Terror and Liberalism

Rating:
Summary: The latest pathological cult of death
Review: Terror and Liberalism starts off by discussing what I have always believed was an obvious truth but have never heard another author talk about. That being that the left and right edges of the political spectrum are not endpoints on a line but in fact the link of a full circle. Fascism and Communism meet at totalitarianism. Paul Berman maps out a template for totalitarian dictators like Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Franco. To this list he adds Saddam Hussain and his Baathist Socialist Party which combines ideas from both ends of the political spectrum including admiration for both the Soviet Union and Hitler. Berman mentions that there was a time within the 20th century when 30 percent of the people in Baghdad were Jewish. Hitler's anti-Semitism has had an obvious influence. The Islamist movement is a similar co joining of the extreme left and right meeting at totalitarianism.

One writer that Berman spends a lot of time talking about is Sayyid Qutb, an Islamist philosopher who was put to death in Egypt back in 1966. Qutb wrote about the erosion of Islam due to the influence of Western secularization. His desire was to see a pure Islamic state created with the reinstatement of shariah laws. He hated the Jewish Zionists and Christian Crusaders and his basic goals seemed to mirror the goals of Bin Laden and Khomeini as if perhaps they were influenced by his writings. Qutb saw the pure Islamic state as a liberal utopia which seems, to a western mind, incompatible with his desire for seventh century justice including public stonings, severed limbs and a totalitarian law that applies to all public and private behavior. These Islamists have sunk into a pathological state creating a `cult of death' where philosophers and leaders revel in killing for the sake of killing. They see blood as purification. The bombshell is that these kind of nihilistic views are nothing new. They are no more violent that the writings in France during the Terror or Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia or the British occupiers of Africa where blacks were killed for seemingly no purpose besides performing the act. Berman argues that this cult of death is very much influenced by western philosophy and the results of WW I and II.

The author spends some time showing his admiration for the Bush administrations desire to improve the lives of women in Afghanistan as well as spreading Democracy to the Middle East. I was a worried that Berman was being naïve but he redeems himself completely in the last chapter. Bush's talk of spreading freedom and democracy and women's rights is a very liberal stance so why are liberals not cheering? As Berman points out the problem is that this is diametrically opposite of Bush's past views. He was never concerned about women's rights and went on record stating that he was against nation building. He even implied that if given the choice he would have stayed out of the Balkans. So how does a man unmoved by genocide suddenly decide to spread liberalism to the Middle East particularly since he so enjoys denigrating liberals? This cuts to the heart of the matter. Bush is a realist masquerading as an idealist although I question whether his reality matches the reality of our planet. The Daily Show did a segment on Bush's 2004 acceptance speech and counted the incredibly high number of times Bush used the words freedom and liberty. Believing in freedom, democracy and liberty are all well and good but if you continue to support repressive regimes it shows you are working in bad faith. You can't support Saudi Arabia, a monarchy and one of the worst offenders of human rights in the world, and claim to be spreading freedom and democracy. Bush recognizes Pakistan as a Democracy despite the fact that General Pervez Musharraf took over in a military coup and has never had a legitimate election. Working with allies based on strategic interest is fine but it cuts against Bush's idealistic moral rhetoric. He's working in bad faith which may work with American's who suck up his glittering future but not so well with foreigners who recognize the hypocrisy of his words.

Ultimately the problem of terrorism needs to be addressed on both sides of the political spectrum. Liberals need to recognize that even with putting the violence aside for a moment the Islamist movement remains a racist, sexist, and bigoted movement with desires to create a theocratic totalitarian society. It is the opposite of liberal social ideals. Half a century ago many liberals made the mistake of defending Communism. The Islamist movement is undeserving of any liberal sympathy. The right needs to stop promoting unilateralism, preemptive strikes and excursions into fantastic nation building as in Iraq and start working in good faith.


Rating:
Summary: Making sense of madness
Review: Terror and Liberalism

It seems like most every generation of progressives undergoes a brutal test of faith. The Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of 1939 was too much for many; Khrushchev's 1956 speech denouncing Stalin and his invasion of Hungary the same year were the last straw for others. For the present crop, 9/11 is in the process of separating the lockstep lefties from the genuine friends of humanity. Which way will Paul Berman, the author of _Terror and Liberalism_, break?

