Freedom, Relatively Speaking

Right, Left, and Center are relative terms, as today's editorial page in the Wall Street Journal reminds (Obama Wants to Move the Center Left). The policy territory of the left and right shifts with time, of course, resulting in some degree of conceptual fluidity. The terms "Right" and "Left" have roots in the French National Assembly after the Revolution of 1789 and have come to dominate political short hand ever since. Despite their dominance in political discourse, the terms possess almost limitless power to confuse.

Consider, for instance, that I once heard John Ashcroft was described as a "Fascist" because he advocated and enforced the Patriot Act (none of which rise to the level of totalitarian control), which allowed in some cases warrantless wiretapping and mandated communication between various intelligence agencies, like the CIA and FBI. While it's true that Fascists made heavy use of domestic intelligence and surveilance, notoriously to ferret out and exterminate Jews, Soviet Communists used similar methods for only slightly different ends. For a tour de force on why the use of "fascism" to describe inherently right-wing politics is not only confusing but in many ways simply dishonest, I recommend taking a look at Jonah Goldberg's recent book, Liberal Fascism.

I thing Goldberg is largely correct to argue that both Fascism (National Socialism) and Communism (Leninism-Stalinism) are both creatures of the Left, with a few real distinctions, notably that the former did not seek to absolutely abolish the concept of private property. But perhaps the single most important distinction between the paradigmatic 20th century ideologies is that Fascism believed in a mythical and utopian past, while Communism postulated a mythical and utopian future. I don't want to spend a lot of time untangling the "left" from the "right" because in some ways it's a pointless exercise, and because I'm probably one of the least qualified to attempt it.

But there's a point to be made here. Eric Hoffer, an odd character but also an incisive observer of the 20th century ideologies, concluded that the important dichotomy to be made was between "mass movements" and "autonomy." He became deeply suspicious of all collective endeavors (including Nationalism, Fascism, and Communism) and resolved that only when a person had ceased to have expectations of the future could he be truly autonomous and thus resist the perilous plunge into collective endeavor. Though his ideal of radical autonomy is both impractical and probably hazardous to mental and emotional health, Hoffer rightly faulted the emotional weakness of human beings and their susceptibility to inspiration, because those features, combined with economic and social instabilities achieved radical and destructive reorganizations of society. And in the case of Germany, the existence of a democratic system proved to be no great hindrance.

While Hoffer's ideal of absolute personal autonomy (including radical 'presentism' or lack of expectation for the future) is undoubtedly impossible, even undesirable, there are two valuable things we can learn from his argument. First, that the potential for totalitarianism exists within "backwards" and autocratic societies (like Russia) as well as within Western democratic societies. Second, that the natural alternative to collectivization is self-reliance.

So, while Obama may have some difficulty shifting the "center" of American politics "leftward" (defining the shift will prove a herculean task in its own right), I think we've already seen that Americans, like most of Western Civilization, are prone to give up their (relative) autonomy in exchange for economic security from the national government. That's why the epic waste of a "Stimulus" package was signed into law less than 30 days from its writing and why American banking is being incrementally nationalized. As with many of Obama's hopes, this one is largely rhetorical: the shift in favor of collectivization began long before he took office. That is the story of the "first" New Deal, which began, unsurprisingly, during the same decade in which Germany gave up its freedom to a dictator promising economic health, political and military dominance, and a recovery of national greatness.

Beware the totalitarian temptation.

Email Me