“Suicide of the West: How the Rebirth of Tribalism, Populism, Nationalism, and Identity Politics is Destroying American Democracy” by Jonah Goldberg

Scott Nelson

19 January 2019

This piece appeared in modified form on 1 August 2019 in The European Conservative.

Jonah Goldberg’s latest book is mature, well researched, and has lost nothing of its author’s penchant for inserting witty observations about pop culture. The book’s thesis is that some of our most cherished institutions and beliefs, such as liberalism, capitalism, productivity and growth, democracy, and human rights, are fundamentally unnatural. Many of these developments randomly came together in the 18^th century in Great Britain before spreading to other Western countries. That this happy confluence was written neither in the stars nor in our nature means that it was nothing short of a Miracle. Human nature, by contrast, tends toward the tribalism and violence that characterized much of human history prior to the Miracle. And this tendency can re-emerge in various ideological forms of both the Left and the Right, be it fascism, communism, racism, or romanticism. The sheer randomness and unnaturalness of the Miracle – i.e. our shared belief in liberal democracy and capitalism – means that it is particularly subject to decay, or what Goldberg terms “corruption”. For this reason we must work hard to preserve it, an effort which begins with approaching the Miracle in a spirit of gratitude.

The book proceeds somewhat historically, with earlier chapters outlining our very flawed and tribal human nature, the emergence of the state, the ideological conflict between John Locke (the greatest theorist of the Miracle) and, for Goldberg, the philosophical precursor of our modern forms of tribalism, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, with a central chapter on the watershed moment of human history where the American Founding Fathers elaborated the philosophical tenets of the Miracle and enshrined them in the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution. The latter half of the book demonstrates the steady degeneration of the Founding Fathers’ vision in chapters that will be familiar to readers of Goldberg’s earlier work, Liberal Fascism, with some final sections on pop culture, the family, and Donald Trump.

Although this book was already in the works prior to the election of Trump, 2016 was an affirmation of Goldberg’s central thesis. It was also a defining moment for the Republicans in general, some of whom warmed up to Trump once he won the primaries, others of whom, such as Goldberg, were and remain “Never Trumpers”. One discerns a commendable attempt on the part of Goldberg, who has likely lost some friendships and some of his fan base over his opposition to Trump, to reach across the political aisle in a conciliatory gesture uncommon to his standard journalism. Without touching on any of the more polarizing issues such as gun control or the role of religion in American politics, there is much to be found in Suicide of the West that would appeal to left-wingers who would not normally read the National Review.

One wonders whether the work would have been more aptly titled Suicide of the United States of America. Goldberg’s “West” is very America-focused with but a few comments inserted here and there concerning recent populist developments in Europe. As a Canadian who has been living in Europe for the past ten years, I find myself wondering whether I would really appreciate the fruits of the Miracle more if I lived in the United States. If the United States is the only free and prosperous country on account of its Constitution, and other Western countries are comparatively servile, then servility loses much of its meaning and undesirability. If the United States is only one of many free and prosperous countries on earth, then we would require a more elaborate analysis of the Miracle itself, its variations in different countries, both Western and non-Western, as well as an examination as to what extent and in what way it is being threatened, if at all, in other countries.

Goldberg’s “West” is also decidedly the West of the Enlightenment, with the Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian traditions conspicuously absent from the narrative. This may grate some readers who believe that there is a Western tradition, antedating the Enlightenment and the Founding Fathers, which is also worth preserving. But while reading human history up until around 1700 as one damn awful thing after another may sound a bit reductionist, Goldberg is correct in pointing to the emergence of liberal democratic capitalism as a moment of tremendous importance in Western history. On the whole, compared to other societies and other time periods, we in the West are living in a good time and place.

Taking the Enlightenment as his cue, Goldberg is understandably a fan of classical liberalism, what with its focus on the individual, freedom, and property rights vis-à-vis the state. Collectivism is permissible, not in the state, but in the space between the state and the individual called “civil society”, which comprises the various organizations to which we may choose to belong: our church, our clubs, our schools, etc. Thus Goldberg argues that identity and meaning in our lives should be sought in the “little platoons” of civil society. Is that the only goal that individuals can set for themselves in a liberal democracy? An ancient Greek, for example, not to mention nationalists, progressives, communists, socialists, and many other groups of various political persuasions nowadays might also ask what our common political project is, what it is that unites us all (be it as a city, a nation, or all of humanity), whether it be reducing income inequality, dominating other countries, overthrowing the capitalist scum, protecting the environment, etc. Can a classical liberal have a political project, or is he thrown helplessly back into his little platoon, one amongst many, all disconnected from each other and doing their own things? Goldberg is not ignorant of this argument; indeed, he acknowledges that a little nationalism can be healthy and useful in binding a country’s citizens together, presumably in the interest of preserving liberal democratic capitalism.

