July 29, 2004
THREE CHEERS FOR THE SIMPLE
The Public Square (Richard John Neuhaus, First Things, June 2004)
The Origins of the Final Solution, Alternatives to Hitler, and Day of No Return have in common the great merit of helping us understand how people could do the unspeakable things they did. And the latter two have the additional merit of illuminating how people could and did say No to great evil. One is reminded of the words of John Paul II in the encyclical Veritatis Splendor that, if one is prepared to die rather than to do wrong, one is never in the position of having to do wrong. Most people do not think of themselves as heroes and heroines, and yet, when the time of decision is forced upon them, many turn out to be exactly that. That is the truth so compellingly told in the 1988 classic, The Altruistic Personality, a study by Sam and Pearl Oliner of hundreds of people who rescued Jews during the Holocaust. The rescuers were typically not intellectuals or philo-Semites or people given to political activism. They were to all appearances very ordinary people, usually devoutly religious people, who knew that some things must not be done and who put their lives in the way of the doing of such things. Academics have a way of explaining history in terms of large and impersonal dynamics. But living history is the moral drama of people making decisions day by day. As for those who do great wrong, it is not true that to understand all is to forgive all. But to understand, at least in part, is to be strengthened in the knowledge of our own capacity for both good and evil—and of our radical dependence on the One who, despite His understanding all, forgives the penitent. The truly penitent know that complexification is the enemy of forgiveness.
One of the hallmarks of modern barbarism is the increasing tendency to see the moral and political issues that confront us as all terribly complex. This is not just a product of a formal belief in moral relativism. Many today evince a profound psychological need to wallow in complexities and subtleties that they know full well are beyond them and seem threatened, rather then reassured, by the notion that things are simpler than they may appear and are well within their grasp.
Please excuse the self-reference, but at a dinner party the other night, the hostess was gushing about Fahrenheit 911 and how she didn’t know what to do with “all that information”. She freely admitted much of it was undoubtedly wrong or distorted. It troubled her not at all that she didn’t know what was true and what wasn’t and she showed no interest in trying to find out. What was clearly attracting her like a magnet were the infinite complexities of the story and she was mightily offended that the President didn’t see them. Otherwise, she had no opinion and didn’t see the need for one.
It is likewise in much of our personal lives. When a couple separates, few will condemn or take sides anymore. They imagine a Russian novel of dark psychological plots and sub-plots over many years and tell themselves that “you never know what is going on in another marriage”, even though the break-up was clearly caused by one of the few objectively recognizable and drearily familiar misdeeds that have always killed marriages. No self-respecting woman has an abortion without assuring one and all that it was preceded by weeks of torturous angst and was “the most difficult decision of my life”.
In politics, this phenomenon, as much as statism or progressive thinking, is why anti-Semitism is growing, why Europe cannot change course, why the UN achieves nothing, why the family is in disarray and why so many social challenges seem beyond us. Too many of us are simply frozen in moral uncertainty and retreat into a destructive pseudo-sophistication that protects us from the need to take a stand.. The notion that life’s choices are all so complicated that they merit endless study, reflection and expertise leaves us impotent, tongue-tied and unable to recognize most blatant evils staring us in the face A society that cannot recognize right and wrong and move quickly to protect one and combat the other is a society in decline.
Best. Blog. Posting. Ever.
Posted by: Mike Morley at July 29, 2004 8:35 AMexactly my thought: best posting, ever; the "complex" world put in a bottle; great quote from the great Neuhaus, great commentary on the quote; nowhere else on the Web can I get this; many thanks
Posted by: Jim Gooding at July 29, 2004 8:53 AMIt is the notion that everything, even moral questions, are complex, I think, that lies at the heart of what contemporary liberalism sees as a great sin: the willingness to be judgmental. I cannot count the number of times when criticism of some liberal or left wing shibboleth or group is met with, "How can you be judgmental?" Well, since I think I have a well defined set of moral principles by which I try to lead my life, I can certainly be judgmental.
Ironically, of course, those who complain that other are judgmental all too often judge those who disagree with them to be evil or stupid.
Posted by: Morrie at July 29, 2004 9:47 AM"Complexity" is also a trope used to avoid passing judgment on oneself. Listen to Dr. Laura for an hour or two; I guarantee you there will be at least one caller who has the following problem: they want to do something which violates one or more of the Ten Commandments, and when the good doctor points this out, they try to rationalize by portraying the issue as "complicated." (If there's one thing Dr. Laura is good at, it's smacking the "complexity" argument down.)
Posted by: Mike Morley at July 29, 2004 9:58 AMAs Dr. Johnson said - "People need to be reminded more often than they need to be instructed".
Life may certainly feel complex much of the time, but the constant search for nuance is a trap. Clarity is more important than justification.
