Liberty and Tyranny and Epistemic Closure
Jonah notes Ross Douthat’s very interesting post, in which Ross had this to say:
Conservative domestic policy would be in better shape if conservative magazines and conservative columnists were more willing to call out Republican politicians (and, to a lesser extent, conservative entertainers) for offering bromides instead of substance, and for pandering instead of grappling with real policy questions.
I thought some about this over the past few days, and took this as a direct challenge.
Here goes.
I started to read Mark Levin’s massive bestseller Liberty and Tyranny a number of months ago as debate swirled around it. I wasn’t expecting a PhD thesis (and in fact had hoped to write a post supporting the book as a well-reasoned case for certain principles that upset academics just because it didn’t employ a bunch of pseudo-intellectual tropes). But when I waded into the first couple of chapters, I found that – while I had a lot of sympathy for many of its basic points – it seemed to all but ignore the most obvious counter-arguments that could be raised to any of its assertions. This sounds to me like a pretty good plain English meaning of epistemic closure. The problem with this, of course, is that unwillingness to confront the strongest evidence or arguments contrary to our own beliefs normally means we fail to learn quickly, and therefore persist in correctable error.
I’m not expert on many topics the book addresses, so I flipped to its treatment of a subject that I’ve spent some time studying – global warming – in order to see how it treated a controversy for which I’m at least familiar with the various viewpoints and some of the technical detail.
It was awful. It was so bad that it was like the proverbial clock that chimes 13 times – not only is it obviously wrong, but it is so wrong that it leads you to question every other piece of information it has ever provided.
Levin argues that human-caused global warming is nothing to worry about, and merely an excuse for the Enviro-Statist (capitalization in the original) to seize more power. It reads like a bunch of pasted-together quotes and stories based on some quick Google searches by somebody who knows very little about the topic, and can’t be bothered to learn. After pages devoted to talking about prior global cooling fears, and some ridiculous or cynical comments by advocates for emissions restrictions (and one quote from Richard Lindzen, a very serious climate scientist who disputes the estimated magnitude of the greenhouse effect, but not its existence), he gets to the key question on page 184 (eBook edition):
[D]oes carbon dioxide actually affect temperature levels?
Levin does not attempt to answer this question by making a fundamental argument that proceeds from evidence available for common inspection through a defined line of logic to a scientific view. Instead, he argues from authority by citing experts who believe that the answer to this question is pretty much ‘no’. Who are they? – An associate professor of astrophysics, a geologist and an astronaut.
But he says that these are just examples:
There are so many experts who reject the notion of man-made global warming and the historical claims about carbon dioxide they are too numerous to list here.
He goes on to cite a petition “rejecting the theory of human-caused global warming” sponsored by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and signed by more than 31,000 scientists. There are a few problems with this survey that Levin doesn’t mention. More than 20,000 of these “scientists” lack PhDs in any field. There was very little quality control: At least one person signed it as Spice Girl Geri Halliwell. Scientific American did the hard work of actually contacting a sample of individual signatories, and estimated that there are about 200 climate scientists who agree with the statement in the petition among the signatories. And most important by far, the text of the petition is not close to Levin’s claim of rejecting the notion of man-made global warming. In the key sentence it says that signatories do not believe that there is compelling scientific evidence that human release of greenhouse gases will cause catastrophic heating and disruption of the earth’s climate. Depending on the definition of “catastrophic”, I could agree to that. Yet I don’t reject the notion of man-made global warming.
On one side of the scale of Levin’s argument from authority, then, we have three scientists speaking outside their areas of central expertise, plus a dodgy petition. What’s on the other side of the scale that Levin doesn’t mention to his readers?
Among the organizations that don’t reject the notion of man-made global warming are: the U.S. National Academy of Sciences; The Royal Society; the national science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand. Russia, South Africa and Sweden; the U.S. National Research Council; the American Association for the Advancement of Science; the American Chemical Society; the American Physical Society; the American Geophysical Union; and the World Meteorological Organization. That is, Levin’s argument from authority is empty.
Of course, this roll call could be arbitrarily long and illustrious, and that does not make them right. Groupthink or corruption is always possible, and maybe the entire global scientific establishment is wrong. Does he think that these various scientists are somehow unaware that Newsweek had an article on global cooling in the 1970s? Or are they aware of the evidence in his book, but are too trapped by their assumptions to be able to incorporate this data rationally? Or does he believe that the whole thing is a con in which thousands of scientists have colluded across decades and continents to fool such gullible naifs as the U.S. Congressional Budget Office, numerous White House science advisors, Margaret Thatcher and so on? Are the Queen of England and the Trilateral Commission in on it too?
But what evidence does Levin present for any of this amazing incompetence or conspiracy beyond that already cited? None. He simply moves on to criticisms of proposed solutions. This is wingnuttery.
