The rationality of terror and the crisis of liberalism

Paul Berman is an American “pro-war leftist” or perhaps “very liberal hawk”, whose books are considered necessary reading by the so-called “decent left”, a British-based political current launched in the aftermath of 9/11 which supported the U.S. interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq. Berman is a frequent contributor to The New Republic (associated with the Democratic Party) and Dissent, a democratic socialist magazine. I decided to read “Terror and Liberalism” after seeing Berman's oeuvre recommended at a “decent left” blog I occasionally follow. I must say that his book, published in 2003-2004, was something of a disappointment. While I happen to agree with some of the concrete political positions taken by the author (such as his support for Israel's right to exist, or his opposition to Islamism and Saddam Hussein), he frequently employs arguments which strike me as extremely weak. I say this with the reservation that I've only read one book by Berman, and that the political situation back in 2004 was somewhat different from our present predicament. Despite everything, it was easier to be an optimist back then!

Paul Berman's main point is that totalitarian regimes and movements represent a fundamentally irrational phenomenon. Thus, Islamism is a nihilistic death cult which massacres “infidels” just for the sake of it. Iraqi Baathism, with is paranoid conspiracy theories, personality cult of the great leader Saddam Hussein and Stalinist-style repression, is also fundamentally insane. The Palestinians, who rejected Clinton's and Barak's two-state offer at Camp David in favor of an unwinnable campaign of suicide bombings, are in the throes of sheer irrationalism. The Bolsheviks, Stalin and Hitler were also quite mad. All attempts to analyze modern totalitarianism in rational terms are bound to fail. Worse, they are naïve. Leftists or liberals who insist that there must be *some* kind of rational explanation behind the rise of Islamism (say, Western colonialism or global poverty) are really lending a helping hand to the terrorists, much the same way as those who saw Hitler as a rational response to the unjust Versailles treaty ended up being eaten by him (or, worse, survived as Nazi collaborators).

Now, I don't deny that both naivety and irrationality exists, and frequently play a role in world events. That being said, however, Berman's attempts to deny that “totalitarianism” has rational causes are unconvincing. The author acknowledges that the “revolt against liberal society” represented by Communism and fascism took place after World War I, when the liberal world system seemed completely bankrupt. He admits that Western colonialism was sometimes bloody and repressive. But if so, why can't “totalitarianism” be seen as a rational response to the hypocrisy, war and repression of liberal societies? That Communism, fascism and Islamism can have a certain rationality becomes obvious if we look closely at single cases. Nazism was (of course) very bad for non-Germans, but it was perfectly rational for Germans: Hitler abolished unemployment, he created a kind of “welfare state” for the German workers, and he reunited all Germans in a single fatherland. He also came close to smashing Soviet Communism, perceived as a threat even by the Western powers! Or take the Muslims. Why is it irrational for Shia Muslims in Iran to support a Shia Muslim theocracy? Why is it irrational for the Palestinians to oppose Israel? Berman claims that Saddam was mad for so obsessively opposing Zionism, but this is specious. Israel attacked Iraq in 1981. It's as if Berman (who as a leftist should know better) fears to discuss the actual grievances exploited by terrorists, in the belief that this would somehow give them credence or legitimacy. Just pretend it's all irrational and bomb them back to the Stone Age…

Another example of this is when Berman claims that Islamist terrorists are mostly upper class, that many were educated at fine Western universities, had splendid careers ahead of them, etc. Why would such people turn towards a crazy death cult? And surely Osama bin Laden, a scion of a plutocratic Saudi family, isn't one of the “wretched of the earth”? Here's a possible explanation: some privileged people break with their class and side with the “wretched of the earth”. Here's another, more cynical explanation: the Western-educated Muslims aren't fighting for the “wretched of the earth” at all, but simply use them as pawns. However, that doesn't mean they like America or Al Gore. Presumably scions of Saudi plutocrats want to be top dogs themselves! But even this (rather trivial and obvious) explanation is beyond the author, who simply must believe that everything outside the pale of liberal settlement is completely irrational. To our author, a rational Muslim presumably must want to blend in at a Western university, perhaps even acquire a taste in good French literature... (A hostile observer might wonder why a privileged man like *Berman himself* sides with, say, the enslaved Blacks in the Sudan, rather than pursuing a career in an American company exploiting Sudanese oil resources?)

