Megan Mulls It Over

+JMJ

“It is often essential to resist a tyranny before it exists.”

-G.K. Chesterton, Eugenics and Other Evils: An Argument Against the Scientifically Organized State

As an FYI, I started writing this post before the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting. (And on a lighter note, I didn’t plan for it to be finished on Halloween night, but that’s how it worked out.) I realize that some readers may think it is inappropriate to write on this topic so soon after the Pittsburgh tragedy. If I were to ask each of them when it would be acceptable to post this, I’m sure I’d get a variety of answers, and at least some would say (or at least think) “Never.”

That is not acceptable to me. I feel like this post is all the more necessary in light of the shooting. The United States is supposed to be a place where people express their differences using words, not violence. But there are obviously those who resort to violence to voice their opinions. And there is also a growing number of Americans who believe that verbal, written, or symbolic expression of any opinions other than their own should be regarded as an act of violence. I will gladly repudiate the former, but I will not do so by joining the latter.

Last week I began reading George Soros’ 2006 book The Age of Fallibility: Consequences of the War on Terror. This post will focus on the book’s prologue and mark the beginning of a series that will document my journey through the book. I will admit up front that I have a lot of preexisting biases regarding Soros, none of which are positive. Some of you who are familiar with both Soros’ and my views on the State of Israel might be surprised to hear this. That is one area where our views appear, on the surface at least, to be similar. However, I think Soros has his own unique reasons for criticizing the State of Israel that are much more complex and strategic than my own. (Yes, this will be discussed in more detail in future posts.)

Even though I have no plans to change my overall opinion of Soros’ worldview, I am trying to get better about forming my opinions more from primary sources than from the opinions of others. To that end, I have decided to let Soros speak for himself for much of this post. I believe that many of the most popular criticisms of him are well-founded based on his own words about his own belief system. In the text that follows, I have emphasized via italics the portions of certain Soros quotes from the prologue that I believe lend support to criticisms of him. I have also, in places, included my own translations of these quotes, as well as the Soros characterization that each relates to.

In addition to developing a more fact-based worldview, I would also like to be the type of person who is able to see the good in everyone, including George Soros. So I will not hesitate to note when I think he makes a good point (although I anticipate adding disclaimers when I do so).

Last week I stumbled upon this article from The Guardian, which, in my opinion, is intended to guilt-trip Soros’ non-anti-Semitic critics into believing that they are anti-Semitic. (FYI-I am convinced that if Soros were a staunch supporter of Israel, we would have seen articles like this much sooner.) Quoted in the article is Matthew Lyons, described as a “researcher and author of several books on rightwing populism and far-right ideology.” Lyons says about Soros-critical rhetoric, “For centuries, Jews were characterized in Christian-dominated Europe as a people that didn’t have a country…They were seen as visitors or interlopers in other people’s countries and so they were international in that sense.”

Imaginary conversation between Lyons and me:

Me: So this “people that didn’t have a country” – if someone were to call Soros a “stateless statesman,” would that be an example of invoking that trope?

Lyons: Yes! You get 10 PC points for that question!

Me: Soros refers to himself as a “stateless statesman.”

Lyons: Ummm…it’s kinda like the n-word?

In The Age of Fallibility, Soros explains that former Macedonian prime minister Branko Crvenkovski is the one who first called him a “stateless statesman.” Soros writes, “I like that formulation and I try to live up to it. The world is badly in need of stateless statesmen.” (Soros the Self-Important. Translation: “The world needs me. Too bad there’s only one me.” This Soros appears again when he says about his foundation, “…I would be selfish if I allowed the foundation to die with me.”)

One could argue that “stateless statesman” does not necessarily mean “will sell out to highest bidder.” (Soros be like “I am the highest bidder,” but I digress.) Taken together with other things he says, though, I believe it has an ominous tone.

