Vidal was correct that the re-arming during World War Two was largely responsible for ending the Depression. John Ralston Saul in his 1992 book, "Voltaire's Bastards" makes the same point, generalised across the West, arguing that 'we are living in the midst of a permanent wartime economy.'
Describing our current moment as Vidalian is pretty accurate, if not unflattering. (I'm not sure Biden has opened a 9/11 investigation so much as directed the declassification of the documents generated during the investigation.)
I do think it should be noted, at least for posterity's sake, that Vidal was likely a lunatic who was often right in the way a broken clock is. He fell into the silly pseudo-Marxist trap of believing that the American economy is essentially a "war economy" which necessitated the fabrication of foreign enemies in order to keep dollars flowing to defense contractors.
This is flawed for a couple of reasons. The West will never need reasons to invent enemies--The Soviet threat was a genuine threat to global security; 9/11 was a genuine attack on America perpetrated by religious fanatics; and if China emerges as a geopolitical crisis, you can rest assured it will be the result of the acts of the Chinese Communist government--not manipulative American insiders who aren't nearly as clever and competent as the conspiracy theorists believe.
Vidal always ignored periods of tremendous American economic growth that occurred in times of peace (such as between 1870 and 1914, or during the Clinton years) and he omitted the fact that the Afghan and Iraq Wars were a small part of federal expenditures in the last two decades. No credible economist believes that American middle class is the most robust in history because the Pentagon makes war.
The guy who ended up being Right from the Beginning was Patrick James Buchanan, whose political relevance was unfortunately undermined by some of his socially conservative views that can reasonably seen as bigoted.
By the way, Angela, I completely agree with you about Hitch. I loved the guy and miss his voice, and he would have a field day mocking Wokery.
But he really did miss the mark in his two great causes--American led nation-building and the removal of religious faith from our culture and discourse. I now find myself siding with his brother much more these days. Hitch overvalued secularism and was ridiculously dismissive in the wonderful things that can come from religious faith. His God is Not Great book felt like grad school amateurism; Terry Eagleton was correct in reducing his arguments to "school-yard atheism."
Agreed. His chapter on Stalinism and its similarities to fanatical Christianity was originally posited by the skeptic community as a way to show that non-religious regimes that turn tyrannical in this way are "actually religion too, ok?"- when it actually is just a wash and resets the original question. It means that the basis in monotheism itself isn't necessarily what brings about the terror, but that the terror will always be a risk in human affairs.
I used to be a giant Hitchens fanboy. I still am but now with a few asterisks. I wonder if he'd lived on what his positions would be now with respect to Iraq, etc. His memoir was still a great achievement, and his section on Gore Vidal there is quite something lol
Great point about Hitch's chapter on Stalinism/Christianity. Hitch never accounted for Chesterton's remark about what happens when people stop believing in God. To me, that's part of the lesson of the 20th Century. Secular ideologies rooted in Reason and Modernity are no more just than the Christian-based cultures, and are likely less just.
I would add that Christendom at least gave us culture and spiritual nourishment. What has the secularism of the last 50 years given us? Brutalist architecture, cable and social media, homogenized culture, and infinite gender and sexual identities? That's not progress in my eyes.
yes, I liked Hitch, (although I saw his tv discussions, debates, read some of his articles, I didn't read his books) . However, as you pointed out he overvalued secularism and was a bit dismissive of religion. Maybe he believed that the elevation of rationality above all else was the logical way to go. There were major flaws and assumptions in this approach which have been shown. As another reader, mentioned, 'a homogenized culture', I would add people connected but disconnected, not an original view, but as we are more involved in social media, internet consumerist culture, loneliness is a major issue and also at times a sense of purpose.
An over emphasis on the infallibility of the 'scientific' approach betrayed a dogmatism and possibly too dry and mechanical (for want of better expression) a world view.
20 years old and depressingly prescient as the USG gears up for Domestic War on Terror v.2.
I politely disagree with Aivlys that "the West will never need reasons to invent enemies." The invention or fomentation of enemies is its house style. The Crusades? The British Empire (ask the Irish, among others, about this one)? The USA's genocide of Native Americans? etc. ad in.
Agreed on PJB though; someone with bedrock principles. Even when I disagree with him I don't doubt his sincerity. Paraphrasing Hunter S. Thompson (I believe it's in "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72"): "I tried really hard to hate Pat Buchanan but I couldn't. I just liked the guy."
Vidal was correct that the re-arming during World War Two was largely responsible for ending the Depression. John Ralston Saul in his 1992 book, "Voltaire's Bastards" makes the same point, generalised across the West, arguing that 'we are living in the midst of a permanent wartime economy.'
