Posted on 10/31/2002 9:29:16 PM PST by Noumenon
A Philosophy - If You can Get One
The Germans of the Weimar period were increasingly frustrated, angry, disgusted with the “system,” and ready for change. So are Americans. The Germans, following their intellectuals, were disgusted with what they regarded as reason and freedom, and they were ready for Hitler. The Americans are disgusted with unreason and statism; but they are directionless. Without intellectual guidance, they do not know what went wrong with their system or how to prevent the country’s disintegration and collapse.
Thus, by default – despite the profound differences between Americans and the pre-Hitler Germans – the similarities between the two nations, the similarities between their intellectuals and the social trends they shape, are growing. The most ominous aspect of the trend is that, if it is not reversed, it will ultimately change the character of the American people. It has already begun to do so.
The philosophy that shapes a nation’s culture and institutions tends, other things being equal, to become a self-fulfilling prophecy: by creating the conditions and setting of men’s daily life, it increasingly establishes itself as an unquestioned frame of reference in most people’s minds. A society shaped by altruism, for instance – a society of chronic, politically enforced man-eat-man policies in the name of “the public welfare” – leads many of its victims to feel that safety lies in flaunting public service, that selfishness (the “selfishness” of others, who are draining them) is a threat, and that the solution is to urge and practice greater selflessness. A society shaped by collectivism, in which the only effective means of survival is the group or the state, leads many to feel that the ideas and the personal independence appropriate to an individualist era are no longer possible or relevant. A society shaped by irrationalism – a society dominated by incomprehensible crisis and inexplicable injustice and the constant eruptions of a senseless, nihilist culture – leads many to feel that the world cannot be understood, i.e, that their own mind is inadequate, and that they need guidance from some higher power.
Thus, corrupt ideas, once institutionalized, tend to be continually reinforced (the same would hold true of rational ideas); and the unphilosophical men, however decent their own unidentified premises might be, eventually succumb. Across a span of generations they gradually relinquish any better heritage. In part, they are yielding to the explicit ideological promptings of their teachers and the universities. In part, they are adapting resignedly to what they have come to accept from their own experience as the facts and necessities of life.
The American spirit has not yet been destroyed, but it cannot withstand this kind of undermining indefinitely.
If the United States continues to go the way of all Europe, the people’s rebellion against the present intellectual leadership will be perverted, and re-channeled into an opposite course.
Nonintellectual rebels cannot challenge the fundamental ideas they have been taught. All they can do by way of rebellion is to accept a series of false alternatives urged by their teachers, and then defiantly choose what they regard as the anti-establishment side. Thus, the proliferation of groups that uphold anti-intellectuality as the only alternative to today’s intellectuals; mindless activism as the alternative to “moderation”; Christian faith as the alternative to nihilism; female inferiority as the alternative to feminism; racism as the alternative to egalitarianism; sacrifice in behalf of a united nation, as the alternative to sacrifice on behalf of warring pressure groups; and government controls for the sake of the middle class, as the alternative to government controls for the sake of the rich or the poor.
The type of mentality produced by these choices – activist, religionist, racist, nationalist, authoritarian – would have been familiar in the Weimar Republic.
If it happens here, the primary responsibility will not belong to the people, who still reject such a mentality and are groping for a better kind of answer. The responsibility will belong to those who banished from the schools all knowledge of the original American system, and who would have finally convinced the nation that men’s only choice is a choice of dictatorships.
No one can predict the form or the timing of the catastrophe that will befall this country if our direction is not changed. No one can know the concatenation of crises, in what progression of steps and across what interval of years, would finally break the nation’s spirit and system of government. No one can know whether such a breakdown would lead to an American dictatorship directly – or indirectly, after a civil war and/or a protracted Dark Ages of primitive roving gangs.
What one can know is only this much: the end result of the country’s present course is some kind of dictatorship; and the cultural-political signs for may years now have been pointing increasingly to one kind in particular. The signs have been pointing to an American form of Nazism.
If the political trend remains unchanged, the same fate – collapse and ultimate dictatorship – is in store for the countries of Western Europe, which are farther along the statist road than America is, and which are now obviously In the process of decline and disintegration. (The Communist countries and the so-called “third world” have long since fallen, or have never risen to anything.) A European dictatorship need not be identical to an American one; dictatorships can vary widely in form, according to a given people’s special history, traditions, and crises; in form, but not in essence.
Most of the East is gone. The West is going
A German intellectual made the following statement after the Nazis fell from power.
”In the early days of Hitler’s regime, he recalled, anyone troubled by the Nazi practices and concerned about Germany’s future was shrugged off as an alarmist. And you are an alarmist. You are saying that this must lead to this, and you can’t prove it. These are the beginnings, yes; but how do you know for sure when you don’t know the end, and how do you know, or even surmise the end? On the one hand, your enemies, the law, the regime, the Party, intimidate you. On the other your colleagues pooh-pooh you as pessimistic or even neurotic.”
