Discover more from Amor Dei, Amor Mundi
In Praise of Godwin’s Law
If everyone I disagree with is a Nazi, what do I do when a real Nazi shows up?
Dear Reader,
It was a hell of a week for Godwin’s Law.
If you’re unfamiliar with it, Godwin’s Law states that every argument on the internet, extended far enough, will devolve into discussion of Nazis. Mike Godwin, a writer and lawyer, coined the term way back in the 1990’s, describing the dynamics of early chat rooms, and it’s been true ever since. If a discussion on a message board, MySpace page, Facebook post, or Tweet evokes any level of moral passion, the sound of jackboots isn’t far away. You might be a proto-Nazi if you don’t let your kids cry themselves to sleep, or if you do, or if you eat meat, or drive a gas-burning vehicle, or if you don’t eat meat, or you vote Democrat, or Republican, or Third-Party, or don’t vote at all, or laugh at Dave Chappelle, or don’t laugh at him, or listen to Joe Rogan, or if you are “woke” or aren’t “woke.”
Rightly understood, Godwin’s Law is a critical commentary on our moral and ethical reasoning. We can’t describe bad things as “bad” on their own merits; we have to connect them to modernity’s most profound expression of evil. That tendency — when it’s about diets, parenting techniques, vaccines, or the sale of sugar-sweetened sodas — shows an unseriousness of thought, an inability to make meaningful distinctions. It also reveals totalitarian thinking at an entirely different level. Those who want to make Nazis out of their ideological opponents have embraced a version of morality that can’t imagine sharing a world with those who disagree with them. What else is there to do with Nazis but marginalize them out of polite society?
Generally speaking, I’m a fan of Godwin’s Law as a critique of our discourse. We shouldn’t liken one’s view on mask mandates or tofurky with a regime that oversaw the mass extermination of 11 million people. When we do, it not only makes a zero-sum game out of every contested political and cultural conflict, it dishonors the dead.
This week proves the point.
We began the week with a story about Donald Trump having dinner with Ye (formerly known as Kanye West) and Nick Fuentes, a neo-Nazi and white supremacist. We ended with Kanye going so bananas on Thursday that he made Alex Jones wish he’d stuck with talking about gay frogs and selling protein supplements.
“I love Jewish people,” Ye said, “but I also love Nazis.”
“Oh man,” Jones said laughing uncomfortably, “I’m gonna have to disagree with that.”
When you’ve lost Alex Jones…
Throughout the interview, Ye spouted tropes about money, pornography, child trafficking, and manipulation and control of governments and industries that would be familiar to any student of antisemitism. Some have origins in the notorious “Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” a counterfeit document used to spread lies about Eastern European Jews published in 1903. Those conspiracy theories have origins that go back centuries.
On last Friday’s episode of The Bulletin, Russell Moore and I discussed the topic, including the origins of some of these tropes and the profound way they conflict with Christian theology. I think it’s worth a listen if you’re unfamiliar with any of the background.
I want to expand on those thoughts here in two directions. I want to talk about what we tolerate, and I want to talk about language in the culture war.
what we tolerate
As disgusting as Kanye’s comments are, the background is what is truly frightening. In October, Kanye gave a two-hour long interview to Tucker Carlson, in which he served up a variety of anti-“woke” ideas about race, abortion, and other culture war issues. The following day, a Twitter account representing the GOP’s House Judiciary Committee tweeted, “Kanye, Elon, Trump.”
One might rightly ask what a rapper, a trollish entrepreneur, and an out-of-power ex-President have to do with the work of that committee, and of course the answer is, nothing whatsoever. But the question misses the point; the post reminds us once again that our institutions are broken, that the work of the committee is now secondary (at best) to the more central role it plays as a platform for celebrities — in this case, celebrities who have nothing to do with the committee itself.
Less than a week later, Vice News published leaked outtakes of Carlson’s interview with Kanye, revealing that Fox had carefully edited out a number of unhinged and antisemitic remarks. The “Kanye, Elon, Trump.” tweet stayed up. It stayed up after the Mar-a-Lago dinner with Kanye and Nick Fuentes. It only came down after the “I love Hitler,” comments on Alex Jones’ show.
