ShareThis Page

Sheep & totalitarians

| Sunday, July 30, 2017, 3:54 p.m.
Trib photo
Louis B. Ruediger | Tribune-Review
Trib photo

“In the literal sense, the West triumphed in the Cold War,” wrote Theodore Dalrymple in “The Soviet Way” in Taki's Magazine on May 20. “Nevertheless, a kind of creeping Sovietization has overtaken it as if in revenge.”

Dalrymple, a contributing editor at the Manhattan Institute's City Journal and a retired physician who most recently practiced in a British inner-city hospital and as a prison psychiatrist, explained: “I don't want to exaggerate, or exaggerate much. We don't yet fear the midnight knock on the door, we are still free to go where we like, and we are not obliged to spend much of our lives seeking everyday commodities of which there are perpetual shortages.”

How, then, are we being Sovietized, other than perhaps by Donald Trump's association with Vladimir Putin? The process “is subtle and all the more insidious for that,” stated Dalrymple. The Eastern Bloc's “ubiquitous propaganda was not intended to persuade, much less to inform, but to humiliate; for citizens … had not merely to avoid contradicting it in public, but actually to agree with it in public. Therefore ... the less true and more outrageously false the propaganda was, the better. For to force people to assent to propositions that are outrageously false, on pain of losing their livelihoods or worse, was to ... make them docile, easily manipulated, and complicit in their own enslavement.”

Continued Dalrymple: “Increasingly ... we find ourselves in analogous situations, especially if we ... work for bureaucracies, whether governmental, quasi-governmental, supposedly independent, or commercial. We must not only keep silent about propositions that we find not only false but ridiculous, but assent to them, to ... demonstrate that we are ... on message . The message must never be of our own devising, or indeed attributable to anyone in particular. It must be absurd and unassailable at the same time.”

Dalrymple commended “The Invisible Book” by Sergei Dovlatov, a Russian writer who immigrated to the United States in 1978. “Possessed of a mordant wit, he was not much appreciated by the Brezhnev regime … .” His book “is well worth reading today, not only as a historical document but for what it tells us about our own situation: For ours is a golden age of ambitious mediocrity ... . And such was the underlying principle, never of course articulated, of the Soviet bureaucracy.”

Dalrymple continued: “There is nothing wrong with mediocrity, of course.” The societal crisis strikes when weakness triumphs. “Mediocrity ... is an unavoidable feature of the human condition; it becomes terrible only when ... it is allied to unbridled ambition and the urge to power. Mediocrity ... is harmful only when it wants to dominate.”

Democracy, primarily, is undermined where safety exists only for those who muzzle themselves.

“The kind of person who succeeded in the Soviet Union,” Dalrymple explained, was “either without ability” or “if they had ability and intelligence, they suppressed its exercise for the sake of a quiet and comfortable life. … Theirs was a kind of suffering, endured for the sake of a pension.”

Ralph R. Reiland is associate professor of economics emeritus at Robert Morris University and a local restaurateur (rrreiland@aol.com).

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.