Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
‘Suicide of the West’ Review
I just finished Jonah Goldberg’s Suicide of the West last night. Overall, I think it’s a very good book and one that people on both the Left and Right will benefit from reading. The book is not full of pop-culture references and humorous or snarky asides, which may disappoint regular readers of his G-File newsletter. It’s definitely a serious book, more in the style of his first title, Liberal Fascism, than his second, The Tyranny of Cliches. While I generally agree with the overall premise and conclusions, I do have a few quibbles about some of his writing decisions. Before I get into those, here’s a quick summary.
The basic premise is that we have reached a pinnacle when it comes to finding a way for humanity to prosper, and that if we aren’t careful we will throw it all away. He starts by observing that for most of human existence, life has been pretty miserable. We first appeared about 250,000 years ago, and for 99 percent of that time nothing changed. He points to about 300 years ago, when what he refers to as “the Miracle” happened, that life really started to improve drastically. The values of the Enlightenment combined with the economic benefits of capitalism combined in a place where they were allowed to develop (England) and then were given a true home here in America where they have flourished and changed the world. But the “Miracle” goes against human nature. We didn’t evolve in such a way to ensure the “Miracle” happened and if we let human nature take its course, we’ll lose what we have gained.
In fact, Goldberg makes a good case that we’ve already dropped below the pinnacle. The progressive movement of the early 20th century damaged the balanced structure that the Founders designed by letting an administrative state transform into a shadow government unchecked by the formal system defined in our Constitution. In that sense, I found the book to be kind of depressing. At this point, it would take a new revolution to free ourselves from the bureaucracy that we’ve allowed to take over so much of our formal government, and there’s no sign that people have the slightest interest in doing anything of the sort. Unfulfillable promises to “drain the swamp” aside, the administrative state is here to stay.
This biggest critique I have with Suicide of the West is the way Goldberg chose to start it. He explicitly states “There is no God in this book.” He makes his case without arguing that rights are “God given” or that the “Miracle” was predestined. I can understand why he wants to avoid the fallacy of appeal to authority, but that sentence is not true. God definitely is in the book. He admits as much in the conclusion, pointing out that without the societal changes wrought by Judaism and even more so by Christianity, the “Miracle” would not have been possible. Given that, the decision to start the book with a statement that will rub many evangelical Christians the wrong way seems an odd one.
Goldberg goes into great depth to support his arguments, and backs up his conclusions with considerable research. Some of it, such as the analysis of the positions of Burnham and Schumpter, can get a little dry. Like Sahara-Desert dry. And there is the point where Goldberg says that the “list [of Human Universals] is too long to reprint here,” followed by two solid pages of the list. Those missteps aside, the book is well done. Overall, the tone is a scholarly one. This is not a fiery tome that lends itself to sound bites and memes.
The second half of the book focuses on the fact that the “Miracle” isn’t self-sustaining. Just like capitalism has creative destruction, the “Miracle” allows ideas to flourish that are detrimental to the success it brings. It doesn’t change human nature, and if we lose our sense of gratitude for all the factors that led to the “Miracle” we’ll go back to our natural states of tribalism and authoritarianism. The identity politics of the left are incompatible with the “Miracle,” as is the authoritarian nationalism showing up in Europe and already exists in most of the non-western world. No one will even accuse Goldberg of being a MAGA-hat-wearing Trump supporter but the book isn’t an attack on Trump. (He started writing it before Trump even announced he was running for president.) He’s pretty clear in saying that he doesn’t see Trump as being a positive factor in all this but he does point out that Trump isn’t causing the problems. He’s just symptomatic of them.
I’m going to have to read the book again to clarify some of the ideas and where those lead. For example, it struck me early on that there is a tension between the idea that the “Miracle” increased freedom by allowing us to have profitable interactions with strangers, to not put friends and family first or give them special favors, and the conservative idea that the disintegration of the nuclear family has been bad for society. Goldberg does spend time talking about the importance of the family and other moderating institutions. There’s clearly a balance that needs to be established and better maintained. One interesting omission (in my mind anyway) is Federalism. He makes no mention of any level of government outside the Federal one. I think that might be part of the balance we need to restore to help keep the effects of tribalism at bay.
As I said at the beginning, I recommend this book for people across the political spectrum who are interested in serious discussion of the big picture issues today. I’m looking forward to hearing what other Ricochet members have to say.
Published in General
To bring it back to the book, I didn’t get the impression that it was presenting tribalism and principle as opposites. I read it more as they are alternatives. People can choose tribalism over principle. In some non-Western cultures it’s not considered a bad thing to steal from people who aren’t in your extended family. Stealing from someone who IS family, however, is greatly frowned upon. Part of the Miracle is people started to choose to put principle over tribe. Or that they expanded their view of tribe to be inclusive of more people. One can be tribalistic and principled, but that requires putting limits on tribal behavior. Once we decide that we don’t have to treat people outside the tribe fairly, we’re on the road to losing the benefits of the Miracle.
