Featured

Strategic Consequences of the Iraq War

“Those whom God wishes to destroy, he first deprives of reason.”                    

It would seem hard to argue that the war in Vietnam was not America’s worst foreign policy mistake in the post-WWII era.  It ended in a complete defeat with our enemy, North Vietnam, and its Soviet and Chinese allies, ousting the United States (complete with humiliating helicopter departures) and occupying the South.  It cost over 50,000 American lives and an unknowable number of Vietnamese, perhaps over a million in both North and South.  Relations with major allies were stressed and damaged.  At home, it tore the United States apart along generational and class lines, and permanently undermined public trust in government.  It cost Lyndon Johnson re-election, distracted the US from domestic reforms, and led to the Nixon presidency.  The prestige and morale of the US military were deeply compromised, and the military spent a decade rebuilding itself.  The huge cost of the war, financed by increased borrowing, hurt the US economy and contributed to the stagflation of the 1970s.  

Hard to argue.  But Ross Douthat, the moderately conservative New York Times columnist, thinks the Iraq War was worse.  At first glance this seems like an odd position.  American casualties were far lower, and Iraq today, though unstable and racked by corruption and violence, is intact and in many respects a US ally.  Far from being pushed out, the United States retains a small military presence to train the Iraqi military and assist in the fight against ISIS.  Domestically, the war quickly became unpopular but Bush was re-elected in 2004; with fighting done not by draftees but volunteers, Iraq never roused the same intense public opposition as did Vietnam.   

But Douthat points to the larger strategic context to make his case.  After Vietnam, where the goal was to stop the spread of communism and prevent Vietnam from becoming a Soviet and Chinese ally, the US eventually rebounded while the USSR and the global communist movement collapsed.  The United States emerged in the 1990s as the sole superpower.  Vietnam and China went to war in 1979 and remain bitter enemies.  Relations with major allies healed.  

America’s strategic goals in Iraq, however, were never realized.  Even today it is difficult to say exactly what the US hoped to accomplish, largely in my opinion because the underlying cause was emotional, a primal desire to respond to the attack on 9/11, to show ‘strength’ and ‘determination’.  Other reasons were given but this was the driving force.  

However, we can try to judge the war in light of three strategic goals that stand out, based on statements by US leaders and key war supporters:  1) end the threat to the US and the region from Iraq’s pursuit of WMD; 2) reduce the terrorist threat to the US, by ensuring that Iraq did not assist al-Qaida and other radical groups; and 3) create a democratic, flourishing Iraq to hem in Iran and be a catalyst for change in the Middle East.  Obviously the first goal was not attained, since Iraq had no serious WMD programs and was hemmed in by draconian international sanctions.  As for the other two, in most respects the invasion undermined their achievement.  And there were other serious strategic setbacks that were either ignored or not anticipated.  Today, 20 years later, we are still living with the consequences.  

Here is my own brief summary of what I see as the major strategic results, many of which are mentioned by Douthat.

Strengthened Iran.  For long-term US interests, perhaps no goal was more important than weakening Iran by putting a strong, pro-US democracy next door.  However, the opposite happened. The invasion removed Iran’s biggest threat in the region and gave Tehran immense leverage inside Iraq.  Iran was initially frightened at the US intervention, but the botched and lengthy reconstruction put US troops and civilians within range of Iranian proxies, in Iran’s backyard, where they were attractive targets. The violence and disorder of post-invasion Iraq helped discredit democracy and give Iran’s rulers an easy argument against liberalization and Westernization.  And the example of forceful regime change strengthened the perceived need to acquire nuclear weapons as a deterrent.  

Strengthened anti-US Islamic militants.  Just before the invasion, terrorism expert Bruce Hoffman was asked what Osama bin-Ladin’s likely reaction would be.  Hoffman said “It’s his dream come true.”  The American attack confirmed all of al-Qaida’s warnings about US aggressive intentions in the region and US disdain for Islam and Arabs.  Abu Gharaib and US detention practices destroyed trust in the US throughout the Muslim world. 

Terrorists conduct high-profile attacks largely in hopes of producing a disproportionate response that will radicalize moderates and bring in new recruits.  The 9/11 attack achieved all this and more. 

The lengthy US presence in the heart of the Muslim world catalyzed a new generation of jihadists, more brutal and extreme than before:  first Al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI), then its follow-on, ISIS.  These new terrorist formations made large parts of Iraq deadly battlegrounds, incited sectarian civil war, sparked deadly attacks around the world, and eventually spread into Syria, Jordan, and beyond.  Today ISIS, despite US and Kurdish success at pushing it out of Mosul and other occupied territory, remains a dangerous presence not only in the Middle East but in Afghanistan and Africa.        

It is tragic and bitter that in fact Saddam had little contact with al-Qaida and no interest in helping Islamic militants, who were his mortal enemies.  The claims to the contrary within the US, used as a major rationale for the invasion, were largely manufactured by the Pentagon and other war supporters.   

Distracted US from Afghanistan.  At the time of the Iraq invasion, the US was of course already heavily engaged in Afghanistan.  After the extremely successful overthrow of the Taliban in 2001 there was at this point no serious resistance and the overall US presence was small.  Washington seems to have concluded that Afghanistan could safely be put on the back burner.  But US military and civilians in Afghanistan warned that a consistent and well-resourced effort was essential for stability and to prevent the growth of an insurgency—the Taliban were down but not out, retrenching across the border in Pakistan.  These warnings were largely ignored by policymakers determined to argue that invading Iraq would be cost-free.  As Iraq ramped up, resources and attention at the White House, the Pentagon, the intelligence community, shifted away from Afghanistan.

Largely as a result, in the years after the Iraq invasion the situation in Afghanistan deteriorated.  There is no way to prove that the tragic outcome in Afghanistan in 2021 would otherwise have been avoided.  But there is no doubt that there was a pattern of neglect during a critical period during which the Taliban re-emerged as a serious insurgent threat.  By the time Obama took office, the so-called “good war” in Afghanistan had become a crisis.  And unlike in Iraq, where a last-ditch “surge” of troops and resources in 2007-08 succeeded in averting a civil war, a similar effort in Afghanistan turned out to be too little, too late.  

Alienation of Moscow and Beijing.   We might forget that after 9/11, Russia and China were strong supporters of US counter-terrorist initiatives.  Putin gave his OK to a massive US logistic network for Afghanistan that went through Central Asian states seen historically as Russia’s sphere of influence.  Neither Moscow nor Beijing wanted al-Qaida to entrench itself in Afghanistan and were happy the US was taking the lead to rout it from the region.  

But Iraq changed this calculus.  It was seen as an act of US imperialism, not a necessary anti-terrorist step.  The stated rationales for US action were viewed as excuses to insert the US into the Middle East and gain control over oil resources.  The use of massive force in the name of regime change, done unilaterally and without UN approval, frightened Russia and China, who saw it as a proof-of-concept which might be directed at them or their allies.  In their eyes the US had become an unpredictable ‘rogue state.’ 

In both Moscow and Beijing it became easy to think that what was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander. If the US superpower felt entitled to do what it wanted, where it wanted, why shouldn’t we?  There is a line from Iraq (and from Clinton’s intervention in the Balkans, and Obama’s in Libya) that runs towards Putin’s annexation of Crimea and invasion of Ukraine, towards China’s build-up in the South China Sea and threats to Japan and Taiwan.    

Further, as the US floundered, the initial fear turned into a kind of contempt.  The US, for all its power, didn’t seem to know what to do or how to achieve victory.  It was expending its energy and resources and credibility on a secondary target.  Its military was being harassed and beaten by ragged insurgents with no modern weapons.  The US was seen as both out of control, and a paper tiger.  It was not invincible.  Here again we see how Iraq reinforced hubris in Russia, China, and other US adversaries.  This conviction of US decline was reinforced by the 2008-09 financial crisis—which some economists attribute in large part to the war—and the growing political and social divisions inside the US that the war in Iraq helped stimulate.

Distracted US from Big Power Threats.  The flip side of greater focus on the US in Russia and China, was the loss of focus in the US.  Trillions of dollars that might have gone to strengthening US capabilities in Europe and Asia instead went down the drain in Iraq.  The time and attention of key leaders, perhaps the scarcest of strategic resources, went disproportionately to Iraq.  Obama tried desperately to “re-balance” towards China, but Iraq, ISIS, and the Taliban constantly pulled his administration away. 

Russia and China, of course, were ecstatic that the US was squandering its money and attention and reputation, leaving them a much freer hand.  They had no incentive to help a distracted US overcome its self-inflicted wounds.  According to a Western historian who specializes in studies of intelligence, “The strategy that China’s Ministry of State Security (MSS), its principal civilian intelligence service, took toward the United States after 9/11 followed a Chinese saying, ge an guan huo, which roughly translates as ‘watch the fires burn from the safety of the opposite river bank, which allows you to avoid entering the battle until your enemy is exhausted’”.

Frayed and weakened US standing in the world.  The Iraq intervention was opposed by many major US allies, including key states in the Middle East such as Saudi Arabia, who warned the US that toppling Saddam would strengthen Iran.  Many thought it violated basic tenets of international law, the UN charter, and global norms against aggression and forcible change of governments.  Others saw it as poorly executed, likely to fail and bog down the United States and its supporters in a lengthy conflict with no clear endpoint.  Germany and France, joined by Russia, broke publicly and forcefully with the US over the decision to invade. 

The Bush administration’s post 9/11 strategic doctrine seemed designed to justify unilateral action against any state the US deemed a potential threat.  The US was seen as willing to go it alone, without regard for countervailing views, even from its friends.  As Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.”

The unwillingness today of many states in the developing world to join the US in helping Ukraine and condemning Russia is in part a result of this experience.  In many capitals US appeals to international law, norms of non-aggression, and violations of human rights, ring hollow.  The invasion badly damaged a key source of US strength in international affairs, our claim to act not just in our own national interest but in the interest of international order and universal principles.   

Image of US strength and competence.  Iraq dealt a terrible blow to the reputation of the American national security establishment. The intelligence community in particular has never recovered from its strong claims about Iraq’s WMD programs.  Rightly or wrongly, it is also blamed for misjudging the strength of the resistance.  The US military, despite heroic efforts and sacrifices, made fundamental errors in failing to anticipate the kind of conflict it was waging, being consistently behind the curve in adapting to changes in the war, and moving slowly to train and equip Iraqi forces to take its place.  

At the top, the war was pushed and designed by leaders thought to represent the very acme of national security insight:  two-time Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, Vice-President (and former Secretary of Defense) Cheney, Secretary of State (and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) Powell, National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, and a host of other luminaries.  But rather than engaging in an honest evaluation of the risks, or putting together a campaign plan that reflected the views and experience of military professionals, this new incarnation of the Best and Brightest indulged its fears and followed its own private agendas.  In key areas they actively and deliberately misled their own government and the American public by cavalierly downplaying the costs and exaggerating the threat.  Glib analogies were made to successful US efforts at rebuilding Japan and Germany after World War II. 

Many experts advised that the US intervention force should be much larger and should anticipate the need to administer a collapsed state for a considerable time.  This advice was treated with contempt, especially by Rumsfeld, who was obsessed with showing the world that the military could win with a small, precise force able to get in and get out fast.

War proponents were opposed to ‘nation-building’ and refused to plan for it.  Neither military or civilian agencies possessed the language and cultural skills needed to cope with a broken society, especially when American administrators decided early on to disband the Iraqi Army and fire most Ba’ath Party members.  These decisions created a large, alienated, and furious opposition that morphed quickly into armed resistance.

Undermining domestic trust.  When the intervention quickly resulted in a growing insurgency and a failed state, an angry population, no WMD, and huge expenditures with no end in sight, public support understandably faded.  Abu-Gharaib raised questions about military discipline and our ability to conduct a messy low-level conflict while adhering to acceptable standards of human rights.  The elected leaders who had championed the war were discredited.  The cynicism and distrust that had taken root with Vietnam deepened. 

George Bush was re-elected in 2004 before the full picture had come into focus.  The partial success of the so-called ‘surge’ in 2007 salvaged some of his reputation, but he left office with many historians judging him among the worst Presidents in American history. (Luckily for Bush, the advent of Donald Trump has allowed him to appear decent and competent by comparison). The Republican Party, once a reliable supporter of US strength in the service of international order, is now split with an ascendant wing, led by Donald Trump—who campaigned by attacking the war and its supporters—highly critical of US engagement and alliances.    

Unlike Vietnam, public anger did not spill over into broad attacks on the military.  Americans generally supported ‘the troops’, if not their leaders.  The military was therefore not broken by Iraq in the way it was in Vietnam, but still endured huge costs in deaths, injuries, trauma, and morale as soldiers cycled through multiple tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan.    

Ongoing Impact on Foreign Policy.  Iraq continues to affect US willingness to engage in the Middle East and around the world.  No American decisionmaker wants to repeat Iraq by committing US forces in a ‘war of choice,’ and there is particular reluctance to intervene in the Middle East.  This reluctance is one reason Russia has been able to become a major player in Syria and the region. 

Major parts of the American public, on both left and right, are now instinctively suspicious of American national security elites.  They do not accept their claims to understand US interests or how to advance them overseas.  

Is Ukraine a Possible Turning Point?  Douthat suggests that US actions in support of Ukraine could repair some of the damage.  US intelligence was praised for its accurate advance knowledge of Russian plans and for revealing them to the world (though in some quarters these claims were quickly dismissed, because of the intelligence failure in Iraq). Unlike Iraq, Ukraine vs. Russia is seen by most Americans and our major allies as a ‘good war’ with clear objectives in defense of a worthy ally.  So far US support has been effective in enabling Ukraine to stand up to Russia.  NATO is back in business, led by the US; the countries most alienated by Iraq, France and Germany, are on board though questions remain about their willingness to stay the course.   

So, when I add it all up, I think Mr. Douthat has a point. In any case, when you can seriously argue whether something is ‘even worse’ than Vietnam, that’s pretty bad.

Thoughts on Hand-Off

It is with all this in mind that I recently read chunks of a new book, Hand-Off:  The Foreign Policy George W. Bush Passed to Barack Obama, a compilation edited by former Bush National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley.  It consists of declassified transition memos written by Bush administration national security officials in 2008-09, designed to help the incoming Obama administration.  In each case a post-script has been added to analyze how well the original memo stands up. 

(Full disclosure:  I was on the National Security Council staff at this time and made comments on the Iraq memo, though I was not the principal author). 

Iraq.  Unsurprisingly, the memo on Iraq, written by Brett McGurk, does not dwell on the decision to invade or the difficult first years of occupation. It focuses on the positive results of the 2007 ‘surge’ and the prospects for improving stability, withdrawing US troops, and negotiating new agreements with the Iraq government.  

What about the retrospective commentary, written by Meghan O’Sullivan (Senior Director at the National Security Council for Iraq and Afghanistan from 2004-07)? Here there are some questionable ideas.  

The underlying narrative is that Bush handed Obama an Iraq on the path to success, and Obama blew it. O’Sullivan gives Obama credit for at first continuing Bush policies, but ultimately faults him for withdrawing US troops in 2011. This resulted from Iraq Prime Minister Maliki’s refusal to accede to the US demand that US troops be given immunity from Iraqi law, seen by Iraqis as an unacceptable infringement on their sovereignty. The essay, moreover, fails to point out that one reason Obama was not enthusiastic about keeping troops in Iraq is that at this same time he was greatly expanding US forces in Afghanistan to deal with deteriorating security, caused in large part by the Bush administration’s Iraq focus.

Obama is also blamed for ‘allowing’ Maliki to remain in office after controversial Iraqi elections in 2010.  However, it is not clear how the US would have determined the outcome without being accused of unacceptable interference in Iraq’s internal affairs.  America was of course suspected of pulling the strings on all Iraqi political decisions, and had to bend over backwards to try and show that Iraqis were genuinely independent.

It is fair to say that Maliki was persuaded to let the US ‘surge’ succeed 2007-08 only because Bush spent a huge amount of time and energy personally managing him. This was something that Obama and his team, focused on a global economic crisis and Afghanistan, were unwilling to do.  Left to his own devices, Maliki—a stubborn Shia sectarian—quickly indulged his suspicions and reneged on commitments to anti-terrorist Sunni allies who had worked closely with the US.  This contributed to the rise of ISIS and the eventual need to return some US forces to Iraq in 2014.

O’Sullivan asserts in defense of the original decision to invade that “From President Bush’s perspective, the military invasion of Iraq in March 2003 came only after all diplomatic avenues had been exhausted and where the alternative was to let Saddam Hussein defy the international community, the United Nations, and the United States without consequences—and to allow Saddam to continue to threaten the United States and the region.”  This ignores the reality that from the end of the First Gulf War in 1991 until 2003 Iraq was subject to withering economic sanctions (blamed for hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths from malnutrition and lack of medicines) and intense UN inspections to prevent the development of WMD and long-range missiles.  Extensive no-fly zones in the north and south prevented Iraqi forces from threatening the Kurds and major Shia cities.  Much of the damage done by US air attacks in 1991 was never repaired, and the country’s oil sector and basic infrastructure was close to collapse.  In short, the regime was under tremendous stress, and there was no prospect of Saddam being able to credibly threaten his neighbors, much less the US. 

O’Sullivan is further off-base in describing the post-invasion chaos.  She says “An unanticipated collapse of order and Iraqi institutions prevented the United States from being able to transition sovereignty to Iraqi political leaders, as had been done in Afghanistan.”  Far from unanticipated, a host of experts on Iraq and post-authoritarian transitions—including US intelligence analysts—warned about these exact consequences.  They also warned, accurately, that the Iraqi leaders that some in the US counted on to take charge, notably the notorious Ahmad Chalabi, were unreliable exiles with little support inside Iraq.

The discussion of “Lessons Learned” is a mixed bag.  There is acknowledgement that post-conflict stability and reconstruction are difficult tasks and that “significant efforts to rebuild countries should only be undertaken when truly vital US interests are at stake.”  Likewise with democratization:  “No society is incapable of democracy.  But the various layers of institutions, norms, and practices required for a sustainable democracy take considerable time to construct and remain perilously fragile long after they are initially established.”  

It is not explained, however, why these fairly obvious realities were not taken into account from the start.  In large part, I would argue, this is because pro-war advocates deliberately stoked fear while glossing over costs and difficulties that might have slowed the drive for war.  And President Bush had a strong personal conviction about the desire of all peoples for freedom that made him prone to optimism about democratization.                                   

O’Sullivan draws a more useful lesson that US foreign policy is “overmilitarized” and that civilian capabilities need to be better funded and integrated into military planning.  This is something the US should keep in mind as we supply Ukraine with weapons.  Ukraine’s ability to resist and become a stable democracy depend on strengthening its government institutions, civil society, and economy.  

Other Costs.  Does Hand-Off acknowledge the many other costs of the war such as the strains in our alliances, deterioration of relations with Russia and China, and distraction from Afghanistan?  Only in passing, judging from the essays on Afghanistan, Russia, China and Europe.

The Afghanistan discussion admits in several places that Iraq distracted policymakers and constrained US actions, though it is not clear how central this was to the deterioration of security.  While the section on “Lessons Learned” is well-done, it would have been useful to include an explicit recognition that it is irresponsible to take on two complex counter-insurgency/nation-building challenges at once.   

The Russia essay points to the many reasons that Russia in the post-Iraq period became increasingly aggressive and hostile to the West, culminating in its 2008 invasion of Georgia, 2014 annexation of Crimea, and 2015 intervention in Syria.  The role of Iraq is acknowledged but not discussed in any depth.  The tectonic shift is there only in the background:  “While the President’s strategy of personal diplomacy met with early success, disagreements with Putin following the Iraq War made this strategy more difficult.  Emboldened by rising oil prices and Russia’s rapidly growing economy, Putin quickly aligned himself with French and German leaders to oppose US “unilateralism” and establish a “multi-polar” world.” 

The memo on Europe admits that “The invasion…initially divided the United States from key European allies, especially France and Germany, and inflamed European publics.”  It says that cooperation on the Bush “Freedom Agenda” in Europe was ‘complicated’ by these disagreements, which were however supposedly largely overcome in the second Bush term.  By this time, however, the Iraq War had helped harden Putin’s opposition to NATO expansion.     Obama was received ecstatically by Europeans in 2009 largely because of his opposition to the war.

The analysis of China points out that, like Russia, China’s leaders initially saw terrorism cooperation after 9/11 as a potential turning point in relations: “President Jiang Zemin…told his advisors that the common fight against terrorism could cement his relations with President Bush in the same way that Deng Xiaoping’s common cause with his US counterparts against the Soviet Union improved relations in the 1980s.”  As with Russia, this honeymoon was short-lived as leaders concluded that the Iraq invasion showed the US ‘war on terror’ was a cloak for the expansion of US power.  China’s decisive turn against the US under Xi has many causes, but the Iraq War is certainly one that should have been discussed more extensively.

