Jeff Goldstein over at Protein Wisdom is heard from.
I hate my life…I have too much to do to sit down and try and integrate all this right now…so I’ll try and do enough to keep stirring the pot.

People are idea-driven creatures; our actions are as influenced by the ideas we hold as our opinions. Uniquely among living creatures, we can share ideas and that storehouse of ideas provides the structure within we individuals operate as cohesive social groups, or cultures.
N.Z. Bear has talked about memes as they apply to the Middle East; I’ll take a stronger case, and argue that while history is largely about material conflicts over resources and power; it is always framed in ideas and concepts.
Would Hitler’s ascent been possible without the legitimacy offered by the (slapdash, haphazard) philosophical arguments he made?? Without the roots in Schiller and even Hegel?? He had to appeal to his audience, and he did it in the form of ideas, metaphors, and memes. He had to persuade, and convince.
It’s much easier to persuade and convince if no one can challenge your arguments; it is much easier to persuade and convince in a world where soundbites and film clips are the equivalents of investigation and evidence.
Terminus argues that Jenin “is a bad example, because it is a political, not a historical, issue.” Excuse me? Isn’t that exactly what I’m talking about? I think Jenin is a perfect example. Leaders make political arguments, and as above these must be tested somehow; I’ll suggest that political arguments testable by fact are better than those which have not or can not be tested. And, in Jenin, the PA’s position, sadly echoed by the NGO’s, was to stand up and shout to the world that Israel had done certain things…which, had they been done, would have meant one thing. They appear not to have been done, which means another.
But in a world where competing narratives are ultimately equally valid…in Stanley Fish’s world…Israeli soldiers might as well have dragged women and children from their homes and shot them. Because that is the Palestinian truth. And no ‘fact-checking’ or ‘investigation’ could materially change that. Does this matter? Of course. It matters to the men and women who, living in that narrative, decide to put on explosive belts and walk onto Israeli busses.
And, ultimately, it is promoted and fed by a corrupt elite who manipulate the narrative…and for whom the malleability of ‘fact’ becomes the fuel for their political power.
Why did the Germans willingly follow Hitler? Because they believed in him. Because no one tested his narrative.

There’s been an interesting discussion going on below, and I thought I’d bring it up to the blog and see if we can’t take it further.
The subject is postmodernism and totalitarianism, and the main participants have been Terminus, Demosthenes, and myself…
Terminus opens:

To the extent that history is nothing more than facts, than it could be truthfully written. But it would be of little historical interest. The “meat” of history is the interpretation, and you’ll never get truth that way, because there is no independent standard of ultimate judgement. That’s the trouble: if you want to say anything that any kind of real meaning or relevance, you must sacrifice the absolute certainty that only comes with simple recitations of fact.

I reply:

I think you’re missing Orwell’s and my point; he clearly acknowledges and I believe that the facts are just an armature on which we hang understanding. But without that armature, what are we trying to understand?
And the post-modern, ironic acknowledgement that our selves color our world suddenly becomes justification for denial of the most basic facts, and leaves us with a world in which claims strongly stated have a validity equal to any kind of evidence.

He replies:

No, this is exactly what I’m getting at. How does this logical progression work? You start with:
1). There are facts, and there are interpretations.
2). Facts are at least in theory objectively veriable, interpretations are absolutely not.
This, I think, is pretty firm, pertty solid, and pretty non-controversial. So where does “denial of the most basic facts” enter into it? Which facts, denied by whom, for what reason?
How does that follow?

Me again:

Well, Orwell suggests that in totalitarian states, ‘basic facts’ are up for grabs. We’ve seen this ourselves, most recently in Jenin, where the ‘facts’ of the ‘massacre’ made political news long after the verifiable information disproved them.
Think of all the airbrushed May Day pictures during Stalin’s time…

Him again:

Jenin is a bad example because it’s a political, not an historical issue. The fact are the facts, they are to some extent known, and the will be more or less agreed to in the fullness of time. Let’s check back in 2050 (that how long this shit can take).
Ok, I understand that in totalitarian states, basic facts are up for grabs. This is a necessary component of successfully running a totalitarian state: you must control the flow and the content of information. I don’t see how believing that interpretations of facts cannot be judged objectively contributes either to a) the denial of facts, or b) the imposition of totalitarianism.
It’s like your saying “Totalitarianism denies basic facts, it looks like postmodernism is moving disturbingly in that direction, therefore postmodernism promotes totalitarianism.” You can’t actually be saying that, being that’s ridiculous, so I’m still missing something.

Amac (a civilian – i.e. non-blogger, as far as I can tell):

The preceding dialog between Terminus and A.L. is great to see. Terminus is intelligent, articulate, obviously educated, and so quite capable of grasping Orwell’s point about facts and totalitarianism. Yet s/he won’t acknowledge the connection, in general or specific (Jenin, airburshed May Day photos) terms. This way of looking at the world seems currently to be most enthusiastically embraced by the academic left. To some of us outside the Academy, what makes “post-modern” ways of thinking fascinating and scary is precisely the intelligence and articulateness of its practitioners.