I don’t know that a precise definition for “tribe” matters. It can be as simple as “the group you associate with.” It’s not so much what that group is. It could be family, Broncos fans, Republicans, people who attend my church, short people, left-handed red-headed clowns, coworkers, or any such group. What matters is how we interact with people outside the group. Are you supporting positions simply because they benefit your tribe? Or, even more corrosively, are you supporting policies because they explicitly disadvantage or even punish people not in your tribe? An essential part of the Miracle is the idea that everyone has certain rights, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, regardless of tribe. Denying this truth is one sign of excessive tribalism.
I would dispute that this is true; couldn’t one make the case that Western Civ has treated people outside of the tribe unfairly and yet we enjoyed the Miracle anyway? Couldn’t one also make the case that expanding the tribe too much puts the Miracle at risk?
In some instances – of course I would. Isn’t that one of the reasons we institute governments? Our declaration referred to how one people interacts with another people and that sometimes bonds between them must be dissolved. Presumably for the benefit of one people without the other people in mind. Note that is right alongside declarations of self evident truths concerning individuals. Tribalism and principle side by side.
Judaism was birthed as a tribe. It is intensely tribal, even today. Yet it is not divorced from intense, internal principles.
So I would definitely agree with you on the first point.
Probably agree with you on all, but this one stood out.
BINGO.
…and the Jews were way ahead of everyone else on creating a productive, civil world. Like by 1000 years.
So is the Miracle only evident in the US in modern times? Because I’m not sure that the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness have been intrinsic to Western Civ regardless of tribe (e.g. slaves, Indians, Catholics, foreigners more generally being outside of the American tribe). First, those principles themselves aren’t exactly consistently present. Second, where those principles were present there were certainly major exclusions based on tribe.
I’m a fan of the Miracle, so take my answer to your question for what it’s worth: The Miracle has been evident in the English-speaking world since the Enlightenment. It is responsible for ending slavery through much of the world, greatly limiting violence and war, and creating the economic conditions that have allowed those who believe in the principles of the Enlightenment to overcome tribalism and integrate into the countries of the English-speaking world. It has not ended tribalism. Jonah says that nothing can end tribalism, because we are hard-wired to be tribal. We have to teach each generation to protect the freedoms of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, or we are at risk of losing them. That is the point of the book – that we must be grateful for what we have and not think that our blessings are natural or inevitable, because they are not and we could easily lose them. So, no those principles are not consistently present. But they have been sufficiently present in the Anglosphere to account for our freedoms and our prosperity. And by our example, we have taught some other cultures to respect those principles. But if we let them slip away, we will be committing (as Jonah says) suicide.
Agreed in full.
I think that this is one of the central messages of the book. Of course America is imperfect. Just as we don’t need perfect capitalism for capitalism to bring millions out of poverty, we don’t need a perfect society to bring millions into freedom.
I’m not sure how one would go about this. If the argument is that an exclusive reliance on a tribal identity that was overly abstract would put the miracle at risk, then that’s absolutely right, but an exclusive reliance on any tribal identity does so.
That’s quite a presumption, and I’m not sure how justified it is. My reading of the Declaration is that it overstates the degree to which it is a declaration in favor of the enforcement of neutral principles of justice rather than an advocacy for the particular wellbeing of Americans. Whigs like Burke and Shipley who espoused the principles from England made this particularly clear.
The Rule of Law is not in a zero sum game with the Rule of Man, but they are in tension.
I don’t think that it’s the case that Jonah’s book on tribalism in Western civ ignores tribalism in Western Civ.
I’m not sure how one suffers from an excessive number of alliances, although again the extent of the influence of those alliances can give rise to problems. Similarly, a small number of alliances isn’t a problem if they aren’t too belligerently held. The risk with small numbers of alliances is that it’s easy for them to become belligerent.
Jonah regularly repeats that a little tribalism is healthy. I’m not sure how often you will find people widely using the word fascism in a similar manner. A lot of the human bonds that Jonah describes in this context are bonds that he lauds in general.
The Miracle gradually brought in Indians, Catholics, and slaves. During reconstruction, the time period you were talking about, America was far from homogenous, with violent race riots, Indian troubles, and Southern terrorism being dominant in politics. The Gettysburg Address is one of the great examples of the Miracle working to overcome this stuff. Chester Arthur and Warren Harding would be the political heroes I would choose to credit primarily with the triumph of the Miracle over those divisions. Jonah talks more about MLK, but he’s clear that there was a relentless ideological effort to promote freedom and prosperity across demographic lines between Gettysburg and King.
The Miracle is the product of the partial reduction in tribalism, the replacement of tribal authorities and of tribal aims with the market and other elements of ordered liberty. It included and benefitted Indians, Catholics, and slaves, but it didn’t go from zero to sixty instantly.
That’s the problem right now. The Fed and the Federal government has to take their damn thumbs off of everything or it’s going to get worse.
I still think some people are arguing against what they think Jonah’s view on Tribalism is rather than what his actual argument is.
Jonah did a live Q&A for the Remnant Podcast today. I submitted a question about tribalism based, in part, on the discussion in this thread.
