There are basically four pundit personas / career tracks and he has chosen the George Will one (who is just a degraded version of Buckley and Safire himself). Sound erudite, act haughty, and let shallow people use those superficial characteristics to conclude that you must *really* know what you're talking about.
You are smart, informed, funny, and consistently right. I'm grateful to have discovered you. And if anger provokes you to write columns as good as this, that's good. But never let the criticisms of lesser minds drag you down. Remember—you are a contemporary Voltaire. Don't share his weakness:
"Instead of the silence, composure, and austere oblivion, which it is of the essence of strength to oppose to unworthy natures, he habitually confronted the dusty creeping things that beset his march, as if they stood valiant and erect; and the more unworthy they were, the more vehement and strenuous and shrill was his contention with them. The ignominy of such strife is clear. One thing only may perhaps be said. His intense susceptibility to vulgar calumny flowed from the same quality in his nature which made unbearable to him the presence of superstition and injustice, those mightier calumnies on humanity. The irritated protests against the small foes of his person were as the dregs of potent wine, and were the lower part of that passionate sensibility which made him the assailant of the giant oppressors of the human mind."
Once again, I find John right on the money, fixing on precise language in the middle of a rhetorical firestorm. Which is much easier to do when you’re older(unless you’ve come to trust your own clichés).
Just ran across something that might interest you:
'In his lively (indeed immortal) "guide for the young academic politician," F. M. Cornford counseled a certain charity toward one's senior colleagues: "You will begin, I suppose, by thinking that people who disagree with you and oppress you must be dishonest. Cynicism is the besetting and venial fault of declining youth, and disillusionment its last illusion. It is quite a mistake to suppose that real dishonesty is at all common. . . . No, the Political Motive in the academic breast is honest enough. It is Fear—genuine, perpetual, heart-felt timorousness." Cornford offered his own breakdown of academics, discerning among them five groups: Liberal Conservatives and Conservative Liberals (who claim distinctiveness but both embrace the status quo), Non-Placets (who affect discontent, but find objections to every proposed reform), Adullamites (grantsmen), and Young Men in a Hurry (idealistic youthful prigs whose purpose in life is to make silk purses out of sows' ears). The first three types of professor are adept in the politics of inertia, their consuming goal being to do nothing. The fourth type is apprehensive of departmental reforms and merely out for himself. The fifth type is aggressive, divisive, and wisely kept by the others from having the least influence.'
Source: Walter A. McDougall, "Mais ce n'est pas l'histoire!": Some Thoughts on Toynbee, McNeill, and the Rest of Us Author(s), The Journal of Modern History 58, No. 1 (March 1986): 19-42, on 33, quoting Francis Macdonald Cornford, Microcosmographia Academica: Being a Guide for the Young Academic Politician (1908; Cambridge, 1923), 25-26.
If Mr. Hamid, from his Brookings perch, wants to wave you off as just a discourteous and unserious schmendrick on Substack, he should at least address Paxton’s detailed typology before dismissing the idea of “semi-fascism”.
I would argue - both historically and now - that it is precisely fascism’s “semi-ness” that endows it with such power. Its malleability, its topsy-turvy-ness, the perpetual lies about its intentions, its re-invention of history, its compromises with those it claims to hate, its revolution/reaction dynamic, its changes and disruptions that go nowhere and promise more of the same only worse, its construction of a new political identity through the erasure of the very idea of an autonomous citizen, its re-casting of truth as whatever the boss happens to say that day (on “Truth Social”, Trump’s tweets are called “truths” and if you want you can “ReTruth” what he writes). The whole shebang is a shape-shifting, destabilizing, amorphous splodge of “semi-ness”. Its epistemic murk, its “semi-ness”, is a feature, not a bug.
"I think he’s smug, arrogant, and condescending while at the same time being shallow, unimaginative, ill-informed, incapable of rigorous thought, evasive, and even downright intellectually dishonest."
Thank you for striking a blow against rote civility.
