Liberalism as an Auto Immune Disease

I came across a radio show about a month ago which was quite shocking to me.  Some might think me quite naive but I really didn't expect what I heard.  The talk show host, Michael Savage, was in the middle of his usual rant against the American liberal establishment, when he introduced the (almost) Derridean metaphor of autoimmunity:

SAVAGE: How do I relate the rise of radical Islam, with its restrictions, with its throwback mentality, and with its hatred and its murderous nature, with the progressive movement in the West? It's quite simple. You have to think about biology to understand it. You have to think of the AIDS virus, which is symptomatic, actually symbolic rather, of what I'm talking about.

The AIDS virus is actually quite symbolic. It's a retrovirus and it invades the body but it doesn't really cause infection for awhile. It lays in wait. And while it lays in wait, the retrovirus, the HIV virus, it starts to attack the immune system itself. And only after the immune system itself is weakened can infections arise within the human being that has been infected with the HIV virus.

This is what liberalism is. Liberalism is, in essence, the HIV virus, and it weakens the defense cells of a nation. What are the defense cells of a nation? Well, the church. They've attacked particularly the Catholic Church for 30 straight years. The police, attacked for the last 50 straight years by the ACLU viruses. And the military, attacked for the last 50 years by the Barbara Boxer viruses on our planet.

I know that it is blasphemous to compare Mr Savage's usage of immunity to the Derridean concept.  Clearly the political intent is the very opposite of Derrida's point - that democracies tend to undermine their own defenses against dictatorship.  And the Nazi overtone of the rhetoric is unmistakable.

But what disturbs me the most is that anyone who questions any of the disciplinary institutions mentioned are deemed the most dangerous and pernicious kind of virus.  Who are these people who fill the air waves and our culture with so much hate?  Other than the desire to be heard, to make money, or draw attention to themselves, what motivates them?  Anyone who has listened to Mr Savage can not doubt the ferocity of his attacks, and the venom of his vitriol.  It would seem the final lines are being drawn, and that the "birth pangs" of violence we are witnessing are not that of a "new middle east."  If the pronouncement of World War III is truly meaningful, it may be that it best describes the ensuing global civil war pitting those who seek the spread of conflict against those who want to stop it. 

Comments

[Amie]

Alain, hi,
don't much post comments on LS anymore, but somehow want to this time, perhaps because i'm simply grateful to hear from you.
re the really important issues you raise, could i suggest a book by Alexander Garcia Duttmann called " Living at Odds with Aids: Thinking and Talking about a Virus."

[s0metim3s]

I'll second Amie's suggestion re Duttmann, and also Roberto Esposito's Immunitas:
Protezione e negazione della vita, for those fluent in italian, or spanish (or other texts of his which are slowly being translated into english).

[Alain]

Amie, it is good to hear from you. I will definitely look for the book. I was really at a loss when I heard this guy spewing on the radio. I just felt like all was lost.

Angela, if you know any of Esposito's work already translated into English please let me know. This is definitely a metaphor I would like to explore.

[s0metim3s]

Some brief discussion of translations (and Stanford's tardiness) here, Alain.

[Adam Kotsko]

Has Stanford University Press ever published anything in a timely manner?

How Savage is using it is by making AIDS out to be basically a normal virus. He's not taking rhetorical advantage of the fact that AIDS actually hijacks the immune system to cause it to destroy itself. For instance, he could say that the liberals have infected the Catholic clergy with homosexuality, causing it to ruin its moral credibility in the very effort of defending itself by hiding its members' crimes.

He could also claim that liberalism has infected the police itself so that they unduly restrain themselves and hurt their own effectiveness -- I don't see much evidence that that's the case, but he isn't bound by evidence.

Right-wing nutjobs, encore un effort...

[Gabriel Sanchez]

What strikes me as interesting about this is how nobody on the Left (including those on this blog) want to identify Savage as being the flipside of the same coin they've imprinted their "theories" upon. Oh, yes, you can call Savage a "hatemonger" and play the Nazi card on him, but how is that any different than him playing the facist card on the Left and identifying liberals as dangerous? How many on here time and again identify everything they see as antithetical to their emotive adherence to this-or-that liberal dogma as evil, awful, and--*gasp*--dangerous?

Ideology masks all; it compacts reality into a manageable box which allows its faithful to, well, not be "bound by the evidence." Do Derridean word games avoid this? Does the venerated Frankfurt School offer something distinct? It's an exchange of opinions, layered in very high-minded language but, at the end of the day, incapable of informing anyone of anything that's relevant or--and I know this word is shocking in the context--truthful.

