Megan Mulls It Over

+JMJ

If you have been following this blog for a while, you may remember that I am currently reading George Soros’ 2006 book The Age of Fallibility: Consequences of the War on Terror. You can find my two previous posts on the book at this page (which can also be accessed by clicking on “Soros” in the tag cloud at the bottom of any page in my blog).

This post will focus on Chapter 1 of the book, which is entitled “Thinking and Reality.” I will admit that this chapter took me a long time to finish and was not an easy read. In it Soros says a lot of things about economic theory and the nature of reality that went over my head. Or maybe they were just plumb crazy. I’m not sure at this point, and I may never be. (This is ironic because when I was choosing one of his books to read, I picked this one primarily because it seemed to be less theoretical than his others.)

One of the things that I learned early in this chapter is that for Soros, “fallibility” has a specialized meaning that differs from the colloquial meaning of the term. Knowing that he was a critic of George W. Bush’s foreign policy, when I originally saw “fallibility” in the title of this book, I thought he meant “wrongness,” “stupidity,” or “folly.” It turns out that fallibility in the context of this book means what I would describe as the inevitability of imperfections in economic and social systems. Soros does not use the term in a pejorative sense, but rather as an objective descriptor of reality as he sees it. One sentence from the chapter that I think is a concise illustration of this is, “It is time to recognize that our understanding of reality is inherently imperfect and that our decisions are bound to have unintended consequences.”

He presents fallibility as a superior alternative to what others have called “the spirit of the Enlightenment,” an era that he believes was overly optimistic about the limits of human knowledge. He believes that classical economic theory and earlier versions of the scientific method are also lacking. Economics typically presupposes rational actors, and, in Soros’ own words, “Scientific method, to be worthy of the name, was expected to produce unequivocal predictions and explanations.”

According to Soros, we are currently living in the “Age of Reason,” which he juxtaposes with his proposed “Age of Fallibility.” He acknowledges, however, that a focus on reason is not ubiquitous in this Age of Reason. In an instance that, frankly, shocked me, he writes, “In the social sciences and humanities…the attitude towards reality has swung to the opposite extreme. The post-modern idiom does not recognize reality, only narratives.” This was surprising to me because it seemed to be a dig at women’s studies, gender studies, and other favorite fields of the Left.

Another statement that was surprising to me was, “The extreme relativism of our post-modern society does not provide a satisfactory criterion for distinguishing between true and false, right and wrong.” That is definitely true, but as the chapter develops we learn that Soros’ dream “global open society,” not surprisingly in my opinion, leaves plenty of room for relativism.

Soros names philosopher Karl Popper as the biggest influence on his own philosophy, aside from his father. In fact, it was Popper, not Soros, who coined the term “open society.” At this point in the book, Soros has not fully laid out what the concept of open society means to him, but what he has said is already starting to creep me out. I keep getting the impression from him that an open society is one that really doesn’t believe in objective truth. In fact, he describes open society as “a principle of social organization that is based on the recognition that claims to the ultimate truth cannot be validated.”

Those who say they are “spiritual but not religious” and “don’t believe in organized religion” might be cheering at this point because it is very common to associate “claims to the ultimate truth” with religious dogma. I would argue, however, that Soros’ definition of these claims is broader than that. Other things that he says in this chapter seem to imply that he rejects the idea that some principles must be non-negotiable in his ideal society.

From what I have seen in this chapter, “claims to the ultimate truth” isn’t limited to things like “Jesus Christ is the only path to salvation.” It could also include things like “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…” At this point, I am open to the possibility that Soros himself may not be inclined to place a string of disclaimer asterisks on the Declaration of Independence’s most iconic line. But his coolness towards the concept of objective truth indicates that his philosophy leaves little recourse for humanity against those who would.

Those who trust the United Nations to safeguard human rights might be shocked at this. This is because it is very common to view international law as a sort of Constitution 2.0 that enshrines timeless, unchanging principles of human freedom and dignity. My assumption is that most civilian supporters of international law feel this way. And until I read this chapter I assumed that Soros felt this way, too.

Chapter 2 of the book is entitled “The Meaning of Open Society,” so I expect to find out more specifics there about Soros’ vision for the United States and the world. But I’m not holding my breath for anything too detailed because here in Chapter 1 he cites lack of a precise definition as one of open society’s strengths. He says about Popper, “He never defined exactly what an open society means; in view of our imperfect understanding, he did not like quibbling about definitions. In any case, an open society needs to be constantly redefined by the people who live in it…”

Is it just me or does that sound like a recipe for genocide?

As a proponent of international law, Soros doesn’t view the Constitution as the highest man-made law of the land in the United States. So it doesn’t surprise me to hear him say something that seems to conflict with American constitutional principles regarding unalienable rights. But this ever-evolving definition of open society also seems to run counter to the “Constitution 2.0” view of international law that I mentioned above.

