* America the Virtuous: The Crisis of Democracy and the Quest for Empire. By Claes G. Ryn. Transaction Publishers, 2003. xiii + 221 pgs. [...is professor of politics at the Catholic University of America, chairman of the National Humanities Institute] thoughtful book might have been written as a brilliant counter to An End to Evil, reviewed elsewhere in this issue. The book exactly diagnoses the cast of mind on display in that blueprint for perpetual war.
* This passage in Ryn’s account of the new Jacobins startled me: "An important component of what the new Jacobins advocate is what they call ‘capitalism’ or ‘free markets’"
* They see that capitalism much more effectively destroys tradition than socialism. "Of those in the West today who are passionate advocates of capitalism and want it introduced all over the world, many are former Marxists. The shift from being a Marxist to becoming a missionary for capitalism may be less drastic than is commonly assumed" (p. 147).* [Talvez mais importante] the new Jacobins dissent: "A person may advocate capitalism not so much because he utterly rejects Marx’s vision of a new society as because he regards the revolution of the proletariat and the socialist organization of production as blind alleys, quite unnecessary for realizing an essentially egalitarian society. . . . A person may endorse capitalism because letting the market do its work is the best way to uproot backward beliefs and related sociopolitical structures" (p. 148).
* [Mas a essência do capitalismo é...] the free market allows people to enter into any noncoercive relations they wish. It neither requires nor forbids adherence to tradition, but the free transactions in which people engage will obviously be governed by the values they hold. Capitalism is entirely compatible with tradition.
* Ryn finds a parallel between current supporters of universal democracy on the American plan and the Jacobins of the French Revolution. "The Jacobins saw themselves as virtuous champions of a great moral cause. . . . They were guardians of revolutionary principles. They were ushering in a new way of life, a society of equality and democracy, a glorious goal that permitted no mercy for those who stood in the way" (p. 19).
* In like fashion, the new Jacobins, guided by what Ryn aptly calls "the ideology of virtuous empire," demand that all countries embrace democracy.
*How might a new Jacobin respond to Ryn’s trenchant indictment? (...) But what is wrong with that? Does morality stop at the borders of the United States? If Saddam Hussein and the rulers of Iran cannot see the wisdom of the Gettysburg Address, to the block with them!
* Ryn’s response takes us to the heart of his case. He rejects the entire notion of universal principles, separated from tradition and local custom. Following Irving Babbitt, he traces this false view to Rousseau. "A vision of a new egalitarian social and political order and of popular rule freed not only from traditional elites but from traditional moral and cultural restraints of all kinds had been formulated with great imaginative power by Jean-Jacques Rousseau" (p. 19).3
* For Ryn, universalism is the enemy. "Traditional Western morality creates a strong presumption that man’s primary moral obligation is to deal with problems at close range, starting with self" (p. 56).
* Applied to foreign affairs, the lesson is clear: "The assumption that much needs improving here before turning attention elsewhere has shaped a corresponding attitude toward international relations: a country’s primary duty is to conduct its own affairs and repair its own flaws. . . . A country has no reason to interfere militarily or otherwise with other countries except to protect its own vital interests and defend itself against threats" (p. 57).
* To what extent do the teachings of Leo Strauss support the universalist pretensions of neoconservative foreign policy?(...)
He finds in Strauss’s hints and indirection the principal source of his appeal. Strauss played into the hands of those who regard themselves as a philosophical elite entitled to rule the world. "A part of the appeal of Strauss to members of this [neoconservative] network of intellectuals has been his idea that only a few sophisticated minds can really understand and face the truth about politics. To protect themselves against the ignorant and to be able to influence the powers-that-be, the philosophers must, according to Strauss, hide their innermost beliefs and true motives, not least from rulers whom they want to advise. Following Plato’s recommendation, the philosophers must tell ‘noble lies’ that are more palatable to others than the truth. . . . Having gained access to the ruler through dissimulation, sycophancy, and general craftiness, they are in a position to whisper in the ruler’s ear, making him their instrument" (pp. 32–33)." by David Gordon, The New Jacobins
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário