Sunday, January 08, 2006

Europe and Victor Davis Hansen

Victor Davis Hansen's "Letter to the Europeans" was a bit over the top but I think the response to it here has been so as well. First, I think everyone here needs to read the piece a bit more closely. It seems like you are missing some of what he is actually saying because you want to portray him as a right wing ideologue. That's fine if this is DailyKOS or Atrios, but if we are to provide a "ruthless interrogation of narratives" it is improper. If you want to disagree with conservatism (actually, liberalism in this case) then you need to interrogate it correctly.

Second, if you look at what anti-Americanism means to American intellectuals, it helps explain why conservative intellectuals are always so pissed and dramatic at it.

Reading Closely
Because, in your portrayal of it, the comment on Africa is the most ridiculous I would like to begin with it. The fact that Hansen is a respected scholar despite unpopular political views might tell you something: the guy is smart. Therefore, it would be sensible to read his essays closely; even if this means dealing with the "cry, the beloved" phrase a few more times (which I agree is lame). If you look above, to the beginning of his rejoinder against anticipated European replies, he says the following:

But the choices are not so starkly bipolar between either chauvinistic saber rattling or studied pacifism. There is a third way, the promise of muscular democratic government that does not apologize for 2,500 years of civilization and is willing to defend it from the enemies of liberalism, who would undo all that we wrought.


This is the "promise" that Hansen is referring to when he talks about the threat from Africa. Let us reanalyze that statement, now that we have made this discovery. How could "famine and savagery in Africa" threaten this promise?
Quite easily, it turns out. Who are the enemies of liberalism? Perhaps those who committed atrocities in: Sudan. Somalia. Liberia. Libya. Rwanda. Those are off the top of my head. Scantron, I know you believe that you are a liberal (believer in liberalism). Liberalism is the doctrine that says that human beings have rights, or should have rights. Aren't those who violate these rights in the most basic way not only the enemies of liberalism itself, but... your enemies? They are the enemies of human kind. They should be killed or stopped.

For the sake of argument, let's forget any notion that we had about liberalism meaning freedom for all people, and forget that in a long term view failed states are breeding ground for terrorism. What threat is posed to us by Africa? Well, that depends. Do you want to feed the Africans who are starving all the time? That's what we tried to do in Somalia. It didn't work out well. Ok. Let's not do anything, but we'll keep embassies there just in case shit gets better or something. Oops, we had two embassies bombed there already.... from Wikipedia: "more than 220 people were killed and over 4,000 wounded in simultaneous [1] car bomb explosions at the United States embassies in the East African capital cities of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya". Furthermore:

Twelve of the 22 individuals on the FBI's 'Most Wanted Terrorist" list released by the White House on Wednesday are from African nations.
Seven of the men are Egyptian, three more come, respectively, from Libya, Zanzibar and the Comoro Islands, while two more come from Kenya.... from AllAfrica


There is a significant threat to everyone, Africans, Europeans, Asians and Americans alike from Africa. I'm not going to get into the comments, but I find the quick pile on remarkably similar to the mob politics thing I wrote about earlier.

Anti-Semitism

Beginning in 2000, verbal attacks directed against Jews increased while incidents of vandalism (e.g. graffiti, fire bombings of Jewish schools, desecration of synagogues and cemeteries) surged. Physical assaults including beatings, stabbings and other violence against Jews in Europe increased markedly, in a number of cases resulting in serious injury and even death. From the State Department.

There is fucked up shit going on. Hansen isn't talking about Anti-Zionism, and calling it anti-Semitism. Where have the most Jews died, historically? Europe. And the continent, not merely individual countries, still has a problem with this. I make Jewish jokes all the time. I shouldn't, but we've reached a point where they are actually funny (for most people) in America. This is not the case in Europe. I met my first Nazi there. Another kid, who was completely liberal and of course anti-war, a German, mentioned something mocking about "very nice people who were Jews" that he had met in America. Europe has a serious problem here and doesn't seem to admit it. Many of the non-white people I met in Germany used to talk about how they wouldn't go to East Germany because of the Skinheads there. I never saw skinheads. But if I were Jewish I don't think I would go there. That is a problem.

