The Spectacle Blog
Boarding the flight for Dallas at Heathrow, I saw a stack of American Spectators free for the taking. I saw on the cover a story titled, “Obama’s national socialism.” I picked up the magazine anyway, and was glad I did, because there’s always something worth reading in the Spectator.
[…]
[W]hat if you were a normal person looking for something to read on a long flight, and you eyeballed that magazine near the gate. Would you think a magazine that called Obama an exponent of “national socialism” had anything interesting and important to say to you? Or would you be more likely to think it was a scream-sheet of the loony right, one safely ignored?
James Srodes’s piece, “The National Socialism of Obamanomics,” was a judicious and thoughtful take on the similarities between the economics policies engineered by the Nazi central banker Hjalmar Schacht and those implemented by Obama and his economic team today. He referenced two new books, both of which are very well respected and mainstream: Liaquat Ahamed’s Lords of Finance and Adam Tooze’s The Wages of Destruction. Furthermore, Srodes’s piece, published in the May issue, followed on the heels of an article by David Leonhardt published by the New York Times on March 31st that drew the connection between Obama’s policies and Schacht’s even more explicitly. “Every so often, history serves up an analogy that’s uncomfortable, a little distracting and yet still very relevant,” Leonhardt wrote. “…No sane person enjoys mixing nuance and Nazis, but this bit of economic history has a particular importance this week.” He then presented the successes of Schacht’s stimulus policies as historical precedent validating the theory behind the Obama stimulus.
So is Dreher prepared to deride the work of Liaquat Ahamed, Adam Tooze, and The New York Times for looking like “scream-sheets of the loony right”? If not, he should back off his criticism of Srodes’s article.
Rod goes on to say,
These guys [like the Spectator’s R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.] act like there is only one conservatism, and Ronald Reagan is its prophet….
Until and unless conservative magazines and opinion leaders are willing to undertake a serious rethinking of what it means to be a conservative in 2008, it is unreasonable to expect that they will offer any enlightenment or guidance.
Well if “rethinking what it means to be a conservative” means no longer publishing undeniable and uncontroversial observations that happen to reflect poorly on the liberal leadership, then I hope we never do offer the kind of enlightenment or guidance Rod’s looking for.
Missy| 6.16.09 @ 1:07AM
So, now we have 'living' Conservatism like we have a 'living' Constitution? That makes me feel much better.
Why don't we ever hear about the wonderful merits of 'living' Liberalism? They NEVER change their lousy precepts.
Observer| 2.15.10 @ 5:46PM
"Liberalism" is too idealist , i do not think we have such a thing, economically we do not know the "Liberalism".
clasamente fotbal
G.A. Kevis| 6.16.09 @ 4:22AM
To the GOP in obsequious moderate mode:
Quo Vadis ?
Teflon93 | 6.16.09 @ 8:21AM
Dreher and the Fauxcons are beyond parody.
Note that it bothers Dreher not one whit whether Obama's economic policies are far more congruent to Hitlerite Germany's than modern America's. He simply doesn't care what the truth is.
What bothers him---and what invariably seeps into every utterance of Dreher's fellow travelers David Frum, David Brooks, Kathleen Parker, et al---is what the pretty people will THINK about such a thing. How gauche!
Reality is what persists no matter what we believe. Somebody really ought to sit Dreher down and explain the concept to him.
Red Phillips | 6.16.09 @ 8:59AM
As I have said before, Dreher is not a Frum, Brooks, Parker like moderate, but columns like this make it easy for him to be misunderstood as such.
I do think that the desire on both left and right to label the other guys Nazis (in this case National Socialism) is much overdone. IMO Obama's policies are best described as Social Democrat.
Dreher is correct that movement conservatives don't get criticism from other sorts of conservatism meaning specifically criticism from the right. But Dreher needs to do a better job distinguishing himself from Frum and company so he isn't mistakenly lumped in with them.
Teflon93 | 6.16.09 @ 9:24AM
Red, you'll have to point us to where Dreher currently displays any loyalty to movement conservatism.
All I see is him carping over "tone" in the same way Frum, Parker, Brooks and the other moderates do.
I think he has far more in common with them than he does with us.
But if you could direct us to some strong, ideologically-based criticism from Dreher of Frum, Parker, Powell, Brooks et al that would be most helpful to your case.
Red Phillips | 6.16.09 @ 10:18AM
Teflon, I didn't say he has loyalty to "movement conservatism." He doesn't. He is very critical of it. But "crunchy conservatism" is not synonymous with moderation. Crunchy conservatism is in many important ways to the right of movement conservatism. Dreher is when you boil it down a critic of modernity. What is conservatism if not skepticism of the modern. It is much more that than it is a commitment to programmatic movement conservatism.
I think he needs to do a better job of making that distinction. Too often he just comes of as a hectoring critic. But his criticism do not arise from the same place as Frum et al.
Teflon93 | 6.16.09 @ 10:40AM
Conservatism is not so much "skepticism of the modern"---although that is its style---as it is "respect for ancient and unwavering principles of free men."
Here's a practical example:
What's the conservative position on vaccination?
Vaccination is quite new---an innovation of the 18th century.
Do we therefore join those who resist childhood vaccination on the basis of relative novelty?
No, of course not. Vaccination has been proven to prevent disease and to prolong and protect life. Conservatives are RATIONAL. We do not reject the useful or the laudable on the basis that it may be new.
Thus conservatives had no trouble accepting Art Laffer's famous napkin drawing. The model was new; the concept rested on principles as old as Adam Smith --- whoops, another 18th century novelty---and the concept put into practice quite clearly worked. It is working today.
"Programmatic movement conservatism" is merely another way of saying "respect for the Constititution and the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence."
And beware any conservatism that requires a modifier. It ain't the real thing, baby.
