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.
Which Wise Man of Conservatism is Correct?
I have been struck this week by the divergent opinions of two wise men of conservatism, George Will and Victor Davis Hanson. Will thinks Americans are too mired in pessimism:
The world might currently seem unusually disorderly, but it can be so without being unusually dangerous. If we measure danger by the risk of violence, the world is unusually safe. For this and other reasons, Americans should curb their pessimism.
He points out that terrorist groups in the past have been more lethal, and, though ISIS is nasty, he agrees with President Obama that it poses no existential threat to the US or the West in general. Even its beheadings and other atrocities echo those found in public executions in Shakespeare’s London. With time, this kind of barbarism recedes as cultures mature. Russia, as a nuclear state, is a more worrisome problem, but its ramshackle economy makes sanctions likely to be effective. So we should not be so worried about the state of the world.
Worldwide, violence has been receding, unevenly but strikingly, for centuries. Steven Pinker, a Harvard psychologist, ascribes the steep decline in violence to numerous factors — governments supplanting anarchy; trade supplanting plunder; rejection of “cruel and unusual” punishments; the decline of interstate war since 1945; the collapse of Communism; the pacifying effect of prosperity and its pursuit; cosmopolitanism, meaning the decline of hostile parochialisms due to literacy, travel, education, popular culture, and mass media.
Additionally, Will suggests that some worrisome situations might have an upside. Greece’s financial troubles might serve to highlight the follies of the European Union and the euro. Foreign policy failures, particularly in Libya, might serve to highlight how unsuitable Hillary Clinton is for the presidency, though it unfortunately also shows how unforced errors in foreign policy are the result of panic. That being the case, Will urges us to buck up and take a more reasonable view of the current state of the world.
Victor Davis Hanson agrees with Will that panic causes problems, but he parts ways when it comes to the state of the world. He compares contemporary conditions to those of the 1930s:
The panic from the ongoing and worldwide Depression in the 1930s had empowered extremist movements the world over. Like-minded, violent dictators of otherwise quite different Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Imperial Japan, and the Communist Soviet Union all wanted to attack their neighbors.
Hanson argues that had the West been willing to band together to deter Hitler, they could have avoided World War II, but instead Europeans appeased him, the US turned isolationist, Japan and Italy joined Hitler, and anti-Semitism became rampant. Hanson asks if all this doesn’t sound depressingly familiar.
He goes on to catalogue the similarities between that time and our own. Europe is still reeling from the 2008 financial meltdown. The situation is exacerbated by the ill-conceived euro and unwise European immigration policies in recent years. Anti-Semitism is again rampant. The US has turned inward as a result of the Iraq and Afghan wars and an unwillingness on the part of the left to be honest about the nature of the enemy. Hanson argues that
The 1930s should have demonstrated to us that old-time American isolationism and the same old European appeasement will not prevent but only guarantee a war. And the 1930s should have reminded us that Jews are usually among the first — but not the last — to be targeted by terrorists, thugs, and autocrats.
Which of these wise men is on the right track? Can they both be right in some sense? In a way, yes. Both compare the current moment to the past using different signposts. Looking at the bigger comparative picture in terms of levels of violence, Will concludes that things aren’t so bad. VDH compares current trajectories to a particular historical period and suggests that the United States should have learned from history in formulating current policy. Which argument seems more cogent to you?
The comparison is perhaps not quite fair to Will. I don’t think he favors isolationism nor Obama’s policies in general, and panic is not usually the best spur to sensible action. Still, I’m inclined to agree with VDH. Now is not a time to downplay the perilous state of our nation and the world. Policies of appeasement and winking at virulent anti-Semitism lead to very bad places. These things do not heal themselves. The left, with its ironically rosy view of humanity, can’t quite get its collective mind around these realities. After all, if we could just provide jobs for everyone in the world there would be no problems. So, while I agree with Will that panic is not the best response to anything, I still think we have a paradigm from the past that could guide our actions at the current juncture. We should use it.
Published in General
Could the same or similar thing as Will is saying of today have been said in the 1920’s or early 1930’s?
In some ways, Arahant. The closing of the frontier meant that notoriously violent frontier communities were becoming tamer. Still, there was a crescendo building toward the most violent century ever, beginning with WWI and the Russian Revolution. The twenties were regarded as a high of sorts, but once the depression hit, it was all downhill. I just think that today the divides both domestically and worldwide seem like unbridgeable chasms, the sort that tend to lead to some sort of war.
They can both be right. It’s not so bad now, but it sure will be if we let it.
