Posted on 01/25/2007 1:45:13 PM PST by Parmenio
The durability of Conservatism has depended, to a great extent, on it being a disposition rather than a philosophy. What marks Conservatives out, across the generations, and whatever the environment they operate in, is an attitude of mind rather than an adherence to dogma. And that disposition — sceptical, cautious, pragmatic, sensitive to the local and the particular — has been politically successful because it has been in tune with human nature.
But Conservatism, as a disposition, has its limitations. British Conservatism in particular, even though it has been one of the most electorally successful varieties ever, has its own particular flaws. British, particularly English, conservatives tend to be especially suspicious of intellectuals. Only in the British Conservative party could the nickname ‘Two-Brains’ be construed, however affectionately, as a put-down. And British Conservatives have, with honourable exceptions, tended to a particularly pessimistic view of human nature and the potential for progress. From Lord Salisbury to Iain Gilmour and even Chris Patten, the sense that the barbarians were at the gate has imbued thoughtful Tories with a gloomy view of the future.
Both those Conservative characteristics, distrust of intellectualism and spiritual pessimism, may have led many Conservatives to miss one of the most significant trends of the past five years — the emergence of a new intellectual movement which gives grounds for optimism in one of the most difficult battles of our times.
Scarcely noticed by most on the Right, a new coalition of thinkers has been emerging from within the Left deliberately to challenge the Left’s greatest contemporary failure. It is perhaps understandable why many on the left might wish to belittle, or drive to the margins, this new movement. But for those of us who are not tribally tied to the Left, this new turn in intellectual thinking deserves to be welcomed.
A distinguished array of thinkers and writers who have grown up attached to left-wing principles of equality, secularism, respect for universal human rights, opposition to religious obscurantism and support for liberal democracy have been finding their voices in the last five years. Since the atrocities of 9/11 have focused the world’s attention on the murderous tactics and mediaeval ideology of Islamist terrorists, a number of figures on the left have felt moved to denounce what they see as the, at best, equivocal and, at worst, morally complicit treatment of extremism by many of their former comrades.
This week sees the publication of one of the most powerful denunciations of the manner in which the Left has lost its way. Nick Cohen’s What’s Left? scrupulously anatomises the way in which anti-Americanism, and the doctrine that my enemy’s enemy is my friend, has driven people whose political inspiration was a belief in progress to make excuses for forces that are trying to use murder to propel us back into the Dark Ages. As he argues,
Why is it that apologies for a militant Islam which stands for everything the liberal Left is against come from the liberal Left? After the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington why were you as likely to read that a sinister conspiracy of Jews controlled American or British foreign policy in a superior literary journal as in a neo-Nazi hate sheet? And why after the 7/7 attacks on London did leftish rather than right-wing newspapers run pieces excusing suicide bombers who were inspired by a psychopathic theology from the ultra-Right?
Cohen’s is a brave voice, but not a lone one. In the upper reaches of the British press, Cohen’s outlook is shared, to a significant extent, by writers such as David Aaronovitch and John Lloyd as well as everyone’s favourite drink-soaked Trotskyist popinjay, Christopher Hitchens. Few writers have been as fiercely effective as Hitchens in skewering the moral frailty of those who marched to keep a torturer in power:
In the past decade or so had this ‘anti-war’ rabble had its way, we would have seen Kuwait stay part of Iraq, Bosnia and Kosovo cleansed and annexed by ‘Greater’ Serbia and the Taleban retaining control of Afghanistan. You might think that such a record would lead its adherents to be dismissed as a silly and sinister fringe but instead it is they who pose as the principled radicals and their opponents who are treated with unconcealed disdain in the universities and on the BBC.
The positions taken by Hitchens, Cohen and others in the press have, more recently, been reinforced by the bravery of other writers who have risked placing themselves outside literary London’s comfort zone by being brave enough to reject the moral relativism of so many on the left. Ian McEwan, Martin Amis and, of course, Salman Rushdie have all argued, in different ways, that Islamism is a totalitarian ideology, like fascism and communism before it, which seeks to deny human freedom. McEwan has denounced the way in which the Left is ‘morally selective’ in its outrage, denouncing America with greater fervour than it can ever muster for criticising the record of Saddam or the Taleban. Amis has been typically fearless in attacking those ‘people of liberal sympathies, stupefied by relativism, who have become the apologists for a creedal wave that is racist, misogynist, homophobic, imperialist and genocidal’.
What marks all these writers out, apart from their courage and their literary stature, is their heritage as authors of the broad Left. They are figures of intellectual weight whom the Left cannot plausibly paint as blinkered reactionaries, and whose critique, therefore, demands to be taken seriously.
But will it be? There are signs that the intellectual challenge to left-liberal appeasement of Islamism is gathering growing support. The range of voices who have signed up to the muscularly liberal Euston Manifesto is one indication that the Pilger/Chomsky/Guardian comment pages consensus is much less representative of progressive opinion than it pretends. And, more recently, both Gordon Brown and Ed Balls have called for an intellectual response to the challenge of Islamism which stands comparison with the cultural resistance to communism developed by Western intellectuals during the Cold War.
But victory in the Cold War depended not just on the voices of Western intellectuals, crucially it depended on Western governments giving support to those dissident voices which were struggling to be heard in the Eastern bloc. Where are the political leaders now who will defend liberal and progressive voices in the Islamic world in the way in which Reagan and Thatcher championed the Sharanskys and Sakharovs? The real heroes of the anti-Islamist intelligentsia are Arab thinkers like Shaker al-Nabulsi who are challenging totalitarianism within the Islamic world. If the West is really serious about winning hearts and minds in this generational struggle, then it needs to show its support for those who, in the least propitious circumstances, still have the bravery to cry freedom.
