December 01, 2003

The liberal British government between the wars--displaying a similarly appalling inability to discern the truth--had nice thoughts concerning Nazi Germany, too. William Manchester, in the second volume of his triptych biography of Churchill, paraphrases Anthony Eden's 1932 response to Churchill's attempts to rouse Parliament (and, indeed, the rest of the country) from its waking dream. According to Eden, it was Churchill who needed educating: How could anyone misinterpret the prime minister's [Ramsay MacDonald's] reply to the rising Nazis? It was certain, Eden earnestly told the House, to "secure for Europe that period of appeasement which is needed." If appeased, Hitler's anger would vanish; his fear of encirclement would disappear; the Nazis, freed from anguish and insecurity, would become sensible, stable neighbors in a Europe free of rancor.

(The Last Lion, Alone, p.100)

Posted by: Bernard on December 1, 2003 04:11 PM

How could Wolfson misunderstand liberalism so badly? How could his view of dissatisfaction with Bush and his record be so shallow as to lead with "He 'stole' the 2000 election; he's too Texan, too Christian, just too dumb; he struts and talks like a yokel."

How about these alternatives:

• Bush and his advisors have frequently dissembled about the truth, and about the impact of their policies.
  
• In the drive to the war in Iraq, pressure was consistently put upon the CIA to deliver the intelligence which the Administration desired (Cheney's presence was highly unusual, and when the administration wasn't getting the interpretations it wanted from seasoned professionals, it set up its own group of readers in the defense department)
  
• Intense cronyism, beginning with Cheney's energy advisory council, and coninuing with Halliburton's sweetheart deals in Iraq.
  

These are just a few right off the top of my head. It won't do to suggest that Bush dissatisfaction has anything to do with his accent or his Christianity, because the same can be pointed out about Jimmy Carter. It would be no more sensible to suggest that conservatives can't tolerate Carter because of his accent and Christianity.

As for misunderstanding liberalism, Wolfson goes astray by suggesting that a belief that all humans are born basically good prohibits liberals from appreciating the value of corruption. In fact, the two points he makes are incompatible and inconsistent: if liberals are incapable of conceiving evil in a human being, then how do they see it in the President?

Surely there is something wrong with Wolfson's understanding, if he thinks liberals cannot conceive of evil people and yet hate Bush for being so.

Posted by: Frank on December 2, 2003 08:43 AM

Since utopia can never be attained, there must be scapegoats to explain its failure. Bush is the scapegoat. (We're talking about frothing rage, a la Howard Dean, not 'dissatisfaction', or like the upcoming "hate Bush" night in Hollywood). Utopians always find a scapegoat to hate in order to explain their own failures. There can be conservative utopians as well, hence the hatred of Bill Clinton. Nowadays however, it's mostly liberals who have forgotten the basics of human nature in their zeal to refashion mankind.

Posted by: Stephen on December 2, 2003 08:58 AM

Yes, but frothing rage doesn't equal liberalism, either: it equals extremism. Liberals do want to combat terrorism, which is what made the recent RNC ad reprehensible. The RNC should be ashamed of that manipulative, divisive ad.

Posted by: Frank on December 2, 2003 09:45 AM

Increasingly, frothing rage is becoming part of acceptable liberal discourse--as per Howard Dean, the monied elites of the Democratic party like George Soros, and the Hollywood left. Of course, everyone wants to combat terrorism, but then again Neville Chamberlain wanted to combat Nazism too---by concluding agreements, by empathizing with Hitler's grievances, by holding conferences, etc. It's the means used that betrays the wishful utopianism.

Posted by: Stephen on December 2, 2003 10:47 AM

For years, liberals have been debating whether or not it's appropriate to froth. In these debates, conservative frothers are often cited, as well as the froth of sometimes frothers. (As an aside, it's funny that you mentioned Soros: he's only more vocal than Scaife. Scaife funds plenty of frothers himself.)

It would be irresponsible of me to not mention that frothing is much of what has propelled Fox News to its ratings advantage over CNN (polls continue to show CNN's news is perceived as more trustworthy than Fox's); Ann Coulter is certainly no example of measured discourse, nor Rush Limbaugh or a host of others.

Many consider it political suicide to not respond in kind.