The Core Lesson.  So what is the real lesson here? Ultimately Hand-Off fails to come to grips with what I think is most important, the fatal mistake of making decisions based on fear and anger. These emotions can be valuable catalysts to action, but they distort one’s ability to calculate risks and costs.  After 9/11 American leaders wanted desperately to ‘do something’, and did not see the relatively quick and easy ouster of the Taliban as sufficient.  This was not enough to properly demonstrate America’s righteous anger.  For many Americans, it was hard to accept that the US could be hurt by a rag-tag group of militants half-way around the world.  Someone more powerful must be to blame, some major state actor, and Iraq filled the bill.

Fear and anger overlapped with the over-confidence that had built up in large parts of the American foreign policy community since the collapse of the Soviet Union.  That the United States was now the ‘indispensable nation’, that it stood alone as the arbiter of international order, that American-style democracy and free markets were the inevitable wave of the future; these and similar ideas had become deeply ingrained.  No other nation came close to matching US military capabilities.  Neoconservatives on the right, and neoliberals on the left, largely agreed that America had the power to do whatever it wanted without serious consequences.       

When fear and anger take center stage, there are always players in the wings ready to take advantage.  ‘Never let a crisis go to waste’ was the unspoken motto of neocons like Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz— and paleocons like Dick Cheney—who had long wanted to oust Saddam as a way to remake the Middle East and demonstrate US power.  The 9/11 attacks were seized upon as the opportunity to market an agenda that had little to do with fighting terrorism.  This was done by relentlessly appealing to our fears.  George Bush, inexperienced in foreign policy, scared of what might come next, in need of a coherent strategy, was easy prey.

These reinforcing factors combined to warp all the major actors: the White House, intelligence agencies, the military, Congress, the press, and the public.  All moved in the same direction, towards interpreting Saddam as the key threat that must be destroyed, towards overestimating American knowledge and power, and towards underestimating the risks and costs, until we had collectively lost touch with reality. 

Useful analysis:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-invasion-of-iraq-20-years-later-intelligence-matters/

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/06/how-donald-rumsfeld-deserves-be-remembered/619334/

Featured

Who is Winning the Russia-Ukraine War?

The correct answer may be, both Russia and Ukraine are winning.  

How can this be?  In wars, if one side is winning, isn’t the other side by definition losing?  

Yes, if we only look at the battlefield.  But let’s cast our gaze more widely, and ask what the impact of the war has been on the the two nations, on their sense of identity, their cohesion, and the power and future prospects of their leaders.  If we do that, I would argue, both are in some senses doing very well.

Of course Ukrainians would never choose to undergo a terrible war, with tens of  thousands of casualties, millions displaced, children abducted, cities reduced to rubble, electricity and water systems bombed in the middle of winter.  But the war has, according to Ukrainians themselves, created a nation out of disparate pieces.  It has cemented a unity and a clear direction, towards Europe and the West.  It has made their leader into an international hero and a symbol of Ukrainian character and heroism.  It is clear now that Ukraine will never again be Russian and that it will receive military and economic aid from the US and Europe for the foreseeable future. 

Ukraine’s future might, of course, be tragic.  It might lose the war, or be a permanent battleground.  But it will go down fighting.  And if it wins or at least holds on it will have achieved something glorious that will define it for the ages.  

What the war is doing for Russia is less glorious but no less profound.  Russia too would never have chosen to be humiliated on the battlefield, lose its main energy market, be hit with sanctions and made into an international pariah.  But tyrants almost always find wars useful to justify repression, the mobilization of society, and isolation from the outside world.  Putin is using the extended conflict to reshape Russia, moving decisively in directions he had already taken but had not, until now, had the ability to fully achieve. 

Since the invasion all vestiges of an independent press, independent civil society, and independent political forces, have been destroyed.  Hundreds of thousands of potential opponents have more or less voluntarily fled the country, leaving Putin that much more secure.  Russia’s imperial nationalist identity has been reinforced, and the split with the West made deep and permanent.  Society has now returned to Cold War levels of distrust of the outside world, combined with a paranoid search for internal enemies.  The military and security services are exalted as the defenders of the Motherland.  Western companies, possible vectors of  alternative values, have left Russia, leaving the field open for Russian competitors.  

Like many past lovers of war, Russian nationalists see war as enabling a kind of moral purification. The New York Times recently quoted Konstantin Malofeyev, a crazed ultraconservative businessman:  “Liberalism in Russia is dead forever, thank God! The longer this war lasts, the more Russian society is cleansing itself from liberalism and the Western poison.”

Both Ukraine and Russia, in distinct ways, have had their national pride and unity reinforced.  It is quite possible that Putin will see it in his interest to continue the war indefinitely.  Despite terrible losses, life for most Russians has remained normal.  Eventually the costs will hit home; Putin’s version of Russia is like the proverbial dinosaur, already dead but waiting for the signals to reach its extremities.  As the cemeteries fill up and sanctions take their toll Russians will revolt, but it may take years to catalyze genuine resistance.

Every generation of Russians seems to find a new way to commit national suicide.  Ukraine is now making a bid to escape from this destructive cycle, like an abused spouse who has finally said “I won’t take it any more!”  But a prolonged draining war could also be fatal, with Ukraine unable to realize the fruits of freedom and falling into anger and despair.  The positive effects of war have been realized; more war is not in Ukraine’s interest.  Outside support is vital to keep hope alive for Ukrainians, bring the war to a quick end, and make it clear to Russia that time is not on its side.

In Orwell’s 1984 constant war is a tool to maintain the system.  Who the war is against is unimportant—every few years the enemy changes.  1984 is now one of Russia’s best selling books, and its continued relevance is clear from the state’s official attempt to distort what the book teaches:

 “For many years we believed that Orwell described the horrors of totalitarianism. This is one of the biggest global fakes … Orwell wrote about the end of liberalism. He depicted how liberalism would lead humanity to a dead end,” Maria Zakharova, the spokesperson for Russia’s foreign ministry, said during a public talk in Ekaterinburg on Saturday.  

No more Orwellian statement has ever been made.  And no statement has better demonstrated the continued strength and relevance of liberalism.

Featured

Is Violence Necessary?  What “Ministry for the Future” Teaches Us About Combating Global Warming

The 2020 novel by Kim Stanley Robinson, The Ministry for the Future, has been widely praised (it was one of Barack Obama’s favorites) for its portrayal of how the world finds the will to tackle climate change.  Robinson is a well-established science fiction writer who has addressed global warming in previous works.  Ministry is set several decades from now, when the UN has created a body, the Ministry for the Future, to think about longterm impacts and design policies to effect change.  It has little actual power other than what it can generate via publicity and seeding the system with good ideas.  Nevertheless it ultimately succeeds in prodding the global system to take action and bring emissions of greenhouse gases down to levels that avoid disaster. 

As a novel, Ministry is disappointing.  The writing is long-winded, the characters flat and uninteresting, and there are frequent digressions and mini-chapters crammed with supposedly relevant tidbits of science or technology or sociology.  However, the generally positive reviews and popular response are not because of the book’s literary qualities, but because unlike most “cli-fi,” Ministry paints a picture of success in coping with global warming.  Plenty of bad things happen, but mankind avoids the worst case, both planetary and political.  

Robinson tries to weave together every dimension of the problem, throwing into his mix major geo-engineering projects; economic tools (notably a new currency offered by major central banks); shifts in norms and culture; geopolitics; and some fairly serious violence and terrorism.  You might call Ministry a ‘novel of ideas,’ but that would not be quite right. The main issue is clear, the question is what to do about it.  It is chock full of facts and engineering options.  It is a novel not so much of ideas, as of information.  

The point of the book is not really to entertain.  It is to instruct and to offer a positive vision of how the pieces of a solution might come together.  Critics have correctly said that Robinson glides over many huge obstacles and downplays the strength and ruthlessness of the opposition.  But he offers enough specificity to make Ministry seem at least plausible and give hope to those fighting for global action.  

The most controversial piece of the ‘solution set’ that Robinson shows us is the value of violence, mostly in the form of terrorist attacks and threats.  In Ministry these are mostly aimed at industries or individuals responsible for greenhouse gas emissions.  Shadowy terrorist groups use drones to destroy airliners to stop polluting jet travel; they infect cattle with ‘mad-cow’ disease to cut down on beef consumption; board and sink fish-factory ships; blow up power plants; and hunt down billionaire arms-dealers and stab them in their beds.  Climate activists kidnap the rich, powerful attendees at Davos and hold them to draw attention to their cause. 

How important is this violence to the success of the fight against global warming?  It seems fair to say that it is a necessary though not sufficient cause.  It is perhaps inevitable that terrorist attacks and kidnappings and so on will stand out in a novel more than accounts of meetings between bureaucrats, so maybe they appear more important than they are.  But terrorism has real impact on global behavior.  Jet travel largely disappears.  Beef consumption craters.  Heads of oil companies and other bad actors are forced into hiding.  Shadowy non-governmental organizations use drone swarms to largely end the superpower monopoly on the use of force in international relations.  

Is this realistic?  Does an effective global movement against climate change need a ‘black wing’ able to threaten violence and conduct terrorist attacks? 

These are questions that some will answer purely on a moral basis with a decided ‘no’.  Many in the environmental movement are strongly opposed to violence.  But given the tremendous stakes for humanity, including the likelihood of immense suffering and death for hundreds of millions of people if global warming is not stopped or slowed, it is not clear that morality lies with an absolute rejection of violent means, if our best analysis tells us they are useful or even necessary.

That is the question to consider.  Is violence, in this case terrorism, likely to help reduce global warming?  Or is it more likely to do harm by alienating the public and calling forth intense government efforts to suppress terrorism and the movement it is associated with?  

There has been considerable research on the utility of terrorism as a means to achieve political goals, and for the most part it concludes that terrorism is not very effective.  For instance the very comprehensive work undertaken by Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan for their 2016 book, Why Civil Resistance Works:  The Strategic Logic of Non-Violent Resistance, seems to show that “The rank ordering is something like this: nonviolent resistance is the most effective, followed by large insurgencies such as the Chinese Revolution or peasant rebellions, and the least effective is terrorism.”

There are a number of reasons, however, why we might need to think more carefully about the case of climate change before concluding that terrorist violence is a bad idea.  First, the climate crisis is categorically different than the cases considered by Chenoweth and Stephan, who included in their database only instances of government overthrow or territorial liberation.  The attacks in Ministry are not aimed primarily at discrediting or overthrowing governments. They are targeted at major polluting industries—airlines, the beef industry, fishing, shipping—and at individuals who own or run or support these industries.  The goal is to stop particular damaging activities.  There is no clear aim to change particular governments or states, or terrorize the general public.  The attacks on aircraft, for instance, target primarily private jets and business travel.

Maybe for this reason the world’s major powers do not exert their full force to stop these acts of terrorism and to destroy terrorist organizations and networks.

Second, the higher success rate for nonviolent methods may be misleading.  Insurgency and terrorism are often resorted to only after the failure of nonviolent strategies. The use of violence may be an indicator that peaceful protest cannot succeed against a given target.  Violence is therefore not a ‘less viable’ strategy, it is by definition a strategy used in the most difficult cases. 

And nonviolent methods may be chosen in the first place because those seeking change judge they are likely to work.  Usually this is because the target has weaknesses or vulnerabilities that can be exploited. It might be a fragile authoritarian regime with fissures in the ruling coalition and uncertain support from its security forces; or a democracy that allows a fair amount of room for political organizing and protest.  We all know that Gandhi and Martin Luther King were successful because they went up against democratic, open societies; they would have failed against a Stalin or Mao.  

There is no doubt that in Ministry—several decades in our future—peaceful protests and political activism have not been enough.  The book starts with a catastrophe in which tens of millions of Indians die from an unprecedented heat wave that literally cooks people alive.  Something more is needed, and the heat deaths precipitate radical responses on multiple fronts.  India undertakes a unilateral geo-engineering project to lower temperatures by injecting aerosols into the upper atmosphere, and the terrorist group Children of Kali emerges to attack people and institutions judged responsible for climate change.  

Third, there are many hybrid examples where a successful political movement has both an overt and a covert, violent side:  the Irish Republican Army and the African National Congress, to name two.  The American civil rights movement had elements that threatened violence or armed resistance.  American businessmen acquiesced in Progressive era and New Deal reforms in part because they were afraid that otherwise there would be a socialist revolution and they would be hung from the nearest lamppost.

The existence of a violent element, whether actual or only threatened, is often very important to the success of a peaceful strategy.  It allows the leaders using peaceful methods to appear relatively moderate, and to make the argument that unless demands are met, and speedily, violence will grow and peaceful leaders will be discredited.  

In Ministry it is clear that the violence perpetrated by the Children of Kali and similar terrorist groups is supported and coordinated secretly by people within the Ministry for the Future.  The head of the Ministry avoids probing too closely into the actions of one subordinate, who obliquely acknowledges what he is doing; she supports him but needs to maintain distance and deniability.    

The conflict being waged in our day around climate change, as in Ministry, is two-fold.

  • There is first a kind of civil war within industrialized, developed countries.  Powerful status quo forces want to continue burning fossil fuels and maintain a carbon-intensive economy and way of life.   Growing anti-status-quo forces want to stop using fossil fuels and transition very quickly.  
  • Second, there is a struggle between industrialized, developed countries and developing countries, which have not contributed to global warming and are bearing much of the cost and damage.  The developing world wants the rich, industrialized states to take the lead in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, pay developing states to transition to renewable energy, and if necessary feel some of the pain as well. 

Let’s look at these two different though parallel conflicts and ask whether terrorism is appropriate or possibly useful.  The short answer is ‘probably not’ for the civil war within advanced economies, and ‘maybe’ for the struggle between advanced and developing countries.  

Terrorists often have multiple goals for their actions.  There is an overarching strategic objective such as ‘socialist revolution’ or ‘evicting the United States from the Muslim world,’ but particular attacks often aim more narrowly at demonstrating resolve and capacity; recruiting new members; provoking over-reaction from the government; showing government weakness; or publicizing demands.

The relation between the stated strategic goal and the means used is crucial.  A goal that is extremely ambitious may be so unpopular or difficult to justify that no amount of effort or tactical success can make it viable; a good example might be the Red Brigades and other underground revolutionary groups in Europe in the 1970s and 80s, which carried out a number of spectacular terrorist actions but never generated much popular support for a Marxist revolution.  A modest goal may have more support, but violent means may seem out of proportion to the stated aim.  

Could climate terrorists in the developed world articulate a strategic goal that threads the needle to gain significant support while also justifying violence?  I think the answer is probably ‘yes’, but it would require very disciplined messaging and associated actions.  A successful argument would be that a. We are out of time. Global warming is not being addressed quickly or decisively enough, as shown by (floods, droughts, storms, sea-level rise, etc); b. This threatens our way of life and the future of our nations and communities; c. The obstacle to successful action is a minority of powerful political and economic interests; d.  Attempts to overcome this obstacle by normal channels have been exhausted; e.  Our goal is not to end capitalism or force you to become a bus-riding vegetarian; we are trying to save something approximating your present lifestyle.  

One could imagine an extremely focused campaign, like the one in Ministry, that targets mostly infrastructure and a small number of unpopular people, and refrains from major political demands.  But terrorism is not generally conducted under such controlled conditions—it tends to spill out to a broader range of targets, to spawn ever more radical splinter groups, and to escape the direction of sober leaders with limited aims.  In Ministry the senior official who has directed the ‘black arm’ ends up pleading with the Children of Kali  to call off their assassination campaign now that most of their objectives have been met—it is not clear if he is successful.  

The closest historic analogue for the violence depicted in Ministry would probably be the “eco-terrorism” of groups like the Animal Liberation Front and the Environmental Liberation Front.  These movements did not aim at government overthrow and conducted mostly vandalism or arson directed at property.  According to one study, only about 2% of all attacks were directed at people, and in no case (other than the Una-Bomber, who was a lone wolf without any affiliation with established groups or movements) were there fatalities.  The purpose was to gain publicity and cause economic damage to institutions such as research labs, logging companies, and fast-food restaurants.  (Because ALF/ELF actions did not target people and did not have an explicit political aim, it is not clear that they were acts of “terrorism” as generally understood.)

“Eco-terrorism” succeeded in imposing some economic damage on targeted companies and government institutions, and gaining publicity for animal rights and environmental protection.  It also provoked a strong backlash including a major FBI investigation and legislation specifically targeting animal and environmental rights groups.  In 2006 the FBI, in a truly comical overstatement, called ‘eco-terrorism’ the most dangerous domestic terrorist threat in the US.  If our leaders were willing to go so far against a minor threat, what would they do against the kind of attacks described in Ministry, which are far more disruptive and destructive than 9/11? 

Terrorism succeeds only if it gains broad sympathy and support for its cause.  A terrorist campaign conducted by groups in the developing world against developed states (perhaps with state support or at least acquiescence) might do this.  A campaign with limited goals—greater aid to developing countries, reparations for climate-caused damage, faster cuts in greenhouse emissions—could probably gain considerable sympathy from people in the target countries.  

Such a campaign would be very different from 9/11 and terrorist attacks against the West in the name of Islam.  These never had any chance of gaining support from sympathetic Western forces; in fact the strategic aim was to stoke mutual hatred and permanently divide the West from governments and peoples in the Muslim world.  Despite this, this terrorist strategy had considerable success.

  • It provoked the US into over-reacting by invading and occupying Muslim countries.
  • US actions helped radical Islamic groups to recruit and expand, caused the US and its supporters to waste tremendous resources, and stoked deep fissures between the US and its allies.   

A terror campaign built around global warming and ecological collapse, however, could be quite popular among many in the West who sympathize with its aims.  If it was targeted carefully at Western oil and gas infrastructure, associated financial institutions, and some key government, industrial and financial leaders, while avoiding mass-casualty attacks, it might become viewed as a ‘Robin Hood’ venture, attacking the rich on behalf of the poor.  One can think of the popularity of Che Guevera and other revolutionaries in the 1960s.  By dovetailing with the broad aims of Western environmental and climate change movements, it could play an important role in persuading political and economic leaders that the status quo is untenable.  

On the other hand, it might reinforce suspicion of immigrants and create a backlash against assistance programs.  Anti-terrorist programs would expand, diverting resources while strengthening the national security apparatus in the US and many allies.  Attacks would likely be concentrated mostly against wealthy, democratic societies and major multinational institutions identified with the West, rather than police-states like Russia or China, leading to suspicions about the movement’s underlying intentions.    

Where does this leave us?  Advocating or intellectually justifying terrorism on behalf of climate action is clearly a last resort.  It could easily backfire and make progress less likely.  How desperate is our situation?  

Robinson describes himself as an optimist:  “And I want to mention that this notion of being optimistic, it has become a truism about me. I am science fiction’s or this culture’s great optimist.”  ‘Optimism’ is not a term usually associated with climate activism, but it may be more warranted than seemed possible only a few years ago.  Recent analysis suggests temperature projections are coming down due to a combination of factors; as climate expert David Wallace-Wells recently wrote:  “Thanks to astonishing declines in the price of renewables, a truly global political mobilization, a clearer picture of the energy future and serious policy focus from world leaders, we have cut expected warming almost in half in just five years.”  

We don’t want to jeopardize these trends.  But we can’t afford to slow down either.  The stakes are too high.  I for one would be happy if policymakers and central bankers and CEOs sitting around their tables were more than a little worried that failure to act might lead to a violent reaction.  They might consider that life can imitate art:  eco-terrorism in the 1980s and 90s was incubated by Edward Abbey’s 1975 novel The Monkeywrench Gang.  The vandalism of that era is a pale shadow of what might be in store.  If Ministry helps put that thought in their heads, I say:  good. 

Featured

Republic or Democracy?

When I was a college freshman in 1970 I took an introductory class in American government at Claremont Men’s College.  The textbook we used was The Democratic Republic, written by a trio of fairly conservative, somewhat Straussian professors:  Martin Diamond, Winston Fisk, and Herbert Garfinkle.  The title sums up their view of the American system, which is a republic—a type of government where some important part of those ruled chooses representatives to govern—with democratic characteristics.  When the US was founded, ‘republic’ in most people’s minds meant first and foremost Rome in its early days  (‘republic’ is the Latin for ‘the public thing’) in which Senators were appointed by magistrates (Consuls or Censors) elected from a narrow group of aristocrats, and Tribunes with important but limited powers were elected by the plebs or ordinary citizens.  

What makes us democratic is that in America ‘those ruled’ means a majority of the citizens, or as Madison puts it in Federalist 39:  “It is ESSENTIAL to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their government the honorable title of republic.”  How we have defined ‘the great body of citizens’ has of course changed and expanded since the US began, but the essential principle hasn’t changed.