The Beloved Continent
Jews don't have the ability to travel safely in Europe. This, the continent that is allegedly the safest and most civilized. The last part is that which throws conservative intellectuals into such a fury. We owe Europe, big time. Not in terms of money, but because it created the intellectual tradition that allowed us to found our country. But conservative intellectuals believe that Europe has thrown away that intellectual tradition. And it has, to an extent. Europeans government has nothing to do with liberalism. Free speech, but you can't say anything about Nazism or perhaps, soon, Islam. Private property, but it's taxed up your ass. Independence from the government? Forget it. You need your unemployment check. Liberalism does not and cannot exist in pure form. But it certainly does not exist in Europe.
The worst part about this for conservative intellectuals, I think, is that left-wing intellectuals in the United States cite Europe's commitment to statism and corporatism as showing that this is "modern". It really isn't. It's the same old compromise between different classes that has been going on for thousands of years. But, because Europe is Europe, everything takes on a new shiny edge.
This brings me to my last point. Europe really has lost the goodwill of a certain majority of Americans. Certainly not the target audience of one of Hansen's academic works, but perhaps those who sometimes read the newspaper at Wendy's if it's sitting around. But that doesn't matter to the part of America that Hansen probably has to go to cocktail parties with. Because Europe will always, always, always be cited as the civilized and modern "other" among the liberal intellectual elite. Thus Hansen's letter is not really to Europe. It's to the Americans who cite Europe as embodying civilization. The truth is that it doesn't. It's a pretty fucked up place, just like America.




PS: I know this sounds aggressive/hostile. That leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth. But it's worth it, I think, because we should preserve this place as one where people address others on what they are actually writing. If Stalin says something that you don't like, hit him as hard as you want, but hit Stalin and not a straw man. Otherwise you're just trying to score points.

6 Comments:

Blogger Robot said...

"Jews don't have the ability to travel safely in Europe."
First, let's not just ignore the general ridiculousness that Sheriff pointed out of an author writing an "open letter to Europe." When one goes to Europe one inevitably finds it to be a diverse place. True, most countries have adopted some kind of cradle-to-the-grave welfare system. True, most countries (their governments and their populace) have adopted anti-American views in the past five years. But let's be frank. When people talk about the "rise of Anti-semitism in Europe" they're full of shit. They're the kind of people who begin an essay with, "It is common knowledge that anti-Semitism in Western Europe has been on the rise for the last five years" and then go on for the next ten pages to talk about some hostilities against Israel in the Western European press -- as Emanuele Ottolenghi did in his December 2005 piece in Commentary. As for the State Department report, I am rather unpersuaded. Stating that "Jewish leaders, academics, and others believe that a newer, nontraditional form of anti-Semitism is emerging in the country" and then listing several reported incidents of anti-semitism do not convince me that anti-semitism is on the rise in Germany. [What about a report on the U.S., meanwhile? Does not Big C's actions towards me reveal a blatant anti-semtisism impossible to imagine before 9/11?] But this is really besides the point. I've been to Europe on many occasions and never once experienced anti-semitism, and I truly find it disgusting to continue to "talk" to "Europe" about the Holocaust. Because Hansen's doing something far worse than just talking. Example: "the Holocaust would have gone on unabated hours from Paris and Berlin without the leadership of United States, and in this era of the Chirac/Schroeder ingratitude the American public would never sanction such help to you again"? Is he suggesting that Europe might be tempted to head down that dark genetically encoded road of Holocaustism? Is there a reason he's linking the attitude of the rather inconsequential Jacque Chirac with the American people's willingness to stop genoice and fascism? This kind of over-the-topness (which you acknowledge) is just dangerous.

"European government has nothing to do with liberalism."
I will take this to be hyperbole and so will debate you only on the specifics.
1. In terms of free speech, my understanding is that a few countries with close ties to Nazism (Germany and Austria) have certain hate crime laws which prohibit certain acts such as denying the Holocaust. If you think the right to deny the Holocaust is critical to liberalism, then I would like to know why. If I am missing something about these laws, then tell me. It was in this country that the muslim scholar Ali al-Timini was given a life sentence for his so-called free speech (urging his followers to join the Taliban). How will "European" laws against "Islam" be any different?
2. As for private property I for one am uncomfortable with the idea of an arbitrator who defines "up the ass." Private property is private property, and is there really a line that becomes crossed between acceptable taxation (liberalism) and unacceptably high taxation (not liberalism)? Isn't this a debate within liberalism rather than one between liberalism and something else?