There are many reasons to write a book. One view is that a book is just another consumer product, and if people want to buy Jalapeno-and-oyster flavored ice cream, then companies will sell it to them. If the point of Liberty and Tyranny was to sell a lot of copies, it was obviously an excellent book. Further, despite what intellectuals will often claim, most people (including me) don’t really want their assumptions challenged most of the time (e.g., the most intense readers of automobile ads are people who have just bought the advertised car, because they want to validate their already-made decision). I get that people often want comfort food when they read. Fair enough. But if you’re someone who read this book in order to help form an honest opinion about global warming, then you were suckered. Liberty and Tyranny does not present a reasoned overview of the global warming debate; it doesn’t even present a reasoned argument for a specific point of view, other than that of willful ignorance. This section of the book is an almost perfect example of epistemic closure.
This is important work.
“Republicans believe they have an incentive to lie with impunity.” http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_04/023443.php
Pushing back against that is absolutely necessary for political discourse in this country. We are facing some serious problems. If half of our politicians are informed by lies, we’ll have a harder time addressing them.
Thanks for this post.
— Elvis Elvisberg · Apr 21, 06:49 PM · #
Exhibit A for why I will always read Jim Manzi, even when I don’t agree with him.
— max socol · Apr 21, 06:52 PM · #
The last conservative.
Bravo.
I do find your well-researched position on climate change to be truly conservative, incremental progress while studying the cost-viability/risk-threat matrix.
However, your proposed book sounds a lot like Levin’s in spirit……….epistemic closure on the “American Edge” being maintained by deregulation and supply-side economics and school vouchers, in the pure absence of any supporting empirical data.
— matoko_chan · Apr 21, 07:17 PM · #
I don’t have much to add except an emphatic “hear, hear!”
— Will · Apr 21, 07:21 PM · #
I just read this over at The Corner, via Jonathan Chait’s link at TNR. This post is a thing of beauty.
— Erik Vanderhoff · Apr 21, 08:39 PM · #
Great post Mr. Manzi. I’m pretty sure most of the pop-conservatives view their books as consumer products.
— Dwight · Apr 21, 08:59 PM · #
Couldn’t find an e-mail address at NRO, but just wanted to say a huge thank you for this post. Levin is right in some surface ways, and I actually side more with Goldberg and Schultz than with Friedersdorf…but Levin is a deeply problematic writer. Thank you a million times over for taking a swing at this. Best of luck with the blow back.
— Matt Stokes · Apr 21, 09:09 PM · #
Not only is this a spot-on post in its own right, it is also a great little experimental test of epistemic closure at National Review. It is to their credit that they are willing to publish this kind of critique of a movement icon like Levin. Unfortunately, so far the only replies are McCarthy and K-Lo, who are both upset by Manzi’s “gratuitously nasty tone.” (McCarthy’s words) Yep, that’s right. Andy McCarthy (of all people) is complaining about Jim Manzi’s (of all people) tone, in defense of Mark Levin (of all people). And without any substantial reply to a critique meant to demonstrate an example of epistemic closure on the right.
Let’s see what happens next…
— Aaron · Apr 21, 09:28 PM · #
In fairness to Levin, he long ago embraced the public persona of being the monkey who dances to whatever music comes out of the Limbaugh/Hannity organ. I’m not sure anything he does can be taken that seriously.
If I may suggest, “Liberal Fascism” might be a more instructive example of epistemic closure in practice. I’m no fan of Goldberg but he’s not a carnival barker and when doing research for the book, he HAD to have been confronted with the evidence that destroyed his thesis, yet he just went ahead and presented it anyway.
Levin might simply not have bothered to educate himself on global warming. Goldberg couldn’t have avoided learning the basic facts of fascism and had to choose to ignore them.
Mike
— MBunge · Apr 21, 09:45 PM · #
Mike
What basic facts about fascism?
— mike farmer · Apr 21, 10:00 PM · #
I am sure the Great One will respond with a well-reasoned and researched article on the issue. Or maybe he’ll just rant and yell.
I do admire one thing about Levin’s radio show — his committment to reviving old timey insults. Miscreant! Numbskull! Peabrain!
Mike, have you read JG’s book? You are citing it as an example so I assume you have read it. Otherwise, you’d be guilty of assuming facts that may or may not be true in order to support your argument. Some people see this as a sympton of “epistemic closure.”
— JC39 · Apr 21, 10:01 PM · #
The responses this post has drawn over at NRO not only highlight exactly the kind of epistemic closure on the right which Manzi’s piece protests, but also makes it clear that many of the claims of epistemic closure as endemic to the “liberal” academy are often overblown. The fact that Lopez and McCarthy are shocked by the tone of this critique makes it clear that they have never been truly peer reviewed before. I have had my papers and book chapters ripped apart by people with whom I am basically ideologically sympatico, and that is how it is supposed to be. It happens in the academy all the time: One liberal Graham Greene scholar thinks another liberal Greene scholar’s work is tripe, and says so in no uncertain terms. The person whose work got creamed defends his or her position, but must do so by actually addressing the substance of the criticisms. In the end, the work is made better because the flaws have been exposed and (ideally) corrected. It seems that the folks over at NRO don’t really care about ideas being sound or even based on facts, so long as someone dubbed “conservative” is espousing them.
— Dan · Apr 21, 10:19 PM · #
I just love how those idiots are circling the wagons at The Corner now.