Demosthenes weighs in:

There is, of course, a difference between out-and-out hiding of facts and history and the inevitable differences in interpretation. There is a false comparison being made here (and by many others) between discussions of the two.
Personally, I found Fish’s thesis in-and-of-itself mostly benign, and have been wondering why the Blogosphere has been foaming at the mouth over it, accusing it of all manner of evils which the essay simply doesn’t support. He wasn’t defending totalitarianism, relativism, or anything of that sort… he was simply noting that while we may know in our hearts something is true, we cannot convince others of these things, and have no way of reliably doing so. This isn’t totalitarianism, it’s simple common sense. (It also arguably isn’t postmodernism… he’s left behind the textual elements). Remember that the term “post-modernism” is entirely a reaction to “modernism”… which is the idea that things are universal and can be understood through reason, which is entirely benign and morally righteous itself. While the evils of post-modernism are shadowy (if not wholly made up by those who can’t bear to think that someone might reasonably disagree with them), the evils of modernism are well known and well documented.
In any case, there are also political philosophers and fiction writers besides Orwell… while an intelligent and capable writer, I’ve certainly read better dystopian fiction than 1984, and it’s worthy to remember that in many respects that novel was a more polished version of the old Russian proto-SF story “We”.

Demosthenes again:

By the way, AMac: they won’t acknowledge the connection because they don’t believe one exists. That is a difference of opinion, not willful denial. The difference between those two things is precisely what postmodernism is about.

Terminus:

Thanks for the kind comments, AMac. I am, for the record, a he. [The name Terminus is an affectation, not an attempt at anonymity, btw… anyone so inclined would not find it difficult to determine my true identity from my blog.] Anyway, I see the connection you mention in the sense that they are similar. But it’s not valid to argue that postmodernism is bad because it is, in this sense, similar to totalitarianism, which is bad. That is simply not a valid argument structure. However, if there is some link which I do not grasp that demonstrates how these academic notions somehow promote or lead to totalitarianism, then I’d like to hear them (and I say that without sarcasm).
Well said, Demosthenes.

And, finally, me:

Terminus says:
It’s like your saying “Totalitarianism denies basic facts, it looks like postmodernism is moving disturbingly in that direction, therefore postmodernism promotes totalitarianism.” You can’t actually be saying that, being that’s ridiculous, so I’m still missing something.
No, that’s exactly what I’m saying. I’m not convinced that the connection is causal or direct…that because Derrida was a Fascist apologist he arrived at his philosophy or vice versa.
But I do believe in the power of ideas and philosophy, and that Fish’s ironic post-factual philosophy absolutely lays the groundwork for totalitarian despots.
A.L.

OK, next I’ll cook up a reply to Demosthenes and Terminus. Probably won’t be up for a few hours (I have to go to a meeting), but should be here by evening.

From the same essay:

We in England underrate the danger of this kind of thing [AL: totalitarian conquest of the world], because our traditions and our past security have given us a sentimental belief that it all comes right in the end and the one thing you most fear never really happens. Nourished for hundreds of years on a literature in which the Right invariably triumphs in the last chapter, we believe half-instinctively that evil always defeats itself in the long run. Pacifism, for instance, is is founded largely on this belief. Don’t resist evil, and it will somehow destroy itself. But why should it? What evidence is there that it does? And what instance is there of a modern industrialised state collapsing unless conquered from the outside by military force?

The USSR and Eastern Europe collapsed without being invaded. Does that invalidate this? Somehow I don’t think so, but I’d love to hear what folks think.

Meryl moved the same time we did…and she’s already writing!!

I read Harper’s, although I’m unlikely to renew as I’m finding little recently that evokes more than vague interest.
Last month, they had a noxious and self-exculpating essay by Stanley Fish; I’ve been trying unsuccessfully to think up something to say about it, then last night I picked up something to read from one of the many open boxes. George Orwell: a collection of essays. And in it, a brilliant essay called ‘Looking Back on the Spanish War’. He said, clearly and brilliantly, what I’ve been struggling to articulate to myself:

I know it is the fashion to say that recorded history is lies anyway. I am willing to believe that history is for the most part inaccurate and biased, but what is particular to our own age is the abandonment of the idea that history could be truthfully written. In the past, people deliberately lied, or they unconsciously coloured what they wrote, or they struggled after the truth, well knowing that they must make many mistakes; but in each case, they believed that “the facts” existed and were more or less discoverable. And in practice there was always a substantial body of fact which would have been agreed to by almost everyone. If you look up the history of the last war in, for instance, the Encyclopaedia Brittanica, you will find that a respectable amount of material is drawn from German sources. A British and a German historian would disagree deeply on many things, even on fundamentals, but there would always be that body of, as it were, neutral fact on which neither would seriously challenge the other. It is just this common basis of agreement, with its implication that human beings are all one species of animal, that totalitarianism destroys. Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as “the truth” exists. There is, for instance, no such thing as “Science.” There is only “German Science,” “Jewish Science,” etc. The implied objective of this line of thought is a nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls not only the future but the past. If the Leader says of such and such an event, “It never happened”—well, it never happened. If he says that two and two are five – well, two and two are five. This prospect frightens me much more than bombs – and after our experiences of the last few years that is not a frivolous statement.

I heard Fish lecture once, and while I’ve always thought that the Derrida-istas were primarily an academic joke, when I saw him I got a faint whiff of evil.
Then I realized that he really reminded me of the antagonist in a funny academic novel called ‘Satan, His Psychotherapy and Cure by the Unfortunate Dr. Kessler, J.S.P.S.’, a smug department head in league with the Devil. Hmmm….not a bad description, even for someone like me who doesn’t believe in brimstone.

From Random Jottings:
AN OPEN LETTER IN SUPPORT OF THE PEOPLE OF IRAN FROM THE WEBLOGGING COMMUNITY
We are not politicians, nor are we generals. We hold no power to dispatch diplomats to negotiate; we can send no troops to defend those who choose to risk their lives in the cause of freedom.
What power we have is in our words, and in our thoughts. And it is that strength which we offer to the people of Iran on this day.
Across the diverse and often contentious world of weblogs, each of us has chosen to put aside our differences and come together today to declare our unanimity on the following simple principles:
– That the people of Iran are allies of free men and women everywhere in the world, and deserve to live under a government of their own choosing, which respects their own personal liberties
– That the current Iranian regime has failed to create a free and prosperous society, and attempts to mask its own failures by repression and tyranny
We do not presume to know what is best for the people of Iran; but we are firm in our conviction that the policies of the current government stand in the way of the Iranians ability to make those choices for themselves.
And so we urge our own governments to turn their attention to Iran. The leaders and diplomats of the world’s democracies must be clear in their opposition to the repressive actions of the current Iranian regime, but even more importantly, must be clear in their support for the aspirations of the Iranian people.
And to the people of Iran, we say: You are not alone. We see your demonstrations in the streets; we hear of your newspapers falling to censorship; and we watch with anticipation as you join the community of the Internet in greater and greater numbers. Our hopes are with you in your struggle for freedom. We cannot and will not presume to tell you the correct path to freedom; that is for you to choose. But we look forward to the day when we can welcome your nation into the community of free societies of the world, for we know with deepest certainty that such a day will come.

I did manage to read all the comments on the Pledge, and realized that I needed to make a deeper comment on why I’m so unhappy with the suit and the decision.
Ask any political professional what they look for in a campaign and they will tell you ‘wedge issues’; they want a black-or-white issue where they can pin their opponent on one side and where a substantial block of voters are on the other.
There are a few major wedge issues right now.
Gun control.
Abortion.
Affirmative Action.
School Vouchers.
And, potentially, the Pledge issue.
Modern campaigns are about two things: solidifying your base and splintering the opponent’s. How do you do this?
Nixon did it very damn well. The classic Democratic base from the 40’s to the 60’s was ethic urban, labor, civil-rights supporters, and the academic intelligencia.
Nixon used race and fear of the New Left to split traditionally Democratic voters off from Humphrey’s base, and won.
Ever since then, we see it in use in elections. Davis is trying to use it on Simon with abortion and gun control. Simon is trying to use it on Davis with affirmative action.
Down the coast from me, in Newport, there’s a break called the Wedge. It’s an incredible bodysurfing and boogie-boarding spot, because the waves are big, steep, and break close to shore.
The problem is that every year, a few people get broken necks from being slammed there…because the waves are big, steep, and break close to shore.
And the problem with wedge politics is that while this is a great way to win elections, it makes it damn hard to govern.

Because buying a house, moving, and looking for new projects so we can pay for it wasn’t stressful enough, we decided to go to Chicago for the weekend and visit my sweetie’s family.
A few observations.
The room mini-bars at the InterContinental have ‘intimacy kits’…two condoms and some lube…that’s a new one on me. And it reminds me that I lost a $100 bet a number of years ago when a friend proved that the Plaza in New York had an ‘afternoon rate’ from 1 to 5 pm.
The pizza in Chicago is in fact better than the pizza in Los Angeles. Period. We lose.
On a beautiful weekend like the one we had, Chicago teems with so much vibrant street life that a neighborhood advocate in Los Angeles would need an intimacy kit…I need to think about why it is that Chicago is so pedestrian-friendly.
The concept of ‘customer service’ does not yet appear to have returned to air travel. So people like me, who are typically voluntary flyers, will doubtless continue to stay away.
We’re about 30% unpacked in the new house; I’m using dialup via AOL, which means that surfing blogs is Right Out because I’m not patient enough…I’ll catch up this weekend.

Well, I’m breaking down the ‘puters now…we won’t have DSL for a few days (you can’t order the DSL until the phone line is active…THANK YOU, VERIZON!!)
It’s the two-month anniversary…and yes, my name is Armed Liberal, and I’m a blog addict.
…back in a day or so; I’ll try and write something controversial and wake everyone up…