I am not certain that Carlson or the members of the GOP Judiciary Committee or the manager of that Twitter account or the producers and executives at Fox News are actively antisemitic. I am sure that they were willing to tolerate antisemitism up to the point that they found the antisemite useful to their cause, and morally, I’m not sure that’s much better. Passive antisemitism is antisemitism.
This is a point I’ve made before, but it bears repeating: tolerating antisemites because they hate some of the same people you do is an act of cowardice. It means you don’t believe your ideas can stand on their own and they need to be helped along by whatever tool lies close at hand. It’s not only a matter of making space for moral corruption; it is moral corruption.
escalating language in the culture wars
Right now, Chinese citizens are protesting a government that barricades people in their homes during outbreaks of coronavirus, a policy that cost people their lives in a house fire mere weeks ago. That government has embraced a racist ideology of Han supremacy, leading to forced sterilizations and genocide. In Iran, citizens have taken to the streets to protest the murder of Mahsa Amini, whose “crimes” involved tight pants and the lack of a proper hijab. These crimes against humanity demand language like “authoritarianism,” “genocide,” and “totalitarianism,” and they’re worthy of comparison to Nazis.
In America, though, these terms have been equally applied to mask mandates (or the lack thereof), drag queen story hour, and objection to same-sex marriage. As a result, we lack language for when a neo-Nazi dines with a former president. There’s nowhere to escalate, and I can’t help but wonder if — when conservatives have been compared to Nazis for any number of culture war issues, or when Ron DeSantis was accused of committing genocide because of his COVID policies — we’ve corrupted our ability to think in proper moral categories.
Of course, this isn’t a one-way street. Conservatives are just as fond of referring to liberals, progressives, and government officials as Nazis and fascists. So the problem extends in both directions.
But the point stands: if everyone we disagree with is a Nazi in waiting, then we are in a moral and linguistic quandary when a real Nazi shows up. This is no excuse for the tepid response from GOP members after the Mar-a-Lago dinner, but it does help explain the decay of their moral imagination.
I’ve said for a long time that the embrace of Christian nationalism in the U.S. would pave the way for a resurgence of antisemitism. We’re seeing it now. Yes, there’s been a louder outcry against Kanye and Fuentes in the last few days. But I won’t applaud it just yet. I’m too disturbed by how long it took and how far Kanye had to go before people were willing to speak up.
In recent days, many commentators have talked about how “nature is healing” in the GOP since the midterms, that the party is moving away from Trump and from the authoritarian and xenophobic impulses associated with him. Maybe that’s right. But the slow and tepid response to these events tells me how far they have to go.
varia
Print subscribers to CT should likely have gotten their issue of the December issue in the mail by now. I was overwhelmingly happy to have contributed the cover story on Bono, which I linked to last time but felt compelled to link again. Honestly, I might link it in this newsletter for a long time.
Here’s the aforementioned Bulletin from last week.
An interesting series of events took place last week on Twitter regarding Jonathan Edwards and slavery. It began with a series of tweets from Joash Thomas, and responses from the historian John Fea. As you might imagine, at issue was Edwards’ view of slavery (he was a slaveholder) and the value of his theology. Late in the week, it was announced that Fea was stepping down from his role as the President of the Conference on Faith and History. No direct mention was made of the writing about Edwards and exchange with Joash, but the connection seems obvious. You can read Fea’s pieces and get the gist of the debate, links to Thomas’ tweets, and the tone of Fea’s writing, which may have contributed to his resignation as much as anything.
In spite of the annihilation late Sunday, I remain a Jeff Saturday optimist with the Colts. He seems to have injected new energy in some phases of the game, and he’s shown that there’s potential on this team, especially in the rejuvenated run game and improved offensive line. But Matt Ryan is, unfortunately, slow. He’s slow to decide, slow to release the ball, and the ball itself is slow. So bring back Sam Ehlinger. What’s left to lose? And how much better might the Colts be with a little zip on their passes, a faster-paced game, and the threat of a runner at QB?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Working on some year-end lists for the next couple of episodes, and some slow-simmering thoughts on Christmas. Keep an eye out for those.
See you soon,
Mike Cosper
Subscribe to Amor Dei, Amor Mundi
Christianity, culture, and faithful presence. Haunted by Hannah Arendt. "Love is the original miracle." — Guy Garvey