— Simon · Apr 21, 10:20 PM · #
“What basic facts about fascism?”
Really? I really have to go into that? Really?
Sigh.
Well, let me just tick off a few basics.
1. Fascism is intensely nationalistic. Don’t conservatives complain that liberals are allergic to nationalistic sentiments?
2. Fascism in mono-cultural. There is no multi-ethnic fascism. Liberals can either be fascistic OR they can be obsessed with multiculturalism. They can’t be both.
3. Fascism is harshly and all encompassingly masculine. There are no effete, feminized fascists. Liberals can either be fascists OR they can be Frenchified weenies. They can’t be both.
Do I seriously need to go on?
Mike
— MBunge · Apr 21, 10:31 PM · #
“Mike, have you read JG’s book?”
If someone wrote a book that serioulsy claimed Ronald Reagan was a child-molesting vampire…would you have to read it in order to know that it was crap? Knowing that shit tastes bad without having to taste it is not epistemic closure.
Mike
— MBunge · Apr 21, 10:35 PM · #
Mr. Manzi
Wow. Thank you for your last 4 posts. Really, thank you. Times have been tough for conservatives that can’t stand these blowhards anymore and want to read substantive, non paranoid arguments. Just like you point out, Levin & Co. are very good at emitting nice sounding, but ultimately inconsequential, platitudes. Nothing wrong with the platitudes themselves, but the policy recommendations in Liberty and Tyranny are just awful.
I’d say that, as much as epistemic closure, they also reveal plain and simple laziness. Rather than engaging the world, Levin, Limbaugh, Hannity and the like have comfortably put their shtick on repeat for a number of years now. It’s a great formula for them, that brings them money and influence in conservative circles with very little work. But conservatives pay a very steep price in alienation of moderates and, quite frankly, stupidification of the base. The comfort food analogy is very sharp, and it’s about time we change our diet.
One last thing: the responses of Katherine Lopez and Andy McCarthy are very disappointing, and not just for the absence of substance. Never mind the absence of substance. Tone? Are they f-ing serious? Have they ever heard the epithets Levin reserves for the people he disagrees with?
— Daniel · Apr 21, 11:00 PM · #
Mike,
Try Ian Kershaw’s Hilter books. And then read Richard Pipes’ Russian Revolution and Stalin and his Hangmen. These are well researched, mainstream books. I don’t know about JG’s book, but these books show the similarities in the many varieties of totalitarianism. The traits you described are flavors, not essentials.
“Sigh” = smug
Insulting a book you haven’t read is so impressive! Good luck with that.
— JC39 · Apr 21, 11:03 PM · #
Mike,
I couldn’t finish Liberal Fascism. I thought the thesis was overwrought and didn’t carry much water. But your “basic facts about fascism” miss the mark.
1. Fascism and Nationalism. This conflates two things, the nature of fascism, and the aims of fascists. Early 20th Century fascists were fascists in large part because they believed in protecting and propagating their “nation” — which itself meant something different from what we mean now. Other than a few, small, extreme, race-based organizations, we don’t really have nationalists who think in those terms today in the west. However, we do have other shared group identities that we believe in protecting and propagating, and drawing your distinction does not disprove Goldberg’s thesis.
2. This is not true in a meaningful sense, and you conflate culture and ethnicity in your point in a way that further undercuts it. See also my discussion of point 1.
3. This point seems to depend on your understanding of what conservatives believe about liberals, and it doesn’t have much to do with the nature of fascism.
In general, your objections seem to be based on perceived dissimilarities between modern liberals and Nazis. Point taken. They look and act completely different. I agree with you that this point alone makes the “point” of Liberal Fascism hard to identify. But the group impulses that give rise to fascism, as defined by sociologists, are deeper and more universal than you acknowledge.
— Jay Daniel · Apr 21, 11:20 PM · #
Mike,
Your three points are all dealt with in some form or fashion in the book.
— piraeus · Apr 21, 11:53 PM · #
I’ll be damned. This post makes 4 in a row.
I’ve ashamed to say it, but while I realize the climate change posts are far more important (and take a lot more work), I’ve actually derived more gratification from this last post. That’s the sorry state the conservative movement has reached.
Nevermind. Damn it Manzi, that was beautiful. You’re my new personal hero. Rock on. Proceed on outwonking the libs and giving the long deserved spanking to egomaniacs like Levin.
— Sam Roberts · Apr 21, 11:54 PM · #
Let it be said, Mr. Manzi has balls, extra large.
— SmithND · Apr 22, 12:50 AM · #
This rules; I only wish this all had been said when Levin’s book came out, before more climate change skepticism were baked into the political debate. But the point of this as I see is not so much to move the climate change debate as it is to push the folks at the Corner to actually confront these points with intellectual honesty. A few predictions about how this will play out at the Corner:
1. Lots more griping about tone and virtually nothing about substance.
2. Lots of red herrings (“This is nothing compared to how liberals skew the debate. Look at the what the UN did!”)
3. Manzi will find himself out of a job at NRO.
I don’t really understand how serious conservatives can take NRO or the Weekly Standard seriously. American Scene, Douthat, Frum — that’s where it’s at, where people are willing to debate ideas seriously.