Here, I think we are zooming in on the deeper problem with “Terror and Liberalism”. Berman, despite all his attacks on the naivety of his fellow liberals and leftists, is pretty naïve himself. Thus, he seems to regard liberal society as a powerful antidote to the irrationality of totalitarianism. But what if large swaths of humanity *want* to live under the sharia, under a Völkish authoritarian regime, or a Communist state which guarantees them full employment and low food prices? What makes Berman think that the enslaved Dinka of south Sudan would want a liberal society rather than, say, a traditional tribal society? What makes him think that Kurds or Shia Muslims in Iraq, liberated from the brutal regime of Saddam, want a liberal democracy rather than a ethno-nationalist state (for the Kurds) or a Shia Muslim state where the words of Grand Ayatollah Sistani are seen as more important than those of “the decent left”?

Berman's naivety is most obvious in his take on Islamism. To him, Islamism is actually a modern, Western phenomenon! It sure is ironic that this author, who attacks the political correctness of the left, claims that Islamist ideology is, in some sense, “our” fault. Or at least the fault of the vile Commies and Nazis, who exported their ware to the Middle East, inspiring the local crazies: Saddam, after all, is pretty similar to Stalin, while Khomeini is a perfect stand-in for Hitler. While there is some truth in this, another truth is occluded in Berman's narrative. Jihad was (of course) a staple of Islam from the start. Berman does point to the apocalyptic traits of Christianity and the zeal of the crusaders as possible inspirations for 20th century secular millenarianism, but classical Islam has apocalyptic and “crusading” strains, too. Even if we leave out medieval and early modern Muslim civilization (which were high cultures), it could be noted that Wahhabism (from which Al Qaeda are derived) dates from the 1700s, while the Deobandis (from which the Taliban are an off-shoot) dates from the 1800s. So does the pro-slavery Mahdi revolt in the Sudan. The call of jihad against Christians and Westerners was heard in the Northwest Frontier Province of British India already around 1900 – the same area were it's still heard. Or heard again? All of these movements preceded European fascism or Russian Communism by generations! Why does Berman deny that contemporary Muslim fundamentalism has deeper roots than interwar Western fascism and Stalinism?

I think he must deny it, since his narrative is based on the optimistic notion that human irrationality isn't entirely intractable and that, paradoxically, much of it is a product of our modern times. So is the solution: the irrational side of the modern can be efficiently opposed (and perhaps even abolished) by the forces of liberalism. There really is Progress in the qualitative, robust sense of the word. The idea that so-called irrationalism has always existed and, perchance, will always exist, that “Iran” will always be at war with “Turan”, is apparently too much to handle. And no, there's nothing about peak oil and climate change in the book…

How well have Berman's ideas stood the test of time? On one point, I'm willing to concede that he may have had a point: the recent depredations of ISIS do come pretty close to just about everyone's definition of “mad”. ISIS are also “modern”, almost “postmodern”, in their uses of Facebook, pop music, clips of executions at Youtube etc. It's like entering a bizarre alternate reality. Note also that ISIS' main opponents in this alternative universe are the masked nerds of Anonymous! However, even ISIS has a “rational” side, since its main base of support in Iraq is the Sunni Arab minority, which was deprived of its privileged position when Saddam fell at the hands of the U.S-led coalition. Thus, even this crazy death cult has sprung from an actual political conflict. Note also that ISIS (in itself a filthy rich operation with former ties to the Saudis) *does* seem to recruit “the wretched of the earth”, many of their foreign supporters being drawn from underprivileged Muslim groups in Western Europe.

On almost every other point, “Terror and Liberalism” feels dated. The spectacular rise and fall of the Arab Spring, the strong support for Putin in Russia, the failure of “nation-building” in Iraq and Afghanistan, the fact that Western-Israeli relations are at a low point, the perennial inability of the EU and the United States to solve its economic and political crises, the refusal of authoritarian China to follow the predictions of Western Sinologists and collapse…everywhere, the tide seems to be turning against the liberal-idealistic optimism of “the decent left”. This is not something I want to say. Quite the contrary. About the time Berman's book was hot off the press, I held political positions which had a certain “family likeness” to those of the author. A decade earlier, I had positions similar to those Berman is attacking! I certainly hope that Iraq (and South Sudan) might turn into stable democracies, or at least into moderately livable societies under whatever system of government. However, I suspect that a more hard-nosed attitude might be in order, rather than the (perhaps admirable) decencies of this writer. At one point, Berman proposes a program based on two planks: fight for the oppressed and self-government. I can sympathize with that. But this, arguably, isn't the liberal program sensu stricto, but rather a program more similar to communitarianism or nationalism (certainly if the rights of the oppressed include the group right to national self-determination) or classical republicanism (collective “self-government” by the people). Personally, I suspect that a polity which attempts to conquer the world for its own particular philosophy (even if it's the true one) will risk over-stretching itself in classical imperial fashion in a world where the energy crisis and the environmental crisis surely must constrain any attempts at global domination. Still, it's ironic that Paul Berman, when he finally gets down to business and decides to become more muscular, proposes a platform which doesn't seem very liberal!