As for the Hollywood left, why single them out? They are concentrated in a specific geography. So what? What about Arnbold Schwarzenegger leveraging his celebrity status to become the governor? How can you reasonably complain about the impact of the Hollywood left?

As for Neville Chamberlain, perhaps you went to that last resort too soon? Liberals weren't arguing for that.

Posted by: Frank on December 2, 2003 11:08 AM

Actually Frank, I recommend reading the debates in Parliament after Chamberlain returned from Munich. He genuinely thought and argued that he was doing the good work of bringing peace. He offered serious reflections. He simply couldn't believe that Hitler would not respond to reason. Churchill was quite vituperative and dismissed by many--Lady Astor tried to silence him for his rudeness-- as an irresponsible, impolite, frothing war lover.
I'm not complaining about the Hollywood left, just pointing out the reigning assumptions amongst the entertainment elite. Yes there are exceptions to that herd of independent minds--but it's still a herd.

Posted by: Stephen on December 2, 2003 11:16 AM

Stephen's right, Frank. It's hard for us, given the virtue and vantage that both time and the play of events have bestowed, to fully appreciate how desperately the British government--headed, by a succession of appeasers that culminated with Chamberlain--wanted to believe only the best about Hitler. They assumed he was a reasonable man, and so assumed he could be dealt with reasonably, through concilliation.

This placating by the British predated Hitler and had wide popular support. "In the summer of 1932, Franz von Papen, then [Reich] chancellor, declared that the shackles of Versailles were 'intolerable'. The Times--which the Germans believed was the voice of the government--weighed the chancellor's complaint, found it justifiable, and called for 'the timely redress of grievances.'" (The Last Lion, p.103)

It is interesting to note that this "redress of grievances" trope soon became as useful to Hitler as it remains so in some quarters today. But one can't help but wonder what might have happened had the British been a little less 'reasonable' in their dealings with Germany in that period between the wars, been a little less concerned about redressing issues of 'injustice' and 'unfairness' and been very much more cautious about motives and intentions.

I submit the British could have saved themselves, and the world, a whole lot of trouble had they done so.

Posted by: Bernard on December 2, 2003 07:37 PM

Bernard, I presume Steve is correct in his characterization of the British Parliament's reactions to Chamberlain and Churchill. I'm not convinced, however, that it's germane to a characterization of liberalism and whether or not it searches for scapegoats. (One could ask, of course, whether or not liberalism has become a scapegoat for conservatives, if you take a look at Donald Luskin's web site.)

Wolfson's characterization of both liberalism and Bush hatred is so shallow that it's sensible to wonder how he got his job and whiat his motives are: clear discourse is not in evidence in that column. He should also have noticed that liberals are not focused merely on Bush: they also complain about the machinations of Tom Delay and Bill Frist (and for different reasons than twang and Texas, I might add!). But noting that would have eroded his thesis about the irrationality of Bush hatred; is it possible that there's actually reason behind it? No, he doesn't want you to think that, he wants to fire you up.

Posted by: Frank on December 3, 2003 08:28 AM

Frank, I'm not really that interested in exploring the relative degrees and merits of 'liberal'/'conservative' discomfort, one side to the other. But I do think it's germane to remember the level of distrust, disdain, and even outright contempt to which Churchill was subjected for persisting in telling an unpopular truth. While his political opposition--and, indeed, most of the country--preferred to keep its collective head in the sand and ignore what was happening, Churchill stood alone in confronting a mounting danger. For this he was branded a 'warmongerer' and worse. I'll leave it to you to decide whether or not there is a lesson in this bit of history, and whether it bears any relevance today.

Posted by: Bernard on December 3, 2003 09:11 AM

I would never suggest that Churchill's example is irrelevant, nor that there is nothing we can learn from it. To the contrary, Churchill's determination to speak out according to principle is laudatory, and consistent with Burke's long effort in the impeachment of Warren Hasting. Along those lines, Johnson once wrote:

"There are occasions on which it is noble to dare to stand alone. To be pious among infidels, to be disinterested in a time of general venality, to lead a life of virtue and reason in the midst of sensualists, is a proof of a mind intent on nobler things than the praise or blame of men, of a soul fixed in the contemplation of the highest good, and superiour to the tyranny of custom and example."

