Mark Shea is one of the top dogs in the Catholic blogosphere and I truly enjoy reading his take on many items and issues. I don’t always agree with him but I respect him and I like him. Lately, I have had a growing awareness that I just cannot anticipate what side of an issue Mr. Shea is likely to come down on. I attributed this solely to my lack of understanding of his philosophy. However, after reading his blog yesterday, I suspect that Mr. Shea might be in the same boat as me. He might not understand his philosophy either.
What do I mean? I mean that the reason I cannot seem to figure out which side of an issue Mr. Shea will come down, is likely that he can come down on both sides. At the same time.
Let me provide an example. On Thursday, January 18th Mark Shea has two posts in a row on his blog that a related to the same issue. Yet, he seems to have a different take in each post. The issue in question is “liberal” or “progressive” fascism. Mark heaps no small dose of ridicule upon Jonah Goldberg based on his appearance on the Jon Stewart show to promote his book “Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning.” The interview in question is highly edited and highly questionable. Jon Stewart conducted an 18 minute interview with Mr. Goldberg and then subsequently edited it down to six minutes. The majority of what was left showed Jon Stewart ridiculing and heaping scorn on Mr. Goldberg and his premise. Whether you agree with his premise or not would be hard to determine since Jon Stewart did not allow Jonah to finish many sentences, edited or not.
The premise of Goldberg’s book is that Fascism has an intellectual pedigree and that modern progressivism and classical fascism share the same intellectual roots. He reminds us that, for example, that Mussolini and Hitler had many admirers in the United States. W.E.B. Du Bois was inspired by Hitler’s Germany, and Irving Berlin praised Mussolini in song. Many fascist tenets were espoused by American progressives like John Dewey and Woodrow Wilson, and FDR incorporated fascist policies in the New Deal.
Mark Shea, joining Jon Stewart (I am not sure that is a club I would wish to join) heaps scorn on Goldberg and his premise.
I’ve always identified fascism with, oh, you know, smashing free speech and trying to centralize everything in a big centralized political economy. I thought a more noticable feature of fascism was, say, Grand Military Adventures promising an End to Evil and the inauguration of a Golden Age of earthly happiness. I’ve even tended to identify it with urging us all to hand Caesar the power to torture people and the employment of Orwellian euphemisms and groupthink pressure tactics such as “You aren’t one of us if you oppose waterboarding and other forms of torture” to punish dissenters. Indeed, I was quite sure, till I heard Jonah explain it all for me, that apologists for Salvation Through Leviathan by Any Means Necessary bore a much greater resemblance to fascists than advocates of “Small is Beautiful” thinking. I never realized that the real menace to our liberty was a taste for tofu. I’m sure glad that Jonah has broken with that silly old narrative of saying “Anything I happen to dislike is fascist.”
Fine. Mr Shea apparently is of the opinion that Goldberg’s premise holds no water. Or is he? The post just prior to the above mentioned post is a wonderful video featuring Ezra Levant. Mark Shea professes his love for Levant and calls him a “hero.” I emphatically agree with Shea’s assessment. Who is Ezra Levant and why is he a hero? Ezra Levant is a Canadian publisher and journalist who published the cartoons of Mohammad that so inflamed to Muslim world not long ago. Levant is being investigated by the Canadian Human Rights Commission for a possible thought crime because people were offended by what he published. The video shows Levant refusing to concede one inch to these ‘thought police.’ This is why Mark Shea rightly considers Levant a hero.
However, this leads to my confusion. Mark Shea ridicules Goldberg for suggesting that modern “progressivism” is really just ‘nice’ fascism and suggests that fascism is only evident in the extremes of water-boarding and grand military adventures. In the same breath he extols Ezra Levant for essentially standing up to creeping ‘progressive’ fascism in what Shea terms “Soviet Canuckistan.” How can Shea dismiss Goldberg and love Levant?
I know now that there are very good reasons why I cannot seem to figure out Mark Shea and can only ask “Will the real Mark Shea please stand up?”
Update: Mark Shea responds that it is more about the method than the thesis.
January 18, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Mark’s problem with things like this is that he only half pays attention to the content. He scans, he thinks he gets it, and then he comments.