That the US was both democracy and republic was not seen as something particularly controversial at the time, as far as I can recall.  Neither the US (or any other modern country) is a pure or direct democracy, where every citizen takes part in voting on legislation or deciding court cases, as in some  periods in ancient Athens, or in some small New England towns.  The constitution lays out a process of electing representatives who make decisions in the name of the voters.  There are important checks on what those representatives can do to avoid the infamous ‘tyranny of the majority’ feared by Madison.  Representation, separation of powers, constitutional protection of certain rights, and a large and diverse population: these were the key improvements in ‘the science of politics’ that Hamilton praised in Federalist 9.  It was hoped—no one at the beginning was entirely sure it would work—that together these would make democracy for the first time in history a stable, energetic, longlasting form of government. 

If this all sounds like pretty basic stuff that you learn in high school and no American could question, you haven’t been paying attention.  Conservatives for a number of years now, with increasing vehemence, have been declaring that the US is ‘A republic, not a democracy!”  They shouted this slogan at the capitol on January 6.  Perhaps the most extreme, Trumpist political figure in the US, Republican candidate for Pennsylvania governor Doug Mastriano, is prone to screaming it regularly at rallies, to get the conservative faithful worked up. 

The operational reason for this is quite clear; it is an attempt to seem like a true-blue American while denigrating democracy and rule of the majority.  This would have seemed insane to Americans of almost any earlier time.  The only exceptions of course would have been southern separatists and racists, who denied human equality and hence the principle at the heart of our democratic experiment.  

Suspicion and dislike of democracy is now embedded in American conservatism and in the Republican Party, mostly because the majority of Americans don’t want what conservatism is selling:  economic inequality, privileges for the wealthy, government gridlock, religious zealotry, white supremacy, guns for everyone, and rule by a carefully engineered majority of black-robed unelected justices.  Conservatives, rather than adjusting their policies to appeal to the majority, are instead trying to keep the policies and rule as a minority by taking over key state offices that control voting results, and (they hope) soon reinterpreting the Constitution to allow state legislators to decide the composition of the electoral college. 

This effort is directed and powered by moneyed interests who want a weak state that doesn’t interfere in the accumulation and passing on of wealth—people who in effect want to become the ‘tyrannical nobles’ Madison warned us against.  It is producing a cascade of demagoguery, deception, intimidation, and manipulation of the American political system the likes of which we have never seen.

The ‘republic not a democracy’ slogan is part of an ideological campaign to give conservative voters an excuse for rejecting what a majority of fellow citizens prefer, as expressed by their vote.  It is the underpinning for trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election and supporting the January 6 insurrection.  It gives a false sense of gravitas to “Great Replacement” and other conspiracy theories according to which today’s American majority, the diverse and increasingly non-white population living in big cities, shouldn’t be allowed to pick our country’s leaders because they are not ‘real Americans.’ 

I cannot improve on this explanation by Ryan McMaken some years ago:  

“The claim that the United States political system is “a republic, not a democracy” is often heard in libertarian and conservative circles, and is typically invoked whenever the term “democracy” is used in any favorable context. This claim is generally invoked when the user believes one of the following:

  1. ‘I don’t like your idea, and since it involves aspects that are democratic or majoritarian, I’ll invoke the republic-not-a-democracy claim to discredit your idea.’
  2. ‘A majority of the population appears to support this idea, so I will invoke the republic-not-a-democracy claim to illustrate that the majority should be ignored.’” 

It is a piece of demagoguery, not a serious argument.  The next time you hear someone say the US is “a republic, not a democracy,” please let whoever is spouting it know, in no uncertain terms, that it is bunk.

Herodotus and the Last Man

I had read Herodotus’s Histories several times in the past, but only excerpts of what is a lengthy and detailed story.  Previous readings had focused on the ‘main event,’ the war between Greeks and Persians. But Herodotus takes his sweet time getting there and regales his readers with lengthy excursions, stories of great wars and campaigns, and lengthy accounts of barbarian religious and sexual customs.  While also describing many actions of the Greeks, he spends less time with them, probably because as a Greek writing in Greek for Greeks, he assumes they are already familiar with their own world.  He wants to inform his audience of things strange and unfamiliar.

This summer I took a seminar at St John’s in which we read the ‘whole thing,’ an adventure that I don’t think anyone in the class, including the tutors, had ever undertaken.  What do we learn from the whole that is perhaps less evident from focusing on the Persian invasion of Greece?

The Histories begins with the famous statement that his book is written “so that the great and wonderful deeds—some brought forth by the Hellenes, others by the barbarians, not go unsung; as well as the causes that led them to make war on each other.”  Herodotus does not distinguish between Greeks and barbarians; both are worthy of respect, and both provide lessons for his readers. 

It ends, some 700 pages later, with a pithy lesson supposedly imparted by Cyrus, the founder of the Persian Empire—the Persians being the primary ‘barbarian’ discussed in the book.  On hearing a proposal that the Persians should conquer more fertile and better lands, Cyrus warns that if they do so “they should prepare to be rulers no longer, but rather to become subjects under the rule of others.  This was so, he said, because soft places tend to produce soft men; for the same land cannot yield both wonderful crops and men who are noble and courageous in war.  And so the Persians agreed with him and departed, leaving him alone.  They had lost the argument with Cyrus, and chose to dwell in a poor land rather than to be slaves to others and to cultivate the plains.” (9.122)

Now this last sentence of the book is quite astonishing, since a good part of the previous 700 pages has been devoted to detailing how Cyrus and the Persians did indeed conquer the ‘plains’—the immensely wealthy Babylon on the Euphrates, and then the most fruitful land of all, Egypt, where bountiful crops grow just by throwing seed into the fertile Nile mud.  What would make Herodotus say something so obviously untrue? 

The theme of interaction between ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ peoples is a recurring one in the Histories.  Early on King Croesus, rich ruler of Lydia, a powerful kingdom in Asia Minor, is warned not to start a war with the Persians, who live in a rocky, poor country.  Such people are used to hardships and fighting.  Further, if you defeat them, what do you gain? Croesus doesn’t listen and is beaten, becoming a prisoner—and loyal advisor—of Cyrus.

The Persians themselves do not seem to learn the lesson.  Much of the Histories recounts all the times the Persians mount expeditions against exactly the kind of poor, warlike, unappetizing enemies that it seems you should avoid.  Cyrus himself, after making Persia wealthy via victory in Babylonia, decides to march against the remote Massagetians, a nomadic people living in what is now Central Asia.  Herodotus tells us that by this time Cyrus is convinced of his invincibility.  To conquer them he takes the advice of Croesus, who recommends a strategem in which the Persians lay out a tremendous feast with wine and delicacies, which the poor Massagetians won’t be able to resist.  When they are drunk and distracted, the Persians can easily defeat them. (1.207)

Croesus’s plan works, up to a point, allowing the Persians to destroy one-third of the Massagetian army and capture the queen’s son (who kills himself rather than remain a prisoner). But this only enrages the Massagetians, leading to a great battle—Herodotus calls it the greatest ever held between barbarians—that the Persians lose and in which Cyrus is killed.  New-found Persian wealth and luxuries are not a solid basis for defeating poor, hardened tribesmen.

Cyrus’s more than sightly mad heir, Cambyses, successfully conquers Egypt but then gets it into his head to attack the far-off Ethiopians, a people who pose no threat and about whom he knows nothing. After sending spies ahead who report among other things that the Ethiopians live tremendously long lives, he mounts a huge campaign but, consumed by rage, fails to equip his army for a march through the desert.  When they run out of food they resort to cannibalism and are forced to turn back. 

In the most detailed of his Persian campaign stories, Herodotus describes the assault by Cambyses’s successor Darius against the Scythians, another nomadic people living to the north of the Black Sea.  Darius attacks, supposedly to punish them for an earlier Scythian incursion into Persian territory (which took place well before Persia itself had been formed).  Herodotus tells us that Darius’s decision was shaped by Persia’s flourishing, with many troops and ample revenues.  Darius pulls together an enormous force of 700,000 men from all over the empire and marches them across the Hellespont, around the Black Sea, and deep into the northern steppes in a fruitless attempt to bring the Scythians to battle and win a victory. 

Herodotus foreshadows this failure when he tells us “The Scythians were more clever than any other people in making the most important discovery we know of concerning human affairs, though I do not admire them in other respects.  They have discovered how to prevent any attacker from escaping them and how to make it impossible for anyone to overtake them against their will.  For instead of establishing towns or walls, they are all mounted archers who carry their homes with them and derive their sustenance not from cultivated fields but from their herds. Since they make their homes on carts, how could they not be invincible or impossible even to engage in battle?”  (4.46). In short, the Scythians have no cities, no accumulated wealth, and live only to fight and resist.  Darius is astonishingly blind to the nature of his enemies.

These unsuccessful campaigns provide the backdrop for the most unsuccessful of all, the eventual Persian invasion of Greece, initiated under Darius and continued under Xerxes, his successor.  The Persians are ignominiously beaten not once, but twice.  The Athenians throw back Darius’s forces at Marathon; then the much larger invasion under Xerxes is defeated at sea by the Athenians, at Salamis, and on land, at Plataea, by a Spartan-led Greek army. 

From these prior endeavors we can see that the decision to attack the Greek mainland is consistent with Persia’s history of campaigns against peripheral peoples.  The Greeks are not particularly wealthy; they live in a rocky and poor country, as anyone who has visited Greece can attest.  Darius is moved to attack not out of any serious strategic calculation, but out of annoyance at Athens for instigating a revolt of the Greek states in Asia Minor which results in the destruction of Sardis.   Xerxes is urged to continue by advisors who tell him “it is unreasonable that the Athenians have inflicted great evils on the Persians but have paid no penalty for it.”  (7.5). Herodotus tells us that Xerxes’ uncle Artabanos tries to dissuade him by pointing to the previous failures against the Massagetians, Ethiopians, and Scythians, but is thwarted by divine intervention in the form of dreams sent to Xerxes telling him he must invade.  (7.18)

The Greeks, while they are capable of mustering significant military power, especially at sea, are divided into a multitude of competing city-states, often fighting one another.  They would only be a danger to Persia if they united, which is highly unlikely.  Unless of course they had a common enemy.

In short, the Persian threat creates the threat to Persia. Persia fails to use its most powerful weapon to divide the Greeks, mainly money; the Greeks are highly susceptible to being bought off, and a canny enemy can easily play on their mutual suspicions.   The Persian commander Mardonios is advised by his Theban allies to “Just send some money to the most powerful men in their cities.  You will thus divide Hellas against itself…”.  But Mardonios “out of foolish pride” doesn’t listen.  (9.2)

 Herodotus describes in detail how the Greeks, especially Athens and Sparta, the two greatest powers, can’t get their act together even as the Persians are at the gates.  How many times do the Spartans arrive with too little, too late, because they are waiting for the omens to be favorable; or maybe because they wouldn’t mind that much if the Persians took out the Athenians.  How many bitter arguments over which city should be in the lead and who has the right to the top position on the battlefield. 

The Athenians, at least, are willing to give way to Sparta when necessary to achieve common action, even though in the first invasion they basically fight off Darius on their own, and when Xerxes invades they watch the Spartans retreat to the Peloponnese without any thought for Athens. (8.3)   Greek division is just barely overcome to create a united front against the Persians at key moments. 

Persian self-satisfaction and confidence in their numbers leads them into a series of mistakes, both moral and strategic.  Under Darius they are beaten at Marathon; under Xerxes at Salamis and Plataea.  In one of history’s most famous examples of hubris, Xerxes orders the sea to be whipped after a storm destroys his boat-bridge at the Hellespont.  Hundreds of thousands of troops are lost, and hundreds of ships, and Xerxes has to beat a humiliating retreat that culminates, according to one account given by Herodotus, in ordering senior Persians to leap in the ocean to lighten the ship in a storm.  (8.120)

What have we learned from Herodotus’s detailed accounts of Persia flinging itself into massive attacks against marginal enemies?  Since the same pattern is repeated under Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius and Xerxes we can conclude it comes from something deep in Persia’s strategic position or self-understanding. 

It seems that engaging in unprofitable battles for questionable gains is something Empires frequently do. Once established, frontiers have to be defended, distant allies must not be allowed to lose, and the Imperial Power has a reputation to uphold. Emperors find it easy to imagine that their money, numbers, and superior armament make them invincible.  From Scythia and the Germanic forests to Vietnam and Iraq, the logic is consistent. 

It is also possible that Persia’s Kings see these campaigns as a way to avoid the danger pointed to by Cyrus, the ‘softness’ that accompanies becoming wealthy and successful.  Once Persia becomes rich, it might be wise to make sure Persia’s elite does not lose its original warrior spirit.  Regular campaigning keeps these virtues alive; it also occupies the time and talent of those who might otherwise become disgruntled schemers against the King.  Darius at one point justifies the Scythian campaign as necessary to keep his people occupied. 

Xenophon, writing after Herodotus and with his own extensive knowledge of Persian ways from his service during one of Persia’s internal wars, addresses this issue in his Cyropaedia, or Education of Cyrus.  After Cyrus’s initial victories that create the Empire, Xenophon’s Cyrus considers how to rule, saying “I know that if we turn toward easygoingness and the pleasure seeking of bad human beings, who believe that laboring is misery and living without labor is happiness, I say that quickly we will be but of little worth to ourselves and quickly be deprived of all good things..It is a great work to gain an empire, but it is an even greater work to keep one safe after taking it” (Cyropaedia VII 5).  Cyrus tries to keep his key supporters in trim with regular training and lots of hunting. 

Empires once established can take a long time to die.  Their riches and power cushion them, and they often find a second wind under new rulers who undertake needed reforms.  As Herodotus portrays it, failure, even on a colossal scale, does not seem, at least immediately, to threaten either the empire itself or even the position of its Kings.  Defeat in war on the periphery does not lead to the overrunning of the imperial core, or the revolt of subjugated peoples, or embolden internal enemies to move against the King, at least not successfully.  These are all frequently observed consequences of military failure in other cases.  Xerxes makes it back to Susa, his lieutenants straggle home.  The Empire lasts another 150 years. 

Herodotus of course is not aware of the course of Persian-Greek relations over this period, during which Persia becomes closely involved in the internal politics of Greece.  But he can tell that the aftermath of the wars with Persia will be a test for the Greeks as much as the Persians.  As Darius’s fleet is bearing down on Greece, he tells us that this portends a period when “more evils befell Hellas than in all the other generations prior to Darius.  Some of these evils were caused by the Persians, but others by the leading states of Hellas waging war for political domination among themselves.”  (6.98).

Athens creates its own sea-based empire, building on fear of Persia among the Greek states of Asia Minor and the Aegean islands.  Its rising power alarms Sparta, which responds, as Thucydides meticulously describes, by seeking to subdue Athens in a 20-year extended struggle.

Persia, having learned from its defeats, stops trying to conquer the Greeks and adopts an ‘offshore balancing’ strategy of weakening Athens and Sparta by intervening regularly on one side or the other, using money and arms and occasional direct support.  It helps engineer Sparta’s ultimate victory over Athens in the Peloponnesian Wars.  The Empire goes through multiple succession crises, and loses control of Egypt among other setbacks, but stabilizes and has a lengthy period of internal growth under the 45 year reign of Arataxerxes I.  The King’s Peace achieved under Artaxerxes II in 387 BC marks an acknowledgement of Persian dominance over all of Asia Minor.    

In the end, though, the Persian fear of the Greeks proves prophetic.  The Macedonians, a people ironically often allied with Persia, gather strength.  One hundred and fifty years after Salamis, Philip of Macedon and his son Alexander the Great conquer and unite the Greek city-states.  Then Alexander, apparently motivated in part by a desire to avenge the Persian invasions, brings down Persia and makes Greek culture and language dominant throughout the Near East, ushering in the Hellenistic Age.  

But Alexander, like the Persians, can’t stop fighting, often against the same kind of peripheral nomads that proved irresistible to Cyrus and Darius.  He and his Greeks become possessors of the great wealth and luxurious habits that have overtaken the Persians; more than once his own followers object to Alexander’s adoption of Persian ways.   When Alexander dies, his Empire breaks apart into warring dynasties.  The Alexandrian successor-states become bywords for corruption and decadence. 

What exactly happens when a poor, hardened, and god-fearing people suddenly achieves great wealth and power?  Is it ever possible not to be corrupted and, eventually, give way to the next round of poorer, harder, more disciplined successors?  Persia, Alexander, Rome, Byzantium, Baghdad, Spain…the list is long.  Ibn Khaldun devoted his great medieval study of politics, the Muqaddimah (much of it drawing on the history of the same lands once occupied by Persia and Alexander), to these same cycles of rise and decline.  The wealthy, organized urban centers generally have the means to fend off the warlike tribes of the desert; but every so often the tribes find a leader, they unite, and the cities fall.  For a time the new rulers hold on to their old ways and stay strong, but inevitably their wealth and security softens them, they lose their edge, and the cycle repeats.   

Is the United States, or the West more generally, subject to the same arc?  Many have thought so and predicted the end of liberal democracy, or of modernity as a whole.  Nietzsche famously described in the late 19th century the despicable “Last Man,” the soulless product of a modern society that prioritizes comfort and security, and called for his replacement.  Influenced by Nietzsche and similar thinkers, fascists and communists alike claimed in the 20th century that the capitalist democracies had become corrupt and weak and ripe for the taking.   

The decadent democracies however somehow rallied to fire-bomb the cities of their fascist enemies in World War II and force them to surrender unconditionally, then out-spent and out-maneuvered their Cold War communist adversaries.   Perhaps fundamentally new developments—industrialization, scientific progress, mass democracy—allow modern powers to resist the seemingly inevitable cycles of the past.  Nevertheless, the same arguments are heard now from Moscow and Beijing.  Your time is up, is their message.

Nothing lasts forever, and it may be that this time the enemies of liberal democracy have found a winning formula.  Using new media and technology, they have become adept at deepening fissures of race, inequality, and culture inside their adversaries, and instilling distrust of the institutions—government, the press, the schools, science—that provide the glue for liberal societies.  China in particular has taken aim at what it sees as the West’s source of strength, its advanced technology, and dedicated itself to dominating the new realms of quantum computing, AI, and renewable energy. 

Like the ancient Greeks, winning has allowed latent divisions to surface and become toxic.  Post-Persian War Greece splintered between democracy and autocracy, with external powers regularly boosting their preferred faction to weaken and take over target cities.  Within most democracies there now exist growing movements whose leaders look to the world’s tyrants as models. 

As the title suggests, Francis Fukuyama’s oft-cited 1992 treatise on the victory of liberal democracy and market economics, The End of History and the Last Man, pointed back to Nietzsche.  He warned that success in winning the Cold War could be followed by  profound dissatisfaction with the ensuing era of peace and consensus.   The decades since have confirmed his fears.  Forty years of neoliberalism have created an atomized, individualistic citizenry that is prickly in defense of its rights and has little use for, or understanding of, the common good.  Wealth and technology undergird a highly capable military, but also a joyless consumerism that is bemoaned but seems inescapable.  A sluggish politics mired in factionalism and corruption appears unable to respond to today’s challenges, whether climate change or immigration or inequality. 

In response, many have turned to extreme nationalism or religious zeal or fealty to One Leader, looking for purpose and direction.  This is the modern version of Cyrus’s warning.  If you conquer the plains, be ready to become weak.  Your riches will not save you forever.  Be ready, if you lose your footing, to be enslaved, if not from without, then from within.           

Netanyahu’s Drive to Bomb Iran

We are at the one year anniversary of the Hamas attack of October 7, 2023.  Israel’s response has been to effectively destroy the Gaza strip and make it uninhabitable for the foreseeable future.  Just recently it has carried out high-intensity attacks in the north against Hizbollah, including killing Hassan Nazrallah, Hizbollah’s charismatic and influential commander.  Israel is also bulldozing large chunks of the West Bank and has given a green light to settlers to intimidate and displace Palestinians. 

So far Hizbollah and Iran, Hizbollah’s patron, have not responded effectively.  Iran has (twice now) attacked Israel with missiles, but these have mostly been shot down, with US help.  Hizbollah is reeling from the loss of its communication system (Israel detonated thousands of pagers and walkie-talkies in a devastating intelligence operation), intense strikes on Hizbollah missile complexes near the border, and the loss of Nazrallah and other top leaders.

Where does this leave us?  Israel has for a long time, since it annexed the West Bank and Gaza after the 1967 war, had three basic strategic choices. 

1.        Accommodation. Reach some kind of accommodation with Palestinians, either a 2-state solution or even a one-state solution, that gives Palestinians enough autonomy that most give up demands to return or to destroy Israel, and outside supporters, especially Iran, lose influence. 

2.        Apartheid.  Expel or subjugate Palestinians, and make the West Bank and Gaza de facto if not de jure part of Israel; in effect, an apartheid state. 

3.        Mow the Lawn.  Do neither, but depend on tactical, military superiority to ‘mow the lawn’ and keep Palestinians, including Hamas; and Hizbollah and other Iranian proxies, weak and unable to seriously threaten Israel.  

