This post might be misinterpreted in a couple ways, so read the following two points carefully:
1. I’m not defining liberalism in the American sense of left-of-center Democrat. I am using the term in the international sense of supporter of free speech, human rights, a market economy, democracy, civil rights, opposition to nationalism, etc.
2. In general, I don’t believe it makes sense to accuse people of being Nazis or Maoists. Almost everyone, including even extremists, now understand that these were highly flawed political movements.
Nonetheless, it’s worth thinking about why Maoism and Nazism were once so popular. Why did so many Chinese college students join the Red Guard and enthusiastically persecute their professors (and others)? Why did 37% of the German electorate vote for the Nazi Party in 1932? These questions cry out for an explanation.
Here’s an explanation that doesn’t work. “People were different then. Today’s people are much better.” Sorry, but that’s too simple. Do you really think that if you transported today’s college students back in time, and had then live under the conditions of 1966 China, they would have behaved much differently? And what if you put modern Germans into a time machine and sent them back in time to 1932. Yes, with their current knowledge base they would not vote for the Nazis. Not even the most right wing would do so. But what if they had lived in Germany during the Depression, and knew nothing about what happened next?
Of course, not everyone joined the Red Guard, and not everyone voted for the Nazis. So which people alive today would have joined the Red Guard? And which people alive today would have joined the Nazis?
Consider the woke extremists that enthusiastically denounce and shun people for not being sufficiently left wing on a check list of issues. Does anyone seriously believe they would not have been part of the contingent that joined the Red Guard? And think about people that are so anti-immigrant that they don’t even want us to accept high-skilled people from India and China because they worry about America’s European heritage being diluted. Does anyone seriously believe they would not have been among the 37% who voted for the Nazis?
I wish more people would do some serious soul searching, and honestly ask themselves how they would have behaved in some of these extreme situations.
Again, I’m not accusing modern nationalists of literally being Nazis. I don’t even think the 37% of Germans who voted for the Nazi Party were “Nazis” in the modern sense of the term. Most were presumably average people that made a bad decision. Nor do I believe that today’s woke extremists wish to beat and torture their professors. Instead, I see far left and far right wing ideologies as a sort of virus, which can infect people’s minds, even otherwise reasonable minds. And I see liberalism as a sort of vaccine. In July 1932, most Germans voted for either the Nazis or the Communist Party. The minority that didn’t lose their moral bearings voted for centrist parties such as the Social Democrats. Many of those centrists were “liberals”, using the international definition of the term. Who would you have voted for?
When politics gets extremely contentious and extremely tribal, people are pressured to take sides. We get told that extreme tactics are required because the other side is not playing fair. Of course the other side gets told the same thing. It’s hard to hold on to your principles when you are being accused of being a wishy washy moderate, unwilling to fight fire with fire. People hate it when they are ostracized by fellow members of their “tribe”. Sorry, but the enemy of your enemy is not your friend. Your only reliable political allies are those that share your core principles.
Bryan Caplan is a good example of someone who sticks to his principles, even when they might make him unpopular. I presume his fellow professors don’t agree with his opposition to feminism. I presume his fellow right wingers don’t like his advocacy of open borders. But he is passionately devoted to the cause of freedom. That core value acts as a sort of vaccine, making him immune to the lure of authoritarian ideologies. I have no doubt that if he had been born in another time and place, he would have avoided becoming an authoritarian of either the left or the right. How many people can honestly say they are sure that they would have done the right thing, if they had lived in a very different time and place?
Again, you are not a commie or a fascist. You do not favor slavery. But perhaps there’s still something wrong. You should express views that convince the thoughtful reader that had you lived in Weimar Germany you would have opposed both the communists and the fascists. You should express views that convince the thoughtful reader that you would have been an abolitionist in 1850. You should hold views that convince the thoughtful reader than in 1900 you would not have viewed the Irish, Italian and Jewish immigrants as scum that must be kept out of the country. Think about how you are expressing your views.
There are ways to favor redistribution without giving the impression that you would have been a Maoist. There are ways of opposing woke excesses without giving the impression that you would have been against the abolitionists. There are ways of opposing current levels of immigration without giving the impression that you would have been on the wrong side of that issue in 1900.
Unfortunately, not everyone is giving the right impression. Too often, I see people make arguments in such a way that I immediately recognize that they would have been on the wrong side during an earlier period in history. Don’t be that guy.
PS. Here’s today’s Bloomberg, discussing the mood among CEOs:
Now, with the return of Trump, many appear to be willing to do what it takes to protect and advance their interests. If that means abandoning, at least for now, some of the ideas celebrated at Davos, so be it. Making noises about equality, diversity and the fierce urgency of climate change just might have to wait.
“It’s sort of like, ‘OK, which time were you lying?’” Tom Glocer, a fixture on corporate boards like Morgan Stanley and Merck & Co. Inc., said of the abrupt change.
Yes indeed, which time were they lying? And were they even lying to themselves?
PPS. Here’s a FT article on the likely new Austrian chancellor:
“The probability is now very high of Kickl as chancellor,” said Thomas Hofer, a prominent Austrian political analyst. . . .
Kickl’s pro-Russian views, embrace of conspiratorial thinking around the Covid-19 pandemic and unsavoury flirtations with Austria’s Nazi past have made him too toxic for Nehammer and other centrists, who vowed to keep him out of power.
Kickl is obviously no Nazi, but who would he have voted for if he’d lived in 1932 Germany?
PPPS. Over at the now defunct MoneyIllusion, I used to do a lot of political blogging, arguing that the United States was becoming a banana republic. At the time, my views were regarded as rather eccentric. Based on this recent Matt Yglesias post, these views are now becoming mainstream among respected centrist pundits.
