Skip to main content

Royalty in Drag

Positive Liberty and 'The Return of the King' Victor Davis Hanson writes about Europe in The National Review today:

Our cousins abroad cannot figure out why a crass nation of former European rejects, led by a cowboy from Texas, is wealthier, stronger, and more willing to sacrifice for principle than a more venerated, cultured, and aristocratic civilization. Europe, it turns out, worships class and privilege in the flesh while it damns them in the abstract...

All this was known to our ancestors, chronicled in our literature, enshrined in our popular memory, and carefully noted by our diplomats from Jefferson and Lincoln to Roosevelt and Wilson. Yet the half-century aberration of the Cold War disguised our differences and lured us into collective amnesia. Unlike World War I, after World War II we wisely stayed on to prevent another conflagration. Yet having a common enemy in the Soviet Union misled some of us into thinking that an identical Europe and American would always see eye to eye, when we never really had — despite our cultural and democratic affinities. And now we have come to the end of the Age of Exception, a sobriety brought on by the fall of the Berlin Wall and the stark aftermath of September 11, which scrapped off the thin veneer and revealed particle board, not oak, beneath.

After 9-11, when this rift, which had been quietly simmering along ever since the U.S.S.R. went ka-blewy, Europe's march to a different drummer has been hard to ignore. As time has worn on, I have come to realize that my view of the relationship was skewed by having come of age during the Cold War, when the differences were papered over. Reading books about Europe prior to World War One was a great help. I can think of two off the top that I would recommend to anyone with an interest. The first is 1919, by Margaret MacMillan and the other is The Proud Tower by Barbara Tuchman (Tuchman also wrote The Guns of August, a widely acclaimed book on the gripping first months of the Great War, before it bogged down into trench warfare). Our geopolitical atmosphere is remarkably like the one described in 1919: old empires crumbling or destroyed and the solutions being proposed too idealistic to succeed for long, such as the U.N. and the E.U. We also have new threats go unrecognized by too many. Then it was Austria-Hungary that went into the history books, and the USSR that went unrecognized as an emerging threat. Then as now, there are some who understand the threat of "planning" and are thought cranks for their trouble. The weak little countries carved out of Austria-Hungary were no match for the Germans or the Russians. It strikes me as a very interesting thought experiment to wonder how different the twentieth century might have been if Austria-Hungary had been united during WWII. Would it have allied with Germany again? Could it have held together and liberalized? It was a much more diverse place than Germany so it's hard to see how Hitler's race theories could have had wide appeal. It's hard to say, however; I don't consider myself well versed in the subject. There was another empire that ended in 1919 and that was the Ottoman and the impact of that is still being felt. We're dealing with it in Iraq still, and also in places like Lebanon and Israel. The rogue ideology of the day is Islamism and, like Communism in the early part of the twentieth century, there are many who refuse to see it as a threat. They appear to think it can be used as if it were a scalpel they could manipulate to scrape the barnacles off of liberal capitalism and then simply put away. Then, as now, it is the displaced nobles and those who identify with them who think this way. Then, as now, they are those who feel the current system does not adequately recognize their real worth. This is a real problem, however, in a period of widespread decision making - democratic government and relatively free markets. How does one make an appeal to being the "proper" aristocracy in such a situation? Since you can't use the old words and the old images, the new ones will simply have to be perverted. So we come to positive liberty in Europe and negative liberty in America, and, unless one is aware of these ideas, it is almost impossible to talk about the subject of liberty with an educated European. We are only talking about the same thing by way of an illusion. With positive liberty, an elite is needed to "create the conditions" for liberty of the helpless masses. It is a terrible burden, but it must be done, goes the thinking. In this way the snobs are able to lay claim to the throne and do it in modern garb. Meanwhile, those who fled the snobs in an effort to get away from their meddling can't understand why the rest of Europe goes along with it. To our eyes they have sold their freedom for the illusion of safety through "third way" socialism. Third way socialism does have a toehold on this continent - in the blue states of the last American election and in Canada, especially in la belle province. For the last fifty years it could be fairly said that Canada stood halfway between Europe and the U.S. on this issue, but the last five years have seen a remarkable turn away from traditional Anglo American positive liberty and towards the creation of a Frankish elite based in Quebec and Ottawa. A good chunk of Ontarians appear to have decided that this is the "way of the future," which is a phrase with a very bad history. Maybe this isn't true. Maybe our new course can be laid at the hands of a fractured opposition that ran at least one terrible candidate (Stockwell Day) and forfeited an opportunity to put an end to a Liberal reign that clearly ought to be in its death pangs. It is throwing money around like a drunk and dreaming up every larger schemes with which to "liberate" us with, confident that we will never deign to wag our finger and say enough. We have never had our Reagan or our Thatcher to dispel the phony virtues of the positive liberty, or the phony virtues of those who feel they must stoop so that we can have even that. People come to Canada in order to be free, however, not in order to have a fast food version of it put on a plate and handed to them. If they were content with that approach, they needn't have come here at all. After all, that sort of "freedom" has a long and widespread history. It can end with an armed gang hoarding food. We're a long way from that, but we really ought not to think that it isn't possible. Not if we are historically aware and think in much longer terms that we currently tend to. Tip to The Tiger in Winter for that last link. A curriculum like that would help turn the ship around.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reuters joins CNN on the bench

Makes room for CanWest to join the majors Kudos to CanWest for calling a terrorist a terrorist . Many, including The Last Amazon , will be happy to hear it. Reuters is among the worst of the major western news services, where I would also place the BBC and the CBC. Unsurprisingly, Reuters is not happy about the changes CanWest made to Reuters wire stories: Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline." Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations. "My goal is to protect

Where credit is due

A good'un from Sawyer Brown . Thank God for You Well I've been called a self-made man Girl don't you believe it's true I know exactly how lucky I am When I'm gettin' this close to you It's high time I'm giving some praise To those that got me where I am today Chorus I got to thank momma for the cookin' Daddy for the whuppin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you A strong heart and a willing hand That's the secret to my success A good woman - I try to be a good man A good job - Lord I know I've been blessed I'm just a part of a greater plan It doesn't matter which part I am Chorus I got to thank momma for the teachin' Daddy for the preachin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you

A very limited form of inquiry

Real Clear Politics is carrying commentary on James Q. Wilson's WSJ article on ID (got that?). Wilson, the respected social scientist, gets it mostly right when he says that ID is not science because it can't be tested: So ID is not science. Does this mean that science, in any way, implies the non-existence of God? No. Does this mean that belief in God is irrational and that we should all be "free thinkers"? No. Does this mean that it is impossible to arbitrate between various theories of the existence/non-existence of God and come to some reasonable conclusions? No. Does this mean that we cannot say that humanity is meant to exist? No. In other words, rationality outside of science is quite possible, and has been around for a long time. How do you think humanity invented science in the first place? We surely did not do it scientifically. Science as we know it is the product of millennia of philosophical debate -- from Aristotle to Lakatos. Science depends upon phi