No Serf Rotating Header Image

Terror and Liberalism

Back in 2003, Paul Berman wrote a book called Terror and Liberalism, a liberal call to action against Islamic terrorism.

Berman constructs his argument simply: he first establishes the existence of pathological mass movements, using Albert Camus’ The Rebel as a framework for that argument. Berman links the fascists and communists together, claiming that they progress through the stages of rebellion, nihilism, the creation of a movement, and end at Armageddon — where the faithful face the damned in a final confrontation.

Berman then moves to the strongest part of the book: his examination of the works of Sayyid Qutb. Qutb could be described as the father of modern Islamic jihad, and Berman condenses his works into a brisk 52 pages. In the end, though, Berman concludes that

Qutb’s doctrine was wonderfully original and deeply Muslim, looked at from one angle; and, from another angle, merely one more version of the European totalitarian ideal.

The philosophical connection thus established, Berman then moves on to providing examples of Muslim totalitarianism, from Iran and Iraq to the Sudan and beyond. It is a sobering march of depredation, one which good men (and women) should oppose.

Berman then turns to the forces that prevent such opposition, and discovers them unmobilized. They stand inert, or even assisting the totalitarians. Berman chronicles their efforts, starting with the French Socialists of the 1930s, some of whom collaborated with the Nazis in the worst possible ways, and ending with a scathing review of Noam Chomsky, who claimed that Americans caused 9/11. Berman says:

Ultimately, the error was conceptual. […] It was an unwillingness, sometimes an outright refusal, to accept that, from time to time, mass political movements do get drunk on the idea of slaughter. […] It was a belief that the world is, by and large, a rational place.

Berman’s book concludes with the aforementioned call to action, to attack the root of Islamism by reinforcing the liberal ideas for which we fight. (Berman even points out that Bush picked up — and dropped — that ball when he pushed Women’s Rights as one of the reasons for invading Afghanistan.) Seven years on, we can conclude that — apart from an individual here and there — the Western Left has ignored Berman’s call. This is unfortunate, for those who paid attention to the Anbar Awakening can see some of his ideas put into effect by military forces.

Even seven years on, this book is still worth a read, if for no other reason than for its summary of Qutb’s commentaries.

(Paul Berman has a new book out, The Flight of the Intellectuals. He’s also interviewed by Michael J. Totten. An interesting part of the interview is Berman’s admission to being afflicted with “Bush Derangement Syndrome” and his effort to separate Bush’s personality — which drives him nuts — with his actual record.)

Arizona Ain’t Alone

For those of you who’ve been immersed in the whole military thing, you recognize the importance of the words “defense in depth”. In the immigration world, that means interior enforcement: U.S. not cracking down on immigrants with expired visas

Worse, when they do enforce it internally, weird stuff like this happens: Illegal immigrant’s 145G ‘deport gift’

I don’t think our representatives can survive in office much longer if they keep this up. This poll captures the mood: 87% Say English Should Be U.S. Official Language

Finally: AZ Governor Jan Brewer blasts critics, dispels law myths

Greece and You

Rep. Paul Ryan begins: EU contagion will spread to the US

Robert Samuelson asks the question: Depression 2010? His answer is that we’re dependent on China, India, and Brazil moving from export economies to consumption ones. Read the whole thing.

Things are so bad in Greece they’re given the opposite of the advice we got all winter: NYT Tells Greece to Abandon Socialized Medicine?

And if you think Greece is getting off lightly, Anne Applebaum describes the conditions attached to the EU/IMF bailout thusly: “This is the kind of thing a surrendering field marshal signs in a railway car in the forest at the end of a bloody war. ” Read the details: Time for Greece to play by the E.U.’s rules

Finally, there seems to be some troublesome things going on behind the scenes: Rater Haters Finally Find a Reason to Turn On Moody’s, and It’s a Bad Reason

Blowback from Obamacare

Did you wonder why Henry Waxman called off that hearing about the charges that companies announced concerning Obamacare? Well, it turns out that he got all the documents he was looking for and more, and it turns out that:

Major corporations may dump health insurance, pay penalties instead

Another link from Hot Air: Medical device makers mull layoffs after ObamaCare

Over at CNN: Health care law’s massive, hidden tax change (via Instapundit and TaxProf)

Multiple Log-in Sources

As promised in the original No Serf announcement, I’ve add a plug-in that’ll let you register using other accounts. The important ones are probably Facebook and Livejournal (it’s the pencil on the second page of selections).

Video from Tucson City Council Meeting

(h/t to Ace of Spades.)

Tennessee

In case you missed it (and with the coverage of the oil slick and the Time Square bomber, you might have), Tennessee got thirteen inches of rain last week, causing massive flooding and (at last count) thirty deaths.

If you want to contribute to the relief effort, Michelle Malkin’s got a link-post to various charities.

Though, last I checked, she was missing this one from the Red Cross. (h/t to Hot Air for that one.)

On Words

So the missus bought me a copy of F.A. Hayek’s Road to Serfdom for my birthday this year, and I was struck by something Hayek mentioned in his foreword (for the 1956 edition). Simply put, he noted that we Americans play strange games with words.

The ones I’m thinking about are conservative and liberal. Consider their root meanings: to be conservative is to defend the status quo; to be liberal is to promote the liberty of the individual.

At the birth of the United States, these two philosophies were not conflicting. Consider: our Constitution is essentially a document that enshrines liberal values. Defense of that status quo was both a conservative and liberal position — in contrast to Europe, where conservative meant royalist and generally put one in opposition to the liberals.

Consider also our extant parties. The Republican party started out as a liberal party: the party of abolition. At the time, you could easily describe the Democrats as the conservative one: defending slavery, and the Constitution of the day. After the Civil War was over, though, the Republicans had turned into the party of government, and the Democrats, the party of the opposition.

But it was not a simple division: the Republicans (not so “Grand” or “Old” yet) still included its Radical members (still liberals, but now conservative in the defense of their victory), who counterpointed the moneyed industrialists born of the War (your stereotypical business conservatives); and the Democrats were an alliance of Northeastern Labor (liberals, leaning towards socialism) and Southern Copperheads (reactionaries, who some would call conservative).

These alliances created schizophrenic parties, ones that tried to redefine words to their pleasure. It is how you get “conservatives” who are more classically liberal than the “liberals” who defend a conservative bureaucracy.