The autumn of 1994 I spent at Messiah College, in Grantham, PA. My family were moving at the time, both the business and the residence, and it seemed better for me to be near to home at such a time. One of my three roommates that semester was a Korean who had been adopted by a Texas family, spoke with a bit of an accent, wore cowboy boots, and chewed tobacco. He was also greatly enamored of the foreign policy writings of George Kennan, considered one of the architects of the policy of containment. This fondness provided fodder for the occasional conversation, and my expression of reservations concerning the judgment of a man who came to perceive in the specific character of American opposition to communism and the Soviet Union a greater threat to the commonweal than the often dissembling anti-anticommunism. Kennan feared the release of the simplifying, reductive passions of a nationalism that would, far from grasping the profounder, historical, geopolitical, and yes, spiritual dimensions of the standoff, construe it as a confrontation of rival ideologies. The Cold War was not merely a matter of geopolitical wrangling and foreign policy; it was a test of national character.
This, in my youth - I was but twenty years old at the time - I did not perceive. I had not yet learned to discriminate between the various tendencies and strands of the American character, to winnow the noble from the base, the prescient from the purblind, the prudent from the foolhardy. And so I thought that anticommunism was anticommunism, and that the imperative thing was that one have opposed communism, that specter of a godless, totalitarian collectivism, stamping on a human face in the name of the future.
In retrospect, however, George Kennan was correct in his prophetic fears, if you will. The long 'twilight struggle' of the Cold War slowly and inexorably ideologized the American consciousness, and, what is more damning, American conservatism. What went awry? Consider the following, written in 1960:
No, the source of the poison of Communist totalitarianism is our era's social crisis as a whole, which has now spread to also to the colored peoples; it is the disintegration of the social structure and its spiritual and moral foundations. Communism thrives wherever the humus of a well-founded social order and true community has been removed by proletarianization, social erosion, and the disappearance of the bourgeois and peasant classes; it thrives where men, and intellectuals above all, have lost their roots and solidity and have been pried loose from the social fabric of the family, the succession of generations, neighborliness, and other true communities. Communism finds the most fertile soil of all wherever these processes of social disintegration are associated with religious decline, as first in China and now in the Moslem world and in Japan. (Do remember that these words were written in 1960.)
(All emphases mine.) Totalitarianism gains ground exactly to the extent that the human victims of this process of disintegration suffer from frustration and non-fulfillment of their life as a whole because they have lost the true, non-material conditions of human happiness. For this reason it is certain that the decisive battle between Communism and the free world will have to be fought, not so much on the field of material living conditions, where the victory of the West would be beyond doubt, but on the field of spiritual and moral values. Communism prospers more on empty souls than on empty stomachs. The free world will prevail only if it succeeds in filling the emptiness of the soul in its own manner and with its own values, and not with electric razors. What the free world has to set against Communism is not the cult of the standard of living and productivity or some contrary hysteria, ideology, or myth This would be borrowing Communism's own weapons. What we need is to bethink ourselves soberly of truth, freedom, justice, human dignity, and respect of human life and the ultimate values. For these we must set our course unerringly; we must cherish and strengthen the spiritual and moral foundations of these values and vital goods and try to create and preserve for mankind such forms of life as are appropriate to human nature and support and protect its conditions.
Wilhelm Ropke (sorry, my old computer doesn't do umlauts..) would go on to argue that material prosperity for the masses could not be the absolute standard of opposition to Communism, and that the heedless, reductive pursuit of this prosperity undermined the traditional forms of thought and life which alone could resist the crisis of the age. The Humane Economy, now nearing its fiftieth anniversary since first publication, remains eminently worth reading.
The post-Cold War period of American history evinces nothing so firmly as that America had unleashed those destructive, simplifying passions Kennan so feared, and that Ropke recognized as evasions of the deeper sources of the modern crisis. To the Communist juggernaut, America increasingly came to oppose, not something so subtle and profound as the truth of man's spiritual nature, ever in tension in the in-between of being, but just that cult of prosperity: the superior productivity and material comfort of democratic capitalist 'civilization', also conceived, in a mirroring of the Communist dogma, as at once the telos of history and the engine of its unfolding. These spiritual depths were not altogether forgotten, but it seems fair to judge that it was left to the Church and the Poles to uphold them. To the Communist collectivism, with its command economy, America opposed the corporation, and then the multinational corporation, as somehow embodying and exemplifying freedom and liberation, which were thus identified, largely, with the crapulence of consumer society and a life of consummate material ease. America swallowed many myths about the Cold War epoch, but none have been so self-serving, and so destructive, as that the denoument of the Cold War somehow vindicated the American system, and justified its export to the world as a template for emulation. The failure of an adversary is not a proof of one's virtue; and 'better than Communism!' is justification of nothing when the spiritual soil of Western civilization has been turned and sowed with salt, as much by the disorders of materialism and ruthless luxury as by moral decadence. 'Creative destruction' still carries the capacity to undermine social order and to deracinate men, the danger in which is not - now - that they will become Communists, but that, in their blind flight from the truth of themselves, they will bring down civilization with them.
American conservatism has been complicit in this degradation, not aloof from it as though it were the work of some distant establishment. American conservatives have joined in the hymning of the American system, often as though it were a deliverance from Sinai, ideologizing that system and its constituent parts, all the more so after radicals of the New Left began to assail it for its regimentation and bureaucratization as much as for its failure to realize the dream of equality and fraternity. We might flesh out the argument by indicting the pointlessness of the old fusionism, which essentially invoked traditionalism in order to justify the corporate, managerial capitalism which has been its inveterate foe; but the character of contemporary conservatism will have to stand as the first count of the indictment. That conservatism has celebrated uncritically and reflexively the American economic system, and has regarded democratic capitalism as a universal template, souring on the administration which sought to export it by force of arms largely on account of its domestic bungling. And it has demonized critics as anti-American and unpatriotic, because they have had the temerity to view America as an historic, bounded nation - a nation we love not because she is the universal nation, but because she is ours.
