'Among the Republicans' - V.S. Naipaul in 1984

[Filuwaúrdjan]

As a tribute to a great (if flawed sure) man, a rare piece on the United States:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Among the Republicans

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Since everyone else is too much of an intellectual coward to engage with this, I'll risk upping my posts-per-day count by asking the following: Arendt observed what she believed to be a disagreeable tendency in some continental European parties to, for reasons she associated with multi-party systems, tend to--both rhetorically and in the form of political parties--raise the "nation" above politics as an ideal, and one that should not be besmirched by political bickering. This, she presumably tied to the growth of authoritarianism. While it's very easy to say that id-based "love it 'er leave it"-style "patriotism" is harmful to democratic practice, would it be fair to say that Naipaul sees not just that, but a shift away from ideology as classically formulated to this, and that this movement in itself is bad?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's more about a movement towards forms of ideology that are simpler, crasser, more abstract and which leave less space for the individual, but, broadly speaking, yes.

[136or142]

My initial reaction was 'who is Naipaul and why did he sue the Republicans in 1984?'

Edit to add: I'm not making a lame joke here either.  This is one of the reasons I don't like initials or acronyms. 

[pbrower2a]

Since everyone else is too much of an intellectual coward to engage with this, I'll risk upping my posts-per-day count by asking the following: Arendt observed what she believed to be a disagreeable tendency in some continental European parties to, for reasons she associated with multi-party systems, tend to--both rhetorically and in the form of political parties--raise the "nation" above politics as an ideal, and one that should not be besmirched by political bickering. This, she presumably tied to the growth of authoritarianism. While it's very easy to say that id-based "love it 'er leave it"-style "patriotism" is harmful to democratic practice, would it be fair to say that Naipaul sees not just that, but a shift away from ideology as classically formulated to this, and that this movement in itself is bad?

Let's remember that Hannah Arendt lived through the nightmare of Europe in the early 20th century much as did Orwell. Arendt paid more attention to the formality of bad politics and Orwell paid more attention to the moral depravities of the elites. Orwell is more widely read because he is grimly amusing in Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm.

Now to the point: in the Enlightenment, nationalism wrapped itself in the struggle for freedom. Thus the American and French Revolutions. Napoleon, a liberal for his time, tried to use nationalism to support his dreams of empire. He tried to unite much of Germany and Italy -- and sponsored the semi-independent Duchy of Warsaw. He could not extinguish Prussia, Austria, or Spain, but he could obliterate weak oligarchies and despotic orders. In more recent times, nationalism has become a pretext for economic imperialism, exploitation of workers, and suppression of minorities. If Samuel Butler said that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, he certainly got fascism right before there was anything like fascism.  

The authoritarians learned how to exploit mass sentiments, especially the love of tradition. The Nation, and eventually "race", became pretexts for the worst in exploitation, regimentation, graft, repression, and militarism.  Thus fascism, which made a Moloch out of a nation. If you wonder what "Make America Great Again" means -- you have it there.

Nationalism is even more effective than tradition in sponsoring authoritarian and totalitarian rule.  It may be American traditions that take down our current President instead of sponsoring his despotic or dictatorial tendencies.

[136or142]

In regards to the article itself. 
1.It definitely captured the spirit of the 1980s and the Republican Party's place in it.  'The Greed Decade.' 

2.The religious aspect fits into the 'Puritan Prosperity Gospel' that very much fit into that time, especially the televangelists.  (I know the Puritans themselves claim they have nothing to do with any Prosperity Gospel.)  This was especially evident with the ostentatious displays of wealth in the 1980s.

3.The line at the time was "you can tell if you're a liberal or a conservative by whether you think that the 80s is the worst decade or the 60s is the worst decade."

4.I do think however, that V.S. Naipaul was unfair to the Republican Party with his analysis of the convention. He didn't seem to understand that unlike in the 1960s when the convention nominated the President and the policy platforms were seriously debated at the convention itself and not essentially hammered out prior to the convention, that even by this time, presidential nomination conventions were for nothing more than free television advertising for a political party.

So, his criticism of the hollowness of the Republican Party's positions (except on foreign policy) are really besides the point. The Party's slogan in 1984 was 'it's morning again in America.'  It would have hardly made sense for them to have come up with an economic platform that went 'everything is wonderful, but here are 100 things that we need to do. (or even 10 things.)'

[TDAS04]

Funny how Russia's suddenly no longer an anxiety for the right. 

[pbrower2a]

In regards to the article itself. 
1.It definitely captured the spirit of the 1980s and the Republican Party's place in it.  'The Greed Decade.' 

Until the Oil Crunch, people generally took American prosperity and opportunity for granted.