Frankly, I can’t recall the last time the usual suspects at NRO actually had anything resembling a policy idea. It’s all reaction, all logical fallacy, all echo chamber, all the time.
— Chris · Apr 22, 01:16 AM · #
Another point: KLo’s complaint that Manzi wasn’t taken Levin’s book “seriously” is ridiculous. As far as I can tell, Manzi is the first conservative — and certainly the only one at NRO — to take the book seriously. And revealed it to be a wholly unserious book. Levin is a big boy and should be able to take criticism. He just won’t be able to answer it with anything substantive.
— Chris · Apr 22, 01:22 AM · #
To sum up Mike’s thoughts about Liberal Fascism…
“Forget judging a book by its cover, I’ve already judged it by its title. I have no interest in learning what it’s actually about. Let’s move on.”
— Phil · Apr 22, 02:49 AM · #
Well……I did wish for Dr. Manzi to use his superawesome superpowers for good instead of evil.
Allah knows best.
;)
— matoko_chan · Apr 22, 03:04 AM · #
“But the group impulses that give rise to fascism, as defined by sociologists, are deeper and more universal than you acknowledge.”
No, they’re totally cut and dried.
http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html
Fascism proceeds along very clearly defined lines. Trying to rewrite history to better smear people you don’t like is the acme of intellectual dishonesty and childishness.
Perhaps you could cite some of these sociologists? Every serious historian has dismissed JG’s book as an intellectually bankrupt joke. And guess what, it’s not because they’re flaming partisans. It’s because they’re historians with an obligation to, you know, facts and knowledge and reason.
Kudos to Mr. Manzi for trying to return some intellectual rigor and maturity to the conservative movement. We on the left who would rather win in a mature battle of ideas than a schoolyard shouting match greatly appreciate it.
— casey · Apr 22, 03:45 AM · #
3. Fascism is harshly and all encompassingly masculine. There are no effete, feminized fascists. Liberals can either be fascists OR they can be Frenchified weenies. They can’t be both.
Some of the differences between contemporary leftwing fascism and the fascism of the 1930s are as you describe. But the Nazi version had good support from young female demographic groups.
And as for liberals, there aren’t any. They were an endangered species in the late 1970s, and the last one was sighted some time prior to 1987. They are now extinct.
As for Jim Manzi’s point, back towards the end of the administration of my hero, St Ronald, I started explaining on political forums that where it took the Democrats 40 years to become intellectually bankrupt, the Republicans accelerated the process and accomplished it in less than 10. I don’t know who this Levin is that you guys are talking about or why people care about him, but somehow Jim’s description reminded me of that observation.
— The Reticulator · Apr 22, 04:07 AM · #
“And then read Richard Pipes’ Russian Revolution and Stalin and his Hangmen”
Mike B. might also want to not read Alexandre Rustow’s Domination and Freedom, written right after WWII.
— mike farmer · Apr 22, 05:00 AM · #
Two quick notes:
- Maybe I’m a sucker for nostalgia, but I find Rush and Laura Ingraham far, far less annoying than Hannity and Levin.
- If Goldberg’s book is so bad, how did it manage to get endorsement from Tom Wolfe, Paul Johnnson, et al?
— Matt Stokes · Apr 22, 10:55 AM · #
I would like to note that there’s a big difference between “Epistemic Closure” (segregation from the ideas and opinions of competing ideas, a willful lack of awareness and ignorance of potential contrary arguments, and the absence of the perception of the necessity of intellectual engagement with these “external” notions in order to refine one’s own thinking) and just finding that one no longer enjoys, or has much use for, certain media outlets which are supposed to present those contrary opinions.
I used to be a much more regular and voracious reader of many liberal-leaning (or overtly and proudly Leftist) journals, blogs, and newspapers. I didn’t often agree with their editorializing, especially when in the few instances they allowed it to spill over into their “reporting”, but overall, the quality of writing and reporting was high. And when they did editorialize they at least performed as it they took seriously the idea that they should try to be objective, act with civility and respect towards those with different opinions, and engage in well-reasoned persuasive exposition.
And then something happened. I don’t know exactly when or what it was. It seemed there were two tipping points – the reelection of GW Bush was the first major blow, and the candidacy of Obama the second and the coup de grace.
But one by one most of my daily feeds started to become of less and less use to me as potential improvements to my thinking, and more and more angry and insulting and tribal and assertive of arbitrary political preference and naked ideology. Sure, there was still some good stuff in there, but I had to work harder and harder to filter through all the crap until it barely seemed to be worth the effort.
The point is – it seems they are no longer even trying to speak to me, or people who think like me – the open minded but skeptical who are willing to be persuaded but need to be convinced instead of shouted at or dismissed. So I’ve had to narrow down my “exposure” to those few remaining outlets that still do their job well.