Hamid is one of many "reasonable" elites who seems to imagine himself as part of a bulwark against dangerous fringe ideas (some of his same pundit cohort even call themselves a "bulwark," as in dot com), but what they seem to be most interested in is defending the status quo against every possible threat, and dangerous fringe ideas are any that threaten to upset anyone in their comfortable tower.
I like this thing where you put up these polls, and everyone votes for what we perceive to be the more dignified option, and then you do the other one, and we eat it up.
On Biden using the term "semi-fascist": you're quite right that the term is perfectly intelligible and has been used by writers on politics before. I also agree that he probably used it (or his writers wrote it for him) as a way to introduce the f-word into the public discussion in a way that wouldn't cause a furor among Trump supporters (although a semi-furor did arise anyway). But what needs to be done at this point most urgently is to mobilize enough Americans who recognize the dangers that Trump and the Trumpers pose to go and vote in November to lessen or preferably stamp out those dangers. That should involve strengthening the campaigns of all of the good candidates and organizing a high turnout. What to do about the underlying psychology of Trumpism (or semi-fascism) in the long run is something I don't have any wisdom about, but first things first: defeat all Republicans now running, because they're all very bad as far as I can see.
As a fan of both your work and Shadi’s (especially under the auspices of WoC), I found this piece interesting and compelling. Out of curiosity, did you catch their podcast episode with Jason Stanley? Iirc it directly addresses the issue of whether to label Trump/trumpism as fascist, and Stanley pushes Shadi on it.
Also, I’m in agreement that there is value to the term “semi-fascist” and that Shadi exhibits a degree of intellectual laziness by dismissing it; however, I do feel that he quite effectively speaks to the exasperating aspect of a lot of the public discourse which inconclusively circles around the question of Trump’s fascism or lack thereof. Maybe I’m succumbing to the same problem that he is, but intuitively I feel that there is something there.
There are basically four pundit personas / career tracks and he has chosen the George Will one (who is just a degraded version of Buckley and Safire himself). Sound erudite, act haughty, and let shallow people use those superficial characteristics to conclude that you must *really* know what you're talking about.
You are smart, informed, funny, and consistently right. I'm grateful to have discovered you. And if anger provokes you to write columns as good as this, that's good. But never let the criticisms of lesser minds drag you down. Remember—you are a contemporary Voltaire. Don't share his weakness:
"Instead of the silence, composure, and austere oblivion, which it is of the essence of strength to oppose to unworthy natures, he habitually confronted the dusty creeping things that beset his march, as if they stood valiant and erect; and the more unworthy they were, the more vehement and strenuous and shrill was his contention with them. The ignominy of such strife is clear. One thing only may perhaps be said. His intense susceptibility to vulgar calumny flowed from the same quality in his nature which made unbearable to him the presence of superstition and injustice, those mightier calumnies on humanity. The irritated protests against the small foes of his person were as the dregs of potent wine, and were the lower part of that passionate sensibility which made him the assailant of the giant oppressors of the human mind."
—John Morley, Voltaire (1885)
Once again, I find John right on the money, fixing on precise language in the middle of a rhetorical firestorm. Which is much easier to do when you’re older(unless you’ve come to trust your own clichés).
"You can't say that about him because you'd really be saying that about his millions of followers" is practically a direct quote from the man himself.
Just ran across something that might interest you:
'In his lively (indeed immortal) "guide for the young academic politician," F. M. Cornford counseled a certain charity toward one's senior colleagues: "You will begin, I suppose, by thinking that people who disagree with you and oppress you must be dishonest. Cynicism is the besetting and venial fault of declining youth, and disillusionment its last illusion. It is quite a mistake to suppose that real dishonesty is at all common. . . . No, the Political Motive in the academic breast is honest enough. It is Fear—genuine, perpetual, heart-felt timorousness." Cornford offered his own breakdown of academics, discerning among them five groups: Liberal Conservatives and Conservative Liberals (who claim distinctiveness but both embrace the status quo), Non-Placets (who affect discontent, but find objections to every proposed reform), Adullamites (grantsmen), and Young Men in a Hurry (idealistic youthful prigs whose purpose in life is to make silk purses out of sows' ears). The first three types of professor are adept in the politics of inertia, their consuming goal being to do nothing. The fourth type is apprehensive of departmental reforms and merely out for himself. The fifth type is aggressive, divisive, and wisely kept by the others from having the least influence.'