Far from debating that question, I only mean to point out that it is not a lesson which Wolfson drew into his analysis (which attempted to define Bush hatred as unprecedented and then explain it through liberalism's failures). It is, as I have said, a poor analysis. I'll be writing more about it later today in my blog, but I won't put all those points here, where they may not be of interest.

Posted by: Frank on December 3, 2003 09:58 AM

That fuller discussion is now up...

Posted by: Frank on December 3, 2003 12:10 PM

Frank,
I just read your interesting response to Wolfson. You indicate that "Wolfson is arguing that liberals cannot conceive of something so evil as terrorism, as a result liberals are unwilling to confront it, and cannot tolerate anyone who challenges their world view." You go on to dismiss this as "Rubbish, of course. Liberals may start from a position that everyone is basically born good, but few really believe that men cannot go astray or become corrupted, or that society can coexist with unrehabilitated criminals."
But this is exactly the point: Wolfson DIDN"T say that liberals cannot conceive of something so evil as terrorism; that would of course be rubbish. He is making a far more important point. He addresses the liberal explanatory framework that accounts for the existence of such evil: He writes "Almost all modern liberal thought begins with the bedrock assumption that humans are basically good. Within this moral horizon something such as terrorism cannot really exist, except as a manifestation of injustice, or unfairness, or lack of decent social services." In other words, evil is not a manifestation of something deep in human nature, the urge to destroy, but rather is caused by such things as unfairness and injustice. In my psychological language, contemporary (not classical) liberalism cannot acknowledge the intrinsic aggression that is part of human nature. Instead it assumes that if, for example, a suicide bomber blows herself up it is because she grew up impoverished, or in socially deprived circumstances, etc. Or as you put it, "men can go astray or become corrupted." It's the Gee Officer Krupke school of thought--"I'm depraved on account of I'm deprived". Or it's the way you offer "reasons" that seem to explain but actually rationalize the deeply irrational element in Bush hatred. There's more to say about this but since I've already said it in previous blogs I'll leave it there. The connection Wolfson makes between Bush hatred and liberal assumptions about human nature is quite interesting but hatred can be caused by many things, as you point out, and certainly Clinton was also a prime target.

Posted by: Stephen on December 3, 2003 01:58 PM

Then, there's a good chance that Wolfson has offered up a straw man, because there are very very few liberals who are so forgiving of suicide bombers/killers... But the number that resent Bush and what he's done is far greater: so Wolfson's argument still doesn't wash.

Posted by: Frank on December 3, 2003 03:20 PM

One more thing (I apologize for not including this in my last reply): to really understand the source of Bush hatred, one has to think about its growth over time. Iraq as a cause has been overstated, because it was strong well before then. Personally, I think Wolfson is trying to introduce a complex cause for the hatred when a very simple and obvious one is present (Bush's dishonesty, as demonstrated in what he says and his cronyism). The value, to conservatives, of demonstrating a complex cause is that it distracts from these much more obvious causes.

Posted by: Frank on December 3, 2003 03:30 PM

Frank, I read your piece and will say you make some valid points. I'm not about to say the President is undeserving of criticism; None of us could aspire to attain such a lofty height as that. And I do think the NRO piece was overdone, inasmuch as the sui generis argument doesn't quite hold up. FDR to my mind was one of the most important presidents we've ever had, though there were many in this country at the time of his presidency (and well beyond) who considered him with the same "white-hot lather" with which George W's detractors now regard him.

But, if I may suggest it, I do think there is a larger and more relevant point to be investigated, and that is the issue touched on already in this discussion of the distrust and antipathy that seems (maybe not uniquely, but largely) reserved for those leaders determined to resist when faced with a recognized threat. Not only to resist, but to actively set out against and confound all the number of people who would wish only instead to fall back into and embrace that all-too-natural human desire for tranquility and calm.

It is in this regard that I think the hatred for George Bush by the placard-carrying lost left resembles the disdain and, even, contempt shown between the wars for Churchill. Both men saw a 'grave and growing menace' on the horizon and chose to confront it, rather than simply trying to wish it away.

