The prison of utopian style.
By Paul J Cella Posted in Culture — Comments (30) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
James Bowman has an interesting essay in the current New Atlantis. Its general theme the replacement in our culture of heroism by utopianism, and it is well worth a read; but I want to focus on one point near the end of the essay.
It has long been a puzzle to me why the Liberals give President Bush no credit, none, for grounding his foreign policy on Liberal principles. Few public men have ever embraced democracy with a much enthusiasm as George W. Bush; few have spoken more highly of the spread of freedom by American might; few have appealed more frequently to the liberty-loving part of man, or depended more confidently on its power to overcome other aspects of his character. This is Liberalism through and through; indeed, I will say it is the best of Liberalism. And yet Liberals hate him. Why?
Read on.
Bowman offers a subtle answer I have not heard before, and I am inclined to think there something to it. Discussing a popular play which dramatizes the lives and dreams of some European utopian socialists of the mid-nineteenth century, he notes the “routine swipe” of a reviewer at Bush. He writes,
The point is not to build something, but merely to care passionately about the idea of building something. It’s this which lifts the failed or frustrated utopians onto a higher moral plane than, say, “the American government.” Yet the routine swipe at the Bush administration should not be allowed to pass without noting that its supposedly “destructive ineptitude” is really just the liberal utopia of passionate carers translated into political and military reality. How is President Bush materially different from those “complex, articulated characters, doing their imperfect best to solve the hardest problems with which existence confronts us”? He is at least partly, and to the extent that he believes a democratic government can be imposed on the Iraqis, a victim of the great modernist paradox, which is that we don’t want the utopias themselves anymore, but we want the utopian style. And we want it because it is a self-validation. It shows that we believe in the right things — in peace, in progress, in compassion for life’s victims, and in universal principles — even though we no longer have any intellectually coherent program for institutionalizing them among men. [. . .]
We may have lost confidence in the ability of those engineers to design a perfect system, or even to live up to their own high expectations of humanity, but it is easier to go on clinging to their fantasies as if we believed them to be real than to submit to the despair of admitting to ourselves that life is still for us what it was to our great-grandfathers who believed — or at least pretended to believe — that there was nothing in it more important than being good.
Ah, yes. There is something to this indeed. “We don’t want the utopias themselves anymore, but we want the utopian style.” All our utopian dreams have been shattered in practice, their failure disclosed by fire and slaughter, by death camp and gulag, by mountains of corpses and the bloodiest century in history; yet we cannot abandon the pretense of utopian passion and idealism. We don’t want a return to plain old virtue — “being good.” We want good intention to still count. We still repeat the old clichés. If you’re not a liberal when you’re young you than have no heart, etc. We still like the roguish unreliable young intellectual, with dreams of a better world. We still fall for the dissipated idealist.
And for us “idealism” can never embrace the heroic virtue of living a good life.
« Hating James Dobson: To Heck With His Qualifications, He's a Meanie — Comments (14) | While We Are Talking About Academic Freedom . . . — Comments (5) »
The prison of utopian style. 30 Comments (0 topical, 30 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I agree, and although Paul's points may be valid for a minority of the "liberals" who have found themselves opposing the President, I think a lot of that comes down to a form of political peer pressure. It's the Left that's running the show in terms of the oppostion to the President.
This article would have been even more interesting if it had explored that connection.
The lack of a patriotic opposition is a true curse for this country. I agree that the Right should be running the opposition to Bush.
______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
In the past year and a half I've been pretty silent about it, but there are days when I really try to consider this war from the perspective of a true, patriotic American *Conservative* (which, alas, I cannot call myself at this point) and I understand why you've had your sincere doubts about it.
Does this article mention explicitly the utopianism involved in the United Nations?
mostly deals with poetry, film, and drama. Bowman is a film critic by trade.
_____________________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
...and not by faith and good works.
No wonder Thomas Mann's Mephistopheles gleefully counts the soul of the young Saxon monk with coal-stained fingernails as his greatest conquest.
the leftist "liberals" in the United States.
Absolutely the guy is on message when he points out the hypocrisy displayed on the left when it comes to BDS (and frankly when it comes to all things conservative).
