The Great Cham of Literature and Mr. Larison
Sometimes outrage is a wonderful thing. I often think of Samuel Johnson’s response to a book by one Soame Jenyns called A Free Enquiry into the Nature and Origin of Evil, in which the author speculates — in the optimistic vein — in Johnson’s summary, “that there is some inconceivable benefit in pain, abstractedly considered; that pain, however inflicted, or wherever felt, communicates some good to the general system of being, and, that every animal is, some way or other, the better for the pain of every other animal. This opinion he carries so far, as to suppose, that there passes some principle of union through all animal life, as attraction is communicated to all corporeal nature; and, that the evils suffered on this globe, may, by some inconceivable means contribute to the felicity of the inhabitants of the remotest planet.”
To this opinion Johnson replies:
How the origin of evil is brought nearer to human conception, by any inconceivable means, I am not able to discover. We believed, that the present system of creation was right, though we could not explain the adaptation of one part to the other, or for the whole succession of causes and consequences. Where has this inquirer added to the little knowledge that we had before? He has told us of the benefits of evil, which no man feels, and relations between distant parts of the universe, which he cannot himself conceive. There was enough in this question inconceivable before, and we have little advantage from a new inconceivable solution.
I do not mean to reproach this author for not knowing what is equally hidden from learning and from ignorance. The shame is, to impose words, for ideas, upon ourselves or others. To imagine, that we are going forward, when we are only turning round. To think, that there is any difference between him that gives no reason, and him that gives a reason, which, by his own confession, cannot be conceived.
And then, after further exploration of the implications of Jenyns’s ideas, Johnson administers the coup de grace in one of the most powerful passages of English prose I know:
Many of the books which now crowd the world, may be justly suspected to be written for the sake of some invisible order of beings, for surely they are of no use to any of the corporeal inhabitants of the world. Of the productions of the last bounteous year, how many can be said to serve any purpose of use or pleasure! The only end of writing is to enable the readers better to enjoy life, or better to endure it; and how will either of those be put more in our power, by him who tells us, that we are puppets, of which some creature, not much wiser than ourselves, manages the wires! That a set of beings, unseen and unheard, are hovering about us, trying experiments upon our sensibility, putting us in agonies, to see our limbs quiver; torturing us to madness, that they may laugh at our vagaries; sometimes obstructing the bile, that they may see how a man looks, when he is yellow; sometimes breaking a traveller’s bones, to try how he will get home; sometimes wasting a man to a skeleton, and sometimes killing him fat, for the greater elegance of his hide. This is an account of natural evil, which though, like the rest, not quite new, is very entertaining, though I know not how much it may contribute to patience. The only reason why we should contemplate evil is, that we may bear it better; and I am afraid nothing is much more placidly endured, for the sake of making others sport.
As they say, read the whole thing. It would be folly to compare any contemporary writer to the great Johnson, but I did read something this morning that put me in mind of what I have just quoted. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Daniel Larison.
Larison is a truly gifted prose stylist.
— Freddie · Feb 4, 10:35 AM · #
I just like how he tears other writers apart.
— mattc · Feb 4, 12:08 PM · #
Larison is a great prose stylist. Alas this is a case where the style makes a prisoner of the argument.
To wit, Larison surely agrees that we should not assume people raised in other cultures want the same things Americans want; this is precisely the type of Enlightenment imperialism Larison typically decries. Bring democracy to Iraq because Iraqis desire liberal democracy? Because all people want freedom? A folly according to Taki, AmCon mag, and all the venues in which Larison publishes. I suppose Larison writes so frequently in the voice of denunciation and contempt that he can’t acknowledge that Peters has made a point with which he fundamentally agrees. Instead he distorts Peters point until it becomes an appropriate target for (highly entertaining) fulmination.
