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
Take it easy Bryan. No need for the appeal to authority . I do respect the people you mention, and believe me I am appropriately humble and realistic concerning my own abilities .
What am I wrong about? I don’t think I’ve said there is no difference. I’m actually not sure I have reached a conclusion either way. But am I wrong that there are similarities? Am I wrong that our civilization has engaged in some of the hallmarks of tribalism as argued here? I don’t think so, but take heart because I don’t think that necessarily means it’s tribalism all the way down.
Agreed, I think. However, even Patton relied on sound principles to guide him in doing terrible things for a good cause. The more I listen to the Jocko podcast the more I see that war is inevitable, whether literal or metaphorical, and we need a solid root to ensure we don’t go too far over the line and that we don’t get lost on the other side. In short, sometimes the ends do justify the means but only in dire circumstances. How do we prevent ourselves from rationalizing that circumstances are dire when they really aren’t? I don’t know but I think it’s worth considering before it’s too late.
Because riots never go too far over the line.
Sorry, I’m on my phone. I meant root. But all riots are quiet though.
We need a solid root to ensure we don’t go over too far over the line? It certainly make more sense than riot, but I’m still not sure what you mean by that since it immediately follows your statement that you think war is inevitable.
I hear a lot of people say we need to fight like it’s a war. What will this war look like?
Are we killing people, sending mean tweets, or something in between?
I meant it generally. I mean that wars happen. I also mean that terrible things are done once conflict like this is entered. I don’t mean we should overlook things like My Lai, but Dresden or even Hiroshima/Nagasaki? Or the microlevel infractions of killing enemy soldiers in perhaps less than the heat of combat as happens in all wars? I wouldn’t condone or systematize such a thing but not would I always be keen to prosecute either.
When we’re talking metaphorically, it’s much easier to justify, as opposed to rationalize, such verbal atrocities in service of higher principles.
How does war look different from trying to win an ordinary election?
What is an ordinary election?
I don’t think we’ve really seen an election which could be comparable – yet. The kind of fighting some people value in Trump is simply pushing back and standing ground instead of rolling over in order to preserve some imagined dignity of the office (or pretending to roll over for that pretend reason).
Which why I’m asking you what the war you and others desire will look like.
Who said I desire war? I don’t recall.saying that.
In some ways, the Democrats have been waging war, for lack of a better term. That doesn’t mean I want it or that I think we should throw out all the rules. But there are rules and there are gentlemanly understandings. Keep the rules, toss aside the gentlemanly understandings especially since the other side already has, assuming such an understanding ever really existed anyway.
If they start shooting, do you shoot back?
If they aren’t shooting, then don’t get so hung up on the war analogies. No one is talking about taking their guns, marching in formation and literally killing liberals.
We are saying that liberals are trying to shut us out by preventing open debate and speech (by using free enterprise and capitaliasm, ironically enough [Google, Twitter, NFL, NBA]). If their attitude is winner takes all, then we should take them at their word and figure out some tactic to reclaim losing and lost ground. War analogy that has nothing to do with killing people.
But at some point, could it come to that? A goodly sized minority of leftists do want that. Should we pretend that isn’t a reality? Do we pretend that could never happen here even as we debate aquiescing on dozens of things that were seen as impossibilities 50 years ago?
It’s like my teaching my kids how to weather persecution for their faith. Are we being persecuted now? No. Could they in their lifetime? Yes. How do I know? Because it happens. And right now, my side that protects my religious freedom in this country is losing and probably will lose outright. I just know who the ultimate Victor is and he isn’t conservative or a lefty.
I still don’t know what this war looks like.
I’m not the one asking or predicting war. How will I know it has started?
Let me ask a related question. If we could split the current US into red country and a blue country, would we take that offer or would we insist on a war that resulted in one side winning and imposing their world view on the losers?
I’d like neither.
But if we are at war, I don’t see another outcome.
I should ask that in the form of question. What are the potential outcomes at the end of this war? What does a victorious outcome look like and what does defeat look like? How plausible an outcome is something less than victory?
Alinsky tactics work. Critical theory is real. Cultural marxism is real. The media are all statists and they lie. The left keeps the ground they take. David Horowitz is right on all of these things. Trump is far from ideal, but at least he takes some real shots at slowing it down.
delete
Start with standing your ground on the truth. Are you a Christian? Do you believe all God’s words are truth? The start there.
Don’t equivocate because it might offend someone. Don’t back down because someone doesn’t like what you say. Find the truth and stand firm.
