6 May 2013 update.
So Niall Ferguson has recently got himself in trouble for some ill-considered remarks about how John Maynard Keynes was a poor economist because, being gay, he didn't have children and therefore didn't care about the future. He has since apologised, a good gesture, but one that is somewhat undermined by the fact that, according to many, he has a lot of form for this supposedly out-of-character and spontaneous outburst. Others have criticised his qualities as an economist, despite his abilities as a historian. In this old post below I point out that at least on occasion he's also a very poor historian....
First, the recent story and his apology: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/may/04/niall-ferguson-apologises-gay-Keynes
Then, the old post (September 2011).
There’s obviously going to be a lot of guff as well as sensible stuff said about 9/11 in the course of this 10th anniversary week of that hideous atrocity, but I doubt we’ll see anything more ludicrous than Niall Ferguson’s counterfactual on the day and its consequences, linked below, or, in counter-fact, of the day that didn’t happen and the consequences of that. This bunch of insupportable assumptions dressed up as a logical and likely chain of events following from the fictional foiling of the 9/11 plot--which just happen to show that Bush-Blair invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were right and a Kerry presidency would have been a catastrophe--is so full of holes that it is in fact a hole. And yet, even while concocting this far-fetched and yet simplistic series of supposedly inter-locking unlikelihoods, he has the nerve to talk about “historical process” and how “the world is a seriously complex place, and a small change to the web of events can have huge consequences.” My guess is that Ferguson’s brain must be an irony-free zone, a torpid lump in fact of nothing other than humourless right-wing dogma. But, above all, what's he ultimately saying? That he's glad 9/11 happened? That’s certainly the implication, whether he noticed that or not. I suspect he didn't.
So Niall Ferguson has recently got himself in trouble for some ill-considered remarks about how John Maynard Keynes was a poor economist because, being gay, he didn't have children and therefore didn't care about the future. He has since apologised, a good gesture, but one that is somewhat undermined by the fact that, according to many, he has a lot of form for this supposedly out-of-character and spontaneous outburst. Others have criticised his qualities as an economist, despite his abilities as a historian. In this old post below I point out that at least on occasion he's also a very poor historian....
First, the recent story and his apology: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/may/04/niall-ferguson-apologises-gay-Keynes
Then, the old post (September 2011).
There’s obviously going to be a lot of guff as well as sensible stuff said about 9/11 in the course of this 10th anniversary week of that hideous atrocity, but I doubt we’ll see anything more ludicrous than Niall Ferguson’s counterfactual on the day and its consequences, linked below, or, in counter-fact, of the day that didn’t happen and the consequences of that. This bunch of insupportable assumptions dressed up as a logical and likely chain of events following from the fictional foiling of the 9/11 plot--which just happen to show that Bush-Blair invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were right and a Kerry presidency would have been a catastrophe--is so full of holes that it is in fact a hole. And yet, even while concocting this far-fetched and yet simplistic series of supposedly inter-locking unlikelihoods, he has the nerve to talk about “historical process” and how “the world is a seriously complex place, and a small change to the web of events can have huge consequences.” My guess is that Ferguson’s brain must be an irony-free zone, a torpid lump in fact of nothing other than humourless right-wing dogma. But, above all, what's he ultimately saying? That he's glad 9/11 happened? That’s certainly the implication, whether he noticed that or not. I suspect he didn't.
Dispiritingly, as with David Starkey (see previous post, if you want to), this kind of thing doesn't but should turn the media off him—and it would if only we lived a society that valued rational and intelligent discussion enough to refuse to tolerate a market-driven-mad media that prefers to make money than to make sense. (Now there’s a counter-factual for you.) But, in actual fact, because most of the media, the mainstream of it anyway, is indeed a market-driven, advertising-revenue-seeking monster, it is therefore a massive-twat-generator, serving up braying media whores like Starkey and Forge who, as they up their own antes, are prepared to disgorge ever-more outrageous and therefore attention-grabbing spew in order to do nothing more valuable than advance their personal fame and fortune.
And it makes me quite angry, in case you didn’t notice.
Good post! I agree. Counter-factuals can be fun, but they have to be done properly. And this is just ideological grand-standing.
ReplyDeleteI don't think 9/11 is a good turning point for this kind of exercise anyway. Yes, it was the big event everybody remembers. But my bet is that the world is a lot more different now from what it could have been less because of that terrorist attack, but because of what happened in the US presidential election in 2000.
I am not into conspiracy theories, so for the sake of argument, let's say that Bush really did win Florida that November - but that decision, made, in the end, by a few thousand voters and a few hanging chads, had a big impact.
The nature of US foreign policy following this election, even before the planes hit, was already turning towards a certain kind of neocon aggression - and I wouldn't put it beyond Bush (or rather Cheney and Rumsfeld) to have found an excuse for attacking Iraq and/or Afghanistan anyay, since they were certainly thinking in that direction before September 2001....
The thought of that election still makes me sad, and it made me realise how much difference elections can make, how much difference each vote might make. In terms of long consequences, Septeber 11 seems a small matter - just one of the events that drove on a process that was already in motion.
Absolutely--Bush would have found a way to attack Iraq. Speaking of unconnected events and counter-factuals, the ivasion of Iraq was not a consquence of 9/11 because Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. A connection was made by the Bush admin as a pretext for the Iraq war, even though virtually no one believed it, even those who supported the overthrow of Saddam.
ReplyDeleteGood points Steve.
ReplyDeleteThe most frustrating thing about his counter-factual comments is the way he falls back on polls about what ordinary Americans think. It's true, of course, that very few American citizens evince a missionary zeal about American global hegemony. However, American elites, on the other hand, consistently do - and have done so at least since Wilson, and probably earlier. What ordinary Americans think doesn't register much with their leaders, and nor does it translate to the indigenous peoples of wherever American bombs might be landing.
Ferguson's (deliberate?) failure to recognise the disconnect between ordinary Americans and the mythic 'America' that their leaders promote and project is, at best, naive. |At worst, it's willfully and dangerously ignorant. But then i'd expect nothing less from an unashamed apologist for American empire like Schmerguson.
Nice post. I just read Ferguson's fantasy piece and it's even worse than I expected! Amazing that he manages to get these stinky little brain-farts published.
ReplyDeleteI love this post, when originally posted and now, even more.
ReplyDelete