Comments on: Hegel, Weber and Bush

By: Thom Brooks

Thom Brooks — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 12:46:52 +0000

I agree entirely with #18. The trick is not merely to change the course of world history. (Whether or not Bush has actually done just this remains to be seen, although the present situation doesn’t augur well.) The other bit is to be on the proper side of history, to push civilization forward along a dialectical trajectory of reason.

Here Bush is not a world-historical personality (the technical phrase), but its opposite. Arguably, he is trying to push civilization backwards. Hegel might appluad Bush’s realism, but not Bush’s pseudo-tribalism. Hegel might agree with Bush that states decide for themselves whether and when to abide by international treaties (as Hegel did not accept international law, although certainly international norms of proper conduct), but deplore Bush’s denial of such a right to otehr states (e.g., Iran, for example).

Oh, there’s one other bit: the great deeds of the world-historical person are recognized as such by his/her fellows. The greatness of Socrates, Julius Caesar, Jesus Christ, and Napolean were certainly denied by many, but accepted by, say, far more than a mere 1/3 or so of the US population who only like Bush anyway because he is a Republica—-it wouldn’t matter what Bush did to sway this crowd. There is nothing great and forward moving with Bush. Nor, as a self-confessed Hegelian (or the TH Green-variety), do I detect any progress in reason. Surely, colleagues need not be Hegelians to agree with that!

By: Darwiniana » Bush/Hegel

Darwiniana » Bush/Hegel — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 01:00:22 +0000

[...] Comment from Crooked Timber blog re: Bush/Hegel/Weber At the time of the start of the Iraq invasion I was subscribed to a leftist email list and recall an ironic comment by a (trueblood marxist) to the effect that if Leninists can invade countries to establish communism via ‘revolution’ then why can’t ‘revolutionaries’ like Bush invade countries to establish (classical) liberalism? I think this remark, while not sarcastic, correctly sensed that Bush would make a bollocks of the thing and expose American imperialism, hence deserved to be egged on. But I think that, qua Hegel, the issue is not that Bush is some sort of ‘great man’ a la Hegel, but that, as Marx attempted to put it, globalization is itself revolutionary, garbled liberalism. The situation is straight ‘bourgeoisie in action’ since 1848: chaos in the name of the economic freedom against the horrid medievalism of all those premodern folk. Anyway, I hate to say it, but as revolutionary idiots go Bush couldn’t be worse than Stalin. The left might have done better than that, but in fact we see Saddamwas a Stalin epigone. [...]

By: novakant

novakant — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 00:00:43 +0000

Sorry, but Scott’s reading seems to be a misreading. It’s not about a devil-may-care attitude towards reality, but rather great men are great only insofar as they grasp the reality of the age and push it forward:

“They are great men, because they willed and accomplished something great; not a mere fancy, a mere intention, but that which met the case and fell in with the needs of the age.”

Neither Bush, nor the Iraq war qualify – Gorbachev and the downfall of communism would have.

By: John Landon

John Landon — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 22:48:02 +0000

At the time of the start of the Iraq invasion I was subscribed to a leftist email list and recall an ironic comment by a (trueblood marxist) to the effect that if Leninists can invade countries to establish communism via ‘revolution’ then why can’t ‘revolutionaries’ like Bush invade countries to establish (classical) liberalism? I think this remark, while not sarcastic, correctly sensed that Bush would make a bollocks of the thing and expose American imperialism, hence deserved to be egged on.
But I think that, qua Hegel, the issue is not that Bush is some sort of ‘great man’, but that, as Marx attempted to put it, globalization is itself revolutionary, garbled liberalism to be sure. The situation is straight ‘bourgeoisie in action’ since 1848: chaos in the name of the economic freedom against the horrid medievalism of all those premodern folk.
Anyway, I hate to say it, but as revolutionary idiots go Bush couldn’t be worse than Stalin.

By: Scott McLemee

Scott McLemee — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 22:38:24 +0000

Wade: Good question, and I could certainly have been more clear. No, I’m not making such an argument, as such.

The IHE column and the postscript at Cliopatria tried to approach the question of whether GWB might qualify as world-historical figure from slightly different angles. The Clio item reframed things (as you noticed) by including the “cunning of reason” aspect. I’d left out that of the original piece in the interest of meeting a deadline and keeping the whole thing to a practical length.

That parenthetical comment saying that I didn’t actually endorse teleology was a way of spelling out that either version was offered more as a thought experiment than an endorsement: “How might Hegel explain Bush, if he saw him as world-historical figure?”

That said, I do still find cunning-of-reason thinking pretty seductive—having formerly, and for quite a long while, endorsed one straightforward and familiar brand of historical teleology. (“Socialism or barbarism!”)

At times, the idea that GWB’s role in history is precisely the opposite of what he thinks it to be—and that the world-spirit is using him to that end—seems strangely plausible, if not exactly credible at the most literal level.

By: Wade

Wade — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 21:10:52 +0000

I don’t see what’s so great about that passage from Weber. If anything it points up the biggest weakness of his political philosophy, the distinction he makes between power and authority. Weber’s ‘authority’ is supposed to serve ends, whereas he thinks of power as strictly a means; but this doesn’t work because all ends in Weber’s scheme are ultimately irrational—-except for the sort of bureaucratic authority that justifies itself on the basis of its effectiveness, i.e. its power.

Scott: I don’t get your disclaimer about teleology. Are you arguing against the cunning-of-reason thing, or what?

By: Jim Harrison

Jim Harrison — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 18:23:21 +0000

If you’re going to appeal to mystical theories of history to explain Bush, I’d go for an idea of the Bengali, Nirad C. Chaudhuri, who remarked in his autobiography that nations in decline need leaders to conduct them down the road to ruin. Leadership isn’t just essential to success. To really foul things up, you also need the right man for the job.

By: engels

engels — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 17:34:43 +0000

Oh, and Hegel remarks somewhere that Chimpy is not a great man. (He forgot to add: not by a long way.)

By: engels

engels — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 17:24:14 +0000

Dave - How presumptuous! It could have been any one of these guys.

By: Backword Dave

Backword Dave — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 17:05:08 +0000

Alke, I know; terrible pun.
Sk, Time magazine’s person of the year was ‘You’ – and when said to me, ‘you’ means ‘me’. I didn’t see abb1 anywhere. I’m the person of the year, I tell you!

By: Ken Houghton

Ken Houghton — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 17:02:23 +0000

Isn't this more Erikson than Hegel?

By: Sk

Sk — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 16:46:36 +0000

actually, abb1 was also Time’s man of the year last year. Thus, he is comparing himself to Hitler.

By: Scott McLemee

Scott McLemee — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 13:06:53 +0000

Here's an afterthought on the column.

By: Backword Dave

Backword Dave — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 13:03:36 +0000

Hey, abb1, I was Time’s Person of the Year last year (other poor saps think it was them, but it was me, I tell you). Are you comparing me to Hitler?

By: alke

alke — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:59:06 +0000

Backword dave, you have Hagel in mind.