My guest this week is the writer Matt Johnson. He’s written for Quillette, Haaretz, The Daily Beast, and many other outlets, and he’s here this week to discuss his new book, How Hitchens Can Save the Left: Rediscovering Fearless Liberalism in an Age of Counter-Enlightenment
Jul 20, 2023·edited Jul 23, 2023Liked by Glenn Loury
Glenn, I don’t claim to be an expert on geopolitics, but I’m highly sympathetic to the ideas espoused in John Mearsheimer’s recent book The Great Delusion, specifically in the context of the geopolitical competition between the United States and China over the commanding heights of the 21st century.
It’s become clear to me that most of the political and pundit class in the United States view the competition between America and China as a moral contest between liberal democracy on the one hand and autocracy on the other. But as Mearsheimer convincingly argues in The Great Delusion, liberal universalism of the kind that’s influenced American foreign policy since the Cold War vastly overstates the extent to which reason can lead to universal consensus on moral first principles. Specifically, while liberal democracy might be a viable political system for any particular nation, Mearsheimer states that the international system is essentially anarchic and that pursuing liberal hegemony in such a system through sanctions, war, and regime change is ultimately doomed to fail and results in a less peaceful rather than more peaceful world.
The idea that nations should promote liberal democratic norms across the globe in violation of the self-determination and sovereignty of other countries runs counter to the forces of nationalism and realism that Mearsheimer asserts are still hugely influential in governing the modern world. Personally, I find myself in much greater agreement with The Clash of Civilizations as espoused by the late Samuel Huntington rather than The End of History as espoused by Francis Fukuyama. Liberals underestimate the extent to which culture rooted in both history and biology is still an essential factor in influencing the mindset of different nations and nationalities.
I just ordered Matt’s book and look forward to reading it, but I find that liberal universalism in the international as opposed to the national realm is ultimately misguided as a philosophical worldview. The Chinese belong to a 5,000 year old civilization with a vastly different culture and it’s sheer folly trying to force our values upon them. I’m not as informed as Matt about what exactly Mearsheimer has gotten right or wrong in his predictions over the past decades, but my gut feeling is that the rise of China in the 21st century will ultimately validate his realist thesis contrary to what Matt believes.
In fact, my major frustration with the mainstream American viewpoint towards China is that its inherently liberal universalist orientation eerily parallels the mindset of the woke in this country towards the supposedly less enlightened and non-woke. I’ve argued elsewhere that calls to disengage with and decouple from China because it’s an autocracy and therefore immoral parallel San Francisco’s recent attempts to decouple from the rest of America because it fundamentally doesn’t share SF’s liberal political values. I’ve also highlighted Ron DeSantis’ order banning Chinese made drones from being used by public departments in the state of Florida despite various officials arguing that drones made by companies such as DJI are indispensable and that American made alternatives aren’t up to par. Doesn’t Ron DeSantis hastily banning Chinese drones on vague and unsupported claims of national security concerns eerily mirror what the Art Institute of Chicago recently did in axing all of their nice white lady docents?
I recently visited Japan for the first time and was blown away by how amazing the infrastructure in Tokyo was compared to the infrastructure in the US. It’s undoubtedly one of the safest and most modern cities in the world. In contrast to America, Japan is a racially and culturally homogenous nation with none of the universalist pretensions of the modern West. I increasingly find that 21st century America is less a unified and cohesive nation and more akin to a corporation. It’s essentially an agglomeration of disparate parts, many of which are at each other's throats. The irony of The End of History is that history might very well prove liberal universalism to be the downfall of the West while the particularism espoused by countries like China and Japan is what endures.
Hitchens was great, he was, on so many levels, but he did what so many Marxist trained thinkers do, and do so well, critique. An excellent one at that. And he critiqued some of the worst people of the 20th century (looking at you Kissinger) so it was enjoyable to read someone FINALLY say it.
But his love for the Kurds superseding all other rationale is a major mistake in his trajectory. For years he posited himself as the alpha intellect, and often either proved it or held enough ground to not be dismissed.
But he fucked up hard supporting the invasion of Iraq, he dismissed his very own intellectual for emotional triggers. He failed and it is unforgivable. He became the Kissinger, the "this atrocity will reap value in the end" thinking man.
To be so oblivious of reasoning for war, to subject that region to decades of conflict and instability, to believe the neocons would fulfill his expectations of the invasion, evades all the intellect he had shown previously for decades.
Glen, the idea of finding "diamonds in the rough" is absurd to those many enthralled by the "Blank Slate" myth. "They" are all diamonds, all the same except for the way "We" shape them, Steven Pinker not withstanding.
