Living under Hitler, living under Stalin

The New Neo Posted on by

Commmenter “Tom G” writes:

…[N]on-Jewish “German life in Nazi Germany” before and thru the war was a heck of lot better than “Russian life in the USSR”. Knowing what I know now, if I had to choose how to live thru that time, I’d have chosen to live under Hitler rather than Stalin (being also non-Jewish).“German life in Nazi Germany” before and thru the war was a heck of lot better than “Russian life in the USSR”.

It’s one of those choices that are interesting to talk about but something we can all be grateful we don’t have to actually make (not literally between Hitler and Stalin, anyway).

Of course, attempting to compare even hypothetically is fraught with difficulties, because the analogy doesn’t really work. For example, we are comparing a relatively short number years of Hitler with a much longer Soviet period. We are comparing a very highly developed country which nevertheless was on the ropes after WWI (which it precipitated) to a rather backward country that had undergone a revolution.

But I want to take up the thought experiment at least for a moment, because Tom G’s comment taps into an old issue for me, which is that I don’t think most people are aware of the fact that the majority of the German people did not originally support the Nazis, and that the Nazi rise to power (as well as its cementing of power within the country) was effected by a tremendous amount of intimidation, threat (some of it very physical), and resultant fear in the populace. There was also a rather extensive German anti-Nazi resistance, particularly in certain divisions of the Wehrmacht. Concentration camps were originally designed as gulags for the politically rebellious or merely inconvenient, or for revenge (that was before there were death camps whose sole purpose—rather than their subsidiary one—was to kill people; death camps were reserved mainly for Jews). So the difference with the Soviets were not all that great, especially as time went on in Nazi Germany.

If you’d like to read an important book on the ways in which the Nazis consolidated their power in Germany step by vicious, insidious, and thuggish step, take a look at The Nazi Seizure of Power: The Experience of a Single German Town, 1930-1935. It will chill your blood, and give you at least a modicum of sympathy for the significant number of Germans who were not Nazis and who unfortunately felt themselves to be powerless in the face of this evil. I’ve also written before about Victor Klemperer’s diaries (such as I Will Bear Witness: A Diary of the Nazi Years, 1933-1941), which relate a similar tale. A Jew who was married to a Gentile woman and who lived in Dresden, Klemperer met quite a few “ordinary Germans” who expressed their rage to him (privately, naturally) at what was happening both to him and his fellow Jews, to themselves, and to Germany.

What’s more, during the war years there was universal conscription and a such a high death rate that towards the end of the war the Germans were drafting 14-year-olds. And I haven’t even gotten into the destruction wrought by the war itself in terms of bombings and the destruction of German cities. None of this is to deny that Germany as a whole, and many many Germans who did support the Nazis, were culpable. But we’re not talking about guilt or innocence here; we’re talking (or at least Tom G seems to be talking) about quality of life under each regime.

The Soviets and the Nazis used coercion, violence, and threats, as well as gulags and/or concentration camps, on their own people to keep them in line. Both countries had material shortages. Both lost a lot of population during WWII. I couldn’t begin to compare what percentage of the population in each country was composed of courageous dissidents, what percentage suffered greatly (either as dissidents/resistance or more silently), what percentage was relatively comfortable and just going along to get along, and what percentage was composed of party apparachniks who profited and lived the good life. All I know is that there were very significant numbers of each in each country, and that I would not want to have lived in either place at the time.

Intellectuals and conservatism

The New Neo Posted on by

Oh boy, is this post of Ace’s chock-full of things to think about. I have no idea what led me to it at this point (after all, it’s over three years old), but the topic—intellectuals and conservatism—seems even more relevant to me this election year.

And, being an intellectual myself (I always have been, whether on left or right, whether I like to admit it or not), I’ve done a lot of thinking about it.

Conservatism’s underpinnings are both strongly intellectual (Edmund Burke, for example) and profoundly emotional (“live free or die”). Combine the two and you have conservatism.

Modern conservatism had a pretty intellectual spokesperson back when conservatism was thought to be dead in the water: William F. Buckley. His National Review was a forum for ideas, and those ideas took root.

It’s almost funny that Reagan was thought to be a dunce when he actually was a very rare combination—and that combination was responsible for his tremendous success—of being a well-read man of ideas (a fact that only came out after his notebooks were published] and a charismatic popularizer of those ideas. How often are those two things combined? Almost never, and that’s why so far there’s been only one Reagan.

The Founding Fathers were most definitely intellectuals, and by modern standards—not those of their times— conservatives politically, although not in the sense of preserving the colonial status quo. But they were also masters at not sounding too esoteric, at clarity of thought and expression simple enough to allow people to understand their message even if those people were not intellectuals. In that sense perhaps they were also popularizers. And they were most definitely men of action.

