Dear Readers,
Needless to say, a pleasant surprise awaited me in the comments section of my last post. I had little idea that such a small amount of advertisement would yield the results that it did, and I'm quite happy each of you found some value in my "
humble musings."
Today Mr. Goldberg reveals the birthplace of modern liberal fascism. If you couldn't tell by the photo I chose for this post, the French Revolution birthed the modern liberal movement, as Mr. Goldberg explains. Of course before I can dive into some discussion, I'll present you with today's selection, found on page 13...
"...But what truly makes the French Revolution the first fascist revolution was its effort to turn politics into a religion. (In this the revolutionaries were inspired by Rousseau, whose concept of the general will divinized the people while rendering the person an after-thought.) Accordingly, they declared war on Christianity, attempting to purge it from society and replace it with a "secular" faith whose tenets were synonymous with the Jacobin agenda. Hundreds of pagan-themed festivals were launched across the country celebrating Nation, Reason, Brotherhood, Liberty, and other abstractions in order to bathe the state and the general will in an aura of sanctity. As we shall see, the Nazis emulated the Jacobins in minute detail. It is no longer controversial to say that the French Revolution was disastrous and cruel. But it is deeply controversial to say that it was fascist, because the French Revolution is the fons et origo of the left and the "revolutionary tradition." The American right and classical liberals look fondly on the American Revolution, which was essentially conservative, while shuddering at the horrors and follies of Jacobinism. But if the French Revolution was fascist, then its heirs would have to be seen as the fruit of this poisoned tree, and fascism itself would finally and correctly be place where it belongs in the story of the left. This would cause seismic disorder in the leftist worldview; so instead, leftists embrace cognitive dissonance and terminological sleight of hand."
I believe this to be both a very interesting and educational selection from Mr. Goldberg's book. First of all, it illustrates the fact that there truly existed divergent interests behind the American Revolution and the French Revolution. Oftentimes in many modern history classes, these two important historical events get lumped into the "same" category -- the oppressed beating off the oppressors. However, as Mr. Goldberg points out, each Revolution fathered two very separate movements. How can this be, if the two Revolutions were in fact, the same fight? The answer presents itself within the selection. What was the philosophical foundation behind the two Revolutions? For the French, Rousseau and his theory of the "general will" which introduced a new 'Relgion' (that of The State) drove the bloodbath that was the French Revolution. So, Rousseau's thinking gave birth to the French Revolution, which in turn (as well as other sociological developments) gave grounds for the movement called Social Darwinism and it's supporters, such as Herbert Spencer and William Graham Sumner. These thinkers then laid the framework for the international Fascist movement. But we hastily jump ahead of ourselves. What of the American Revolution? As for America and her Revolution against Britain, she found a higher calling. The philosophical writings of John Locke and the economics of Adam Smith provided the revolutionary engine for John Adams, Patrick Henry, John Hancock and other famous American revolutionaries. Therein lies the fundamental difference, then, between the French and American Revolutions and how two similar historical events were truly motivated by entirely different philosophies and thus created two fundamentally separate movements: liberal and conservative.
I mentioned I had a second point, and I've not yet forget her. This selection also inspired me to discuss the definitions of liberals and conservatives. While you may believe this to be a relatively straight-forward and simple discussion, more intrigue exists behind the definitions than you may be aware. For instance, did you know that conservatives used to be liberals, and vice versa? It's true. Also, you may not be aware of the fact there are two
separate forms of liberalism. Let me see if I can break this down.
First, there is classical liberalism. Classical liberalism includes the ideologies of John Locke and Adam Smith. Locke, a great liberal thinker, argued that everyone has a right to life, liberty, and property and that no one can rule over anyone without the consent of the governed. Furthermore, Locke believed that any government which violates our "civil rights" releases us from any obligation to obey it and entitles us with the right to overthrow it and establish a new government. Adam Smith composed the economic half of Locke's political theory by introducing the concept of a free market, liberated from the Government's control. This is often referred to as "
laissez-faire economics."
Second, there is modern liberalism, which many agree has its philosophical roots in the writings of T.H. Green. Green believed that liberalism requires an active government to ensure and promote individual liberty. Green's beliefs laid the foundation for the modern liberal movement and the creation of "
welfare liberalism."
Finally, we have conservatism, which
includes the ideas of
classical liberalism (Locke and Smith), as well as Burkean traditional conservatism, but not modern liberalism. Burkean traditional conservatism upholds the need to support traditional morality. Conservatism as a whole, then, sometimes takes divergent paths with the classical liberals in one camp and the strict Burkeans in another camp. (A good example of modern Burkean thinkers would be the likes of our dearly beloved Dr. Jerry Falwell [please note the sarcasm]. The left calls Burkeans "the extreme right.")
So there we go. Now you know what Mr. Goldberg meant when he wrote towards the end of my selection "the American right and
classical liberals," and you also know probably more than you ever wanted to about the foundation of American politics. However, I believe this type of an education is necessary if one is to understand the movement of modern politics and how utterly insane it is that the liberals are calling the conservatives fascist when the entire leftist movement is founded upon the earliest and strongest tenets of fascism. Truly the left has mastered what Mr. Goldberg calls a "terminological sleight of hand."
Soli Deo Gloria,
HRZ
*PS, I promise that my next post will get away from politics for a little while and cover some of Cicero's "
On a Life Well Spent." Until next time...