Figure out who you find more threatening to what you hold as truth – right-leaning Trump supporters or the reality defying left. Pick a side and hold it.
The issue is, this country has too much centralized power. Woodrow Wilson et. al. started it. It only looked like it worked until about 25 years ago.
I was sort of made fun of on another thread for what I babble about all the time, but you guys should see the interview of David Stockman over on Real Vision. You can get a one-week pass. You take what they are talking about and then add in what David Horwitz says, and that’s what’s happening this country. Everyone’s a Keynesian, and no one does jack about cultural Marxism.
(If you do this ping me and I’ll tell you some other videos to watch. Most of it is tedious finance stuff.)
He’s not lying. I’m still wading through it. Lol.
The other thing is, people really need to get over Ronald Reagan for a whole bunch of reasons, some of them having nothing to do with him directly. Real conservatism is never going to get any traction until we overhaul the Fed and slow down all of the socialist graft in a meaningful way.
Wow. Good for you. It’s freaking wonderful.
I’m a devout agnostic.
But standing up for the truth doesn’t sound like war. I’m been roundly criticized by people on here for standing up for what I think is the truth about Donald Trump or Congressional Republicans (and people are angry at Goldberg for believing in principles when it is time for fighting and war) so I’m not convinced people here really want me to stand up for my truth, they want me to join their side in this war.
That is part of why I want to know what this war looks like and what people think the potential outcomes of this war could be. If you want me to give up principles and just fight, what does that look like? I don’t think it is an unreasonable question.
It looks like Candace Owens and Kanye West. It looks like my twenty-something daughter’s generation watching the Left go insane and deciding not to exchange its birthright for a pot of stew. It’s being afraid to speak your mind for fear of losing your job, your business, your status — and doing it anyway, because it’s the truth.
I don’t think you’re really afraid of the Right, A-Squared, even if/when we sometimes use militaristic language. You’re not afraid of being overrun by war-waging Christians, are you? Nonsense. I don’t believe it.
But, you should be afraid of the Left. Every indication we have is that it has totalitarian, eliminationist impulses (cf conservatives on campuses, crimes of “hate speech,” violent antifa, BLM, OWS protests, legislative chicanery to put us in the position of begging the government for our and our children’s lives (Obamacare, Charlie Gard, Alfie Evans….)…
Sure, you may know some nice “liberals.” These are the Left’s useful idiots. The wishful thinkers. The John Lennon Imagine dreamers. We just want them to wake up, already! But our fight is with the Left, which has been ascendant for my entire lifetime. This battle is what RR was referring to when he said:
I’m coming to the conclusion my favorite thing about Donald Trump is his fearlessness. He isn’t afraid to speak his mind even when some of us think it’s a bunch of hooey. As VP Pence might say, “That’s what freedom looks like.” That’s the fight we’re in.
As I said it was in part because of technological progress but I should probably shift gears a little.
I suppose that you would agree intuitively with the statement that trade enriches people. There can be trade of both material (food, clothing, gold, etc.) and immaterial goods (ideas, like how to make a bicycle or a plane). The greater the capacity for trade the greater the exchange of these goods. This presupposes that people living in different areas will have somewhat different material and immaterial considerations, hence why the exchange can be so valuable.
Trade of course requires being able to speak to another person and that usually meant speaking to them face to face. That means you have to travel, so the less geographically challenging your area is or advanced your method of travel is makes it easier it is to trade. Looking at the map of the world Europe is pretty blessed in its geography. It doesn’t have waterfalls, jungles, or the Himalayas and it kind of links Asia and Africa together.
That meant that Europe had a far better chance at trade and thus progress in comparison to most of Africa (which has waterfalls, jungles, deserts, and a plethora of lethal animals). This more favorable geography meant that trade would have a more important role than in other areas of the world where trade was less likely to happen. It also meant that Europeans would be more likely to engage and seek trade.
This trend can be seen whether it is the Phoenicians, Equestrians of Rome, the Merchant Republics of Italy, or the explorers of the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries. Since trade exchanges material and immaterial goods this also helps with technological progression.
In the case of the technological progression the creation of ocean worthy vessels was one such achievement. A galley is the not going to be capable of ocean travel whereas a carrack or a caravel is, which were developed in the 14th and 15th century. Columbus cannot reach the new world if he doesn’t have ships that can get him there.
Not when you have governments and central banks mucking everything up like they are now. Thus Trump and Bernie.
Policy discussions are useless with these people. They just wish for things with government force and central planning.
Governments mucking with trade is how you get smuggling, not Trump and Bernie. They result from something deeper.