Barlow on magnanimous victory
John Perry Barlow makes the case, eloquently as always, for reaching out, understanding, tolerance and forgiveness. Oh, you can see the thread of anger weaving through as well, but, that’s the struggle so many of us are engaged in. Me, too, although I can see why you might think otherwise given my mood the past few days.
I’m not as sanguine as JP. For some segment of the population – how large? I honestly don’t know – the argument they just won wasn’t over policy differences so much as over the nature of the middle ground itself. It seems to me that we all have to become complex creatures – capable of believing deeply while tolerating contradiction – or we won’t be able to live together. That’s hard. None of us succeed at it perfectly. JP takes a step forward, a bigger step than my mood lets me take right now. But I admire him for it.
Categories: Uncategorized dw
Though it is fair to say his religious affiliation was nominal at best, the only fundamentalist to occupy the White House recently was Bill Clinton, a Southern Baptist.
President Bush is no more an evangelical nor a fundamentalist than Hillary Clinton is. They’re both Methodists. Bush was brought up as an Episcopalian, about as far in the Protestant world as you can get from evangelicalism or fundamentalism. He became a Methodist because Laura is.
The Clintons made a point of being seen at Foundry United Methodist Church most Sundays. According to an article last month in The New Republic, President Bush does not attend services regularly, though “every so often he drops in” at the Episcopal church near the White House.
He’s not a fundamentalist, not an evangelical, and most importantly as far as I tell there is not a shred of evidence to suggest he is a millenialist. He is a moderately observant mainline Protestant (a description that with a few notable exceptions applies to every U.S. President).
President Bush openly expresses his belief that faith can change lives, because it did his. And for this he is excoriated.
Perhaps someone has done a textual analysis to determine the relative frequency of religious allusions or references by President Bush compared to President Clinton. I’d be surprised if it is greater.
The mindless hatred of this man on the part of the far left, and the endless lies they tell themselves about him, is something the rest of us will never comprehend. I think what has given rise to so many myths concerning his faith is an apalling religious illiteracy on the part of media and academic elites. Too many are simply ignorant of religious language and practice, and they end up not knowing what the hell (pun intended) they’re talking about.
“The mindless hatred of this man on the part of the far left, and the endless lies they tell themselves about him, is something the rest of us will never comprehend.”
Ah, the old Bush hater frame. Quite familiar with that one. That’s the one where liberals are the ones who are painted as irrational, unreasonable, propaganda-spreading, hate-filled fanatics because they have a powerful revulsion to GWB’s IDEAS and policies. But in all fairness, I’m sure that plenty of people do hate George W. Bush just as there are many people who hate gays, liberals, etc., but is that relevant here? I don’t think anyone has mentioned their hatred for GWB, so I don’t think it’s relevant. Anyway, If you think the readers of this blog are all “mindless haters” of Bush, why do you waste your time posting comments? We’re all just imbeciles, right?
The fact is, just because we want(ed) to see Bush defeated, doesn’t mean we hate Bush or his supporters. Republicans are largely good, well-intentioned people. I don’t think anyone here would argue against that. Execution of strategy takes very careful judgement which hatred usually clouds. We will not accept the frame of “haters” just because we oppose Bush and the conservative movement. We are wise to this trick.
But let’s, for a moment, talk about some of the ideas which inform the conservative right in this country, and of which Bush is the leader (obviously). If you want to take issue with something, take issue with my positions. Here are some:
I will never believe that homosexuality is a sin. I will always believe in evolution, and the middle class. I think privatizing social security will be disastrous. I will always believe in a woman’s right to choose. I will always believe in the seperation of church and state. I will always oppose the death penalty. I will always belive that we should do somehting about global warming. I will always believe, concerning these beliefs that there is nothing to negotiate, nothing to cede.
From now on, Bern, as long as you are posting on the internet where a liberal like myself is not on unequal footing, I’m going to direct conversation, as much as I’m allowed, to talking about actual issues. I’m really not concerned with Bush haters, or liberal haters. I’m concerned with positions and ideas. Is it possible to engage you, or perhaps Brad on ISSUES??? What do you stand for? What do you believe, and why?
