Taking Issue With "Why We Fight": A Reaction From the Author

WARNING. This is as long as the original article, as I wanted to be as thorough as possible. However, everything is organized under convenient subtitles, so you don't have to read the whole thing if you don't want to.

--------------------

There was a great deal of discussion over my recent article, Why We Fight...Conservatism: A META, Meta-article. A lot of unanswered questions remained that I wish to clear up before I continue with the series (yes, it is a series) and other endevours.

The Title and the "Nazi Picture" issue:

These were probably the most obvious sources of contention, which is unfortunate since a literal interpretation of either was unintended. Why We Fight was a series of American propaganda films – mostly directed by Frank Capra – created to warn of the dangers of the Axis powers before and during the war. It is also the title of a 2005 film of the same title by Eugene Jarecki about the rise of the military-industrial complex. My use of the title was intended to call to mind several images simultaneously, but, as a big Frank Capra fan, I overestimated how well the films were known. It was also meant to introduce the idea of A SERIES, just like the original films. I tried to italicize the words, "Why We Fight" in the title, to indicate the borrowed term, but the tags weren't working

The propaganda poster was printed by the U.S. government during WWII, and is in the public domain. It was there to call to mind the fear of fascism that has been used up to and during the Second World War and up to and during the War on Terror. Instead, many people just assumed I meant to say that conservatives were literally Nazis. That was NOT my intention. The article drew correlations between conservatism and certain aspects of Nazism, but never calls conservatives Nazis or makes any statements insisting that the two are synonymous.

The question is not "How could you have possibly used that title and picture?" but "How could so many people miss the tongue-in-cheek references?" Really, if that boot and swastika were intended to represent conservatism, would it be stepping on a white clapboard church?

The use of "META meta-article" issue:

Mr. Online Apps asked several questions and I promised would be answered. One was:

The thing I really don't get is why this is meta. If it's an attack on conservatism, keep Newsvine out of it.

Well, again, I seem to have overestimated some of my readers. It's a play on the prefix "meta." The word has the archaic meaning "beyond," as in "meta-physical." On Newsvine, it is used to mean, "referring to the self." In this case, I went beyond Newsvine to refer to what Newsvine was talking about. And since I was talking about Newsvine, I was also referring to it. Thus, it was a META, meta article. Again, a bit of a tongue-in-cheek that very few people got.

The "definitions" issue:

Let's begin simply here, since this is such a central point. Mr. Apps's said:

*cough*. Conservatism, in our time, is the belief in limited government.

Well, sort of. Many are clamoring for a definition, so I hope I'll be forgiven if I use a dictionary. The following is from dictionary.com.

Based on the Random House Unabridged dictionary

1.the disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change.
2.the principles and practices of political conservatives.

Based on the American Heritage Dictionary

1. The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order.
2. A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.
3. The principles and policies of the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or of the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.
4. Caution or moderation, as in behavior or outlook.

Nothing specifically about "limited government," although I do not dispute that that concept is integral to "extended" definitions of "conservatism" (and also to extended definitions of "liberalism"). But I think the best definition I've read comes from Mr. E.D. Kain, who has the following quote beside his shifting avatar:

"A Conservative is a fellow who is standing athwart history yelling "Stop!""

I couldn't put it any better than William Buckley. You can add neo, paleo, fiscal, social, religious to it - doesn't matter. They're all an extension of this sentiment.

Mr. Apps also asked:

Uh... define liberalism. The liberalism of the 1600s, or the liberalism of today? By the way, the old liberalism was technically libertarianism, hence the term "classical liberal".

First of all, I referred to "liberal philosophy," NOT to "classical liberalism," which I find to be a loaded and fallacious term used by modern "conservatives" to maintain a link to a foundational philosophy that revolves around the word "liberal".

But I'm getting ahead of myself. Let's look it up:

Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary

1.the quality or state of being liberal, as in behavior or attitude.

2. a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.

3.(sometimes initial capital letter) the principles and practices of a liberal party in politics.

4. a movement in modern Protestantism that emphasizes freedom from tradition and authority, the adjustment of religious beliefs to scientific conceptions, and the development of spiritual capacities

Based on the American Heritage Dictionary

1. The state or quality of being liberal.

2. a. A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.

b. often Liberalism The tenets or policies of a Liberal party.

c. A 19th-century Protestant movement that favored free intellectual inquiry, stressed the ethical and humanitarian content of Christianity, and de-emphasized dogmatic theology.

d. A 19th-century Roman Catholic movement that favored political democracy and ecclesiastical reform but was theologically orthodox.

