The Cliches of Tyranny
When John Adams first wrote the phrase “tyranny of the majority,” in 1788, he was helping to inaugurate a tradition in American politics to regard the faceless masses with, at best, a healthy and measured skepticism. Indeed, political history since the Enlightenment is full of epigrams and catchphrases—”banality of evil” being one, “totalitarian democracy” another—reminding us that the worst of humanity is often derived from the quotidian. The participants in a genocide are usually not disfigured foreign monsters but the victims’ fellow citizens. The scary thing about a serial killer is that it’s always the quiet guy who, as the neighbors tell the network reporters, “keeps to himself.” One finds that this tendency holds true at the level of language as well: the worst trespasses on our intellect are those sayings that, worked into a state of flaccidity and vacuity, have slipped by our rational defenses and have become “cliches.”
A society governed by slogans is condemned to repeat them. The degeneration of political debate into a series of cliches, particularly those of the self-proclaimed progressives, is the subject of an intelligent new book by Jonah Goldberg titled The Tyranny of Cliches. The author’s goal is to discern, as the subtitle informs us, “how liberals cheat in the war of ideas.” It was Richard Weaver who warned us that ideas have consequences, and Goldberg has assigned himself the adjunct role of showing that the lack of ideas is just as important. This means that concepts like “diversity” and “social justice,” bromides like “violence never solves anything,” and comfortable thought-terminating rejoinders like “social darwinism” and Marie Antoinette’s never-uttered “let them eat cake” are up for consideration.
For Goldberg, cliches “are a way to earn bravery on the cheap, defending principles you haven’t thought through or perhaps only vaguely support.” Those who have spoken before a crowd, especially one of the college aged, and entertained questions will nod gently in agreement as they read Goldberg’s own version of the experience:
Often, I will encounter an earnest student, much more serious looking than the typical hippie with open-toed shoes and a closed mind. During the Q&A session after my speech he will say something like “Mr. Goldberg, I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Then he will sit down, and the audience will applaud. Faculty will nod proudly at this wiser-than-his-years hatchling under their wings. What a glorious moment for everybody. Blessed are the bridge builders.
My response? Who gives a rat’s ass?
Adages, not dogmas, are “ideals broken in by time and consecrated by experience”. That is, they are ancient “eternal truths”. Dogmas are just unquestioned, received authority, and are generally of a far shorter, far lesser, far pettier lineage (every generation is capable of making up a few of its own dogmas, and generally does, hence the divisions between the “older” and the “younger” generations who are alive at the same time). The problem is largely that of, “Who knows only his own generation (with its juvenile dogmas) remains always a child”.
“A society governed by slogans is condemned to repeat them.”
Like the “War on Women,” “Hope and Change,” “Social Justice,” or the “Redistribution of Wealth?” Strange, but I always seem to hear only one side in this election, the Democrats, coming up with slogans or catch-phrases. I wonder why that is? Perhaps it’s because their supporters need to have their beliefs dumbed-down into a few chewable words to hang on to, rather than having to look at the issues logically, basing their votes on evidence or facts? Naaaa, couldn’t be that simple, right? Unfortunately, I think it is.
Democrats need to read more and stop following Obama blindly off of a financial cliff. If they looked at the facts, the only real conclusion they could come away with is that Obama is a failure and needs to be replaced. They would then have a shot at some real Hope and Change, to coin a familiar phrase.
Conservatives used to have pithy slogans too:
“In Your Heart, You Know He’s Right” (1964)
“Shining City on a Hill” (late 1970s-early 1980s)
“Morning in America” (1984-1989)
“Contract with America” (1992-2000)
Good retort, but in each case there was a tangible action or positive outcome which coincided with the statement.
What positive outcome can you provide to those of the left and especially Obama?
What exactly, is your point? Do you even know??
Despite other comments to you, your point actually does stick. Conservatives are not immune to being wrong, or of using inappropriate tactics. And why should anyone think otherwise? Common-sense in political ideology boils down to one thing, in the negative: your opinion of which side is not the worst, or does not trample on your ideals. Typically, when people feel they’ve found the true and pure strain of government that should BE they become the fringe, the extremists, or the tyrants. And that is why they come up with slogans that encapsulate all of their figuring, because they feel they have the answer to some political equation. Obama’s supporters are guilty of this, and it is why they are so dangerous in America, since by default, in this reasoning they are a large fringe, including among themselves extremists and tyrants as mainstream within that massive fringe. Conservatives are more stable and sane. The nomination of Romney is the evidence, since here is a guy with a universal healthcare mandate on his record and he was still chosen. Chosen as a compromise on many’s part, because of the need to unite. And one can see the Conservative imperative is greater than the Liberal’s. In that, for the good of the country, Conservatives need to unite, while Liberals simply want to. Utopia or socialisms are not necessary for survival, but work is, and that is what Conservatives have come together for in Romney. His proven ability to be a good manager. The liberal’s guy is good at one thing we’ve seen: his ability to speak rhetoric with sober zeal in front of crowds, usually with a teleprompter.
those are slogans, but theyve never even come close to approaching cliche status. the fact that you’ve put dates of relevance in parentheses next to them proves this. what conservative uses “contract with america” in everyday conversation?