So really, I suppose the question that comes down to someone like myself is if I want a world dominated by angry ideologues who think X, Y, and Z are the disease or ideologues who think A, B, C are the disease. Now, perhaps one set of ideologues is thriftier on the courage than the other; perhaps one is incapable of action due to an intoxication with discussion. Fine. I suppose I'm left to wonder if the impotency of one is clear enough so that I ought to only be worried about the other and not both.

[Alain]

Gabriel, with all due respect, why do you bother? I ask this sincerely. I am not a academic nor what you might even consider a traditional leftist. From I what I can tell, you are legal scholar with broad intellectual knowledge. Yet most of your criticisms, no matter what the topic, are of the variety: "you folks don't know what you are talking about." In this case, we are mirror image of Savage and his demagogery. If this is true, why do you attempt to engage at all? You suggest most of the folks here are either ignorant or blinded by ideology - "incapable of informing anyone of anything that's relevant." Are we not then a complete waiste of your time? Or do you hope to function as some sort of Socratic gadfly, pointing us toward knowledge of our own ignorance? Then maybe your goal is to encourage us to stop spewing about topics of which we are not qualified to speak.

[Gabriel Sanchez]

Alain,

You're wholly qualified to speak about a lot of things--you and most of the others on here. You won't see me offering a detailed exposition on the works of Sam Weber anymore than you'll see me trying to reinterpret old essays by Walter Benjamin. That's fine. My point has never been to question competency, but simply to get an understanding of why this-or-that theory that is espoused on here (and I'll admit, they're not all consistent--so a blanket condemnation is perhaps out of my bounds) reflects reality. You have to realize that when I have conveyed information on here concerning points of international law or security, I'm basically told that there is no such thing as terrorism; the Bush Administration lusted after 9/11; and that there is some sort of free floating "right" to this-or-that protection regardless of whether or not said protection is an impedes the well-being of others. It's a confusing mess to be sure, but one no one on here seems willing to untangle or, at the very least, present in a way that could convince someone like myself. (And despite being pin-pointed as some die hard conservative, I really don't believe I am any less easy to "convince" than your average educated non-specialist.)

Ideology is the constant risk, but one that the Left only seems to believe is found on the Right. (And vice versa.) True, the Right doesn't use the language or derivatives of "false consciousness"; they typically opt for a more sinister presentation of the issue. But it's hard to see the fundamental differences which are--if you believe one side or the other--apparently there. One would hope--I at least do--that coming out of a century where a billion were left dead due to both leftist and rightist regimes that there would be more caution all around the horn. But what do I know?

[Adam Kotsko]

The Left thinks the Right is stupid; the Right thinks the Left is evil.

Do we not see a clear difference there?

[s0metim3s]

I don't think the Right has a monopoly on stupidity or charging others with being stupid, as Gabriel's remarks regularly have recourse to doing. That said, Gabriel's imaginary Leftist homogeneity, not least around the question of certain 'regimes', doesn't really accord with with any Left I know of.

But, on the substantive - isn't this depiction of a "radical Islam, with its restrictions, with its throwback mentality" rather odd in what turns out to be a defense of Catholicism? That's not to suggest I agree with the teleology which is implied in characterisations of "radical Islam" as a "throwback", but if one's going to have recourse to Enlightenment notions of progress, surely the Catholic Church would also be regarded as a "throwback".

[Craig]

Big mistake associating Gabriel with Catholicism! Point remains, however, vis a vis the Orthodox Church, of which Gabriel is a member (judging by his own site).

[s0metim3s]

No, no, I wasn't talking about Gabriel and Catholicism - but Savage: "They've attacked particularly the Catholic Church for 30 straight years." (Orthodox, though, I do know something about - however, given it was all in Ancient Greek, I think the import and sense of any restrictions must have been lost on me.)

[Craig]

Apologies!

[Matt]

What Adam said, in his first comment.

[Gabriel Sanchez]

C'mon kids, you're down with Carl Schmitt--surely you've read his "Roman Catholicism and Political Form" (or Sam Weber's little essay on it in his recent Targets of Opportunity). To call the Catholic Church "throwback" is as exceedingly lame as it is superficial. We're not exactly living in the age where a Donoso Cortes is rubbing elbows with the Pope or a de Maistre is capturing the imaginations of Europe's dwindling monarchy. For two millennia the Catholic Church (and to some extent the Orthodox Church) has moved with the times, not resisted them. Certain internal movements have certainly taken up a "throwback" attitude, but then again, isn't Communism the greatest "throwback" movement in recent history? The point being that a careful study of the Catholic Church reveals an representative institution that has done nothing but--by and large--"move with the times." That doesn't mean it has synthesized modernity into its folds (though it has done that to some extent), nor that it is open to negotiate every aspect of dogma, organization, and form. It is, however, quite cognizant of its surroundings--as much so as it is of its divinely ordained mission.

