarian principles? They're obviously successful entrepreneurs!), Palestinians, Africans--are written off as failures. Since efforts to ameliorate their conditions only draw resources from the successes, the misery of the failures will inevitably deepen and many will no doubt perish. Those who survive will live on the very margins (to pay them more than the fair market value of their labor would waste precious resources) and toil at the menial jobs created for them by the successes, and through which the wealth of the successes comes to fruition.
ReplyDeleteThese ideas are as old as the hills, and we've seen where they lead. As they say--been there done that! Lev claims that liberals are opposed to the individual and espouse ideas that are antithetical to the Western tradition. I would argue that it is precisely the other way around. It is his neo-Social-Darwinism which negates the inherent value of individual life, irregardless of success or failure, and stands at odds with the Western tradition. This notion that the poor, the sick, the aged, the unfit deserve our care and concern is not, as Otto Von Bismarck pointed out when he introduced his welfare program in the 1880s, some dastardly socialist plot. It is basic Judeo-Christian morality. You want to find the real brain-dead liberal--talk to the guy who said "blessed are the poor. the meek, the hungry." Maybe you think this is all bunch of rubbish. Fine! You're in good company--Friedrich Nietzsche and his disciple Ayn Rand felt the same way. But at least they did not try to suggest that the ideas they opposed had nothing to do with the Western tradition.
About morals
ReplyDeleteNathan expresses a moral outrage about my position, but is it really that amoral?
Today I was listening to a BBC reporter telling an awful story about a woman in Liberia who lost five of her eight children to various diseases. The touchy report was designed to make me feel ashamed for myself for not providing her children with whatever medicine they needed. I do not feel guilty about this situation, and consider my position perfectly moral. From my point of view, it is the behavior of that woman, who conceived those children while knowing that she could not raise them, is immoral. How moral is it to hold all the decent and compassionate people of the world hostages to her habit of copulating without giving any thoughts to consequences of her actions? I will happily donate money to teach her to use condoms, but this will be the extent of my benevolence toward her and others like her. I am not going to allow anyone to use the fact that I am a decent human being with a capacity for compassion to blackmail me into feeling responsible for someone lack of responsibility.
Now tell me, how moral is it to condone and encourage this woman's behavior by telling tearful stories about her and sending her unlimited amount of aid? Is it? Aren't people who do that should be held responsible for those poor dead babies?
About Social Darwinism
ReplyDeleteI see where Nathan is coming from with this, but it just shows how little he has understood in my post, which is, possible, the reflection of my failing as a writer. But since it appears the he misunderstands Ayn Rand as well, the problem might have deeper roots. Actually, he is not alone in this. Many liberal thinkers of the past tried to accuse proponents of similar ideas in Social Darwinism, and these attempts have been refuted many times over. But, obviously, these ideas, as old as they are, still require a lot of explanations.
So, if Nathan wants to talk about them in terms of biological allegories, I am all for it. Every biologist knows that competition is not the only survival strategy used by living organisms. A widespread approach to survival is that of symbiosis, when a smaller and weaker species forms a mutually beneficial relationship with larger and stronger species. A classic example of this is the relationship between the plover bird and the African crocodile, when the bird acts as a toothpick for the crocodile feeding on whatever food is stuck between the crocodile's teeth. It is not a very flattering and particularly appetising example, but it works for both. Liberals, of course, would have incited this bird to declare that it refuses to perform such a demeaning job and insist on being classified as endangered species. This, of course, would imply free food and defence against crocodiles.
What I am trying to say is that in society, as well as in nature, there is a place for people of different abilities as long as they are ready to make efforts to contribute something which would be of value to others instead of complaining about their oppressed situation. It might even involve some menial job, but what is wrong with menial jobs? Why is it worse than, say, teaching history or physics? Doing menial job does not mean that a person is a failure. One is a successful individual if he does his best to live within whatever circumstances are given to him, satisfying his needs up to a level he can afford without burdening anyone. And if in order to achieve this a person works as a janitor, he has more of my respect than some of my college colleagues.
Lev, I am sorry but we are humans not animals. Physical strength is an important criteria for primitive societies but even Spartan society ultimately failed. I think that the reason they killed too many future Aristotles and Euclids. Definitively Stephen Hawking will be dead in your "ideal society". I think that this topic is a good reason to move we should move to health because famously Republicans claimed that "People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless..". The irony of this statement that in fact Stephen Hawking is British citizen and he answered to this claim "I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS.I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived."
