How do you fight a fog?

Why is “McCarthyism” such a dirty word, when no-one seems to know exactly why, and there really were commies under every bed? Communist influence was real and dangerous, and a “witch hunt” may not be so bad when there are real witches. The moral: it’s always good to be suspicious of historical symbols like “McCarthyism” that people use as a club.

Still, witches are never the real problem. Vast conspiracies get nowhere unless the conspirators somehow stand for and make concrete the inner thoughts and purposes of a great many active, thoughtful, and influential people. So get rid of the International Communist Conspiracy and something else takes its place. As Anthony Daniels says in the current issue of The New Criterion, in his beautifully written memoir “Up from communism,”

The demise both of the Marxist enemy and the attraction of the Marxist-Leninist panacea did not reduce the attraction and convenience to modern intellectuals of ideological thought as a genre … but it did weaken the resistance to it. Anti-communism was not an ideology—it was merely an anti-ideology—but it drew a great deal of strength from the self-evidently formidable nature of the foe, and thus came to appear almost an ideology in itself. But the anti-ideologist now has to fight on a hundred fronts at once; it is more like a guerrilla than a conventional war. And since, almost by definition, the anti-ideologist is not as obsessed with any given subject as his many opponents are, who each derive the meaning of their lives from their ideologised grievances, he is at a permanent disadvantage. In the absence of a strong communist enemy, ideology makes inroads in our society as easily as a hot knife through butter … Now the future interests me less than the past. Its evils are more diffuse, less tangible, harder to oppose.

Posted by Jim Kalb at May 14, 2003 09:17 AM | Send
    
Comments

Interesting. The intellectual war has also moved from the “cold war” model to the (retch) “war on terror” model. Maybe, in similar fashion, the many-fronts problem has little or nothing to do with the objective reality and everything to do with our unwillingness to name the enemy, because of what that naming would say about ourselves.

Posted by: Matt on May 14, 2003 10:29 AM

Good points. I think I pointed out in my comment on the Frumster ( http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr/archives/001291.html ) that the neocon response to both ideological and physical war is the same — set up the universal compulsory system they’ll design for us and call it democracy etc.

How would you define the enemy, by the way — apostasy or some such?

Posted by: Jim Kalb on May 14, 2003 12:58 PM

Apostasy is too strong a word I think. The great strength of liberalism is that it represents apostasy lite: one can have whatever private relationship to the transcendent one wants, and there can even be a public relation to the transcendent as long as it is mediated by the equal wills of the people and doesn’t violate anyone’s equal rights. So it represents a sort of de-facto apostasy with built in plausible (to the self) deniability.

To myself I just call the enemy liberalism, full stop; but then I nearly always run into semantic trouble when discussing it with others, since I end up referring to neocons like Stanley Kurtz and John Derbyshire as liberals. I still think it is objectively right and appropriate to use the language that way of course. :-)

Posted by: Matt on May 14, 2003 6:46 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?





Email entry

Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):