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
And I say there is no objective answer to that question. Far smarter and wiser people than all of us have wrestled with these questions since people first began wrestling with ideas at all. You want transcendent objectivity? Then you’re going to need something like God. And when there are many brands of God on the shelves, we haven’t really answered that question either: we only chose an axiom based on….. many different factors which might cause us to prefer one over the other. Does that make us dumb or unthinking even if we stick with that axiom like a craps bet we’re bound to win only 50.4% of the time? Not in my opinion.
I am sorry you disagree, but you are wrong. Hunter Gatherer Tribes don’t change their customs unless there is an “end of the world” event. Non-literate societies managed to maintain the same stories and ceremonies for centuries. They just do not change like we do. It is hard for our minds to fathom, because we are used to saying “Hey this does not work, let’s try something else”. That is not how most of history has worked. In fact, outside the West, people still struggle with it. The whole notion of cause and effect is lost on most of Arab culture.
As far as tribal vs not: The whole notion that I serve in office not to enrich my family is a non-tribal one. Sure it does not always work out that way, but what we call “corruption” tribal societies see as business as usual.
Yes, but the notion that you serve in office to serve fellow citizens and not non-citizens is a tribal notion.
How long has George Washington’s cherry tree been around? Or inaugurations. Or marriages. I think you’re being overly broad here: in all societies including our own there are long-standing, deep-rooted, costums and ceremonies which are slow and difficult to change; likewise in all societies there are things that change, breathe, more impermanent things that current peoples make decisions about. Tribal groups included from the Iroquois to the Delaware to the Sioux.
The concept of “citizen” is different than “tribe” At is core, tribes are related by genes or marriage. Citizens are about contracts of State and People. It is a move away from “subject” and a huge leap for the Greeks and then passed on to the Romans. “Citizen” is at the heart of not being tribal.
Well, it seems to me that:
I’m not criticizing you on your approach. I’m criticizing 1) the idea of a non-transcendent objectivity, and 2) the idea that we should refrain from picking an axiom simply because it lacks objectivity.
Which only changed their ways of life when radically new things were introduced, and even then, not fast enough to cope.
Tribe members are not free. We are. We have far more say in everything, starting with the ability to frame the question about change in the first place. The whole notion that we can live alongside others is huge. Charity to people on the other side of the globe is uniquely Western. It is as non-tribal as you can get.
Marriages, I might add, come from our tribal past, and only in the last 50 years have we even begun to talk about changing them, and that has to do with the empowerment of women and the BC Pill. Again, the very notion is anti-tribal.
You and I live with a mindset that is alien to most humans in history. It is fragile and easily lost.
Depends on how you’re using the term “tribal”. If by tribal you mean a literal tribe, then maybe. Only maybe, though. But if you’re using “tribal” in its more expansive form then what you describe is trading one basis for loyalty and connection to a different basis for loyalty and connection – neither one with a valid (or inherently invalid either) claim to objectivity.
We have to save the West and the very idea of the West. If selling them on “what works” independent of God, then let’s do it. If you live a Christian life (and lots of Christian’s don’t), you will have peace, and you will have joy, even if you don’t believe. Moral living is good living and the best way to live.
Why the heck were the founders so much better at writing than politicians (and people who write for a living) are today? It always surprises me when I read them.
They had an education back them that wasn’t aimed at the lowest common denominator and they spent less time watching cat videos (or is it fewer?)
The whole point of the book is the difference between tribalism and citizenship. So, let’s not try to make tribalism = citizenship. That is not how it is defined in this book. We are looking at a breakdown, where the concept of citizenship of say, America, is replaced with race or political views. Citizens are able to look at others and see difference of opinion, even with citizens of other nations. Tribe members are not able to see “the other” as human. We are seeing this in spades, right now across the West.
Nothing you have said invalidates that over all point.
Same could be said of regions in the US too. Ask Kevin Williamson.
We are free, to an extent. Not free from want and not even free from obligations to fellow citizens or neighbors. Tribal members are not free, to an extent. They could set off on their own, they could live how they wish within the rules of the tribe. I don’t see too much of a distinction except in the specific form in which different societies participate.
Ha! Progressives and libertarians alike would beg to differ. People feeling disenfranchised by the establishment would beg to differ. For much of our history, people who lived alongside of us would beg to differ, from Indians to slaves to Mexicans and even to Canadians. Also, contrary to your assertions, there were all kinds of decisions to be made and which were made in the lodge. Not everyone was invited and not everyone was invited to speak – so too in our system.
