[lit-ideas] Disenchantment of the World and Liberal Democracy
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 10:07:55 -0700
Just a brief comment about the unpleasant business about the Peace of
Westphalia: I have to confess that when I see Leftist rant in the midst of a
discussion of other matters, my opinion of the writer descends several
points. And then having been an editor and writer in Aerospace for several
years and in several capacities, it is inevitably the case that the sloppy
writer blames the editor for his sloppiness:
"I used the term 'Great War' to mean the 30 Years War."
"You can't do that and expect to be understood." Do a Google search on
"Great War" and you will get references similar to "World War I (abbreviated
WWI), also known as the First World War, the Great War . . ."
"Why not, if you carefully read what I said you would see that I used the
term "Great War" as occurring prior to the other conflicts I referred to.
The people at the time referred to the 30 Years War as the 'great war.'"
"I can see what you meant now that you explain it, but when I first read
your note I didn't have enough respect for your knowledge. I assumed you
made a mistake somewhere. Should I assume you misused the term "Great War"
or that you mistakenly said "beginning"? The whole phraseology was so
sloppy I wasn't willing to spend time with it. You need to clean it up."
"I don't see why. You now know what I mean."
"My job is to edit what you've written, not rewrite it for you."
"I don't have time to rewrite it."
And so I've experienced a little daja vu. And then there is the inevitable
Leftist denigration of my studies. I have been studying history for years
but because I use some Wikipedia references instead of providing them from
my library, I am using "cut 'n paste wisdom," or simplistic analyses. How
many times have Leftists (who don't seem to read much) criticized my
studies? And when I ask them to produce references, I get [ ].
Now Joerg Benesch asserts several points that I do not find support for in
the histories I've read. Is he one of the alter egos for Irene? He makes
the same arguments: The Peace of Westphalia caused subsequent wars. I
already know I haven't seen that in the histories I've read; so I did a
Google search, and couldn't find it there either. The Peace of Westphalia
is shown as being the end of religious war in Europe. It is also described
as a "marker." Prior to the Peace of Westphalia political matters were
handled one way. Afterwards they were handled a different way. I'm
probably wasting my time with the above comments. Leftist ranters never
read my notes. They pick out one or two sentences, usually in the front
part of a note and use it as a platform for further abusive ranting, and the
ranters skip what I've written and go straight to what they are convinced I
believe -- which is never what I believe. However, I must be faithful to
several lurkers and others who do read my notes.
What is at issue here? We, many of us, are considering the two major
theories advanced as describing the future, The End of History and he Last
Man by Fukuyama describes an optimistic approach to the future, one in which
Liberal Democracy becomes the dominant form of government bringing history
to an end [in the Hegelian sense]. This view has been amplified by two
books by Thomas P. M. Barnett. This position has been complicated by the
fact that Neocons seem to have taken an active approach toward the
exportation of Liberal Democracy, something that Fukuyama never envisioned
when he wrote his book. He is an Hegelian and thought the success of
Liberal Democracy would be inevitable in the Hegelian sense. Perhaps there
were ways to further Liberal Democracy practically but the Neocons hadn't
hit upon them. [See his castigation of the Neocons in his America at the
Crossroads, Democracy, Power, and the Neoconservative Legacy.]
The second view is that of Samuel P. Huntington, described in The Clash of
Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. Huntington is not an
Hegelian. He sees wars continuing without end into the immediate future,
perhaps the next several hundred years. He isn't willing to predict that
his thesis will apply forever. He sees patterns that support the idea that
"Civilizations" stick together to a large extent. The "World of
Civilizations: Post-1990" comprises the following Civilizations: Western,
Latin American, African, Islamic, Sinic, Hindu, Orthodox, Buddhist, and
Japanese." Huntington's book is very popular in the Middle East.
Islamists accept his data but reject his concluding chapters about what
ought to be done from a Western point of view. The present clash between
the Western Civilization and the Islamic Civilization seems to correspond to
Huntington's thesis.
In regard to the transition from religious-oriented society to the Liberal
democratic societies we know today [of which the Peace of Westphalia was but
a milestone] Marcel Gauchet wrote The Disenchantment of the World, a
Political History of Religion, 1985. Gauchet had his own agenda which was
to describe modern Europe as arising out of Christianity. Gauchet is not a
Christian but he understands Liberal Democracy to have arisen out of
Christianity. It could not have arisen in any other way, but now that it
has arisen, we can do without Christianity if we choose to. He spends the
first part of his book describing the influence of Christianity on the
development of European Government and Society and then on page 162 writes,
"We have now reached the point, roughly around 1700, where specifically
Christian history comes to a halt. By this I mean history whose activity is
indistinguishable from the deployment of a central core of structural
possibilities ushered in by Christ's founding action."
