Holy hump. I wouldn't say you've shred your credibility. There's nothing but awe from me, and maybe a few more doubts about your time-management skills.
Which antisemite utilized "deracinated and cosmpolitan universities" to refer specifically to jews? I've heard of attacks against psychology as "jewish" and against "jewish science" in general but I don't think I've ever heard of attacks on the university as being a code for a specific hostility toward jews.
Cool, someone read to the end. I wasn't referring to attacks on universities, but rather the "rootless and cosmopolitan" notion. These are codewords with a history, see here for one example.
Fontana, if the arthritis drug you take in 2030 is 3% less effective, you can blame this post.
Your original post linked neo-conservatism with conservatism proper and intimated that the antisemitism of the latter was being unconsciously or unwittingly adopted by the former. Your words were "[t]elling rhetorical slip showing the affinities between neoconservatism and older, less tolerable forms of American conservatism?" A citation of Soviet villany doesn't prove your point.
David, I didn't mean to suggest neoconservatism is anti-semitic. You're right, that would be insane. I *am* saying that in 1960, or 1950, or 1940, or 1930, or 1920 "rootless cosmopolitan" would have been instantly recognized as a code word.
To make my full thought explicit: Kass' phrase harkens back to an earlier, more obviously counter-enlightenment brand of conservatism: against markets, against globalization, for local, "rooted" communities, etc. This was often frankly nativist. Think of French conservatism in the 20s, for example.
Neoconservatism is generally (and correctly) perceived as a turning away from this type of conservatism -- making peace with the New Deal, etc. Of course that's not 100%, I think affinities to the older conservatism fo exist. See, for example Irving Kristol's more ambivalent comments about the market, "Two Cheers for Capitalism" and all that. I don't mean at all to accuse neoconservatism of anti-semitism (again, that's about the opposite of the truth) I was just amazed to see *Leon Kass* using radioactive terminology in *The Public Interest* And it suggests to me that he's not as cognizant/careful about the drawbacks of counter-enlightenment conservatism as he ought to be.
And I say this as a friend of counter-enlightenment sympathies.
I think you're painting with an overly broad brush here. As neither Kass nor the overwhelming majority of his audience would have been attuned to the anti-semitic overtones of political discourse in France in the 1920s there is no reason why he cannot utilize that specific set of terms. Think of someone using the term "running dog" in 2080 (provided that the trope's existing context is forgotten). There is no reason to assume that someone who uses that term--absent the usual modifier of "capitalist"--is trying to smuggle anti-capitalist ideas into his writing or make covert, positive references to early 20th century communist thought. We could turn this into a navel-gazing thread about the maleability of phrases when divorced from their existing context...
There are many affinities between "neo-conservatism" and "conservatism", largely because most "neo-conservatives" are really just conservatives who are being turned into bogeymen by their opponents. On most of the major issues the two "camps" are indistinguishable. The only person to seize on a potential difference between the two was Josh Cherniss when he noted that "neo-conservatives" were optimists and "conservatives" were pessimists about the ability of politics to change the current state-of-affairs. Of course, if one were to apply this then many of those who are called "neo-conservatives" end up looking just like "conservatives."
One, the rootless cosmopolitan thing was kind of a throwaway jibe. But I'm sticking to my guns on this, it's a phrase that just glows in the dark. This isn't some esoteric term from the 20s, and it's simply stunningly weird to see Kass use it.
Two. It's true, there's lots of fluff on neocons in the media now, written largely by ignoramuses. That said, neoconservatism is a real political phenomenon (one which, I should add, I approve of!). The Public Interest was the #1 neocon journal for many years, and an essay by is found in Mike Gerson's excellent Neoconservative Reader. So I think i'm not out on a limb identifying him as such.
Three, it's not like Kass is *smuggling* counter-enlightenment ideas into his essay: teleology, suspicion of science, suspicion of reason. He's declaring his anti-enlightenment baggage at customs!
Yes, it's esoteric and I think you're being fastidious about it. I may just be an ignorant jew but the phrase just doesn't carry the kind of baggage it once did. Then again, I think that I would laugh if someone called me a "running dog" so, perhaps, my opinion is atypical.
I think Kass's "anti-enlightenment" credentials aren't so much "anti-enlightenment" as they are philosophical. Suspicion of science is as present in Hegel's Lesser Logic (in the treatment of Quantity) as it is in Plato or Montaigne. I don't see the "suspicion of reason" in the article but I have read a bit of Kass's work so I may not be seeing the odd colored trees in the forest. I know that the man is quite reasonable in his philosophical works, whether he is reading Hans Jonas or the Bible. Teleology would fall under the same category as "suspicion of science" insofar as many philosophers have resorted to it, explicitly or implicitly. I sometimes wonder if even such a radical historicist as Heidegger wasn't importing teleology into his work when he started complaining about technology's ability to radically alter man for the worse (eg. he bitches about the typewriter altering man's relationship to writing in "Parmenides").