One can “know, or surmise the end” by knowing what cause produces what effect, i.e., what factor determines the fate of nations.
Today, the only nation still capable of saving itself, and thereby the world, is the United States. It can do so only by one means.
The Constitution cannot stop the trend. A constitution, however noble, cannot stand the death or eclipse of its animating principle.
Religion cannot stop the trend. It helped to cause it.
The demonstrated practicality of the original American system cannot stop the trend. Practicality as such does not move nations.
The profound differences between America and Germany – the differences in history, institutions, heroes, national character, starting premises - cannot stop the trend. After a century, a crucial similarity began to develop between the two countries, the similarity of basic ideas; and this one similarity is gradually overriding, subverting, or negating the differences, and consigning their remnants to the dead end the unappreciated, the undefended, the historically impotent.
There is only one antidote to today’s trend: a new, pro-reason philosophy. Such a philosophy would have to offer for the first time a full statement and an unbreached defense of the fundamental ideas of America.
The same German intellectual quoted above, looking back at Hitler's rise to power said,
"Most of us did not want to think about fundamental things and never had. There was no need to. Nazism gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about - we were decent people - and kept us so busy with continuous changes and 'crises' and so fascinated, yes, fascinated, by the machinations of the 'national enemies', without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little. Unconsciously, I suppose, we were grateful. Who wants to think?"
They Thought They Were Free, Milton Mayer, U of Chicago Press, pp 167-68.
The Ominous Parallels
1980 Leonard Peikoff
When we get into the animating principles, such as the Declaration of Independence, I get less comfortable about citing them as sure priciples and guides because as that document was written as a justification and appeal to the world in general, it contained phrasing meant to invoke a variety of meanings in a variety of readers-- and it still does today, often to our consternation.
This is why it is always worthwile for libertarian-conservatives and traditional-conservatives to set those two extremes that we both have in our ranks aside and see what common purpose can be made. I believe that the forerunners of both traditions did so and the time of the Republic's founding and can, and must, do so again today.
As it appears he isn't near a keyboard, I want to give this a rest until he has time to fairly catch up and make his points, which if I know him, will be solid and to the point. I hope to see some others here seriously address this as the issue is too important to just turn into the typical food-fight.
I believe that the forerunners of both traditions did so and the time of the Republic's founding and can, and must, do so again today.This is truly the Miracle in Philadelphia. Oftentimes, we say things like "the Founding Fathers this" or "the Founding Fathers that". They were far from homogeneous, and the gap between the mindset of the Federalists and the Democrat-Republicans was huge. That Adams and Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton, Ames and Gerry, Washington and Franklin were able to come together as common patriots and shareholders in the franchise of the United States in the early days is difficult to comprehend as we watch the farcical partisan bickering of today.
Politics have always been politics, and Sam Adams could agitate with propaganda with the best of them. Yet they still managed to come together and find common ground. We only need to come together and find common ground with people who are not diametrically opposed to us. Our task is easier, and sometimes we fail at it.
Noumenon, I am not sure how much of what I was arguing above is applicable to your points. Perhaps you can engage the parts that are relevant, and help me get back on track here.
The tendency to shipwreck excellence for expedience is perennial. Historically, this can be seen during the last days of Socrates. And whenever since political theorizing has tried to shore self against the disturbance of a happy procedure, excellence must take the cut. For excellence as a political goal can disrupt, with severe consequences. So in that way, the political achievements that arise in following the starting points of Locke and Hobbes would mark another historical period where excellence is sacrificed for expedience. In this way, law, any law, inculind the constitution, is an expression of the political status quo, and functions as a limiting feature and inevitably sets the bounds of human flourishing.
This points out one of the problems with Germany. It didn't have this tension. It was a monolithic culture. That is why parallels of America to Germany must be handled carefully, and certainly not tank on popular perceptsions (how to avoid that one!).
Kirk is right to differentiate because there is a pragmatic acquiescence involved in our obliging the status quo dictated by law. When can recognize that even though excellence must be retained, it cannot be had, entirely. That recognitioin that we cannot entirely have whatever excellence strives is the patience of pragmatic common sense. It would become expedience if impatience stepped in to rid ourselves of the very human situation of limited possibilities.
I think noumenon made his case & its connection to Piekoff qute well. -- Piekoff:
"There is only one antidote to today's trend: a new, pro-reason philosophy. Such a philosophy would have to offer for the first time a full statement and an unbreachable defense of the fundamental ideas of America. "
Noumenon:
-- "the ideals of the Founding Fathers: individual freedom and the right to own the products of one's labor based upon the rule of law - the only logical and proper conditions for a just and free society." ----
---- "You are evading the truth if you deny the reality of the systematic abrogation of the rule of law and the destruction of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights at the hands of both mainstream American political parties.