The necessary condition for all these strategies is continued unconditional support from the United States.  While the official US position has been to support Accommodation, US support has been essential for Mow the Lawn, which Israel has largely followed for several decades.  While Apartheid is strongly opposed by Washington, it is unlikely that the US would act to prevent it, provided Israel can cast this as unavoidable, and can pursue it without major repercussions from regional powers. 

In the 30 years since the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin in 1995 Benjamin Netanyahu has been Prime Minister for over 16 years.  During his tenure Israel has paid lip service to Accommodation, while in practice moving slowly but firmly to implement Apartheid.  This is partly because of Netanyahu’s own convictions, and partly his need to build governing coalitions that rely more and more on extremist parties.  Netanyahu’s worldview is largely adopted from his father, a close associate of Jakob Jabotinsky, the militant founder of Likud who advocated for a powerful Jewish state and defense force able to coerce Arabs into submission. 

Israel is frequently described as ‘tactically proficient, but strategically deficient’.  It pulls off spectacular intelligence and strike operations, assassinating enemy leaders and destroying militant and Iranian bases and facilities.   With less success, it also conducts occasional longer-term invasions and occupations, as in Lebanon in 2006 and now in Gaza.  These are all part of Mow the Lawn, at least in public discourse; that is, designed to keep Israel’s enemies at bay and eliminate their capability to attack Israel.  Israel’s tactical superiority allows it to avoid choosing clearly one strategy over another. 

During the ‘Netanyahu era’ Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank has expanded, to the point that an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank is now hard to imagine.  The response to 10/7 has made Gaza a moonscape with no prospect that Palestinians, even if fighting stops, would be able to restore even the inadequate infrastructure and services they enjoyed before.  Netanyahu’s ruling coalitions have become progressively more extreme and more dominated by religious nationalists determined to achieve the goal of “Greater Israel”. 

Netanyahu himself is preoccupied with political and personal survival and sees continued war as staving off any reckoning for the October 7 catastrophe.  He is also obsessed with the Iranian nuclear threat and sees his legacy, and his chance for redemption, tied to successful strikes that eliminate Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.  Killing Nasrallah has already improved his image; a successful strike on Iran would make him a hero at home and divert any criticism about Gaza and the hostages.  It would also make it easier to ramp up pressure on Palestinians and satisfy the demands of his right-wing coalition partners.

Israel’s high-profile attacks on Hizbollah are designed to force Iran to respond, giving Israel an excuse to carry out a direct attack on Iran.  US participation is part of the plan, since Israel’s own capabilities are probably insufficient to cripple Iran’s hardened nuclear sites.  Israeli military leaders have publicly claimed they have unilateral means, but Iran has been moving key facilities deeper underground and Israel lacks the really heavy bombs, and the long-range bombers to carry them, that only the US Air Force owns.

Netanyahu’s strategy is therefore to use escalation with Iran to box the US in, so Washington is forced to participate in a direct attack on Iran which Israel can claim is legitimate self-defense to keep Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.  (Iran is now judged to be able to enrich to weapons-grade uranium within a few weeks, and construct a working nuclear device within a few months to a year; Netanyahu was a fervent opponent of the nuclear agreement negotiated under the Obama Administration, which would have slowed Iran’s nuclear development, and which President Trump abrogated soon after he took office). 

Crippling Hizbollah is the necessary condition for this strategy.  Iran has built up Hizbollah for years largely to deter Israel.  Just as North Korea successfully prevented the US and South Korea from attacking the North’s nuclear facilities by threatening to use artillery and rockets to turn Seoul into a “sea of fire”, Tehran wants to use Hizbollah’s thousands of missiles near Israel’s border to keep Israel and the US at bay. 

It is not clear how much firepower Hizbollah has left, but Israel has already destroyed a lot on the ground, badly hurt its ability to communicate, and killed many top leaders.  Israel may now feel that it has reduced the threat from Hizbollah to a tolerable level, and that the time to attack Iran is now, before Hizbollah can recover. 

The US is now the wildcard.  Participating in attacks on Iran’s nuclear program would be a huge escalation with unpredictable outcomes.  Every major country in the region could be affected, and while most would be happy to see a weakened Iran, there would be deep unease at the prospects for a regional war.  Iran would likely attack or threaten oil facilities in the Gulf as well as tanker traffic, causing oil prices to skyrocket, an unwelcome development just before US elections (though perhaps welcome to Netanyahu, an unabashed Trump supporter).  US personnel and facilities in Iraq and the Gulf would be at risk.  Iran’s allies, Russia and China, would assail the US as a warmonger.

However, a number of US strategists and military experts are calling for the US to take part in an attack on Iran.  President Biden has said he is against Israeli retaliation on Iran’s nuclear sites, but it is unclear what recourse the US has if Israel decides to act.  The unknown is whether Israel has the capability, or thinks it has the capability, to be successful on its own.  Netanyahu may ultimately decide to settle, for now, for a more limited retaliation.  But Netanyahu’s political survival now coincides, in his own eyes, with destroying what he has consistently said is the greatest threat to Israel’s survival, an Iranian bomb.  And Hizbollah’s weakness won’t last forever.  I think it is certain that if Trump is re-elected, Netanyahu will lobby relentlessly for an American green light to attack Iran, sooner and not later.   

Attacking Iran would be Mowing the Lawn on steroids, a tactical move that, if successful, might make Israel safer in the short term but would be likely to worsen its longterm security.  Under a different leadership, a triumphant Israel might feel willing to accommodate Palestinian interests.  But this is not how Netanyahu and his partners would respond—they would feel free to put their weight on the Palestinian neck. 

Netanyahu hopes an Iranian defeat might lead to the overthrow of the ayatollahs, and he recently appealed to Iran’s people to throw off their rule.  But it is more likely that Iranians would rally behind the regime, which would continue its support of surrogates and seek new ways to attack and undermine Israel.  Israel’s horrific punishment of Palestinians is giving Iran’s anti-Israel stance new traction in the region.  Israel’s diplomatic isolation would increase.   And the US would become more deeply identified with the most aggressive and violent Israeli actions. 

Project 2025 and the Hillsdale-Claremont Axis

A lot has been written about Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation project to turn the Federal government inside out and make it subservient to Donald Trump.  Most of Project 2025 consists of detailed critiques of government agencies and suggestions for ‘reform.’  But ProPublica recently got its hands on training videos for Project 2025 that go beyond this to try and offer general principles for conservative activists.  The first two of these in particular are overviews of conservative thought that seem meant to give a veneer of depth and principle to the MAGA movement.  They reveal some important things about the worldview of influential intellectual defenders of MAGA.  Trump himself has no discernible ideology, but a variety of ideas are competing for primacy and these videos give us clues as well as possible avenues of attack.

The first thing one notices is that both lectures are delivered by administrators of Hillsdale College, Matthew Spalding and Christopher Malagisi.  Hillsdale is a private Michigan school that purports to offer a deep education in the Western tradition, but in practice serves as a finishing school for reactionary culture warriors.  Hillsdale has successfully entrenched itself in conservative circles as an educational model; Florida governor DeSantis, for instance, said when he decided to blow up and remake the progressive New School, that he wanted instead to have a ‘little Hillsdale.’ Hillsdale and its supporters see themselves as engaged in a longterm project to change American culture, using higher education as the vehicle to create a cadre of conservative thought leaders and activists.  [1]

Matthew Spalding, who delivers the opening lecture, has a picture perfect resume for his role as articulator of MAGA thought.  He got his education, all three degrees, in the Claremont system.  He is a fellow of the Claremont Institute, publisher of the reactionary Claremont Review, and was also a Vice-President at the Heritage Foundation.  In short, he has spent his entire adult life ensconced in the Hillsdale-Claremont axis, which is the epicenter of ‘serious’ conservative philosophizing.  Its members see themselves as the defenders of Western culture against the circling hordes of multiculturalists, relativists, and secularists.  (The President of Hillsdale since 2000, Larry Arnn, was previously the President of the Claremont Institute). 

In his presentation, Spalding paints a flattened and selective picture of the ideas and institutions of the American Founding.  It is central to the Hillsdale-Claremont ideology that America’s unchanging essence was, and should still be, adherence to a view of human rights derived from natural law, that is, from permanent and unchanging truths discoverable by reason.  As his co-conspirator Mr. Malagisi tells us, the point of conservatism is to defend ‘American exceptionalism,’ meaning adherence to the truths discovered in 1776. 

Essentially, according to Spalding and Malagisi, all was well in America for its first 125 years as we maintained our devotion to these timeless verities.  The evidence of our faithfulness was that during this time we kept the central government small and weak.  But then we Fell.  For reactionary thinkers there is always a fatal turning point, a moment of eating the apple, that has to be discovered and remedied to put humanity back on the correct path.  

Spalding and Malagisi tell us exactly what caused the United States to fall:  the Progressive Movement.  Starting in the late 1800s American elites abandoned the True Faith and, influenced by foreign ideas (those damn immigrants!), began to have heretical thoughts. They began to imagine that some of America’s wealth should be taxed and used by government to solve social problems.  They began to imagine that women could take part in public life.  They began to imagine that the dominance of the economy and politics by titanic corporations should be challenged. 

Hillsdale’s enemies are Theodore Roosevelt and, especially, Woodrow Wilson.  Wilson is impugned for wanting to expand government and make decisions based on science and expertise.  He was, after all, an academic and a political scientist.  Social scientists are, in the Hillsdale-Claremont vision, the snakes in the garden, the tempters offering knowledge of good and evil. 

In the Hillsdale-Claremont account, the Progressives were not just Americans who advocated for reforms to meet the new challenges of the industrial age.  They were traitors to America’s founding ideas and the Constitution.  They did not believe in unchanging Natural Rights.  Instead, influenced by new scientific approaches to the study of man and society, they embraced a view of human beings as more malleable, shaped in key respects by their upbringing and environment, and hence capable of changing for the better.  But many of the obstacles to a better life were beyond the ability of individuals to deal with.  Rugged individualism was not going to clear the slums, improve factory working conditions, educate the poor, challenge Jim Crow, or do away with corrupt political machines.  Government intervention was needed to help people help themselves.

Hillsdale’s hero is—Calvin Coolidge.  Coolidge and his Republican cohorts of the 1920s tried to put the genie back in the bottle.  Less government, and less expectation from the public that government would intervene to help them.  Lower taxes.  High tariffs.  Silent Cal whispering ‘no’ to government programs. 

Unfortunately, a la Spalding and Malagisi, the Depression came along, Franklin Roosevelt got elected, and America went whole-hog down the Progressive path.  The modern conservative movement is largely a noble attempt to undo the New Deal and the assumptions about the role of the state that go with it. 

This view of our history surfaced during the Trump administration, when Trump commissioned a report to counter the 1619 Project.  The 1619 Project was a historical analysis sponsored by the New York Times that placed slavery at the center of the American story.  The Trump response was the “1776 Report”, a historical study executed by a group that didn’t include any actual historians, but did include Charles Kesler of the Claremont Institute, and Larry Arnn from Hillsdale.  Their report made similar arguments about Woodrow Wilson and the Progressives, who were astonishingly singled out as threats to democracy on a par with fascism and slavery. 

What do we get from this, other than a good laugh at the idea of chiseling out Teddy Roosevelt’s face from Mt. Rushmore and replacing him with Calvin Coolidge?  What we learn is how truly reactionary, how truly at odds with the modern world, the MAGA worldview is—and also how much this vision informs today’s conservative practice. 

The America before progressivism was a country where property rights were king, the businesses and trusts and financial powers of the industrial age dominated public life, and courts and politicians deferred to their interests.  Conservative legal scholars look wistfully back to the era exemplified by the 1905 Lochner Supreme Court decision, which struck down a state law that limited working hours on the grounds that it violated the ‘freedom’ of employers and workers to engage in contracts.  Today’s originalist-dominated Supreme Court has been busy doing away with government powers to regulate the economy, while declaring that corporations are people and elevating property rights at the expense of the rights of workers and citizens.

Before progressivism, states in the South, and not just the South, freely and unabashedly denied basic rights to African-Americans, Jews, Asians, Native Americans, and women.  MAGA supporters today are up to their eyeballs in schemes to restrict voting access, criminalize abortion, demonize immigrants, and undermine all forms of affirmative action.

Before progressivism, government jobs were filled by patronage rather than merit.  Today, Trump and his supporters declare proudly they will stack the federal system with political loyalists.

The irony is that conservatives despise progressivism as equivalent to socialism (Trump and his supporters now routinely call even standard-issue liberals ‘communists’), when it was the Progressive movement and its New Deal and Fair Deal successors that saved us from socialism.  The ability of American progressives to recognize and, however imperfectly, remedy some of the injustices of modern capitalism and ‘rugged individualism’ helped convince the majority to support reform rather than revolution.  It fended off the extremism that overwhelmed many European states in the first half of the 20th century.

The Eisenhower-era Republican party seemingly accepted the basic parameters of the New Deal, promising a future of political and economic harmony, or at least civil disagreement.  Government, business, labor, and civil society would work together for the common good.  It is this ‘capitulation’ that Goldwater, Reagan and now Trump reject.  No compromise, they say.  It’s war to the death. 

By rewriting history to declare Progressivism un-American, a threat equivalent to fascism, MAGA’s ideological explainers want to justify sweeping steps to undo 125 years of the expansion of government power, in the name of restoring freedom to American citizens.  Even if this expansion has been broadly popular and resulted in dramatic improvements in people’s lives, including the expansion of the basic human rights the Hillsdale conservatives say they want to protect.  

Since America has strayed so far from its true self, we might need a strongman to make things right.  We might need to intervene to ensure elections don’t give us the wrong result.  We might need to use the military to put down protests.  We might need to fire all the bureaucrats and dismantle government agencies and use the Justice Department to go after our enemies.  Whatever it takes.

Don’t be fooled by the seemingly reasonable presentations by Hillsdale professors in their book-lined studies.  The Hillsdale-Claremont axis is, after all, the home of Michael Anton, the author of the infamous “Flight 93” essay in 2016, which argued that voting for Trump was comparable to passengers choosing to swarm the cockpit against al-Qaida hijackers, even if it meant certain death.  It is the home of John Eastman, the lawyer who masterminded the fake electors scheme designed to overturn Biden’s win in 2020. 

This claim, that the existing liberal order is hopelessly corrupt and failed, is an essential part of the fascist mentality.  It justifies any action in response, however illegal or immoral.  Trump’s drumbeat of pessimism and lies about the terrible state of our country, about how crime and immigration and woke liberals are destroying America, provides the counterpoint to the arguments of Hillsdale’s ideologues.  Never mind that the United States is the richest, most powerful state in human history, a magnet for millions around the world, for 250 years a functioning if flawed democracy, an engine of new jobs and opportunity.  These realities must be ignored to justify dismantling existing institutions and substituting the rule of a Leader who embodies the popular will.   

We should be aware that Hillsdale’s “American Exceptionalism” is not the only set of ideas circling around the MAGAverse.  There are white nationalists and outright fascists; religious zealots who look to Victor Orban’s Hungary as a model for the use of government power to advance a Christian state; and Silicon Valley libertarians who find democracy contemptible and outdated.  Professor Spalding gently rebukes them and tries to claim all these ideas need to be grounded in American natural law principles.  But they are allies, working together against their common liberal enemies.

Project 2025 is, however, not a standard-issue conservative plan to shrink the state.  It is a plan to take over the state and use state power to implement sweeping change in culture and governance.  The relatively moderate professors in these videos who celebrate decentralization and individual rights can be seen as ‘useful idiots’—the Mensheviks to MAGA’s Bolsheviks, destined to be ignored and, come the revolution, sent quickly to the gulag.

[1] I am a graduate of St. John’s College, which really does offer the education in Western thought that Hillsdale pretends to provide.  The Hillsdale approach is a distortion of genuine liberal education—Hillsdale is to St. John’s what the Upside Down in “Stranger Things” is to the real world.  To have a school that purports to defend Western civilization shill for Donald Trump is of course hilarious, but also threatens those who are serious about genuine engagement with our best traditions.  Hillsdale wants to weaponize the study of Western thought by making it seem that it supports one side in today’s political debates.  This is false and a betrayal of the tradition that Hillsdale claims to defend.

Countering MAGA:  What We Can Learn from the Fight Against Communism

I was trained professionally, in graduate school and at work, as a Sovietologist and expert on communist systems.  This was in the 1970s and 1980s.  The USSR seemed to be on the march, building a huge ICBM force and sponsoring revolutions in Africa and the Americas.  Many European countries still had large and influential communist parties. 

More than once during this time I would have discussions with my father, a staunchly anti-communist philosophy professor, who could never understand why anyone would be attracted to communism.  It was theoretically indefensible, and awful in practice.  He would get this puzzled look on his face and ask me, with a kind of anguish, what was going on in the world.  Were people just crazy?

My answer then was that he was right about communism as an ideology, and right about the awfulness of existing Marxist-Leninist states, but he was missing the point.  The point was that millions and millions of people had been and were ardent supporters of the ideology and the regimes that embodied it.  What did they see in it, and what did they dislike so much about capitalism that they could overlook the obvious flaws of communism?  This was the reality we had to respond to.

We should be asking the same question now about Trump and the MAGA movement. Liberals have by and large not figured this out.  They were knocked badly off balance in 2016, but with Biden’s win in 2020 they thought they had swept Trump and his followers into the dustbin of history.  This turned out to be very wrong.  Trump is still with us, and the MAGA movement is much more organized and institutionalized than four years ago.  It’s not just Trump anymore. 

Now in 2024 Democrats have pulled the plane out of its nosedive at the last second and stand a chance in November.  But the wave of enthusiasm for Kamala and Walz has so far only managed to make the race a statistical tie.  I just watched the Democratic Convention and heard many stirring words and lots of jabs at Trump (who is the easiest political joke butt of all time) but I didn’t hear clearly that liberals see and understand the MAGA appeal.  Millions and millions of Americans remain all-in for Trump.  I can hear my father’s anguished puzzlement:  are people just crazy?    

I suspect all of us have run into people who say something like, “Well, I wish Trump would tone it down…” or “I know he says some crazy things…” and then go on to say  “But…” and explain why they plan to vote for him anyway.  Sometimes it’s because the Democrats are going to impose communism, or they think Trump was a great businessman, or they think he’ll lower interest rates.  The point is that they are willing to overlook all manner of flaws because there is something they think MAGA will do, something it stands for, that overcomes his defects.  In fact, many see these defects—the bullying, the threats, the name-calling, the lies and deceptions—as virtues because they show strength and toughness and a willingness to do ‘whatever it takes’ to make things right.

We liberals can bemoan this till the cows come home, but unless we understand and confront the underlying reasons for MAGA enthusiasm I don’t think we’ll get much traction.  The antidote to enthusiasm for communism in Europe and America was ultimately creating robust welfare states that protected individual rights and looked out for the interests of working people and the poor, while curbing the power of big business—not destroying capitalism but showing that liberal democracies were capable of real reforms.   Similarly, the antidote to MAGA will start by understanding and addressing things that have gone wrong with modern society and its economic underpinnings, and offering serious solutions, while vigorously rejecting the flawed and dangerous solutions offered by MAGA.  You can’t beat something with nothing.  Democrats will flounder if all they do is criticize Trump and talk up joy and hope. Americans—and by no means just MAGA enthusiasts—are looking for fundamental, radical change.

What is it then that MAGA enthusiasts want?  What was so great in the American past that they want to restore? Essentially they want two things that MAGA sees as going together, and that liberals must work to pull apart.  The exact time of peak American ‘greatness’ is deliberately kept vague with different things for different people, but is I think centered on the postwar America of the 1940s, 50s, and 60s.  During this time the economy boomed and offered growth for all, workers and CEOs alike.  Every generation was assured of living better.  Growth and government support made public schools strong and higher education available and affordable; millions moved for the first time into their own homes, helped by federal loan guarantees; social security and other new government programs bolstered economic security; strong unions helped keep wages high and give American workers a sense of dignity; and America was on top of a new international order that was largely made in the USA.  This made people confident and supported strong families, neighborhoods and communities.  

Importantly, the heartland flourished as much as the coasts.  Blue collar workers flourished as much as professionals.  Small towns flourished as much as big cities.  The country felt unified.

That’s the good side.  But what MAGA associates with this is a whole set of cultural and historic restrictions, some legal but many deeply ingrained in commonly accepted practices, that it believes were inextricable from this socio-economic success.  These include restrictions on women, via limits on abortion and divorce; on equal rights for African-Americans and minorities; on immigration; on any and every type of sexual or gender nonconformity; and on non-Christians and people outside the religious mainstream.  