I think with these debates on Europe it's important to forge some kind of middle-ground. One needs to acknowledge the bad (high unemployment, stagnant economies, ethnic conflicts, oil-for-food, market-based torture in Slovakia) and the good (free universal healthcare, long-ass vacations, a second-opinion on U.S. foreign policy, etc.). So "Europe" decided after WWII to devest in military spending and try something else. But the "welfare state" is not a total failure, just as the U.S. imperial state is not a total success. These are experimental states, subject to constant revision and, hopefully, progress. I think by and large progress is the name of the game here. I don't see Europe descending back to its primitive genocidalism, or to an even more fervent anti-Americanism. If anything, the events of the past couple of years (London bombings, Van Gogh, Paris riots, Merkel election) will likely force them to see more eye to eye with the U.S. on both domestic and foreign policy matters. The continent is already coming around to accept not that Bush was right, but that Blair was right, and that sticking with the U.S. is more or less the way to go on most matters of state.

2:57 AM  
Blogger shrf said...

Just as a quick aside, I think there's a small fallacy being committed here when we compare Europe to America. Its not as if they're Land Masses A and B, there's alot of historical circumstance here that's led to much of Europe's differences with America, and America's good fortune and seeming prosperity. How quick would the American public/system collapse when faced with the weight of history and geography that Europe is? Would it really fare any better? That's the aside though.

In any case, I think one of the worst things here is the creeping teleology of liberalism that I'm seeing here--I won't get into the rhetorical silliness of the 'muscular democracy' paragraph, but the notion of a bullwark defending "2,500 years of civilization" as some homogeneous entity, some gigantic fabrige egg being clawed at by dirty Muslims and the like is really absurd.

With regard to the enemies of this gilded liberalism, I hate to be a seething mob member, but I think that the ressentiment (I stand by this spelling) potential of Africa and others is a signal that should not be so callously ignored or a project put off for some vacuous future ("well clearly it will get better"). Is liberalism's response then merely to kill, silence, or otherwise extinguish these various upwellings of violence and the like with simple counter violence? On the one hand, this is simple domination, and hipocritical in its desire to control the other. I'm not in any way justifying these types of extremist ideologies and the violence perpetuated by them, but at the same time I would like to reiterate the fact that ideology does not burst forth from the head of Osama Bin Laden, driving a van full of explosives. Liberalism and market capitalism is clearly failing for these people, and the grand attempts to control and manipulate have come to no avail and only redoubled the hatred for this kind of objectification and callousness. The liberal says "bring me your ideas, and as long as they fit into my liberal scheme, I'll listen. If they don't, you'll be ignored, and if you act up, you'll be put down" Where in the logic of human rights is there any actual respect for humanity? Is it merely just freedom from torture so that I can someday join the market? Its not neccessarily the case, but seemingly coincidental, that our humanitarian interventions coincide with particular economic interests or a desire for "stability" (what better for a good market than stability?). Even disregarding this last point- I don't want to develop a conspiracy theory- our 'human rights' express themselves as merely an extension of a desire to control and dominate the other, carte blanche for interventionist policies and the establishment states friendlier to our dealings.

Ultimately, I am no apologist for destructive and divisive ideologies like fundamentalism and anti-semitism. However, we must on the one hand look at how these things are not merely abberrations in an otherwise perfect system, but in many ways the expressions of real structural problems within our system. And on the other, it is important to note that there are ready means of criticizing atrocity and hate in favor of equality that lie outside the bounds of liberalism. Experimentation needs to still be a putative option, even if it dwindles as a seeming possibility. After all, even if there are 2500 years of Western civilization, how many years of liberalism have there been? I do not think that we're living now in the ends of history, and even if we are the continuing suffering on a scale more vulgar than ever before leads me to believe that history need be kickstarted, by going backwards if neccessary. Liberalism is as historical as anything else, it a creation of man and not God, and as such I see no need to grant it divinity.

3:49 AM  
Blogger Austin 5-000 said...