January 18, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Goldberg’s point, which appears lost on Shea, is that leftist ideas have a common genesis. It appears that Shea is taken by a few of these ideas (eg waterboarding=torture; organic lettuce=good), however, he is unwilling to acknowledge the origins that these ideas share with fascism. He, therefore, ridicules Goldberg in typical leftist fashion. It might be better for Shea to embrace his lovely leftist ideas as such or examine why he has chosen to throw in with the hard left on such fashionable causes.
January 18, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Gil:
That is the funniest thing I have read all day. Thanks!
January 18, 2008 at 10:35 pm
It is simple. Mark rejects the left/right tribalism. People who are strong devotees of the left or the right find that confusing. He seems rational to them on some issues and out of his mind on others.
The funny thing is he is pretty consistently Catholic. He is much more in harmony with what comes out of Rome than either the left or the right. So you would think Catholics would be able to understand his thinking. Apparently not.
January 18, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Mark:
Glad it was taken in the spirit it was given.
I’ve got some organic lettuce to spin…
January 19, 2008 at 1:56 am
Randy,
I addressed certain points that are not matters of doctrine, but rather consistent political thought. Mark addressed my remarks in the spirit in which they were intended, namely with an intellectual politeness. What part of what Mark or I addressed makes me not a consistent Catholic?
Further, Mark’s reponse extended his thoughts by suggesting that his problem is not so much with the thesis, but methods. So since Mark and I agree, who is wrong in your mind?
By the way, what tribe am I in and did I just get voted off the island? If I am in the the tribe with the fat and naked guy, I am cool with that.
January 19, 2008 at 2:29 am
Islamofascist-Dhimmi Axis Assault on Free Speech
Muslims Against Sharia are proud to be the first Muslim group to publicly support Ezra Levant and denounce HRC inquisition.
Proceedings against Ezra Levant are nothing short of ridiculous. HRC legitimizes radicals’ claims that Islam cannot be criticized and Freedom of Speech only applies to radical Muslims.
But Ezra Levant is not alone. The latest casualties of Islamofascist-Dhimmi Axis Assault on Free Speech include Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, Fouad al-Farhan, Joe Kaufman, Alexander Sdvizhkov, Mark Steyn, and TomaShot. Are you going to be next? http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/2008/01/islamofascist-dhimmi-axis-assault-on.html
January 19, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Patrick,
The point is there are no tribes in Catholic political thought. The labels of Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative should mean nothing to a Catholic. All that matters is Christ. Mark is one of the few Catholic thinkers who get that.
Most in the Catholic blog world have played politics just like the non-Catholics. The defend their party. They use their religion as a weapon to defend their party but the party is what matters. It is quite disappointing. Most don’t even understand it is possible to think outside the two political boxes our society has built for us. They find guys like Mark and Pope Benedict incomprehensible.
As far as you go. I don’t know enough about you to put a label on you. You take some cheap shots but I understand you are trying to be funny. It does seem like you are canonizing one side and demonizing another. I don’t know if you are picking extremes for comic value or if you just see everything in terms of extremes. The point is to avoid labels. You need to judge yourself whether you are influenced more by conservative thinking or catholic tradition.
January 19, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Randy,
With all due respect, I did not write the piece to criticize Mark for having a liberal or a conservative position. I wrote the piece because it seemed to me, based on the small amount that he had written, that he might be espousing contradictory ideas. I was attempting to clarify this perceived inconsistency. Mark seemed to receive it in the spirit in which it was intended.
Further, while I may have attempted some good natured ribbing, I certainly don’t accept that I took any “cheap shots.’ As I stated, I like and respect Mark, and this was a friendly debate about ideas. I am sorry you didn’t see it that way.
January 20, 2008 at 1:30 am
Mark gets a lot of grief from traditional Catholics, not all of it justified. He’s gotten a fair share of it lately. Maybe he decided he’d have a little fun and mess with people’s heads.
Yeah, that’s what it was, right, Mark? Mark???
January 21, 2008 at 2:24 am
Waterboarding=torture is an idea that has its origins in fascism? Wha?