By Jonah Goldberg
Friday, September 08, 2017
In Ancient Rome, a haruspex — a type of priest — would
carefully study the entrails of sacrificial animals in order to divine the
intent of the gods, the course of events, or even who might win the big game
this weekend between the Gladiators and the Lions.
The haruspices were very smart people. They used their
intelligence to explain how the enlarged liver of a pigeon meant that the wheat
harvest would be good or how the length of a chicken’s colon proved that
Caesar’s gout would clear up. Haruspices are not to be confused with augurs, who
made similar determinations based upon the flight formation of birds and the
sounds they made. Those guys were idiots! That’s not science!
Actually, I kid — the augurs were very smart too. By
taking the auspices of birds, they could explain whether Rome should go to war
with the Peoples’ Front of Judea or the Judean Peoples’ Front. The Roman
historian Livy noted, “Who does not know that this city was founded only after
taking the auspices, that everything in war and in peace, at home and abroad,
was done only after taking the auspices?”
But here’s the thing. These men — and they were all men,
damn the patriarchy — were extremely smart, but their intelligence was
reflected entirely in their explanations.
The entrails had no magical properties. A rooster spleen will not tell you
whether you should destroy Carthage, never mind whether you will survive the
attempt. The V-formation of geese has no bearing whatsoever on whether you
should or will stab Caesar. The genius of it all lay in the sales job. No doubt
some — many! — haruspices and augurs believed what they were saying (even if
they were willing to be compensated for taking a second look at a dove’s bowels
in the event some rich senator was looking for a different ruling). I’m sure
many palm readers believe what they say, too.
Connecting Random
Dots
Why do I bring all of this up? Because I am coming around
to the position that the vast bulk of punditry in defense of Donald Trump is
little different from hepatoscopy, chiromancy, tasseography, and other “sciences”
that imbue essentially random phenomena with deep and prophetic significance
(this is not to say that orbistry, the practice of explaining everything weird
in this crazy world, is not 100 percent correct). Let’s just look at the past
week.
On the campaign trail, Trump vowed to “immediately
terminate” the DACA program if elected. In June, he flipped and said it would
stay in place. Going into this week, the White House signaled that it would get
rid of the program. On Tuesday, Trump’s attorney general came out and declared
that the program was unconstitutional. And, in a move I praised, Trump said
that he would give the task of dealing with the issue to Congress. But, after
watching negative TV coverage and bristling at Barack Obama’s criticism, Trump
flopped. In a tweet, Trump suggested he wants Congress to legalize the program,
not get rid of it. And if Congress failed, he might have to “revisit” the
issue, implying that Trump might use the same unconstitutional measures Obama
used:
Congress now has 6 months to
legalize DACA (something the Obama Administration was unable to do). If they
can’t, I will revisit this issue!
— Donald J. Trump
(@realDonaldTrump) September 6, 2017
Now, in fairness to Trump, he’s always been torn on the
issue, and rightly so. Deporting the “Dreamers” is a terrible idea. But the
position of most immigration hawks has always been that we should trade some
form of amnesty in exchange for serious border-security measures and/or
implementation of E-verify or similar steps.
So, let’s consider instead the other big news this week.
President Trump threw Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and the House Freedom Caucus under the bus to cut a deal with
“Chuck and Nancy” on a short-term extension of the debt ceiling. Wait, scratch
that. He didn’t “cut a deal” with the Democrats, he simply took their first
offer in exchange for . . . nothing. He took a “deal” to get Harvey relief
passed despite the fact that Harvey relief would have passed anyway. This was
not The Art of the Deal. It was — to borrow a phrase from Seth Mandel — The Art
of the Kneel.
Trump kicked the can to December, when his leverage will
be weaker, apparently in a glandular act of spite against McConnell and Ryan.
John Boehner was hounded out of office by tea-party types for even considering
cutting far better debt-ceiling deals with Barack Obama.
In both of these cases, the response from legions of
Trumpers was rapturous approval of his genius and/or his willingness to punish
McConnell and Ryan. Here’s Lou Dobbs:
Death of a Rino- @realDonaldTrump’s
debt ceiling deal w/ the Dems renders Do-nothing Paul Ryan completely obsolete.
#Dobbs #MAGA #TrumpTrain pic.twitter.com/dA7s4Ilxzb
— Lou Dobbs (@LouDobbs) September
6, 2017
See if you can follow the logic. Paul Ryan, a lifelong
Republican and the most conservative speaker of the House in living memory,
took the fiscal hawks’ position, going back to the Ted Cruz government-shutdown
circus of 2013. Donald Trump, until recently a life-long Democrat and New York
liberal, embraced the opening offer from the leaders of the Democratic party,
Chuck and Nancy. And Dobbs’s instantaneous conclusion? Paul Ryan, who
over-performed Donald Trump in the 2016 election by 12 points, is the “RINO.”