ReplyDeleteIf we will ask almost any American (I am not talking about idiots like Glenn Beck and Tea party supporters) where USA stay in the list of the OECD countries by life expectancy most probably the answer will be "No 1 in the world" or at least in top five. The inconvenient truth is that USA in the bottom five. Many thanks to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union for the low life expectancy in countries like Poland and Hungary otherwise USA will be indeed No1 from the bottom. USA is No1 in spending for health care but it does not make health care better. I have my own experience with "the best health care in the world". This April I had a terrible muscle pain and I tried to make an appointment with my doctor. I get the appointment not with my doctor who was too busy but with his colleague after three weeks (!). This is not a New York story: I never had the appointment less than week in advance in Michigan. "But situation in countries with universal health care is much worse" will be automatic (!) answer from 99.99% Americans. OK let us check. In "socialist" Denmark I could arrange the appointment the same day and to be fine at the end of the day. Of course it did not cost me an øre out of my pocket.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that health care is naturally "eating" American industry, American military, the whole society. Auto industry in Michigan was on the verge of full collapse just for one reason - unaffordable health care costs. The main financial strain for Pentagon is health care. The main reason of personal bankruptcy is medical bills. Still American health care is "the best health care system in the world". I understood reason reading the book about Israeli lobby. I doubt that Lev read this book. He is following the traditional way "I did not read Pasternak but I know that this is "anti-Soviet book". In fact this book is very pro-Israel but it shows how a very small group can easily control internal of foreign American policy. I do not care too much about Israeli lobby. In the worst case scenario it will be one additional war with Iran with some thousands soldiers killed and couple of hundred billions spent. Probably Natan can care as an American liberal but I am not an American liberal and I think that to have some “small war” is useful for any army. I will be worried if it will be a similar Mexican lobby because it could cost this country hundreds of trillions (!) dollars as economical and military aid but Israel is a small country. However the might of health insurance lobby is terrifying me. As I said, health care is killing this country but nobody dare to offer a simple solution in any developed country including Israel. Why? Read this book about Israel lobby – it is very instructive. Israel lobby is an American phenomenon; it shows how American policy works including total brainwashing. As we all agreed, Israel is a “socialist” country which completely fine with me but ask almost any Republican if Israel has something like “Obama care” and answer will be “Not, of course not!” The answer is absolutely correct but true situation lies in absolutely different direction.
Lev mentioned that there is misunderstanding of his case. I think that the main problem for Lev that his view of this world is very “black and white”. I know the guy who liked such oversimplification very much. He learned in the same University as I, and his name is Vladimir Lenin. There is a very interesting question: “how party with 24 thousand members in the country with 170 million citizens could take a total control of this country?” My answer is that Lenin offered a very simple and clear “white and black” picture of the world. There is an “absolute good world” which includes peasants, workers and revolutionaries, and there is an “absolute bad world” which includes bourgeoisie, hard working peasants, and especially “intelligentsia” which according to his words “is not a brain of nation but shit of nation”. Cadet party was once the most influential party in Russia but their world is so complex and all this guys like
ReplyDeleteStruve or Vladimir Nabokov Sr. are so difficult to understand. Lenin’s description of the world is so simple that it is comprehensible to everybody.
I am sorry but you are following his way, and there is a simple explanation why. The intellectual degradation of Republican Party is horrifying me and it could have catastrophic consequences. One of most dangerous tricks they are playing is debt ceiling. They think that “national default” is an easy game to play? Ask Greece, Ireland or Iceland. They could ask Russia too.
Lev created also “an absolute good world” which includes (as well as I understand) insurance companies, Wall Street bankers, Israel, GOP, billionaires, Sara Palin, etc. Everything outside this circle is “absolute evil”. Hitler is bad as well as Chamberlain and Marshal Petain. Welfare state is bad thing too so let us combine them together and claim that “Hitler created welfare state”. Hitler did many things. Because of him we have highways in USA and state Israel but he did not create the welfare state. He fought unemployment by creating “work armies” which, for example build the prototype of American highways but not by creating “welfare armies”.
“Welfare state” is absolutely American phenomenon. There is a substantial social support in developed countries like in Denmark but there is no such thing as welfare. There is a free medicine and all-free education but not welfare. If somebody lost the job, he (she) will get unemployment benefits (not American 26 weeks but much longer). However, unemployed person must seek a new job. He will be helped with free consultation, he can be sent for courses (any education is free in Denmark) but if he will fail to get job he will be “activated”. It means that he will be doing public work like cleaning gardens of elderly citizens, cleaning streets etc. If Harlem or Detroit would be in Denmark it could be crystal clean.
I agree with Lev that American liberals can be blamed for “welfare state”. For some reason they feel guilty and for slavery and they are happy to give everything possible to ease this “guilty feeling”. “Welfare state” was created as a response to this feeling and to avoid future revolts like in Detroit in 1967. I saw its consequences - it is terrible. I witnessed a situation in Michigan when one women was denied a welfare application with argumentation “You are white, you can go and work”. Lev called me an American liberal but I am not. I don't give a damn for this “guilty complex”. My grandparents were slaves too until 1861 almost the same time in USA. My grandfather could not learn in Kazan University because only Christians could be students not Tatars or Jews. Do I have right to smoke crack, shoot everybody and claim that I should be paid because my ancestors were slaves?
Returning to Lev, I do not think it is a good idea to make such oversimplification. You are a very smart person you can understand complex situations. Let us return for the last time to Israel. As a state it accomplished many things. One of these things is killing the myth that “The Soviet Union won the WWII”. Soviet generals leached Arabs everything, and actually Arab armies did much better in June 1967 than the Red Army in June 1941. The problem was that nobody else is able to afford losing 8 million soldiers in six months of war, and for some reason it was not any snow in Sinai Peninsula. As a developed country they accepted the universal health care (of course life expectancy in Israel is much higher than in USA), they have very high education level (much better than in USA), etc, etc. Does not it mean that Israel can do whatever it wants and be always right in my eyes? Of course, not. The world is much more complex than “white and black picture of the world” given by Lenin, Hitler, Glenn Beck and many others.
ReplyDeleteIldar--I agree with much of what you say. But I have to admit, it's a bit hard to follow. My advice-stick to a single theme for each comment, and give us some time to digest your ideas.
ReplyDeleteWe will certainly have to take up the topic of health care at some point soon...