Now, perhaps it’s true that this phenomenon has occurred to both sides, maybe it’s a cultural shift, or the internet, or whatever. But the point is, “epistemic closure” is a two-way street. The harder you make it for your opponents to even find your best ideas, the more likely they’ll give up in frustration and never even learn about them or engage with them even if they were actively seeking and desiring to do so, and potentially to the point of changing their mind.
The shrinking of the debate-space in our lives is simply the end of ideas.
— Indy · Apr 22, 01:28 PM · #
There is only one data point that needs to be considered when asking the asinine “liberal fascism” question: the inventors of fascism, and the leaders of Marxist philosophy at the time of the invention of fascism, specifically, explicitly and unambiguously define their philosophies as polar opposites of each other.
The actual fascist movement is less than a hundred years old. We don’t have to guess at the motivations or beliefs of the actual progenitors of fascism— most importantly, Mussolini and Gentile, but hardly them alone— we have their writings and speeches. And within this extensive record of texts, you find the fascists— the inventors of fascism— unequivocally defining their movement as opposed to Marxism and the left-wing. Full stop, thanks for playing.
You want it from the other side? Marx and Engels weren’t alive for the rise of fascism, but Lenin and Trotsky, I think it’s safe to say, have a fairly healthy stance as legitimate authorities on the subject of communism. And (you guessed it!) they expressed the opinion, time and again, that fascism and communism were polar opposites.
You can find this all backed up by the fact that the first thing the Italian fascists did was to round up all the communists and socialists. Among the earliest victims of the Holocaust were communists, socialists, and trade unionists. The Spanish fascists took eliminating the communist dissidents left after the civil war to be among their highest priorities. And on and on. The idea is just a historical non-starter. It’s a joke. But you’d never know that from most of the people who invoke that book, or really from the book itself. The very idea of actually referring to history for understanding historical terms and movements seems lost.
— Freddie · Apr 22, 01:34 PM · #
MBunge,
LF is about a particular strain of the American left, beginning in the progressive era, and its participation in the global political tendencies at the time (and its goal of achieving liberal ends by fascist means). Goldberg certainly doesn’t dispute the nationalism of fascism, and I don’t think the pre-WWII left was known for post-nationalist sentiment, for its multiculturalism, or for opposing masculenity.
In any case, your post simply demonstrates that the thesis of “liberal fascism” is inconsistent with other conservative criticisms of the Left; and even then, the inconsistency charge is accurate only insofar as the Left is monolithic and internally consistent. It does not demonstrate that LF is inconsistent with actual reality, as strands of contemporary liberalism are highly nationalistic (see Obama’s rhetoric on China,) and conservatives rather frequently criticize this tendency.
— Aaron · Apr 22, 01:44 PM · #
I have not read “Liberty and Tyranny” but from what you mention, it sounds like an intentionally deceptive view on the subject of global warming.
However, I find it interesting that, though your argument is most defiantly articulate, it lacks the same substantive base that you criticize Mr. Levin for not having, when discussing global warming.
Instead of relying on the credibility of others, lets instead try and focus on the credibility of the argument. The fact is there are a number of reasons to doubt mans influence on global warming.
1) Ice cores pulled from the arctic show that CO2 concentration lags temperature correlation, by up to 800 years.
2) There has been no increase in temperatures at locations above the earth’s surface where CO2 is found (8-12 km above the earth). If mans increased production of CO2 was responsible for more CO2, and thus more warming, we would expect to see an increase in the temperature in the substance blamed for the warming. We send hundreds of weather balloons into the air to take temperature readings at various elevations and this warming has not been found (and yes the IPCC predicted this warming in their earlier reports).
3) 70-90% of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor (this is generally accepted by both sides, at least somewhere in this range). Man’s contribution is accepted as less than 10% of the total world output. I have yet to see a paper that can explain/show how the sensitivity of our contribution can effect a system that is so large.
Many in the technical fields have changed their initial positions on the topic of global warming including myself. This includes Nobel Laureates, and former IPCC authors.
I am not saying you are wrong about the way this book frames the issue (I have no idea since I didnt read it, and my point has nothing to do with this). I am trying to say that a there are legitimate reasons to doubt mans contributions to global warming. I also would add that I am open to changing my opinion again if the data/science warrants it.
— Daniel Rogers · Apr 22, 02:45 PM · #
“The very idea of actually referring to history for understanding historical terms and movements seems lost.”
From Rustow’s Domination and Freedom
“In the beerhall brawls and street fights of the Weimar Republic, Natonal Socialists gradually gained the upper hand over Communists. But it was an intimate struggle with many conversions to and fro and evident family resemblances: national socialism adopted the negative, brutal, and cynically subversive tendencies of communism and also its technocratic-totaliarian enthusiasm for a centrally planned economy. This last similarity lent some justification to the claim the Nazis were a National “Socialist” movement. But to the street brawler, this bit of Marxian economic doctrine meant little, and he replaced Marxian internationalism with nationalism.
The basic similarity between communism and nazism in the Weimar setting is statistically demonstrable: from 1928 through 1932, each party’s vote oscillated sharply, while their combined total grew with the remarkable steadiness and in turn paralleled almost exactly the growth of unemployment.”
