1. Liberalism is a religion. Central to this religion is the assertion that evil does not exist, all conflict being attributed to a lack of understanding between the opposed. The notion that an honest exchange of views will solve all problems is an article of faith, i.e. war never solved anything.
a. How is it that one can force oneself to accept horrendous ideas, and events, as though they were normal and totally expected? Perhaps a cautionary tale from the 1930s
The French Socialists of the 1930s had impeccable democratic credentials, dating back to the 19th century. They won elections, and in Leon Blum they produced a great leader, a prime minister who had the ability to fuse French patriotism and social justice, and the finest cultural values.
2. Which brings us to Paul Faure, the general-secretary of said French Socialists, and leader of the faction that opposed war- at any cost. While Blum recognized the horror that Hitler represented, the Paul-Fauristes desperately sought to find a description of reality that did not point in the direction of war! Dont judge Germany too quickly, nor too starkly. After all, they had been treated poorly by the Treaty of Versailles. And their people living in Slavic countries werent being treated well shouldnt we show some flexibility? Conciliate the outraged German people! This is not cowardly, or unprincipled no, it is simply anti-war. And, therefore, the real dangers were not from the Nazis or Hitler, but from the warmongers, those who would profit from war!
a. While those were the arguments of the anti-war left, the unfocused or philosophical basis which gave credence to those arguments, was that, in our modern world, even the enemies of reason cannot be the enemies of reason. Can you say liberal naïveté of the nineteenth century a simple minded optimism, the liberalism of a strictly rational world, the liberalism of denial.
b. Paul Faures French Socialists refused to believe that millions of respectable Germans subscribed to a political movement whose doctrines were paranoid conspiracy theories, blood-curdling hatreds, medieval superstitions, and the lure of mass murder. For the Socialists, there was always a why.
3. So our Socialist friends listened to the Nazis speeches about Jews, and stroked their bearded chins, and queried, what is anti-Semitism, anyway? Arent there some Jews who we dont like? And the war-hawks some of them are Jews why, even Leon Blum, he is a Jew, and he takes a hard line suspicious. Perhaps Hitler isnt entirely wrong.
a. Marshal Petain and the right wing proposed to accept the invasion, a new government under Hitler. The anti-war left voted with Petain, and the new Vichy government arrested Blum, and sent him to Dachau.
4. The defenders of human rights and liberal values evolved into bigotry, tyranny, and murder. The democratic leftists accepted a naïve faith in the rationalism of all things, and ended up as fascists.
From chapter six of "Terror and Liberalism," Paul Berman
a. How is it that one can force oneself to accept horrendous ideas, and events, as though they were normal and totally expected? Perhaps a cautionary tale from the 1930s
The French Socialists of the 1930s had impeccable democratic credentials, dating back to the 19th century. They won elections, and in Leon Blum they produced a great leader, a prime minister who had the ability to fuse French patriotism and social justice, and the finest cultural values.
2. Which brings us to Paul Faure, the general-secretary of said French Socialists, and leader of the faction that opposed war- at any cost. While Blum recognized the horror that Hitler represented, the Paul-Fauristes desperately sought to find a description of reality that did not point in the direction of war! Dont judge Germany too quickly, nor too starkly. After all, they had been treated poorly by the Treaty of Versailles. And their people living in Slavic countries werent being treated well shouldnt we show some flexibility? Conciliate the outraged German people! This is not cowardly, or unprincipled no, it is simply anti-war. And, therefore, the real dangers were not from the Nazis or Hitler, but from the warmongers, those who would profit from war!
a. While those were the arguments of the anti-war left, the unfocused or philosophical basis which gave credence to those arguments, was that, in our modern world, even the enemies of reason cannot be the enemies of reason. Can you say liberal naïveté of the nineteenth century a simple minded optimism, the liberalism of a strictly rational world, the liberalism of denial.
b. Paul Faures French Socialists refused to believe that millions of respectable Germans subscribed to a political movement whose doctrines were paranoid conspiracy theories, blood-curdling hatreds, medieval superstitions, and the lure of mass murder. For the Socialists, there was always a why.
3. So our Socialist friends listened to the Nazis speeches about Jews, and stroked their bearded chins, and queried, what is anti-Semitism, anyway? Arent there some Jews who we dont like? And the war-hawks some of them are Jews why, even Leon Blum, he is a Jew, and he takes a hard line suspicious. Perhaps Hitler isnt entirely wrong.
a. Marshal Petain and the right wing proposed to accept the invasion, a new government under Hitler. The anti-war left voted with Petain, and the new Vichy government arrested Blum, and sent him to Dachau.
4. The defenders of human rights and liberal values evolved into bigotry, tyranny, and murder. The democratic leftists accepted a naïve faith in the rationalism of all things, and ended up as fascists.
From chapter six of "Terror and Liberalism," Paul Berman
