P. sends along an interesting feature related to my recent articles about the growing conjunction between the neo-marxist left, neo-fascists, and Islamists. My thesis was that it's driven by the desire to shoot the same messenger. A Foreign Affairs Magazine article gives some sobering examples of this conjunction, and also adds the role of globalization as a catalyst. Now Frederick Turner's "Tiananmen in London" suggests that there may be a common theme here that both relates to and transcends the common hatreds thesis:
bq. "At this time in the world's history a great turning point is imminent. And here we begin to see why there is this strange and unholy alliance between idealistic liberalism, the vestiges of the old socialist left, traditional third world authoritarians, and the unrelenting forces of Islamic totalitarianism, theocracy, and terror. However various their ideas of what is the good, all are united in their desire for an enforced law of the good.
bq. "Even elements of the human rights movement, much of the anti-globalist community, and a large swatch of the philanthropic world -- the so-called NGOs -- still yearn for a government that, through sumptuary laws, high taxation, political correctness, and entitlements, would force to happen what people ought to, but do not make happen of their own free will. Much philanthropy has the stated goal of eliminating itself when through its advocacy and lobbying it has given government the power to compel what was once freely given; at which time the employees of the Foundations would presumably take over the powerful role of government civil servants. If the law of right is to become the only enforceable law of the human race, all these constituencies will have suffered what will feel to them to be a mortal setback, and will have to accept the humble and weaponless position of Judaism and Christendom..." [full article]
Thought provoking. If valid, his thesis would certainly tie up a number of loose threads - most prominently, the role and positions of many International NGOs.
This is an important issue, so I'll continue to forward interesting posts from all sides that may improve our understanding of the Great Idiotarian Conjunction and the mass hate movements it supports or enables. Don't forget Amy Chua's work about local dynamics, either, as discussed in "Democracy, Liberty, Ethnic Cleansing?!?" Aside from providing an additional angle on the global conjunction, her work offers valuable insights into likely fault lines the GIC will seek to exploit.
If we really want to beat these conjoined enemies and win what Armed Liberal has called "The War on Bad Philosophy", we'll need a true understanding of our enemy... and ourselves. By bringing you these perspectives and opening them up for reflection and discussion, we hope to contribute in some small way to that process.
If Christmas reminds us of anything, it reminds us that hatred doesn't have to win.
The Turner piece is a deeper explanation of why A.L.'s *Emergent Security* post is at odds with the modern Democratic party. The Democratic party has been taken over by the do-gooders who are willing to trample over property rights in the name of income equality, environmentalism, free health care, and equal education. Emergent security can only succeed if people are protecting their own property. If people are given what they need by the state, they have no individual interest in protecting anything.
The point someone made about the current orange threat is great. Because the state choose to use reinforced cockpit doors, if the pilot is the terrorist then the passengers can do nothing to stop him. Had they gone the emergent root, then some of the passengers would have guns and we wouldn't be in this mess.
The bottom line here is that the left, the NGOs etc. all believe in solving problems by force and violence.
Totally contrary to their stated position.
The right at least says some problems are amenable to this solution so you can keep an eye on them. The left pretends so they are harder to watch.
Turner's article also reminded me of Virginia Postrel's dynamism vs. stasism distinction that she argues for in her The Future and Its Enemies.
Those that wish to enforce a law of the good are stasists. They believe that some source, whether theocratic, collective, or technocratic, can determine the right way to live our lives, and, once this one true way has been determined, it must be enforced. This directly conflicts with the experimentation, change, and freedom of choice of classical liberalism.
If this is the guiding force behind the alliance, then other even stranger bedfellows might be possible, including some of the more nativist factions of the religious right. In fact, she argues that this has been happening for some time now in less extreme groups, specifically anti-globalization demonstrators. Perhaps this latest conjunction is an "extremification" of an already present trend....