What’s the difference, is there a difference, between a slogan and a metaphor?
Take a look at the Gadsden flag. You know, the yellow one with with the snake curled up with the motto, “Don’t tread on me!” – That’s the slogan. What would you say the snake image is?
But aren’t you committing the same tautological fallacy described in the article in your reproof that only if they “looked at the facts” they would be set right? We all deal with the same facts, for the most part and despite the media, but the difference is how we interpret those facts. So, self-government is the difference between political entities, which is governed by how one perceives themselves in their own existence, or how they choose to actualize.
The truth is that belief in God, in any form and even in the negative, has shaped the face of the world. It seems that whether one believes God came first, god came after, or there are no gods shapes the way one actualizes. You would be hard-pressed to find someone who believes God created earth in 6 days and in His own image who also believes abortion is a human right that should be protected by the U.S. government. And you would be hard-pressed to find someone who believes that morality is a societal adaptation from evolution and who believes there is no God that believes abortion should be outlawed for any cause not resulting in the death of the mother. Degrees of belief may exist inbetween these but the point is that such facts that can be measured and tested do not necessarily guide the future, because they do not determine human will. Both groups look at the same facts, I’m sure, but for some reason do not come to the same conclusion.
“And you would be hard-pressed to find someone who believes that morality is a societal adaptation from evolution and who believes there is no God that believes abortion should be outlawed for any cause not resulting in the death of the mother.”
Actually,I’m pretty close to your description there. I don’t believe morality is a gift from God inherent in every human being to steer him towards God’s kingdom or anything like that,mostly a social adaptation to keep people from getting themselves killed by other human beings.I freely admit that I don’t know if God exists, or if so,that he is a just or good God,due to the presence of evil in the world. I am against women being able to abort at THIS time because men have no equivalent right and I believe that violates the right of everyone to be treated equally by a government that all citizens pay for.
Close enough?
Marie Antoinette’s never-uttered “let them eat cake” are up for consideration
Thank you for mentioning this; most people do not know that. As I recollect, the actual comment was made by Maria Theresa, and she’d said in reference to starving peasants, “let them eat Brioche.”
Actually one of my favorite cliche’s has been notable for it’s absence, at least since the first week of November, 2008. I teach at a large urban university and, prior to November/2008, one of the hoary perennials of campus bumper-sticker life was always “Question Authority.” (And we musn’t forget “Always Speak Truth to Power.”)This was particularly true in the faculty parking lots.
Following the elevation of Mr. Obama “Question Authority” has virtually disappeared from the lexicon of university life. Could there be a connection between the two events? Quite possibly.
Also – I purchaed a copy of Jonah’s book and it is a can’t-put-down read. He takes hold of his subject and never lets go.
I live surrounded by colleges and, yes, until you mentioned that, I hadn’t noticed that they’d disappeared. Used to see it spray-painted on walls and sidewalks, all over.
Great article, really, and very well-written.
Personally, while reading it, I think of Merlinus in “That Hideous Strength”, when he put the Curse of Babel on Bellbury.
We use words for selfish ends, and, coupled with the fact that few of us (esp of course, the Left) are honest with ourselves, we end up saying a massive amount of nothing. Perhaps that lurked in Russell Kirk’s point of conservatism being an anti-ideology: it was a say of speaking past or through all the gobshite?
Anyway, Babel. That’s the address of our political elites. They bear false witness (Obama’s attacks on Romney being a classic example) to the point of absurdity. Ultimately, then, are they really saying anything, anything that is that isn’t gobbledygook?
Perhaps in this election, the Bamster will reach a real point of incoherence (what with his endless gaffs-57 states, ‘The buck stops with you’, etc). Then again, I think he’s pretty incoherent now.
An Préachán
What about “Think for Yourself”? Every pseudo-intellectual who wants to sound smarter than the “sheeple” seemed to be fond of saying it.
Right up there with “We’ve got to teach critical thinking”!
The first person to mention it is usually the last to use it.
Just seeking applause.
mr. wargas is a very good writer
Hmmmm
On the whole a rather gruesome display of mental masturbation.
I just started reading this book. Please don’t tell me how it ends.
I meet many people, most Lefties, who have become cliches — The Night of the Living Cliches. I mean they seem to think (well . . . they do something like thinking) and act like the vast majority of Lefties.
My favorite cliche is when so-called journalists speak in behalf of the American people: “Governor Romney the American people want to know . . . ” Journalists do not speak for the American people.
Leftist cliches? How about far right-wing cliches? Most people would classify me as a paleocon, but I stopped reading when I saw the book being reviewed was by Jonah Goldberg. My life is too short to waste time trying find out if a man so deluded that he still believes in a bankruptingly expensive and aggresive US foreign policy isn’t 100% wrong about something else, also. Until it’s worth my time, I’ll just assume he is.
How Many Checkpoints in One Morning?! Welcome to the Police State!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fDCXzqgD99o
EPA Official: EPAs “philosophy” is to “crucify” and “make examples” of US energy producers Published on Apr 25, 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze3GB_b7Nuo&feature=plcp