To this point, this blog has been reviewing the work of Jonah
Goldberg. He has offered a foundational
construct – a view of how and why governments exist and why liberalist
government emerged and has been maintained since the 1700s. The following quote summarizes a lot of what
he is trying to get his readers to understand:
“When we fail to properly civilize people, human nature rushes in. Absent a higher alternative, human nature
drives us to make sense of the world on its own instinctual terms: That’s tribalism.”[1]
Proof? Look at those urban youths that find
themselves in struggling families – both economically and socially – and are attracted
to join a street gang. The sense of
belonging these arrangements offer the young person goes a long way toward
explaining other attractions, that of the Klan or the Mafia. These are all forms of tribes.
Instead, to avoid such membership, the
young person needs to be taught to seek that sense of belonging in those groups
that further the common interest (the family, the workplace, the school, and possibly
the church – assuming the religion involved has a pro-civic theology) to
counter this attraction. Of course,
these institutions need to be operating in such a way that they advance this
sense of belonging – they need to project a federated relationship among their
members.
Goldberg
points out Benjamin Franklin’s observation that those colonists who were abducted
by indigenous tribes at a young age and “went native,” would likely refuse to
leave the tribal life for the more “European” lifestyle when the opportunity
was offered. Why? The speculation is that the native life more
completely satisfied this human yearning – the interpersonal relationships that
characterized the indigenous tribes.
Obviously, humans have an innate need to have the relationships that add
meaning to their lives. Tribal life does
that.
But tribes
have limited resources. And the
resources are not only those having to do with environmentally based assets –
such as minerals – but human resources in terms of talents, knowledge,
dispositions, sensitivities, experiences, motivations, and other assets. Goldberg understands the lure of the tribe
but points out its limitations. That is
why the Miracle – the economic advancement liberal governance has made possible
– had to oppose the tribal option.
Liberal democracy, though, through its
mechanisms provides one an understanding of these limitations. It encourages inclusion beyond the tribe. This writer believes – and this is central to
his criticism of Goldberg – that liberalism, on its own, does not provide the
substantive narrative countering the alienating sense it ignores in its
explanations. That is, Goldberg might
point this out, but the purely liberal construct does not.
While liberal writers, such as Adam
Smith, point out the need for community, the theory itself ignores it and
provides nothing to establish, maintain, or advance it. Apparently, scholars have pointed out, for
example, how incongruent Smith’s two major works are – they are incongruent on
this very notion.
These scholars refer to Smith’s two
major works: An Inquiry into the
Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations – the work more based on
egoistic motivations of humans – and The Theory of Moral Sentiments –
the work that points out the need for humans to be sensitive to the needs of all,
both rich and poor. This was called the “Adam
Smith Problem.” [2]
Generally, the judgement here is: natural rights literature ignores the need to
express benevolence and emphasizes the egoistic interests of the individual.
What one sees when socialization toward
liberal democracy is wanting, people seek the tribal relationships that often
exist to address the alienation the individual is likely to feel. For example, the attraction of gang life
demonstrates the emotional bent the young harbor that lead to membership in
these ultimately anti-communal groupings.
What Goldberg points out is the naturalness involved when such a move or
decision to join a gang takes place. The
young person is merely seeking those intimate relationships.
He also names
the set of emotions that leads to such strivings: romanticism.
Goldberg describes his use of this term:
The core of romanticism, for Rousseau
and those who followed, is the primacy of feelings. Specifically, the feeling that the world we
live in is not right, that it is unsatisfying and devoid of authenticity and
meaning (or simply requires too much of us and there must be an easier
way). Secondarily, because our feelings
tell us that the world is out of balance, rigged, artificial, unfair, or – most
often – oppressive and exploitative, our natural wiring drives us to the belief
that someone must be responsible.
The evil string pullers take different forms depending on the flavor of
tribalism. But the most common
include: the Jews, the capitalists, and
– these days on the right – the globalists and cultural Marxist.[3]
Romanticism fills in in what liberal democracy tends to
ignore. Democratic capitalism, that
construct’s “off-spring,” does not provide meaning beyond the motive to gain
profit, yet humans seem to need meaning – a meaning anchored in human
relationships. Without such meaning and
left with a view one can basically seek one’s self-defined interests, many, if
not most, will seek those interests by means that counter the common good.
That is, reaction to liberal
democracy is reactionary. Emotional,
romantic movements are against liberal democratic rule and rely on sentimental
corruptions – as in decay, putrefaction, rot – that strives to return to more
natural modes of thinking and feeling.
Romanticism fights against inclusion among the peoples of the
earth. Why? Because such inclusion is emotionally
offensive to humans’ natural bias against those who don’t belong to one’s
tribe.
Goldberg writes:
The Miracle ushered in a philosophy
that says each person is to be judged and respected on account of their [sic] own
merits, not the class or caste of their ancestors. Identity politics says each group is an
immutable category, a permanent tribe.
Worse, it works from the assumption that what benefits one group must
come at the expense of another.[4]
In one way or another – some being very imaginative – liberal
democracy repudiates this basic view.
There are those, in the academic world, who focus on alleged oppression. Goldberg cites Howard Zinn’s work, People
History of the United States. It
makes the case that US economic policy has been a series of exploitive actions. This blog has identified this view as the
critical theory construct.
That strain of
argument can be classified as extreme leftism.
But there is also extreme rightist arguments; this being in the forms of
populism and nationalism. Both the
extreme right or left magnify the incidence of ingratitude for the accomplishments
of the Miracle. Goldberg claims that
both are at best based on half truths or pure fiction. Despite that, these intellectual denizens
have become very popular and are dominant in certain circles including academic
social studies.
This writer –
a critic of Goldberg – highly recommends his cited work. He ends his introductory chapter to that work
with the analogy of the fable of the golden egg, the Miracle, and with a scene
from The Godfather. Highly
entertaining and apropos. The next
posting will pick up on this theme and continue this report of Goldberg’s
foundational construct. That posting
will be this writer’s critique.
[1] Jonah Goldberg, Suicide
of the West: How the Rebirth of
Tribalism, Populism, Nationalism, and Identity Politics Is Destroying American
Democracy (New York, NY: Crown
Forum, 2018), 12 (Kindle edition).
[2] See “Adam Smith (1723-1790),” Internet
Encyclopedia of Philosophy, n. d., accessed June 10, 2019, https://www.iep.utm.edu/smith/ .
[3] Jonah Goldberg, Suicide
of the West: How the Rebirth of
Tribalism, Populism, Nationalism, and Identity Politics Is Destroying American
Democracy, 13 (Kindle edition, emphasis in the original).
[4] Ibid., 16.
No comments:
Post a Comment