My head hurts and I’m lost. Let’s rewind and take a breath.
The proposition is that theocracy (and/or totalitarianism?) is imminent. We have agreed to base our conclusions solely on the facts and the evidence. Here are the results so far:
1. President Bush supports faith-based initiatives, an idea he stole from Al Gore. (Note: Stealing is against the Ten Commandments.) Bush asserts there is a firewall against proselytizing. A contrary assertion has been made in this discussion but no evidence was offered.
2. White Evangelicals voted for Bush. When they voted for Jimmy Carter, theocracy ensued (albeit in Iran). From every indication theocracy did not result when they switched to Reagan. However, Bush was re-elected in the year marking the 25th anniversary of the Iranian revolution. Coincidence?
3. White Evangelicals want to establish a theocracy. No evidence is necessary, as this is common knowledge.
4. According to a serially-translated third-hand account of a non-English speaking Arafat crony quoting Bush out of context, Bush takes instructions directly from Allah.
5. Bush thinks faith has helped him in life.
6. Bush does not go to church.
Chilling! Based on this evidence, the theocracy alert level is being raised to CRIMSON and I’m provisioning the survival shelter.
Daniel,
Scroll up. I gave you an issue. Progressives and Democrats are lining up like Buckley-esque conservatives from the late 1950s to stand in front of the progression of history and yell “Stop!” on Social Security reform. Your Presidential candidate LIED about W’s motivations for reform and private accounts on the day of the election. And David W. pretty much said he’s not interested in the issue. That’s an example issue. We can talk about a flat tax (or national sales tax or VAT) another day.
-Brad
Crimson Alert! Attention all my fundamentalists nutjob brethren! We mistakenly thought president Bush was one of us! How could they have gotten it so wrong? If only we could have Jimmy Carter back…
“It seems to me that we all have to become complex creatures – capable of believing deeply while tolerating contradiction – or we won’t be able to live together. That’s hard.”
I don’t know – there seems to be an abundance of deep belief, even in this conversation on all sides, but where is the sort of healthy skepticism vis a vis one’s own limitations to apprehending the truths in which one believes? Is it possible to commit to action even as one remembers to doubt one’s belief for the sake of openness to human error? Put another way: is it possible to tolerate the contradiction of deep believing and deeply doubting and still act?
Tom: Yes. That’s what it’s all about, isn’t it? That and figuring out how one’s openness to error should affect one’s policies and stance. And I’m 100% certain of that! :)
Oh, G-d. Now even the Guardian is publishing theocratic disinformation.
Irony intended, of course. Actually, it’s a hard-nosed debunking of the “values” narrative — and more importantly, why the Democrats as well as Europeans need a reality-based approach to understanding what happened.
“Forty-five per cent of Bush’s vote came from voters who classified themselves as ‘moderate’ or ‘liberal’…
“Eighty-three per cent of [all] voters did not fall into [the “moral values”] camp at all [either giving a different top issue, or choosing moral values but voting for Kerry]…
“…the percentage of voters describing themselves as evangelical was the same as in 2000…
“A majority supported either gay marriage (which we do not have here in Britain, or in most countries in Europe) or of gay civil unions. In fact, among these latter, there was a 5 per cent lead for Bush…
“…those most scared by terrorism actually voted for Kerry [notwithstanding all the idiotic ‘fearmongering’ claims]…
“[Democrats and Europeans must] avoid the one fatal error that so many have fallen into. George W Bush and his voters are not dumb. Those who think so are the really dumb ones.”
Amen, brother!
Jonah Goldberg: “What Maher, Raines, and Smiley fail to grasp is that all morality is based upon transcendence — or it is merely based on utilitarianism of one kind or another, and therefore it is not morality so much as, at best, an enlightened expediency or will-to-power. It is no more rational to vote based on a desire to do “good” than it is to vote based on a desire to do God’s will. Indeed, for millions of people this is a distinction without a difference — as it was for so many of the abolitionists progressives and civil-rights leaders today’s liberals love to invoke but never actually learn about.