Agreed. But how much of that fragility is based on ideas and how much of it is based on being a specialized set of choices?
I understand that. However, a reasonable response to such an argument is to question just how different these things really are rather than just accepting it as true without questioning it.
I’m not sure I’d agree with that, or at least not t hat dire. I’m also not sure I’d agree that such a thing ever existed as solidly as imagined. Right from the founding there were several issues that tore at the seams and split us into regions and political views. Not to mention a war and political strife and no lack of ways to divide ourselves ever since.
That is all simply exaggerated to untrue. Overbroad assertions. Close to a “no true scotsman” fallacy (e.g. “no true tribesman could see other tribesmen as human because if he could then he’d be a citizen instead”).
Darn elitists!
Mathematics, specifically the propagation of algebra by Fibonacci and championed by Frederick – which introduced 0, facilitated the rise of the merchant class and opened trade to eastern peoples (enlarging the world).
Bomb the Eccles building. Problem solved.
This is everything. 90% of us love Keynesian policy, now. The GOP will never get creative about this, but half of them will complain about Trump. It makes little sense.
I think it is easy from our perspective to see the Colonists who then became the new Americans as being decidedly homogenous. But clearly they were not. Even on the issue of the Revolution there were big divides – roughly 33% were pro-Tory, 33% were pro-Revolution, and another one third wanted no part of any of it. Also there were ethnic differences. For instance, by only a few small votes, English became the language of the new nation rather than German.
Additionally, there were many different brands of Protestantism. Then in 1830, came a metaphysical awakening wherein new forms of religion developed, with people like Emerson, Thoreau and others taking the lead on those matters.
Lurking in the background, from discussions held inside the conference room in June/July 1776 Philadelphia all the way up to when the soldiers at Fort Sumter were fired on by Confederate leader Beauregard, stood the pressing issue of whether an individual was pro or anti-slavery.
Throughout the nation’s first 125 years, there was a constant method by which individual families and like minded people could settle for themselves any distaste they had for the way a community was developing and that was to move on further West. This had to be a wonderful way to smooth out differences.
On the tribalism aspect, some girl going by HBDChick did a pretty phenomenal analysis on her blog on the Hajnal line and expanded civic behavior – generosity, trust, expansion of good will beyond family/tribe. I don’t remember what she called it, but the intermarriage and diversification of bloodlines that represent the western half of Eurasia correlates heavily with higher orders of civic mindedness and lower corruption.
East of the line is more tribal, more inbreeding, more corruption.
The thing I gleaned from this is that more blood diversity expands your “tribe”. As long as you see yourself as part of the same community and sharing same values, people are more magnanimous and exercise higher levels of trust.
However, I think there is a min-max at work. Too little biodiversity gets you the middle East tribalism and corruption, but too much of it leads to breaking down of borders to a globalist mindset. Some here may be ok with that at first gamble, but the more people look beyond borders and to a global citizenship, the more they will seek global government. If you think the federal government is a problem, you won’t be liking that.
It is like steel – stronger than the metals that make it, but the more unbalanced it is, the more brittle and weaker it gets.
Here We go:
Also,
From the authority Novus Ordo Seclorum, Forrest McDonald
Can someone give me an example from the book of the “authoritarian nationalism” showing up in Europe? Just curious what Goldberg’s talking about here.
Yes, by homogeneous I did not mean there were no differences. However, where there were differences outside some standard deviation things got tribal quickly. Tarring and feathering wasn’t exactly a model of reasoned discourse, nor was the Tea Party.
Otherwise there was broad homogeneity on television broad points, individual flavors and differences notwithstanding. Increasingly, I don’t think we share that broad sameness anymore.
Also, this illustrates that there are frames of reference in which some can be tribal and some can be in opposition. Sometimes the very same people depending on which affiliations are being considered, both laterally and hierarchically.
The freedom to shack up instead of having to get married is a huge one that tribes do not offer. The idea that one leaves a hunter gather tribe to set up one’s own shop as being as easy is laughable. As far as freedom that stems from our choices, we have more choices on how to live in 2018 than in any time in history. I won’t even bother to argue with you on that point, because it is so freakin’ obvious.