Closely related to Soros the Self-Important is Soros the Savior. Case in point: “I recognize that no one has elected me or appointed me as a guardian of the public interest; I have taken on that role for myself.” As an American, I don’t think it makes sense to refer to an unelected or unappointed person as a “guardian of the public interest.” Because elected and appointed government, military, and law enforcement officials are the only people who have anything remotely resembling a duty to guard “the public interest.” Truthfully I am not even comfortable characterizing their duty in this way.

I strongly prefer “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Soros would cringe at that because he does not agree with my belief that the Constitution should be considered the highest man-made “law of the land” in the United States. But he does, in the sentence immediately after he reveals the savior card, acknowledge my reservations about his self-appointed role:

“People are rightly suspicious of someone who can have a policy but is not accountable to the public. Nevertheless, I believe the common interests of humanity badly need looking after and it is better to do it imperfectly than not to try at all.”

First, I object to Soros’ belief that he can legitimately “have a policy.” He has a constitutional right to an opinion, not “a policy.” This right includes the right to express that opinion using legal means, and it also includes the right to spend as much legally-acquired money as he wants on legal methods of promoting that opinion. Some might be inclined to think that Soros’ “policy” means “strong opinion that I spend millions of dollars to advance.” But based on his other statements, it is my view that “policy” in this context means something closer to that which belongs only to publicly accountable leaders.

Second, let’s talk about that “badly need looking after” business. Taken together with his other statements, it sounds incredibly condescending and paternalistic to me. And I would argue that it is also very similar to the narrative pushed by George W. Bush’s administration during his war in Iraq. Which is ironic since Soros is making this statement in a book that is very critical of that war and that attitude (when held by the Bush administration anyway).

The condescension continues in the “…it is better to do it imperfectly than not to try at all.” In that phrase I hear, “I may be wreaking havoc. Oops. I mean, not being perfect when trying to bring about world peace. But at least I’m not sitting on my butt like the rest of you lazy bums.”

There are two notable instances in the prologue where Soros attempts to defend himself against a criticism by presenting a distinction without a difference. He states that his end goal is a “global open society.” He attempts to assuage fears by saying, “I emphatically do not mean a global government.” And then three sentences later, he says, “I do mean the rule of international law.”

For critics of globalism the “rule of international law” is “global government.” I know that there are a lot of people who would roll their eyes at this because international law is commonly portrayed as something that promotes human rights and holds world leaders accountable. However, it is my personal belief that international law, in general, lacks legitimacy. (For the sake of brevity, I will leave that point by itself for now.)

The second distinction without a difference comes when he says:

“International relations are governed by force, not by law. That has to change: international law must be enforced.”

Hmm…have you ever noticed that the word “enforced” includes the word “force”? So is there really no contradiction between force and the enforcement of laws? Here’s the thing: a law that is not backed up by the threat of force is no law at all. I think it’s possible that Soros was referring specifically to military force in this quote, but I think it’s more likely that his omission of the word “military” was very deliberate. By simply saying “force,” he ends up affirming the myth that international law is based on “God bless the whole world no exceptions,” rather than control without accountability.

The most cringe-worthy part of the prologue for me was his discussion of sovereignty. According to Soros, sovereign nations are unable “to take care of the collective interests of humanity, such as peace, security, the environment, social justice, and even the stability of financial markets.” So all of those things in italics would be “taken care of” in Soros’ “global open society” without one-world government. How’s that for a head-scratcher?

And he really cooks his goose with me when he goes on to refer to sovereignty as “an anachronistic concept” that “has been inherited from an age when kings ruled over their subjects.” Just because kings have traditionally been referred to as sovereigns does not mean that they own the very concept of sovereignty. For me, the American concept of sovereignty is primarily about the independence and autonomy of our own nation. And because we have representative government, this is only preserved through the democratic process and the rule of law, not the whims of our leaders.

For Soros, sovereignty isn’t just outdated. It’s downright dangerous. He points out that “within national borders, the rulers often abuse their power.” (Presumably in stark contrast to the overlords of the United Nations, who I’m sure would never dream of doing such a thing.) And then, in a moment that still has me shaking my head, he says:

“When the abuse reaches the point where the people have no other recourse, the international community has a responsibility to intervene.”