— mike farmer · Apr 22, 04:36 PM · #
Dan, you really ought to read Manzi’s extensive previous writings on the subject of global warming. If you truly are open-minded on the subject, I think he will convince you that it is very probable there is some manmade contribution to global warming. You will also almost surely agree with him as to what we should do about it (i.e. not a whole lot).
— tom · Apr 22, 04:40 PM · #
Just to revisit Goldberg’s idiocy…
If he wrote a book on liberal authoritarianism, liberal totalitarianism or liberal corporatism, I wouldn’t expect it to be any good because…well, he’s a moron. But a book about any of those concepts would not be inherently absurd. There’s nothing about authoritarianism, totalitarianism or corporatism that precludes there being partisanly liberal versions of each.
But talking about liberal fascism is like talking about capitalist Marxism or Christian atheism. You can only merge the two into one if you ignore all the profound difference between them. Linking liberalism to fascism is like linking conservatism to communism. It can be done, but not in any fair, honest and intelligent fashion.
Mike
— MBunge · Apr 22, 04:44 PM · #
“national socialism adopted the negative, brutal, and cynically subversive tendencies of communism”
So Rustow claims the Nazis started out as what? A smiley-faced self-empowerment movement that was contaminated by the communists? If not for having to struggle against the commies, the Nazis would have become the equivalent of the Rotary Club?
Mike
— MBunge · Apr 22, 04:51 PM · #
What do you need to be convinced about, exactly? The science has been conclusive on global warming for 30 years. Keynesian economics is from the 60’s. We’ve known that the current trajectory of the health care economy is unsustainable since the Clinton era. The past decade was a dramatic refutation of the effectiveness of two main tenets of conservativism – bellicose foreign policy and Randian “free-market” deregulation – and we’re still paying the price domestically and overseas.
Maybe you just turned 20, or something, and so you’re new to all these debates, but at some point “independence” becomes its own kind of epistemic closure, and the question is no longer “what shall we do?” but “how shall we get it done, in the face of powerful interests that want to prevent it?” Perhaps that is the explanation for the shift in tone you observed in your liberal newsfeeds? Not a change in the desire to be convinced by evidence instead of ideology, but just in the fact that the debates became settled.
— Chet · Apr 22, 05:44 PM · #
The basic similarity between communism and nazism in the Weimar setting is statistically demonstrable: from 1928 through 1932, each party’s vote oscillated sharply, while their combined total grew with the remarkable steadiness and in turn paralleled almost exactly the growth of unemployment.
So if your political popularity fluctuates, and is tied to unemployment, you’re a Nazi. Got it.
— Freddie · Apr 22, 05:47 PM · #
I haven’t read the actual Goldberg book, so maybe it’s absurd, but I have read Goldberg’s debates with a variety of critics, and my understanding of his overall position is:
1) Many people call modern American conservatives fascists, but don’t know much about fascism.
2) In fact, it’s at least as accurate, if not somewhat more, to call liberals fascists, because the progressive movements of the era had many linkages with and similarities to facism.
3) Many of the embarassing commonalitiess shared by the actual fascist governments and by fascist-era western progressivism are still attractive to modern progressives.
To which the typical response seems to be either:
a) Yes, but since modern liberalism doesn’t map 100% to fascism, it’s absurd to talk about liberal fascism. (Coupled with either (i) yes, it’s also absurd to call modern American conservatives fascist, but since I personally don’t do that, Goldberg shouldn’t either; or (ii) yes, modern American conservatism doesn’t map 100% to fascism either, but it maps better to some aspects of fascism that are important to me).
or
b) Yes, Goldberg’s largely right, but his point is so obvious as to be uninteresting, except for the fact that he’s making it in an inflammatory way.
At that point, IMHO, whether Goldberg or his critics are closer to right (or whether both have something interesting to say) is something that you have to score on points, which would require close study.
If all you can do is say “Fascists were nationalists, and modern progressives aren’t,” you’re not there yet, because Goldberg’s argument doesn’t postulate or require perfect mapping.
— J Mann · Apr 22, 07:06 PM · #
P.s.: Seriously, Freddie? Is Alexander Rustow another idiot you don’t need to read in order to dismiss? Because, with respect, if you think he’s mistaken and can explain, that’s interesting. But if you think he’s a moron, you probably haven’t done the work.
— J Mann · Apr 22, 07:09 PM · #
Hey J Mann.
I think i will write book called Christian Fascism, correlating the Tea Party Rallies to Weimar, and emphasizing how well Palin and DeMints anti-democratic theocrat philosophy resembles the islamic religious state……islamofacists, member?
lawl….you guys are retards…..or teatards i guess.
— matoko_chan · Apr 22, 07:16 PM · #
I’m not a big one for arguments that are purely from authority, J., sorry. I’m not going to roll over because you think Rustow’s name alone should be enough to convince me.
Saying that patterns between unemployment and the fortunes of two political movements is enough to prove the kind of connection Goldberg and, here, mike farmer are asserting is facile. There are plenty of populist movements that have similar patterns that aren’t Nazism. You could probably make a pretty strong argument that the Tea Party suceeds exactly in that way.