Source: Walter A. McDougall, "Mais ce n'est pas l'histoire!": Some Thoughts on Toynbee, McNeill, and the Rest of Us Author(s), The Journal of Modern History 58, No. 1 (March 1986): 19-42, on 33, quoting Francis Macdonald Cornford, Microcosmographia Academica: Being a Guide for the Young Academic Politician (1908; Cambridge, 1923), 25-26.
I grew up with Shadi and went to school with him K-12.
Shadi has been a vapid intellectual concern troll since he was 8.
I can speak from experience when I say he's an easy troll to feed and it takes a lot of discipline to ignore him.
He's not worth the time you put into writing this article...but I understand why you wrote it.
If Mr. Hamid, from his Brookings perch, wants to wave you off as just a discourteous and unserious schmendrick on Substack, he should at least address Paxton’s detailed typology before dismissing the idea of “semi-fascism”.
I would argue - both historically and now - that it is precisely fascism’s “semi-ness” that endows it with such power. Its malleability, its topsy-turvy-ness, the perpetual lies about its intentions, its re-invention of history, its compromises with those it claims to hate, its revolution/reaction dynamic, its changes and disruptions that go nowhere and promise more of the same only worse, its construction of a new political identity through the erasure of the very idea of an autonomous citizen, its re-casting of truth as whatever the boss happens to say that day (on “Truth Social”, Trump’s tweets are called “truths” and if you want you can “ReTruth” what he writes). The whole shebang is a shape-shifting, destabilizing, amorphous splodge of “semi-ness”. Its epistemic murk, its “semi-ness”, is a feature, not a bug.
the adjective "fashy" is sitting right there
"I think he’s smug, arrogant, and condescending while at the same time being shallow, unimaginative, ill-informed, incapable of rigorous thought, evasive, and even downright intellectually dishonest."
Thank you for striking a blow against rote civility.
"Now that may be true, but I resent it nonetheless. "
🤣🤣🤣🤣👏👏👏👏👏
Hamid is one of many "reasonable" elites who seems to imagine himself as part of a bulwark against dangerous fringe ideas (some of his same pundit cohort even call themselves a "bulwark," as in dot com), but what they seem to be most interested in is defending the status quo against every possible threat, and dangerous fringe ideas are any that threaten to upset anyone in their comfortable tower.
I like this thing where you put up these polls, and everyone votes for what we perceive to be the more dignified option, and then you do the other one, and we eat it up.
Excellent as always — that is indeed the reason to call this for what it is.
On Biden using the term "semi-fascist": you're quite right that the term is perfectly intelligible and has been used by writers on politics before. I also agree that he probably used it (or his writers wrote it for him) as a way to introduce the f-word into the public discussion in a way that wouldn't cause a furor among Trump supporters (although a semi-furor did arise anyway). But what needs to be done at this point most urgently is to mobilize enough Americans who recognize the dangers that Trump and the Trumpers pose to go and vote in November to lessen or preferably stamp out those dangers. That should involve strengthening the campaigns of all of the good candidates and organizing a high turnout. What to do about the underlying psychology of Trumpism (or semi-fascism) in the long run is something I don't have any wisdom about, but first things first: defeat all Republicans now running, because they're all very bad as far as I can see.
As a fan of both your work and Shadi’s (especially under the auspices of WoC), I found this piece interesting and compelling. Out of curiosity, did you catch their podcast episode with Jason Stanley? Iirc it directly addresses the issue of whether to label Trump/trumpism as fascist, and Stanley pushes Shadi on it.
Also, I’m in agreement that there is value to the term “semi-fascist” and that Shadi exhibits a degree of intellectual laziness by dismissing it; however, I do feel that he quite effectively speaks to the exasperating aspect of a lot of the public discourse which inconclusively circles around the question of Trump’s fascism or lack thereof. Maybe I’m succumbing to the same problem that he is, but intuitively I feel that there is something there.
Wow. Splendid piece.