Once it has become apparent that the rule of law no longer applies to the common man; once the application of existing law has become arbitrary and outcomes subject to the amount of money one can apply; once laws are made and applied in such a way that it becomes virtually impossible to exist without violating them, well - the party's over isn't it?."
Yes, he made his & Piekoffs point well, imo.
- We see the proof every day here on FR, as self-proclaimed conservatives make their pleas for yet more laws for yet more special interests, and in the doing disregard our fundamental constitutional principles.
It is long past time to agree, once more, EXACTLY what those principles are, - and ought to be.
They are plainly stated in our constitution, but it is incredible how many here lack any real understanding of them. - Or even make an effort to do so.
Hopefully, after Tuesday, we can get back to the position where this is a perfectly acceptable position in the forum. Either we will have won the Senate or we will have lost it for the balance of this term.
Right now, with the Judical nominations in the forefront, holding legislators to account to foundational issues seems like small potatos to some that see the lost judiciary branch as being virtually unresolvable.
Even the direction of an enemy has unforeseen consequences of . . . good.
I think that leftist Judicial Activism has probably been as destructive to Constitutional principles as our leftist legislatures and Presidents have been. The turning points for the Judicial Branch are few and far between. We could have the best series of roll backs in leftist legislation all go for naught, if leftist Judicial Activism mandates all sorts of programs, correctives and similar claptrap like they have done the last five decades since Eisenhower put Warren on the Court.
I thought I was hearing a call for forthright espousal of a return to Constitutional principle and value, and not just a lament and love-song to the barricades. What can be more in the way of a long-term turn around of that branch than nominations being confirmed now rather than taking our luck in 2004?
-- In effect, you're saying that we shouldn't talk about our crazy old senators, till after the election.
Hardly. Read it again. The "this" I refer to is the passage I quote. I'm saying that for too many months the immediacy of transitory electoral issues have sanitized the forum from paying attention to real conservative principles. Why else have you and I occasionally been on the same side?
My real reservation from Noumenon's post is its reliance on libertarian rhetorical terms...too much Philosophy and Reason...kind of the thing that always makes it difficult for you to find common ground with me even if we start to agree...fear that the terms (Justice, Duty, Enduring Moral Order, Presriptive Convention -- you know all those plain conservative terms) will somehow make me ask for more than simple, Constitutional, principles.
I'll certainly settle for the compromise that our two flavors of the American Spirit had in 1789 and I know that you will settle for nothing less.
I will comment only one part of it:
The foundation of this nation lay in the assumption that we were wise enough to control our own lives.
Where does this wisdom come from? Where can it come from?
In the beginning, we had it by virtue of being immigrants, by being of that breed of people who can get up and go somewhere without assurances of success and availability of help. Where can our children get it? I would submit to you that only from us, their parents.
Turning gears rather rapidly, let me attract your attention to one of the central prayers in Judaism:
Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God, the Lord is One. You must love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your might. Take to heart these words with which I charge you this day. Impress them upon your children. Recite them when you stay at home and when you are away, when you lie down and when you get up. Bind them as a sign upon your hand and let them serve as a symbol on your forehead; inscribe them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.
Isn't it surprising that literally after "take to heart" HE admonishes, "Impress them upon your children." There are many things the Jew must do, but note the priority of "impress them upon your children." Ever since I noticed that the first time, I always thought it was remarkable.
You may or may not celebrate the source from which this is quoted, but the thought is profound: no matter what the teaching, even if you yourself take it to heart, it comes to naught quickly if you do not impart that belief to your children.
And that is what we failed to do. My personal belief is that the downfall is traced to victorious prosperity of the "greatest generation." Having suffered through Depression, they learned the value of material things. And, having defeated Hitler, they felt they deserved a good life. And who could tell them otherwise -- a priest or minister who has not fired a shot in anger and faced death?
It is then that house ownership was declared "American dream." Ask yourself what reaction it would cause in the Founding Fathers if they heard that? Do you know any descending voices? I did not live then, but even now this slogan offends me deeply. Did anyone object at the time to this factoid manufactured by the then formed Association of Realtors?
So, since 1950s it was "Give me chicken or give me death!" That is what the "greatest generation" imparted on their children. It is they who produced the most self-centered generation of Americans. The immigrants have taken the words of Founding Fathers to heart and cherished uniquely American values expressed in our Constitution. But, at one point, we failed to "impress them onto our children." I do believe that by now the character of our people has been lost. This happens on the background that the character of the Western civilization has been lost.
One more thing: I do not think that religion caused the current problems. To the contrary, it is the failure of religion to exercise leadership since the Industrial Revolution that created a spiritual vacuum that has been filled with "group think." In all the frameworks offered since, the individual is no longer the focus but groups --- workers and other economic classes, women, blacks, homosexuals... Rather than causing these developments, the institutionalized religion failed to prevent them. And continues to do so.
Regards, TQ.
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.