Customer Reviews

Democracy and Populism: Fear and Hatred

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

Those expecting a thorough, organized treatment of democracy and populism will be somewhat disappointed by this book. Lukacs, an eminent conservative historian, wanders disjointedly over the political landscape of the last two hundred years making any number of observations, assertions, and rather blunt criticisms of other chroniclers of the era, including historian Richard Hoftstadter and Hannah Arendt, the author of "The Origins of Totalitarianism," described as a "muddled and dishonest writer." A burden is placed on the reader to sift through the fragmented commentary to separate substance from overstatement and inconsistencies and to locate, if not construct, main themes.

The subtitle, "Fear and Hatred," gives some indication of the direction that the author is headed. It is thought processes and psychology that are important in a mass democracy: "our concern must be with how people think, how they choose to think, including how they are influenced or impressed to think and speak." Fear and hatred are central concerns. He rejects the Freudian notion that they operate subconsciously, rather than being purposely chosen.

The author tags 1870 as a time of fundamental rearrangement of political forces. The rise and attraction of socialism and nationalism basically shoved aside the older liberal, conservative debate, though that debate lingers today. Interestingly, and probably correctly, he points out that none of the political parties in the 19th century US were truly conservative. The rise of socialism, or the Welfare state, merely reflected the new Darwinian perspective of constant social "progress." The author's assertion that the entire globe is now socialist is not much of an overreach.

But the emergence of populist nationalism is more relevant to understanding the 20th century. Nationalism is not synonymous with patriotism; it is a mutation of patriotism. It is "aggressive" and based on a vague "myth of the people" that takes on feverish religious overtones. Nationalists are anti liberal. They take offense at liberal open-mindedness and tolerance, especially for foreigners. For the author, 1914 represents the time when the weakness of socialism relative to nationalism finally became clear. "... class consciousness melted away in the heat of nationalist emotions and beliefs."

Populism, at least as it has evolved in the last century, is a mutant form of democracy. Tocqueville already saw mass conformity to public opinion as a problem for democracy. But Lukacs is more concerned with the manipulation of public opinion. The media of 1914 pandered to nationalistic sentiments. In addition, the US government got into the propaganda act by creating departments to promote the War. Ultimately, "nationalist hatred [trumped] class hatred."

Hitler clearly demonstrates where populist nationalism can wind up. He fanned hatreds for the "enemies of German nationalism both within and without." The author explains that the old "Right," at one time, feared popular sovereignty. But that has been reversed in this century as the Right has assumed the populist nationalism mantle, appealing to and creating a fierce nationalism within populations. And that is the basis of the Right's advantage over the Left - a main point of the book. The Left and Democrats have never been sufficiently nationalistic.

It is a conceit within the Right that they support a higher morality. The author, a true conservative, is having none of that. Clearly, the cultural products of the US have smashed social and moral standards worldwide. The author decries the "stunning transformations of personal and sexual and civilizational behavior" within American culture. So-called conservatives have been prime promoters of technology and "progress," and more importantly economic policies of neoliberalism, which give global corporations a free hand in upsetting the social order by such actions as offshoring jobs without the hindrance of environmental or labor regulations. The impacts on families, whom conservatives claim to value much, and communities have been profound, not to mention on the environment.

Surprisingly, the author has a blind eye about other aspects of capitalism. For example, his claim that 20th century nationalists shared with socialists a dislike, even hatred, for international financiers and capitalists. Or his contention that corporate executives do not form a new aristocracy. What is a plutocracy (which surely exists in the US) other than a moneyed aristocracy? There is little evidence that the populist Republican Party favors restrictions on international capital. At one time the Pat Buchanan wing of the Republicans showed some interest in those areas. On the other hand, the minimal social disapproval of white collar crime is noted - surely, a conservative contradiction.

The author is concerned that parliamentary democracy is at risk in the US due to a large deficit in the free flow of useful information. The press no longer performs a role of assimilating and reflecting the political views of the public. As with other media, its focus is on entertainment. He is especially concerned about the potential for the public being manipulated by television, which now dominates news and entertainment, through the subtle distortion of words and speech. There are only limited avenues for unaltered oppositional voices.

As the author suggests, there has been a degeneration of democracy into nationalist populism in the US. There is one slight reference to the original populists in the US, the farmer revolt in the South in the late 19th century, who correctly identified oppression by business and government and attempted to ameliorate their situation through economic and political means - a true democratic effort. The measures taken to suppress that movement were extreme, and not discussed by the author.

The author misses the opportunity to reflect on the difficulties that truly ground-up democratic action faces. It seems that pseudo-democracy, or the kind of populism that the author discusses, is really all that can be "successful." But that is a result of manipulation by elites. It is not deliberative, and is usually fanatical. He does recognize that spectacular sporting events encourage "accumulations of hatred," which can be exercised politically.

Unsurprisingly, the author can only hope for some sort of revival of true conservatism. The chances of the Left successfully combating the forces of the Right are virtually nil.

This critical analysis of U. S. politics and "democracy" is written by an eminent historian who devoted many years to writng a six-volume history about Churchill and his importance to the outcome of World War II. He wrote FIVE DAYS IN LONDON (in May 1940) pivotal to the success of WWII in favor of the Allies, and THE DUEL between Churchill and Hitler.

He is a man who lives and breathes history. He feels that the current form of American democracy which had its roots in the 18th Century have changed drastically to a dangerous form of populism. History today is written for entertainment or propaganda and depends more on public opinion than on actual facts.

The machinery of publicity (the media) has caused the United States president to rely on nationalism and militarism to hold our society together. The decline of privacy (Big Brother cameras everywhere, even out on the Interstates which traverse this country) and the rise of criminality make for a dark future, full of fear and hatred.

