More neocon foolishness about Obama

The gods must be rolling in the aisles of Olympus laughing their heads off. Michael Novak, one of the most devoted proponents of the utopian, unreal, inhuman, abstract, neoconservative ideology of universal democracy, piously criticizes Barack Obama for calling himself a “citizen of the world,” which, according to Novak, is

a utopian, unreal, angelic, inhuman term, an abstraction of the sort that leads to immense bloodshed as human irregularities are hacked off and angularity is loudly planed away.

Amazing. Simply for referring to himself by the benign, liberal (in the old sense of the word), eighteenth century expression “citizen of the world,” which George Washington—the most patriotic, most America-first president in U.S. history—also used for himself on occasion, Obama has now become the equivalent of a Communist totalitarian seeking to crush the human race under a regime of absolute uniformity!

To mock the neocons for their absurd and hypocritical attacks on Obama is not to defend his Berlin speech as a whole—it was terrible. It nevertheless articulated the same vision of a united humanity of which the neocons themselves dream every night in bed. Of course, Obama’s left-liberal globalism is somewhat different from the neocons’ right-liberal globalism. The neocons’ globalism is based on a shared belief in a single democratic world order under the inspiring and protective leadership of the United States, which in this scenario serves—as President Bush, my favorite political philosopher, has tirelessly instructed us—as God’s messiah, bringing God’s gift of freedom to all mankind. Obama’s globalism is based on a John Lennonesque sentimental liberatory oneness of all humans under the charismatic leadership of … Obama himself, who serves in this scenario as God’s messiah, bringing God’s gift of … Obama to all mankind. So the two globalisms are not exactly the same. Yet, insofar as both the neocons and Obama aim at the merging of all nations under a single shared vision, there are no essential differences between their respective agendas.

- end of initial entry -

David G. writes:

Thought this might interest you in light of your comments on Michael Novak’s NRO column and the use of the term “citizen of the world.” The term has even an older pedigree than the 18th century. I think that you are correct in pointing out the selective outrage of Limbaugh, Novak and others in their critique of Obama on its usage.

From Paul Johnson’s A History of Christianity:

Erasmus (born in 1446; died in 1536) … spent his last years in various free cities, such as Basle and Freiburg, which he hoped would escape the coming religious devastation: “I am a citizen of the world, known to all, and to all a stranger.” He was grievously shocked by Henry VIII’s execution of his friend Thomas More. What had happened to the gifted and enlightened young knight he had known? And why had More been so foolish as to defy him on an arguable point. Was the world going mad?

Johnson continues:

Herein lies one of the central historical tragedies, of Christianity, of Europe, and of the world. The Erasmian dream was not wholly utopian. All men agreed that faith was a unity. Most agreed that there must be a unitary system of knowledge. Society was universally regarded not only as a unity but an organic one. Why should not the first and second [i.e. that faith was a unity and that there must be a unitary system of knowledge] infuse the third [i.e. society] in harmony? In a sense, the object of these Renaissance reformers was merely to bring the ideal of Carolingian society up to date—to use the new knowledge to correct its accumulated abuses and imperfections.

LA replies:

Meaning that “citizen of the world” was an appeal for a restoration of the medieval order, in which men share the same religion and the same system of knowledge in a single, harmonious Christian society.

Gintas writes:

I believe it goes back as far as the Stoics of the Roman era. Wikipedia writes:

A distinctive feature of Stoicism is its cosmopolitanism. All people are manifestations of the one universal spirit and should, according to the Stoics, live in brotherly love and readily help one another. In the Discourses, Epictetus comments on man’s relationship with the world: “Each human being is primarily a citizen of his own commonwealth; but he is also a member of the great city of gods and men, where of the city political is only a copy.” This sentiment echoes that of Socrates, who said “I am not an Athenian or a Greek, but a citizen of the world.”

LA replies:

Yes re the idea that “citizen of the world” would come from the Stoics, but I doubt that Socrates said, “I am not an Athenian or a Greek, but a citizen of the world.” The identification of the Athenians with their own polis, even that of a dissenting Athenian like Socrates, was very strong. They saw everything in terms of the polis. And Plato, his student, when constructing his theoretical ideal society in the Republic, still constructed it along the lines of a polis. The Greeks really could not conceive of any other or larger kind of political order. The respective Greek city-states kept fighting among each other for centuries, until the Romans, who could conceive of a larger political order, got tired of interfering in their conflicts and simply took them over.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 31, 2008 12:37 AM | Send