I think that Will has the more persuasive argument. Hanson’s comparisons to the 1930s are valid to the extent that the threats posed by the emergence of radical political parties in Europe, economic stagnation (largely in Europe), appeasement of Russian aggression, and the rise of the Islamic State are all similar in nature to various events of the 1930s, but to the extent that he implies that they are of comparable magnitude his analysis is overwrought.
The rise of radical political parties in Europe matters less today than it did then, if for no other reason then Europe generally is dramatically less important.
Appeasement of Russia is a problem, but Russia has absolutely no capability to pose a military threat to its neighbors comparable to that posed by Nazi Germany.
The Islamic State specifically and jihadism generally are threats, but Will is right when he argues that they are not even remotely existential threats to the United States.
The economy could certainly be better, particularly in Europe, but it is nowhere near as bad as the great depression.
The American military today could definitely stand to be stronger than it is, but it is still by far the most powerful in the world. We are the only nation which can truly project power globally and our navy is larger than the next twelve largest (many of which are our allies) combined. In contrast, we were a relatively insignificant military power in the 1930s with an army smaller than that of Portugal.
I agree, Israel, but it seems to me that Will is kind of willfully ignoring the trajectory to some degree. And he discounts the bad stuff Hanson sees coming down the pike by saying that it can be dealt with rather easily. I hope he is correct, but then I also regard the current state of the country as very bad, which I don’t think Will does so much. I think the culture wars have us on a national collision course that tears us apart from within, partially making us unable to deal with the problems outside our borders. In short, IMHO the left is weakening the nation in pretty much every way imaginable.
Sal, I agree that the magnitude is different. Certainly ISIS is not so powerful as Hitler’s rearming Germany. And Will is correct that Russia is tottering economically, which will affect its ability to gobble other countries. But I think we have problems that are more worrying than in the 1930s–demographic decline in the west and the cultural clash between cultures in Europe for sure. The anti-Semitism is horribly alarming and hard to fathom, as is the mealy-mouthed response by European governments. The threat to Israel and the rise of nuclear Iran is deeply worrying, as is the possibility of biological warfare, attacks on the electric grid and the like. Those would be relatively easy to pull off. Even if the shape of world is not quite so bad as in the 30s, the technological possibilities for creating chaos are much greater, and the animosity to do it is ample. And our own nation is deeply polarized and intolerant, but so mired in PC groupthink we are unable to diagnose our problems. Looking pretty bad IMHO.
I don’t think Will accounts for human nature. Sure, we’ve got amazing progress and technology compared to the past, but we mostly use it to limit liberty (government) and to limit responsibility (people.)
The U.S. share of global GDP has remained at basically the same level for fifty years. As Josef Joffee is fond of pointing out, if the Roman Empire declined at the rate America has over the last half century we would all be speaking Latin.
VDH rules!
Yes–that’s what worries me, KP. I personally think that religious freedom is the foundational freedom underlying speech, assembly and others. The assault on religious freedom has the capacity to undo all the rest.
Sal, I think that is deceptive. Our debt is astronomical and we haven’t yet felt the true effects of that, but it has fed a stock market bubble that will sooner or later crash. I know libertarians don’t worry that much about the state of the culture, but when I look at history, that is pretty important. Remember that the Romans had a demographic collapse that was similar to our own, and I might add a lot of debauchery that also mirrors our own. These are very significant factors because they make it harder to do what perpetuates the human race–getting married, bearing children, and raising them responsibly together in what many regard as a rather boring life. Boring happens to be good for kids, but doesn’t seem to be what not-quite-grown-up adults want these days.
Merina- When discussing demographic decline the important measurement is relative demographics. America has the youngest population of any developed economy and a growing population. It’s true that population growth is due to immigration compensating for low birth rates, but I don’t share the immigration-related concerns of many on the right.
As far as the culture goes, you’re right that I don’t share your concerns, but I think that the commonly held perception that Rome’s decline was significantly a result of cultural debauchery rather than of internal political disunity and external military pressures is mistaken.
Basically, I don’t think anyone would dispute that America faces serious problems. I do think claims that these problems are either unprecedented or more serious than those previously encountered, or that they are insurmountable, are unfounded. I don’t think that we are living in an unusually perilous age by any relevant criteria.
I think a comparison could be made to the Ebola panic of last year.
As the epidemic grew, pundits fanned the flames of hysteria with, “if trends continue, exponential growth of the disease will mean 10,000 new cases per month by the end of the year!”
This, of course, didn’t happen, and Ebola is no longer in the news except for small snippets on page x.
However, that doesn’t mean the pundits were completely wrong. They were predicting how the disease would proliferate if nothing was done about it.
But, of course, something was done about it.
