John Lukacs: Crank
Like most crotchety, learned old Hungarians I have known, Dr. John Lukacs has many interesting things to say, and an arresting way of saying them. He delivers his opinions, well-formed or not, with all the force of infallible papal bulls. And a certain sort of American is overwhelmed by that Hunnish accent and Pius IX delivery, or by Dr. Lukacs’ puckish smile. They are also charmed by the aura he cultivates of a daring iconoclast, who is willing to say the unsayable. However, on close inspection, quite a number of things Dr. Lukacs has written and said over the decades sound more like either the natterings of a sycophant, or the provocations of a crank.
Lukacs is hardly “fighting the power” when he trashes the anti-Communist movement. Indeed, I can imagine no better way to ensure that his books go right on being published by major houses, and receiving respectful reviews in journals which continue to publish the likes of Tony Hiss, STILL defending his dead, traitor dad. At least Hiss has the excuse of filial piety. As a countryman of Cardinal Mindszenty, as someone who saw the power of moderate nationalisms bring down the Communist empire, Lukacs has none. Indeed, in an era when globalizing institutions wield the power of elites to liquidate historic communities from Flanders to Sicily, in large part by importing alien ideologues of Islam, Lukacs’ frantic warnings against the “menace” of populism and nationalism can be summed up in a single word: Appeasement.
Nor is Lukacs exactly displaying intense moral courage when he polishes the bust of Winston Churchill. To link Pat Buchanan, who cited dozens of major historians but NOT David Irving, with that disgraced Nazi dilettante is itself disgraceful. It’s like suggesting, wryly, without any evidence, that Lukacs must have some past connection with the Arrow Cross… hence his desperate attempt to impersonate a Christian Democrat.
Sometimes Lukacs sounds less like a shady emigre newly arrived from Budapest, sweet-talking the de-Nazification officers in Munich, and more like a callow, if clever, undergraduate. For instance, his oh-so-ingenious insistence that all of Europe now is ruled by “National Socialism,” since its nations are mostly socialist. (That is the extent of his argument for the assertion--however much ink he wastes repeating himself.) Yes, Johnny, we get it. No, we are not convinced. Not even by the accent.
At other times, Lukacs’ assertions are simply bizarre, and impossible to categorize. For instance, the review he wrote, back in the 1980s, of Tom Wolfe’s Bonfire of the Vanities. In it, he accused Tom Wolfe of brazen anti-Semitism--based simply on the fact that Wolfe’s portrayal of ethnic politics in New York, and his satirical picture of the Hobbsean conflict among my home-town’s immigrant tribes, did not ignore the existence of Jewish people in New York. Wolfe included them, even in his satire. He didn’t single them out--far from it. But they formed part of the mosaic. To Lukacs, Wolfe had a special animus toward Jews, whom he resented for displacing the WASP elite. To my knowledge, Lukacs was the only critic to make this charge against Wolfe, and it didn’t stick. Why weren’t others raising a hue and cry? To this, Lukacs had an answer, in his review, which was this: (and I suggest you read this slowly, in a seated position): New York...literary critics...were so intimidated...by Tom Wolfe...that they were willing...to give him a pass… on his blatant anti-Semitism.
Yes, Herr Doktor Lukacs. That is how things work in the New York literary world. Liberal Jewish literary critics are terrified of the one moderately conservative middlebrow novelist in their midst, so frightened that they creep around him, unwilling to wield against him such a mild and harmless weapon as a charge of anti-Semitism.
An historian who so misunderstands the workings of a world comparatively close at hand has no business trying to teach us about the past. My congratulations to Richard for punching a hole in this Hindenburg.
Comments
Wow!
So, I suppose: let us write Lukacs off completely…
That’s simply ridiculous...and something I would expect from the buckley’s and podhoretz’s of the world.
JZ, Is your next book going to be a bad catholics guide to having ex-friends over (or not over) for dinner...?
Come on...this is getting a bit over the top…
And, to be honest, tom wolfe as author...well, not so good...qua Haberdasher priceless…
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Thank you, Mr. Zmikrak. Thank you for saying something negative about a man who is overrated as a historian.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
One might add in Tom Wolfe’s defense against the smear by Lukacs that Wolfe’s wife and children are Jewish. As Lukacs claims that the subjective and personal is so important, I’d think this fact should count for even more in his post-modern way of thinking.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The quality of Lukacs’ work is very uneven and becoming more predictable as time goes on. While “The Hitler of History” is an insightful read, even this work falls into the easy targetting of the far right as the most dangerous menace to the West. Even more ridiculous is his “Democracy & Populism” work, which warns that right-wing populism in the US is taking over under Bush!! Such hyperbole is reminiscent of Richard Hofstadter’s “objectivity” about the radical right in the 1950s.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
It’s clear what motivates Lukac’s petty attacks on both Buchanan and Wolfe: peevish jealousy. It’s hardly the trademark of an objective historian to defame the politics and character of other literary figures simply because they are better writers.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
John,
Lukacs has a less than endearing blind-spot for Churchill, and his glib dismissals of any author (read his review of Human Smoke) questioning his hero are consistently unfair and shallow. So too, any rebuttal that savages Lukacs entire opus and his many contributions to the study of history. A little balance please, before we wind-up damaging some of the better thinkers within the broad dispensation of Dissent from official mythologies.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Virgil Caine: Though he didn’t sing with the choir you named, Andrew Capp has been gone for
a long time, too. Actually, I think that I’ll disappear for awhile—sounds like there might
be a real world outside of blogs . . .