The neo-con stuff is too muddy to get exercised over. I have yet to read a decent exposition of what the "neo-con" creed would be and how it differs from traditional conservatism. The fact that those who dislike "neo-conservatism" tar journals such as First Things, The New Criterion, and The New Republic as infected by neo-conservatism is proof positive that there is little which is identifiable as uniquely "neo-conservative."
Right! I don't think we actually disagree about anything important. The driver is Kass' philosophical position, but that position *is* anti-enlightenment, at least, in important aspects. You'd agree with that, I expect.
I am not a political philosopher or historian, just a simple computer programmer, but like baa I can instantly recongize the radioactive glow of phrases like "deracinated cosmopolitan". Never did understand how american jews could align themselves with conservatives (Israeli jews are in a different situation) and it looks like the seams are beginning to show.
A quick Google search will show many uses of the word "deracinated" with reference to the jews. No small number of them are by jews describing themselves or other jews. The simple use of the word isn't, itself, evidence of anti-semitism or evidence of one's unwitting furtherance of the anti-semitic agenda. As for conservatism and judaism, the two go together quite well, thank you. Any religion which attempts to preserve its links to the past in the face of an environment which does not encourage such preservation--and which appears actively hostile to it at certain times--is going to find itself in a conservative posture. I have found that those on the other side of the political aisle are not my friends and consider me mired in superstition based upon my attempt to be a Torah jew. My defenders, interestingly enough, are church going folk who think the Bible reveals the Truth. Our common respect for a particular, broadly- construed tradition is what binds us against those who believe that the tradition is little more than a set of oppressive shackels for the ignorant. I would encourage reading a bit of David Novak in this area as he has done work on/for the jewish-christian dialogue.
Holy hump. I wouldn't say you've shred your credibility. There's nothing but awe from me, and maybe a few more doubts about your time-management skills.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 03-10-04 4:45 PM
Which antisemite utilized "deracinated and cosmpolitan universities" to refer specifically to jews? I've heard of attacks against psychology as "jewish" and against "jewish science" in general but I don't think I've ever heard of attacks on the university as being a code for a specific hostility toward jews.
Posted by David | Link to this comment | 03-11-04 8:51 AM
Cool, someone read to the end. I wasn't referring to attacks on universities, but rather the "rootless and cosmopolitan" notion. These are codewords with a history, see here for one example.
Fontana, if the arthritis drug you take in 2030 is 3% less effective, you can blame this post.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 03-11-04 9:22 AM
Your original post linked neo-conservatism with conservatism proper and intimated that the antisemitism of the latter was being unconsciously or unwittingly adopted by the former. Your words were "[t]elling rhetorical slip showing the affinities between neoconservatism and older, less tolerable forms of American conservatism?" A citation of Soviet villany doesn't prove your point.
Posted by David | Link to this comment | 03-11-04 10:51 AM
David, I didn't mean to suggest neoconservatism is anti-semitic. You're right, that would be insane. I *am* saying that in 1960, or 1950, or 1940, or 1930, or 1920 "rootless cosmopolitan" would have been instantly recognized as a code word.
To make my full thought explicit: Kass' phrase harkens back to an earlier, more obviously counter-enlightenment brand of conservatism: against markets, against globalization, for local, "rooted" communities, etc. This was often frankly nativist. Think of French conservatism in the 20s, for example.
Neoconservatism is generally (and correctly) perceived as a turning away from this type of conservatism -- making peace with the New Deal, etc. Of course that's not 100%, I think affinities to the older conservatism fo exist. See, for example Irving Kristol's more ambivalent comments about the market, "Two Cheers for Capitalism" and all that. I don't mean at all to accuse neoconservatism of anti-semitism (again, that's about the opposite of the truth) I was just amazed to see *Leon Kass* using radioactive terminology in *The Public Interest* And it suggests to me that he's not as cognizant/careful about the drawbacks of counter-enlightenment conservatism as he ought to be.
And I say this as a friend of counter-enlightenment sympathies.
Fair?
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 03-11-04 11:26 AM
I think you're painting with an overly broad brush here. As neither Kass nor the overwhelming majority of his audience would have been attuned to the anti-semitic overtones of political discourse in France in the 1920s there is no reason why he cannot utilize that specific set of terms. Think of someone using the term "running dog" in 2080 (provided that the trope's existing context is forgotten). There is no reason to assume that someone who uses that term--absent the usual modifier of "capitalist"--is trying to smuggle anti-capitalist ideas into his writing or make covert, positive references to early 20th century communist thought. We could turn this into a navel-gazing thread about the maleability of phrases when divorced from their existing context...
