Earlier this year history professor author
Fred Siegel released an interesting and surprisingly good
book titled,
The Revolt Against the Masses: How Liberalism Has Undermined the Middle Class. The introduction begins:
This short book rewrites the history of modern American liberalism. It
shows that what we think of liberalism today – the top and bottom
coalition we associate with President Obama - began not with
Progressivism or the New Deal but rather in the wake of the post-WWI
disillusionment with American society. In the twenties, the first
writers and thinkers to call themselves liberals adopted the hostility
to bourgeois life that had long characterized European intellectuals of
both the left and the right. The aim of liberalism’s foundational
writers and thinkers such as Herbert Croly, Randolph Bourne, H.G. Wells,
Sinclair Lewis and H.L Mencken was to create an American aristocracy of
sorts, to provide a sense of hierarchy and order associated with
European statism.
Like communism, Fabianism, and fascism, modern
liberalism, critical of both capitalism and democracy, was born of a new
class of politically self-conscious intellectuals. They despised both
the individual businessman's pursuit of profit and the conventional
individual's pursuit of pleasure, both of which were made possible by
the lineaments of the limited nineteenth-century state.
The introduction concludes:
Liberalism, as a
search for status, is sufficiently adaptable that even in failure,
self-satisfaction trumps self-examination. As the critic Edmund
Wilson noted without irony, the liberal (or “progressive reformer,”
in his term) has “evolved a psychological mechanism which enables
him to turn moral judgments against himself into moral judgments
against society.” This is a book
about the inner life of American liberalism over the past ninety
years and its love affair with its own ambitions and emotional
impulses. Liberals believe that they deserve more power because they
act on behalf of people's best interests – even if the darn fools
don't know it. (emphasis mine)
Thanks for
demonstrating this so well Mr. Gruber:
“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” says the MIT
economist who helped write Obamacare. “And basically, call it the
stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was
really, really critical for the thing to pass.”
Mr. Driscoll concludes: "The left have displayed enormous condescension to voters in recent
years; lying is merely one manifestation of that. And they wonder why
they got clobbered last week."
The concluding chapter contains the following passage:
Liberalism,
argued Herbert Croly and his heirs, rested on “disinterestedness.”
Experts and intellectuals could be trusted, their theory held,
because, unlike the Jeffersonian small-business owners, they weren't
motivated by narrow self-interest. But with the expansions of the
Great Society and onward, much of the public came to see politicians
in general and liberals in particular as engaged in the
self-interested business of expanding government expressly to secure
policies and privileges for themselves and their supporters. The
growing importance of public-sector unions has greatly increased the
sense that government has gone into business for itself.
In addition to dealing with increasingly complex and burdensome tax and regulatory regimes economic actors must contend with a bureaucracy and elected officials that have become practically parasitic. Even when this problem was less pronounced, there were still limits to how much of a positive role the state could play. As the story is usually told, there is a statist bias with many private actors being unfairly vilified. Many such examples are in evidence in an old post titled
revisiting economic history . (If you haven't seen this post before you might want to give it some attention.) Some of the portrayals are blatantly misleading others are more subtle. Economic history is not the only area of inquiry where the conventional wisdom is transmitted through very questionable story-lines.
Returning to
The Revolt Against the Masses, in a chapter titled Three Trials, the author provides the following (excerpts):
No one incident or
event contributed more to the self-understanding of liberals or the
way they conceived of their political rivals over the past half
century than the Scopes “Monkey Trial,” or more precisely the
version of the trial rendered in the wake of McCarthyism by the 1955
Broadway hit Inherit the Wind.
...
Beginning in the
1950s, the play Inherit the Wind and the two film versions of
the stage production suffused the liberal imagination.
...
In the dramatized
version of the case, which took considerable liberties with the
historical record, the trial was initiated when Scopes, a high school
biology teacher, was dragged out of his classroom by a mob and thrown
into jail. In reality, as historian Edward Larson showed in his
scrupulous rendering of the case based on primary sources, there was
no mob, nor was there a jailing. Evolution had long been part of the
Tennessee high school curriculum, and there had been no attempt to
enforce the symbolic law – the Butler Act – that barred its
teaching. In an era when science was seen as wondrous, this law was
meant more as a matter of symbolism than substance. It was a period
in which eugenics, which had first been introduced by Darwin's cousin
Francis Galton, won strong support from liberals who supported both
family planning and economic planning. Thirty-five states had
enacted laws to restrain the ability of the genetically “unfit”
to reproduce themselves.
