Micah Tillman

I wanted to make four comments on Goldberg’s “You want a more ‘progressive’ America? Careful what you wish for.” I’ll tack a conclusion onto the end.

Sorry if I’m making my progressive friends feel attacked by all this. But it was just too interesting not to blog about.

I. Obama and Oprah

Goldberg writes:

It may be gauche to talk about patriotism too much in liberal circles, but what is Barack Obama’s obsession with unity other than patriotism by another name?

Cf. Rep. Oberstar’s endorsement speech for Obama where he talks about Obama being a leader for the world to “rally” around, and says that restoring America’s image is more important than global warming and the economy. (Rather shocking, I think.)

(Also, see Oprah’s UCLA speech (ca. minute 2:18-35). She says Obama has changed how Americans look at each other [???], and will change how the rest of the world looks at us.)

Combine the patriotism/unity theme with Oprah’s cult-of-personality language (here, minute 1:00-2:16):

For the first time . . . in our voting lives we are moved to think about politics and the power of its possibility in a different kind of way. . . . We’re all energized. We’re excited. We’re excited. And we’re fired up. We’re fired up for the change that has already come.

I like the messianic imagery there. Even had me excited. Oprah continues:

We’re fired up because of one man, Barack Obama. . . . You can feel the spirit and the energy and intelligence he has already brought to this election process. And just imagine what he’s gonna do when he gets in the White House.

I thought it was interesting that we are supposed to have found our inspiration and hope in a person, not in the vision or set of principles which the person champions. I suppose every campaign engages in this cult-of-personality rhetoric, but in the context of the fascism discussions going on at Goldberg’s blog, I thought Oprah’s way of putting things was intriguing. (Click here for more on nationalism/cult-of-personality and fascism.)

II. Principles and Proofs

Speaking of principles, Goldberg’s quotation of Wilson — “mere vague sentiment and pleasing speculation has been put forward as fundamental principle” — is intriguing. If Wilson thought principles can be “speculation,” then there must be something more fundamental than them by which we judge them.

But what could be more fundamental than a principle? You can’t have an infinite regress in logic. You can’t prove everything “all the way down”! Every proof is ultimately founded on unprovable assumptions.

Goldberg makes the same point when he says, Hillary Clinton’s “‘beyond ideology’ refrain is itself an ideological position . . . .” Is the opposite of ideology, “falsifiable/provable theory”? If so, then an ideology must be something like a set of “fundamental assumptions.” But you can’t prove or disprove a fundamental assumption, if it’s truly fundamental. So what could be “beyond ideology”?

Makes you wonder if either Wilson or Clinton understood/stand what principles are.

III. Human Atomism

And I loved the following line from Goldberg:

[W]e make a mistake when we assume that we can cherry pick only the good parts of our past to re-create.

There are so many fascinating propositions about human nature and human events built into that claim. He seems to be arguing that human nature/history is not atomistic; no event or belief or trait is an island. Each is an inseparable part of a wider web of events or facts or truths. You grab one strand, and the whole skein/tangle comes with it.

I don’t want to put words in his mouth, though.

IV. Old-Time Progressives on Tyranny

Finally, I loved the juxtaposition of quotations from old progressives:

In his 1890 essay, “Leaders of Men,” Wilson explained that a “true leader” uses the masses like “tools.” He must inflame their passions with little heed for the facts. “Men are as clay in the hands of the consummate leader.”

This is the ultimate version of the individualist leadership model, it seems to me. And yet, (quoting Rauschenbusch, of whom I’d never heard, but who Goldberg says was another member of the progressive movement at that time):

“Individualism means tyranny.”

You can’t call for tyranny and rip something for being tyranny at the same time. Of course Wilson and Rauschenbusch aren’t the same person. But since both claims come from members of the same movement, the tension is fascinating.

Conclusion

Goldberg’s book is Liberal Fascism. If you want a conversation on the book, see his blog. You’ll get a ton of links to his critics and his responses. (Unfortunately, I don’t know how to get to the archives of the blog, other than running searches for keywords.)

I tell my students that philosophy is done in conversation, and — whether you agree with him or not — Goldberg is doing a great job of making the whole thing conversational.

Tags: Barack Obama, Fascism, Jim Oberstar, Jonah Goldberg, Oprah Winfrey, Progressivism, Woodrow Wilson