When he says We don’t want the utopias themselves anymore, but we want the utopian style. that is LEFTIES ONLY. I think I speak for a great many conservatives when I say that WE get it:
-- we know why we are in Iraq,
-- we know why we have to engage the terrorists worldwide,
-- we know why we oppose the socialist bent of large government,
-- we know why we believe in market capitalism that rewards and encourages work and excellence,
-- we know why freedom of religion and freedom of speech are absolute basic requirements to a democratic-republic.
The "we" that includes me doesn't give a flying rat's hiney about "utopian style", or feeling good about ourselves because we display toothless, shallow compassion.
So as long as Bowen points his pointy sticks at the LEFTIES, I think he's right on the money.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
Bowman notes (and I agree) that much of the justification for the Iraq war is simple Liberalism. There are still constant appeals to the ideals of Democracy and Liberty, and alot of failure and mistake has been papered-over by assurances of good intention.
You ought to read the whole essay.
_______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
in the sense that I find discussions of utopia, modernism, and whatnot to be so much blah blah blah. I skimmed large parts of it.
Paul, I agree with you (and largely with the writer),and I find nothing you say in incongruence to what I'm saying. What I am calling "the left" is not at all what we are both calling Liberalism.
What my point is, is that the American right (Conservatism) is not bogged down in the petty nobility that the essay describes. Yes, the Iraq war came about largely for Liberal reasons (freedom, security, nation-building, opposing evil). Incidentally, it did NOT come about for leftist reasons.
The right seeks to roll up sleeves and ACTUALLY OPPOSE EVIL with military might, winning hearts and minds, rebuilding the country (actual concrete, steel, pipelines, electricity grids). The left counters with splashing national secrets on the NYT Page 1, Abu Graib, the Haditha 12, exit dates, and General "Betray Us".
Outside of the war, the conservatives have sought to get people off of welfare. Was that because of platitudes? Hekc no, quite the opposite. The left was clinging to platitudes, while the Welfare State the left created was destroying the family structure of black Americans. The right, recognizing what true compassion was, did the DIFFICULT and politically unpopular thing.
This is what I'm saying. The article describes the LEFT, not ALL.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
What I am calling "the left" is not at all what we are both calling Liberalism.
I believe what I have called Liberalism is indeed what you are calling the Left.
You see, I do not really believe in a golden age of "classical liberalism" before Liberalism went bad. I believe that it was always bad; and that alot of good men accepted Liberalism but could not pursue it to its full flower -- precisely because they were good men.
The Left of today has just taken more of the poison.
That much of the Right has absorbed a considerable dose of this stuff only demonstrates how valid Bowman's "we" is.
______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
"Classical liberals" and Conservatives have much in common to work toward politically, but we're not the same, no.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
But that was peripheral to my main point (AFAIK). My contention is that Bowman describes the left just fine, but I don't think the legitimate conservative right (not the big-tent Republican party, which is decidedly centrist) falls into that case of driving politics by feel-good narcissism.
I'd be interested in your thoughts on that.
I'd also be interested in another thing I've been meaning to ask you. I hear that you don't actually possess a Blam-Stick™ (yet). But isn't it true that BrooksRob kind of fell off the map, right about the same time you achieved editor status? Curious, methinks. Hmmmm, grassy knoll, triangulation, second shooter, receipts, disguises, aliases, sheep-dipping -- I don't know, I just see conspiracy theory all over that one....
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
Liberals believed almost exactly what most conservative believe in today, at least in regards to fiscal and national security.
Low taxes, an end to tariffs, greater participation by the people and a distrust of "elites" and centralized government.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
The policy prescription of the moment is all you're focused on. I care about the thoughts, and how one gets to those conclusions.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
what I am saying is the definition changed over time not the people or their views. We just swapped names.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
And once we started peeling back more and more of government, we'd be split again.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
If our thoughts are the same as even the best among the old classical Liberals, we need to rethinks things.
Look, even J. S. Mill said things that sound today like the strictest small-government conservatism -- that anyone who derives his income from the state should be stripped of his vote, for instance. He was nevertheless a Liberal, and among of the greatest of them. As James Burnham argued, he hated the state of his time because it was a traditional state. In philosophy he was a radical of the first order, whose moral teaching entailed the overthrow of the Christian system of the West.