Essentially, MAGA mistakes correlation for causation.  It argues, sometimes explicitly but usually implicitly, that the expansion of rights to previously repressed or ignored groups destroyed this golden age.  This expansion has come at the expense of the jobs and power and dignity of ‘real Americans’.  It has been deliberately engineered by hostile forces, liberal socialists and coastal elites and Jews and globalized financial interests.  MAGA is convinced that in the name of rectifying past injustices, these interests have raised up new groups and institutionalized new types of discrimination, embodied in affirmative action and DEI, to the disadvantage of Christian white men.  A whole industry of right-wing commentators, media, advocacy groups, and politicians has grown up to relentlessly push this message.  Vice-presidential candidate JD Vance is one of its loudest exponents. 

We can certainly debate and disagree about the ramifications of the great expansion of rights of the past 60 years.  As with all changes, there have been winners and losers.  Adjustments and course corrections may be needed, and liberals have not always been understanding of those who fail to quickly fall in line for the latest shifts in language or behavior.  But the reactionary dreams of the MAGA faithful for some wholesale return to the past are delusional; worse, they have become for many the prelude to a rejection of democracy itself.  If the people don’t back our side, then we have to find a way to win anyway. 

Liberals must find a way to be on the side of restoring the better aspects of the postwar economy, while rejecting any ‘restoration’ of the barriers and discrimination and indignities that were de rigeur for millions of American citizens.  The Biden presidency has put in place the building blocks for this argument.  Biden said he was breaking with the neoliberal  policies of his own party (and of Biden himself).  He was creating industrial policy rather than relying on markets.  He was lifting up unions and bringing back manufacturing.  He was aggressively breaking up monopolies. He was raising taxes on the wealthy.  These are major pieces of an economic model that owes more to the America of the 1950s than the globalized and hyper-financialized economy touted by both parties since Ronald Reagan. This is what it takes to tackle the inequalities in the economy and give opportunity and hope to everyone, not just Ivy League STEM majors.

This must be accompanied by maintaining and expanding opportunity and rights for everyone who has been left out.  The assignment for Kamala and Tim and their followers is to convince the American people that bringing everyone to the table makes the economic and social foundations for families, neighborhoods and communities stronger, not weaker.  It is not a zero-sum game.  We are not looking to create a society of winners and losers.  We want everyone to be a winner. 

This is something many Americans find hard to accept.  The relentlessly fearful messaging of the right has convinced them there isn’t enough to go around—not enough jobs, not enough safety, not enough dignity, not enough patriotism.  Liberals can help by adopting a new framing that stops dwelling incessantly on past injustices, which—rightly or wrongly—feels like an exercise in blaming and shaming.  Americans who want to be proud of their heritage feel condemned and mocked.  They are reacting with a lot of anger. 

The Democratic Party at its 2024 Convention took important steps to put itself on the side of ordinary, middle-class Americans by championing ideas of community, neighborliness, patriotism, and mutual assistance.  That Kamala has the chance to be the first woman President, that she is black and Asian and exemplifies diversity, were frequently acknowledged but not the focus of her message.  Instead, Democrats put Tim Walz forward to demonstrate that liberalism can be at home in small rural towns, not just big rich cities. 

For many MAGA adherents, cultural nostalgia is the feature, not the bug.  They support Trump because of his racism and misogyny and faux religiosity, not despite it.  But many others are troubled by these positions, yet choose Trump because they believe he will restore a prosperous, safe, growing heartland.  During his four years in office he did little to bring this about.  During his four years in office, Biden did a lot.  If Kamala runs on this record and its goals, she can win.

Who is the next Ryan Zimmerman?

I’ve been a fan of the Washington Nationals since they began in 2005.  The Nats built themselves up to be a World Series winner in 2019, but afterwards suffered a precipitous collapse and for the last three years have been on a long-term rebuilding campaign.  They are probably two years away from being competitive, if things go right. 

There are several Nats fan discussion groups I look at fairly regularly.  Every year the Nats take a chance on an inexpensive reclamation project, hoping he can be useful trade bait at mid-season.  The most intense disagreements in these discussions tend to be about whether to hang on to this guy, if he’s having a good year, or instead trade him while his value is high in return for younger prospects.

This year’s example is Jesse Winker, a once-promising 30 year old outfielder who went through some down years and the Nats got on a cheap one-year contract.  No big loss if he didn’t deliver, but big upside if he regained his old form.  Which he surprisingly did.  Winker is not a star but became a solid performer in the first half of the season—11HR, 45 RBI, a .254 average, and amazingly 14 steals (Winker had never stolen more than 1 base in any previous season). 

On July 27 Winker was traded away to the hated Mets for a young pitcher. Cue the bitter comments.  We found a diamond in the rough, why not keep him? He’s good for the youngsters.  We don’t have anyone better coming along for at least a few years. 

On the other hand:  this year is likely a fluke, he won’t repeat it.  We have other outfielders in the minors and he would just be blocking them.  He would cost a lot more after this year.  We are looking 2-3 years ahead, not this year or next year.  Anyone who argues for keeping him doesn’t understand the genius of Mike Rizzo. 

At issue in a way is, what is the purpose of baseball?  How do we judge whether a team, or an organization, is a success?

One straightforward way is to say, baseball is a competitive sport and the purpose of sports is to win.  A good professional baseball organization tries to win games and titles and the World Series.  This is the only real metric.  Individual players, field managers and coaches, and front office personnel need to focus on winning.     

OK, but even this seemingly clear definition is ambiguous.  Unless you are the Yankees or Dodgers, no team has the resources to try and win every year.  Teams go through ups and downs.  Suppose you have a realistic plan, given the available money, to allow your team to have a serious chance of winning only every 10 years.  At best you might get all the stars to align for one or two World Series appearances and a few more winning seasons, before your talented rookies reach free agency and your expensive free agents get old and fade away.  So there will be many seasons with no chance to compete for a title, where in fact you might be better off not winning if it means a higher draft pick.

Why should people come and watch during those lean years?  Why should fans care?  The organization had better figure this out, or it won’t have anyone buying tickets or watching on television for much of its existence.

Sure, a small number of aficionados delight in the rebuilding process.  They love watching the strategic decisions, the gambles on young rookies, the progress in the low minors, the unexpected breakouts by overlooked prospects, the pieces hopefully being assembled bit by bit.  The Nationals fans populating chatrooms over the last three years are good examples.  I like that stuff myself.

But most fans aren’t like that.  What do they want?  Of course they want to see their team win and be in the thick of a pennant race.  But they also want some players to watch and identify with, year after year.  They want colorful characters.  They want stories of success and heartache.  They want to see traditions established and maintained. 

When I was young there were two teams, one in the American and one in the National League, that never won:  the Red Sox and the Cubs.  Everyone knew they were hapless and always would be.  Nevertheless these were two of the most successful and well-known franchises in all of sport.  Successful at filling seats and successful at creating fervent and die-hard supporters.  They made themselves part of the daily lives and identities of neighborhoods and cities and whole regions.  Without winning.

In today’s data-driven game, it is easy to imagine a tough-minded front office saying, yeah, that Ted Williams/Ernie Banks is a great player, but we’ve run the numbers and we’d be better off trading him for some youngsters and good draft picks.  (Williams might have ended up in pinstripes, mentoring Micky Mantle—perish the thought).  Maybe that would be right, if winning is the only thing.  But if your goal is to entertain, to build a long-lasting relationship with your fans and your community, keeping them was a wise choice.

OK, Jesse Winker is no Ted Williams.  But former National Juan Soto, maybe he was.  After being a key part of their championship team, the Nats traded him in 2022 for a haul of young players after making him a big but not overwhelming offer.  Today only one player from the 2019 World Series team is still with the Nationals.

Coaches, managers, general managers—their job is to win games.  But baseball presidents and owners have a slightly different job.  They are in the entertainment business. They are in the business of sustaining an institution for the long haul.  They need to keep fans enthusiastic and engaged during the bad years as well as the good ones.

And players—what is their job?  Do they want only to win, to be on winning teams?  Or to make the most money?  Or are they also, at least some of them, looking to be the next Ernie Banks or Carl Yastrzemski, beloved heroes, the face of the team; guys who everyone in town recognizes and talks about and admires, who thrill youngsters and then stick around long enough to thrill their kids? 

Not too many examples of the best players choosing that route.  Free agency and high-priced agents and the ungodly amounts of money top players can get, make this unlikely.

But there is a second tier of players who can still play this role, I think.  For the Nationals, it was Ryan Zimmerman, a very good 3rd baseman who suffered injuries that kept him from being a great player (and probably kept him from being bought up by richer teams).  Ryan played his whole career with the Nats, coming on board shortly after they came to DC in 2005 (he finished a close second in the Rookie of the Year voting in 2006) and playing long enough to help win the World Series in 2019.  He was a quiet gamer, uncomplaining, who performed at a high level when the Nats were a terrible team, and in his latter years worked hard to contribute and often came through in the clutch.  He became beloved in a way I think no other National ever has.

Ryan had some down years when it wasn’t clear he could retain a starting job.  He had a shoulder injury that made it impossible to throw from third to first.  But letting him go would, I think, have been unthinkable.  It would have alienated the fans and been seen as cruel and unfeeling.  The Nats kept him on the team while he moved to 1B, and were rewarded in 2017 when he had perhaps the best offensive season of his career and made the All-Star team.  By 2019 he was reduced to being an occasional starter and pinch-hitter, but in the World Series he had several huge hits.  Nothing made me happier than seeing Ryan on the bus being cheered during the 2019 victory parade.

So what should a savvy club do?  Does it gear everything for those infrequent magical moments when everything clicks into place?  Or does it need to (also) maintain a certain level of performance and star power, even if it’s not likely to win it all—but without breaking the bank for one big name.  Everyone would love to have the the next Mike Trout.  But Trouts are very expensive and might not be enough—the Angels haven’t won even with Trout.   Maybe the right question, for the Nats, for every team, should be:  who is the next Ryan Zimmerman?

Meanwhile, I will be watching how Winker does with the Mets. 

The Growing AR-15 Threat

Over the last few months I have conducted a low-key experiment, using the comment section of our local newspaper, The New Mexican.  I have been reading comments posted whenever an article appears on hot-button topics like climate change and political reform, and inserting myself to counter and critique what I think are bad arguments or poor use of facts.  My goals are, first, not to cede the public square to the loudest voices; second, to see if reasonable comments, citing sources and data, have any effect on the discussion; three, to test my own views and see if I can learn from people I disagree with.

One of the most frequent topics has been guns.  The New Mexico legislature just ended its annual short session, and the Governor introduced a number of gun-control bills that received extensive press coverage.  Any article about gun legislation is sure to produce an avalanche of angry responses, mostly from the libertarian right but also from some progressives.  Engaging in this over the last few months has made me think more about our gun problem and what needs to be done.  

One of the most frequent, and most emotional, issues is anything having to do with the AR-15 and similar assault rifles (I will use ‘AR-15’ here as shorthand for all assault rifles).  A huge amount of discussion—probably more than it deserves— is devoted to back and forth on these weapons.  Here in New Mexico, Governor Lujan Grisham has at various times proposed regulations to raise the age for purchasing AR-15s to 21, or to ban them altogether.  New Mexico Senator Martin Heinrich has backed a federal law to limit the size of magazines on assault rifles and other semi-automatic weapons.  All of these received extensive comments both pro and con—mostly con.  

I want to offer some of the conclusions I have come to from engaging in these debates, as well as from an excellent recent book, American Gun:  The True Story of the AR-15, by Cameron McWhirter and Zusha Ellinson.  I have included page references to American Gun in the text. 

Threat of Political Violence

My first and most important conclusion is that the AR-15 is central to the political threat posed by Donald Trump.  As will be explained in more detail, this is because of the huge number of AR-15s now in circulation, and their close association with right-wing, conspiratorial, anti-government perspectives.  

The United States has for decades had to deal with militia groups, mostly on the right, that have stockpiled AR-15s and other firearms and trained members for defensive and offensive scenarios.  Contemporary groups such as the Boogaloo Boys, 3-Percenters, Proud Boys, Oath Keepers and many others plan to counter supposed government oppression, or initiate a race war, or confront progressive demonstrators, or prep for the collapse of the country, or defend traditional Christian values, or stop the flow of immigrants, among a range of goals.  Many of these groups target former members of the military or law enforcement for recruitment because of their training and access to weapons.

Until recently these armed groups, though concerning, did not present a serious threat to the country’s stability and political order.  They lacked a common strategy, had no single leader, and often disagreed and fought among themselves.   

But Trump’s rise has changed the nature of the threat.  Now these disparate groups have for the first time a leader who unites them and gives them marching orders.  The January 6 attack on the Capital followed Trump’s call to the Proud Boys to “stand by” and enlisted multiple anti-government militias, conspiracy-theorists, ideologues, racists, anti-Semites, Christian fundamentalists, and other parts of the extreme right under one banner.  According to the ACLED (The Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project) “There has been a major realignment of militia movements in the US from anti-federal government writ large to mostly supporting one candidate, thereby generally positioning the militia movement alongside a political party.” The FBI has recently said that white nationalist extremists constitute our most dangerous domestic terrorist threat.  

While the majority of AR-15 owners are law-abiding and responsible citizens, the sheer number of weapons ensures that a significant number are in the hands of dangerous actors.  The AR-15 has been marketed for decades to appeal to people suspicious of government who often identify with the military and are primed to resort to violence.  Many hold extreme anti-immigrant, anti-LGBTQ, and racist views.  AR-15 owners are often hardline supporters of gun rights who demonize any politician or activist who supports even the smallest restrictions on firearms as enemies who are conspiring to take their guns away (328).  These are the type of people most likely to join right-wing militias.

Of particular concern is that this demographic overlaps with the approximately 30% of the American population that believes Trump’s Big Lie about the 2020 election, and would likely favor the use of intimidation or force if directed by Trump.  We have already seen the violent results of Trump’s refusal to accept the results in 2020, and there is every reason to think he and his supporters are planning a much wider and more aggressive response in 2024.  In this response the AR-15 has the potential to play a central and very dangerous role.  

Misleading Arguments 

My second point is that most of the arguments invoked by gun rights supporters against AR-15 restrictions are false or misleading.  Three of these arguments came up frequently in the comments posted in the New Mexican

AR-15s Not Significant in Killings.  Probably the most common claim is that AR-15s are used in only a small fraction of murders.  Therefore restrictions that focus on this weapon are not really designed to stop shootings but are pretexts to take away gun rights by liberals who just have an irrational bias against assault rifles.

It is certainly true that the vast majority of the approximately 19,000 firearms murders in the US in 2023 were committed with handguns.  In 2022 only 541 murders were categorized as committed by ‘rifles,’ which includes the AR-15 but also other long-guns.  Almost 8000 were from handguns, with thousands more not categorized, but mostly handguns.  

However, one reason it’s a good talking point to say the AR-15 is only responsible for a small fraction of murders is not that AR-15 related deaths are so few, it’s that the number of murders in the US is so large.  When 19000 people are being killed each year, 500 or so deaths doesn’t look like much.  But in most countries comparable to the US—high income, industrialized democracies—500 deaths isn’t so small.  For instance, in 2021, the total number of firearm related murders in the UK was 28.  Total.  The United States is a huge global outlier in the number of people murdered with firearms. 

AR-15s are not generally used in the run of the mill street shootings, robberies-gone-wrong, domestic quarrels, and gang violence that account for most gun-related murders.  You can’t easily conceal an AR-15 or tuck it in the back of your pants.  But it is the weapon of choice for many mass murderers, for fairly straightforward reasons.  The Buffalo shooter, who killed 8 African-Americans in a Buffalo supermarket in 2022, (to avoid giving them any publicity, I will not use the names of mass murderers) tells us the two main reasons:  “ [He] believed that using an AR-15 would enable him to kill more people—and get more attention. ‘The AR-15 and its variants are very deadly when used properly. Which is the reason why I picked one,’ he wrote. ‘Plus, the media loves to hate on the AR-15, which may increase media coverage and public outlash.’ (395)  

As a military weapon designed to rapidly engage multiple targets at close range, with maximum lethality, the AR-15 is perfectly designed for mass murder.   Perpetrators are not trying to conceal the weapon—they want it seen, to instill fear.  And many mass killers are wrapped up in living up to a certain image:  “ [the Aurora, Colorado shooter who killed 12 and injured 70 at a movie theater in 2012] was drawn to the AR-15 in part because it looked scary, said Craig Appel, an Aurora homicide detective who interviewed [him]. “That warrior mentality, that was his big issue,” Appel recalled. “He wanted to look like a badass.” (297)

In addition, the AR-15 intimidates law enforcement.  In the 2022 Uvalde school shooting, where first responders waited almost an hour before directly engaging the shooter, the main reason was fear of the AR-15s firepower.  Officers had their own AR-15s but this did not make them willing to engage. According to the Texas Tribune:  “Once they saw a torrent of bullets tear through a classroom wall and metal door, the first police officers in the hallway of Robb Elementary School concluded they were outgunned. And that they could die.  The gunman had an AR-15, a rifle design used by U.S. soldiers in every conflict since Vietnam. Its bullets flew toward the officers at three times the speed of sound and could have pierced their body armor like a hole punch through paper. They grazed two officers in the head, and the group retreated.”

Many mass murderers are copycats, trying to live up to the example of previous killers.  The more those killers use AR-15s, the more new killers are likely to do the same (362).  In recent years the percentage of mass killings (with four or more people killed) that involve AR-15s has risen sharply.  Over the past ten years almost half of mass shooters have used an AR-15, according to the Violence Project.  (400)

The effect of mass shootings on public life and the lives of those affected is far greater than the numbers would suggest by themselves.  These are acts of terrorism, designed by their perpetrators to inflict not just physical damage, but to damage and shock entire communities and the nation as a whole.  Hate-based attacks such as those targeting the LGBTQ community (Pulse Nightclub 2016, Colorado Springs 2022), African-Americans (Buffalo 2022, Jacksonville 2023), immigrants (El Paso Walmart 2019), or Jews (Pittsburgh 2018) reverberate nationally and even globally, as evidenced by the copycat shooting in New Zealand in 2019 that targeted two mosques. Schoolchildren in every part of the US can now expect to take part in drills to deal with an active shooter.  Schools, churches, nightclubs, concert venues, parades—virtually any public place—must now plan for, and devote resources to try and prevent, a violent assault by someone armed with an AR-15.  

Nothing special about the AR-15.  A second common argument is that the AR-15 is no different than other guns, and people choose to own an AR-15 for the same reasons people own guns in general, for hunting or sport shooting or home defense.  Therefore singling it out for special restrictions is unfair and unlikely to be effective. 

This claim is disingenuous.  Americans now own somewhere between 20 and 30 million AR-15s, so certainly some people have them for these reasons.  But it is obvious that the huge rise in AR-15 sales in the past 20 years is because of its symbolic properties.   As summarized in American Gun, in the period after Sandy Hook, “The image of the AR-15 had become a political and cultural symbol infused with meaning far beyond the gun debate. People put its image on T-shirts, banners, bumper stickers, and coffee mugs. To scorn it meant you were a Democrat and a liberal who backed stricter gun-control laws. To embrace it meant you were pro-gun, conservative, likely pro-Trump. It became a tribal emblem, immediately signaling where you stood on the American political spectrum.”  (373)

The AR-15 is not designed for hunting or self-defense or target practice, though of course it can be used for all these things.  It was designed from the beginning for military use, for short to medium range rapid fire against multiple human targets.  It uses high muzzle velocity, two to three times the velocity of a typical handgun, with light-weight, low-calibre ammunition to minimize recoil—important for rapid aiming and shooting.  

The AR-15 was carefully built to produce tremendous damage to human tissue, much greater than from a normal rifle or handgun.  The inventor of the AR-15, Eugene Stoner, experimented to find the combination of velocity and bullet size that caused the most destruction.  American Gun describes the conclusions of Beat Kneubuehl, a Swiss ballistics scientist who authored the definitive work on the subject: “By increasing the velocity of the tiny bullet, Stoner gave it more injury potential. When the bullet hit the human body it slowed down and released its energy. ‘The energy that the projectile loses through deceleration (loss of velocity) is converted into work, i.e., into damage to the tissue,’ Kneubuehl said. The bullets of the AR-15 maximized this effect because they went unstable so quickly. They had less energy than larger rifle rounds but they transferred more of their energy to the human body. A bullet fired from an AR-15 flew nose first through the air. But when it hit the human body it became unstable. Once unstable, the bullet tore through the body like a tornado, spiraling and tipping as it obliterated organs, blood vessels, and bones.” (78)

This is why, when trying to describe what had happened to the bodies of the children at Sandy Hook, a policeman involved told a grieving parent “They were in a fucking blender.”

This sort of destruction is not what you want for hunting.  It’s not what you need for self-defense in your home.  It’s what you want on the battlefield when you need to kill with as few shots as possible.  

