One Little Hitler

I haven't been able to determine who drew the editorial cartoon gracing this post, but it was apparently made in 1942.  I think we're safe in believing that it isn't, in fact, a self-portrait.

It presents an interesting take on Hitler's popularity with the German people at that time.  The slavish figure genuflecting to Der Fuhrer gives thanks that Hitler has saved him from democracy, which is called a scourge.

The belief that democracy is if not a scourge then a decadent failure as a form of government which should be discarded was a popular one among the intelligentsia of the time, including that disgusting Nazi toady, Heidegger.  It continues to be the belief of various right-wing intellectuals in Europe currently, for much the same reasons.  Those reasons seem to have their bases in nationalism, the preservation of cultural if not biological purity, resentment and the desire to be safe and secure followers of a national or cultural hero-figure.  Democracy is seen as chaotic and too favorable to opposing and unusual views and people.

One can't help but wonder if that's how many feel about it here and now.  Not that our Great Republic has ever been a democracy, properly speaking.  But such as it is, it may be that we have come to a point where a significant number of us are not comfortable with it, for reasons similar to those supporters of fascism in the past.  

Others have already wondered whether our Glorious Union is becoming similar to the version of America in Sinclair Lewis' It Can't Happen Here, published in 1936.  Comparisons have been made between current political figures (one in particular) and Buzz Windrip, the American dictator in the novel.  Buzz was probably modeled on Huey Long, but his personality traits are similar to those of other men better known now than the Kingfish, a Louisiana populist.  Buzz incarcerated political opponents, denigrated women and minorities, was anti-immigrant; he was vulgar, vain, outlandish, and a prolific liar, and very popular.  The American fascism described in the novel was a great friend to big business.  It had more in common with Mussolini's version of corporate fascism than with Hitler's Nazis.  Hitler wasn't all that well known in America at that time.

In these times when political figures declaim, to acclaim, that immigrants are poisoning our blood and are vermin, as are political opponents, the assertion that what took place a hundred years or so ago in Europe can't take place here is less than credible.  It's apparent that elections and the rule of law mean nothing to many here in God's Favorite Country.  What's next?

It's interesting that in Lewis' novel, the opponents of Windrip and his regime took refuge in Canada.  We hear Canada being praised often in these dark times, for a number of reasons.  Was Lewis prescient in that respect as well?

On the Threshold of a Scream

Sinclair Lewis wrote that when fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.  Pictures of supporters of Donald Trump, their right hands raised in response to his surprising request that they swear to support him, tend to bring fascism to mind.  And references to the fact that it can happen here are being made in the media, some pundits also echoing Lewis in doing so.

I suppose that it's inevitable that fascism be contemplated during this freakish presidential election.  The electorate of our Great Republic seems determined to raise hell this time around, and is doing so with considerable success.  It's hard not to be disappointed and frustrated given the venality and dullness of our political elite, but there are signs that more than disgust in our politics is involved.  Anger, hatred and fear are pervasive, and on such things demagogues--and fascists--have thrived.

It's difficult to say whether fears of fascism are justified.  It's understandable to fear the worst when the worst of us is so much on display.  If what we see is or will develop into fascism, I doubt it will be of the ostensibly militaristic kind which thrived in the 20th century.   I doubt the U.S. will engage in wars of conquest.  We're already involved in military action around the world in any case.  Wars of retribution would be more likely, but those wars would probably only involve an increase in the actions we're already taking; more bombings, more drones, perhaps more "boots on the ground" but no great military actions.

Lewis' prediction of what fascism would look like here is more likely.  Americanism and naive Christianity, certainly.  But the factors of money and race will be involved as well, I hazard to guess.  Money simply because it's needed to accomplish anything, race because the America that many and the supporters of Trump particularly envision is very white (like his supporters, I suppose).  No peculiar peoples live there, or if they do they're quiet, undemanding and certainly not as well off as white folks.  They pose no threat, in other words, to those white.

The American form of fascism may not be racist strictly speaking, however.  I think the long struggle against racism here has had such success that it will be difficult for government to openly prefer one race to another on a national scale.  The whiteness of it would be more cultural than racist.  People would for the most part like the same sort of things, do the same sort of things, and those who do not would not be welcome.  People would learn American English and use it exclusively, go to church, be patriotic in a righteous and simple way, mind there own business, distrust foreigners, not ask questions about the American Way of Life.

Still, though the Republican Party may be descending into chaos, I don't think our nation is quite as chaotic as I think would be necessary in order for fascism to prevail.  Nor do I think we've reached the point where a person or group would be able to make the unilateral decisions required to dominate the federal government or the states.  We have something of a commitment to democracy here; certainly more of a commitment than Germany had before Hitler, or Italy had before Mussolini.  Also, we're jealous of our rights.  We hate to see others share them, of course, but also hate to see them restricted.

We've probably become too diverse too accept even a culture of whiteness on a large scale, however, if we define that as WASP or working-class whiteness. 

Unless fear overwhelms us and we're willing to waive our rights and the law for the sake of security, we should be safe from fascism of the 20th century variety.  Perhaps a kinder, gentler fascism might take hold, gradually.  Just what that would be is unclear. 

Reason and its Enemies

Richard Wolin, a professor of history and comparative literature at City University of New York, has written an interesting book entitled The Seduction of Unreason:  The Intellectual Romance with Fascism from Nietzsche to Postmodernism.  Although its title is cumbersome (it seems authors these days must include explanatory subtitles, as it were, following colons, in every book title) the writing is not.  It's a lengthy book, but unfortunately there's much to tell.

The title of the book is, shall we say, suggestive of its argument.  If it had been written by an American or English philosopher, continental philosophers and their followers here would likely ignore it.  But perhaps the author's status as a professor of comparative literature will lure them into reading at least summaries of the book, comparative literature buffs being far more capable philosophers than actual philosophers almost by definition as far as postmodernists are concerned.

It's not clear to me that the romance of intellectuals with autocracy began with Nietzsche.  I think certain philosophers have always had a fondness for "enlightened" despotism.  Even J.S. Mill in his more Romantic moments thought this would be beneficial, and under the influence of such as Coleridge dreamt up a kind of elite, a "clerisy", which would govern humanity wisely.  This pernicious view has been with us since Plato, at least.

But fascism is a peculiar, modern form of autocracy, a hodgepodge of political, racial, quasi-religious, quasi-philosophical and nationalistic mumbo-jumbo, and as such grew out of what I think can fairly be called the "unreason" which resulted from the reaction to the Enlightenment which has been called (not very creatively) the Counter-Enlightenment.  I personally prefer calling it the Un-Enlightenment.  Some thought that because reason, in and of itself, didn't produce a paradise here on Earth, it's opposite should be unleashed upon the world.

It turns out reason's opposite could be all kinds of things when considered by European intellectuals.  The emotions, the instincts, Jungian collective unconscious, the erotic, the spirit inherent in a particular race or purported race or nation.  Whatever was unreasonable in human beings was glorified at least as much as reason, or what was thought reason, was glorified by other European intellectuals during the Enlightenment.  This intellectual environment was ideal for the growth of fascism, a political/social/cultural philosophy dependent on the unreasonable, dismissive of moderation and tolerance, devoted to the irrational in humanity.

This led to what was extremely goofy in some cases, as Wolin points out.  There is Georges Bataille, for example, a follower of Nietzsche who was fascinated with human sacrifice.  He and others formed a little society which was devoted to the idea, if not the practice, of human sacrifice.  It seems its members were willing to be sacrificed but not inclined to perform the sacrifice, sadly.  Bataille was an influence on Foucault, who favored the Iranian revolution and the religious fascism of the Islamic clerics who took control after the Shah was overthrown, and others.  I'm not sure what was going on in the case of Bataille and sacrifice, but suspect he thought this was the sort of thing unreasonable people would and should do, which is undeniable, and that there was something mystic and pagan involved in it.

Goofiness aside, though, the emphasis on unreason motivated the endorsement of Hitler's Nazism and Mussolini's fascism by a number of thinkers dissatisfied with liberal democratic politics and values.  This is pretty well documented, and Wolin of course goes into some detail regarding famous Nazis and fellow travelers such as Heidegger and Paul de Man.

Mussolini's Italy and  Hitler's Germany were once considered models of efficiency and, it's hard to believe, physical and mental health.  It was thought that these nations had a vigor and intensity lacking in liberal democracies, for what may be considered spiritual reasons.  They were one, a people united, not chaotic in the manner of the democracies and especially the Weimer Republic.  Most importantly it seems to their intellectual devotees, they had abandoned liberal values as well; freedom, individuality, the conflict of ideas and worst of all, materialism.  Money and business have always been the subjects of contempt for the learned as well as the aristocratic.  Of course, the learned were also inclined to  associate them with Jews, themselves yet another subject of contempt.

It's quite possible to overestimate reason, and to impute too much importance to it.  It's also quite possible to underestimate the significance of the irrational in our lives.  Man cannot live by reason alone, and it may be said that the Enlightenment thinkers erred in their zealous emphasis and reliance on it to the exclusion of all else.  I think sometimes that those of the Enlightenment were drunk on their sudden freedom from the dominance of the Church.

But I find it impossible to blame the Enlightenment for the ills of our society, as it seems members of the Un-Enlightenment are inclined to do.  It isn't reason or science which motivated the Holocaust, for example.  Essential to that horror were concepts of the Volk and German Romanticism and mysticism.  They were also essential to German expansionism and sense of mastery and special  purpose; to rule the world and thereby save it.  Heidegger warned against technology but eagerly joined in the glorification of Hitler and in according him the status of a demigod.

We're at out best when we think, and as Dewey said we think when we're presented with problems.   Thinking involves problem solving and is essential to it.  We don't think when we rely on mysticism, our so-called inherent nature, our "being", our vigor, our unity, religion, our race in making decisions.  It's when we abandon reason as a means to solve problems that we produce monsters and follow them.  We become followers only, in fact, as we don't think but rather feel; followers only follow, some better than others.  Reason provides the best chance of understanding and solving the problems we face in life.

Unreason doesn't require justification.  There's no process by which those seduced by it test its results, no questions are asked as unreason isn't subject to question or for that matter definition.  Questioning, defining, testing have no place when reason isn't employed, but is instead shunned.  The result is certainty, but at a terrible price, as the certain are thoughtless, intolerant and cruel.