Perhaps it says something about human nature that, of the two, Hitler and Churchill, Churchill was considered by too many people for too long a time to be the greater threat to the world and to peace.

Today, of course, it is President Bush who bears that slur. He is unquestionably the most dangerous man in the world--this according to some, or rather, to be accurate, the uncounted many... the many who marched all over the world against the intervention in Iraq... the many who, if given their druthers, would have seen to it that Saddam continued indefinitely along his merry way.

Of course, we could have dillied and dallied and hoped for the best--frittering away time and who knows how many more lives... That was an option, I guess. It just wasn't an option for George Bush. Does that make him the most dangerous man in the world? No more so than was Churchill.

Posted by: Bernard on December 3, 2003 03:55 PM

Bernard, your point is very sensible except that it's another argument about the extremes, and doesn't address the great number of Americans who have distaste for Bush without going so far as to consider him the most dangerous man on the planet. There are many who merely consider him one of the worst presidents of all time :-) ...this has little or nothing to do with considering him a war criminal. Wolfson's piece never discusses the legitimacy of that feeling (I don't read National Review often enough to know whether such a piece would be considered for publication).

Posted by: Frank on December 3, 2003 04:17 PM

"Dishonesty" in a politician is enough to cause hatred? Really Frank, I think it goes a little deeper than that. Was it Roosevelt's dishonesty about Lend Lease that generated hatred of him? Was it Clinton's countless dishonesties that account for hatred of him? And how about Abe Lincoln, known to fudge the truth when political interests required it. Just curious, but were you as exercised by Clinton's dishonesties as by Bush? If not perhaps Machiavelli had something when he argued that honesty might, at times, interfere with the tasks of a political leader. Life is, unfortunately complex, and if I am dishonest in praising my hostess after a mediocre dinner, I think that's a pragmatic choice I make in the interests of our continuing friendship. Also, am I right to assume that you do not "hate" Bush? Of course there are many like you who simply consider him the worst president ever :) and that's fine. I happen to think history will judge Carter and Clinton to be among the worst(it's Carter by a nose, thanks to his self righteousness)--but we're talking about hatred. Such a primal emotion is not explained by judgments about the relative honesty of its target.

Posted by: Stephen on December 3, 2003 04:37 PM

Distrust alone? Probably not (although yes, Clinton's failure to own up to his dishonesty made me extremely angry — and may I say, you never take me at my word, and always seem to ask that I express fury over some other point before you will accept that something else I complain about is a genuine issue... Practicing moral relativism here, or what? Why do I always need to be posting my resume?), but there are plenty of other reasons beyond mere dishonesty, and if you want the full list I can provide it. My point is, was, and remains, that there are very justifiable reasons to hate Bush, and it's silly to go searching off for philosophical reasons such as the definition of liberalism in order to explain it away.

If my memory serves me correctly, the process you're going through is similar to what irked conservatives about trying to understand anti-Americanism: conservatives felt that others in the world hated America merely because America is the land of the free and brave, and anti-Americans hate us for that reason alone; and all efforts to psychoanalyze it into other root causes were just wasted effort. Why are you going to such great lengths to understand anti-Bush arguments when the arguments you've been given are so plain clear and simple?

Posted by: Frank on December 3, 2003 06:53 PM

"My point is, was, and remains, that there are very justifiable reasons to hate Bush.."
Thanks for making that clear Frank! You need say no more. You wonder why I ask such questions? Because it's really hard to believe that a Johnson scholar could be so much in the grip of un-reason. Now I know, the whole facade of reasonableness is just that, a facade. Hatred? My God! Save it for people deserving of such sentiments--Bin Laden, Moussaoui, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, or people who have done terrible and unjustified injury to you or your loved ones. You trivialize such emotions if you deploy them so promiscuously.

Posted by: Stephen on December 3, 2003 07:15 PM

Frank, it's called an ad hominem attack. Even couched in gentler terms, he has basically told you that until you prove something about yourself, your arguments themselves have no merit. And he continues to do that in his latest reply: he doesn't deal with your arguments, he acts as if YOU ARE A JERK, and therefore your arguments have no weight.

It's really simple: in spite of Ann Coulter saying that it's LIBERALS who resort to name calling, Horsefeathers tries to perfect it.