Describing our current moment as Vidalian is pretty accurate, if not unflattering. (I'm not sure Biden has opened a 9/11 investigation so much as directed the declassification of the documents generated during the investigation.)
I do think it should be noted, at least for posterity's sake, that Vidal was likely a lunatic who was often right in the way a broken clock is. He fell into the silly pseudo-Marxist trap of believing that the American economy is essentially a "war economy" which necessitated the fabrication of foreign enemies in order to keep dollars flowing to defense contractors.
This is flawed for a couple of reasons. The West will never need reasons to invent enemies--The Soviet threat was a genuine threat to global security; 9/11 was a genuine attack on America perpetrated by religious fanatics; and if China emerges as a geopolitical crisis, you can rest assured it will be the result of the acts of the Chinese Communist government--not manipulative American insiders who aren't nearly as clever and competent as the conspiracy theorists believe.
Vidal always ignored periods of tremendous American economic growth that occurred in times of peace (such as between 1870 and 1914, or during the Clinton years) and he omitted the fact that the Afghan and Iraq Wars were a small part of federal expenditures in the last two decades. No credible economist believes that American middle class is the most robust in history because the Pentagon makes war.
The guy who ended up being Right from the Beginning was Patrick James Buchanan, whose political relevance was unfortunately undermined by some of his socially conservative views that can reasonably seen as bigoted.
By the way, Angela, I completely agree with you about Hitch. I loved the guy and miss his voice, and he would have a field day mocking Wokery.
But he really did miss the mark in his two great causes--American led nation-building and the removal of religious faith from our culture and discourse. I now find myself siding with his brother much more these days. Hitch overvalued secularism and was ridiculously dismissive in the wonderful things that can come from religious faith. His God is Not Great book felt like grad school amateurism; Terry Eagleton was correct in reducing his arguments to "school-yard atheism."
Agreed. His chapter on Stalinism and its similarities to fanatical Christianity was originally posited by the skeptic community as a way to show that non-religious regimes that turn tyrannical in this way are "actually religion too, ok?"- when it actually is just a wash and resets the original question. It means that the basis in monotheism itself isn't necessarily what brings about the terror, but that the terror will always be a risk in human affairs.
I used to be a giant Hitchens fanboy. I still am but now with a few asterisks. I wonder if he'd lived on what his positions would be now with respect to Iraq, etc. His memoir was still a great achievement, and his section on Gore Vidal there is quite something lol
Great point about Hitch's chapter on Stalinism/Christianity. Hitch never accounted for Chesterton's remark about what happens when people stop believing in God. To me, that's part of the lesson of the 20th Century. Secular ideologies rooted in Reason and Modernity are no more just than the Christian-based cultures, and are likely less just.
I would add that Christendom at least gave us culture and spiritual nourishment. What has the secularism of the last 50 years given us? Brutalist architecture, cable and social media, homogenized culture, and infinite gender and sexual identities? That's not progress in my eyes.
yes, I liked Hitch, (although I saw his tv discussions, debates, read some of his articles, I didn't read his books) . However, as you pointed out he overvalued secularism and was a bit dismissive of religion. Maybe he believed that the elevation of rationality above all else was the logical way to go. There were major flaws and assumptions in this approach which have been shown. As another reader, mentioned, 'a homogenized culture', I would add people connected but disconnected, not an original view, but as we are more involved in social media, internet consumerist culture, loneliness is a major issue and also at times a sense of purpose.
An over emphasis on the infallibility of the 'scientific' approach betrayed a dogmatism and possibly too dry and mechanical (for want of better expression) a world view.
https://www.salon.com/2021/06/05/how-the-new-atheists-merged-with-the-far-right-a-story-of-intellectual-grift-and-abject-surrender/
By contrast, Vidal was not religious but still had interesting views and insights even towards the end of this life.
For anyone who hasn't read it yet, Vidal's "The Meaning of Timothy McVeigh": https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2001/09/mcveigh200109
20 years old and depressingly prescient as the USG gears up for Domestic War on Terror v.2.
I politely disagree with Aivlys that "the West will never need reasons to invent enemies." The invention or fomentation of enemies is its house style. The Crusades? The British Empire (ask the Irish, among others, about this one)? The USA's genocide of Native Americans? etc. ad in.
Agreed on PJB though; someone with bedrock principles. Even when I disagree with him I don't doubt his sincerity. Paraphrasing Hunter S. Thompson (I believe it's in "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72"): "I tried really hard to hate Pat Buchanan but I couldn't. I just liked the guy."