Today’s intellectuals (particularly those of the academic variety) are mostly liberals and/or leftists. That’s how it came to pass that I once had dinner with a man who said to me, on learning of my right-leaning politics, “I can’t believe it; you’re so intelligent but yet you’re conservative!” And because he was old enough to remember, I was able to say “Did you ever hear of William Buckley, for example?” He got my point, although he didn’t like my point. He wanted to see Buckley as a complete anomaly, the only intellectual or smart conservative in the world.

But the right is hardly made up solely of intellectuals—or of conservatives, for that matter. There are plenty of other strains on the right, as is being hammered home to us with great force during this particular election cycle. As Ace wrote in that post back in December of 2012:

…ultimately politics is about reaching the common man, and from what I’ve seen, while the common man certainly doesn’t want a dummy in high office, the common man tends to get suspicious of anyone who is too obviously intelligent, or, perhaps, just finds that someone who tribally signifies as Intellectual is not part of his own tribe and ergo does not “share my values.”

I think every political movement needs an intellectual wing. But what I think it needs even more of is a populist wing.

Three and a half years later, mull that one over in the light of the Donald Trump vs. Ted Cruz phenomenon. Back when it was written I would have heartily agreed with it, and to a certain extent I still agree with it—without that popular touch, a candidate will probably lose. But populism is dangerous, too, and there’s something known as an over-correction.

Therein lies the dilemma.

The refugee and the refugees: even the Dalai Lama says…

The New Neo Posted on by

…that there are too many refugees in Europe:

“When we look into the face of every single refugee, especially the children and women, we can feel their suffering,” said the Tibetan spiritual leader, who has himself lived in exile for over half a century.

“A human being who is a bit more fortunate has the duty to help them. On the other hand, there are too many now,” he said, according to the German translation of the interview in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.

“Europe, for example Germany, cannot become an Arab country,” he added with a laugh, the daily reported. “Germany is Germany.

“There are so many that in practice it becomes difficult.”

He adds that Europe should take them in, but only temporarily. This of course presents a host of problems: where are they housed in the meantime? What is their legal status? When and how do they go back, if they don’t want to and/or their countries have not gotten any better?

Of course, the current Dalai Lama himself is in exile from the Chinese takeover of his own country. That has been the case for him since 1959, heading a government in exile based in India. As such, he has a personal interest (in addition to a spiritual one) in the cause of taking in the refugee, and a personal interest as well in the repatriation of refugees and the preservation of national identities. So his attitude makes perfect—if not practical—sense.

I can’t find a translation of the entire interview, but I’ve seen no references to any remarks he might have made about the danger of terrorists arriving among the refugees. If he did not mention it, it’s an interesting—although perhaps unsurprising—omission

Trump vs. Hillary: the unpopularity contest

The New Neo Posted on by

Much has been written about the fact that the 2016 election is shaping up as an unpopularity contest rather than the more ordinary popularity contest. That is, the candidate who has managed to offend a bit less is likely to be the winner.

But the fact that both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have in common their record-setting unfavorables for party frontrunners obscures the very great differences in how such unpopular people got where they are. One of the most curious things about this election year is that we have two such people, but the paths by which the two parties have come to choose them are nearly the opposite.

Odd, isn’t it?

Hillary Clinton has had a fifteen-year record of political service, not to mention eight previous years as First Lady. She was a two-term senator who quit in her second term in order to become Secretary of State for four years. Whatever you think of her actual accomplishments while serving in those roles—as well as the character traits that have made her a highly distrusted figure—hers is the sort of political resume that looks good on paper, the sort of thing that speaks of experience and would ordinarily be called “presidential.”

Hillary gave Obama a good run for his money in 2008 during the primaries, and everyone knew she’d try again this time as an elder stateswoman. She was “next in line,” which was one reason she had no or few real challengers in 2016; Sanders is only doing relatively well now because he’s the only non-Hillary alternative in the Democratic game, not because he was really thought of as a credible candidate initially. Another reason Clinton had no serious challengers may have to do with the thinness of the Democratic bench. But for whatever reason, this year was expected to be a Hillary Democratic coronation, and only the extent of the hatred of her has made it less than that.

Nevertheless, Clinton is on her way to becoming the nominee (unless she’s indicted, which I still do not think will happen) because she is seen as politically experienced, is next in line, and has had little or no significant competition. Even a very disliked person can do relatively well under such circumstances.

In contrast, Donald Trump has had no political experience in office whatsoever. Nada. Zippo. Zilch. Not only was he not next in line, but the Republican Party didn’t even seem to be aware that he was in line at all.

And challengers? He had at least 16 of them if I remember correctly, many of whom were highly qualified, experienced, and personable.