When times get tough or even when they stay tough, people are greedy and materialistic. Just think of Fiddler on the Roof. Such songs as "Matchmaker"  (make him as rich as a king) and "If I Were a Rich Man" indicate people who see themselves in economic distress for no fault of their own, and seeing wealth as the solution to all their problems, especially personal dignity. "Anatevka", like most of the Russian Empire, was a miserable place to live unless one was fantastically wealthy.

Well, stagflation made times tough. People got greedy in the 1970s, and in the 1980s they expressed themselves in their possessions. That was the heyday of the shopping mall. So suspect a word as luxury became an objective.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's really Calvinist, with people believing that if they are prosperous, then God has somehow chosen them to prosper. The real Puritans and Quakers recognized that evidence of one's Godliness was that one did not need ostentatious display.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Self expression through culture ('60s) -- or through display of possessions ('80s)? Culture is harder to create and buy. Any dimwitted schmuck can express himself with a gaudy car and furnishings.







Guess who! The gilt is seemingly everywhere, but there are practically no books. The painting is a fake.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Excusable because he isn't American and can be expected to miss subtle changes that only people here know about.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Most political slogans are hollow, whether "Back to Normalcy", "A Chicken in Every Pot and a Car in Every Garage", "I Like Ike", "Nixon's the One", "Morning in America", or "Make America Great Again". And there I have only Republican slogans. Ronald Reagan had a solution for people who disliked the hardship of holding down a dead-end job that one hated that didn't quite meet the bills. Take another such job to supplement the meager pay of the inadequate job, and always remember to smile, and be thankful that only then can you do the Great American act of going to the shopping mall and buying something. Always remember, of course, to show that theatrical "Happy to Serve You" smile even if you hate your life.There are always ways in which you can find life even more odious.

[136or142]

For point 3, the idea was the that those who thought the 60s were the worst decade (the Conservatives) did so because of the hippies and the Great Society Programs, the liberals thought the 80s was the worst decade because of the greed and the repeal of the Great Society Programs.  

Part of this argument may have also been due to the largely false notion that many 60s hippies became 80s corporate types and conservatives like Jerry Rubin (I don't know if Rubin became a conservative) who used to be famous for something in the 1960s with another person named Abbie Hoffman.

Back when Rolling Stone was still somewhat important in the 1980s they had on the top of one of their covers a question along the lines of "have the hippies sold out?"

However,  I think this was largely a misunderstanding of young people in the 1960s.  I remember reading a poll of young people in the 1960s that only about 10% of them considered themselves as hippies and when I mentioned that previously one person replied to me "any young person in the 1960s who had long hair was considered a hippie and pretty much every young person then had long hair."

It is certainly true though that those who were teenagers in the 1960s are now by a far bit the most conservative cohort in the United States.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Funny how Russia's suddenly no longer an anxiety for the right. 

It is just about possible that the fact that the Soviet Union was a communist dictatorship and the present Russian Federation is not plays a role in this.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Also a fitting description of what has happened to the Democratic Party over the past decade - compare the language used at the 2016 convention to that used in 2008 if you doubt it.

Some truth that, yes. Consider also the fact that the response to 'Make America Great Again' was 'America Is Already Great' - two competing appeals to 'Americanism'.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Also a fitting description of what has happened to the Democratic Party over the past decade - compare the language used at the 2016 convention to that used in 2008 if you doubt it.

Some truth that, yes. Consider also the fact that the response to 'Make America Great Again' was 'America Is Already Great' - two competing appeals to 'Americanism'.

Not to mention the fact that McCain and Romney used less successful, more subtle variations of "Make America Great Again" as their campaign slogans too. "Country First" and "Believe in America" respectively.

[Devout Centrist]

Also a fitting description of what has happened to the Democratic Party over the past decade - compare the language used at the 2016 convention to that used in 2008 if you doubt it.

Some truth that, yes. Consider also the fact that the response to 'Make America Great Again' was 'America Is Already Great' - two competing appeals to 'Americanism'.

The latter was a rather useless response on the part of the Clinton campaign, I might add. It summed up her inability to bring a unique vision to the campaign. Needless fluff for a campaign that couldn't promise a greater vision or at least, a new message.

[RINO Tom]

Funny how Russia's suddenly no longer an anxiety for the right. 

While I detest many conservatives' flip-flopping on Russian relations (and also many liberals' flip-flops the other way), let's not pretend like the USSR is analogous with Putin's Russia in 2018 as far as what one would like or dislike about it.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's really Calvinist, with people believing that if they are prosperous, then God has somehow chosen them to prosper. The real Puritans and Quakers recognized that evidence of one's Godliness was that one did not need ostentatious display.

The Puritans were Calvinists and neither group had anything to do with the Prosperity Gospel.