As far as People feeling disenfranchised by the establishment begging to differ, so what? They are wrong. Feeling disenfranchised is far better than being dead. Tribal societies allow no dissension. Writ large (say, in Saudia Arabia) death is used to enforce the rules. Are you sure you don’t see us as being more free than the people of Saudia Arabia? Of course not.
As America grew it dominated the very tribal societies who were in no position to stop it. Indeed, they were so tribal, they could not even ally with each other to any real effect. Tribal societies don’t do that well. Civilizations do. But it takes moving from near neolithic ways of life to do so for longer than the lifespan of one charismatic leader. In terms of conflict over territory with Mexico, I don’t see how that is tribal at all. It was imperialism, which is beyond basic tribal motivations.
People also differ on the God they worship, their convictions about what that God asks of us, and about how to live in a world where others disagree with our own conception of God. And even among people who have the same conception of God (or conceptions that are indistinguishable from where I stand) there are still differences regarding what it means to flourish, what is success, and what is beneficial or detrimental. God does not solve this problem. Is it all “just politics”? Maybe. Especially if you count war as an extension of politics. The will to belief in one or more deities and the will to conflict are probably the two most deeply rooted aspects of “human nature.” Both of them long predate history.
I haven’t read Jonah’s book yet, but the description in the review reminds me of a quote from Robert Heinlein.
Hungary is one example. “Authoritarian nationalism” was how I phrased it though. That’s not his term.
You may be more sanguine that I am. I believe we are headed for another civil war in America, unless there is a black swan event. Now, I could not see how we got past the USSR without an exchange of nukes, and that did not turn our that way, so I pray for the black swan event daily.
You accuse me of making overbroad assertions. Throughout our discussion here, your goal has been to take any broad generalization about people, and argue the edges. I wonder what would happen if I claimed that men are stronger than women. If you study history the tribes which hate each other the most often lived right next to each other. In Somolia, I remember people being asked about peace. Sure they said they wanted peace. When asked to live with the other tribe, the response would be something along the lines of “those are horrible people an there is no way I want to live with them.” That is the natural order of Mankind. That is what the West has to fight.
Now, you can bring up example after example of where the West is not perfect to counter my assertions, which, frankly, means nothing. Just because the West is not perfect, does not mean it is not the best thing we have going. Citizens in a nation or subjects of an empire are able to live, tribe next to tribe, without killing each other off. That lasts as long as the concept of the nation or empire. America has been the most successful pluralistic society in history. We are in danger of losing that now the very notion of Americanism is under attack as racist. Indeed, you buy into that notion with saying the “People feeling disenfranchised by the establishment would beg to differ.”
What we have is metastable at best. And I fear we are pushing the ball up the slope to the tipping point. Clearly, you are less alarmed than I am. I hope you are right. I am happy that Jonah is writing a book to sound an alarm.
FWIW, I think some people here are overthinking the tribalism thing, mostly because you are reacting to a summary without understanding Jonah’s full argument (which I’m still in the middle of.)
I’m going to pull a couple of exerpts from the book. I’m on my ipad, so I won’t indent properly.
”Given time and incentives, any group of humans will start to see themselves as a cohesive group, a caste or aristocratic class
…
Unity is a neutral value. Unity’s moral status is derived entirely from what the group does…the only time self-interested groups or coalitions become a real threat to the larger society is when they claim the power of the state for their own agenda.
…
The remedies for this problem are myriad, but two are worth mentioning here: virtue and pluralism…pluralism implies the idea that power should be distributed widely in a society…nearly all of the things we associate with healthy, modern societies are directly attributable to the multiplication of institutions.
…
An open society is one where we have many allegiances—to family and society, to work and faith, etc. When you have competing or simply multiple allegiances, you open yourself up to the idea that opponents are not enemies. Pluralism creates social and psychological spaces where others are free to pursue their interests too. “
I take his point to be that tribalism is inherent in human nature and we should build on that to set up a system of several interlocking “tribes”, e.g., family, faith, work, hobbies, so that our identity is not tied up solely in one tribe, which inevitably leads to the belief that you your tribe has the right to control the state to further your tribe’s interests.
As Jonah says “When all of your identity is bound up in a single group or cause, your concern for institutions and people outside of your group diminishes or vanishes.” That is the real danger of tribalism, when you start believing that the other side is evil and you believe everything you value will be destroyed if the other side wins the next election, the “flight 93 election.”