[Paul Lake]

Here's an essay by poet Frederick Turner that touches on some points we've been discussion on the J. D. McClatchy and New Formalism topic.


A Liberal Trademark
By Frederick Turner 06/03/2003

I have smelled the stink of fear in the most unlikely places.

In polite liberal gatherings of very nice academics, well-paid writers, journalists, even lawyers (who need fear nothing, surely) I have sensed a special kind of fear. It resembles, but is subtly different from, the unease that I dimly remember from my communist youth in the old British Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, where if one said the wrong thing it might contradict the party line as it came down to us from time to time from Stalin's Moscow, together with the disguised funds that kept the office going.

It also resembles the fear I was taught to feel in Prime Minister Daniel Malan's South Africa, where as a boy I nearly got my parents arrested for saying loudly in a bus that "Malan is a bad man. He won't let the Africans have their own country." More recently I felt it visiting the PEN Club in Budapest before the fall of the Iron Curtain, where you had to watch what you said because there were still Soviet tanks in the countryside.

But what is this whiff of fear doing in the good old USA? I was at a party in the Northeast recently with the nicest people you could imagine. The conversation got on to Bush and Iraq, and at first it looked and sounded as if it was unanimously liberal. Bush was "scary," Texas was a dark and terrible place, the Iraq war was a catastrophe, it was all about oil, it boded the most terrible consequences for world peace. I started innocently asking awkward questions and citing awkward fact. At first people just tried to put me right, as if I hadn't understood. Then it looked as if the subject would be dropped; I had no desire to pursue it, preferring literary or scientific or philosophical questions anyway. I really didn't want to spoil the mood of the party, and people were beginning to look uneasy.

But then something odd happened. Somebody else started doing the same thing as I had, asking awkward questions, reminding people gently of facts they had forgotten; and then it turned out that this man's wife, who'd been silent, was quite fiercely in favor of the war and of free markets and democratic government. This couple had earlier struck me immediately as the most confident and intelligent guests present, though they were very quiet; and they were not yahoos at all, indeed they looked impressively Ivy League. The unease grew in the room. People shifted in their chairs and looked anxiously at the door.

Then another woman, who had been "going along" in order to be polite, turned out to have doubts of her own about the liberal agenda. The lovely mood of unanimity and solidarity was over. A couple of liberals slunk out into another room in order not to be contaminated. But then there was a real discussion, with fair expression of different arguable views on all sides - just as the Constitution intended.

I had two reactions. One was a sudden recognition that more and more people had been "coming out of the closet" in the way that the three people had, who had been so bold as to support George Bush. Michael Kinsey had done it in Slate. Dennis Miller had done it on Comedy Central. But their recognizable courage implies a prior risk. Why the fear in the first place? I had noticed it before, but the question needed answering. After all, these liberals at the party were people with the equivalent of tenure, living in a free country with all sorts of protection of speech - not like the communist party or totalitarian racist South Africa in the old days. What were they afraid of?

The fear, as I began to examine it, had two flavors. One was the same as the fear I had experienced in South Africa, in the communist party, in Hungary. It was fear for one's future, one's career. Even tenured faculty have lost their jobs and been disgraced because of an impolitic remark during the height of political correctness - I have known some of the hapless victims. One man, a friend whose health was poor, had been hounded, completely innocent, to his death by a whole conspiracy of gossip, secret caucuses and official administrative action. Milan Kundera, the Czech dissident writer "internally exiled" by the communist regime, would have understood the fear. The Polish writer Czeslaw Milosz describes what he calls "Ketman consciousness," the mask of enthusiastic support for the regime that ensured one's livelihood in Soviet Eastern Europe:

"Today man believes there is nothing in him, so he accepts anything, even if he knows it to be bad, in order to find himself at one with others, in order not to be alone. . . . But suppose one should try to live without Ketman, to challenge fate, to say: 'If I lose, I shall not pity myself.' Suppose one can live without outside pressure, suppose one can create one's own inner tension; then it is not true that there is nothing in man. To take this risk would be an act of faith."

Fear has become a liberal trademark. The Pulitzer Prizewinning New York Times reporter Chris Hedges used one of the favorite liberal words when, as invited speaker, having launched into a tirade against American imperialism and militarism at the commencement ceremony of Rockford College, he characterized the resultant outpouring of grief and outrage as "frightening." This word is becoming almost a trademark of liberal fear, as my friend Terry Ponick points out. "Scary" is preferred by female columnists. In the academy, "troubling," "disturbing" and "alarming" have the same atmosphere of impending reprisals about them.