I am waiting for Scott Richert to comment on Lukacs’ review. Awhile back he defended the counter-intuitive
claim that Bush is a “nationalist,” and in doing so he claimed for Lukacs virtual ex cathedra authority for
defining what “nationalism” and “patriotism” mean. Turns out that “bad” is built into the definition of nationalism and “good” is built into the definition of “patriotism.” So the question as to which
is better actually is redundant. That’s Lukacs in a nutshell. I wonder if Richert will qualify his support
for Lukacs’ ability to define terms after he reads the review of Buchanan’s book.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
You raise some valid points, but your tone is contemptable.
Can you disagree without the personal abuse?
Of course there’s been a crankish quality in Lukacs’s work for the last twenty years or so. That may be one reason why people read his work. It’s certainly something that people can examine and discuss.
But to argue that he’s more crankish than Pat or Lew Rockwell or that he’s jealous of Pat Buchanan is either silly or stupid.
Lukacs is someone who was basically right in 1940 and hasn’t been able to get over it since. If his theories have gotten repetitive, mechanical, or unreflective over the years, it doesn’t change the fact that he did get something right all those years ago in Budapest.
In general, “crankishness” is probably an accusation you want to stay away from if you want your own ideas to get a hearing.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@ Caper:
Capp was good people. He’s probably got fields to tend to this time of year. And on that note don’t let me tear you away from cubicleland or whatever Byzantium you are sailing to beyond these parts.
As to “Crank”, that’s just a pointy headed word for ornery cuss or sumbitch. Some folks consider it a compliment.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The only good nationalism is Israeli nationalism.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Dear AM,
My tone is what was merited by the use of a Nazi smear against a good and honorable man. I stand by it. It is Lukacs who should be issuing an apology right about now.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
A very good essay John, one of your best.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Lukacs’s tribal loyalties overcome any pretense he may have to objectivity. His review of Buchanan’s book was noteworthy for his avoidance of addressing the specific facts that Buchanan marshalled to support his thesis. Lukacs’s resort to obfuscation and thinly veiled ad hominem attacks is typical of writers and alleged scholars of his ilk who attack the revisionist rather than his arguments. It implies the weakness of their position.
P.S. Shame on you, Mr. Zmirak. I noticed that you employ the same Lukacsian smear tactics to attack David Irving. I would have expected more of you.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Comparing Pat to David Irving as a revisionist historian may not be polite, but it’s
hardly a “Nazi smear” anymore than pointing out similarities to A.J.P. Taylor’s work
implies that Pat’s a British leftist.
Compared to what’s said about Pat’s new book elsewhere on the Internet, Lukacs was quite
civil. There’s a lot to disagree with in the positions Lukacs has taken down through the
years, but he deserves better than the meat-grinder approach.
What I notice about the Lew Rockwell school is an inability to modulate one’s tone or
detect and convey small, but important differences and distinctions.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Thanks for the strong attack on Prof. L. He deserved an even stronger one. Linking Pat with Irving is disgraceful. And he ‘s called Pat worse things in the past. Regarding the comments, as usual the calls for civility are voiced in only one direction.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
This John is the gutsiest piece you’ve written on this website to date. The
claim that going after anti-Communists or glorifying Churchill is somehow a courageous
act showing an independent spirit is patently absurd. The problem in this case is that
John Lukacs should not have been asked by the fortnightly that made the request to
review Pat’s book. The result was entirely predictable.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Sigh. Yet again, I have let my hot blood get the better of me. I should not have
attacked Mr. Richert as I did above, which was unjust. I was engaging in hyperbole in
saying that Richert attributed to Lukacs such authority to define terms. However much
I question Lukacs’ approach or the prudence of quoting him, Richert backed himself up
with citations from Pope John Paul II. Please remove my previous, stupid comment.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give Taki's Magazine permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. Personal attacks, ethnic slurs, the riding of hobby horses and the beating of dead ones will be deleted as soon as they are detected by our small but alert staff. Repeat abusers of this policy will be barred from leaving comments. All comments reflect only the views of those posting them and not necessarily those of this website, its editors, or authors. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
Commenting is not available in this section entry.