Does anyone doubt that if the policy positions were rearranged and Ryan had
insisted on a short-term deal, Dobbs would be castigating that position?
I won’t clutter this “news”letter up with all of the
claims that Trump’s handling of DACA and the debt-ceiling were brilliant
masterstrokes.
Matt Walsh captures the spirit nicely:
Trump: let’s end DACA
Trump apologists: Yes! Brilliant!
Trump: actually I want congress to
make it law
Trump apologists: Yes! Brilliant!
— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog)
September 6, 2017
But here’s the thing: So much of the “analytical”
punditry about Donald Trump’s genius isn’t analysis at all. It’s a form of
haruspicy. The priests of the Trump cult look at Trump’s kneejerk,
in-the-moment, utterly instinctual, and unthinking outbursts and spasmodic
actions like the death rattle of a vivisected chicken and imbue them with
meaning that simply isn’t there. They connect cherry-picked dots to create an
image of sagacity, sometimes brilliantly, but the dots are just dots.
To this day, no one can explain to me how Trump is
playing so far above everyone else — nth
level chess! — and yet has the worst poll numbers in history and can’t get
anything done. The thought that he’s in way over his head is just too terrible
to contemplate, and so we get all of these ornate — and sometimes quite clever
— explanations about how Trump has outfoxed everyone yet again.
But the man is not some political chess master — he’s a
tic-tac-toe chicken pecking at whatever morsel of provocation his sphincterless
id lights upon. If not every day, then certainly every week, Trump tweets
something that causes his sane supporters to suffer from scrotal constriction
and makes his life tougher and his agenda more difficult.
And yet the response from the augurs and haruspices is to
write the rest of the story. They are like Chauncey Gardiner’s enablers,
refusing to concede what is so obvious: Trump doesn’t know what he’s doing.
Again, I don’t mean to suggest that this augury is all
dumb or even without merit. I think Ben Domenech’s take on Trump’s pivot
includes many good points, but it is based to some extent on at least two
erroneous assumptions: 1) that there’s a plan, a scheme, or a strategy behind
his moves, beyond his extemporaneous impulse to screw people who annoy him, or simply
to get attention, and 2) that even if there were a long-term plan, scheme, or
strategy behind Trump’s actions, he could actually stick to it long enough to
see it come to fruition. Ben may be right that Trump will now work with
Democrats more. It would be consistent with his record and character — but if
he does, it will be because he was manipulated into doing so. Tic-tac-toe
chickens often win the game. But that’s because the machine’s owner knows where
to put the pellets, not because the chicken knows what he’s doing.
Maddow’s Nonsense
The other night, I happened to catch Rachel Maddow’s
opening monologue. You can watch the whole
thing here.
As longtime readers know, I am a charter member in the
International Order of Woodrow Wilson Haters. So when Maddow began her show
talking about Wilson, I took the bait.
I don’t have the room or energy to cover the whole thing,
but the monologue was a horrendous display of intellectual dishonesty. I say
“dishonesty” because Maddow is actually quite bright and she, I think, chooses
her words fairly deliberately, at least when she pre-produces or writes things.
She begins by noting that Wilson was reelected in 1916 on
a promise to keep us out of the war in Europe (no one called it “World War I”
then, a fact Hollywood sometimes forgets). She notes that going into the 1918
midterms, Wilson was very unpopular for the “war and other stuff.” (“Other
stuff” being a useful rhetorical carpet to sweep myriad outrages under.)
Wilson’s party, the Democratic party, got “shellacked.” And because of that the
Republican party took control of Congress, enabling Albert Johnson to take over
the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization. Maddow correctly notes
that Johnson was a Republican and a eugenicist and a staunch racist opponent of
immigration.
But she’s very keen on repeatedly pointing out these
partisan affiliations, leaving the impression that the evil tide of eugenics
was held at bay by the Democratic party until, tragically, the Republicans got
into power.
She then says:
Soon after he took over, the House
of Representatives Committee on Immigration and Naturalization hired themselves
an expert eugenics agent. Albert Johnson, the chairman, in addition to serving
in Congress, he had become the president of the Eugenics Research Association
of America, and once he was chairman of that committee, he brought on one of
the officers from the Eugenics Research Association of America, this guy Harry
Laughlin, to become an expert eugenics agent to the Immigration Committee in
Congress. And together these two eugenicists got to work.
In 1922, Harry Laughlin created
this chart [pictured] — ooh, look! Science! It’s a chart! You can see diagonal
there that’s the watermark of Truman State University, they’ve preserved this
document online as part of their history of eugenics project. But this is a
chart that Harry Laughlin created when he was the expert eugenics consultant
for that congressional committee. What this chart purports to show is the
“relative social inadequacy” of various immigrant races in the United States.