On page 163 he writes, "I cannot overemphasize that when I say 'end of
religion' I am referring to a quite specific phenomenon: the end of the
principle of dependency structuring social space in all known societies
prior to our own. Religion can only historically express itself formally
and materially by having a clearly defined function. Not only does this
function no longer exist, it has been turned into its opposite through a
transformation that has integrated its component parts into the collective
operation. Modern society is not a society without religion but one whose
major articulations were formed by metabolizing the religious function."
Neither Fukuyama nor Gauchet make light of the problems Liberal Democracy
experiences today, but when compared to its alternatives (Fascism and
Communism in the case of Fukuyama) and pre-1700 society (in the case of
Gauchet) we see that what we have is far preferable. Furthermore there is
no reason to think our problems are insurmountable, quite the contrary. For
example, on page 192 Gauchet describes the class antagonisms Liberal
Democracy has had to contend with: "But let us take another example, the
institutionalization of conflict [italics Gauchet's], which is open to
precisely the same analysis. Democracy turns its back completely on what
had always appeared to constitute the condition of sovereign subjectivity:
democracy is more than just a consensus of minds, it is their close
association within a fully self-conscious collective will. And yet placing
class antagonism and the conflict of interests at the heart of political
competition must be understood as the deployment of the social subject in
another form -- no longer conceptual, but actually no longer substantial,
but relational.
"This institutionalization of civil discord destroyed any possibility of the
political community's unified self-possession. But by virtue of its radical
oppositional nature, this discord brought the entire social organization
into the public debate. Anything in the collective arena can become the
object of regulated conflict -- another way of realizing the sovereign grasp
on the totality of collective reality. The struggle of social causes and
forces is institutionalized, that is to say, goes beyond the totalitarian
illusion of final victory, to produce a culture of compromise between
antagonists who know they cannot eliminate each other. . . ."
The situation Gauchet describes fits not only our Liberal Democracy but
Liberal Democracies everywhere. We bring our conflicts into the public forum
and engage in various forms of discussion. Some may choose serious
analysis. Others may engage in polemics. Politicians must decide which side
of a given conflict to support. And we on Lit-Ideas take positions as well.
Here are some positions relative to these matters I've observed (or fancy
I've observed):
1. Liberal Democracy ought to be advanced throughout the world as a
means of eliminating war and bring world peace. We should use practical
means to facilitate it when possible, but not the means we've used in Iraq.
[Fukuyama]
2. Liberal Democracy ought to be advanced throughout the world and we
should advance it by furthering trade and improving the economies of third
world nations. We should use the US military to provide security for
developing nations. [Barnett]
3. Liberal Democracy is Western in nature and not truly exportable.
Yes Japan and a few other non-Western nations have adapted it, but their
identities and most important interests do not rest in Liberal Democracy.
That they are Liberal and Democratic today won't prevent their allying
themselves with natural allies such as China and South Korea and opposing
the West at some future time. [Huntington]
4. Liberal Democracy is merely another word for Capitalism. It is
unfair and should be replaced by structured Socialism. Liberal-Democratic
Welfare States don't go far enough toward Socialism. [Some Leftists]
5. Forget Liberal Democracy. What we have in this world is an imperial
Super Power, abetted by Israel and Britain, bent upon dominating the rest of
the world. Liberal Democracy is just double-talk for American power.
[Other Leftists]
6. Liberal Democracy is the wrong emphasis. We have one Imperial Super
Power so we ought to influence it to do good and not evil. The US can learn
much from the history of British Imperialism and ought to do so. [Niall
Ferguson]
7. Militant Islam is consistent with the revolutionary actions in South
America. The Wretched of the Earth will revolt against their oppressors.
We should support Militant Islam and not oppose it. [Other Leftists]
We, many of us, are interest in these matters because of Iraq. It is
possible to read a variety of views as to whether we should have gone into
Iraq, but American political antagonists now seem to have reached a
consensus that we ought not to leave, but stay to assure that they have the
military and police power to maintain themselves. But what will become of
Iraq? Will Items 1, 2, or 3, or perhaps some other item turn out to be
true. We don't know, but that doesn't stop us from speculating.
Lawrence
Other related posts:
