Maniacal Modernists and Loopy Liberals
James Hitchcock is a professor of history at St. Louis University, and he has written a tremendous piece on Liberalism and Modernism which explains much of the dementia which infects modern thinking.
He has this to say about Modernism:
Modernism began with the French Revolution, whose maniacal urge to destroy the past even went to the point of abolishing the calendar and attempting to begin history entirely anew. Artists now became conscious of themselves as an “avant-garde” (previously a military term) and defined creativity as requiring a radical break with the art of the past. The new “bohemian” social type carried this ideal into society, defining free and authentic human existence as necessarily at odds with accepted beliefs and behavior. With Ludwig Feuerbach and Karl Marx, atheism for the first time became intellectually respectable, even as “theologians” like Bruno Bauer and David Strauss reinterpreted Christianity so as to require an outright denial of what Christians had believed for 1,800 years.
As Friedrich Nietzsche foresaw, the desire to destroy the past and begin history anew would require, as modernism’s final stage, the “transvaluation of values,” in which everything once thought to be virtuous—piety, family loyalty, personal uprightness, patriotism, self-reliance—would be turned into vices. Throughout history, human values have primarily been centered in family, religion, and country, and those institutions had to be destroyed if a “new humanity” were to be created.
This piece fits nicely with many of my own themes; Be sure to read it in it`s entirety.
He has this to say about Modernism:
Modernism began with the French Revolution, whose maniacal urge to destroy the past even went to the point of abolishing the calendar and attempting to begin history entirely anew. Artists now became conscious of themselves as an “avant-garde” (previously a military term) and defined creativity as requiring a radical break with the art of the past. The new “bohemian” social type carried this ideal into society, defining free and authentic human existence as necessarily at odds with accepted beliefs and behavior. With Ludwig Feuerbach and Karl Marx, atheism for the first time became intellectually respectable, even as “theologians” like Bruno Bauer and David Strauss reinterpreted Christianity so as to require an outright denial of what Christians had believed for 1,800 years.
As Friedrich Nietzsche foresaw, the desire to destroy the past and begin history anew would require, as modernism’s final stage, the “transvaluation of values,” in which everything once thought to be virtuous—piety, family loyalty, personal uprightness, patriotism, self-reliance—would be turned into vices. Throughout history, human values have primarily been centered in family, religion, and country, and those institutions had to be destroyed if a “new humanity” were to be created.
This piece fits nicely with many of my own themes; Be sure to read it in it`s entirety.
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 3:57 PM
3 Comments:
An interesting read, indeed. One part that caught my eye was this quote:
In principle, the "social issues" should not be matters of political debate at all, since the political expression of those issues ought to manifest the values of the citizenry, values that originate from independent, indeed superior, sources. The reason liberals can make matters of fundamental meaning matters of public debate is that the welfare state, in its claim of responsibility for people's lives in the fullest sense, inevitably turns questions of value into political issues.
This speaks right to one of the fundamental problems we face in this country, today. The government has taken too much control away from the people--or the people have ceded too much control to government. I guess its all in your perception, really. Either way, the government is doing far too much for you that you really should be doing for yourself.
I had to chuckle when he mentioned the issue of gay marriage. What exactly is the difference between a man and a man or a woman and a woman living together with and without a license from the state? Nothing, except the license entitles the couple to government granted benefits--and that's the root of the argument. You or I have absolutely no right to tell others how to live their lives if their lifestyles don't harm anyone else. We do, however, have a say when it comes to those same couples trying to receive government-handouts (cash) using a government-granted marriage license. We reason that it's our money so we should get a say in how it's spent.
This is where we see the liberal crowd stepping in to impose various "equal rights" programs to level the playing field for all comers. For every socialist program, one can trace it's roots back to a liberal who perceived that there existed some socio-economic injustice for a certain "class" of citizens. To protect them--the aged, the handicapped, the children, the minorities, etc.--the liberals turned to government regulations--imposed by force of government--to lower all of us to the same level (notice that I said "lower" as that's an important distinction).
I'll leave this comment here as I've written enough. Again, thanks for sharing the link. I'd just like to part with these words: If government were to do those things the Founders had originally tasked it to do (see Art. 1, Sec. 8, U.S. Constitution), we wouldn't have anywhere near the problems we do today. After all, most of James Hitchcock's article was predicated on what liberals have managed to accomplish in the last 100 years using the force of government to advance their socialist agendas. If you take government out of the equation, liberals would once again find themselves on the fringe of society.
Great comment, Don!
For every socialist program, one can trace it's roots back to a liberal who perceived that there existed some socio-economic injustice for a certain "class" of citizens. To protect them--the aged, the handicapped, the children, the minorities, etc.--the liberals turned to government regulations--imposed by force of government--to lower all of us to the same level (notice that I said "lower" as that's an important distinction).
Sadly some of us need to be co-erced by law into doing the decent thing.
Post a Comment
<< Home