But are there perhaps certain collective projects whose meaning cannot be fully realized within the context of a small civil society grouping? For example, can a true religious believer acknowledge that others have different moral systems and that they are all equally correct? If he can, then that must mean there is a point at which he chooses to suspend his religious belief, perhaps right at the moment that it would conflict with a higher morality that he has set for himself, i.e. liberalism. If he cannot accept this, then he will never feel entirely fulfilled by practicing his religion only within the context of civil society, since there will always be pockets of individuals who are shielded from the reach of his faith. And if his religion is a universalist and proselytizing one, then wouldn’t it be immoral not to mobilize the power of the state and impose it on others? I bring up the religious example here because at the beginning of his book Goldberg makes a point of declaring that there is no God in his book. This may make enough sense for trying to create a secular space and bring both the Left and the Right together to have a discussion about what is truly worth preserving in the West. But by casting out God, or even idea(l)s in general, and reducing all of these aspirations to residual tribal impulses of our natural selves, then isn’t Goldberg missing a lot of what has empirically been considered important for humans through the ages? In other words, is it enough to defend liberal democratic capitalism? If we are already at the end of history, as Goldberg suggests, then the end of history looks a lot like previous moments in time and is underwhelming to say the very least. How do people find meaning in measures that are perfectly consonant with liberal democratic capitalism, like cutting taxes? The problem with the Miracle, ironically, is that it is so prosaic.

Furthermore, Goldberg’s explanation of human behaviour as resulting more or less from our animalistic selves is only part of the story. It has become quite fashionable these days to discuss human beings as if we were nothing more than slightly more developed apes, stressing all the commonalities we have with the rest of the animal kingdom and none of the differences. But until apes or our thumbless mammal brethren begin to build what we have built over centuries – be it our impressive feats of architecture, our technological advances, our arts, our political systems, the written word, etc. – then we must perforce concede that there is something more to human nature than just tribal instinct and group feeling. Perhaps for too many centuries the philosophers focused on separating man from beast on the basis of the former’s reason or being made in God’s image, and now, in our more natural scientific age, we seek to right the balance by stressing our several similarities with the beasts. Still, Goldberg’s thesis seems to rely heavily on an appeal to that very reason that is so often foiled by our nature (as Goldberg defines our nature). If it is so unnatural for us to act as Goldberg advises, then on what grounds can we be expected to act thus?

On the one hand, we could employ our reason, against our nature, and see the comparatively superior benefits of liberal democratic capitalism. And then we would also have to ask ourselves what it is that we love so much about the Miracle. Are the only things of value for humans free speech, owning property, and voting? I am sure Goldberg would say no, but hasten to add that these institutions are preconditions for many other enjoyments. But then is it possible that other enjoyments, caused by the Enlightenment philosophy, do not end up undoing the philosophy itself? The Rousseauian romanticism that Goldberg maligns was itself a reaction against what appeared to be the rigid, mechanistic dogmatism of the Enlightenment.

On the other hand, if reason is not enough to justify the preservation of the Miracle, then the other alternative is to take a leap of faith in our love and defence of the Miracle. But leaps of faith are required only when there is uncertainty about the truth or value of the object of that faith. If there is room for doubt about the superiority and splendour of liberal democratic capitalism then why shouldn’t we push for better forms of social organization (and here waltz in progressives and conservatives of every stripe with their conflicting ideas of the Good)?

Goldberg’s work is a broad-based appeal to defend a political order that appears to be declining all over the world. A worthy addition to the classical liberal canon, Suicide of the West reflects some of the unsatisfying aspects of classical liberalism as a philosophy. Goldberg claims that the vision encapsulated in the Founding Fathers’ work is the end of history and we have only to preserve that heritage. That vision and all of the benefits that have sprung from it are of great value indeed, and we should be grateful, but there is still something missing. Perhaps the most disappointing thing about Goldberg’s argument is the idea that he could be right.