Medical agencies did a metric whack-load of work to quarantine and contain the spread of the virus.
Similarly, one could hypothesize that VDH is making predictions about what will happen if nothing is done, and George Will is advising us to relax because he assumes that something will be done.
Sal, our demographics look pretty bad, especially in relation to our entitlements. You’ll be surprised to hear that immigration doesn’t bother me too much, because I think that most immigrants have a Christian background that is compatible with our underlying belief system. But our own demographics are not our only concern. We have to be concerned about the rest of the West too because they are our allies and those who share our cultural background. If we become the only ones who espouse our values in the world, we won’t last long. How do you think internal disunity happens? Look at Europe. Their birth rates went down so they let in more immigrants who did not share their values and they consequently had internal disunity with connections to destructive military elements outside their borders. I don’t think they’ll be taken over right away, but there’s more than one way to conquer a people. Overwhelm them demographically over time and in the meantime make them afraid so that they police their own freedoms. I absolutely agree with Dennis Prager that anti-Semitism is the canary in the coal mine of bad, bad things to come.
Just going to have to disagree with you about culture. If far fewer children are raised in good homes with good support systems and good values, it takes a toll on the strength of the country. The family and home are the foundational institutions of the nation and they aren’t doing very well.
Do we live in an unusually perilous age? Technology helps us, sure, but also makes it easier for rogue agents to do terrible things. Whether it bothers you or not, culturally we are coming apart at the seams. We have very little unity in values or purpose. I actually hope you are right that we don’t live in a perilous time, but it really feels more perilous and unstable than any time I can remember.
Mis, isn’t that what we’re all complaining about? Obama doing nothing? That’s not going to change until he is gone. If we get Hill and Bill next, I don’t think we can look for anything better. Also, as I was just saying to Sal, we are culturally coming apart at the seams and I really don’t see what is going to be done about that. I’m convinced that the attack on religious freedom–conscience–is an attack on the foundation of other important freedoms. It’s really not looking good.
Merina- Correct me if I’m wrong, but based on your comments it seems like you don’t think either of the conservative wise men is right; at least not based on their arguments quoted here. You seem to agree with Will’s specific points, while disagreeing with his conclusion. At the same time, you certainly share Hanson’s pessimism, but not really on the geopolitical grounds he argues above so much as due to concerns about declining Christian influence on the culture being less than it once was.
Huzzah! Sal and I finally get to have this
brawldebate. If I can find any time to post that is.Bring it on Soto.
Before derailing this with me and Sal debating the causes of the fall of Rome, let me say that Will is probably closer to correct.
VDH’s arguments about the comparisons between the 30’s and today are striking, but there are also key differences.
Japan should have known how outclassed they were by the United States before entering WWII, and Victor often points to this as an example of how regimes can make wholly irrational decisions when it comes to warfare.
The problem with this is that the U.S. had never really flexed it’s muscles on the international stage (WWI was barely a warm up in terms of our potential) which made it seem plausible to some in Japanese leadership that the outcome was not as certain as it turned out to be. 1939 U.S. didn’t look as scary as 1944 U.S.
When looking at nations like China or Russia making similar calculations today, there is no possible level of nationalist pride that can blind them to them to the inevitable outcome of such a conflict. They may nibble at the edges (Crimea), but the risks of a nation state challenging us are too obvious.
The amount of economic decline, and isolationist sentiment that we would have to go through to reach the point where this calculus changes is quite significant.
Sal, I think I share VDH’s actual concerns, I was just getting a little deeper into the causes and effects. His article was not very long. The cultural problems are not really about declining Christian influence per se so much as losing the justification for values that are central to who we are. Once you lose the underlying assumptions and justification, you might still pay lip service to words like equality, rights or freedom, but have no way of saying what they really mean and how they are to be retained. I think that’s where we are now, which is why no one can talk to people of different political persuasions. I think Will is not looking at trajectory nor at the dreadful state of the namby pamby PC culture that amounts to paralysis.
Frank, I think Will is not really looking at the big picture. Military might is only one part of it, and perhaps not the most important part. But I actually hope you and Sal are both correct in choosing Will’s prognosis. Now have at your Roman history slug fest!
Merina- I’m not sure I understand how you can attribute the matters Hanson expresses concern about (appeasement of Russian aggression, economic malaise, rise of radical political parties) to the relatively recent loss of cultural values. All of those problems were of far greater magnitude in the 1930s than they are now. If those problems are indeed caused by moral decay it would seem that the smaller magnitude of the problems we now face is evidence that we are currently experiencing something of a relative moral revival compared to eight decades ago.