And that latter fact is part of why Trump, despite his unpopularity, is now poised to become the Republican nominee—he had too many challengers who deserved serious attention and who ended up splitting the serious attention. The Republican primaries were also set up to favor a frontrunner, even if that frontrunner did not get majorities, so the porcess ended up favoring a candidate such as Trump who appealed to a significant and loyal minority and might even be hated and despised by the rest.

It didn’t matter if most GOP voters hated him as long as they were unable to unite behind anyone else. The unconventional Trump appealed to more people more consistently than any one of his challengers did. That went on for so long that his lead became insurmountable, and a momentum/bandwagon effect took over.

So now these two highly disliked people are almost certainly about to face off against each other in the general election in November. Nothing like it has ever been seen in American politics before. I’m not even sure anything like it has ever been seen in world politics before.

Interesting times, interesting times.

Liberté and égalité of outcome…

The New Neo Posted on by

…are of course completely incompatible.

That would seem to be quite obvious, wouldn’t it? And yet so many people cannot see it.

Or perhaps they see it, and make their choice between the two.

Not to mention the fact that equality of outcome is impossible to implement, no matter how hard you try. But the trying goes on (see The Quest for Cosmic Justice) nevertheless.

Who came up with that “Liberté, égalité, fraternité” slogan for the French Revolution? Why, Robespierre, naturally. It was not the only slogan, nor the invariable slogan—the “fraternité” part was often left out and some other word (such as “amitié” or “charité”) was substituted. But the first two—liberté and égalité—seem to have always been part of it.

And the following should sound very, very familiar:

Equality…was defined by the 1789 Declaration in terms of judicial equality and merit-based entry to government…

The compatibility of liberté and égalité was not doubted in the first days of the Revolution, and the problem of the antecedence of one term on the other not lifted. Thus, the Abbé Sieyé¨s considered that only liberty ensured equality, unless the latter was to be the equality of all dominated by a despot; while liberty followed equality ensured by the rule of law. The abstract generality of law…thus ensured the identification of liberty to equality, liberty being negatively defined as an independence from arbitrary rule, and equality considered abstractly in its judicial form.

This identification of liberty and equality became problematic during the Jacobin period, when equality was redefined (for instance by Frané§ois-Noé«l Babeuf) as equality of results, and not only judicial equality of rights. Thus, Marc Antoine Baudot considered that French temperament inclined rather to equality than liberty, a theme which would be re-used by Pierre Louis Roederer and Alexis de Tocqueville, while Jacques Necker considered that an equal society could only be found on coercion.

If you’ll excuse my French: plus é§a change, plus c’est la méªme chose.

It’s clear that the Russian Revolution finished what the French began.

It also seems that the American temperament used to be “inclined rather to liberty than to equality,” but that the Gramscian march of the last 100 years or so has changed that.

Language has become so imprecise that…

The New Neo Posted on by

…a lot of people don’t even seem to know what the word “vagina” means.

Now that I’ve got your attention—

But really, if they knew, would they be able to write stuff like this?:

You’re a busy gal, so when you get out of the shower every morning the things occupying your mind most likely include the amount of coffee you need in your body THAT SECOND, and that you’re already running late. You’re probably not thinking about the well-being of your vagina, since you assume everything is doing okay down south. However, it might be time to start thinking about it more often, because if you don’t completely dry off your vagina before getting dressed, there could be consequences.

Dry off your vagina? How, pray tell? And why? The vagina—in case you don’t know—is the inside part of the whole kit and kaboodle, the passage between the uterus and the outside part otherwise known as the vulva.

I’m pretty sure it’s the vulva the article’s talking about. I shudder to think what would be involved in “completely drying off” a person’s vagina, and let’s leave it at that.

[NOTE: You might be surprised how often people mix up the two words. Apparently they do it constantly (although it’s not something I’m monitoring too closely). I’m not the first person to have remarked on the fact of the frequent mix-up, either. The consensus is: give up on correcting people about it; that ship has sailed.]

Populism is the opiate of the people

The New Neo Posted on by

This post at Red State by Brandon Morse points out something Donald Trump said recently that is both troubling and Obama-like (is that redundant?):

Politicians have used you and stolen your votes. They have given you nothing. I will give you everything. I will give you what you’ve been looking for for 50 years. I’m the only one.

That may be even worse, I think, than Obama’s statement in January of 2008: “a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany … and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Obama.”

Or this later utterance of Obama’s, from his nomination victory speech in June of 2008:

Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.

The first quote from Obama was about voting for him; the second was about what “we” (not just he) could do if elected. They were over-the-top, narcissistic, and rather religious in their implications and imagery, but they can’t hold a candle to what Trump said in terms of narcissistic self-credit. Trump’s statement first trashes all other politicians as having “stolen” the public’s votes. What does he mean? All I can think of as an interpretation is that he’s saying those others promised a lot and didn’t deliver, and therefore “stole” votes because they got them under false pretenses. So, is Trump promising something he can deliver when he says [emphasis mine], “I will give you everything. I will give you what you’ve been looking for for 50 years“?

It’s beyond analysis, it’s so obviously incredible. Does anyone actually believe such a thing? Perhaps not the literal words, but the thought, the idea of getting whatever it has been that you’ve been desiring—anything and everything—whatever those thieving politicians haven’t been delivering to you. It’s politics and the presidency as gauzy, generalized wish-fulfillment.

That’s what Obama did, and that’s what Trump is doing.

One valid question is why do I bother to criticize Trump anymore? After all, he’s all we’ve got to counter Hillary Clinton, who is another abominable person. Well, shocking is shocking, and these statements were shocking—or at least they should be. Perhaps we’ve lost our ability to be shocked, because we’ve been in a very dangerous mode for a long time. As Morse says:

I was trying to find the words that accurately described why this [statement of Trump’s] horrified me, and I realized it wasn’t the words themselves…

But what scared me about it is that there are a good amount of people who do believe it. That somehow, he’s going to fix all our problems, and we will sail blissfully into a new golden age of America…

Marx said religion was the opiate of the masses. He was wrong, it’s not religion…

The real opiate is populism. Feeling like you’re part of something big, to be alongside your friends and allies as you push forward, that you’re on the verge of a movement bringing something new and exciting is a rush…

But America was founded on an ideal that counteracted populism. We developed a system that holds the mob, the angry reactionaries, and the cults of personality at bay so that we’re not swept up easily by men promising you the world if you give them power. We were a nation founded on the premise that no man should be worshiped, because no man is better than any other…

I feel revulsion because what others see as providence, I see as a cult.

True, true, true. The only problem is that it’s a cult we may have to vote for to stop an entirely different cult. Ugh. Populism will never lose its appeal, except through an aware, educated, and moral public, which is an extraordinarily difficult thing to maintain.

Colombia vs. Venezuela

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s an excellent “compare and contrast” article by Michael Totten on Colombia and Venezuela.

Remember what a mess Colombia used to be? I certainly do. But although I had some vague notion it was doing at least a little better these days, I had no idea how very much better it’s doing. That’s encouraging.

Whereas, Venezuela—which used to be one of the brighter spots in Latin America—well, you all know what’s going on there.

[Hat tip: commenter “Brian Swisher.”]

For Memorial Day: on nationalism and patriotism

The New Neo Posted on by

The story “The Man Without a Country” used to be standard reading matter for seventh graders. In fact, it was the first “real” book—as opposed to those tedious Dick and Jane readers—that I was assigned in school.

It was exciting compared to Dick and Jane and the rest, since it dealt with an actual story with some actual drama to it. It struck me as terribly sad—and unfair, too—that Philip Nolan was forced to wander the world, exiled, for one moment of cursing the United States. “The Man Without a Country” was the sort of paean to patriotism that I would guess is rarely or never assigned nowadays to students.

Patriotism has gotten a bad name during the last few decades. Continue reading →

Memorial Day: if you’re reading this…

The New Neo Posted on by

I’ve posted this song before, but I think it bears repeating, especially on Memorial Day.

It’s Tim McGraw’s extraordinarily moving song “If You’re Reading This:”

If you’re readin’ this
My momma’s sittin’ there
Looks like I only got a one way ticket over here.
I sure wish I could give you one more kiss
War was just a game we played when we were kids
Well I’m layin’ down my gun
I’m hanging up my boots
I’m up here with God and we’re both watchin’ over you

So lay me down
In that open field out on the edge of town
And know my soul
Is where my momma always prayed that it would go.
If you’re readin’ this I’m already home.

If you’re readin’ this
Half way around the world
I won’t be there to see the birth of our little girl
I hope she looks like you
I hope she fights like me
And stands up for the innocent and the weak
I’m layin’ down my gun,
I’m hanging up my boots
Tell dad I don’t regret that I followed in his shoes…

The first time I ever heard the song I got the chills as the lyrics unfolded and I realized what it was about, and then again and again as the heartstrings were jerked harder and harder as the song went on.

I say “the heartstrings were jerked,” which sounds as though I’m being critical and the song is manipulative. Well, it’s manipulative in the sense that it means to affect the listener emotionally, and it means to sell songs. But I see nothing wrong with that, if the emotion is sincere and deep. Most of us do, or should, feel a very strong gratitude to the young men and women who sacrificed their lives to defend liberty here and abroad, and a very strong sorrow that it was necessary. On Memorial Day, we thank them.

Churchill: Never never never…

The New Neo Posted on by

Commenter “Sharon W” reminded me of this Churchill quote, and so I thought I’d remind you:

Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never””in nothing, great or small, large or petty””never give in, except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force. Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.