![]()
1
When Prophesy Fails
A Premature Burial
Several years ago H. W. Brands wrote a small book entitled The Strange Death of American Liberalism. In it he argued that liberalism was on its way out. As a historian, he believed that America was reverting to its national heritage. Cognizant of the anti-governmental sentiments that motivated the Founding Fathers, Brands suggested that conservative attitudes were deeply ensconced in the national psyche. Thomas Jefferson, he reminded his readers, regarded a robust federal authority as anathema. The nationâs third president envisioned a country of independent yeoman farmers each of whom was sturdy enough to meet his (or her) own needs without submitting to the equivalent of a George III. Monarchy might be acceptable to fainthearted Europeans, but Americans who grew to maturity by taming a wild frontier possessed the courage to regulate their own fortunes. They did not require a central administration to tell them what to do.
According to Brands, liberalism is about governmental control. It seeks to concentrate social services in a central authority that is theoretically under the control of the people. As a result, liberals promise programs and regulations intended to promote personal welfare. They also dream of expanding social justice. Under their tutelage, representatives of the people will legislate projects to defend the weak from the strong. For liberals, the government is all-wise, all-knowing, and eternally beneficent. It is a friend that can be relied upon to thwart the greedy assaults of the wealthy because it is founded on the proposition that defending the natural rights of the individual is the central mission of a democratic government.
Yet, Brands argued, this attitude is of recent vintage. According to him, Americans have always been wary of aristocratic pretensions. They understood that a government strong enough to provide extensive benefits was strong enough to threaten their freedoms. Only practical necessity modified this attitude. The dangers presented first by the Civil War, then industrialization, the two World Wars, the Great Depression and finally the Cold War prompted them to turn to national authorities for services once jealously guarded by individuals. Despite their misgivings, they asked the federal government to provide security in an increasingly insecure world.
Nor were they disappointed in their hopes. After all, wasnât it the federal government that rescued them from the Depression and then defeated the Axis powers? Wasnât it also the federal government that gave them the War on Poverty, Civil Rights, and Social Security? Brands believed that the apogee of liberal success occurred during the Cold War. This was when the Soviet Union seemed most threatening. Only later, once government tendrils began to extend too deeply into the daily lives of ordinary citizens, did they rebel and embrace the Reagan counterrevolution. Ultimately, even Bill Clinton declared that the era of Big Government was over.
Nevertheless, like the reported death of Mark Twain, the demise of liberalism was greatly exaggerated. Liberalism is not dead. It is merely dying. As the election of Barack Obama demonstrated, liberal fervor can occasionally be as great as ever. The movement has merely entered a period of decline.
Death Throes
It was midmorning, and the sun was shining brightly into my suburban living room. All seemed right with the world as I sat reading a book. Consequently, I was unprepared for the strange crashing sound that assaulted my ears. It appeared to come from the large trapezoidal window that overlooked my front driveway; hence I got up to investigate. At first I saw nothing. But then in the middle of the pane, I noticed a mysterious smudge. Not quite certain of its origin, I leaned across the window seat to scrutinize it more closely. There, in the center of the smear, was a tiny feather. Almost too small to be seen, it impelled me to look down to determine if a bird had collided with the window. Sure enough, one had. It was lying on the concrete directly beneath my gaze. Unfortunately, I could not make out whether the creature remained alive. Only a firsthand inspection would reveal its condition.
Upon descending the front staircase, I quickly became aware that the diminutive creature was still living. But it was in a perilous state. Its small chest was heaving great sighs, while its head was contorted into an angular position. As best I could tell, it had broken its neck. Taken aback by this development, I wondered what to do. Should I bring the injured bird upstairs and nurse it back to health? Or should I move it to the side of the driveway and allow it to expire in peace? Unsure of which course to follow, I wandered toward the street to ponder my options. Within minutes, however, my attention was diverted by a commotion behind me. Surprisingly, it was the little bird thrashing about. Its wings were flapping so energetically it seemed poised to fly off. At this, I concluded I had been mistaken. The creature was less seriously injured than I imagined.