_____________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
Look, even J. S. Mill said things that sound today like the strictest small-government conservatism -- that anyone who derives his income from the state should be stripped of his vote, for instance. He was nevertheless a Liberal, and among of the greatest of them.
Paul Cella is correct. The confusion is caused by the fact that not only the definition of "liberal" has changed over teh years, but also the definition of "conservative." Freedom from government restriction is not a "conservative" policy in the classic sense. This is not to say that conservatives will never support small government initiatives on principled conservative grounds; only that classic conservatives do not view restricted government as an end in and of itself.
I say the above, by the bye, regarding myself as a classic liberal. I also believe that Paul's brand of paleoconservatism has been largely overcome by history -- and has unwillingly absorbed so many classic liberal ideas that it is little more than a tray of cafeteria. But these are old arguments ....
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
anyone's ever called me a paleconservative, but I do believe I know a classical Liberal trope when I see one: and the appeal to the verdict of history is one of the oldest.
But of course our standard is not History but truth, and in that Conservatism comes nearer to the mark than Liberalism.
_______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
of course our standard is not History but truth, and in that Conservatism comes nearer to the mark than Liberalism.
Obviously. If history doesn't support your view, then "truth" must.
anyone's ever called me a pale[o]conservative, but I do believe I know a classical Liberal trope when I see one: and the appeal to the verdict of history is one of the oldest.
Ahh, I see. You despise JS Mills to such an extent that you, of course, naturally align yourself with his political opponents: Those who opposed giving the vote to women, supported slavery (or, at least, turning a blind eye to the practice), and opposed proportional representation.
I have no dispute that utilitarianism is an incomplete theory in many respects, or that JS Mills (and other classic liberals) erred in others. But you can't deny the influence -- much of it positive -- that they had on your conception of conservatism. They won their battles with the conservatives of their day, and the world is better for it.
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
with his philosophical opponents, von. Like this one. I admitted upthread that on many specific policy questions, Mill judged rightly.
I certainly do not deny his influence.
_____________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
Stephens did not oppose utilitarianism per se; he opposed JS Mill's reformulation of it. Stephens argued for utilitarianism in the mode of Benthem.
Or, put it this way: if Mills = Democratic party,* Stephens = DLC. You're not siding with the "conservatives" of the day.
*An equation with which I do not agree, but make purely for the purposes of comparison
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
Seems to me we've been talking past each other somewhat. So, abandoning the discussion about Liberalism/liberalism for now, because I'll have to read your and Bowman's material again with this in mind.
So leaving that aside, what about what I've been saying about the right vs left? I believe that the actions and positions of the American conservatives, as I've tried to illustrate up-thread, are grounded in results-oriented (i.e., realistic) policies, and not in the namby-pamby platitude-based, feel-good nonsense espoused by the American left.
To repeat some, the left creates a welfare state, the right tears it down (amid the howling and accusations by the left and media). The left wants to pull us out of Iraq (the 'easy' solution -- quagmire, we're the bad guys, liars, the terrorists can't be defeated, we're creating more terrorism, etc), while the right recognizes that there's no ideal solution, but bearing down and fighting harder seems seems the more effective road (once again, amid howling and accusations from the left and media).
Further examples are numerous -- the Social Security thing, domestic oil production & refining, the anti-smoking Nazi movement, the AGW scam, and so on. In each case, the left uses bumper-sticker feel-good sentimentality to enact an over-bearing, freedom-stealing agenda. The right takes the road that involves finding what works, and erring on the side of human freedom.
My overall point is that I don't believe Bowman describes American conservatism. The GOP, sure. But not conservatism. I don't see ANY truly conservative cause that is driven by that feel-good utopia nonsense.
So, am I right, wrong, or once again misunderstanding the terms?
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
I believe that on many points of specific controversy, policy issues and debates, Conservatives mainly defend sensible positions; certainly far more sensible than those on the Left.
But Bowman and I are talking about something deeper, which is why he focuses not on politics but culture, and why I focus not on politics but political philosophy.
At these deeper levels of analysis, the picture is, I fear, much grimmer. Not to put too fine a point on it, but Conservatives are absorbing Liberalism at rapid rate.
Look at the rhetoric of the President. Even his best speeches ooze with Liberalism. In his second inaugural address he actually said our "ultimate goal" is "ending tyranny in our world." Utopianism through and through. There was little more than a murmur from his allies on the Right.