3. An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and the gold standard.

4. Liberalism

a. A 19th-century Protestant movement that favored free intellectual inquiry, stressed the ethical and humanitarian content of Christianity, and de-emphasized dogmatic theology.

b. A 19th-century Roman Catholic movement that favored political democracy and ecclesiastical reform but was theologically orthodox.

I didn't pick and choose these. They were on top of the list. But I think they're accurate

Now, I do know that there is more to "liberalism & conservatism" than this (or, at least, many people would like there to be ) but a definition, by its very nature, is concise. Let us expand upon these concepts and I'll explain what I actually meant.

The "liberal & conservative as meaningless" vs. the "liberal & conservative as my central theme" paradox issue:

"Liberal & conservative" are both used dozens of times a week on Newsvine without any explanation or definition, and often tailored to the private will of the user, tapping into the most convenient in a wide variety of definitions, subtexts and understandings applied over the last 200+ years. Too, a user of either can claim, when cornered, that both "liberal & conservative are subjective or, when doing the cornering, that either term is objective. The definition of both, then, is problematic, because the conflict over what they actually mean is ever-renewed, both on Newsvine and elsewhere.

To illustrate, it is the same trap one falls into if criticizing Christianity; how many hundreds of different forms of the Christian faith are there? If you focus in too much, you lose the context of your argument. If you generalize too much, you're accused of generalizing. You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't.

Point is, there is no objective way to discuss "liberalism & conservatism," no matter how many objective opinions you might have about them. If you define your terms, people argue with you over the them. If you fail to define them, people criticize you for failing to define. Again, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

The words Americans are using as central, political platforms have become so muddled by the struggle over them that they've ceased to have any applicable common or even academic meaning. Furthermore, their misuse in the contentious "culture war" has transformed "liberal & conservative" into epithets. Often, they're used interchangeably with "good & evil," depending on who is using them, how they're using them and who they're using them against.

Terry Gross did an interview with linguist Geoff Nunberg about Nunberg's book, Talking Right. Gross said of Nunberg

He argues that, nowadays, it's the Right that controls the basic language of politics. That includes the meaning of words like values, bias, elite, patriot and freedom - even the word liberal.

Said Nunberg:

It's as if the entire center of gravity in the language has moved to the right. It's almost impossible, now, for anyone to assume a political view that isn't associated with the right....the right has been able to define the label: the sense of what a liberal is has both moved [further] to the left and, rather than involving a particular political programme, it has become shorthand for a whole set of lifestyle choices.

Indeed, the entire title of Nunberg's book is Talking Right: How Conservatives Turned Liberalism into a Tax-Raising, Latte-Drinking, Sushi-Eating, Volvo-Driving, New York Times-Reading, Body-Piercing, Hollywood-Loving, Left-Wing Freak Show. Sound familiar?

The attempt to control the language, the use of derogatory terminology, was prolific in the comments that followed my article, including such zingers as "passive-aggresive", "hate-speech" and the curious "BDS". (Look that one up yourselves.) An ostensible "liberal," Mr. gillis of Atticus espouses a totalitarian philosophy fame, even handed one over, "illiberal". (I actually quite like that one.)

"But that hardly matters," you say "since you're attacking "conservatism", something you claim is a useless moniker.

The point isn't that I think these words are meaningless. The point is that OTHERS believe in them and identify with them. I can hardly critique other people's belief in "conservatism" and the danger it poses without touching on the larger, generalized understanding of the word, nor can I rally non-conservatives to stand up (civilly) to those who are espousing "conservatism" if I don't explain why this belief is flawed.

To go back to our illustration with Christianity, if I don't believe in God, it matters very little if I'm arguing with someone that does. I have to acknowledge their belief, even as I defend my own lack thereof.

The "OK, but why did you attack conservatism to begin with?" issue:

Central to this are a couple more of Mr. Apps many questions.

If it's an attack against certain members of Newsvine, this is against the spirit of the CoH.

Thing is, I didn't attack any "certain members" of Newsvine, nor can Mr. Apps offer me a quote wherein I did. In fact, I was careful to make the distinction between individual conservatives and conservatism.

If it's an attack against conservatism on the 'vine, please give us examples rather than a general spew.

It's an attack on "conservatism", period - on the vine, off the vine, hanging from the vine, it doesn't matter. I'm saying that "conservatism", at its core, is a bad idea. Now, why do I say that? And why didn't I attack "liberalism" at the same time?