When I turned to walk toward it, however, I was met by another surprise. As suddenly as the thrashing began, it ended. By the time I reached the creature there was no movement at all. The little animal had died. Despite an astonishing burst of vigor, it was past saving. What I witnessed were its death throes. While fighting desperately to live, it expended its last ounce of energy. This brief show of vitality had been deceptive. What seemed to betoken a return to normality was the opposite. The creatureâs struggle against death was actually evidence of its imminent passing.
This fatality was, in the great scheme of things, a minor tragedy. A piece of me mourned the death, but birds have short lives. Of far more consequence are the current death throes of liberalism. This enormously influential political movement, this fundamental source of contemporary Western ideals, is in the process of passing from the scene. Nevertheless, most people, including liberals, remain unaware of its impending collapse. From their viewpoint, liberalism is very much alive. Thus, when Senator Ted Kennedy passed from the scene, he was praised as the Last Lion of Liberalism. Television screens from coast to coast showed him defending the cause. There he was in the flush of youth declaring as stridently as ever that â[t]he dream will never die!â He believed it, as did many millions of his fellow liberals. For them, the dream is the touchstone of their existence. It is an eternal verity that will always be with us.
Yet appearances can be mistaken. At this instant, liberalism is undeniably vigorous. Indeed, not long ago it recaptured both the American Congress and the presidency. Moreover, it did so in dramatic fashion. Furthermore, it subsequently spent trillions of dollars to advance its aspirations. Nevertheless, it is thrashing about. Decidedly not in an unchallenged ascendancy, within months of its greatest successes, it inspired a dynamic Tea Party Movement and then endured a terrible defeat in the midterm elections. As a result, just as with that tiny bird, liberals are currently flapping wildly about in an attempt to ward off their inevitable death. Spitting invectives at their adversaries, fanning the flames of class warfare, and promising to come back stronger than ever, left-leaning activists may seem in robust health, yet their very forcefulness is evidence of an underlying weakness. Liberalism is, in fact, succumbing to a fatal malady. It is dying of âinconsistency poisoning.â Contrary to the declarations of its partisans, liberalism is not on the side of history. It is not the wave of the future. Far from being âprogressive,â it is marching rapidly toward the rear.
Ironically, in seeking to defend the indefensible, liberal partisans are hastening this demise. For almost two centuries, they have accused capitalism of being riven by contradictions. As a result, they have awaited the self-immolation of a system regarded as terminally unjust. Yet it is liberalism that is about to meet this fate. Despite claims of representing the 99 percent, its defenders are unprepared to halt this suicidal plunge precisely because they are looking elsewhere. They are not seeking to repair what is broken because they do not perceive themselves as in trouble.
Liberals, for all their bravado, are about to pay the price for self-delusional inconsistencies. Far from heralding a brave new world, they seek to resurrect a very old one. Just as was the case with the Soviet Union, their collectivist political philosophy has grown sclerotic. Because it is grounded in decrepit totalitarian traditions, it too must founder on the shoals of uncongenial truths. Far from being inevitable, liberalism is about to perish thanks to its unstable internal architecture. Having broken its neck after crashing into what appeared to be a window of opportunity, the very expectations that fueled liberalismâs upward flight will ultimately destroy it. Needless to say, its advocates are fighting against this fate. They are determined to make their own predictions come true. Yet despite their efforts, they cannot ward off destiny. That which the facts of human existence will not permit, cannot become reality. Dreams grounded in a misunderstanding of the human condition are analogous to a broken neck. They too cut off vital life juices.
A Failed Prophesy
Liberals are idealists. They predict a glowing future once their aspirations are realized. According to them, after the petty rivalries of capitalism are laid to rest, the underlying goodness of humanity will come to the fore. In the words of Obamaâs acceptance speech at the Democratic nominating convention, âwe must ⊠rise or fall as one nation; [our] fundamental belief [must be] that I am my brotherâs keeper; I am my sisterâs keeper.â As for his critics, they foolishly dismissed this philosophy as so much âhappy talk.â Yet their attitude merely fed âinto the cynicism that we all have about government.â But we must not be fooled. We must instead âfix our eye not on what is seen, but what is unseen, that better place around the bend.â More recently, he has invoked the hallowed dream of total âfairness.â For him this must inspire a âNew Nationalismâ under which we rededicate ourselves to our mutual welfare.