It is refreshing to hear an unequivocal condemnation of both Islamist terrorism and progressive anti-semitism from a non-silly Leftist. The first time I ever encountered the writings of Paul Berman was in the late Eighties, during his jousts in _The New Republic_ with David Horowitz and Peter Collier, over the latter duo's book _Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About the Sixties_. Now here comes this book, which hardly seems like the work of the same thinker. I haven't been paying too much attention to him in the past decade, so I probably missed a lot of changes in these eventful times.

The tone of the book verges on the sonorous in passages, as if he were half-consciously minding the cadeneces of his sentences. There are some errors of fact-it was Army Rangers and not Marines who were attacked in Mogadishu, and Arab terrorists have never excluded Israeli civilians from their range of targets--which are not serious barriers to following his points.

Unlike some other recent writers who have attempted to answer the question, "Why do they hate us?", Berman looks not to clashing civilizations, or to Islam's commands to wage perpetual holy war, but to a single Egyptian scholar, Sayyid Qutb. After taking a tour through the 19th century anarchists, the 20th century totalitarian systems, and Albert Camus' parsing of those movements, Berman trace's Qutb's influence in the pan-arabist movement, and thence in the modern Islamic terrorist organizations. (The tyrant-hero of Berman's generation of Sixties radicals, Fidel Castro, does not figure here, nor does the mercifully truncated Sandinista regime. Irrelevant to his thesis, or too close to home?)

The main body of the book is devoted to asserting that the modern jihad is a mass pathology, as were those previous movements. Rational onlookers can rarely believe the madness unfolding before their eyes, and so proceed to make excuses for the madmen. This is why progressive voices ululated ever louder against Israel the more grievously Israel suffered from suicide bombings. There are several fine passages in these sections illustrating this phenomenon, and are the book's main value, to me.

He rolls a gutter ball in the final part, calling for a revival of the post-WWII "Third Way" of the European non-Communist Left, and how it headed off deeper Communist inroads into Western European nations. Yeah, the "Third Way", together with umpty-bajillion dollars from the American Marshal Plan, and a half-century of costly military commitment from the United States (which was borne in spite of all the insults, free-loading and ingratitude from the allies from time to time), did just that. "As we go ploughing along" as the fly said to the ox...

He also gives in to Bush-bashing at the end. And the mock-moral aura of internationalism finally proves too much to resist, too. But when the allies would rather cozy up to Saddam, and transnational progressives are fist-pumping over the massacre of Israeli civilians, just how big a sin is Bush's cultural tone-deafness? If moral dryrot has eaten out the heart of Europe, it's hardly Dubya's fault for not further abasing ourselves, trying to get into their good graces. Especially after what we've suffered! Let them examine themselves. Let *them* grow spines!

But this non sequitur ending to this informative book need not stop anyone from profiting from Berman's readings and insights. It's obvious that, unlike so many other progressive cheerleaders for terrorism, he is in full possession of a living soul, and that 9/11 was no 1939 for him.

Rating:
Summary: Religious Absolutism
Review: The whole theory behind this book is flawed. I think what Berman is talking about is one small part of a whole phenomenon that has manifested itself increasingly in the last few years, namely the phenomenon of religious Absolutism(i.e. Religious Fundamentalism). It exists increasingly in all major religions, i.e. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Jewish religions. Actually the so called war against terrorism is basically a war between manifestations of that absolutism in the U.S., The Arab/Muslim world, and Israel. The major problem, that we are facing is that Islamic religious absolutism, is a great recruitment for christian, jewish, and Hindu religious absolutism, and vice versa. Good and evil, Black and White, us and them, believers and non believers, chosen and non chosen people, are the common language used to express religious absolutism. If liberals and religious pragmatists cannot change this vocabulary, than we are in for some crazy times in this world.

Rating:
Summary: Logic, Emotionalism and Totalitarianism
Review: This book is a rather strange, but quick read, that is much like a rice cake, plain, not much substance and unfortunately not satisfying.