“Love, in fact, is just as silly and superstitious a concept as God (and for those who believe God is Love, this too is a distinction without a difference). Chesterton’s observation that the purely rational man will not marry is just as correct today, because science has done far more damage to the ideal of love than it has done to the notion of an awesome God beyond our ken. Genes, hormones, instincts, evolution: These are the cause for the effect of love in the purely rational man’s textbook. But Maher would get few applause lines from his audience of sophisticated yokels if he mocked love as a silly superstition. This is, in part, because the crowd he plays to likes the idea of love while it dislikes the idea of God; and in part because these people feel love, so they think it exists. But such is the extent of their solipsism and narcissism that they not only reject the existence of God but go so far as to mock those who do not, simply because they don’t feel Him themselves. And, alas, in elite America, feelings are the only recognized foundation of metaphysics.
“I didn’t intend to get off on the tangent of religion. I’m not particularly religious myself, after all. Nevertheless, I think the great irony of this election is that for all the talk of how the bigoted Right won, the Left’s loss has sparked far more bigotry. Their clever trick is to defend their hatred of the religious by calling it a hatred of bigotry itself — a rationalization no liberal would tolerate from any other kind of bigot.”
Daniel wrote:
“I will never believe that homosexuality is a sin. I will always believe in evolution, and the middle class. I think privatizing social security will be disastrous. I will always believe in a woman’s right to choose. I will always believe in the seperation of church and state. I will always oppose the death penalty. I will always belive that we should do somehting about global warming. I will always believe, concerning these beliefs that there is nothing to negotiate, nothing to cede.”
Well said. I believe that this is a statement of the moderate left (in which I place myself). I hate no one because they have a different set of beliefs. I fear no rational discussion of my beliefs as they compare or contrast with another’s.
The only thing I fear is the intolerance so typical of those who are not moderate (on either side) and willing to accept that others have the right to a contrarian opinion. It is this lack of consideration and respect for the different beliefs of another that has created the acrimony, name-calling, stereotyping, and distortion so evident in the recent election. It manifests itself throughout these comments from people on both sides of the conversation.
C’mon folks. You all seem to be pretty articulate, thoughtful people. Can you not discipline yourselves to count to ten before typing an emotional, angry screed in reply to someone’s thoughts?. Can you not engage in a discussion without attacking the other person’s right to their opinion? Can you not directly answer a question directly posed?
Remember the Greek admonition: “Moderation in all things. Nothing to excess.”
Daniel… On the global warming thing… As an undergrad, I was very privileged to have a physical sciences breadth course partially taught by Sherwood Rowland and Ralph Cicerone, the former a Nobel Laureate and both involved in theorizing the connection of CFCs with ozone layer depletion.
Rowland gave very scientific lectures on the topic, dumbed down a little for the predominance of poets in our class. He emphasized that the data was open to many different interpretations. Cicerone (now Chancellor at UC Irvine) on the other hand, struck me as a friggin lunatic in this context. He was almost in tears telling us how we would all have skin cancer by age 50 if we dared walk outside now that man had destroyed the ozone layer, and that our lifestyle was destroying the planet and blah blah. This was a scientist lecturing a course in physical sciences, not an Earth First rally. You can thank the CFC hysteria for the demise of the Space Shuttle Columbia, BTW. Maybe on balance, eliminating CFC production and reducing usage has been a net positive, but in the case of main tank insulation, conversion to ozone friendly insulating compounds proved to be a disaster.
