There is a stock character in fiction, particularly science fiction, who might be called the Immortal. Whether he be vampire or angel, alien or just some everyman blessed — or cursed — with Methuselah-like longevity, certain traits define the Immortal. He is polite, generous, even kind, but also resigned to the fact that life is often none of these things. Sometimes he is dismissive or condescending, or perhaps bemusedly indulgent of men’s political or ideological passions, the way old professors relate to freshmen who insist upon the novelty of their ideas and the audacity of their fervor. He’s seen it all before, maybe done it himself when he was a younger man, and he knows deep in the subterranean reservoirs of his soul that there is indeed nothing new under the sun. His own passions are more like cultivated tastes, hard-learned lessons formed by trial and error over many decades. He is disgusted by harmful stupidity but reluctant to correct what can only be gleaned from firsthand experience. He understands Edmund Burke’s insight that “example is the school of mankind, and they will learn at no other.”
This thought kept intruding on me while reading the works of Albert Jay Nock, whose elegant criticism of statism seems to grow more relevant with each passing day. Nock was born in 1870, which he believed was as good a year as any to mark the beginning of the end of civilization. Often compared to Henry Adams as a chronicler of his age, Nock was one of the great men of letters of the 20th century…
{ 7 comments }
Jonah Goldberg? Who are you talking about man?
OK. Nevermind, I see that, yes, that is who you are talking about by clicking on the link at the end.
Are we mending some fences Mr. Goldberg?
I seem to recall a litany of anti-libertarian articles in the National Review not so long ago (7/8 yeara ago) written by Goldberg, when the Republicans were fat and sassy with Bush II in the White House and Congress at least even. Libertarians were disinvited from the Party table unceremoniously, and that reality along with Bush signing Medicare Part D knocked me from the party ranks. Ron Paul’s shabby treatment last November didn’t warm the icy air much
And now Nock is a genius? I can only hope that one of the major parties decides that fiscal conservatism is the bedrock from which freedom and liberty spring. I won’t hold my breath that it will ever be the Dems. If the Republicans/Conservatives decide that any hope the party has is to fight hardline fiscally and if any concessions are to be made it’s in their social conservatism. Gay issues and abortion aren’t going anywhere anytime soon. Let’s concentrate on dismantling the Apparatus, shall we?
Maybe there’s a chink of hope shining through. Cynical as I am I hope this isn’t just a ploy to get some people back within the ranks to recapture the Federal level only to be respurned when power is gained.
Goldberg apparently wants to claim Nock for the modern conservatives, as if they were minarchist anti-statists, i.e., a fancy way of saying low taxes, limited government. Fat chance! Even if Nock didn’t think there was much he could do about it, I don’t think he would approve of this kind of deception, especially in his name.
Mr. Goldberg writes with an elegant substance about one of the great advocates for liberty. But his conclusions taser a cognitive dissonance in his own philosophy. According to Goldberg, “the times are different,” implying that Nock’s ideas are anachronistic. I assume Goldberg holds the same view of the Constitution. Given his unabashed gushing over Bush II, whose own view of the Constitution was that it was just a “g*dd*mn*ed piece of paper,” Goldberg *defacto* makes his political and ideological bed with the living document advocates in the battle of the Supremes. But we all discovered that about NR long ago, their protestations to the contrary.
From later in the piece:
“And that is why the Right is in so much better shape than it was during Nock’s time, even as liberals are mounting a statist revival. Yes, statism is on the march again, but anti-statism isn’t an amusing pursuit for cape-wearing exotics like Nock anymore; it is the animating spirit of institutions launched and nourished by lovers of liberty. . . . Moreover, the American people are not nearly as Neolithic as Nock believed, proof of which can be found in the slow and uneven unraveling of statism since his death, as with the still-unfinished Reagan Revolution.”
The only way that Jonah Goldberg can believe the American people are not so stupid and straight-facedly claim his magazine to be an intellectual heir of Nock, is that he and his magazine really stand at the head of the mindless mob of conformists, participating in and leading the rising tide of statism. Disgusting. I hope no one here actually subscribes to this.
I have a love/hate relationship with Goldberg’s writing.
I wrote at length about why Goldberg was wrong when it comes to suicide. I wrote a letter to National Review primarily because of my distaste at the author’s usage of the term “liberal.”
And yet, I still find myself liking Goldberg for some reason. He constantly lets his conservatism distort his explanations of things, yet it is clear he is interested in ideas, something I have a hard time saying about other conservatives.
Case in point, he wrote an article about corporatism some months ago. This article pointed out some of the problems inherent in corporate-state alliances, and was very critical of corporate welfare, among other things. He even cited left-libertarian Roderick T. Long. It is clear that ideas interest, if not excite, him.
But he ended up conflating social conservatism with his critique. He also opted to describe criticisms of corporate-state alliances as inherently conservative, when I on the other hand would describe the alliances themselves as inherently conservative. It seems that he’s embracing, more than in previous years, libertarian ideas, but he is not surrendering his flawed terminology and other ideological problems.
All in all, I did like the article, and think it’s probably the best one will find from a conservative on that subject. But it doesn’t hold a candle to what Rothbard (among others) have said on the subject.
Mr. Clem writes, “Goldberg apparently wants to claim Nock for the modern conservatives.”
This sums up my entire major problem with Mr. Goldberg. He wants to claim a lot of libertarian ideas for the modern conservative movement, when in fact these ideas as not conservative at all. Conservatism is a movement mostly oriented away from ideas, and the few good ideas they do (during fair weather) champion were all developed by libertarians. Worse yet, by he mixes good libertarian and classical liberal ideas (calling them “conservative”) with other ideas that are actually destructive of liberty.
But I want to end on a positive note. So I’ll simply say I do like Goldberg much more than most self-described conservatives, if for no other reason because he’s not anti-intellectual. I can’t say that for many in the popular conservative movement.
Cheers,
Alex Peak
Comments on this entry are closed.