Regrettably, liberals are not just idealistsâthey are utopians. They do not merely expect a better world, they long for a perfect one. As a result, they forecast a time when people will join hands to form a single family of humankind. And when this occurs, the conflicts and insecurities that have haunted our species will disappear as we realize our destinies are tied to a common global village. Much as Saint Thomas More once envisaged an island from which selfishness was banished, they expect government mediation to produce complete equality and endless prosperity. People will then cease vying to outdo one another and instead work for the common good. The difference between then and now is that Thomas More knew his island was a fantasy, whereas contemporary liberals genuinely believe their dreams will come true.
As troublesome as this utopianism is the fact that most liberals refuse to acknowledge counterevidence. Completely certain of their visions, they will not allow them to be disconfirmed. Those of Moreâs readers who believed his island paradise actually existed were soon disabused by the discoveries of the intrepid mariners then crossing the Atlantic. None came back with confirmation of an actual place called Utopia. Amazingly, todayâs liberals, despite their intellectual pretensions, refuse to countenance similar journeys. They balk when asked to venture into uncongenial ideological territory. True believers of the most adamant sort, they are the secular equivalent of fundamentalist Christians. Theirs is a faith. It may be secular, but it is as independent of empirical verification as any religious belief system.
Why then do liberals refuse to see what is happening? Why, if liberalism is in its death throes, are those closest to its focal point unaware of this development? Could it be that liberalism is not really dying? Could it be that they know something less committed observers do not? Or is it that their faith induces a kind of moral blindness? Many liberals are unquestionably intelligent. Many are even intellectuals. How then can they be oblivious to something so profound? The answer is that they are human. Just as their political aspirations are undermined by the human condition, so is their ability to see what they do not wish to see.
What is nowadays occurring politically was explored more than half a century ago by social psychologists. Back in 1956, Leon Festinger, Henry Reicken, and Stanley Schacter published a book entitled When Prophecy Fails. Based on research conducted two years earlier, the investigators scrutinized, not a political party, but a religious cult. They wondered what would happen when a worldwide catastrophe predicted by this group did not materialize. Would its adherents become disillusioned? Would the scales fall from their eyes? Or would they continue to believe in a misguided faith? The answer turned out to be the latter. Most of its members strengthened their commitment. Their convictions, far from being shaken, were reinforced.
Dorothy Martin (in the book called Mrs. Marian Keech) and her collaborators Charles and Lillian Laughead (alias Thomas and Daisy Armstrong) believed they channeled messages from extraterrestrials. These cosmic communiquĂ©s first predicted landings by flying saucers and later prophesized a great flood that would engulf everyone on December 21. So convinced were they and their followers that on three separate occasions they trekked to the predicted landing sites. In the end, they assembled at Martinâs home to await salvation by the saucers delegated to pick them up before the deluge. Some even quit their jobs and gave away their earthly possessions in anticipation of being whisked skyward.
Festinger (who is well known for his theories of cognitive dissonance) suspected that rather than admit to error these true believers would find a way to rationalize these disconfirmations. Discomfort with inconsistent perceptions would induce them to reconceptualize what occurred so as to produce the appearance of consistency. This, of course, is what transpired. When the original saucer landings did not take place, the leaders and their adherents interpreted these as tests of faith. They were being asked to demonstrate their steadfastness in the face of disappointment. Something similar occurred when the deluge failed to materialize. At this point, Martin announced the reception of a message explaining that the Earth had been spared. Thanks to the groupâs dedication, the cataclysm had been cancelled.
Indeed, subsequent to this, Martin and the Armstrongs increased their proselytizing. Far from being discouraged, they continued to believe. More certain than ever, they even sought publicity for their ideas. Unabashed at having been proven wrong, they saw no reason to apologize. So far as they were concerned, they were not mistaken. To the contrary, they were responsible for saving humanity. Moreover, the continued security of the planet depended upon others joining their mission. It was the scoffing unbelievers who were being imprudent.
Half a century later, Diana Tumminia engaged in a more extensive study of a saucer cult. Her account in When Prophecy Never Fails demonstrates that the earlier tendencies remain with us. Humanity has not become more sensible during the intervening years. Tumminia found that so-called Unarians were similarly unperturbed by the failure of predicted saucer landings. They too found reasons to explain why these had not occurred. Other uncomfortable events, such as the deaths of their leaders, were similarly incorporated into an elaborate mythology that entailed previous lives on distant planets. Fervent in their conviction that souls are reborn, they construed current events as indicators of previous happenings in earlier incarnations. This allowed them to characterize their analyses as âscientific.â Others might sneer, but this was because they were unenlightened. Members of the group knew better. Commending one another on their own perceptiveness, they were convinced of their insights.