The simple answer can be summarized as:

1. I don't believe that "liberalism" is a useful term either
2. Non-conservatives are not, in my opinion, as deserving of blame
3. "Conservatism," has been and is a dangerous and fallacious ideology

A lot of this has to do with the use of cheap tricks, like saying "general spew" or speaking of conservatism, as "whatever dark and squishy thing that is". In general, I find that the "cheap tricks" of our current political discourse originated with media consolidation, which enabled with the ascendancy of Fox News, conservative radio programs and the consolidation of newspapers under larger, conservative parent companies, like Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp.

People from every side of the political spectrum have always referred to one-another in derogatory ways. But today it is the norm, and these methods are being used to not only discredit political opponents, but to stifle dissent and diffuse criticism of policies that are matters of life, death, civil rights and torture. In the wake of 9/11 and in the run-up to the Iraq War, the decisions of our politicians, our voters and our discourse over the nation were all influenced by a decidedly conservative control of political dialog. Every time we uttered the word "liberal", we were doing it on conservative terms.

But the question remains, why attack conservatism to begin with?

Central to this business with conservatism is the question, "What ideas are we actually conserving?" and "Can a time and place really be conserved?" For example, many Americans would like to conserve the 1940's and the Greatest Generation or the American Revolution and the drafting of the US Constitution.

But the Founding Fathers agreed to the US Constitution contentiously, and then fought over its meaning for years. Whose interpretation are we to use? Do any of us really believe that the Founders would approve of the Patriot Act or the National Security Agency, much less the application of the 2nd Amendment. And are we so quick to forget that what made the Greatest Generation great, after fighting an apocalyptic war, were the social welfare programs waiting for them when they returned.

Too, what values can be objectively ascribed to either era? Anyone, for example, who has read Ben Franklin's How to Choose a Mistress or whose ancestors suffered under slavery, will not be able to wholly idealize the Revolutionary War or the drafting of the US Constitution. Those who understand the US role in encouraging Nazi eugenics or refusing Jewish refugees at U.S. ports will have the same problem with the 1940's.

Remember Mr. Kain's little quote from above, "A Conservative is a fellow who is standing athwart history yelling 'Stop!'" The problem with this is that it implies a certain level of absolutism and - when it becomes obvious that people cannot be persuaded to simply sacrifice all or part of their identities to that more perfect ideal – a certain level of enforcement.

The "OK, but why did you use Nazism as a means of attacking conservatism? issue:

The astute observer may notice, upon reexamination, that AT NO POINT do I say American conservatism IS Nazism or that conservatives ARE Nazis, nor did I ever intend to. I do draw correlations between them and warn of what conservatism might become if we continue to leave it unchecked and if, as I predict, the world is about to become a lot less stable. That said, I stand by the argument that there are a LOT of parallels between the rise of both movements.

This misconception over my intent arose, first of all, because of a misunderstanding of the title and accompanying graphic (which I've already explained). But the main reason, I think, many people took it the wrong way is that

1. Many who commented didn't read the article in it's entirety
2. Many who commented were offended

Central to this were the prolific comments of Mr. Kain (he left 30 to my 22). Mr. Kain, when asked if he'd read the article, even said:

So what exactly did I miss? Indeed, there were moments I scanned your "article" as it was entirely too long....

...and then quickly changed the subject...

You blanket attack an entire philosophy--no, actually, you fail to define the philosophy and then arrogantly proceed to attack it. In a passive-aggressive manner you seek to attack any and all who adhere to it.

...using a trigger-word, "passive-aggressive", and the charge of failing to define a term that Newsviners use every day.

But he's right about one thing: I AM blanket attacking conservative ideology (as opposed to "philosophy"). Although these terms are linked and often overlap, "philosophy" implies a rational investigation of ideas. Ideology, which may incorporate philosophical constructs, can also incorporate mythology, namely a past that is ideally reconstructed for conservation.

As I said in the article, attempts at enforcing the conservation of an historic ideal are frequent throughout history. In every case that I have investigated, they've ended in failure, but not before generating enormous suffering and death. The most horrible, and most documented, attempt at this was the Third Reich, which was attempting to "conserve" a supposedly immutable and ancient German racial ideal from "attack" by Jews and Gypsies and Communists and Trade Unionists and all manner of scapegoats.

But the question is not "Why did I bring up Nazism in a critique of conservatism?" The question is, "How can I not?"

Phrases like Islamo-Fasicsm and Axis of Evil; comparisons between Saddam Hussein and Hitler: the conservative Bush administration has taken great strides to link the phraseology of the Second World War to the vernacular of the War on Terror. George Bush, himself, has said that the War on Terror is like Word War II. He has said this consistently, up to and into 2008. From a recent article by Christopher Hayes, The Good War on Terror,

In his essay "Operation Enduring Analogy: World War II, the War on Terror and the Uses of Historical Memory," David Hoogland Noon, a history professor at the University of Alaska, Southeast, writes that even in his first campaign George W. Bush "consistently referenced World War II not simply to justify his own policy aims, but more importantly as a cultural project as well as an ongoing gesture of self-making," positioning himself as "an heir to the reputed greatest generation of American leaders."

Conservative talk show hosts and pundits are far more brutal.

Michale Savage

Jimmy Carter is a Jew-hater through and through. Jimmy Carter is who caused worldwide Islamic terrorism to proliferate around the globe. Jimmy Carter undermined the shah of Iran. Jimmy Carter encouraged [Ayatollah Ruhollah] Khomeini to come back from exile in Paris. As a result, Khomeini spread his Islamic poison around the globe. Jimmy Carter is a war criminal. Now, Jimmy Carter comes out and writes a letter today, and says that Israel, by giving back 93 percent of the West Bank, is being evil, it's the Jews again tricking the Palestinians. Jimmy Carter is like Hitler with the double talk on top of it all. I can't take this crap any more. Why is he even taken seriously? Why don't the Jews get up and spit in his face?

Ann Coulter

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.

Bill O'Reilly

I don't see any difference between Huffington and the Nazis. It's her, It's her, It's her…I didn't say she's a Nazi.

A source that frequently pops up on Newsvine, World Net Daily, even has material blatantly attempting to link "liberalism" to Nazism, calling the latter "progressive" and "secular". Said author Ellis Washington:

Of course, Nazism, communism, totalitarianism, fascism, even progressivism, socialism and modern liberalism all overlap and are connected ideologically with each other....On this point, Wiker writes: "Given the epic scale of their inhumanity, we need to remember that the Nazi regime did not purport to do evil. It claimed to be scientific and progressive, to do what hard reason demanded for the ultimate benefit of the human race

I could keep pasting these. They are ubiquitous. But you get the point.

In the face of such comparisons, and under current circumstances, is it so strange to turn that comparison back onto our current executive and its ideological supporters? I should think contrasting ourselves against history's worst regime would be a instructive. But in the face of conservative efforts to compare both enemies abroad and thier political opponents at home to Nazis, it is essential.

Final points

Popular understandings of "conservatism" are radically different from the reality. The reality is not "limited government"; it is a massive, corporatist executive that has further blurred the lines between the public and the corporate. The reality is not "fiscal conservatism"; it is the redirection of public funds from education, social welfare and infrastructure to fighting wars of conquest for energy companies. The reality is not the traditional, Christian ethic of love thy neighbor and share thy bounty; it is the dog-eat-dog ethic of Constantine the Great. The reality is not civil liberty and the Bill of Rights; it is the Patriot Act, the suspension of habeus corpus and torture.

Some might complain that I'm not describing "true" conservatism (which I'm certain they'll be happy to define). Others, like Mr. gillis of Atticus espouses a totalitarian philosophy fame, think I'm attempting to stifle dissent and exercise control over the conversation (as if I could do such a thing on Newsvine). Ms. Marylin L. even insinuated I was instigating a "witch hunt." Many others seemed to think I was using some radically removed definition of "conservatism" or that I wasn't using any definition at all. (I'd like to hear this last brought up every time someone says "liberal", "conservative", "Democrat", "Republican", "Left" and "Right" on Newsvine, and see how far we get).

Perhaps. From my perspective, I'm simply trying to contrast the results of "conservatism" against how it is sold to the public. As I see it, the United States has been brought to the brink of social, economic and governmental calamity by almost two decades of "conservatism," and this at a time when there are imminent national and worldwide crises on our doorstep. Thus, I am not simply warning of what has happened, but what will happen, and soon. Think I'm kidding? See what happens if the US or Israel attacks Iran, or if the confrontation with Russia over the oil rich Caspian Sea Basin escalates. Watch carefully what happens this winter as heating and gasoline prices start to become uncomfortably high. Keep your eye on the economy as the housing crisis continues to unfold, and other sectors like educational loans and credit cards begin to unravel over similarly shady practices.

To quote my own article:

...crisis feeds conservative movements...the entire world is on the verge of, not one, but several crises: a peak in energy supplies without an adequate replacement; a global, environmental crisis that IS happening whether it is anthropogenic or not; a looming, worldwide food shortage; a worldwide economic crisis: all of these are imminent if current trends remain constant. And this is happening even as we continue to lose access to our government and the realm of civil, public discourse is becoming increasingly fractious.

It is within this context that users of Newsvine read and seed news, and write about what they see. We are facing the ancient curse, "May you live in interesting times." We are about to be absolutely buried in interestingness.

And I'll leave it at that...

Back To Top