Column Title: Meaningful-Faith: Words, the Word, and a Life of Substance
Column Entry: “Faith and Victory”
By Mark Williams, Ph.D.
Professor of Rhetoric, California State University, Sacramento
January 2025 / July 2024 / June 2024 / May 2024 / November 2022 / October 2022 / March 2022 / February 2022 / November 2021 / October 2021 / September 2021 / August 2021 / June-July 2021 / April-May 2021
Faith and Victory
I recently had the unpleasant task of reviewing a number of writings produced and endorsed by some politically active fascist groups.
I do not mean that, after reviewing their material, I have decided to call them fascists as some sort of conjured insult. I mean they are fascists. They call themselves fascists, proudly, and their stated goals include political involvement, both discretely and sometimes plainly, in European and American policy decisions and electoral processes. The end goal is the increased influence of fascist ideology in these spheres and the eventual establishment of fascist regimes in Europe and North America. These groups are ideologically aware (meaning they understand clearly what fascism is and have embraced it consciously[1]), they have (strained, but) consistent reasoning processes and (sometimes) concrete political goals. They are also savvy rhetoricians, although my impression is that they are, as Hitler was in his early days, intuitively reading the moment more than acting under a communication master plan at present.
Do I believe they are in a position to make substantive changes in the Euromerican political landscape? Might they succeed? Certainly, I hope not. But I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, and while I think there are many hurdles between them and their goals, the measure of their success is something that only time will tell. But apart from their political ambitions, I was struck by one theme that consistently emerged in their writings.
An inescapable facet of this literature is the earnest sincerity of the members. And that brings us to a pointed observation that hit me thirty years ago and haunts me to this day. Eli Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor, once noted that it was impossible to grasp the fascist mind without embracing a particular truth regarding Auschwitz: “They meant it for the well-being of humanity.”[2] The intention behind The Camps was sincere, and those who designed, built, and ran the places thought they were doing a difficult but good thing. It is very hard to stomach that; it is very foolish not to. And if we face this fact, we are left with a brutal discomfort. Neither sincerity nor enthusiasm nor confidence can be considered any evidence of moral correctness, piety, or honor. People are frequently very sincere about doing good and at the same time very wrong about defining what good actually is.
One response to this rather dark and frightening fact about our moral overconfidence is to become a cynic and simply sneer at anyone who actually believes anything. Caveat credentis: Beware of the believer! Every conclusion that is held confidently, every assumption that allows one to act in accordance with principle is to be broken apart, deconstructed. For the one who sets out to dismantle such beliefs, the process is actually quite pleasant. It provides the thrill of being an insider who “sees through” the game and is no longer being manipulated by The Powers That Be. And it mixes this with the satisfaction of looking down on The Deplorables who cannot understand what is happening to them. But such a path is rather like living on a diet of nothing but sweets: easy, lazy, delightful, and lethal.
Alternatively, of course, the answer to earnest but misguided belief is not to stop believing in anything, but to learn what is worth believing in—and that is the far more demanding road. In a recent book, I laid out the theory and pragmatics for the first steps in such a difficult enterprise of public moral reasoning.[3] I will not try to repeat that demanding program here, but suffice it to say it is not a path the cynic can follow with integrity; it assumes that some things are not only worth the effort of believing, but worth the effort of knowing why you believe them, as well as knowing what belief actually means. Without precisely that effort, moral errors proliferate.
The world groans not under the weight of some living presence of evil itself, but under the weight of a distorted ghost of good that haunts a post-everything irony and presents a cynical sneer as the only sign of wisdom. And, oddly, this response to the world is becoming the unifying vision of the culture What binds both Left and Right together these days—what defines our national unity—is, increasingly, the assumption that the Other is mockworthy. Simplistic cliches and a withering wit that memes that Other Side into nonsense is gobbled up as penetrating analysis. By all sides. The snide patronizing attitude about Their lack of worth and Our superiority is shared by the Left and the Right.
But in a post-truth world, the very meaning of goodness itself is a blank slate, awaiting not the insight of the mystic nor the precision of the scientist, but the fist of a victor. The winner will determine what we are to mean when we make the sound good.
But caveat victoris: beware of the victor at least as much as the believer.
“They meant it for the well-being of humanity.”
Now, some believers are fanatics, and we should beware of that quality. And some victors are benevolent and gracious, and we should honor those qualities. But some believers are not fanatics. And some victors are not noble.
So, it would seem that we are tasked neither with dismissing nor embracing belief or victory. We have been given, evidently, the much more challenging task of discerning where good is present and were it is absent in both belief and victory, doubt and defeat. Discerning good is the foundation of every Christian vocation. And “foundations once destroyed, what can the just do?”[4]
But there are some hopeful signs. If nothing else, there is a shared exhaustion by large numbers on both sides, and that retreat itself may bring us to our senses. Or lead us into temptation. We shall see.
Until then: what do you have faith in? Why? And what, exactly, does it mean to believe—anything?
* The views of any CCSN columnists are their own, and do not necessarily represent the views of the CCSN. We invite and embrace a wide range of views and critiques on important communication and cultural issues from a Christian perspective. The CCSN is a community of Jesus followers who study communication. We do not support or promote a particular social, political, or denominational agenda.
Notes
[1] The term fascism is, admittedly, slippery, but if I follow the lead of Finkelstein, a leading researcher on political and religious extremism, the groups involved comfortably fit within the four defining qualities he outlines: 1. The presence of (or at a minimum a desire for) a Duce: a single leader who embodies the movement and becomes the law; 2. A glorification of violence; 3. A consistent mechanism of scapegoating: identifying some “impure” blemish on the state’s purpose and identity, and 4. Employing and encouraging Big Lie communication strategies.
[2] “From One Generation to Another.” In Living Philosophies, Clifton Fadiman, ed. (New York: Doubleday, 1990), 186.
[3] Just Words: Lessons of Ancient Education, Classical Rhetoric, and Pagan Religion for a Post-Christian World (Integratio Press, 2024)
[4] Psa. 11.3. The translation is from the Grail Psalter, used by Roman Catholic priests, monks, and nuns in their daily prayers.