But there is another flavor in the fear. I recognized it with astonishment, and once I did, it was unmistakable. It was the fear of losing one's class standing, of being "cut" by one's "set," of being labeled not quite "pukka," not quite "our sort," a loss of caste. What had happened, I realized, was something absolutely astonishing; that in some way the cultural revolution of the '60s had begun an attempt to reinstitute a class system that America had, out of its own inner nature and best genius, rejected. Rejected in the American Revolution, rejected in the Civil War, rejected in the decision to welcome immigration from Ireland and Southern and Eastern Europe and China, rejected in the Civil Rights movement. But still the urge toward the pleasures of snobbery kept reasserting itself in new forms; this time it was a snobbery of radical liberal intellectuals in the university, the school system, the press, the judiciary, and the charitable foundations, with wannabes in government, the caring professions, and even the hipper reaches of the corporate campus.

Aspiring middle-class folk adopt this snobbery in order to sound "Ivy"; Ivy people wear it like a comfortable old pair of $500 loafers; the rich, once the best educated people around, put it on in order to keep up with the better-educated professionals that define its canons.

So Eustace Tilley, the gentleman with the monocle on the cover of The New Yorker, is now the heir of Berkeley's Sproul Plaza protests, beards and beads and all. You can see the class system evolving in the movie "The Big Chill," where William Hurt, Kevin Kline, Glenn Close, Jeff Goldblum, and Meg Tilley all articulated its characteristic cool and style. Of course it has settled down since then, and has adapted to tweeds and fume blanc and Francophilia. It is an entirely unconscious snobbery, and thus it cannot be recognized and laughed at - which makes its potential loss only the more "frightening" for being a nameless terror, a shapeless menace. Déclassé - what fate could be more terrible, especially if one has no vocabulary to recognize it as such and to construct a rational defense against its threat? This is why they slink away from real debate, to rejoin the company of the "like-minded."

Over the years all the real arguments for the left-liberal position, involving evidence and rational deliberation, have been exploded one by one. Thus rational discussion itself has become a sign of bad taste, of a pugnacious Appalachian kind of insensitivity, with a hint of a possible tendency to tobacco chewing, gun racks, talk radio, pickup trucks, wife-beaters and incest. There is left but one simple rule for the new upper crust: by all means prefer victims to oppressors, but always prefer oppressors to true liberators.

The class rationale for this odd paradox is complex. Karl Marx was right when he identified the phenomenon of a class having policies even when none of its members would necessarily recognize them - and the people I am talking about here are eminently nice, even good people, who would be horrified by the class motives they serve. But here it is: their class privileges are preserved by means of the continued existence and allegiance of a peon caste who will vote for the upper crust's leaders at home, and confuse and frustrate the great class enemy, the U.S. military, abroad. (If you want to "shock and awe" one of these folks, just mention that your son is in the Army. The look of horror is instantaneous, though it vanishes quickly.)

True liberators, as we can now see, would deprive the world of victims, and thus dry up the supply of peons that constitute the new class's constituency. This is why, even though the new class disliked Saddam Hussein, they hate Bush infinitely more. Just as Palestinian refugee camps justify the failures and secure the tenure of Arab despots, so the poor and downtrodden of the world justify the ascendancy of the new upper crust. At home, school vouchers are opposed in the teeth of the urban poor that want them, because decent education might help put an end to the urban poor who vote for upper crust leaders. The same goes for the inclusion of privatization in the Social Security portfolio, and any form of tax relief that might result in turning the majority of Americans into owners, and into people too proud to consider themselves victims. And without victims, where would Lady Bountiful be then?

If one has had the privileges - or aspires to them - of a "liberal" education in the post-1960s academy, the privileges of "set" and caste, one subconsciously doubts whether one's own talents would sustain one if one were cast out. One's unexamined intellectual premises have an unsound feel to them, so that one doesn't want to "go there." It's not what you know, but who you know, so the greatest terror is to be shunned by the in-group. And this is where the fear comes from.

In this light it seems rather amazing that, as I and others have begun to notice, so many people are coming out of the closet and daring to ask why the emperor is wearing no clothes. Has the courageous spirit of our young men and women warriors started to revitalize the intellectual kidney of the home country? What is going on here?

Copyright © 2003 Tech Central Station Tech Central Station - www.techcentralstation.com

[nyctom]

Since I joined Eratosphere, I have seen without exception, anyone who forcefully states a political opinion that is not explicitly conservative or libertarian be mocked, sometimes to the point of being hounded from the site or, in my case, privately contacted with the message: Please leave, you are more trouble than you are worth.

There is an old phrase which Jane Austen uses to high comedic effect in Pride and Prejudice:

"Keep your breath to cool your porridge."

Not a bad piece of advice, that.

Enjoy your article. I will keep my breath to laugh. And isn't laughter the true opposite of fear?

