On Moral Narcissism and the Masochistic Omnipotence Syndrome

The essays by Summers and Elovitz offer a progressive critique of U.S. (and, presumably, by extension, Western) exceptionalism. In doing so, they not only deploy Lasch’s critique of our culture of narcissism, they illustrate it as well.

The essays could have been written 10, even 20, years ago before the disastrous intellectual losses of the last decade in the cognitive warfare of radical Islam against Western progressive values. On the contrary, although not fully explicit, the articles (especially Summers’s) participate fully in the errors that produced these losses, suggesting one of the narcissistic tendencies the authors themselves invoke: ignoring failures and engaging in deeds aimed at appearance rather than reality.

So let me respond by identifying another narcissistic player in our culture, one I think intellectuals more than anyone need to ponder: those stricken with Masochistic Omnipotence Syndrome (MOS). This is a pathology largely specific to people who style themselves progressives (radical Christians and other social mystics have the same tendencies). MOS takes various progressive tendencies—empathy, self-abnegation and self-criticism, concern for the downtrodden—to pathological extremes.

Please understand: I’m not against any of these virtues. To my mind, nothing plays a more critical role in the moral life, good relations with others, and ultimately democratic societies and a peaceful world than empathy and the ability to be honest with oneself. In that vein, I think some of the early paragraphs of Elovitz’ essay are good (if obvious). Americans are fat, not just physically (author disclosure, I am at least 20 pounds overweight), but in our lifestyle, our carbon (and energy) footprint, and the waste we generate. I think there are many ways Western democracy can improve, including religious tolerance; there is much to be learned from other cultures and many as yet unfound ways to interact with dignity and respect.

Page 28

But people afflicted with MOS are moral perfectionists. They find any kind of moral complacency on the part of the West offensive. They are morally urgent, demanding people, and anything short of the highest standards offends them. Thus, whenever confronted by a conflict, those afflicted with MOS invariably choose to blame themselves. Their motto combines masochism—“it’s all our fault”—and omnipotence fantasy—“if only we were better we could fix everything.”

For the post-modern, it’s about the “epistemological priority of the [subaltern] other.” As one of the judges on the Goldstone Group reporting on Israeli treatment of Palestinians in December 2008 and January 2009 commented to a reporter (without any sense of irony), “it would have been cruel for us not to believe the Palestinian testimony.” The victim/loser, no matter how cruel or dishonest, is always right; the victorious/successful is always guilty. As Jacques Derrida himself asked shortly after 9/11: Isn’t failing to prevent starvation a form of terrorism? Our failings are as reprehensible as al Qaeda’s.

From this tyrannical superego we get a common phenomenon among progressives: moral relativism. Here (comparatively) minor flaws on our part become as big and bad as the worst of other cultures. Gitmo equals Gulag, the head of a major “Human Rights” NGO intoned. Blair is as bad as Saddam Hussein, a Guardian cartoonist sneered. The Israelis are as bad as the Nazis, the anti-Zionists shout and self-degrading Jews like Norman Finkelstein agree. And from there on down it’s a slippery slope to moral inversion: “We’re worse.” If they’re bad, it’s our fault. What did we do to make them hate us so?

Thus post-modern moral masochists engage in a double act of narcissism. On the one hand, they preen before the mirror as moral perfectionists, with no tolerance for any sign among their fellow progressives of what they consider intolerance or lack of compassion for the suffering of victims. They speak as prophets chastising their wayward people, convinced that if only “our side” could repent, we would truly have peace. Often, though, this is about seems and not is. As one student said to me about his opposition to the war in Iraq: “I don’t care what Saddam does to his people; I don’t want one hair on one Iraqi child’s head hurt by money paid

Page 29

for by me.” Not in my name! The unspoken truth: this is all about me and my moral purity.

On the other hand, those with MOS perform the classic narcissistic dance described by Lasch: they treat those who are like them with contempt and spend all their energy courting those who dislike them. Having no real moral core, they desperately seek the approval of others, and the harder that approval is to get, the more valuable it seems. Thus Jimmy Carter prides himself on his ability to speak to everyone even though, in order to speak with the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah, of Qaddafi and Arafat, he has to avoid any criticism, to pretend they are moderate. He wins his pride at the expense of his moral integrity. Appearance trumps reality.

In its most extreme form, this kind of masochistic narcissism leads to the default assumption that “we’re always wrong and they’re always right.” Instead of the justice meme “whoever is right, my side or not,” we get, “their side right or wrong.” Thus those with MOS dismiss fellow progressives who criticize Islamists as “neo-cons,” that is, they are not us. They stand shoulder to shoulder with radical Muslims in a “progressive” project to eliminate hate speech by banning insults to Islam. They embrace the most ferocious of the tribal “my side right or wrong” thinkers in the name of transcending “us-them think.”

This brings us to yet a third trait characteristic of narcissists, their lack of courage. Not having a core to defend, narcissists constantly adjust to realities in ways that preserve their fantasy self-image and run from the difficulties of a messy real world. Thus, when faced with an “other” culture dominated by a savage authoritarianism that our own culture has struggled against in great pain for over a millennium, they deny there’s a clash. They fail to denounce, they fail to protect the very victims that they pride themselves on caring about—women, minorities, and slaves. They would rather demand the full measure of painful self-criticism from “us” than demand the most elemental level of self-criticism from a culture that finds any criticism unbearable and will stop at nothing to silence the voice of the “other.”

Thus Summers worries about our own narcissistic pride, and faults us for offending “the pride of Third World nations,” for

Page 30

showing a “lack of sensitivity to Islamic culture.” Apparently he doesn’t factor in that that “proud” culture finds killing daughters and sisters to protect family honor laudable, that it expresses pervasive paranoia and narcissistic rage at the humiliations inflicted by history on its own notions of Islamic exceptionalism. What’s sauce for our goose is not for their gander.

After all, the costs of attacking fellow progressives who dare to criticize the “other” are low in comparison with the costs of criticizing a violently intolerant other whose extremists proclaim, “Butcher those who insult Islam,” and whose “moderates” blame us for that extremism. The result is a suicidal abdication of integrity: if the pope calls Muslims violent and they riot murderously in the street in protest, then the joke’s not on them for proving his point, it’s the pope’s fault for provoking them. And as a result, the cognitive war of Islamists against the West goes from strength to strength, while our progressives deny there is such a thing.

It is unclear what the moral narcissist fears more—actual physical assault from intolerant Muslims or shunning by his fellow progressives. My sense, by and large, is the latter, which explains the ease and speed with which the “other” fellow progressives dissent. Whatever the mix, their motto seems to be “better dhimmi [a Muslim subaltern who dare not criticize Islam] than [called] a racist Islamophobe.”

The result: the disastrous marriage of our miserable young century, between pre-modern sadism and post-modern masochism. It is a marriage guaranteed to destroy the very progressive values its post-modern participants pretend to uphold. That is, if I understand it, the very nature of narcissism: appearance over reality. The progressives as Dorian Gray, still looking good to themselves.

Page 31