Well obviously the problems are somewhat different now with different causes even while being similar in many ways. Europe’s move to multi-cultism, in part as an effort to shore up their demographic decline, (which is a direct result of the loss of cultural values–why for example have Catholic Italians quit having babies?) has taken a serious toll on their identity and culture. It is part of what has given rise to the protectionist political parties. The rise of the EU and the problematic euro has further weakened them, as has relying on us for protection while becoming welfare states with no jobs for young people. These are all different circumstances than in the 30s when they were completely separate nations and military powers, but it is part of cultural decline that directly relates to their unwillingness to confront Russia or radical Islam. The political correctness of siding with the Palestinians against Israel further hamstrings them. These are all a direct result of loss of cultural values and confidence and we’re seeing it in our country too.
Merina- “The political correctness of siding with the Palestinians against Israel further hamstrings them. These are all a direct result of loss of cultural values and confidence and we’re seeing it in our country too.”
I don’t know about characterizing European support for Palestine as the consequence of losing cultural values. Europe has a long history of cultural anti-semitism.
I’m also skeptical of the notion that European appeasement of Russian aggression is the result of the EU, seeing as the completely independent nation states of the 1930s took the same approach with Germany.
Basically, unless you take the position that virtually everything is primarily a function of culture, there doesn’t seem to be a close connection between the geopolitical issues Hanson mentions and the decay of Western culture which you diagnosed as their cause.
I take the position that all these things are interconnected Sal. But this just gets back to our old divide.
I want to comment on the notion that the threats we face today are not “existential.”
So what? What does that even mean?
Did the Germans and Japanese pose an existential threat to the US in WWII? Not really. We could have stayed out of it, even after Pearl Harbor, pulled back into our shell, and protected by our oceans, continued to exist in a world run by fascists. All those planes Frank enumerates and all the ships we built could have been purposed just to defend our homeland.
Did al Qaeda pose an existential threat to us because of attacks of the Sept. 11 variety? Not really. We could absorb such attacks, though at great cost, and continue to exist. We really didn’t have to fight in Afghanistan, or even change our airport security measures, and the American nation would still exist. Of course, some individuals wouldn’t exist, and we would have a lot of additional troubles that we have managed to avoid by taking the actions we did (I’m not defending them all).
The question of optimism or pessimism is not about survival, or at least not only that. What kind of world do we want to live in? One in which Islamic psychopaths have free reign to murder and enslave? One in which Russia bullies countries friendly to us? One in which Jews can’t live in peace in the lands of their birth?
Optimism given the condition of the world right now requires some certainty that people of good will will do what must be done to fight the forces of darkness. The reason for pessimism is that too many of the people in power show little inclination to take on that fight.
Merina- I agree that we have a basic disagreement on the subject of culture regarding both its general importance and its current state, but I don’t think that disagreement is terribly relevant to this current discussion. I don’t dispute the general proposition that culture is interconnected with economics and international relations, but I don’t see any reason to believe that the specific cultural changes you have mentioned have any significant connection to the specific economic and diplomatic problems Hanson mentioned. It seems as though you are basing your conclusion of causality merely on the fact of your concern for both or alternatively on the broad premise that since culture is of primary importance generally it must be important in all specific cases.
Hey, I didn’t write that I necessarily agreed with Mr. Will. I merely sought to summarize and hypothesize on his line of reasoning.
His reasoning is based on a very long-term view of human events. Along that timescale, even World War II was merely a blip along the trend towards less violence in the world. That doesn’t mean the world shouldn’t have fought Hitler.
Man- “The question of optimism or pessimism is not about survival, or at least not only that. What kind of world do we want to live in? One in which Islamic psychopaths have free reign to murder and enslave? One in which Russia bullies countries friendly to us? One in which Jews can’t live in peace in the lands of their birth?”
That’s a fair point and I agree with you about the type of world that is desirable and probably about what is necessary to achieve it.
I will, however, dispute the notion that the Axis did not pose an existential threat. Existential does not just refer to personal survival, but to national survival. Germany certainly posed an existential threat to all of Europe and Japan to much of Asia and to Australia. While you’re correct that Germany did not have the capacity to invade America at the start of the war or when we entered it, a Germany which had won the war in Europe and commanded the resources of the continent could very quickly become capable of doing so.
Overall, I tend to agree with the philosophy that decline is a choice, and an America that refuses to decline could, by the grace of God, maintain our security and prosperity just fine.
But our periods of weakness have grave consequences. Disorder may not mean danger, but nuclear proliferation among unstable actors unquestionably does. Do we really know what will happen if Iran gets nuclear weapons? How dangerous will the world be in the event of a nuclear showdown in the Middle East? What historical comparison provides insight into that?