The real reason for the immense popularity of the AR-15 was captured succinctly by a gun company executive:  “All of a sudden, people are buying guns because they want to own the libs and because people are telling them they can’t have them and because they want to give the world the middle finger,” recalled Ryan Busse, a sales executive at the gunmaker Kimber. “Rationality of the market left the building and this sort of weird emotional, political drive took over.”  (329)

Unsurprisingly, this loss of rationality did not happen spontaneously; it was deliberately fostered by American gun manufacturers and by gun rights organizations heavily funded by industry.  In the mid-90s the firearms industry was facing a declining market.  Hunting was becoming less popular and fewer Americans lived in the rural and small town settings that allowed for regular gun use.  A federal ban on the AR-15 that began in 1994, coupled with general disdain for the weapon in traditional firearms circles—AR-15 enthusiasts were nicknamed “couch commandos”—a drop in crime, and successful lawsuits against gun companies and gunstores, all led to a drop in gun sales.  

This turned around, however, in the 2000s: “The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the sunset of the federal assault-weapons ban, and the passage of legislation to protect gunmakers from litigation all combined to create a perfect environment for mainstream gunmakers to make, market, and sell large quantities of AR-15s. Sales executives realized that the gun’s appeal was widening beyond military veterans. Bill Silver, head of commercial sales at Sig Sauer, recalled that the tough-looking military-style weapon had what he called the “wannabe factor.” “People want to be a special forces guy,” he explained.  (268)

Politicians during this period became more and more intimidated by the political clout of the well-funded gun lobby.  In 1994 Congress was sufficiently motivated to pass a bipartisan ban on semi-automatic assault rifles, but the NRA and other opponents helped to defeat many of its supporters in the 1994 election cycle.  The ban was poorly written and counterproductive, doing little to actually take guns off the market and providing gun rights supporters with an issue to mobilize around.  AR-15 sales increased.  Instead of strengthening the bill to make it more effective, Congress, frightened by the pro-gun lobby’s ability to turn out single-issue voters, refused to renew it in 2004.  

In 2005 the Bush Administration gave the gun industry a tremendous victory with the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms act, which protected firearms manufacturers and gunstores from most legal liability for the use of their product.  In 2004, for instance, Bushmaster and the guilty gunstore had paid a $2.5 million settlement to the families of people killed by the “DC sniper”, using a Bushmaster AR-15.  Now the gun industry no longer faced the threat of lawsuits that had forced the tobacco industry and other producers of dangerous products to pay billions in damages and modify their sales practices. (264)

In 2008 gun rights advocates received another major boost from the Supreme Court’s Heller decision, which interpreted the Second Amendment as granting an absolute right to individual gun ownership.  This decision was the culmination of a lengthy legal campaign, funded by the NRA, to shift the understanding of the Second Amendment.  While Heller did not entirely prevent governments from restricting certain types of weapons, it put gun-control advocates on the defensive and was a tremendous symbolic victory for the forces already vested in promoting the AR-15.  

The marketing campaigns for unrestricted gun rights became more strident and more explicitly militaristic, often deploying the confrontational slogan “Come and Take It” (Molon Labe, a Greek saying attributed to King Leonidas at Thermopylae).  This was designed to appeal to buyers but also to intimidate politicians, who had to worry for their personal safety and the safety of their families from  the reaction of angry and well-armed citizens.

Gun manufacturers loved the AR-15 because the profit margins were much higher than for most other firearms.  The gun was designed to be cheap and easily mass manufactured.  It was made from pre-stamped metal parts with a plastic stock.  And it was highly customizable, which added to profits as customers bought stocks, grips, flashlights and other attachments. 

AR-15 sales went into high gear once big money arrived from Wall Street.  The rising potential in the 2000s attracted Cerberus Capital, which consolidated several manufacturers into the Freedom Group.    By 2007 the Freedom Group was selling half the AR-15s in the country.  With the protection afforded by the 2005 Act, it adopted aggressive marketing practices designed to appeal to new types of consumers. Bushmaster, one of the Freedom Group’s companies, launched an advertising campaign that linked the AR-15 to masculinity, with copy that said “In a world of rapidly depleting testosterone, The Bushmaster Man Card declares and confirms that you are a Man’s Man, the last of a dying breed, with all the rights and privileges duly afforded.” (285)

The Freedom Group cut prices and began selling AR-15s in Walmarts and other mass market outlets.  It also placed AR-15s prominently into video games, trying to develop brand allegiance among young men who spent more time on their screens than at real shooting ranges.

The combination of financial and marketing muscle, coupled with the cultural and political identity fostered by the NRA and other gun rights organizations, caused AR-15 sales to skyrocket.  In the mid 2000s the compounded annual growth rate for traditional rifles and long-guns was 5%; for the AR-15, it was 36%.  As of 2022 at least 20 million AR-15s, and probably many more, were in the hands of private citizens in the United States.

The AR-15 is needed to defend individual rights.   A third argument often used in favor of the AR-15 in fact confirms that it is different from other guns.  This is that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to enable private citizens to protect themselves from government oppression, or perhaps to overthrow an oppressive state.  Individuals need to own weapons that are on par with those in the hands of the military and law enforcement.  

This purpose is seen as so compelling that it justifies whatever harm comes to society from having these weapons widely available.  It is the “price of freedom”, as Fox commentator Bill O’Reilly opined after hundreds of people were gunned down by AR-15s in Las Vegas in 2017.  

This argument is more honest and closer to the real reasons for AR-15 ownership than the others.  But it is also deeply misguided.  It distorts the Second Amendment, which aimed at strengthening state militias, not individual vigilantes.  It is wildly unrealistic in an era when the United States has a powerful permanent military armed with tanks, heavy artillery, fighter aircraft and cruise missiles.  

Most importantly, it ignores the risk that a heavily armed citizenry imbued with a belief in its own righteousness can just as easily be mobilized by demagogues and cranks as by genuine patriots.  The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was convened in part because of Shay’s Rebellion, an anti-tax uprising in Western Massachusetts that the weak central government of the time was unable to put down.  Americans concluded that a stronger government was needed to prevent similar threats.

In an American psyche whose DNA is often constructed around suspicion of central authority, small grievances easily morph into conspiracy theories.  In one back and forth in the New Mexican, one angry writer’s frustration with a state agency led quickly to charges of dictatorship, and a call to citizens to keep their guns and buy more.  Instead of relying on the peaceful processes of organizing and persuading and voting, the temptation is always there to short-circuit democracy and reach for your holster instead.

A picture worth a thousand words from January 6 shows insurrectionists waving a Confederate flag with an AR-15 in the middle and Trump signs in the foreground.  Nothing more needs to be said.

America’s Stockholm Syndrome: Why We Are No Longer a Serious Country

“The survival instinct is at the heart of the Stockholm syndrome. Victims live in enforced dependence and interpret rare or small acts of kindness in the midst of horrible conditions as good treatment. They often become hypervigilant to the needs and demands of their captors, making psychological links between the captors’ happiness and their own. Indeed, the syndrome is marked not only by a positive bond between captive and captor but also by a negative attitude on behalf of the captive toward authorities who threaten the captor-captive relationship.”  (Encyclopedia Britannica)

The US Congress has just rejected a bipartisan compromise that would have strengthened border security, and sent vital funding to Ukraine.  This is foolishness of such magnitude that I cannot find adequate words.  Frank Fukuyama says it straight:  “The United States has for some time ceased to be a serious country. Our extreme polarization combined with institutional rules that privilege minorities [my emphasis] makes it impossible for us to meet our international obligations.”

Of course the first sentence above is not quite right.  It is not the US Congress as such that is rejecting this deal, it is a partisan MAGA minority in thrall to Donald Trump.  

America has for a long time now been a victim of Stockholm Syndrome.  The majority is held hostage at every turn by a relentless, mobilized minority uninterested in policy, only in the power and notoriety that comes from saying ‘no’ and showing up the enemy.  

But there is method in the madness: these political terrorists calculate that not allowing government to function will anger people to the point that they welcome a strongman who promises to ‘get things done.’  Making the trains run on time is a classic authoritarian move.   Meanwhile the victims hang on the terrorists every word, imagining that the occasional sane remark shows they are coming around, and cowering when threatened with blows and abuse.

When Stockholm Syndrome strikes, we are torn between who to blame.  Of course the terrorists are at fault.  They make no secret of their evil intentions, in fact they revel in them and publicize them.  MAGA supporters say openly that they will not address the border or help Ukraine, only because they calculate it might help Joe Biden.  They count on Americans demanding action and turning to Trump to deliver.

But at some point the captives cannot escape responsibility.  They whisper to one another that, well, the terrorists have some good points, maybe we should see their side.  They argue about whether fighting back might make their captors even angrier.  They consider carefully what might happen if the roles were someday reversed; maybe their enemies would try to do the same to them.  And of course the crazy threats the terrorists make are just for show, they would never actually carry them out.  So Senator Marco Rubio can say “I have zero concern” when Trump says he would allow Russia to attack members of NATO. 

In short, they find reasons why being held prisoner is not so bad.  So even when they actually have the power, the filibuster rules in the Senate stay the same.  The Supreme Court goes unreformed, and Clarence Thomas is not forced to recuse himself despite his wife’s immersion in the MAGA agenda.  Like clockwork a few extremists weaponize the debt ceiling and shut down the government to gain headlines and concessions.  Every four years the ridiculous Electoral College is dusted off to embarrass us one more time.  The country subjects itself to another round of dangerous, polarizing single-party primaries.  Oceans of unconstrained billionaire money surge over the electorate. Then Americans go to the polls under rules that make most votes meaningless unless you happen to live in one of the handful of ‘swing states.’  

Stockholm syndrome is widespread among Democrats, but is even stronger among traditional Republicans.  These shell-shocked troglodytes paved the way for today’s hostile takeover by regularly blocking compromise, painting apocalyptic pictures of the enemy, and strengthening every rule that allows the minority to have its way. Now, surprised that these efforts have had their predictable effect, they are surrendering in droves.  With their electoral survival, and often their physical survival, threatened by the MAGA wave, they have fallen over themselves to invent reasons to give in. 

What needs to be understood is that when it comes to exercising power, the MAGA movement has nothing in common with conservatism.  Trump is not in favor of limited government, constrained by tradition and Constitutional checks and balances.  He and his followers make no secret of their plans, once in control, to ignore all those fuddy-duddy obstacles and aggressively use the state to trample on their enemies and consolidate power.  These plans include remaking the civil service, politicizing the Justice Department, and likely invoking the Insurrection Act to in effect declare martial law.  And we already know that election results mean nothing to Trump.  

No wonder Americans feel sour.  Once we took stock of our problems and did something about them.  We amended the Constitution to give women the vote and create an income tax.  We cut the robber barons down to size.  We gave rights to African-Americans.  We out-spent and out-maneuvered the USSR.  Now we can’t pass a budget and are on the brink of unilaterally surrendering to Putin.  Not because we lack money or military power or smart and capable citizens, but because responsible leaders have lost their way and are allowing the loudest and most unreasonable voices to prevail.

Americans need to shake off Stockholm Syndrome.  Continuing to let the minority block action plays into Trump’s hands.  Most Americans don’t buy what MAGA is selling, but the rules of the game have been rigged to hamstring the majority.  This has to change.  

A Short Discussion of Brothers Karamazov, plus Benjamin Franklin

“…we need first of all to resolve the everlasting questions, that is what concerns us.  All of young Russia is talking only now only about the eternal questions.”  (Ivan Karamazov)

“Western society is more pragmatic.  Russian people think more about the eternal, about moral values.”  (Vladimir Putin)

My essay is occasioned by a fine St John’s seminar which allowed me to re-read Brothers Karamazov for the first time in decades.  I have been a long-time watcher of Russia in its various modern guises and was grateful for the in-depth discussions.

This is quite a long book and has occasioned its share of equally long commentaries.  This will be short.

Dostoevsky shows us characters who live on the edge, emotionally and psychologically.  The ones he admires are those who suffer, who go through a dark night of the soul, and as a result are able to have  ecstatic experiences of love, God’s presence, and repentance.  The best of the three brothers, Alyosha, has his moment when his faith in his elder, Father Zosima, is shaken after his death by the smell of corruption; Alyosha sulks about, has a dramatic encounter with the town’s loose woman, and ends up face down on the earth overcome by God’s creation.  Zosima himself tells us of his turn to God when, during his military service, he accepts a duel but recoils at killing, throws away his pistol and becomes a monk.  

Dmitry, Alyosha’s often boorish and violent half-brother, turns to the light only after deciding to kill himself when his amour, Grushenka, appears to have left him forever but then unexpectedly accepts his love.  At the end of the novel, Alyosha creates a life-changing moment for a group of young boys who experience the death of a beloved schoolmate.  

A question is, what is the lasting effect of these moments of darkness followed by ecstasy and redemption?  Do they bring about a ‘new man’ who treats his fellows with kindness, who works for justice, who seeks to alleviate human suffering?  That is not clear.  Dmitry in particular continues to lose his temper and fight jealously with Grushenka, and vice versa.  

Dostoevsky’s foil throughout Brothers is modern, European, Enlightenment thinking and mores.  The advances of science and the dream of making the human condition better through planning and reforms and, God help us, socialism are roundly scorned and made fun of.  This way of thinking leads to atheism, the collapse of all morals (“everything is permitted”!), and alienation from our fellow man.

Wanting to better mankind in this way is a fatal temptation.  The famous tale of the “Grand Inquisitor,” where the Inquisitor faces down Christ himself in the name of making ordinary humans happy, shows that this is the work (literally) of the Devil, leading to spiritual death and brutal oppression.  

Dostoyevsky has a penetrating portrayal of Kolya, a promising boy who is at risk of being taken over by these ugly modern forces but is fortunately turned to the light by Alyosha.  Kolya is prone to trying to impress those around him by repeating half-digested bits of modernity, gleaned from journals, overheard conversations, and Rakitin, the town’s village atheist.  During one of these discourses he asserts “Everything is habit with people, everything, even state and political relations.  Habit is the chief motive force.”  This would seem to be a central tenet of our modern, Enlightenment view of human nature; we are bundles of habits, who can be changed for the better by inculcating new, better habits.

Whether Dostoyevsky means us to think of Aristotle or not, this statement brought me up short.  Aristotle famously told us in the Ethics that moral virtue is a matter of habits.  We acquire the moral virtues—courage, prudence, temperance, justice, magnanimity—because we have nurtured and practiced them until they have become a second nature.  The virtues are means between extremes, and a virtuous person would generally display a calm strength and predictability in behavior. 

This is not how Dostoyevsky seems to see a good life.  We need to be open to wild swings of mood and activity by remaining emotionally honest (like children, who Dostoyevsky sees as innocents who can be models to us as we grow up, retaining the memory of our younger selves).  No pain, no gain.  The sign of a good soul does not seem to be the equanimity that comes from well-established habits.  No one in Brothers is an example of such a life.  We are not in it for the long haul, but for the experiences of love and ecstasy that illuminate life like lightning flashes.  

Brothers might be said to have a ‘missing middle’.  There is penetrating attention to individual struggles and psychology, and also to the highest spiritual and religious experiences.  There is little said or portrayed that might be called ordinary life, including public life.  No one gets married and settles down and has a job and raises a family.  No one works hard in the town council to pave the streets and start a fire department.   The main characters are members of Russia’s newly emerging, educated, well-to-do, Western-oriented middle class.  But the Karamazovs at least remain the kind of Russians that Ivan describes to Alyosha when they settle in for a brotherly heart-to-heart:  “…we need first of all to resolve the everlasting questions, that is what concerns us.  All of young Russia is talking only now only about the eternal questions.”  And Alyosha agrees:  “Yes, for real Russians the questions of the existence of God and immortality, or, as you just said, the same questions from the other end, are of course first and foremost, and they should be.”  

It goes without saying that this Russian orientation to the ‘eternal questions’ is in contrast to the self-absorbed pragmatism of non-Russians, in the West.  Dostoyevsky is aware that this Russian trait is already by now something of a caricature, but he defends it nevertheless.  When Alyosha is bantering with young Kolya, he tells a German joke about Russians:  “Show a Russian schoolboy a map of the heavens, of which hitherto he had no idea at all, and the next day he will return it to you with corrections!”  To which Kolya retorts “Bravo, German!  However the Kraut didn’t look at the good side, what do you think?  Conceit—so be it, it comes from youth, it will correct itself…but on the other hand, an independent spirit, almost from childhood, a boldness of thought and conviction, and not the spirit of those sausage-makers groveling before the authorities…”  

Bold-thinking Russians who go straight to the eternal questions, who embrace suffering as the price for a meaningful life, these are Dostoyevsky’s heroes.  By now this image of the ‘real Russian’ has been deeply implanted, both in Russians and non-Russians—in no small part by Dostoyevsky himself.  However much Russians may see themselves outdone in the mundane world by the West, they see themselves as superior in their souls.  Dostoyevsky’s own prescient warnings about where too much ‘socialism’ might lead were on the mark for Russia itself, where Lenin and Stalin took Marx and melded him with Dostoyevskian excess to create a real-world version of the “Grand Inquisitor.”  Russian floundering and brutality have brought untold suffering down on their own heads, and the heads of those around them, but this is waved off as a necessary part of the national character.  

Today unfortunately Russia has again missed the chance to become a normal nation; again there is a ‘missing middle’.  Instead Putin and his minions have appropriated a distorted Dostoyevsky to teach a new generation that Russia has a special mission in the world, a spiritual mission that requires sacrifice,  submission, war, and the conquering of neighbors.  In his February 2024 interview with Tucker Carlson, Putin channels Dostoyevsky:  “Western society is more pragmatic,” he said. “Russian people think more about the eternal, about moral values.”

Shortly after reading Brothers I watched a recent Ken Burns documentary on Benjamin Franklin.  If Dostoyevsky provides a lasting model for Russia, so Franklin has done for America.  The differences, of course, could not be greater.  Franklin is among other things the greatest proponent among our Founders for the middle class, for the artisans, small businessmen, immigrant strivers, self-made thinkers and doers who the new nation is made for.  Self-discipline and concern for one’s community are Franklin’s touchstones for a good life.  Franklin creates institutions the way Johnny Appleseed plants trees:  libraries, postal services, schools, fire-departments spring up in his wake wherever he goes.  He was a relentless tinkerer, an improver, a reluctant Revolutionary.  Not for him the Eternal Questions.

American success has come from this focus on the middle.  Creating and nurturing this segment of society has been the true American achievement and our true radicalism.   We have gone astray when we tilt towards the greatly rich, the greatly charismatic, the greatly ambitious, the greatly religious.

Dostoyevskian characters are not missing in America, far from it, but their suffering and spiritual striving has for the most part remained private.  They have been kept far away from the levers of power.  May it remain so.  

The New-Old Right and the Mainstreaming of Bronze Age Pervert

Experience suggests that if men cannot struggle on behalf of a just cause because that just cause was victorious in an earlier generation, then they will struggle against the just cause.  They will struggle for the sake of struggle.  They will struggle, in other words, out of a certain boredom, for they cannot imagine living in a world without struggle.  And if a greater part of the world in which they live is characterized by peaceful and prosperous liberal democracy, then they will struggle against that peace and prosperity, and against democracy.  Frank Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them every where brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society… So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions, and excite their most violent conflicts.  James Madison, Federalist 10

So many right-wing crazies, so little time.  This must be why I had not heard of “Bronze Age Pervert” until recently, courtesy of an Atlantic article by Graeme Wood, “How Bronze Age Pervert Charmed the Far Right.”  Bronze Age Pervert, or BAP, is a slightly mysterious Yale-educated political science Ph.D who masquerades online as an unhinged, foul-mouthed purveyor of racism and misogyny, coupled with a love of bodybuilding and ancient Greece.  Yet he seems to have attracted a large and loyal following among young right-wingers.  Unraveling his attraction for today’s new-Right was the thread I tried to follow, leading through the labyrinth of modern right-wing thought.

Old and New Rights

In the United States, to be ‘on the right’ until recently meant that you were a firm supporter of a capitalist, free-enterprise system; limited government with low taxes and regulation; strong protections for individual rights with respect to property, speech, guns, etc.; and a believer in the rule of law.  You were almost always a proud defender of the Constitution, the military and law enforcement, America’s leading role in the world, and the American business community. You endorsed a level playing field because you believed that liberty allowed natural differences in talent, drive, and intelligence to manifest themselves and rise to the top.    

Today however almost none of this is true.  

What we call the right today in America still has some of its classic features.  But that is not where the grassroots energy is, not where the MAGA movement is, not where the intellectual fervor is.  Increasingly it is found in support of formerly fringe positions:  not limited government, but strong government empowered to enforce minority views on religion and morals; not the Constitution but the will of a demagogue; not universal individual rights but the rights of particular voices and groups; not a leader of the ‘free world’ but a selfish defender of national interests; not the military or law enforcement (see Senator Tommy Tuberville’s willingness to block military promotions); not even private businesses who insist on their right to hire and fire and appeal to customers as they see fit (see Governor De Santis’s fight with Disney). 