What counts as social inadequacy? Well, according to the chart, that includes
“feeblemindedness, insanity, crime, epilepsy, tuberculosis, blindness,
deafness, deformity, and dependency.” And then the chart ranks your likelihood
of being any of those things, or having any of those things, based on your
national origin.
Maddow’s ultimate goal is to make Jeff Sessions the
modern incarnation of Albert Johnson. I think that’s stupid, but I also think
it’s uninteresting. My core objection is how she frames this historical
backdrop, though I should say that I wouldn’t be so worked up if she didn’t
seem so smug about her cleverness in making this patently misleading argument.
I should also note that I have no problem criticizing
Johnson or Laughlin or the 1924 Immigration Act — co-sponsored by Johnson and
Senator David Reed.
Let’s start there. While Maddow is eager to point out
that Johnson was a Republican and implies that he did these terrible things
only because Republicans tragically gained power, she leaves out that the
Immigration Act passed by massive veto-proof majorities in both houses (308 to
62 in the House; 69 to 9 in the Senate). Maddow also makes it sound like
anti-immigration sentiment was driven entirely by eugenic racism, when it was a
good deal more complicated than that.
One of the complicating factors was the lingering role of
the First Red Scare, fueled in large part by the Wilson administration (the
Palmer Raids, recall, were led by Wilson’s attorney general). It was Woodrow
Wilson who ripped into “hyphenated-Americans”: “Any man who carries a hyphen
about with him carries a dagger that he is ready to plunge into the vitals of
this Republic whenever he gets ready.”
Another complicating factor, which Maddow completely
leaves out, is that Woodrow Wilson was a committed racist — the most racist
president of the 20th century — who shared many of Johnson’s views. Indeed,
Wilson was almost surely more racist than Johnson, believing that it was a
shame the South lost the Civil War. He supported Jim Crow and re-segregated the
federal government, viciously purging black workers from the civil service.
He also helped advance the eugenic agenda. As governor of
New Jersey, Wilson signed legislation authorizing the forcible sterilization of
“the hopelessly defective and criminal classes.” He believed that blacks and
Asian immigrants couldn’t be made into Americans and that they shouldn’t be
permitted to vote. In his History of the
American People, Wilson wrote that good, white men could not be expected to
“live upon a handful of rice for a pittance” and compete with the Chinese, “who
with their yellow skin and strange debasing habits of life seemed to them
hardly fellow men at all but evil spirits, rather.”
More broadly, eugenics was central to the entire
progressive project. Countless policies that Maddow endorses — the minimum wage
chief among them — were promulgated by the leading progressives of the day as a
way to encourage the growth of the fit and superior races at the expense of the
unfit ones.
Yes, yes, Harry Laughlin was eugenicist and a
“consultant” to Albert Johnson. La-di-frickin’-da. Read Thomas Leonard’s Illiberal Reformers, and you’ll find
lists of famous progressive economists and intellectuals who were mentors,
advisers, and consultants to Wilson who were soaked-to-the-bone racists and
eugenicists. Indeed, Laughlin was a widely admired public intellectual among
progressives and a political ally of no less than Margaret Sanger, the founder
of Planned Parenthood. Sanger (who was opposed to abortion, by the way) sold
her birth-control agenda in explicitly eugenic terms. When some eugenicists
expressed skepticism about birth control being an essential priority, she
reassured them:
Eugenicists may remember that not
many years ago this program for race regeneration was subjected to the cruel
ridicule of stupidity and ignorance. Today Eugenics is suggested by the most
diverse minds as the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial,
political and social problems. The most intransigent and daring teachers and
scientists have lent their support to this great biological interpretation of
the human race. The war has emphasized its necessity. The doctrine of Birth
Control is now passing through the stage of ridicule, prejudice and
misunderstanding. A few years ago this new weapon of civilization and freedom
was condemned as immoral, destructive, obscene. Gradually the criticisms are
lessening –understanding is taking the place of misunderstanding. The eugenic
and civilization value of Birth Control is becoming apparent to the enlightened
and the intelligent.
But maybe I’m missing something about the crucial
relevance of hiring Laughlin as a consultant. What, then, to make of Dr. Edwin
Katzen-Ellenbogen? He was a member of the Eugenics Research Association, too
(the ERA, by the way, was a subsidiary of the Carnegie Institution). When
Woodrow Wilson was elected governor of New Jersey, Katzen-Ellenbogen was hired
as the chief eugenicist of his administration. Wilson asked him to draft the
forced-sterilization law, which created Wilson’s Board of Examiners of
Feebleminded, Epileptics, and Other Defectives. Katzen-Ellenbogen ended up
working at Buchenwald where he killed thousands.
No comments:
Post a Comment