TURN LEFT

Regular readers of this blog, this writer believes, can point out that the blog skirts or avoids expressing a political bias.  Oh, there are probably some who disagree, but its writer can honestly claim he has tried to avoid using this platform to support a set of candidates, office holders, or specific policy positions other than writer’s argument that civics should adopt a federalist bias and all that entails. 

Perhaps the blog’s language tends to lean a bit leftist – such as supporting governmental assistance to meet the needs of those faced with debilitating circumstances – but then again, federalism is basically a conservative outlook.  And its writer can cite that not so long ago, he, for the most part, positively utilized the ideas of a prominent conservative. 

Beginning with the post, “Excitement or Drudgery?”, posted on March 26, 2019, the ideas of the conservative, Jonah Goldberg,[1] were reviewed and will be revisited.  So, in the name of balancing the ledger, this posting will introduce its take on the ideas of Adam Gopnik, a noted liberal.[2]  Gopnik’s recently published work gives his readers a generous overview of what liberalism is. 

Here, the object is to review some of those ideas and comment on how they relate to federation theory and, in turn, how they can affect civics teachers in their efforts to provide lessons along federalist lines of thinking.

Early in his work, Gopnik comments on the contemporary political environment.  In that, he echoes much of what one hears in the media.  He points out the growth of nationalism.  What is that?  This blog writer, upon hearing that term, always recalls his efforts to describe this ideological position on the political spectrum during his teaching days.  Nationalism lies between conservatism and fascism on the right side of the spectrum. 

And he, this blogger, always quoted a belief that captures nationalism’s essence:  “my country, right or wrong, my country.”  This statement betrays an unhealthy sentiment.  A teacher, in utilizing this quote, attempts to distinguish nationalism from patriotism.  Both betray a love for a nation, but the latter can describe a healthy love and the former an unhealthy obsession usually reliant on an ethnic or racial foundation.

A teacher, in trying to explain this distinction to high schoolers, can have them think of dating and perhaps loving a boyfriend or girlfriend.  Does one just say, “right or wrong, my boy/girlfriend?”  Is that love or even liking someone?  Or is it a recipe for disaster?  Does this type of “love” or “allegiance” likely lead to some abuse, some taking advantage of when one party accepts whatever from the other?  

When one knows or strongly believes a person, a group, or a nation (usually through the authoritative power of the state) takes a “wrong” turn, what should that person do?  Comply or strongly object not only for the sake of him or herself, but for the benefit of the perceived culprit?  Short term advantages through unjust means, tend to be short lived.

This blog has, in many ways, pointed out that either counterproductive or immoral choices not only hurt some target, but tend to have a repercussive effect on the perpetrator.  Maybe not initially, but if the experience serves to instill a lesson – causing further encouragement to perpetrate further harmful acts – an eventual counterforce will not only make itself known but impart a reciprocal action that can result in harm to some or all involved.

When one, in his/her political acts – and that can include typical behaviors such as voting – is motivated by an unquestioning posture, as with nationalism, one is asking for it.  It easily falls to behaviors where actors act to advance an ideology or some personal interest since the believers are not disposed to hold accountable or even question dysfunctional – in terms of the common good – policies or actions.

Well, what does Gopnik claim?  Early in his book, by way of explaining why he wrote his book, he states,

Everywhere … patriotism is being replaced with nationalism, pluralism by tribalism, impersonal justice by the tyrannical whim of autocrats who think only to punish their enemies and reward their hitmen. … If in America the authoritarian nightmare has so far turned out to be more like Goodfellas than 1984 – well, as the fine film The Death of Stalin showed us Goodfellas in power was exactly what the evilest kind of authoritarianism could look like.[3]

Oh, that sounds ominous, but it points out, in its way, that what civics teachers do is important to the extent that they can conduct lessons that question such turns in the political environment.

While examples of Hitler and pre-World War II Germany tend to be exaggerated comparisons, this blogger can’t help thinking:  what were the lessons in the typical German social studies classrooms as fascism came to power?  Were they socialistic, liberal, conservative, or nationalistic?  Probably none of the above. 

One cannot divorce that nation’s history, during those years, from the fact that that nation was negatively affected by the extended effects of post-World War I realities.  Reminder:  Germany was harshly treated by the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles.  In addition, Germany, had just experienced an exaggerated inflationary period.  And, as well as most nations of the world, it was beginning to deal with the initial effects of a worldwide depression.  That was, not to be flippant, a double or triple whammy of major proportions.

          In that environment, more middle of the road beliefs, such as those ascribed to conservatism and liberalism, were under attack.  One can still see films depicting the clashes that socialists and fascists had on the streets of German cities.  As for their schools, this blogger assumes that what was promoted was a more traditional curriculum.  That is, it was one that upheld the vestiges of the old order, if not one of nobility, perhaps one that communicated to students that they had their place in the pecking order by some sort of divine will.

          This blogger’s general understanding is that there was an industrial working class that felt the brunt of the post-war years and a rural population that saw traditional modes of behavior being discarded.  An effective messenger with ulterior motives or political ones that promised to overturn a newly formed republic would be able to garner an audience and eventually obtain power.  One did. 

In terms of liberal language, the current concern in the US is over an ulterior motive.  The reference to Goodfellas is not so much an ideological one, but to a self-enriching aim.  And that aim is to be acquired through criminal activity.  At least, that seems to be how Gopnik introduces what liberalism today means.  It means that liberals are fundamentally opposed to such trends and they are apt to fight them.

          To get at what liberalism in contemporary times means, one needs to do a bit of etymological analysis of the term’s history over the past century or so.  And that is where this blog’s future effort will turn.  Again, the effort is not to sell liberalism, but to help teachers teach its meaning and its viability in current American politics.

---

[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).

[2] Adam Gopnik, A Thousand Small Sanities:  The Moral Adventures of Liberalism (New York, NY:  Basic, 2019).

[3] Ibid., 2-3 (Kindle edition, emphasis in the original).