— Ben A · Feb 4, 07:34 PM · #
Alan,
Not only do I think it is absurd to compare Johnson to Larison (Johnson’s prose actually flows — Daniel’s, not so much), but Larison’s outrage in that post is silly. Because while you may object to Peters use of the word “alien” to describe foreigners, as Ben A notes above, Peters’ goal is to get Americans to think about the importance of foreign cultures and how those cultures will clash (and cooperate) with our foreign policy goals. Peters excellent article awhile back on the importance of tribal thinking makes this same point:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/616fcajg.asp
And of course, while Daniel prattles on about the importance of recognizing the humanity of our enemies and someone like Grumpy Old Man writes a comment that suggests war is evil, neither author seems to get very worked up about what life was like for the average Afghan under the Taliban or the average Shia Iraqi under Saddam. In other words, Peters and all the rest of us neocons do share a concern for our fellow man — where we differ from Larison is in the belief that it is both good American foreign policy and good for foreigners when we stay out of their internal affairs. We may be wrong, but spare us the lectures characterizing us as “militaristic imperialists.”
P.S. I did love the link to the Johnson essay…makes me want to finally dive into that copy of Boswell’s masterpiece I picked up the other day.
— Jeff Singer · Feb 5, 12:48 PM · #
Jeff, I am somewhat sympathetic to your argument. (Not that sympathetic: after all, if I had the choice I’d nominate Jim Henley as Secretary of State and put Andrew Bacevich in charge of the Pentagon.) But something you just did there really ticks me off.
Brother, it might behoove you to take less offense at being characterized as “miltaristic imperialists” and recognize that an awful lot of neoconservatives * just are* militaristic imperialists.
This is neither an attempt to refight policy arguments of 2002-03, or start a Red vs. Blue dustup, but an attempt to, y’know, encourage citizens to use words that depict reality, and not spray cuttlefish ink all over the discourse.
Jeff, look, lots of neoconservatives want to employ armies, navies & air forces to solve political problems – hence, they’re “militarists” – and an overlapping set of them want to preserve and expand American hegemony over distant lands. So we can rightly characterize them as “imperialist.”
Obviously in the American context, given American history (and mythology) these are not nice things to say about anybody. They’re perceived to be epithets, but in this particular case they are literally true.
So suck it up, dude. I invite you to make the case for American benevolent hegemony (lots of models to follow. Here’s three names: Niall Ferguson, Max Boot, Robert D Kaplan). Just don’t whine to the refs whenever someone points out that a duck which tends to employ duck-like means of locomotion and vocalization, remains, after all, a duck.
— Tim R. · Feb 5, 01:38 PM · #
One more thing. Neither you nor I likely has any time for this, but I invite you to meditate on a few names from history. Not Roman, Persian, Ottoman, Hellenistic, Aztec, or Chinese history, but recent English and American history.
Think about what these men said and did. First, a couple of Presidents and war leaders:
George Washington. (Remember the Farewell Address.)
Dwight Eisenhower. (Recall his warnings about the military-industrial complex.)
Contrast that with a couple of Englishmen:
Cecil Rhodes.
Charles George Gordon.
Winston Churchill.
Mr Singer, my point here is that neoconservatives remind me less and less of the two former Presidents, and more & more of those English guys. (Which doesn’t necessarily make neoconservatives bad people.)
But we ought to recognize that Rhodes, Gordon, and Churchill were both militarists and imperialists.
It seems to me not only fair, but necessary, to identify their modern-day descendants and to call them by the correct name. That it ruffles the feathers and offends the vanity of neoconservatives doesn’t strike me as reason enough to self-censor.
— Tim R. · Feb 5, 01:51 PM · #
Tim R.,
Other than the fact that I have no idea who Charles George Gordon is, I still think that you and I just have two different ideas about what “militaristic imperalists” means. There is a real and substantive difference between the policies someone like Kagan advocates and the policies of the British Empire.
Incidentally, I DO think the British Empire did much good around the world, although again, the Brits did it in a very different way than the Americans have. Our occupation of post-war Germany and Japan (and South Korea) is more the model I have in mind, which right from the start was interested in helping locals build liberal democratic institutions as well as their local economies, as opposed to assuming that the locals couldn’t do it themselves and/or exploiting their local economy (e.g. think Britain in China).