Furthermore, it is true that “quibbling about definitions” can be an impediment to success and progress, even healthy forms of success and progress. Nevertheless, there are other instances where such “quibbling” is the only thing standing between liberty and something else.

For example, I can totally picture President Obama saying, “Now now, let’s not quibble about definitions” to those who argued that taking out Anwar al-Awlaki with a drone strike violated principles of due process.

And no section in this book would be complete without an ominous dig at the Constitution. As mentioned above, Soros in this chapter sets up a dichotomy between what he calls the Age of Reason and the Age of Fallibility. According to him, “The Age of Reason ought to yield to the Age of Fallibility. That would be progress.”

And later he drops quite a bombshell with, “The Constitution is a product of the Age of Reason; open society belongs to the Age of Fallibility.”

Let’s unpack this. If “The Age of Reason ought to yield to the Age of Infallibility,” and “The Constitution is a product of the Age of Reason,” doesn’t it follow that the Constitution “ought to yield”? It would also follow that Soros views the Constitution as an impediment to “progress.” And if you think that he is going to give plenty of reassurances about whatever he views as superior to the Constitution, you are going to be kept waiting, at least for the rest of this chapter.

One thing about this chapter that, to me, was very unexpected was how personal Soros gets about his own life story. He talks a little about his experiences as a 14-year-old during the Nazi occupation of his native Hungary and how his father managed to survive during this time. According to his account, his father helped people escape death by securing false identification documents for them and making “arrangements for living with false identities, not only for his family but for many others.” One part of this section that continues to haunt me is the following:

“As I have often said, the year of German occupation was a strangely positive experience for me. We were confronted by mortal danger and people perished all around us, but we managed not only to survive but to emerge victorious because we were able to help so many others. We were on the side of the angels and we triumphed against overwhelming odds. What more can a fourteen-year-old ask for?”

In answer to Soros’ rhetorical question at the end of that quote, I personally think that a 14-year-old (or sane person of any age for that matter) would want to ask for a life free from military occupation and looming threat of genocide. At the same time, this may well be an accurate representation of Soros’ state of mind at the time that he was living through the occupation, and it seems wrong to knock a 14-year-old for doing some mental gymnastics in order to survive such a horrible situation.

But even though I don’t fault the adolescent Soros for having a somewhat rosy view of this period in his life, I do find it disturbing that the elderly Soros is able to speak of this time in such flowery terms. This language appears to go beyond a belief in the triumph of the human spirit and seems to suggest a certain level of indifference to the suffering of others. This attitude is certainly not unique to Soros, but it is disturbing to see it manifested in this way, since he and the foremost victims of the Nazis share a common heritage. If he can be this nonchalant about Jewish suffering, I would hate to see how little he would be affected by non-Jewish suffering.

Food for thought: So many in the media think it’s categorically anti-Semitic to criticize Soros. Does that mean it’s anti-Semitic to criticize a Jew for being indifferent to Jewish suffering?

Perhaps this inability to identify with the Jewish victims of the Holocaust may be due in part to Soros’ non-religious upbringing. Maybe on some level he views religiosity as a key differentiating factor between him and those who didn’t survive the Nazis. This doesn’t seem very logical, however. Hitler’s hatred of the Jews must have been based as much or more on ethnic and tribal identity than religion. If it had been based primarily on religion, Jews could have saved themselves by proving that they ate bacon every day and hadn’t been inside a synagogue since their Bar Mitzvahs.

And is it really possible to “emerge victorious” from a genocide, if you’re not the one who actually perpetrated the genocide? And what’s up with this “on the side of the angels”? If it’s just 14-year-old Soros’ perspective, that’s one thing. But if it’s present-day Soros’ view as well, this would seem to contradict his vision of an open society.

Doesn’t “on the side of the angels” sound like a “claim to the ultimate truth”?

And you might remember from earlier that such claims “cannot be validated” in an open society. So who’s to say that the Nazis weren’t the ones who were “on the side of the angels”? After all, if we should be constantly redefining what open society means, shouldn’t we be doing the same for right and wrong? And if anybody thinks that this is unjust, we can just tell them to stop “quibbling about definitions.”

Soros makes no secret in this chapter that he likes to be a part of momentous historical events. And the previously cited paragraph about the perks of living under Nazi occupation indicates to me that he may be able to enjoy witnessing history without being distracted by tremendous human suffering. Given that, it did not surprise me when he later stated that his “outlook on life is profoundly optimistic.” I would expect nothing less than profound optimism from someone who says things that sound like “Despite the genocide, we had a great time!” (Wherein Uncle Tom dons a yarmulke. Figuratively of course, because Soros would not want us to think he’s one of those crazy Jews who still believes in the God of Moses.)

In the sentence immediately following the one about his optimistic outlook, Soros the Self-Important makes a comeback. (You may remember Soros the Self-Important from my post on the book’s prologue.) Why is Soros so optimistic? Drumroll please…

“That is because from time to time I am able to bring about improvements in real life.”