This sentence was so striking to me because it sounds like he could have lifted it from one of George W. Bush’s speeches on the war in Iraq. (It’s true that Bush substituted “the United States” for “the international community,” but in my view that is yet another distinction without a difference. Intervention is intervention.)

And in the sentence immediately after that most recent Bush-channeling, Soros proves that he is the gift who keeps on giving when it comes to living up to his reputation:

“This is a case for what Karl Popper has called piecemeal social engineering, and I am ready to engage in it personally and through my foundations.”

And there’s Soros the Social Engineer. Am I the only one who thinks that “piecemeal social engineering” sounds even more sinister than regular social engineering? That metaphor about a frog jumping out of boiling water but remaining in water that is slowly brought to a boil comes to mind.

The most ominous sentence in the prologue comes when Soros boldly declares: “The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.” In the interest of full disclosure, I will admit that if he had said “the current foreign policy of the United States,” I would not have had a problem with this sentence. It probably would have ended up in the Cautious Kudos column. Also, if it weren’t for all the other shady lines, I might have been inclined to believe that he was implicitly referring to a particular policy or administration rather than the United States in general.

And btw, this seems to be an area where Soros can’t keep his own story straight. Later in the prologue he states, “The precipitous decline in the power and influence of the United States has made the world more unstable.” So the United States is a bully AND it’s a shame that the United States isn’t as influential as it once was? Pick a struggle? (Although, to be fair, he never explicitly states that “unstable” is bad…)

Fortunately the prologue isn’t all doom and gloom. One part that made me laugh out loud (albeit in a gallows humor sort of way) is when Soros declares, “A Democratic-controlled House could reveal the misdeeds of the Bush administration which are currently kept under wraps.” Remember that time that America showed that they were woke enough to go beyond electing a Democratic-controlled House, by electing the first black president? Remember how during his presidency a little Bush misdeed called #CollateralMurder was revealed?

And remember when said black president ended up helping push it out of America’s mind by converting the narrative into one about “trans rights”?

To be fair, Soros did only say “reveal the misdeeds.” He didn’t say “reveal and call out the misdeeds and imprison the leaker if you must, but don’t act kinda like a dictator who might be acting out a racist revenge fantasy.” So I guess I shouldn’t be too hard on him.

Even though Soros was looking (and paying) for the Democrats to swoop in and save the day, he doesn’t exactly consider himself a Democrat. He says, “…the Democratic Party does not stand for the policies that I advocate; indeed, if it did, it could not be elected.” Hmm…what does that mean exactly? On one level, he could just be, once again, tooting his own horn. In that case, the italicized phrase would mean something like, “The American people aren’t yet mature enough to understand the wisdom of my policies.”

However, sometimes the simplest explanation is the best one. Could it be that the reason Democrats couldn’t be elected if they stood for Soros’ policies is that those policies would frighten the American people? Lucky for Soros and his strategically-placed funds, stuff that would have frightened Americans (maybe even many Democrats) when this book was written over a decade ago is now well on its way to sounding like a bunch of free sunshine and rainbows. #HeilMarx

And now I will end on a (relatively) positive note. I really love the first sentence of this final quote. I hear echoes of the best part of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s philosophy in it, and I also believe that it is a beautiful expression of what it means to be a man (even though women are also called to do what it says). I am not suggesting that Soros should be put on a pedestal like Dr. King has been in our society. (And as you may recall from my posts on September 2, September 16, and October 1, I think that Dr. King’s own pedestal is one that needs some asterisks and caveats added to it.) Nevertheless, this sentence gave me a much-needed reminder to strive to capture nuances in Soros’ philosophy and not to forget his humanity in the process of calling him out.

“I realize what needs to be done and I am ready to do it, even if it means fighting losing battles. My hope and aspiration is that by the time the readers have fought their way through the book, they will come to feel the same way.”

-George Soros, The Age of Fallibility: Consequences of the War on Terror

Challenge accepted, Mr. Soros.

Verso l’alto,
Megan