The case was a
contrivance from the outset. The American Civil Liberties Union,
founded in the wake of WWI's repression, had initiated the case,
which it saw as an opportunity to repeal the Butler Act while also
making a name for itself. The ACLU ran newspaper ads across the
state looking for a teacher who would be willing to cooperate with
them in challenging the state law. They needed a defendant who would
agree to be tried for violating the Butler Act. The town fathers of
Dayton envisioned the trial as a potential boon that could put them
on the map, and they convinced Scopes, a local high school teacher,
to intentionally incriminate himself so that he would quality as a
defendant and the state's case could go forward. His arrest was a
friendly affair arranged by local boosters as a prelude to the show,
which would make history by being the first trial broadcast on radio.
...
Mencken, who
wrote about the trial for the Baltimore Sun, gilded the
liberal disdain for Bryan by depicting him as a buffoonish bigot and
the “idol of morondom.” Mencken, a eugenicist, despised Bryan as
a demagogue “animated by the ambition of a common man to get his
thumb into their eyes.” He mocked the locals as “Babbits,”
“morons,” “peasants,” and “yokels,” which, to be fair,
was no less caustic than his usual characterizations of the immigrant
masses.
Bryan saw the
Scopes trial as in part a matter of self-government. The trial, he
wrote, raised the question of “whether the people...have a right to
control the educational system which they have created and which they
tax themselves to support.” By contrast, Mencken saw the trial,
and Bryan in particular, as the living proof of why democracy was a
despicable form of government. Mencken's Notes on Democracy
(1926) argued that democracy was both impossible and undesirable.
Kaiser Wilhelm II, by then dethroned, praised the book highly, but a
friend sighed that he wished Mencken hadn't written it, “because it
reveals too much about him.” It was a tedious, repetitious
performance by an intellectual vaudevillian whose writing never rose
above his resentments.
But Bryan,
Mencken's avatar of dreadful democracy, was far from a bigoted
provincial man. A well-read world traveler, Bryan had read On the
Origin of Species in 1905 and had engaged in an ongoing debate
about the book with eugenicist Henry Fairfield Osborn, the president
of the American Museum of Natural History. The Great Commoner
treated his talented wife as a partner and decried the sin of
religious prejudice. He roundly criticized his supporters who
attributed his 1908 defeat at the hands of William Howard Taft to a
Catholic conspiracy, and he would later take Henry Ford publicly to
task for publishing The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
...
Regardless of
what happened in Dayton, the effect of the case was clear:
European-like divisions, largely absent thus far in America, opened
up between science and revealed religion – it was a chasm never to
be closed. Absent the Scopes controversy, some of the
fundamentalists might have drifted into the position already adopted
by a few of their leaders that evolution was but another name for
God's creation.
...
After Scopes, and
the case's revival with Inherit the Wind, fundamentalists were
seen by many Americans as not just wrong about evolution, which was
clear enough, but so psychologically deranged that they needed to be
barred from the public square.
The irony of the
Scopes trial, notes historian Michael Kazin, was that it led liberals
to tag Bryan, who in many ways was a proto-New Dealer, as a
“right-wing authoritarian.” At the same time, it helped position
Mencken – the rabidly anti-democratic and sometimes anti-Semitic
supporter of eugenics who admired both the Kaiser and 1930s Germany –
as “the champion of liberalism.” But this is less of an irony
than it appears to Kazin. Modern liberalism, before, during, and
since the New Deal, has been based in large measure on Croly's
“exceptional fellow countrymen,” the professionals who feel
contempt or pity for the unwashed and who are resentful that many
business people are better off than they are. Bryan's humiliation
became a central event in the liberal story of modern America; it
linked together the post-WWI persecutions by rednecks, the execution
of Saco and Vanzetti, and Sinclair Lewis's ever-popular It Can't
Happen Here, the 1935 novel in which a Bryan-like leader
established a dictatorship in America. It's a story whose echoes can
still be heard during dinner-table conversations in America's hipper
precincts.
I repeatedly hear about "the narrative" from my progressive friends. My question is, "do you care how much in your story is fiction and how much is non-fiction?" Even more than what is written in a history book, movies, plays and novels shape the culture. As Breitbart observed and Lawrence Meyers
explains, politics is downstream from culture.