This is an edited extract from Michael Gove’s talk ‘Are we seeing the emergence of a new anti-Islamist intelligentsia?’ given to the New Culture Forum this week. Nick Cohen’s What’s Left? How Liberals Lost Their Way is published by Fourth Estate, £12.99.
We can disagree on other things, but for me the war against islamist totalitarianism is the most important issue facing mankind in the 21st century.
Very interesting and somewhat encouraging article.
I like that throwaway line, "everyone’s favourite drink-soaked Trotskyist popinjay, Christopher Hitchens." But the truth is, Christopher Hitchens drunk can write rings around any dozen boring, sober leftists writing for the Guardian or the Nation.
The Left discovers the obvious and calls it "the new intellectualism". They remind me of the definition of an economist, one who wonders if something that obviously works in practice, will work in theory
Four things are at work here:
1. The Left sees the Right Wing as more of a threat to their power than the Islamists (who probably vote for Leftist candidates anyway). The Right is closer and more numerous--therefore, they are the greater threat. Of course, the Right doesn't behead anyone, but that doesn't enter into their equation.
2. The Islamists are not evil Westerners, therefore, their motives are pure. Ever notice how Muslims are described in the MSM as "devout" while evangelic Christians are labeled "fanatical"?
3. The Left admires the fact that Mullahs have almost total control over their adherents. This is something they have been striving for for decades. After all, if you can convince someone to blow themselves up, getting them to pay higher taxes should be a piece of cake.
4. Lastly, the Left are cowards. They know they can spit on Christians and Jews with impunity. However, mock a Muslim, and people will riot and things get blown up. Its ironic--they continually accuse the Right of trying to censor free speech. Yet the Left advocates censorship whenever Muslim sensibilities are involved.
Everything the left stands for is what islam hates and destroys.
bttt
Ping to self
"After all, if you can convince someone to blow themselves up, getting them to pay higher taxes should be a piece of cake."
Or in the case of socialized medicine, accept state mandated euthenasia so that the herd can make better use of health care financial resources.
Four things are at work here:This is a very good analysis. Is there still such a thing as Post of the Day? This one deserves it.
1. The Left sees the Right Wing as more of a threat to their power than the Islamists (who probably vote for Leftist candidates anyway). The Right is closer and more numerous--therefore, they are the greater threat. Of course, the Right doesn't behead anyone, but that doesn't enter into their equation.
2. The Islamists are not evil Westerners, therefore, their motives are pure. Ever notice how Muslims are described in the MSM as "devout" while evangelic Christians are labeled "fanatical"?
3. The Left admires the fact that Mullahs have almost total control over their adherents. This is something they have been striving for for decades. After all, if you can convince someone to blow themselves up, getting them to pay higher taxes should be a piece of cake.
4. Lastly, the Left are cowards. They know they can spit on Christians and Jews with impunity. However, mock a Muslim, and people will riot and things get blown up. Its ironic--they continually accuse the Right of trying to censor free speech. Yet the Left advocates censorship whenever Muslim sensibilities are involved.
These are not left-wing principles, except for the secularism.
Everything the Left CLAIMS to stand for you mean. The left does not care for womens' rights.
Only women who have the right positions are to be championed. The rest are just bitter old maids, like Condi Rice, and Ann Coulter. < /s >
Compare and contrast the concept of abortion and honor killing. Both are murder to hide "shame". Both claim an innocent victim.
(mosquewatch.com)
btt
You see this to a degree in the broadcast media, wherein a general predisposition toward progressivism has led to a total failure to analyze what it is toward which they wish to progress. They are successful at identifying what it is they wish to progress from, given it a scapegoat's face in Bush, and as long as they can restrict their efforts to bringing him down and elevating their co-religionists to power their direction afterward may remain happily unexamined. They'd better get busy - it is now becoming painfully obvious that blaming Bush for the status quo does not constitute a policy of any sort for going forward, either for the chronically complaining journalists or the Democrats they've managed to get elected. Time's wasting and the excuses are wearing thin.
And, too, a return to principle on the part of the left does not imply a confluence of ideology within the West. There will still be the dichotomy between collectivism and individualism, between top-down and bottom-up economics, between equalities of opportunity and result. That won't change. What will have to change is that "progressives" will have to stop clinging to the past, an irony that not everyone appreciates.
I agree with you, but apparently a great share of Americans and western civilized peoples do not share our opinion. I find very few friends, co-workers or family members who are willing to say something against radical Islam as eagerly as they are against their own president ....who is trying to protect them from the killers. I have to conclude that most people have either forgotten 9/11 or are simply sticking their heads in the sand hoping the bad people will just go away. It's a strange world.
Thanks for the complement--I try.
This is correct. The Left views all its current allies as transient. It is acceptable to throw someone overboard if their presence stands between you and power. To the Left, it has always been about POWER--not principles. Right now they are throwing (or have thrown) the Jews overboard--except most Jews haven't realized it yet.
Give it another three decades, and they will have thrown the gay and women's rights groups overboard too. In fact, you will be hearing that wearing a burka is the ultimate in sexual liberation, because it separates the woman from her looks. Its the old Slavery=Freedom ploy. The Women's Studies Departments are busy rewriting their doctrine as I type--count on it. It may take them a tad longer to jettison the gays, because they are SO DARN USEFUL in destroying organized religion, long held morals, and keeping the non-Muslim population down.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.