Moral Community and Civil War

Substack latest. 

An exchange with Malcolm Pollack.

Comments

[EG]

Bill,

Can I reduce your position on relevant political action and activism in part to a firm belief in the incommensurability of distinct sets of values that form beliefs about Reality. That despite the rhetoric the more simple point is we see things differently and simple tolerance and civility are impotent here?

[a.morphous]

As for fascism: You don't think that a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs labeling Trump a fascist counts for something? https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trumps-former-joint-chiefs-chair-trump-fascist-core-rcna175248 I mean, this is not some campus leftist handing out leaflets.

I know you won't post this, but perhaps you will read it. Sorry, I have a fascination with apparently intelligent people who see the world differently.

[Joe Odegaard]

A former joint chief making a political statement has thrown away all honor, and, as a dishonorable person, is not to be trusted, ever again.

The old standards are there for a reason.

You can live in hell if you want to. I won't go there.

[a.morphous]

Former military people are allowed to make political statements and even run for office. Do you think Eisenhower was dishonorable for entering politics?

[BV]

EG,

Thanks for your question.

Civility is a high conservative value. But civility is only for the civil; it is not for those who represent an existential threat.

An existential threat need not take the form of a threat to one's physical existence; a threat to one's way of life is an existential threat. This is because human life is not merely physical or biological; it is also cultural and spiritual. It is our conservative culture that values civility; a progressive threat to our culture of civility, being uncivil, demands an uncivil response.

Civility is like tolerance/toleration. Toleration is a high value, a classically liberal value, but it has limits: one cannot tolerate the intolerant, for example.

You understand, of course, that to tolerate something is not to approve of it or to promote it. It is to allow it, put up with it.

For example, we must not tolerate the polices that Kamala Harris has supported and will support -- despite her endless evasions and prevarications about what these policies are as we saw in the Bret Baier interview. The most destructive of them is her open borders policy. It is intolerable because it spells the end of the Republic. Now I think you are intelligent enough to see why that is the case. If not, I will explain it to you.

The Left poses an existential threat to the Republic. This is why we are at war with them. Talk of finding common ground is blather, bullshit, empty verbiage of the sort one expects from Kamala the mendacious airhead.

[Joe Odegaard]

a.morphous:

Entering as a candidate in the 1950s is different from carping from the sidelines now, with inflammatory language.

Your general is embarking on the slippery slope which ends with Roman Legions installing one emperor after another.

"Fascist?" I know history and you don't. Your post proves your ignorance.

[BV]

EG,

Carl Schmitt maintained that the Freund-Feind, friend-foe, distinction is the essence of the political.

I don't go that far. My position is that, at the present time, in the USA, we are locked in a existential battle with our political enemies, the cadre Dems. So it is Us versus Them, here and now as a contingent matter of fact.

We differ with our politcal enemies on values and on facts. For example, truth is not leftist value for the Left. For us it is. For the Left, math is racist, which is worse than false: it doesn't even make sense.

And so on down the line.

[EG]

Hi Bill,

Appreciate the simple clarification. It remains regrettable that we cannot have this sort of civil congress with our human brethren on the other side, so then we show them respect—reflecting our own character—by taking them seriously.

That said, I agree there will inevitably be a fight (and, arguably it’s already been on-going and getting hotter .) I think I’m prepared to stand my ground, hopefully not fatally, but Real Life is the ever present proving ground of whatever you believe.

[Malcolm Pollack]

Bill, you wrote:

Carl Schmitt maintained that the Freund-Feind, friend-foe, distinction is the essence of the political.

I don't go that far. My position is that, at the present time, in the USA, we are locked in a existential battle with our political enemies, the cadre Dems. So it is Us versus Them, here and now as a contingent matter of fact.

I understand Schmitt's position to be that the essence of the political is that it always holds the potential for becoming actual friend-enemy combat. It is not not that it will come to that at all times, but rather that it is the essence of the political to create sides that will fight and die if, by contingency, they must.

That we soon may find ourselves fighting with "our political enemies, the cadre Dems" is, I think, perfectly consistent with Schmitt's analysis.

[BV]

Malcolm,

You may well be right about that. Do you have some references for me? Or better yet, a quotation (with a reference)? The difference is between:

A) Necessarily, in every political arrangement there is the potential for existential conflict, friend-enemy combat, a potential that may or may not become actual

and

B) Necessarily, in every political arrangement there will be existential conflict, friend-enemy combat.

(A) is much more plausible than (B), and more charitable an interpretation of Schmitt. On the other hand, it is a much weaker claim, bordering as it does on the obvious.

That we soon may find ourselves fighting with our political enemies, not just verbally and politically (in the usual sense of the term) but also extra-politically (which includes such horrors as regular assasinations, sabotage, concentration camps, etc.) is consistent with both (A) and (B).

A wise man hopes, prays and works for the best outcome (peace) but prepares for the worst. In your case, getting out of NYC was a wise move. You and your family are much safer where you are now.

It is worth repeating: Si vis pacem, para bellum.

[BV]

Joe and Formless,

You boys don't know how to conduct a discussion. Is Trump a fascist? The logically prior question is: What is a fascist? First define 'fascism.' Then show that the definition is adequate. Only then will you be in a position to decide whether Trump is a fascist.

Otherwise you are no better than the foolish old ladies of The View (Joy Behar, et al.) who use 'fascist' as a mere term of abuse.

To paraphrase myself, 'fascist' is the Left's favorite F-bomb.

[Malcolm Pollack]

Bill, I've replied over at my place.