Contemporary liberals are not unlike these Unarians or the Martin circle. They too hold fast to disconfirmed beliefs. They also remain unperturbed when events contradict their predictions. Thus, when a massive stimulus failed to revive a dismal economy, they claimed it had rescued the nation. Or when a massive reform of the medical system did not reduce costs, they pretended it would. Few liberals admit their errors, but neither did the Unarians. True believers do not perceive themselves as mistaken. Nor do they believe themselves irrational. To the contrary, they are convinced they are correct. For them, their commitments are never disconfirmed. Instead, the facts are reinterpreted to corroborate their assertions. It is thus their critics who are mistaken. It is they, for example, the conservatives, who are irrational. Such mean-spirited reactionaries are obviously out of touch with reality.
But what if the liberals are the real Unarians? What if they are blinded by a need for consistency? Few would disagree that religious cults hunger for salvation. Their members generally hope to be saved from a world perceived as iniquitousâor at minimum disappointing. But donât liberals seek a similar salvation? Arenât they too transfixed by the injustices of a world they did not shape? Liberals may not anticipate extraterrestrial saviors, but they do expect to lift the downtrodden out of their misery. They likewise intend to bring peace on earth and fulfillment to the masses. In other words, they too cling to extravagant hopes.
Liberals are also like the Unarians in that they wish to decode a complex and mystifying world. Why, they wonder, do unexpected events so frequently disturb our fondest expectations? Liberals may not share a mythology involving thirty-three planets arranged in the shape of a vortex. Nor do they urge earthlings to build a power tower to unite the spiritual energy of the universe. Nevertheless, they have their own explanatory myths. They, for instance, believe in the ultimate equality of all human beings. For them, our natural parity has been undermined by an unjust economic system. They further believe in a redistribution of wealth to correct these disparities. This is why Obama has frequently recommended taxing the rich. Liberals, of course, do not consider these myths. But what if they are? What if they are simply intellectualized efforts to make sense of unpleasant realities? Wouldnât liberals be as guilty of simplistic thinking as the Unarians? Some progressives get around this hurdle by claiming there are no truths, only opinions. Nevertheless, they insist their own views are valid.
Another quality shared by liberals and Unarians is that they live their faith. Both put their money where their mouths are. Festinger argued that irrevocable actions often bind people to their beliefs. Once publicly committed to a position, it is difficult to back away without a loss of face. Indeed, reflect on how hard it is to admit a mistake. The words âI was wrongâ choke in most of our throats. Many of us prefer to protect an error rather than seem foolish. If we can convince others we are right, their agreement is taken as proof that we were not wrong. This was clearly the case with the Unarians who wrote books to defend their predictions. It was especially true of those who went to the predicted landing sites. There they happily posed for pictures carrying welcome signs. Nor were they embarrassed by newspaper stories of their exploits. If anything, those who publicly identified as Unarian became more devout.
But isnât this also true of liberals? Those most adamant in their public demonstrations of faith are likewise the least apt to abandon them. Moreover, liberals too vocally proclaim their devotion. Their political attitudes are not hidden under a bushel basket. Instead they are flaunted at Occupy Wall Street demonstrations; announced on bumper stickers; and made known in a myriad of private conversations. Nor are liberals above proselytizing. If they could, they would convert everyone to their viewpoint. Nonetheless, these efforts begin with public declarations of faith. Liberals are not shy about telling others what to believe. They are ardent witnesses for their version of social justice. They similarly donate to the cause, vote for its candidates, and send letters to legislators pleading for the orthodox programs. Moreover, few change their minds. If we need an example, which of those who marched against the Vietnam War have since decided the conflict was justified? And who among those who supported Obamaâs stimulus program have subsequently admitted it did not work?
Finally, liberals, like Unarians, revel in public encouragement. In fact, they receive more of it than mere cultists. Liberalism is one of the two major political outlooks of...