I wish I could say his response settled the discussion going on this thread, but I can’t. But it is probably worth listening to. I think you need to read the whole book because the tribalism is a smallish part of the overall argument.
As you said, he would have been better off with no mention of Trump. Sigh.
I submitted several questions related to Trump, oddly enough, none were selected.
Rob Long got to walk up on stage and hand-deliver his question to Jonah, I don’t have that kind of status.
Isn’t my presumption which you quoted pretty much the same as what you wrote here? Aren’t you saying here that the Declaration was more advocacy for the wellbeing of Americans in particular rather than advocacy for enforcement of neutral principles?
I honestly don’t follow your argument here. Who is arguing “that an exclusive reliance on a tribal identity that was overly abstract would put the miracle at risk”? As I say elsewhere on the thread, I don’t believe that tribal identity is in opposition to principle, and I’m pretty sure I never argued about an “exclusive reliance” nor would I.
Which is one of the central messages of the book?
Otherwise, I’m not arguing for an absolute one way or the other. But in order for the proposition to be useful and somewhat objective, don’t we need to be able to explain when/how some unfair treatment of those outside the tribe will lead to the ruin of the Miracle and when it will have no impact (or even a beneficial effect)?
I think they were the first people to do away with human sacrifice.
Are “tribalism” and “rule of man” roughly synonymous? I’m not so sure about that. I would equate rule of man more with monarchy, totalitarianism, dictatorship.
I’m not really talking about Jonah’s book, especially since I haven’t read it yet. However, people on this thread have been discussing the topic in general and I’m interacting with the comments people have made and teh ideas in general regardless of what Jonah says about them in his book.
I think the word I used was “allegiances” because that is the word someone else used earlier and I find that to be an interesting and useful way to look at things. “Alliances” are a little different. I’m not trying to be pedantic, but I think these difference and nuances matter to this discussion.
Otherwise, perhaps “too many” isn’t quite right. Perhaps it’s something more like “conflicting alliances, and the more alliances you havce the greater the risk you’ll run into one with potential conflicts”.
Ok, but that’s not really what I’m saying. Jonah argued that people use “fascism” as a synonym for bad or evil or whatever term he may have specifically pointed to in his book. I’m speculating that people use “tribalism” as a synonym for unthinking, blind, irrational, group identity.
I wasn’t exactly talking about that period. I was making a broad point, not a narrow one. You can stop telling me about race riots, Jim Crow, and the Klan – I know. We disagree that despite these things (or any such “thing” that exists in any time) there is some sense in which there was broad homogeneity in the county even if there are other senses or levels of granularity in which you can argue that is was virtually a war of all against all.
I would neither quibble nor wrestle with any of these assertions. However, The Miracle wasn’t born at the Gettysburg address. I take it that the Miracle begun during the Enlightenment and carried over to America and perhaps made better in our constitution. There were a few hundred years where this miracle is working concurrently with some pretty severe tribalism. Yes, let’s promote freedom and prosperity across demographic lines, but all too often the addendum has been: but not those lines!
Here too might come the point about expanding the tribe too much. Freedom and prosperity mean different things to different people, as do justice, right, purpose, harm, whatever term we devise with which to ground our political philosophies. Expanding too broadly could end up diluting freedom and prosperity. Isn’t Europe experiencing some of that with the fast and large increase of Muslim immigrants?
So you are of the opinion that tribalism and principle are opposing poles?
And, yes it doesn’t go from zero to sixty instantly. That’s quite the understatement. Try centuries. At that scale are we still talking evolution – progress even? Or when would you agree that we simply have to acknowledge that these things run concurrently rather than it being a slow metamorphosis?
I think that there’s a degree to which Jonah uses tribalism in the way that you define in your second sentence, but, and I’m not trying to be funny, he doesn’t mean it in a bad way, at least not exclusively. It is healthy and important to have bonds with people that are unthinking and irrational.
The definition of tribalism as non-rational bonds of identity doesn’t seem particularly similar to the definition of fascism as things one doesn’t like.
If you’re referring to me being one arguing against what I think Jonah’s view is, then negative. I’m not sure I’m arguing against anything as much as trying to stretch things out and see how far these statements and assertions (which I mostly nod along with) can go. More specifically I’m engaging with members views more than Jonah’s views since I haven’t read the book yet. Also the terms in general.
I’ll listen to the podcast.
I think that Jonah likes proliferation of alliances (and of allegiances, for which shifting of labels I apologize, but I think this is true of both) precisely because it encourages internal conflicts. It’s much harder to develop one of the key the negative sides of loyalty to group x, hostility to not-x, if you also have ties to loyalty to group y and there is overlap between y and not-x.
I meant it in the sense of the law being a respecter of persons; decisions aren’t only made at the top, and I would include general spoils system efforts within the remit. I should be clear that I don’t recall Jonah using the term rule of man, but I think of it as being a way of approximating the concept that would be helpful to your search for definitions. The rule of law and the rule of man can both be increased at the same time, as when one shifts to a system of solitary bandits/ early state formation.