I would argue that Dreher's criticism---such as it is---arises from precisely the same place as Frum et all: the desire to be popular in the "right" precincts.
JP| 6.16.09 @ 11:45AM
Teflon,
I read Dreher's Crunchy Con book some years ago, and I couldn't finish it. Dreher is a fromer Evangelical turned Roman Catholic, turned Orthodox Christian. His conservatism is more an aesthetic stance than a political or social call to action. There is much in modern American life that offends him (shopping malls, McMansions, suburbs, automobiles, Wal Mart, etc...). Dreher also has problems with libertarians, libetarian-c0nservatives, and populists.
Dreher, like K. Parker, Brooks, and Frum is essientially a newspaper man. So, he is something of a hybird. He is an Orthodox Christians and aesthetic conservative who has no problem meeting liberals more than half way on most issues. He shares thier eco-obsessions, thier disdain for Big Business (or big anything), but deplores thier morals.
Rod Dreher is an interesting if not confused thinker.
Mary| 6.16.09 @ 12:44PM
For him, we’re “the Mongoloid Right.”
Ace has a great takedown of Dreher in this fit of right thinking charm.
I’m all for Dreher, and his band of dour and cranky men holing themselves up in communes so as to found their veggie-smoothie polis, keep the beginner’s mind and all that entails. But as some sort of adjunct to the consummate guide to unlocking the potential of conservatism: caveat emptor.
And for those looking for a substantial and spiritual read, skip Dreher altogether and go Sasse and grand souls like him who aren’t so prone to misanthropy.
**At the other end of the sea whose shore lies before us, by the Sils Maria, there is an inscription carved into a mighty stone, on a forested peninsula. The inscription reads "Friedrich Nietzsche" and above is the song of the deep midnight, from the Zarathustra who once originated in Sils Maria. Year after year Nietzsche had fled from the hustle of the world to the loneliness of this mountain vale, upon which at that time lay the deep stillness of natural isolation. Before the green mirror of the sea, to the right and to the left the steep cliffs, and in the distance the desolate ice and snow of the high mountain peaks, far from men and their boisterous bustle, he sat there and wrote his great works. Among the poems, which he here created - They are among the greatest written in the German language. Perhaps the deep isolation, the most desperate lostness of the soul, has never found such an expression as in them. - There is one, which describes how in the terrifying loneliness of the mountain heights, cries out for people who understand him: "the friend remains, ready day and night." But no one comes who understands him. And finally his screams subside, the cry of an endless desire: "The song is over, the desire of a sweet cry dies in the mouth... Now the world laughs, the terrifying curtain is torn, the wedding came for light and darkness." The dust passes into the night of insanity.**
Respectively, if links don’t work:
http://tinyurl.com/l3svdz and
http://tinyurl.com/6klxzm
astorian| 6.16.09 @ 6:11PM
To give you some idea of where Dreher now stands, he recently wrote a glowing endorsement of Jimmy Carter's "malaise" speech!
I'm serious- far from believing that Ronald Reagan's optimism was a good thing, Dreher has come around to thinking Jimmy Carter had the right idea, and that we should have embraced the notion of a smaller, poorer, less powerful America.
freelunch| 6.17.09 @ 8:09AM
"Thus conservatives had no trouble accepting Art Laffer's famous napkin drawing. The model was new; the concept rested on principles as old as Adam Smith --- whoops, another 18th century novelty---and the concept put into practice quite clearly worked. It is working today. "
What utter nonsense. Laffer's claim has been shown to be false by the experiments done by Reagan and the Bushes. Or experience is that cutting taxes in the US means cutting revenue. So much for rational analysis by conservatives.
It is interesting to see the Spectator finding ways to alienate the middle by calling Obama a Nazi, though, while the rest of the right is calling him a commie.
freelunch| 6.17.09 @ 8:09AM
"Thus conservatives had no trouble accepting Art Laffer's famous napkin drawing. The model was new; the concept rested on principles as old as Adam Smith --- whoops, another 18th century novelty---and the concept put into practice quite clearly worked. It is working today. "
What utter nonsense. Laffer's claim has been shown to be false by the experiments done by Reagan and the Bushes. Or experience is that cutting taxes in the US means cutting revenue. So much for rational analysis by conservatives.
It is interesting to see the Spectator finding ways to alienate the middle by calling Obama a Nazi, though, while the rest of the right is calling him a commie.
rusli zainal sang visoner | 8.29.09 @ 1:00AM
nice share, great article, very usefull for us...thank you
Stop Dreaming Start Action |
kenali dan kunjungi objek wisata di pandeglang
Yusuf| 9.5.09 @ 9:53AM
What utter nonsense. Laffer's claim has been shown to be false by the experiments done by Reagan and the Bushes. Or experience is that cutting taxes in the US means cutting revenue. So much for rational analysis by conservatives.
bilinmeyen numaralar
sgk
Rick Marshel| 9.9.09 @ 3:05AM
Very informative and nice blog. Thanks.
Dissertation Writing
hoping to | 10.22.09 @ 8:53AM
Other notable issues that got nothing more than a passing mention were the operations of the financial sector (even though this bestsellers book was first published in 2008), protecting the environment (which remains one of the biggest stumbling blocks for free markets), education, healthcare and the various options available to government when regulating markets. I didn’t learn anything new over the course of this book nor am I any more inclined towards the merits of markets than I was before I read it, and I daresay anyone who is skeptical about markets will not be greatly swayed by this book – which I consider to be something of a missed opportunity given the pedigree of the author.
term paper guide | 11.16.09 @ 11:08AM
Great blog, people get lots of information keep on posting this type of attractive articles.
custom paper guide
college term paper
images videos insolites | 2.24.10 @ 7:46AM
Good blog !