Sheriff-
One, no one compared Europe and the United States. I see no implicit comparison.
Two, I don't think anyone said that Fundamentalist Muslims were the only enemy of liberalism. In fact, it is obvious that Hansen believes that Europe is acting like an enemy to liberalism.
Three, on this sentence: "Liberalism and market capitalism is clearly failing for these people, and the grand attempts to control and manipulate have come to no avail and only redoubled the hatred for this kind of objectification and callousness". A country with security concerns like those in Africa, the Middle East, or Asia cannot, by definition, be a liberal state or a capitalist one. There is no protection of property rights or human rights. Therefore it is impossible that capitalism or liberalism could be failing there.
Four, I'm not sure that I can see how support of liberalism abroad violates any one's rights or somehow denigrates human beings. As a larger point, the utter lack of any fact about any country in your response here means that your post consists of mere ideology. At least try to support your arguments, this is ridiculous. I cannot address your assertions about our foreign policy because A) I don't understand what you're saying, and B) You don't ground them in reality. Make an effort.
Five, on this sentence: "However, we must on the one hand look at how these things are not merely abberrations in an otherwise perfect system, but in many ways the expressions of real structural problems within our system". Why? Explain, with examples.
Six: "I do not think that we're living now in the ends of history, and even if we are the continuing suffering on a scale more vulgar than ever before leads me to believe that history need be kickstarted, by going backwards if neccessary". Compare this with your previous comment: "Fourth, and perhaps more seriously, the fact that "the world is becoming a more dangerous place despite..." is a damned stupid statement. This is roughly equivalent to saying that the environment is getting worse despite the fact that I'm planting trees. Now, the analogy isn't perfect, but I think it shows that he's nutters, or perhaps just a meany". Then ask yourself if you are being any more honest with us, your audience, then Hansen is. I can't help but come to the conclusion that you are writing merely to see your words on the page.
Seven, and last. No one is deifying liberalism. On the other hand it appears from all evidence to be the most beneficial ideology in existence. Marxism has done nothing when compared with liberalism.

My post was an attempt to actually look at the situation Hansen was discussing. One valid complaint about Hansen's piece is that it is overly rhetorical. But you cannot say that he isn't in touch with the material world. If you would include even one example of something that justifies your position that actually happened in the real world, it would make it easier to understand and easier to believe. I'm happy to debate whatever you want, but only if it has 1)a recommendation for actual actions that people should pursue and 2)some sort of basis in events that have occurred in the world.

8:45 PM  
Blogger shrf said...

One: I saw an implicit comparison. Eurocentricism amongst American intellectuals, An American's open letter to Europe, which is full of comparisons (where can Jews feel safe, etc.) and others...If those weren't comparisons explicit or implicit, fine, don't care, I shouldn't have said anything.

Two: Hyperbole

Three: Talking in the sense of liberal programs as they attempt to create those changes in those countries; military, diplomatic, economic interventions. My concern was with the actions of liberal capitalist states as they bear on the others.

Four: I didn't think I was writing on foreign policy, I was just talking in the abstract, If you don't like it or I shouldn't fine. I just thought this was where I could comment where and how I wanted to. Perhaps I didn't explain the statements that I did make, perhaps they're just bad. Ok. Fine. Another time then.

Fifth: I was simply stating that there should be effort put into the question whether these things are merely continual aberrations, or is there really a problem. I think its just something done in the course of analyzing any system in action: are its problems coincidental, or a result of the framework.

Sixth: The comment on the previous post was pretty hasty and tongue in cheek, so I'm not worried if a point I made there was wrong. The analogy was bad, as I thought, OK. I appreciate the personal attack though, thank you.

Seven: Clearly, nobody is really defying liberalism. I don't know what to think about it being the most beneficial ideology in existence, and that Marxism has brought nothing into this world comparatively. But if you've got all the evidence on your side, fine by me. I was saying that there should be attempts at experimentation with other systems or solutions, as we can never know that there's nothing better without this kind of work.

I was simply posting some thoughts which came to mind, I thought they were somewhat connected. If not fine. I know I wasn't posing any sort of foreign policy solutions, I was talking from a philosophical standpoint, thinking about how we think about these kind of issues. I wasn't writing a paper, or framing a fully-fledged argument, I was just commenting. I didn't realize that I couldn't have a discussion with you on those grounds.

2:05 AM  
Blogger Austin 5-000 said...

Sheriff-
You respond to a request for justification with "I was simply posting some thoughts which came to mind, I thought they were somewhat connected. If not fine". This is just laziness. No one is persecuting you, I am just asking you how your little ideas have anything to do with the real world. Instead of providing such justification, you whine about my demand. That's laziness and nihilism, and no, you cannot have a discussion with me on those grounds, especially when I put effort into getting empirical facts for my argument and you don't even both referring to those facts. If your attitude is truly one of "But if you've got all the evidence on your side, fine by me" then just shut up. That's ridiculous, childish and shouldn't be writtend down by someone as intelligent as you. The only personal attack I made was to ask if you could take writing more seriously. This does not count. Just explain how your theory is supported by the facts. Then explain what your theory tells us to do. When that's done, you can complain.

11:32 AM  
Blogger shrf said...

Sure, next time.

1:10 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home