— Jeff Singer · Feb 5, 03:05 PM · #
Also, this may be totally unfair, but recall that nobody in Rome would have known what you were talking about if you travelled back in time and starting talking about “the Roman Empire” until probably like 280 A.D.
Republican forms and titles persisted, even as Roman administrators were sent out to manage various parts of the Mediterranean basin, backed up by garrisons of the finest soldiers in the world. But nobody called it an empire, because Rome is a republic, and has always been one.
I say this as someone with a lot of affection and respect for Americans, but sometimes, man, it’s like take the log out of your eyes first…
— Tim R. · Feb 5, 03:38 PM · #
[This comment should’ve appeared before my previous one – I goofed when hitting ‘submit’.]
Jeff, Charles George Gordon was a British military officer in the late 19th century. Think of him as sort of like a cross between Norman Schwarzkopf, Douglas MacArthur and Sir Richard Burton. (Incidentally, he was kind of a maverick, now that I think about it.)
Look, there’s room for well-meaning people to disagree on the validity of calling neoconversatives “militaristic” or “imperialist.” I happen to think you’ve got a blind spot on this, but know that I recognize that you mean well. Your preferred foreign policy is motivated by a mix of enlightened self-interest and general good will to others.
And I will very gladly admit that the American imperial experience 1898-2009 has been distinguished by remarkably little of the usual cruelty, venality, and stupidity that most empires bring to the task.That said, I have this weird obsession (I blame Confucius and George Orwell) with calling things by their proper names. Again, I recognize that you probably don’t want people who argue for your preferred policies to be called militaristic imperialists (given the American anti-imperialist tradition). I do invite you to think about what kind of term you might prefer, and challenge you to come up with something better (although something like the “victory caucus” will not go over well). Remember that your military establishment has hundreds of thousands of soliders stationed overseas, and has divided up the planet into several geographically-unified commands (PACOM, CENTCOM, etc.) Now I recognize the historical decisions that put them there – some of them admirable, some miguided.
But they’re there. They have implications and consequences (not least, the thorny fact that while you may not think you’re an “imperialist”, lots of folks on the planet think you are. _ Good statecraft would see this for the strategic challenge that it is and try to change it_. In the age of global guerillas, it is actually better to be more loved than feared – because zealously religious murderers don’t actually seem to be afraid of American power anymore.)
Anyways, I’m done. I’m pretty sure that you have a more mainstream viewpoint than mine. I’m the radical here.
— Tim R. · Feb 5, 05:17 PM · #
Tim R.: In a core/periphery way of defining words, you are right that the standard neoconservative approach fits into the connotational space of “militaristic imperialist.”
It might even be a good way of looking it: the implicit goal of neoconservatives is to rehabilitate the idea of imperialism with a morally defensible American version.
— JA · Feb 5, 11:45 PM · #
the implicit goal of neoconservatives is to rehabilitate the idea of imperialism with a morally defensible American version.
But, of course, imperialism is not morally defensible.
— Freddie · Feb 6, 12:35 AM · #
I’ve always thought – and I say this as a fan – that Larison could kick just as much ass with half as many words.
— Matt Frost · Feb 6, 06:19 AM · #
But, of course, imperialism is not morally defensible.
Not historically, that’s for sure; that’s why neoconservatives fight against the label. It’s not an exact fit, precisely because “morally defensible” is a novel (Sisyphean?) priority.
— JA · Feb 6, 12:01 PM · #
We should just retire ‘neoconservative’ from the lexicon. Right now it’s just an-purpose hook on which to hang the failings of the Bush administration: “all bad things” underlined and in capitals. I don’t blame those who use these tropes polemically, but they should recognize that they are, in fact, polemics.
Inveighing against imperialism and militarism is easy. Count me against imperialism and militarism. Does that mean Gulf War II? Does that mean bombing Serbia? Does that mean giving material aid to the more democratic/liberal forces in a civil war? Larison, I suspect, will be consistent all the way through: yes, yes, yes. Very few American politicians — even self-described ‘realists’ — will go that route.
— Ben A · Feb 6, 12:20 PM · #