War of Words and Phrases Part 1

In the in intensifying struggle between the left and the right, words and phrases matter greatly.  They frame the argument. They conjure up images.  They help persuade one way or the other.  They brand.  They also paint a picture of a political opponent that is often hard to shake.  And as a general matter, the Left has been more facile at it than the right, both in coining terms and using them. 

But there are two original thinkers that have taken up the challenge and have coined terms that attempt to chip away at the virtual monopoly that the Left has had in this area, and I have had the good fortune of spending a little time with each of them.  Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum and Deirdre McCloskey, professor emeritus at the University of Illinois- Chicago are both very good writers and historians.  McCloskey is an economic historian and Pipes is a Middle East historian and founder of the Middle East Forum, an “activist” think tank.  Both have roots at The University of Chicago.  Pipes and McCloskey have coined new terms that more precisely describe phenomena and attempt to deny the Left’s distortions.

Pipes has been a supporter of the Eastern European governments efforts to push back against the E. U.’s policy of widespread immigration from the Middle East.  While he admits that there have been excesses in Viktor Orban’s Hungary or the Law and Justice party in Poland, he believes that they are generally moving in the right direction.  He has coined the term “Civilizationists” to describe these governments and their supporters. http://www.danielpipes.org/18612/europe-wake-up.  These are governments that wish to preserve the values, culture and social norms of their countries. http://www.danielpipes.org/18301/the-rise-of-western-civilizationism.

Pipes’s use of that term is a valiant effort to blunt the negative connotations from the Left of the term “nationalist.”   The word “nationalist,” of course, conjures up the extreme nationalism tainted with racism and aggression of the Axis Powers of the 1930’s and leading to WWII.   Yarom Hazony has attempted to argue for nationalism in his book “The Virtue of Nationalism.”  John Mersheimer in his recent book, The Great Delusion, says of nationalism, “Nationalism is essential for economic as well as military success, both of which matter greatly for a state’s survival.”  Further, Mersheimer asserts, “By fostering a common culture and tight bonds between the people and their state, nationalism can be the glue that holds otherwise disputatious people together.”   There are a number of important thinkers that believe that nationalism is vital for a vibrant society.

Yet it is almost impossible to dissociate the term “nationalist” from the violent, aggressive and genocidal experience of WWII and the camps of the Third Reich and Imperial Japan.  And the Left has seized on that.   Further, the Left then makes the short hop from “nationalist” to “white nationalist,” and with the flip of a verbal switch instantaneously transforms an American or Polish patriot that believes in their cultural identity and narrative into the wild eyed, torch carrying, hateful neo-Nazi lunatics that were photographed at Charlottesville.

The term “Civilizationist” attempts to more accurately and positively describe the desire of the Poles, Hungarians and Czechs to preserve their unique national identity and cultures in the face of an E.U. that is determined to erase them.  These are countries that resisted the forceful attempt first by the Nazis and then the Stalinists.  These countries are now defying the E.U.’s attempt to coerce them into taking Muslim immigrants from the Middle East.  Civilizationist is a way to scrape off the negative connotations of nationalism and assert the rightful stance of these people to preserve their culture and heritage.

Similarly, last fall, economic historian Deirdre McCloskey, spoke at the Heritage Foundation and used the term “Innovism” as a replacement for “capitalism.”  https://www.c-span.org/video/?454208-2/deirdre-mccloskey-socialism. As with the term “nationalism,” “capitalism” has acquired some taint, especially since the Great Recession of ’07-“08.  The bailout of large financial institutions, coupled with the widening wealth disparity have tarnished the term.  Despite the fact that capitalism’s expansion has been responsible for the near elimination of worldwide poverty, like “nationalism,” the term now conjures up thoughts of and insider game and “privilege.”  It evokes the image of the Monopoly character with the black mustache and black top hat with fistfuls of dollars charging exorbitant rents on the space that you land on.  

But McCloskey has been arguing that it is not capital that has enriched the world, but the freedom to innovate and has plenty of evidence to support that view.  McCloskey asserts that “innovism” is a better word than “capitalism,” for it is betterments not capital that have been responsible for the rise in living standards and the decline in poverty worldwide.

Betterments require disobedience, creative destruction, an overturning or remaking or redirecting of what already exists, Steve Jobs and Bill Gates challenging Big Blue, autos replacing horses—not a bigger centralized computer or a faster horse.

Her book, Bourgeois Equality: How Ideas, Not Capital or Institutions, Enriched the World takes you through a 650 page journey to explain why this is so, and she does it masterfully, in historical context.

“The modern world was not caused by “capitalism,” which is ancient and ubiquitous, as for example in Japan itself during the seventeenth century.  The modern world was caused by egalitarian liberalism, which was in 1776 revolutionary…”

The Left has heretofore had a virtual monopoly on creating words and phrases to capture the narrative and propel their agenda.  Will the terms “Civilizationist” and “Innovism” find their way into popular usage?  Frankly, I have my doubts that they will come into common use.  The Left is much is better at making up terms that have emotional appeal (although are hugely misleading) and then bludgeoning us with them (and that will be my post next week).    But both Mr. Pipes and Ms. McCloskey are original and precise thinkers with a deep historical perspective and they are getting in the rhetorical fight.