There are many affinities between "neo-conservatism" and "conservatism", largely because most "neo-conservatives" are really just conservatives who are being turned into bogeymen by their opponents. On most of the major issues the two "camps" are indistinguishable. The only person to seize on a potential difference between the two was Josh Cherniss when he noted that "neo-conservatives" were optimists and "conservatives" were pessimists about the ability of politics to change the current state-of-affairs. Of course, if one were to apply this then many of those who are called "neo-conservatives" end up looking just like "conservatives."
Posted by David | Link to this comment | 03-11-04 12:14 PM
Navel gazing is good! Some points.
One, the rootless cosmopolitan thing was kind of a throwaway jibe. But I'm sticking to my guns on this, it's a phrase that just glows in the dark. This isn't some esoteric term from the 20s, and it's simply stunningly weird to see Kass use it.
Two. It's true, there's lots of fluff on neocons in the media now, written largely by ignoramuses. That said, neoconservatism is a real political phenomenon (one which, I should add, I approve of!). The Public Interest was the #1 neocon journal for many years, and an essay by is found in Mike Gerson's excellent Neoconservative Reader. So I think i'm not out on a limb identifying him as such.
Three, it's not like Kass is *smuggling* counter-enlightenment ideas into his essay: teleology, suspicion of science, suspicion of reason. He's declaring his anti-enlightenment baggage at customs!
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 03-11-04 12:28 PM
Yes, it's esoteric and I think you're being fastidious about it. I may just be an ignorant jew but the phrase just doesn't carry the kind of baggage it once did. Then again, I think that I would laugh if someone called me a "running dog" so, perhaps, my opinion is atypical.
I think Kass's "anti-enlightenment" credentials aren't so much "anti-enlightenment" as they are philosophical. Suspicion of science is as present in Hegel's Lesser Logic (in the treatment of Quantity) as it is in Plato or Montaigne. I don't see the "suspicion of reason" in the article but I have read a bit of Kass's work so I may not be seeing the odd colored trees in the forest. I know that the man is quite reasonable in his philosophical works, whether he is reading Hans Jonas or the Bible. Teleology would fall under the same category as "suspicion of science" insofar as many philosophers have resorted to it, explicitly or implicitly. I sometimes wonder if even such a radical historicist as Heidegger wasn't importing teleology into his work when he started complaining about technology's ability to radically alter man for the worse (eg. he bitches about the typewriter altering man's relationship to writing in "Parmenides").
The neo-con stuff is too muddy to get exercised over. I have yet to read a decent exposition of what the "neo-con" creed would be and how it differs from traditional conservatism. The fact that those who dislike "neo-conservatism" tar journals such as First Things, The New Criterion, and The New Republic as infected by neo-conservatism is proof positive that there is little which is identifiable as uniquely "neo-conservative."
Posted by David | Link to this comment | 03-11-04 1:27 PM
Right! I don't think we actually disagree about anything important. The driver is Kass' philosophical position, but that position *is* anti-enlightenment, at least, in important aspects. You'd agree with that, I expect.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 03-11-04 1:45 PM
I am not a political philosopher or historian, just a simple computer programmer, but like baa I can instantly recongize the radioactive glow of phrases like "deracinated cosmopolitan". Never did understand how american jews could align themselves with conservatives (Israeli jews are in a different situation) and it looks like the seams are beginning to show.
Posted by Manfred Traven | Link to this comment | 03-11-04 2:09 PM
A quick Google search will show many uses of the word "deracinated" with reference to the jews. No small number of them are by jews describing themselves or other jews. The simple use of the word isn't, itself, evidence of anti-semitism or evidence of one's unwitting furtherance of the anti-semitic agenda. As for conservatism and judaism, the two go together quite well, thank you. Any religion which attempts to preserve its links to the past in the face of an environment which does not encourage such preservation--and which appears actively hostile to it at certain times--is going to find itself in a conservative posture. I have found that those on the other side of the political aisle are not my friends and consider me mired in superstition based upon my attempt to be a Torah jew. My defenders, interestingly enough, are church going folk who think the Bible reveals the Truth. Our common respect for a particular, broadly- construed tradition is what binds us against those who believe that the tradition is little more than a set of oppressive shackels for the ignorant. I would encourage reading a bit of David Novak in this area as he has done work on/for the jewish-christian dialogue.
Posted by David | Link to this comment | 03-11-04 2:42 PM