Mr. Berman tries to be a good leftist throughout most of the book, he makes broad sweeping statements that most everything that the left has done is good, and most everything the right has done is bad. Mr Berman has a 'through the looking glass' perspective of programs. If it works it was obviously a liberal idea and if it fails it was a conservative idea. For example he rallies along the false notion that Hitler was a right wing conservative, yeah right. Lets see, he was the leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party (NAZI) and all one has to do is read Hitler's speeches to find out that he was a totalitarian socialist.

The substance of the book though is the inescapable fact that there can be no peace with an ideological entity that believes you are evil and they have an edict to kill you. What is shocking to this reader is the naiveté that those on the left, especially the author posses. He shows just how immersed he is in his circles of left-ism that he and many others like him have left reality. Mr. Berman was shocked that 9/11 would happen, as a matter of fact he has the temerity to say that nobody imagined such an event. This viewpoint only shows the ignorance of the intelligentsia of the left, for there were many books, articles, and the plethora of attacks on the Unites States that preceded this act proved the threat that radical Islam posed for the world. Of course, the radical appeasement minded left pooh-poohed this notion and implied that this was the conservative ramblings of the war-mongering right.

In the end Mr. Bearman gets it partially right, radical totalitarian Islam and the standard chamberlain-esque approach of appeasement does not work. Therefore at least this liberal writer has figured out that Islam with its goal of conquering the world is a dangerous construct. The two problems that Mr. Bearman never addresses are just how to convince others on the left that this form of totalitarianism is bad while their brand is good. And appeasement has never and will never work against a despotic dictator. Perhaps Mr. Bearman will continue to ponder these questions and come up with the answer. One can only hope so.

Rating:
Summary: A new perspective into history
Review: This book is a thoughtful, thorough and insightful study of totalitarian thought. Berman writes convincingly of his opinions and thoughts on totalitarian and how it is related to the Islamist movement that is raging through the Middle East. He writes about how the current Islamist movement came to being and why. He tells of the reasons why bin Laden is fighting the war against us ~~ not because we're greedy corporate Americans but because we are a threat to his and his people's vision of utopia. He also delves into the Israel and Palestine's problems. He also explains the history behind communism, facism, and socialism. Berman also talks about Western Europe and their ideas on democracy as well as United Nation's ineptness in dealing with different problems.

This is perhaps one of the most rewarding reading I've done lately. I don't know much about Islam and what causes Muslims to declare a jihad against Westerners. Then again, I don't know much about the history of the last fifty years or so. And this book has whetted my appetite to know more and how liberalism is related to the current events going on today, even with the Bush's administration. It is also a great way to learn more about the Islamist movement that is going on in the Middle Eastern countries as well as Arabic countries. It is an eye-opener for me and it does help me understand current events better.

This is one book that I will definitely pass onto my friends and family. I think everyone who is curious about world affairs and likes essay-type writing, will enjoy this book. It will provoke thought and conversation among your friends and family. It will help you see the world in a different light, even if you don't agree with the author's perspective. But he makes his arguments in a convincing way ~~ and the book is easy to read, very well-written and with thoughtful, concise reasoning behind every word.

7-15-04

Rating:
Summary: Short, to the point, and excellent
Review: This book is a wonderful short tour of twentieth century totalitarian ideology and its similarities to current Muslim extremists. It traces the flow of ideas in Europe, especially Germany, to Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood, and on to Saudi Arabia, Al Qaeda, The Taliban, and Iran.
Berman's successful identification of this common thread of ideas reveals that dictators of today and the recent past in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan are using Islam as a stepping stone to power in the same way that the Nazis used race and the Communists used class - they all ruthlessly killed their enemies and quieted dissent at any cost. According to Berman, the real object is power, and the real problem is totalitarianism - whatever form it may take. His solution to this totalitarian monster is classical liberalism and the free exchange of ideas.
Does he explain every detail of exactly how the ideas change as they flow? No, and this is not because his understanding is simplistic. His intended audience is an educated audience, which is at the very least moderately familiar with the history and philosophy discussed.
It is a short book, and in some places incomplete. For instance, totalitarianism did not begin in the twentieth century - see the Inquisition and the slaughter of the Cathars, and on and on back into history - it did however, seem to become larger and more terrifying after the rise of 19th century liberalism and the great disaster of World War I. However, this does not take away from its central thesis about totalitarianism, and that our defeat of it abroad will make us safer at home. Petty squabbling (no pun intended) over ideological and political toes stepped on cannot and do not take away from this powerful central argument.