Donald Trump, and not only him, makes no secret of his admiration for authoritarian tough guys like Putin, Xi, Erdogan and their ilk.  This is largely because politics for Trump has nothing to do with policy, it is entirely about winning and losing—are you for me or against me.  It is struggle for its own sake.  

One way to sum up these changes is to say that the American Right now looks more like the old European Right.  In Europe, the Right, since the terms Right and Left came into general political use with the French Revolution, has stood for hierarchy and the rule of the strong and privileged.  It advocated for the close cooperation of church, state and business.  It promoted a blood and soil nationalism based on affinities of language, race, and faith, and against dangerous mixing with inferior races and peoples.  It fought virulently against advances for women, equal rights for gays, and other challenges to ‘traditional morality.’  It culminated in fascist regimes that glorified violence, struggle and war as ends in themselves.

That version of the Right seemed, after World War II, to be extinguished, never to rise again from the ashes of utter defeat and ignominy.  But it has returned, in almost every European state.  In Russia, Hungary, Poland, and now Italy it has taken power.  In other states it is growing, including here at home.

Hungary in particular has become the model for America’s new right-wingers, who are envious of Victor Orban.  It is nominally democratic but has been rigged by Orban to be a democracy in name only:    The courts, the press, the universities, the legislature are all cowed or bought off.  Xenophobia over a hyped immigration threat, and faux-indignation at having to abide by European human rights standards, help fuel Orban’s continued popularity. Freedom House now considers Hungary to be a ‘partial’ or ‘semi-consolidated’ democracy.

CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference, an epicenter of today’s Right, in 2022 and 2023 held its annual conference in Budapest.  One of its leading lights, Rod Dreher, has said “Right now, the political leader of the conservative resistance in the West is the prime minister of a small central European [country] that most Americans never even think about.”   

Many of Orban’s most committed supporters are Catholic ‘integralist’ thinkers who want the state to explicitly privilege their faith, as is the case in Hungary.  The integralists reject liberal pluralism as dangerous to conservative practice (on abortion, LGBTQ rights, etc.) and contrary to Catholic doctrine, and want to seize control of the state to impose the truth.   Kevin Vallier, author of a recent book critiquing integralism, characterizes it this way:  “’We’re going to take the institutions established by liberalism and socialism and we’re going to turn them to our own ends.’ This is the great danger of the American integralists because they’re bringing the ideas of Viktor Orbán into the Republican Party. They’re one of the ones who are most responsible for it.”

Integralists are not the only ones who dream of capturing state institutions for their own purposes.  Trump has promised that if re-elected he will purge the government bureaucracy and change civil service rules to allow him to put his followers into every federal position.  Trump seeks not the standard conservative goal of less government, but the new-right goal of my government.

In the 1930s during the Great Depression small groups of Americans looked to foreign dictatorships on Right and Left—Mussolini’s Italy, Stalin’s USSR—as models for a troubled United States.  But there is no precedent for the leader of a major American political party, millions of his followers, and its intellectual spokesmen, to openly prefer explicitly illiberal, foreign, political systems.  

A number of different strands make up today’s right. (I have not found a satisfactory term to characterize today’s right-wing movements and thinkers:  New Right is an old term, ‘alt-right’ refers more narrowly to white nationalists.  The one term that does not fit is ‘conservative’—there is nothing conservative about today’s right, which is both radical and reactionary).  But they increasingly overlap.   

We have people of great wealth who, like the Trumps and Musks, cannot resist the temptation to meddle in politics and public affairs.  They are convinced that they got rich because they are superior beings, and that this superiority is transferable to other domains.  Many are openly hostile to democracy and see no reason for their inferiors to have an equal say in politics:  billionaire tech-entrepreneur and Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, for instance, wants to limit voting to those who can pass a civics test.  Today many of the most brazen of these Gilded Age throwbacks live in Silicon Valley and are prey to anti-establishment conspiracy theories: as Paul Krugman wrote recently,  “Arguably, the craziest faction in U.S. politics right now isn’t red-hatted blue-collar guys in diners, it’s technology billionaires living in huge mansions and flying around on private jets.”  

We have conservative nationalists like Steve Bannon, part of the Orban admiration society.  These are people who agree with Putin and Xi and Modi that the world is characterized by a ‘clash of civilizations’; we are divided into distinct religio-cultural spheres, each of which should be allowed to develop its own distinctive way of life.  Liberalism is despised because of its claims to universalism and attempts to criticize and reform non-liberal regimes.  Our sphere (the best of all) is Christian, white, and European.  We should proudly uphold it and keep out people and ideas from all those ‘shithole countries’.  

We have disaffected young men who rightly feel put upon by globalized capitalism, which has ravaged America’s industries and turned the once-proud working class into the precariat.  Their place in the world is unclear, and it is easy to blame feminism and affirmative action for their problems. They yearn for some greater cause to provide meaning and belonging, and often find it in right-wing organizations and leaders like Trump, who tell them liberalism is the arch-enemy, a world-view that looks down on people like them.  Embracing racism, anti-semitism, and misogyny and prepping for violence is exciting and fills the void that has opened up in their lives and communities. 

And we have a small but influential group of intellectuals and ‘thought-leaders’ who find liberalism unsatisfying and yearn for alternatives, sometimes in a resurgence of traditional religion, sometimes in  an anti- or post-liberal political order.  These are people who want a great cause to support, who want a world painted in clear black and white, with enemies to defeat and battles to wage.  Some see themselves as defenders of ‘true’ American values, but many are fascinated with theocracy and fascism.  

The Common Thread:  Hatred of Equality

What do these different strands have in common? The fundamental divide today, as for the last three centuries, is between those who accept and defend the fundamental equality of human beings, and those who do not.  The United States has until now been the nation that most clearly falls in the first camp, at least in its creed and publicly accepted principles.  The (many) deviations from this creed have come to be understood as mistakes that need to be acknowledged and overcome.  But as liberalism has moved more forcefully to identify and rectify these mistakes—racism and sexism, the destruction of indigenous peoples, the piling up of massive fortunes—it has produced a fierce backlash.  This backlash has now morphed from a defense of ‘classic’ American values, to a growing embrace of values that cannot by any stretch be called American. 

The dividing lines between these groups are increasingly blurred as what they have in common, their hatred of modern liberalism and egalitarianism, pulls them together.  This is aided by a powerful network of right-wing think tanks, institutes, and media outlets built up over decades and funded by wealthy patrons and businesses.  These wealthy interests want above all to reverse the modern liberal project, understood as empowering government to use some of the wealth generated by the private sector to provide welfare and opportunities for the poor and disadvantaged.  Even small steps to reduce inequality and check the power of the rich are characterized as socialism or communism.  

(While wealthy liberals tend to fund foundations that do ‘good works’ and create detailed policy proposals, conservatives tend to fund politically-oriented organizations that aim directly at influencing elected officials.  In Washington, the moderately-liberal Brookings Institution is a storehouse of broad-ranging policy expertise; its conservative counterpart, the Heritage Foundation, creates talking points for the House Freedom Caucus.)    

Claremont’s Turn to BAPism

One notable part of this right-wing network has been the Claremont Institute.  Claremont began as a vigorous defender of the Constitution, understood as embodying natural rights, that is, rights ascertainable by reason and hence true for all time.  Its teachings reached influential conservatives, notably Justice Clarence Thomas, a convert to the natural rights doctrine.  In this vein Claremont has long opposed critiques from the left that question America’s principles, as well as most forms of affirmative action.  It grounded itself in the ideas of Leo Strauss and his followers and often published interesting political and cultural analysis.  

But Claremont’s mainstreaming of “Bronze Age Pervert (BAP)” reveals how this supposedly patriotic and intellectually sophisticated effort has lost its way.  BAP has gained a cult following among some of today’s reactionary youth, reportedly including young staffers in the Trump White House.  His writings, including a 2018 book, Bronze Age Mindset, are a melange of (often crude) meanderings that glorify eugenics, manliness, classical Greece, bodybuilding, and violence, while tearing into feminism, Christianity, the bureaucratic state, democracy, non-white peoples, etc. 

In short, BAP is a Nietzschean.  The essential Nietzschean assertion is that human equality is a myth, foisted on modern man by Christianity, abetted by Greek philosophy.  This myth is destructive of all human excellence, a soul-sucking mistake that produces a world of joyless “Last Men.”  Just as BAP is romantically attached to Bronze Age Greece, the time of the Iliad, when men were men who kidnapped women and then fought to the death over them, Nietzsche admired ancient Rome for its unabashed love of violence, conquest, and the right of the strong to do what they will, while the weak suffer what they must.  BAP vilifies his contemporaries as ‘bugmen’ and dreams, vividly, of their violent demise.

Now there have always been American adolescents sitting palely in libraries, enamored of Nietzsche and his modern epigones, like the capitalism-worshipping Ayn Rand.  Via Rand, Nietzsche has had considerable influence in promoting a hard-edged libertarianism.  But his ideas have otherwise had little broader support in the United States.  Until now.

In 2019 Claremont published a review of BAP’s book by Michael Anton (the author of a hysterical Claremont piece in 2016, “The Flight 93 Election,” explaining why voting for Donald Trump was the equivalent of the hijacked passengers on Flight 93 fighting back against their al-Qaida hijackers.  Anton leveraged his article into a position on the Trump National Security Council.)  Anton acknowledged BAP’s outrageous views but basically defended him, saying BAP “speaks directly to a youthful dissatisfaction (especially among white males) with equality as propagandized and imposed in our day: a hectoring, vindictive, resentful, leveling, hypocritical equality that punishes excellence…”.

Anton implies—more than implies—that BAP’s exhortation to his followers to infiltrate the military and security institutions and await instructions is an understandable move; it is certainly consistent with the message of “Flight 93.” It is also consistent with Claremont Board President and main donor Thomas Klingenstein’s claim that America is in the midst of a ‘cold civil war’ and that America is a de facto ‘totalitarian regime’ under the thumb of liberals and ‘woke communists.’  Anton purports to be concerned that young right-wingers are being drawn to BAP rather than Claremont’s Americanism, but this is gaslighting.  Like many half-baked Straussians, Anton inserts numerous winks and nods to show that his surface reasonableness is just a facade, and what is really needed is an all-out war to overthrow liberal dominance.

Anton’s and Klingenstein’s dislike of liberalism is so great that anything is preferable, whether Trump, or an unhinged fascist like BAP.  This mirrors the overall corruption of Claremont, as outlined in detail in Katherine Stewart’s September New Republic article, “The Anti-Democracy Think Tank.”  

In Graeme Wood’s  “How Bronze Age Pervert Charmed the Far Right,” he tells us that according to the political philosopher Bryan Garsten, BAPism is increasingly the choice of many of his top graduate students:  “Garsten said his best students were choosing between the protofascism of Nietzsche and a neomedieval, quasi-theocratic version of Catholicism opposed to enlightenment liberalism.”  

The key point is that to these young thinkers, liberalism is no longer seen as a viable choice.  It is felt to be exhausted, done in by a wearisome and gridlocked politics, pointless overseas adventures, and the triumph of special interests.  Contemporary ‘wokism,’ which tries to shame infractions against progressive orthodoxy, is intolerable, on a par with the Gulag and concentration camps.  Reform is not possible.  The whole thing needs to be blown up.

This is perhaps the essence of the fascist mentality.  A violent cleansing is needed, via war or revolution, to clear away the dreck of the existing order and create the intense national, spiritual, and racial unity that gives meaning to life.  Various alien and subhuman enemies—the ‘bugmen’—must be identified and done away with.  Accomplishing this requires a Leader before whom one can kneel.  

Liberalism and its Discontents

This is not the first moment in modern times in which dissatisfaction with liberal democracy, and life under advanced capitalism, has been used to justify violence or tyranny.  It in fact appears to be a regular and inevitable accompaniment to life in a liberal democracy.  It has often been pointed out that liberalism is thin gruel, prioritizing as it does compromise, toleration, negotiation, and peaceful conflict resolution.  Liberalism teaches that no one has a monopoly on truth and we must live with ambiguity.  Those who yearn for moral intensity, great deeds, the triumph of good over evil, find this deeply unsatisfying.  

In Europe the period at the end of the 19th century and up to WWI was a time of such dissatisfaction.  Europe had largely been at peace for 100 years.  The bourgeoisie—smug, narrow-minded, and materialistic—were triumphant.  The great critics of the bourgeoisie, Nietzsche and Marx, disagreed on everything except their disgust at complacent modern European man. 

Partly as a result, a generation welcomed war as a catharsis, a romantic escape from boredom and pettiness.  What they got, however, was a catastrophe that (for a time) discredited all such romantic notions.  While all existing regimes were damaged by the Great War, the biggest losers were the most reactionary and un-democratic.  Great oppressive Empires collapsed:  Russia, Austria-Hungary, the Ottomans.  America rose. 

The interwar period saw another surge in anti-liberal sentiments.  Liberal democracy in the 1930s seemed to be on the ropes.  The Depression caused many to question whether it was up to the task of creating prosperity and national unity.  Fascism, communism, and militarism seemed to be the wave of the future, offering meaning and purpose.  

Once again, however, the supposedly decadent and divided democracies rose to the challenge.  In WWII they reduced the cities of Germany and Japan to smoking ruins, then occupied them and, in a final twist of the knife, transformed them into liberal democracies.  Then in a burst of creativity they birthed  modern welfare states, built powerful militaries, and held on doggedly to outlast communism too.

After the collapse of the USSR it seemed that the last word had been written on the seeming flabbiness of liberal democracy and the superiority of various forms of authoritarianism.  In the contest to see which regime could best mobilize and harness the energies of its people to produce prosperity and national power, the democracies with their combination of individual freedoms, competitive politics, and private enterprise had clearly triumphed.  

But apparently not forever.  As we have seen before, liberal success contains seeds of discontent.  For guidance we can look to the ur-text of modern liberal triumphalism.  Frank Fukuyama became famous in the early 1990s for describing the “end of history,” where major conflicts would cease, drowned in a wave of success as democracy and capitalism joined hands and the world’s great powers converged in agreement on the path to prosperity and stability.  Major conflicts between and within states would diminish as all people gained ‘recognition’, the equal rights as citizens that would satisfy them and do away with the primary cause of war and rebellion.

The Perennial Right-Wing Challenge

But the millions who read and praised (and and have since largely turned on) Fukuyama’s thesis, failed to read his text to the end.  Remember, the title of the book was:  The End of History and the Last Man [emphasis mine].  The Last Man was Nietzsche’s sarcastic term for the bourgeois, pleasure-loving, pain-avoiding human being spreading rapidly over modern Europe.  

Fukuyama saw, at the moment of its apparent victory, that the combination of liberal democracy, capitalism, and scientific/technological progress could still be challenged.  From the Left it was vulnerable to ever-increasing demands for equality.  These would bump up against natural human differences—we are not equal in looks, in talents, in basketball-enabling height, in emotional stability, in mathematical intuition, and all manner of other characteristics.  The most important of these differences, as Madison understood, relate to the acquisition of wealth or ‘property’:  “From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results: And from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.”

Ameliorating the resulting inequalities via the modern welfare state is one thing. But eradicating them requires a monstrous tyranny, as we saw in the Soviet Union.  Short of tyranny, constantly harping on every instance of inequality quickly arouses irritation and anger and becomes counter-productive.  Fukuyama correctly foresaw the dangers from the always-woke, finger-pointing, micro-aggression-cataloguing vigilantism that is damaging life on college campuses, and beyond.  

But Fukuyama also correctly foresaw that the greater danger would come from the Right.  “Liberal democracy could, in the long run, be subverted either by an excess of megalothymia, or by an excess of isothymia—that is, the fanatical desire for equal recognition.  It is my intuition that it is the former that will constitute the greater danger to democracy in the end.”   (Last Man, p. 314).  Megalothymia is the desire to be better than others, to gain not equal but greater recognition—status, fame, glory, wealth, power.  It is impossible and undesirable to eliminate this desire, which exists to some degree in everyone, and to a very large degree in some.  Wanting to excel and be recognized for excellence is the great motor of progress and innovation. 

However, any stable society, and especially a liberal one, must check megalothymia.  Modern liberal democracies can divert this drive towards productive or harmless activities, like business or science or sports or Tik-Tok influencer, or even democratic politics, properly constrained.  But if they are to survive they must put limits on certain kinds of ambition, in politics or military affairs, and must insist on equality in ways certain to rankle those who want more than equality.

Especially important are limits on the acquisition of wealth and how wealth can be used politically—limits that America today has failed to enforce.  As we see every day, the Trumps and Musks and Klingensteins cannot resist the temptation to meddle in politics and public affairs.  Above all they want to consolidate their positions by shaping public policy to protect and grow their riches, thereby entrenching inequality.  (Hence actions like the recent $1.5 billion bequest to Federalist Society leader Leonard Leo—the largest ‘charitable’ transfer in US history—from an Islamophobic, climate-denying Chicago businessman who was able to engineer a $400 million tax break from his blatantly political donation.)    

Once these ‘malefactors of great wealth’ (to quote Theodore Roosevelt) have unleashed their resources to defend their interests, the cat is very much out of the bag.  The money spreads into unforeseen nooks and corners, activating more and more extreme views, drawing in equality-hating ideologues,  conspiracy-theorists, opportunists, and madmen.

It is difficult to put limits on the ambitions of people in the grip of the Nietzschean, BAP mindset.  They are motivated largely by resentment at what they see as the failure of society to give them the rewards and recognition that their moral or intellectual or racial superiority deserves.  No one who feels the clouds have parted after reading Thus Spake Zarathustra, or Atlas Shrugged, or listening to a Steve Bannon podcast, ever feels that they are not one of the elect (this is the real meaning of the right-wing meme ‘to be red-pilled’).  If they haven’t gotten their due, it can’t be their fault—someone else must be to blame. Today a young white man with limited education (or with an advanced degree but no job; see historian Peter Turchin’s increasingly fashionable theory of elite overproduction), will quickly find all manner of tempters—talk radio, FOX News, the Claremont Institute—eager to persuade him that his problems are all due to feminism, anti-racism, immigrants and progressive ideology.  

This resentment rarely issues in any productive or serious policy proposals. The energy, the focus, is entirely negative.

To some extent we must tolerate youthful exuberance and try to tame it for better ends.  But liberalism became intellectually complacent after the Cold War.  It is now on the defensive.  It doesn’t matter that what makes the modern right apocalyptic is, in the scheme of things, trivial and overblown.  We aren’t at each other’s throats in America over real issues like slavery or Vietnam, but over same-sex restrooms and elementary-school textbooks.  But this reveals the actual challenge, which is not policy differences but the drive for respect and recognition, for a life of meaning and challenge—or for raw power. 

Liberals are frustrated when Americans vote ‘against their self-interest,’ meaning against all manner of benefits they could get from good liberal policies.  But they underestimate how much people see their life in terms of values and identity.  Backing Trump is exciting, it makes your enemies furious, it gives you a reason to get up in the morning.  You feel seen.  If you are an intellectual you see opportunity to be one of the shapers of a new order after MAGA victory sweeps away the flabby elites in academia and government.  (Hint to intellectuals: No, you won’t.  You’ll end up in the gulag.)

Whether liberalism can get its mojo back is one of the key questions of our time.  Joe Biden has done excellent things in terms of policy:  inflation is down, job growth is strong, support for Ukraine has been solid and effective, long-term investment in manufacturing and sustainable energy is through the roof.  But his popularity remains low.  Enthusiasm is lacking, and not just because he is old.  Donations to progressive groups have fallen sharply.  Perhaps this will change as the reality of good times sinks in.  But man does not live by bread alone.  

The best case is that the brazenness of the attack on liberal values will rouse its defenders.  Openly embracing racism, violence, Christian nationalism, and obeisance to the superior man, is astonishing.  The task of defending liberal democracy and the Constitution in the face of January 6 and the Trump takeover of the Republican Party should bring excitement and unity back to American liberals who have become mired in minutiae and infighting.

Abroad, foreign leaders like Putin and Xi are openly contemptuous of liberalism and democracy and expect to ride a wave of tyranny that ousts the US and its allies from global leadership.  They claim their versions of efficient one-man rule are superior to liberal democracy’s messy collective decisionmaking.  

We have seen this movie; Hitler and Stalin made identical claims.  Supporters of democracy have rallied before and can do so again.  Already Putin and Xi have committed the predictable error of authoritarian over-reach, Putin in Ukraine, Xi in fighting Covid.  But it seems every generation has to learn these lessons anew.                               

The Labyrinth of Ovid’s Metamorphoses:  Rome and America

Imagine that, after the Civil War, an American poet had written a great work purporting to embrace the history of the world—not a history exactly but a compilation of the myths and stories that have shaped the American soul—culminating with the triumphant Presidency of the great General Grant, who has ushered in a period of peace and prosperity after decades of strife and war.  Then suppose that in reading the poem, you discovered that most of it was a recounting of the legends about King Arthur and his knights, with a few stanzas dealing perhaps with Richard the Lionhearted or Robin Hood.  Then some chapters about the American founding, focused on the Mayflower, a long digression about Isaac Newton, a bit of concluding praise for Lincoln and Grant, and voila.