Lots of Americans value optimism. As someone who can make Eeyore look like Joel Osteen, I definitely notice this. But I hope that all of us, even the most happy-go-lucky, can recognize this statement for the humblebrag that it is.

“But Megan, he said ‘from time to time’!” And that’s what makes it a humblebrag rather than a straight-up brag. Well played, Mr. Soros. Well played.

The section immediately following that sunshine and rainbows fest is entitled “The Pursuit of Truth.” Here I learned that Soros’ discomfort with objective truth does not stop him from affirming that he possesses “a deep commitment to the truth.”

And the struggle is real when you’re trying to think of a way to ask Soros what his definition of truth is without conjuring up an image in the Left’s mind of Pontius Pilate questioning Jesus.

But this struggle doesn’t last long because in the very next sentence Soros gives us a different question to ponder with, “I do not necessarily have to speak it, but at least I want to know it.” Knowing the truth but not speaking it is what some might call complacency, apathy, or even cowardice. But Soros thinks it’s courageous because, in his words, “Speaking the truth can be hurtful not only to oneself but also to others, so discretion may be the better part of valor.”

That last sentence was notable to me for several reasons. The first thing I noticed was that it embodies so well one of the most toxic attitudes that is currently present in my Church. We’ve heard all about the dangers of “toxic masculinity,” but not nearly enough about the dangers of “toxic discretion.”

I also think it has certain messianic undertones because it reminds me of not one, but two, quotes from Jesus Himself. The first is the famous “And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” from John 8:32. Soros’ version seems to proclaim something more like, “I shall know the truth, and my selective parceling it out to you shall make you free. But not too free. Because that would be dangerous.”

The second is Jesus’ “I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now” in John 16:12. This use of such condescending (when coming from a mere mortal) language only serves to cement my view that Soros has somewhat of a savior complex. And unfortunately there are some who think that this is a categorically anti-Semitic statement.

Even though the actual Savior of the world is also Jewish.

The final section of this chapter includes some thoughts on mortality that sound much less optimistic than other parts of the chapter. Soros says that during his adolescence, “…the prospect of death cast a deep shadow on my existence” and “I could practically feel the ends of my lips turning down from a smile into a grim and somber expression.” You might be tempted to say, “This makes sense being that he lived under Nazi occupation for a year.” Fair enough. But you may recall from earlier that he described his year under Nazi occupation in rather glowing terms. Furthermore, he blames this mortality-inspired gloom not on the Nazis but on learning that his parents wouldn’t live forever. He doesn’t go into any detail about exactly how he learned this.

Neither of his parents died while he was an adolescent, so that’s not it. And I’m also not inclined to blame the Nazis for educating him about mortality, even though that would ordinarily make sense. These are no ordinary circumstances. Again, we only need to refer back to his earlier commentary on Nazi occupation to learn that 14-year-old Soros evidently had 99 problems, but the Nazis weren’t one.

Soros ends the chapter on what I would describe as a very strange note. He asserts that he has “found an intellectually satisfying solution” for the problem of his mortality. According to him, “If death comes at a time when all passions are spent, it need not be terrifying.” But he also admits, “…the prospect of dying continues to weigh on me because my passions are not yet spent.”

I found this ending very ironic in light of something he said earlier in the chapter about fallibility. There he posited that “recognizing our fallibility” should not be cause for despair, but for optimism because “If perfect understanding is beyond our reach, the room for improvement is infinite.” If “the room for improvement is infinite,” I don’t think it’s possible to reach a point where “all passions are spent.” And given that, I think that fallibility would indeed be cause for despair, particularly in light of Soros’ atheism. After all, atheism offers no equivalent of C.S. Lewis’ “If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.”

As I end this post, I am very curious about what I will find in Chapter 2. And I really hope that my readers who have a neutral or positive view of Soros will be inspired to read some of his material if they have not already done so. Don’t just read articles about him. Read his own words. There are too many Trump-averse Americans who have been content to become de facto Soros fans, simply because Trump has said some critical things about him. My guess is that many of these people have no idea what Soros really believes.

You certainly won’t get much substantive information from all those articles about “anti-Semitic” criticisms of him. Most of these focus primarily on his “philanthropic” and academic endeavors. They will acknowledge his financial support of Democratic political candidates, but often they manage to paint a portrait of someone who largely stays “above the fray” of partisan politics. And there is actually some truth to this.

Even though Soros is known for supporting Democratic candidates, I would argue that globalism is his top priority, and globalism is not limited to the Democratic Party. As I mentioned in my post on the subject book’s introduction, it is my opinion that George W. Bush was (and is) a globalist. And you may recall from that same post that I said it would be very surprising to me if Soros never donated (in one form or another) to both major-party candidates in high-profile races.

If you have made it all the way to the end of this post, I commend you. And hope that you will tune in next time.

Verso l’alto,
Megan