It is probable that Republicans will nominate a man whose personal life makes Bill Clinton look clean, thus annihilating whatever is left of the Party's credibility on personal virtue, and Conservatives are by and large reconciled to this. It is said in this man's favor that he is "good on the war," but on the question of whether the threat from Islam will be discussed openly, and really confronted, he is curiously silent.
To my eyes the war in Iraq looks pretty utopian in its goals, while a careful resistance to the Jihad in domestic policy, immigration policy, and public diplomacy looks rather pedestrian and realistic.
Yet Conservatives are falling in droves for the candidate who favors the utopian war over the realistic one.
Bowman's "we" is in my view justified. But all is not lost. We need to extricate ourselves from this mess, realize what we are about, that it is not Liberalism, and recommit ourselves to the defense of our country.
_______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
They pretend to live by the lyrics of the song Imagine and if everyone just believed like them everything would be great.
On the other hand if the real world tries to shatter their little imaginary world with things like people wanting to kill you just because you are free to live your own life, well that is just ignored. What the Lennonist will not ignor is you taking action to deal with the real world because it just isn't in the song so it must be the wrong thing to do.
Who doesn't want utopia? Today's libs just don't want to do the work to get there. They prefer cliff's notes shortcuts. Liberal elites believe they must tell the rest of us what to do for our own good. Others are just plain power hungry and will say/do almost anything to use liberalism/socialism as a vehicle to get it.
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
I'm not interested in utopia, not least because of the obvious question. Whose utopia?
I think the salient point from the article is the sanctification of good intentions. I can't find a reference, but didn't Charles Dickens write about his distaste for those at home who would spend their time on charity abroad that dealt in good feelings rather than charity at home that could have real results? Of course, he also gave us the phrase "Charity begins at home, and justice begins next door."
The enthronement of good intentions or, even worse, deep down tasty warm good feelings, is part and parcel of the modern left's philosophical basis. Take the issue of crime. Who doesn't see that the inordinate attention given to the criminal's rights (as opposed to serving justice) and the aversion to punishment (as opposed to "rehabilitation") is based in large part on the belief that, deep-down, the criminal doesn't really want to be bad.
Why are celebrity charities so popular with the left? Especially when the results will be obscured by distance, time, and red-tape? Live Eight, anyone? And who better to make you feel you've done something special than a bunch of beautiful smiling celebrities and scowling, brooding musicians?
Who can't see the elevation of good intentions to ultimate ideal in the left's unimaginably tiresome efforts toward "raising awareness" of this or that issue. As if awareness is an end unto itself. When I see a smug awareness bumper sticker I fume. Why feel so satisfied for performing what is essentially the same job as a poster or other inanimate object? You spread AIDS awareness? Good job! So does infecting people with AIDS, but that's not a good thing.
"Imagine all the people," they say. For you see, that is all that is required of you.
absentee
When I say utopia it is my more conservative definition of what I want. Not the common reference to a left wing utopia.
I agree that lib utopians are more interested in excusing themeselves of responsibility. They are motivated by dealing with their guilt of being priviledged in some way. They do not place value on actually accomplishing anything.
Look at Ted Kennedy. He is haunted and motivated by his guilt. He thinks he has become immune to it but he is not. He is a cesspool of guilt and anger which drives his behavior.
John Edwards feels guilty about being rich so his pet project is two america's so he "feels" better. If he was really interested in in helping people he'd make other choices.
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
I reject progressivism with everything I've got.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Bowman, in the essay, quotes a cultural artifact, a catalogue for a Modernism art exhibit: “Utopia comes from the Greek, and suggests two neologisms simultaneously: outopia, meaning no place, and eutopia, meaning a good place.”
He comments: "In other words, No Place becomes Some Place because it is a pun in Greek."
I don't want utopia for the simple reason that it is perfectly impossible, and a politics aiming at the impossible will end in ruin, bewilderment and despair.
_______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
Today's "liberals" aren't liberals in the nineteenth century sense. Nor are they liberals in the twentieth century "save capitalism through a third way" sense. They are leftists, in the late twentieth century postmodern sense, who have no use for the "United" States' imperialistic spread of "democracy" (scare quotes intended for anyone who has ever trudged through postmodern tracts).
http://www.myelectionanalysis.com