Man... this guy is living in an alternate reality. The german green party should be emulated because they jumped to arm Zelensky? Is it that clear?! Afghanistan?! Hitchens was right on Iraq?!
I've been following Hitchens for decades - since first seeing him on William F. Buckley's show. His intelligence and charisma hooked me right away, even if his Marxism was repellant. I own most, if not all, his books.
I encountered Matt Johnson on a podcast with Daniel James Sharp (another brilliant writer less than half my age), and bought his book in appreciation. I delayed actually reading it until a week ago, thinking I had nothing to learn about the great man. I was wrong. Johnson's book is fantastic. Buy it, no matter how little or much your exposure to Hitchens has been.
Love this guy, Matt Johnson. Love his inquiring mind, how he is authentically seeking justifiable positions. Enjoy his passion about Hitchens, though he’s thoughtful and not naive. Love the way his mind thinks, trying to figure out the left and where he fits in. Hope to hear more from this rare individual. And I’ll check out his book. Good choice, Glenn. Thank you.
At the risk of promoting "what aboutism," is the right not also losing their minds in the culture war? Looking at the top 2 Republican presidential candidates, it seems the culture war is the #1 thing they talk about. (Well, maybe Trump talks about the "stolen" 2020 election the most, but after that, it's all culture wars and related topics like immigration and all those rapists entering the country!) The more extreme one side gets, the more extreme the other side must respond. The side that recognizes that most voters are more concerned about kitchen table issues than culture wars is likely to win elections. As a school psychologist, I assert that improving academic achievement will only be accomplished by improving reading, since it affects achievement in every subject. White kids score way too low on the NAEP reading test, and black kids score even lower. That's because a lot of schools fail to implement the recommendations of the National Reading Panel (link #1). An interesting theory about why black kids score even lower than white kids is the mismatch between language spoken at home by many, especially low SES, vs. the language used in written texts, as demonstrated by the research of Dr. Julie Washington and colleagues.(link#2) Her work is hardly even known in schools. Is it too "political?"
Did I rattle your very fragile nervous system? Expose the cognitive dissonance? Compose yourself! Lol!
Thanks for the thoughtful comment Yan Shen.
Glenn, I don’t claim to be an expert on geopolitics, but I’m highly sympathetic to the ideas espoused in John Mearsheimer’s recent book The Great Delusion, specifically in the context of the geopolitical competition between the United States and China over the commanding heights of the 21st century.
It’s become clear to me that most of the political and pundit class in the United States view the competition between America and China as a moral contest between liberal democracy on the one hand and autocracy on the other. But as Mearsheimer convincingly argues in The Great Delusion, liberal universalism of the kind that’s influenced American foreign policy since the Cold War vastly overstates the extent to which reason can lead to universal consensus on moral first principles. Specifically, while liberal democracy might be a viable political system for any particular nation, Mearsheimer states that the international system is essentially anarchic and that pursuing liberal hegemony in such a system through sanctions, war, and regime change is ultimately doomed to fail and results in a less peaceful rather than more peaceful world.
The idea that nations should promote liberal democratic norms across the globe in violation of the self-determination and sovereignty of other countries runs counter to the forces of nationalism and realism that Mearsheimer asserts are still hugely influential in governing the modern world. Personally, I find myself in much greater agreement with The Clash of Civilizations as espoused by the late Samuel Huntington rather than The End of History as espoused by Francis Fukuyama. Liberals underestimate the extent to which culture rooted in both history and biology is still an essential factor in influencing the mindset of different nations and nationalities.
I just ordered Matt’s book and look forward to reading it, but I find that liberal universalism in the international as opposed to the national realm is ultimately misguided as a philosophical worldview. The Chinese belong to a 5,000 year old civilization with a vastly different culture and it’s sheer folly trying to force our values upon them. I’m not as informed as Matt about what exactly Mearsheimer has gotten right or wrong in his predictions over the past decades, but my gut feeling is that the rise of China in the 21st century will ultimately validate his realist thesis contrary to what Matt believes.