Rating:
Summary: Another rubish from so called Western Journalist
Review: This book is nothing but rubbish directed against intellectuals and thinkers to counter the so-called Islamic threat. Mr. Berman tries to convince his readers that the Islam teaches terrorism and hate, but he does not want to be in the same pot as Salman Rushtie, so he hides behind Syyed Qutb (may God be pleased with him). Syyed Qutb gave his life to tell the TRUTH and spread to all the humanity. It is too bad that Mr. Berman has chosen to turn his back from God and justice. This book is nothing but stupid propaganda from so called expert.

Rating:
Summary: A very important book
Review: This book is one of the most important books of the year. It is very well written and clearly explains the nature of the threat facing western democracies from fascism in its newest incarnation. Berman then goes on to explain why so many are ignoring the threat. This book should be manditory reading for anyone who thinks we can negotiate or co-exist with radical Islamists, bin Ladenites, Hamas, Ba'athists, etc. This book has my vote for this year's Pulitzer Prize.

Rating:
Summary: This is totally bogus. This war is imperialism oil war
Review: This book is totally out of line, the author seems to me too extremist and biased with his statist and reactionary view. Even the government admits that there are no dangerous weapons in Iraq, the so called WMDs war is not about religion fundamentalism or to fight religion-terrorism but about oil. Another of the author's labeling is to equally label all progressive movements as terrorists. He places all communists and leftists along the line with criminals, fascists, nazis, and extremists. This is a Ronald Reagan, Churchill, Mussolini type of statist and reactionary language used by neo-cons think-tanks to destroy opposite views. We have to point out that religion have always been used by empires and states to rule people. Religion and religious language is used by governmnets to fool and opiate the masses into wars and the government agendas. Another wrong point i see is that there was no physical evidence of the link between the events of 9-11, Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden. The author bases himself on absolute blind faith instead of sound arguments backed by credible evidence, he even bashes the award winning literary professor Noam Chomsky. So do your self a favor, don't believe the corporate-media, the reactionary writters and think for yourself first, question the authorities and what they tell you through the media, books, etc.

Rating:
Summary: Wake-up Call
Review: This is a wake-up call for liberals who would like to pretend that radical Islam does not present a serious threat to the West. There are many good things in this wonderfully well-written book. Berman's explication of the ur-myth of totalitarianism (left or right) is very good. His summary of Sayyid Qutb's thought is the best description of the fundamental ideas of Islam that I have ever read; the theological basis of Islamic antipathy to the idea of separation of religion and the state is very nicely conveyed. Berman's account of the failure of the French Socialists in the 1930s is merciless, and he dismantles Noam Chomsky's simple-minded worldview in three pages. That latter is worth the price of the book by itself.

On the negative side, Berman's orientation is a bit too literary for my tastes. For example, I think he forces his theme of irrationality where it really doesn't fit. The totalitarian programs he talks about seem to have two major characteristics, (1) an enormously ambitious goal (remaking society, conquering the world, etc.), and (2) utter amorality in selecting the means of achieving that goal (no compunctions about massive slaughter). However destructive such programs are, there is nothing necessarily irrational about them. The one movement he talks about that does seem to be truly irrational is the Palestinian suicide bombing murder spree, in which those actions have no apparent connection to any specific political goals. Berman can also be careless in selecting examples to buttress his argument. Athens and the Roman Republic were not fragile little republics surviving only in benign circumstances, until "popped like bubbles by marauding armies from afar". Athens became a predatory and expansionist power, its eventual decline traceable to a failed imperial war to conquer Syracuse. The Roman Republic was never conquered, but underwent a transition to imperial government due to the pressures of maintaining far-flung provinces and armies; it became the Roman Empire, hardly a bubble pop. And Pancho Villa launched an invasion of New Mexico, not Texas.