Posted by: Hired Contrarian on December 3, 2003 07:51 PM

Stephen, there you go again. Did I say I hate Bush?

And please, HC is right about the ad hominem attacks. Don't use them.

Posted by: Frank on December 3, 2003 08:45 PM

Frank,
Okay, so you don't personally acknowledge feeling hatred towards Bush---but you're perfectly willing to rationalize that hatred in others. "There are very justifiable reasons" for hating Bush, according to you. Hatred animates people to do terrible, violent things. Murderers usually feel there are "very justifiable reasons for hating." By your own logic if someone carries the Lynch view to its logical end point and takes a shot at the President you will "understand" and explain that. After all, Bush did things to cause people to hate him.
As to H.C., his grasp of what constitutes an ad hominem argument is absurd. If I were to call him an uneducated fool, a blowhard, a site pest and a troll, that would be ad hominem, even if it were all true. To raise questions about an argument, to challenge its logic, to express dismay at manifestations of unreason is not arguing ad hominem.

Posted by: Stephen on December 3, 2003 09:17 PM

Did I say there was no line between hating someone and acting violently towards that person? I really don't think I did, nor do I think I gave you any reason to think that I did. We live in an ordered society, Stephen. I'll leave it your visitors to decide if I suggested anything so unreasonable as you've described.

Posted by: Frank on December 3, 2003 10:04 PM

Frank,
Even in an "ordered society" hatred inspires violence. It should not be rationalized as you did in the statement I quoted. Also, you illustrate what I noted about the contemporary liberal mindset. There are simple reasons, you maintain, to account for Bush hatred, why look deeper? The reasons are to be found in Bush, not in the haters. But hatred does originate in the depths of the psyche and then usually seeks rational external reasons to explain itself. The hatred comes first. Once upon a time---John Stuart Mill, Lionel Trilling, for example--liberalism understood this about human nature. Now it turns away from such knowledge. A recent noteworthy example was Paul Krugman's "explanation" for Malaysian PM Mattathir's hateful rant against the Jews. It was not that Mattathir is consumed by Jew hatred, but rather that Bush was responsible for pushing him to make policy recommendations like his call for genocide. Krugman "understood". What a liberal guy!

Posted by: Stephen on December 3, 2003 10:35 PM

Frank, one last point and I'm done.

Regarding your statement, "there are a great many... who have distaste for Bush without going so far as to consider him the most dangerous man on the planet." Okay, but I doubt it was merely a slight case of distaste that caused the world-wide outbreak of anti-Bushism that occasioned the war. You and I both know that that particular brand of 'distaste' had nothing whatsoever to do with the President's domestic policy, any more than it had to do with his alleged cronyism or dishonesty. (Oh yes, but Bush lied, people died... to which I say prove it, and in so doing come to an honest appraisal of real-world facts which--one hopes--might vitiate the glee and vehemence with which that assertion is too carelessly made.)

Frank, I don't want to fight this one to death. I only mean to point out that no matter how inadequate you or anyone else might judge the President to be, it must be more than mere disappointment with his domestic agenda (just as it has little to do with how he walks or talks) that accounts for the feelings he arouses. The demonstrators in London, Berlin, and Paris weren't exorcised about tax cuts for the rich. And though many Americans undoubtedly are, I would suggest there isn't a one who chose that as the pertinent issue.

Posted by: Bernard on December 3, 2003 11:07 PM

Stephen, just because hate can lead to unjustified lawbreaking doesn't mean hate itself should be outlawed. Greed can lead to robbery, and so on; in a sense, you're arguing for thought monitoring. Also, if assassination attempts are the the direct effect of hate for a President, then I guess one could measure the lack of attempts as an argument that there is no Bush hatred?

I am sorry, but I refuse to be branded as someone who promotes lawlessness; you are foaming at the mouth on this one. (I also find it curious that I merely label the President dishonest, and you resort to labeling Krugman 'mendacious' — is one word worse than the other and I don't know about it?)

Bernard, there are significant anti-Bush feelings on the plpanet, undeniably, but I suspect that the proportion which considers him the most dangerous earthling is far smaller. Neither you nor I have any figures to back it up, no polling has been done. But you can be disappointed in the results without hating the man.