In fact, my major frustration with the mainstream American viewpoint towards China is that its inherently liberal universalist orientation eerily parallels the mindset of the woke in this country towards the supposedly less enlightened and non-woke. I’ve argued elsewhere that calls to disengage with and decouple from China because it’s an autocracy and therefore immoral parallel San Francisco’s recent attempts to decouple from the rest of America because it fundamentally doesn’t share SF’s liberal political values. I’ve also highlighted Ron DeSantis’ order banning Chinese made drones from being used by public departments in the state of Florida despite various officials arguing that drones made by companies such as DJI are indispensable and that American made alternatives aren’t up to par. Doesn’t Ron DeSantis hastily banning Chinese drones on vague and unsupported claims of national security concerns eerily mirror what the Art Institute of Chicago recently did in axing all of their nice white lady docents?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/san-francisco-reconsiders-business-ban-that-targets-states-social-values-11666789223
https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/07/09/chinese-drone-dominance-dji-defense-florida/
I recently visited Japan for the first time and was blown away by how amazing the infrastructure in Tokyo was compared to the infrastructure in the US. It’s undoubtedly one of the safest and most modern cities in the world. In contrast to America, Japan is a racially and culturally homogenous nation with none of the universalist pretensions of the modern West. I increasingly find that 21st century America is less a unified and cohesive nation and more akin to a corporation. It’s essentially an agglomeration of disparate parts, many of which are at each other's throats. The irony of The End of History is that history might very well prove liberal universalism to be the downfall of the West while the particularism espoused by countries like China and Japan is what endures.
Hitchens was great, he was, on so many levels, but he did what so many Marxist trained thinkers do, and do so well, critique. An excellent one at that. And he critiqued some of the worst people of the 20th century (looking at you Kissinger) so it was enjoyable to read someone FINALLY say it.
But his love for the Kurds superseding all other rationale is a major mistake in his trajectory. For years he posited himself as the alpha intellect, and often either proved it or held enough ground to not be dismissed.
But he fucked up hard supporting the invasion of Iraq, he dismissed his very own intellectual for emotional triggers. He failed and it is unforgivable. He became the Kissinger, the "this atrocity will reap value in the end" thinking man.
To be so oblivious of reasoning for war, to subject that region to decades of conflict and instability, to believe the neocons would fulfill his expectations of the invasion, evades all the intellect he had shown previously for decades.
No heros, people, no heros.
All Lives Matter. A euphemism for Shut Up and Do Nothing. Like everything else in That Great Big Middle.
Glen, the idea of finding "diamonds in the rough" is absurd to those many enthralled by the "Blank Slate" myth. "They" are all diamonds, all the same except for the way "We" shape them, Steven Pinker not withstanding.
What a painful boring and unserious guest this week. Glenn was great as usual though.
Man... this guy is living in an alternate reality. The german green party should be emulated because they jumped to arm Zelensky? Is it that clear?! Afghanistan?! Hitchens was right on Iraq?!
An interesting exchange. Laid-back, but interesting.
Like many other episodes, this could have gone on for much longer. Parts of it reminded me (somewhat) of Daniel Bessner's interviews of Glenn.
I’m reading RFK, Jr’s Letter to Liberals. My only disagreement with him is whether today’s Democrats are actually liberals. He thinks they are.
I've been following Hitchens for decades - since first seeing him on William F. Buckley's show. His intelligence and charisma hooked me right away, even if his Marxism was repellant. I own most, if not all, his books.
I encountered Matt Johnson on a podcast with Daniel James Sharp (another brilliant writer less than half my age), and bought his book in appreciation. I delayed actually reading it until a week ago, thinking I had nothing to learn about the great man. I was wrong. Johnson's book is fantastic. Buy it, no matter how little or much your exposure to Hitchens has been.
Love this guy, Matt Johnson. Love his inquiring mind, how he is authentically seeking justifiable positions. Enjoy his passion about Hitchens, though he’s thoughtful and not naive. Love the way his mind thinks, trying to figure out the left and where he fits in. Hope to hear more from this rare individual. And I’ll check out his book. Good choice, Glenn. Thank you.
At the risk of promoting "what aboutism," is the right not also losing their minds in the culture war? Looking at the top 2 Republican presidential candidates, it seems the culture war is the #1 thing they talk about. (Well, maybe Trump talks about the "stolen" 2020 election the most, but after that, it's all culture wars and related topics like immigration and all those rapists entering the country!) The more extreme one side gets, the more extreme the other side must respond. The side that recognizes that most voters are more concerned about kitchen table issues than culture wars is likely to win elections. As a school psychologist, I assert that improving academic achievement will only be accomplished by improving reading, since it affects achievement in every subject. White kids score way too low on the NAEP reading test, and black kids score even lower. That's because a lot of schools fail to implement the recommendations of the National Reading Panel (link #1). An interesting theory about why black kids score even lower than white kids is the mismatch between language spoken at home by many, especially low SES, vs. the language used in written texts, as demonstrated by the research of Dr. Julie Washington and colleagues.(link#2) Her work is hardly even known in schools. Is it too "political?"
https://www.nichd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/publications/pubs/nrp/Documents/report.pdf
https://www.aft.org/ae/summer2021/washington_seidenberg
Christopher Hitchens, intellectual, atheist, socialist, rapier wit, RIP, we miss leftist with something original to say!