[epigone]

Tom, I do not think I am conservative or libertarian. I am usually identified as a liberal, but I don't consider myself one, as liberals are too conservative for my tastes.

Nonetheless, here on the 'Sphere, I have experienced a lot of vehement disagreement, but no personal attacks or other nastiness. And the pm's are mostly supportive.

epigone

[Curtis Gale Weeks]

This is funny:

(If you want to "shock and awe" one of these folks, just mention that your son is in the Army. The look of horror is instantaneous, though it vanishes quickly.)

I have a younger cousin who fought in Iraq, a marine who joined the service after 9/11 because (in part) of 9/11. I had the interesting experience of mentioning this fact to a couple of young college students passing through my small hometown on their way home from an anti-war demonstration. Their reaction was almost entirely the same as that mentioned by Turner! I don't think the horror came from a distaste for the idea that anyone would join our military; rather, the horror seemed to be a reflection of their confusion over how to continue the conversation we'd been having. Their reaction seemed to signal the fact that they couldn't continue our conversation for fear of offending me—How, exactly, can one politely communicate the fact that our soldiers are committing evil when the receiver of such information has a close family member who is now a soldier fighting in the disputed war?--at least that's the impression I had of their horror.

What they didn't realize, because I didn't tell them: I opposed the war; I had rational reasons for opposing the war; and I had no problem opposing the war while respecting my cousin's right to make the decision to support our military by his service.

I imagine that a pro-war conservative would have reacted in horror if I had said my cousin had refused to fight in what he believed to be an unjust war, choosing punishment from the military instead. Rather than clamping up in confusion, chances are good that the conservative would have called him a "coward" or a "traitor." Perhaps the conservative would have had a similar confusion, would have clamped up, if he and I were close friends or to preserve the semblance of propriety.

I have recently learned that my cousin is finally coming home from Iraq. He was part of a military convoy that was attacked a week or so ago by RPG, still has shrapnel in his legs that can't be surgically removed (it is too near nerves), has lost the hearing in one ear and hears a constant ringing in the other. He has told his mother that he's seen things in the war he never thought he'd see (even knowing he'd be fighting as a marine), which he still sees in nightmares. He's almost twenty-one. Despite his sacrifices and the sacrifices of other soldiers and their families (not to mention the "sacrifices" of non-combatants), the war isn't finished.

BTW, I'm not a member of that dreaded "academic elite," nor a wannabe. I think another thing about this essay is funny: Turner uses the supposed disinclination for rational debate, in the leftest of leftist liberals, to support his thesis but seems to have ignored altogether the attempts by some conservatives to quash debate. I remember some attempts to make demonstration against the war a crime of treason--certainly, the charge was often made. I'm not saying that liberals are always rational; but I'd be damned for lying if I said that all conservatives act from a primarily rational motive. The mark of conservative fear might not be a "slinking off," but the opposite: a frontal attack--verbal, political or actual--on those who do not share their views. (This talk of changing the Constitution to make marriage a union between one man and one woman is a good example. For such strict Constitutionalists to seek such a change is hilarious beyond my ability to communicate.)

Curtis.

[Alder Ellis]

Turner >> In this light it seems rather amazing that, as I and others have begun to notice, so many people are coming out of the closet and daring to ask why the emperor is wearing no clothes. <<

The emperor's no clothes, a brilliant parable to begin with, has become such a cliche that I instinctively distrust anyone who uses it. The hypocrisy alarm invariably goes off, like a car alarm after a nearby lightning strike. But combining it, as Turner does here, with the near-to-our-hearts "coming out of the closet" cliche, is just too deliciously pat and mixed-metaphorish to be passed by without recording one's appreciation. Consider the encounter between someone who daringly comes out of the closet and a naked emperor. It could be a whole movie.

What I really love about the essay, though, is the suggestion that George W. is, in the great scheme of things, to be classified as a "liberator." I can just see, ten years hence, Iraqi coins with George's smirking face & the inscription (in Latin, not English): "Liberator."

And the whole business of political correctness in academia -- somehow, to me, it's not about that but about the remoteness of academia from reality.

Personally, I don't know, for example, if the war against Iraq was a good thing or not. It might well prove to have been a good thing, but I don't have any ideological hook on which to hang that opinion permanently and self-satisfiedly. Turner strikes me as an ideological idiot, a "conservative" idiot locked into opposition to the nearest "liberal" idiot. Ideological consciousness is a lower form of consciousness than what the situation really demands. It's like reptilian consciousness trying to function in a mammalian world.

>> Over the years all the real arguments for the left-liberal position, involving evidence and rational deliberation, have been exploded one by one. <<

Says you, without support of evidence or rational deliberation! It's so easy to express an opinion! (I'm doing it myself, of course.) Please bring evidence and rational deliberation, for which we all hunger.