By the way, I read Goldberg’s book; unlike others here, I’ve done the research on the fascist originators in question.
— Freddie · Apr 22, 07:35 PM · #
If all you can do is say “Fascists were nationalists, and modern progressives aren’t,” you’re not there yet, because Goldberg’s argument doesn’t postulate or require perfect mapping.
Part of the problem is that Goldberg does not make the claims that you are making for him; in fact, as has been pointed out ad naseum, by conservatives as well as liberals, Goldberg seems to make no consistent statement of what he thinks the connection is. The better to be provocative without having to actually stand on any one argument.
Of course, you would know that, if you had read the book that you are making a defense of, in the self-same thread that you attack me for arguing with the book when I haven’t read it, when indeed I have. Someone make a note of this thread.
— Freddie · Apr 22, 07:38 PM · #
“2) In fact, it’s at least as accurate, if not somewhat more, to call liberals fascists, because the progressive movements of the era had many linkages with and similarities to facism.”
Here’s where the problem is. If you only highlight the commonalities between A and B, disregard the differences between A and B and also disregard the commonalities between B and C, A and B and be just about anything.
If you only focus on liberal and fascist similarities on the power of the State over the individual, ignore all the differences between liberals and fascists on that subject and many others AND ignore the similar cultural attitudes and convictions of fascists and conservatives, what exactly have you proved?
Mike
— MBunge · Apr 22, 07:48 PM · #
I believe the yahoos have infected the intelligentsia with epistemic closure. Epidemic epistemic closure?
— mike farmer · Apr 22, 08:32 PM · #
I think conservatism might have an endemic epidemic epistemic closure.
Mike
— MBunge · Apr 22, 08:41 PM · #
Jim, I have read your previous posts on AGW and your battle with TNR types as:
IPCC on AGW may be flawed but (a) it’s the best we’ve got (b) even if you accept its AGW information arguendo, you don’t have to accept that benefits of proposed measures > the costs
But now I see you as being much more of an actual defender of the IPCC on AGW. Am I right?
Second, what about civility? You and Levin are both Corner commenters. Wouldn’t it have been right for you to give him a heads up and give him a chance to respond to you before slamming him there? I’d expect you to do that for James Poulos here.
Third, does one example like Levin have more to do with ‘the right’ than an example like Naomi Wolf or Al Franken (pre-Senator) has to do with ‘the left’? Is a takedown of Wolf’s or Franken’s screeds really best thought of as a takedown of the left’s epistemic closure?
Fourth, one of the IPCC’s main sins has been closure to counter-arguments. How do you accuse a guy who had one chapter (I think) of a book called “Liberty and Tyranny” of closure when the main thing he is briefly describing are problems with an immensely powerful group that is characterized by that same flaw? You have long been very careful not to attack the IPCC, I think in order to preserve your image of neutrality on the ‘cause’ question. But if you’re doing that, aren’t you deciding not to attack others for attacking on the cause question?
— tomII · Apr 22, 09:15 PM · #
Very good points, J Mann, about mapping leftwingism to fascism. It’s also worth pointing out that the people who call themselves progressive now are not like the original progressives of Teddy Roosevelt’s day. The earlier ones were liberal. The ones of today are not.
— The Reticulator · Apr 22, 10:22 PM · #
hai reticulator.
You don’t think I can write Christian Fascism? Maybe it should be called Religious Fascism, so I can compare Palin/DeMint christian fascism to islamic fascism, and the demographics of the underlying populations….islamic theocracies are supported by near-pure muslim populations, and the TPM and the GOP are near-pure christian populations.
:)
do remember the last time you guyz ignored me?
when I postulated what happen next when y’all were gloating about Scott Brown?
I said it would stiffen up the dems and they would use reconcilation.
And that is ‘zactly what happened.
My guy got HCR passed like he said he would….what did your guy promise you?
Oh yeah.
— matoko_chan · Apr 22, 10:38 PM · #
1) For clarity, Freddie, my first post was responding to Mike Bunge, who, like me, hasn’t read the book. Your comment that you don’t think that Goldberg’s book as a whole makes the point that I understand Goldberg to be advancing in his response to critics is helpful, and if I get a spare week, I guess I might have to read the book. Surely, I’m still qualitified to talk with Mike, though.
2) My second post was responding to you, and suggested that if you think Rustow is an idiot, Occam’s Razor suggests the most likely possibility is that you don’t understand Rustow. This argument used to infuriate me when I was 20 and much more confident in my knowledge than I am now. Why, I thought, should Plato and Descartes get privileges that I wouldn’t grant to some random guy on the internet? (True story – I ranted on the subject more than once, particularly about Descartes). If their arguments looked idiotic to me, then they’re idiotic. Since then, I have changed my mind, but I’ll grant you, there’s no great way to settle the argument between 20 year old me and 40 year old me, except to make both sides of it and do what you can to figure out the truth.
3) I’ll be glad to “make a note” of this thread, if you take some pity on me and explain what that means. Can’t you make a note of it yourself? Alternately, we could create some kind of wiki where people can make notes of comment threads.
— J Mann · Apr 23, 01:48 PM · #
Freddie,
You claim to have read Goldberg’s book and to be familiar with history and then in the same breath you claim the idea of liberal fascism is a “non-starter” ? Here is Paul Johnson on Jonah’s book:
“Indeed, what precisely was Fascism? The party was founded by Mussolini, a former socialist singled out by Lenin for praise, on March 23, 1919, and Goldberg quotes its purpose in detail. It was essentially left-wing and democratic: universal suffrage (which meant giving the vote to women), the eight-hour day, a minimum wage, old-age pensions, measures against church wealth and the secular rich, workers’ councils, and some nationalization. Mussolini himself called Fascism “the refuge of all heretics, the church of all heresies.” His first three years in power, 1922–5, were comparatively liberal and marked by freedom of speech and of the press. Jews played a prominent part in setting up the regime. Previous governments since Italian unification had been inefficient and corrupt, and the world, including many intellectuals, gave Fascism in its first phase a favorable reception. Goldberg reminds us that an early version of the Cole Porter song read:
You’re the top! You’re the Great Houdini!
You’re the top! You are Mussolini.
The number of world-famous figures who paid tribute to what Mussolini was doing in the 1920s — combating malaria by draining the Pontine Marches; building roads, railways, and magnificent railway stations; suppressing the Mafia — included Lloyd George and Churchill. But, following the murder of Giacomo Matteotti in 1924, and its consequences, there was a radical move toward authoritarianism, announced in a speech by Mussolini on October 28, 1925. It is worth reading because it marked the real beginning of Fascism and the corporate state. Opposition newspapers were banned, and opposition leaders confined on a penal island. Opposition, said Mussolini, was unnecessary because it already existed sufficiently in himself and his powers of self-criticism. This was a beautiful piece of Leninism. Then came his famous formula: “Everything within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.” Thereafter Mussolini and his regime were doomed, because the Italian state lacked the administrative resources to run everything efficiently, and Mussolini himself was a classic case of a man easily corrupted by power, and indeed by others, such as Hitler.
Hitler’s Nazi party had virtually nothing in common with Fascism other than its generally left-wing viewpoint. Its 1920 platform, which Goldberg quotes, owed more to Leninism. Hitler’s chief aim was to abolish the Versailles settlement and introduce pan-German racism, which involved expelling the Jews. If war came, the “Final Solution” of the “Jewish Problem” would take place. The most characteristic expression of Nazi theory, once the regime was installed, was the Nuremberg Laws, which were racial. Hitler’s suppression of the trade unions, combined with his rearmament and road-construction programs, enabled him to end mass unemployment; Germany was the first, indeed the only, great power to do so. Hitler’s work was much admired and attempts to imitate him were made across Europe, from Ireland to Romania. Nazi-style parties were ubiquitous, and had a variety of names and doctrines.
The question of nomenclature was permanently confused by the skill of the Soviet Communists in propaganda, and its amplification by the intellectual Left everywhere. The Soviets were initially perplexed by the rise of Mussolini, and still more by Hitler. There was nothing in Marx, or even Lenin, to prepare them for the rise of populist parties of the Left that could beat the Communists in both the streets and the voting booth. Goldberg quotes the Communist ideologue Karl Radek explaining in 1923 that “Fascism is middle-class socialism and we cannot persuade the middle classes to abandon it until we can prove to them that it only makes their condition worse.” This went some way toward the truth; but an alternative explanation, by Leon Trotsky — that fascism was the last gasp of capitalism — was more popular among Marxists because it could be supported by Marxist texts.
Also, the word “fascism” could be generalized into a denunciation of anything the far Left hated. In 1928 the Third International, dominated by Stalin, produced the useful formula of “social fascism.” This could be applied not only to Nazism as well as the original Italian form, but also to all varieties of Western democratic socialism. They were all equally evil and to be resisted. Finally, in 1933, appeared an official Soviet definition, on Stalin’s orders: “Fascism is the unconcealed terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, chauvinistic, and imperialist elements of finance capital.” This jargon reflected the failure of supposedly “scientific” Marxism to predict the most striking political development of the inter-war years. It made no sense at all but was an invitation, quickly accepted, to the left-wing intelligentsia to describe as fascism anything they did not like. So the confusion has remained, and the habit of right-wingers to describe as fascist anything they do not like about the Left merely extends the confusion.”
Why should anyone around here take you seriously?
— Arminius · Apr 23, 07:21 PM · #
“The number of world-famous figures who paid tribute to what Mussolini was doing in the 1920s — combating malaria by draining the Pontine Marches; building roads, railways, and magnificent railway stations; suppressing the Mafia — included Lloyd George and Churchill.”
Uh, who wouldn’t praise such actions? Adolf Hitler was kind to animals. Does that mean the Humane Society is a fascist organization?
Again, if you emphasize any and all commonalities, ignore any and all differences and disregard the context of both commonalities and differences, anything can be linked to anything.
Mike
— MBunge · Apr 23, 08:48 PM · #