The Orthodox Church is another matter. Given that it has spent far more of its history under the thumb of hostile regimes, its attitude and place in the world has been, at times, inconsistent. There's a great struggle within Orthodoxy to understand its place in the world, now that it has found a new home in the liberal-secular West and a renewed opportunity in the once-Communist East. I'm sure the issue is of little concern to anyone here. I will only say that, again, one should be careful of what they call "throwback" and to what extent they believe this-or-that institution, religion, ideology, etc. (Islam included) is looking to flee to some past paradise.

[squibb]

At the risk of sounding silly, I feel Daniel Bell and Derrida have a great deal to say to each other with regards autoimmunity - which highlights the really interesting question for me - is this a economic or political feedback loop, do we think? Whats the dominant here? Or is that distinction no longer worth making?

Also, Gabe - You use the word ideology a great deal. Would you mind indulging me with your operative definition?

And, I'm sorry, but nothing has ever scared me like Mr. Savage - I used to listen to him when driving between college and the city - all that hate screamed against the pretty pretty backdrop of the Hudson valley - And I would challenge anyone to find a current, practicing leftist who speaks the way he does about the right. One.

[s0metim3s]

To call the Catholic Church "throwback" is as exceedingly lame as it is superficial.

Who did that? My point was that if one is going to apply this kind of temporal schema to "radical Islam", as Savage does, then it should also be applied to the Catholic Church. The schema itself, well, yes, it's "lame" and "superficial".

[CR]

Savage briefly had a TV show on MSNBC here in the states. (That's Microsoft + NBC for extramericans, our distant third place all-news network, after CNN and Fox. Although I think MS has pulled out).

(BTW, Gabriel, by "pulled out" I certainly don't mean coitus interruptus. I looked at your site - holy frig. Your poor, poor wife...)

Anyway, about Savage: from what I remember, the tv show didn't die because of low ratings, but because he went a bit too far on one episode:

OK, here it is, via wikipedia:

"On July 7, a mere four months later, he was fired for making homophobic remarks in response to a caller, later identified as prank caller Bob Foster. Savage was doing an "Airline Horror Stories" piece, when Foster called in to his show to talk about undercover security guards smoking in the bathroom. His next words were, "half hour into the flight, I need to suggest that Don and Mike should take your show so you can go to the dentist because your teeth are really bad". The words after "should" were bleeped out by an MSNBC executive. Savage then asked if Foster was a "sodomite", to which the caller answered "yes". Savage then said to the caller: "Oh, so you're one of those sodomites. You should only get AIDS and die, you pig, how's that? Why don't you see if you can sue me, you pig. You got nothing better to do than to put me down, you piece of garbage, you got nothing better to do today, go eat a sausage and choke on it. Get trichinosis. Now do we have another nice caller here who's busy because he didn't have a nice night in the bathhouse who's angry at me today? Put another, put another sodomite on....no more calls? I don't care about these bums, they mean nothing to me. They're all sausages". [11] The show then cut to a video of two people grilling sausages to the tune of "The Marines' Hymn".[8] In his own defense, Savage later stated on his radio show that he believed he was off the air during the entire conversation with the hoax caller and had been tricked by employees of the network, who he claimed set him up."

Charming. The Sausage + Marines Hymn! Terrifiic!

The interesting thing, for me, about him is the question of what demographic he picks up. I imagine it's something like the crossover folks who listen to both Howard Stern and Rush Limbaugh. (Again, sorry non-Americans. Is Howard Stern a familiar name? He's very important, in a stupid way, over in this mess of a nation....) Stern's demographic is the one relatively untouchable by the left (or even the democratic party!) even if they don't cross all the way over the Savage - testosterone-laden males locked in permanent adolescence. They work (hence the radio listening), they live in the suburbs (ditto), they are a tad resentful about the women they have contact with (not pneumatic enough, too prudish for the anal sex Stern so gleefully discusses...)

[~craig]

Yeah, Savage is another crass, conservative philistine --tho not without some points to make. Rationalists of all types should object to this sort of manipulation; they ought to object to like maoist gangsterism, to sentimental, emotional leftism, and to the Ivy League dyke-ocracy as well.