Curtis >> I'm not saying that liberals are always rational; but I'd be damned for lying if I said that all conservatives act from a primarily rational motive. <<

Invincably astute observation.

I say, all "card-carrying liberals" and "dues-paying conservatives" should be scrupuluosly segregated from us human beings -- allowed to live out their lives in carefully guarded, separate corrals in the Western deserts. The corrals should be close enough to each other that the inhabitants can hear each others' insults, taunts, and epithets -- providing all concerned with sufficient reason to live -- but too far apart to allow infliction of harm. Let them pummel one another with words, but not with stones, knives, or hand-grenades. Less collatoral damage that way.

Admittedly, tough to implement, but a worthwhile aim.

Anyway, I thought Turner's essay was a bit tendentious.

[Wild Bill]

Aside to Curtis: tell your cousin an old soldier says "welcome home." It gets better with time and support from friends and family.

------------------
Bill

[nyctom]

Tendentious? I thought it was a textbook case--and all the more hilarious for it--of projection!

What I personally found more hilarious was that I had been tempted two days ago to post an editorial by Bill O'Reilly--one of the poster children for right wing ideologues--about the Michigan case. To say I disagree with O'Reilly most of the time is an understatement, but one thing I like about him is he will surprise you. He isn't as predictable as most. His alternative solution was intriguing: restructure affirmative action programs so the criterion for inclusion is based on finances and not race. While I don't think this would solve the problem entirely--race is still critical, as even Justice O'Connor recognized in her majority decision--it would go a long way to providing a more comprehensive solution than what we currently have.

Why didn't I post it? Because, silly me, I thought, this is a poetry workshop and not a place for political propaganda.

[Curtis Gale Weeks]

<dir>But there is another flavor in the fear. I recognized it with astonishment, and once I did, it was unmistakable. It was the fear of losing one's class standing, of being "cut" by one's "set," of being labeled not quite "pukka," not quite "our sort," a loss of caste. Turner</dir>

Indeed! Here's Turner lamenting the loss of the same for himself:

<dir>And what can I call myself now that "poet" is murdered,
That the word cannot mean any more the inner glow
Of the vision, the inner voice of the truth that commands me?
Who can my friends be, where are my fellow-eccentrics,
When all that's called "poet" is just a chewing and chewing
On the same miserable piece of cheap cardboard?

[From Reply to the Five Thousand (The organizers of Poets Against the War now claim the signatures of five thousand poets) which can be found here. Another hyperbolic, irrational attack.]</dir>

------

Bill, I'll tell him. Thanks.

Curtis.

[Thomas Newton]

Paul,

Thanks for posting the essay by poet Frederick Turner. I ran across him a few years ago when I did an extensive study of the New Formalists. I wasn’t too impressed by him until I read Genesis, an epic poem, which is pure genius (and a lot of hard work). I was even more impressed when I found out that he came out for the war and was teaching in Texas.

Chance talks lightly over dinner of
The Greek mystery; how from the bright noon
Of classical achieved perfection in
This life—through, art, the dance of war, the sharp
And plangent sweetness of poetry—
They turned away into ages of worship,
Of mysticism and forgetfulness,
Of ikons stylized into fleshless gold,
As if a thousand years of divine dream
Must follow and blot out the memory
Of one age of human excellence;

--Genesis, Act II, Scene IV, Frederick Turner

nyctom,

“I have seen without exception, anyone who forcefully states a political opinion that is not explicitly conservative or libertarian be mocked,”

That’s strange! From the reactions to my posts, I thought Eratosphere was a Liberal website. Am I so far Right that conservatives look Liberal to me? Well I have to get back to my new book that arrived yesterday, Treason by Ann Coulter.

Thomas Newton

[C.G. Macdonald]

Not that I've conducted a poll, but the Eratosphere seems to have a healthy mix of lefties and righties. Which would seem to contradict Turner's argument.

One more thing: Dennis Miller, brave? Isn't he still out there whoring his declining talent for an embarrassing array of goods and services. Has he lost a cent, or an advertiser, or a gig on account of sharing his unapologetically jingoistic views of the world? Of course not.

Now wait, wasn't there a comedian who had his show quickly yanked for a comment he made about currrent affairs? Now, according to Turner's argument, he must have been one of those brave conservatives...

I don't have verbatim the bit that got Bill Maher canned, but he was somehow pointing out that there was a pretty strong element of Doublespeak in calling suicide bombers "cowardly" (Vile, sneaky, heartless, burning in hell bastards--sure; but cowardly?) And Maher didn't even point out that GWB had Poppy pull strings to keep him out of Vietnam.



[This message has been edited by C.G. Macdonald (edited July 03, 2003).]