Posted by: Frank on December 4, 2003 07:07 AM

Frank, as to your last point--precisely! But I thought we were talking about a reaction going beyond mere disappointment. (BTW, 'the most dangerous man' example was just that, and not meant to be entirely representative. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would stop at calling Bush one or all of the following: irresponsible, feckless, stupid, reckless, deceitful, callous, aggressive, arrogant... I suppose, then, it is only the vigor and fervor with which this attitude is expressed that leads some to misjudge it as hate.)

Posted by: Bernard on December 4, 2003 10:36 AM

Hate, Bernard? Let's hope not: they might then turn into automotons which will commit crimes!

Posted by: Frank on December 4, 2003 10:50 AM

Frank,
Outlawing hate? That would be like outlawing human nature. A truly utopian fantasy like creating the "new Soviet man" or "Aryan man". However recognizing it for what it is; that's a step in the direction of wisdom. Besides, this is America, not a country like Germany, where hate speech is indeed outlawed.Pointing out its presence and its sources is desirable because hate often masks itself in rationalizations like the ones you've offered, i.e. Bush's actions are enough to 'explain' the hatred aimed at him. Best to expose it to the light of day and rely on people to recognize it for what it is.

Posted by: Stephen on December 4, 2003 04:02 PM

Just a postscript to correct the record, since web pages live a while... The "upcoming 'hate Bush' night" which Stephen referred to was not labeled that by the hosts. It was actually called "A Mandatory Meeting to Change Leadership." The 'hate Bush' label originated with someone not connected to the event, and was propagated by Matt Drudge.

Posted by: Frank on December 10, 2003 12:57 PM

It is very unfair to compare today's left with Neville Chamberlain.

Unfair to Chamberlain, that is.

Despite his many failings, Chamberlain conducted a campaign of rearmament. And it was he, after all, who declared war on Nazi Germany after the invasion of Poland.

Posted by: David Foster on December 10, 2003 07:55 PM

Actually, unbelievable as it seems now, Chamberlain saw rearmament as a threat to England's well-being, thinking it economically unwise, and he resisted Churchill's calls to strengthen the military at every turn. Whereas Churchill understood early on that Hitler's fanaticism would ultimately lead to armed conflict, Chamberlain believed even until it was almost too late that Hitler could be reasoned with and appeased.

Posted by: Bernard on December 10, 2003 10:39 PM

It is, of course, correct that Chamberlain favored appeasement of Hitler. But I believe it's also correct that he did quite a bit in improving Britain's armaments. The Spitfire and the Hurricane, for example, weren't developed and put into production overnight.

Posted by: David Foster on December 11, 2003 10:41 PM

Nice try, David, but Chamberlain had nothing to do with either project.

"In June [1935], when Baldwin [Chamberlain's predecessor] moved into No. 10, he... replaced Londonderry with the abler Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister [Lord Swinton], an admirer of Churchill. The new air minister's greatest achievements were to be his promotion of new fighter planes: the Hawker Hurricane, first tested five months after he took office, and the Spitfire, whose prototype flew four months later." (Alone, pp. 153-154)

Although Prime Ministers MacDonald and Baldwin had been consistently unfriendly to all attempts to rearm England, it was Chamberlain who was perhaps most adamantly opposed.

"The Chamberlain government... agreed with Lord Londonderry, and continued to refuse to allocate adequate funds for defense. In February 1938, the secretary for air, Lord Swinton, having been blocked in his earlier proposals, again submitted an RAF budget, this one representing 'the minimum for security.' Attempts to match the Luftwaffe's overwhelming superiority in fighter planes were abandonded; the RAF would settle for enough aircraft to meet German 'bombers that could be used against this country.' [Defense minister] Inskop said that would be too expensive. He proposed cutting back not only Britain's first-line air strength but also the reserve. [Foreign secretary] Halifax, supporting him, stressed 'every possible effort to get on good terms with Germany,' which, as a code phrase of the time, meant refraining from war preparations which might arouse the Fuhrer's wrath. Summing up the discussion, Chamberlain told his ministers what they already knew--that he attached 'great importance to... the maintenance of our economic stability.' " (Alone, pp. 292-293)

Posted by: Bernard on December 12, 2003 03:22 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?