If this sounds a bit odd, then you can share my disorientation after spending several weeks with the Latin poet Ovid’s (Publius Ovidius Naso) masterpiece, the Metamorphoses.  This involved reading the whole work (which is very long, over 600 pages in the Penguin translation by David Raeburn[1]) then re-reading it in stages for a week-long seminar at St John’s College, where students and tutors (none of us experts on Ovid) met every day for 5 days and discussed the text. 

Ovid flourished, and wrote Metamorphoses, during the reign of Caesar Augustus.  Rome was recovering from a century of civil strife and Augustus was creating what would become an imperial system of one-man rule, while pretending to preserve Rome’s republican institutions.  Ovid had achieved fame with earlier poems, in particular the Ars Amatoria, a sequence of lyric poems about love and more particularly about seduction, including rather detailed instructions for seducing married women (he also discussed how women might seduce men, a sign of his flexibility with regard to Roman norms).  You can get a taste of his approach from these lines in Ars Amatoria Book I:

But hunt for them, especially, at the tiered theatre:

that place is the most fruitful for your needs.

There you’ll find one to love, or one you can play with,

one to be with just once, or one you might wish to keep.[2]

Just as he was finishing his poem, Ovid was exiled in AD 8 by Augustus to a remote village on the Black Sea in what is today Romania; he spent the last 10 years of his life there.  Despite desperate pleas for clemency, neither Augustus or his successor Tiberius allowed Ovid to return to Rome.  Scholars are not sure exactly why Augustus had it in for Ovid, with some speculating he was involved in anti-Augustan plotting and others arguing that Augustus disliked Ovid’s morality, or lack of it, especially with regard to sex.  (A fine modern novel about Ovid’s exile is An Imaginary Life, by David Malouf, which I highly recommend.  We’ll come back to it later).  

Metamorphoses is written in epic verse, like Homer and Virgil, signaling a different and presumably loftier intent. But it is unlike these other epics; it lacks a central hero or a recognizable story. Instead, Ovid tells us he intends to explore a particular theme, metamorphosis or transformation.  

The stories in Metamorphoses are loosely (very loosely) linked by this theme of ‘change’ or transformation.  ‘Transformation’ is not a metaphor or some internal psychological realignment, it is literal transforming, with people turning regularly into trees or birds or streams.  This happens commonly in the myths that compose much of Metamorphoses.  Typically a god, maybe Jupiter or Apollo, lusts after a pretty nymph or human girl, seduces and rapes her, then he (or some other deity) turns her into an oak tree or a seagull or a lion—sometimes as a kind of redemption, sometimes as punishment.  There are poignant descriptions of people losing their ability to speak and move as the transformation occurs, while remaining human on the inside.  These transformations are at first surprising but, repeated in hundreds of short vignettes, also repetitive.   

The stories of Metamorphoses (a Greek, not a Latin word) are almost entirely, for the first 80-90 percent of the book, Greek stories.  Ovid has sources lost to us but for the most part they are familiar from Homer, Hesiod, the Greek playwrights and other writings.  The settings are Greek, the cities where they occur are Greek, the gods and kings and queens and heroes are familiar Greeks though sometimes with Latin names:  Jupiter and Hera, Apollo and Bacchus, Jason, Theseus, Hercules, Perseus, Medea, etc.  Ovid to be sure puts his own spin on them, carefully describing some particularly outlandish changes, drawing out aspects of character, occasionally dwelling on the internal struggle a character faces when trying to decide what to do.  But the stories are part of the tradition, not invented by Ovid.

It is difficult to convey the often bewildering experience of reading Metamorphoses, especially for a modern reader not steeped in these old tales.  Many of the stories are short, while some go on for 10-15 pages; sometimes different stories are linked together by their narrator (Orpheus has a long string of tales), or nested confusingly (a primary story, then a character digresses with another story, which reminds someone of yet another, and so on).  Ovid is a master of many moods and styles. He can be lyrical, terse, playful, earthy, or grand; he can imitate the goriest battle scenes of the Iliad; he can appear pious or irreverent.

There is a sometimes delightful, sometimes annoying stream of consciousness as you read, enjoying the variety but then asking yourself ‘what is the point here; why am I reading about Venus seducing Adonis one minute, and the flaying of Marsyas the next?’  The book is a kind of labryinth in which it is almost impossible not to get lost.

Two Key Themes: Sex and Honor

However, some themes do reoccur.  One of them is sex.  We are not for the most part talking about love here: when a guy—often a god (sometimes a goddess)—sees a girl he is often inflamed with desire which can’t be resisted, pursues/seduces/rapes her, then for the most part takes off while the lady lives with the consequences:  maybe a baby, maybe disgrace, maybe revenge from the guys wife (Hera is a particularly nasty revenge-seeker) or an outraged parent.  In any case, for the most part eros causes people/gods to damage one another, with the excuse being that they couldn’t help themselves.  

Ovid’s landscape is littered with the offspring of these liaisons, to the point that most characters have some deity or other as a parent or grandparent or uncle.  There is a quite literal intermingling of human and divine.

Another theme is lack of respect—the gods are endlessly upset when humans don’t acknowledge them properly or forget to offer sacrifices or trespass on their domains.  This leads to horrible payback, like when Actaeon accidentally spies Diana bathing and the outraged goddess turns him into a stag who is torn apart by his own dogs.  Ovid blithely notes afterwards that “Comments varied: some felt the goddess had overdone her violent revenge; while others commended it—worthy they said of her strict virginity.”  [3]But outside judgment seems beside the point.  Gods are gonna do what gods are gonna do.    

The transformations that Ovid delights in are often enjoyable for their own sake, but also can be seen as attempts to repair or restore cracks in the order of things.  When terrible rapes or violent vengeance occurs, the perpetrators are not usually punished—there is no moral reckoning—but there is recognition that the fabric of the world has been torn and should somehow be set right.  When the gods change victims into trees or flowers or birds or springs, some kind of harmony has been restored.

Jupiter in particular is both a constant source of disorder, and the one who keeps the world within certain bounds.  It’s Jupiter who has to take down Phaeton with a thunderbolt when he carries the sun too close to the world and threatens to burn it to ashes, and who periodically drowns mankind, like a basket of unwanted kittens, when we get overly nasty and disrespectful—taking care however to preserve a select few to carry on the race.

Poetic Troublemakers

Within this dizzying merry-go-round, Ovid draws our attention to a few characters who stand out for their independence and creative powers; people who rival the gods and who we can arguably identify with Ovid himself.  One is the woman-weaver Arachne, who claims to be the equal of Minerva and is challenged by the goddess to prove it.  People who challenge the gods do not generally come out well in Ovid, and Arachne is no exception, but she claims our respect.  Unlike most of Ovid’s protagonists, Arachne is not high-born:  “Arachne’s distinction lay not in her birth or the place that she hailed from, but solely her art.”[4]  She doesn’t back down when Minerva warns her, and her work is fully the equal of the goddess’s: “Not Pallas, not even the goddess of Envy could criticize weaving like that.”[5]   But while Minerva weaves pictures showing the gods and goddesses at their most majestic and benevolent, Arachne details all the crimes against women of Jupiter, Neptune, Apollo and the rest, all the rapes and deceptions and abandonments.  

Typically, the goddess when thwarted decides to overturn the board:  “The fair-haired warrior goddess resented Arachne’s success and ripped up the picture portraying the god’s misdemeanours.”[6]  Then she turns Arachne into a spider. But Arachne/Ovid is the real winner.  The tapestry is destroyed but Ovid preserves for us the image of this strong young woman using her artistic talent to tell truth to power.   Ovid—who himself came from a well-off but not particularly prominent family—is in the midst of raining down on us thousands of carefully-crafted words showing in detail the lusts, jealousies, and multiple shortcomings of the gods.  It doesn’t take a great deal of extrapolation to see the gods as stand-ins for the rich and powerful of Rome (and elsewhere), who do as they please and punish anyone who takes exception.  

Another independent craftsman is Daedalus, the famous inventor responsible for the Labryinth that imprisons the Minotaur; the wings that allow him to escape from Crete; and other marvels.  When Daedalus begins to work on his wings, Ovid says he “put his mind to techniques unexplored before and altered the laws of nature.”[7]  He has no help from the gods.  Of course his marvelous work proves fatal to his son, Icarus, who flies too high.  Challenging established ways is risky and possibly impious; the observers of the flying Daedalus and Icarus say “They certainly must be gods to fly through the air!”[8]  Ovid is perhaps another Daedalus, using his fabulous technique to create a new kind of epic poetry but with the risk of coming too close to the sun, endangering those he loves and affronting the powerful.

A third heroic artist is Orpheus, the extraordinary musician who famously travels to the underworld to retrieve his dead wife, Eurydice, succeeds in charming even grim Pluto with his song, then loses Eurydice again when he looks around on their way back to the upper world. Orpheus’s power extends to nature as much as the gods; he is described as able to charm even the rocks and trees and animals to come to him when he plays.  

After losing Eurydice, Ovid says that Orpheus would “have nothing to do with the love of women” and instead turns to young boys: “Orpheus even started the practice among the Thracian tribes of turning for love to immature males.”[9]  Ovid’s Orpheus becomes in fact a celebrator of strange and unnatural loves; after praising Jupiter, he says “Now there is call for a lighter note.  Let my song be of boys whom the gods have loved and of girls who have been inspired to a frenzy of lawless passion and paid the price for their lustful desires.”[10]  This is followed by a series of stories, told by Orpheus, that include Jupiter’s infatuation with the beautiful boy Ganymede; Apollo’s similar love for the young Hyacinthus; the origin of prostitution; Pygmalion’s twisted desire for his own statue; a long and detailed account of the young girl Myrrha who pursues her own father; and the doomed love of Venus for Adonis.   

Orpheus ends up being torn to pieces by wild Thracian ‘bacchanals’, who resent his disdain for women.  Orpheus’s music deflects their attacks for a while, but finally Ovid says “cacophony won.  The hideous screech of the Phrygian pipe…the clapping of hands and the bacchanals shrieking drowned the sound of the lyre…”.[11]  All of nature mourns his passing, the birds and beasts, rocks and rivers and trees.

Although the ‘bacchanals’ seem to act along typical Bacchic lines, Ovid tells us that the god Bacchus takes revenge on them because Orpheus has been a ‘priest of his mysteries’.  Bacchus is prominent throughout the Metamorphoses—he is a ‘new god,’ a celebrator of disorder and female empowerment, who has to win his place against the opposition of the Olympians.  Ovid likewise loves to tell stories about the breakdown of good order, with a number of them highlighting strong women who succeed in enacting vengeance or getting their man:  Medea the powerful witch who revenges herself on Jason; Arachne; Salmacis the abnormal nymph (“The only naiad not to belong to the train of Diana”) who desires, attacks, and is joined permanently with young Hermaphroditus; Procne, wife of the evil Tereus, who plots successfully to have him torn apart in Bacchic ritual after he brutally rapes her sister and cuts out her tongue.   

Ovid as a great poet I think identifies with Orpheus, and with Bacchus, who reverses the rules and turns the world topsy-turvy.  Augustus is busy building a conservative movement to “Make Rome Great Again,” restoring religious practices, building temples, and, controversially, trying to clamp down on adultery.  He makes an example of his own daughter Julia, who he sends into exile for playing around.   These efforts to restore ‘traditional’ morality are controversial.  The Roman historian Suetonius writes in The Twelve Caesars that the new laws Augustus introduced “dealt, among other matters, with extravagance, adultery, unchastity, bribery, and the encouragement of marriage in the Senatorial and Equestrian orders.  His marriage law being more rigorously framed than the others, he found himself unable to make it effective because of an open revolt against several of its clauses.”[12]

The Ovid who in earlier works described at length how to commit adultery, and in Metamorphoses is often preoccupied with sexual misconduct and out-of-control desires, is not likely to have found Augustus’s reforms congenial.  At the end of the poem, after comparing Augustus explicitly to Jupiter, Ovid throws down his own challenge to the gods: “Now I have finished my work, which nothing can ever destroy—not Jupiter’s wrath, nor fire or sword, nor devouring time…My name shall never be forgotten.”[13]

Bringing Greece and Rome Together

Those are some themes I think one can make out in the often bewildering labryinth of Metamorphoses.  But what about the work as a whole?  Can one stand back and make out an overarching theme or story?

Here is where the question of Metamorphoses’s “Greekness” is worth pursuing.  We take it for granted that the Greek and Roman worlds are one, that Zeus equals Jupiter, that Rome is the natural extension and follow-on to Greece.  When Ovid calls on the gods at the beginning to “spin me a thread from the world’s beginning down to my own lifetime,” and at once launches on an account of creation borrowed from Homer and Hesiod, it takes an effort to ask whether this is just how it has to be, or whether the interweaving of these two cultures is something problematic.  

Ovid like many generations of educated Romans before him was steeped in Greek poetry and philosophy.  He studied in Athens for a year.  Rome had interacted with Greek colonies in southern Italy for centuries, conquered Greece in the 2nd century BC, and then gone on by Ovid’s time to rule all of the Eastern Mediterranean, a world that had previously been conquered and Hellenized by Alexander the Great.  The Greek language, Greek literature and philosophy, and Greek institutions were the norm from Egypt (where Alexander was buried, in the great Greek city of Alexandria) through the Levant and Asia Minor.  This had a profound effect on many Romans, who were putting together an Empire on the back of an invincible military, but had little to offer of what we today call ‘soft power.’ They were awed by Greek accomplishments and quickly adopted them for themselves.    

Many, but not all.  Plenty of Romans thought of the Greeks as effete chatterboxes, and sources of decadence and decline.  Tough, virtuous Romans are sent off to rule Egypt and Syria and Macedon, and end up like Marc Antony; corrupted by the riches and temptations of the East, they lose themselves and forget their duty to Rome.  (There are parallels here to the way Thucydides tells us Spartans, similar to Romans in their single-minded focus on martial virtues, are prone to fall prey to greed when they leave Sparta to rule other parts of Greece during the Peloponnesian Wars).

Cato the Elder in the early 2nd century is strongly opposed to growing Greek influence, as is the later Augustan-era historian Livy.  Livy is particularly critical of the cult of Bacchus, which he describes as a Greek import, for encouraging the unregulated mixing of sexes and classes.  (The Roman analogue to Bacchus is Liber Pater, identified with freedom and the rights of the plebeian class, according to modern scholars[14]; Ovid often refers to Bacchus as Liber).   Livy, a conservative who sees Rome as threatened by moral decline, was close to Augustus.  He is suspicious of all so-called ‘mystery religions,’ such as the worship of Bacchus, and describes approvingly how in the early 2nd century the authorities violently suppressed the growing Bacchus cult.  Rome’s expansion has allowed all manner of foreign customs and gods to infiltrate Rome itself, weakening the state.  

In this back and forth one can say that ultimately, Greece wins.  Under Constantine the Empire is divided, with the center of gravity moving to the new Eastern Capital at Byzantium.  Its language is Greek, not Latin.  The Empire in the West eventually collapses and Rome itself falls to barbarians, but the Greek, Christian version of Rome in the East carries on for another thousand years.  (Whether the Greek East, in the form of another new cult, Christianity, was the cause of Rome’s downfall has been debated for 2000 years).  

This is far in the future for Ovid.  What he sees in his time is a challenge to this more sophisticated, more open-minded Greek-Roman future.  Augustus is trying to restore the old Roman morality, arguably to make his radical usurpation of power look like a return to tradition.  Ovid’s poem asserts the oneness of the two cultures.  In this he follows Virgil, who in the Aeneid ties Rome’s founding directly to the fall of Troy.  Rome’s story comes straight out of the Iliad.  It doesn’t get any more Greek than that.

Ovid’s view of what is at stake may perhaps be hinted at towards the end of Metamorphoses, where he describes at length the views of the Greek philosopher Pythagoras.  Pythagoras comes to Croton, a Greek colony in southern Italy, fleeing from political oppression on his home island of Samos.  Ovid’s Pythagoras, (who seems to be a composite of Greek thinkers rather than the real Pythagoras) teaches that all things are permanently changing and in flux, always metamorphosing, coming and going—including great kings and cities.  Recognizing and embracing this is the key to wisdom.  

Ovid tells us that at one point Numa, one of Rome’s first kings who takes the throne after Romulus, travels to Croton to meet Pythagoras.  Ovid singles out Numa as “a capable thinker…His restless, ambitious mind led him on to explore the mysteries of nature itself.”[15] After being taught by Pythagoras, Numa returns to Rome, where he “converted a nation practiced in brutal war to follow the arts of peace.”[16] Ovid may be suggesting that Augustus, who promises Romans peace after over a century of civil war, should also learn from the Greeks; he should embrace a changing world rather than resist it.  Here is Ovid’s own point of view, from Part III of Ars Amatoria:

Others may delight in ancient times: I congratulate myself

on having been born just now: this age suits my nature.

Not because stubborn gold’s mined now from the earth,

or choice shells come to us from farthest shores…

but because civilisation’s here, and no crudity remains,

in our age, that survives from our ancient ancestors.[17]

Whatever Ovid’s intent, Augustus does not appreciate it.  Just as Ovid was finishing Metamorphoses, Augustus banishes him.  

Ovid In Exile

David Malouf’s 1978 novel, An Imaginary Life, invents a trajectory for Ovid in his exile.[18]  It is told as though written by Ovid himself (though Malouf acknowledges his story is based on almost no evidence).  After an initial period of extreme disorientation, Ovid comes to terms with his fate; he learns the local language, and starts to appreciate the beauty of the bleak landscape.  He plants a garden of flowers, something that surprises and confuses the locals, who do nothing that is not entirely practical:  “My little flowerpots are as subversive here as my poems were in Rome.” 

He has an epiphany about the meaning of metamorphosis:  “I have stopped trying to find fault with creation and have learned to accept it.  We have some power in us that knows its own ends…This is the true meaning of transformation.  This is the real metamorphosis.  Our further selves are contained within us, as the leaves and blossoms are in the tree…”   

Malouf’s Ovid becomes fascinated with a local ‘wild child’, a young boy who roams the woods with the wolves and is eventually caught.  Ovid takes it on himself to teach him to speak.  The boy for his part shows Ovid what it means to genuinely transform into another being:  “In imitating the birds…He is being the bird. He is allowing it to speak out of him. So that in learning the sounds made by men he is making himself a man.”  Through speech, especially perhaps poetic speech, we enable ourselves to become another person, perhaps the person we imagine ourselves to be.  Exercising this power, which is a kind of love, cracks us open, softens us.  Ovid dies happily in communion with the natural world.  

America and Rome

I started by imagining an American version of Ovid.  The Romans cultivated an image as a practical and pious people.  Many Americans too think of themselves as especially pragmatic and God-fearing; a people who should beware an ‘Old World’ seen as a den of corruption and godlessness.  But others have thought our character needed deepening and widening via engagement with the arts and traditions of Europe and the West. Waves of American poets and thinkers made pilgrimages abroad in the late 19th and 20th centuries, exiling themselves from what they saw as American narrow-mindedness.  Many are among the first rank of American writers: Henry James, Ezra Pound, TS Eliot, Ernest Hemingway, James Baldwin.  It would be hard to imagine today’s America without them. 

In 2017 the City Council of Rome officially revoked Ovid’s banishment.[19]


[1] Ovid, Metamorphoses, transl. David Raeburn, Penguin Books, 2004.

[2] https://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Latin/ArtofLoveBkI.php#anchor_Toc521049262, Art of Love, transl. A.S. Kline, 2001

[3] Metamorphoses, Book III, lines 253-255.

[4] Metamorphoses, Book VI, lines 7-8.

[5] Metamorphoses, Book VI, lines 128-129.

[6] Metamorphoses, Book VI, lines 130-132.  

[7] Metamorphoses, Book VIII, lines 186-187.

[8] Metamorphoses, Book VIII, lines 218-219.

[9] Metamorphoses, Book X, lines 79-85.

[10] Metamorphoses, Book X, lines 152-155.

[11] Metamorphoses, Book XI, lines 15-17.

[12] Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars, trans. Robert Graves, pp. 73-74.

[13] Metamorphoses, Book XV, lines 871-876.

[14] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liber

[15] Metamorphoses, Book XV, lines 3-6.

[16] Metamorphoses, Book XV, lines 483-484.  

[17] https://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Latin/ArtofLoveBkIII.php, The Art of Love, transl. A.S. Kline, 2001

[18] David Malouf, An Imaginary Life, Vintage Books, 1978.  

[19] The Guardian, “Ovid’s Exile to the Remotest Margins of the Roman Empire Revoked,” Dec. 16 2017  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/16/ovids-exile-to-the-remotest-margins-of-the-roman-empire-revoked