The division between the two major political parties, Democrats and Republicans, make for a bad choice of bedfellows. The very material order (or disorder) of the world is not at all the dundament but the consequence of what many people think. Mayors, public officials, government workers, Governors, Presidents -- all are in power because of their popularity and not their ability. In America, you get where you are by who you are or who you know. It's sad what this world has become since 1945 when our future seemed secure. Nothing is secure today and 9/11 proved it. Those terrorists died in the plane crashes, but there are double that amount in U. S. A. today waiting for their turn to be suicide bombers, whether in planes, trains, or public transit.

(I am not of english speaking origin so please excuse errors and poor gramatics)
After having read the "Big" books of Mr. Lukacs with enormous pleasure, this is a big disappointment.
No clear thinking, that traduces in quite confusing writing. Plain vanity at a very high level. The author not only disavows reputed writers and historians, with just a couple of phrases: he also denies common wisdom with a "not so" and no more explanations. It seems like his purpose is "èpater le bourgeois" once and then again.
He "opens" themes that never come to fruition, meanders in a way impossible to follow, confuses the reader without evidently having made the effort to stream his lines of thought.
All this may be attributed to decay, old age of the author, lack of something new to say or just laziness.
But there is too a more malign component, if that is the word. The author simply cannot ignore he is lying when he asserts:
1) That Hitler and the Nazi Party evolved from a mere 2% of the vote, arriving to "more than 43 in March 1933". Everibody who knows anything about the Third Reich, knows that those last elections were rigged and fiercely manipulated. (See Richard Evans "The Third Reich in Power" for a detailed explanation). But in this precise point of the authors discourse (page 97) it is convenient for Mr. Lukacs to show that the Nazis had a substantial percentage of the vote. He, of all authors can not ignore the above.
2) Why on earth to lie again on this aspect of Hitler's personality: (Page 209): "He (Hitler) was no sadist, he took no particular pleasure in watching, or even being informed about the sufferings of his declared enemies".
Again, Mr. Lukacs cannot ignore the infamous films that Hitler had made of the slow dying of the conspirators of July 44. Hanged slowly with piano strings to a dreadful dead. Is quite well known that the dictator spent time looking those gruesome details.
I have a theory: again, he always tries to show he knows best than all other authors, and of course than the common knowledge.
In sum, a very poor performance and a waste of time.
Note: I include the pages of those two mistakes without giving details of the edition, because I am absolutely certain that this is going to be the only one.
Jorge Kersman

I can't believe this passes for published writing. There is no, and I mean absolutely no, structure to the author's writing and the subject matter is so jumbled together that it is very difficult to follow what arguments the author is making. To make matters worse, it seemed like every page had multiple parenthesis with explanations of the various terms and ideas and historical references the author mentions. I would not mind this so much if done moderately, but these parenthesis appear on almost every page, usually multiple multiple times.

The author seems to have some good ideas and I agree with much of what I think he is trying to say. The problem is the man can't seem to maintain a train of thought long enough to complete a decent sentence. I've never seen so much paraphrasing in a book. It's almost as if he's trying to write in stream of consciousness. I had an easier time reading Ulysses by James Joyce! Where was the editor?

He really lost me when he started bringing Darwin into scene. Darwin was not a social scientist. His writings have been used by social scientists in order to support their thesis or disparage anothers. This is wrong and very unfair to Darwin and evolutionary science in general. Most of these types have never actually read Darwin. They are simply transmuting what others have written about the subject.

Don't bother.

This book would be more aptly titled "Musings of a Disappointed Old Man." Lukacs now belongs to the negativist school of the modern man that has been exemplified by Allan Bloom and Jacques Barzun in recent years. It's hard to believe this book was written by the man who wrote the then insightful "A New History of the Cold War."
Among other flaws, this book was in bad need of an editor. It reads like a rough draft of random musings and asides that never got consolidated into coherent thoughts and theses. Lukacs' vast knowledge of history seems to have overwhelmed his ability to coherently analyze and express his current fears, frustrations, and disillusionment with the state of man. He apparently sees the Roman Catholic Church as the last best hope.
A sad effort from a once fine scholar and innovative thinker on 20th century history.

Imagine: a civil war re-enactment - a cannon is loaded and fired - a startling flash and boom - but when the smoke clears, nothing has really happened.

Similarly, when John Lukacs announces that the two elected monarchs of the modern world are the Pope and the President of the United States, or that Hitler was not a dictator, but a populist, you might think "Wow! what an original thought!" But after a little reflection, you realize that there is really nothing there: no information, no insight, no new way of looking at things. It's all fake, a simulacrum of historical thinking.

There is no new research here. Many of the ideas are not even fake original: for instance, everybody has long known that the new conservatives aren't conservative in the old sense. The familiar theme of how democracy is at risk from demagoguery is not really elaborated or explored in any depth.

If you find yourself agreeing with Lukacs, you haven't understood the book. A lot of it is plain wrong: Hitler was a dictator, and was not a populist, and his power was not based on popular sovereignty. Lukacs' proposal that right wing politics is based on hate, and the left-wing politics on fear, falls apart in his hands. And he shows no understanding of Darwin or Freud.

But you have to stop arguing with every quirky definition and out-of-the-blue digression (Women are the potential salvation of the world, through their special capacity for love? Gee...) This isn't a reasoned work of scholarship, it's an existential outburst.

So, why a three? I guess an intelligent, hard-working writer like Lukacs earns the right to let his hair down, finally, and publish a totally self-indulgent rant. We get to see all the chaotic stuff going on in his head, that doesn't get expressed in his more disciplined work.