George Kennan was right. It was the manner in which America came to oppose the Soviet threat that ultimately mattered, and mattered in a way which, recent history shows, led us to become spoiled and hubristic. Dubious means corrupt even worthy ends.
Comments (12)
Strange how this same post, with some minor vocabulary changes, could appear on any of the better progressive blogs.
This is the third post I've seen on this blog like that.
Posted by MikeWC | August 27, 2007 5:58 PM
Mike, you have stumbled upon a feature of WWWtW: the intellectual diversity among its contributors.
Posted by Lydia | August 27, 2007 10:28 PM
If I didn't know better, I'd think you were trying to score points with that comment.
Posted by MikeWC | August 28, 2007 12:30 PM
I admit it sounds catty. But it has that universal cattiness about it that makes it hard to say with or against _whom_ it is intended to score points.
Posted by Lydia | August 28, 2007 1:41 PM
It is true that similar analyses or interpretations could appear on progressive blogs; they could with equal ease appear - and occasionally do - among paleoconservatives. This is reflective of the marginalization of the more interesting (sorry - value judgments are inevitable) schools of American thought, the ones that are actually interested in contesting first principles, and of the ideological hegemony of the duopoly. With respect to one of the issues broached in the post, there is approximately a mils worth of difference between the Democrats and the Republicans on the merits of globalization and corporations; a vote for either means that the corporatocracy is coming for dinner, with the only difference being the vegetable each would prefer. Frankly, a conservatism that amounts to an inversion of whatever it is that liberals or progressives are doing - a purely reactive conservatism, which is what the conservatism of the corporate world has always been (reacting, first, against the agrarian order, and second, against those who criticized its lurid excesses) - interests me less than 'not at all'. A line of critique is not falsified by a dubious progressive remedy.
American conservatives will awaken to the nature of the multinational corporation, once they have lost almost everything it is possible for them to lose. The owl of Minerva still takes to wing at night.
Posted by Maximos | August 28, 2007 2:15 PM
Maximos, is your implication that those on the _further_ left are "more interesting" than their more moderate Democrat friends, because the former are really challenging corporatism and the latter aren't? Because I think you should reconsider that, if so. Setting aside economics for a moment, what do we find on the farther left? 9/11 Troofers, anti-Semites, apologists for terrorist groups, and generally kookballs of every leftish sort. This fact might just make one question how deep any critique of "corporatism" might be from that quarter and how much of it is just...hatred of anything identified with Evil Corporations. Reactionary? There are few things much more reactionary than a really flaming leftist anti-capitalist.
Posted by Lydia | August 28, 2007 3:15 PM
But it has that universal cattiness about it that makes it hard to say with or against _whom_ it is intended to score points.
It is intrinsically catty, not catty due to intentions or circumstances.
Posted by Zippy | August 28, 2007 3:33 PM
Zippy, exactly. I can't make it un-catty by good intentions. :-)
Posted by Lydia | August 28, 2007 3:59 PM
Lydia, progressives are not defined solely by the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, the frothing antisemites, and other such denizens of the fever swamps. The folks at The American Prospect or Democracy: A Journal of Ideas do not, so far as I am aware, offer space in their publications to such evil and nonsensical windbaggery. To be certain, most of their proposed remedies would be deleterious if implemented; however, these folks' work does possess the merit of actually addressing concrete realities, rather than passing off as serious analysis more hymns to Bill Clinton and Robert Rubin, whose policies gave corporations about 95% of what the 'right' would have given them.
If and only if criticisms of globalization and multinational corporations are tantamount to conspiracy theorizing and antisemitism does it become possible to lump the left all together.
Posted by Maximos | August 28, 2007 4:18 PM
Thanks for specifying the targets of the endorsement, Maximos, that's clarifying.
"...rather than passing off as serious analysis more hymns to Bill Clinton and Robert Rubin, whose policies gave corporations about 95% of what the 'right' would have given them."
I can't help feeling, though, that there may still be something reactionary there. Again, is it really not reactionary to say that we mustn't give corporations what the right presumably wants to give them or would give them? Perhaps we will get to the conclusion that we mustn't do so if we start with the premise that corporations are plain bad. But perhaps part of the problem here is that I don't actually regard the term "reactionary" as a negative designation, even when it is so intended. I think neo-Marxists and those who use neo-Marxist terminology are headed in a very bad economic direction indeed, so I "react" against them. They, presumably, think corporations are very bad indeed, so they "react" against giving the corporate execs what they want.
Posted by Lydia | August 28, 2007 5:00 PM
I self-identify as a reactionary, "conservative" having been bled white of its significance over the years, so the term carries no inherent negative connotations for me. In context, I only mean to employ it to describe the character of Republican/conservative embraces of the managerial corporation: increasingly affirmative over the decades, merely because the left is so obnoxious, and the socialist alternative - in those binaries so beloved of the unthoughtful - so preposterous (if economic centralization in corporate hands is problematic, how does combining economic and political centralization resolve anything? The problem with much of the left is that they seem to believe that concentration is swell, as long as it is politicized...).
Posted by Maximos | August 28, 2007 5:30 PM
In what way is "economic centralization in corporate hands" particularly "problematic?"
I'm not saying it isn't - and I'm certainly not saying that economic centralization *qua* economic centralization is a *good* thing.
Is there anybody who *does* say that?
Or are there people whose announced views are merely a "cover" for some such position?
I'm genuinely puzzled.
Posted by Steve Burton | August 28, 2007 7:14 PM