Posted by: jim hamlen at July 29, 2004 10:00 AM...or "mean spirted". There is no right or wrong to be discerned only the enforcement of the "liberal" will. Those who disagree are beneath contempt or, if salvageable, in need of sensitivity training. The tyranny of good intentions will always be magnified when said intentions are supported by no rational reasoning whatsover while employed by demagogues to mislead the well-meaning and naive.
Posted by: Tom C, Stamford,Ct. at July 29, 2004 10:05 AMPeter - Excellent point. Read the same point put beautifully from a liberal in the new Esquire article "The Case for Bush" -
http://www.keepmedia.com/ShowItemDetails.do?refID=19&item_id=505604
A must read!
Posted by: pj at July 29, 2004 10:24 AMAnd I might add, Kerry is the perfect candidate for the party of "I don't want to take a stand." He perfectly represents them; and G. W. Bush well represents those who want to keep faith with a stand.
Posted by: pj at July 29, 2004 10:27 AMExcellent post.
The west, at least significant parts of it, may be rationalizing its way out of existence. Certainly, in a complex world, it's not easy to take decisions! Especially the right decision. And in such a world, chronic flip-flopping may well appear as virtue.
This, however, is where true enemies can prove to be very helpful. The problem, though, is to be able to recognize them as true enemies.
Keeping in mind that while in the complex years of 1938-39, Neville Chamberlain was doing his complex damnedest to maintain peace.
While Churchill, very simply, was the war monger.
Hitler, for whom the world was actually not at all complex, ultimately obliged the west---or at least those in the west who wanted his assistance---to make a choice.
These days, one wonders---amidst all the complexity---whether the west wants at all to be helped.
The enemy, for whom the world is pretty simple, would dearly like to help; but one knows where good intentions often lead....
Excellent post, Peter.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at July 29, 2004 12:29 PM1. Great post. But how do we act to solve the problem? How is it to be solved in Canada or England, where it might be a crime to say that there is a problem?
2. Read the article PJ mentioned. Here is one excerpt:
As easy as it is to say that we can't abide the president because of the gulf between what he espouses and what he actually does , what haunts me is the possibility that we can't abide him because of usbecause of the gulf between his will and our willingness. What haunts me is the possibility that we have become so accustomed to ambiguity and inaction in the face of evil that we find his call for decisive action an insult to our sense of nuance and proportion.
Posted by: David Cohen at July 29, 2004 12:36 PMUnfortunately, for many on the left, the terrorism fight won't become personal until it happens to them -- i.e., when another 9/11-style attack or worse happens on their watch, and far enough into their administration that blame can't be slumped off onto a Republican predicessior.
Once they saw the Islamic terrorists as a challenge to their hold on domestic power, their world outlook would change. But under the current conditions, we're talking mid-2007 at the earliest, and if Bush wins, sometime around 2011 at best.
Posted by: John at July 29, 2004 2:22 PMI dunno about contemporary complexity, but this is being hung on a mighty thin peg.
Hitlerism was not complex. Hate Jews. How complex was that?
The thousands of Jews rescued by allegedly mostly devout people were sort of trumped by the millions murdered -- or at least waved off to the ovens -- by equally devout people.
Also, I don't think 'Bush lied!' is any more complex an idea than 'Hate Jews!'
As for an alleged rise in antisemitism in Europe, that does not need explaining because it isn't rising. It's been there for 1,500 years.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 29, 2004 2:33 PMWhy would Jews stay where anti-semitism was the rule for 1500 years? Obviously some value was seen in staying and raising families by the European jews. The rabid anti-semitism inherent to Hitlerism and rationalized by the classism of Marx and the racialism of the social darwinists was really a natural for 20th century rationalists. Most of Europe's Jews WERE finally dispersed, but the rationalists/materialists were needed to complete the job Harry's feared religionists could never quite finish.
Posted by: Tom C, Stamford,Ct. at July 29, 2004 2:50 PMI'll add more plaudits to Peter's post. I'll also conjecture that certain folks like to view the world as (overly) complicated, because it gives them incentive to rule others - those rubes couldn't possibly understand subject X, and our 165-page policy paper will be the definitive guide to that subject. A sort of rule by obfuscation.
Posted by: Bruce Cleaver at July 29, 2004 8:40 PMGive it a rest, Tom. They were driven from place to place, and once the New World opened up they got out of Europe as best they were able.
Have you seen this?: Evil's Advantage Over Conscience--Why the West gives Yasser Arafat endless second chances. by Norman Doidge
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/104ivafk.asp
"But it is in "Richard III" that one can learn most from characters who see evil, yet freeze at the key moment. The principal characters are fully aware of Richard's undeniable evil, yet they let him have his way despite themselves."...
Complexity is an excuse for cowardice.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at July 30, 2004 4:07 AMI've been thinking that over, Robert.
Often right.
But not the lesson of 'Hamlet,' who turned out to be a man of action.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 31, 2004 3:03 PM