So, although I’m for all intents and purposes an atheist (I call myself and “ag-care-stic”, meaning, I do not care whether God exists or not, and to each their own, whatever gets them through their day), my economic well being is tied to some people understanding the real world at the smallest level of detail, and I’m generally very happy with science in general…
On this little “exit poll” that was my undergrad physical science breadth course taught by two of the most distinguished voices in atmospheric science of our time, I would conclude many of the scientists in this field have an agenda that transcends the science. So when there is ongoing disagreement in the community as a whole as to the effect of man-produced CO2 on global warming (as opposed to solar activity, volcanic debris, etc.), I am not ready to feel guilt for having a Mustang GT (4.6L V8) and a small SUV (3.6L V6) in the garage. I am not ready to accept Kyoto. I do not care that or whether the rest of the world is jumping the gun and blaming America for the end of the world. Anyone who is ready to do such things is hedging on one side of the science. Hedging is OK if you admit that you’re hedging. It is not OK if you declare that your iinterpretation is 100% correct, and then use that interpretation to subjugate fellow citizens through force of law. It is also not OK to ignore competing explanative theories of why the earth is warming in a political context, even if it’s easier for the people to grasp that they must be doing something bad than it is for them to grasp that shit happens. It’s a lot like (for example) wanting creationism in Biology books.
And you know what? The Bush administration generally agrees with my cautious and skeptical approach to this issue.
Brad,
I would say that, in general, I have little problem with the assessment you offer in your second to last paragraph. I don’t wish to engage in a debate with you, as I’m fairly certain neither of us is likely to change our positions. But I would like to offer my assessment on another issue that largely parallels yours. Although there is an apples and oranges objection, I feel there are some legitimate parallels.
In the matter of what to do about Iraq, prior to the commencement of the Iraq war, I would conclude that many of the public officials and geo-political academics in this field had an agenda that transcended the lessons of history. Prior to 9/11 the consensus opinion of most people familiar with the issues in DOD and the Dept of State, was that Saddam Hussein retained little or no weapons of mass destruction, and that he had no active programs underway to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Shortly after the inauguration of the Bush administration, Colin Powell stated just this position. If you require a citation, I can, with some effort, find it. I don’t have it readily at hand.
Following 9/11, those public officials and geo-political academics who had an agenda with respect to Iraq, saw an opportunity to advance that agenda. To that end, the threat of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction was put to the American people as the principle justification for a preemptive war against Iraq. At some point after the so-called “end of major combat operations,” Paul Wolfowitz, one of the principal architects of this idea, in a rare moment of candor, noted that it really didn’t matter that Saddam didn’t have WMD, WMD was just the rationale the administration used to sell the necessity of the war to the American people. Again, I can find you a citation if you desire one, but it’s not readily at hand.
The case for WMD was built on analysis that was little more than reasoning backward from their conclusions, and relied on reports of questionable provenance.
Watching this case put before our country, many of us tried to express skepticism and urge a cautious and skeptical approach to taking on the daunting task of invading a country and re-making it into something we hope will be better than the status quo.
Instead, arguments urging skepticism and caution were ignored, or worse, ridiculed as being stupid, unpatriotic, or cowardly.
I agree it is not okay to ignore competing explanative theories of why the earth is warming for a political reason. I agree it is wrong to assert that one’s interpretation of anything is 100% correct.
We argued that the consequences of war are so unpredictable, and the costs are so high, that it would have been better to pursue a more cautious, skeptical approach to the issue of Iraq.
We will never know if such an approach would have been effective in solving the problem of Iraq. We don’t yet know if the American invasion will be judged as a success. I think it will probably be at least a decade before we can begin to have a clear idea of all the consequences of this war.
I think it is clear today that the planning for this war was deficient, and woefully so. That was also due to the agendas of certain public officials whose agendas transcended the knowledge and experience of military professionals like the Army Chief of Staff. There can be little argument on that score today.
I, for one, don’t feel safer. While Saddam Hussein is an evil tyrant, removing an evil tyrant for the sake of the Iraqi people was never put forth as a serious justification for the invasion. It was the “gathering danger” to the U.S.
Reasonable people may disagree, but I think it is at least within the realm of possibility that the Iraq war has spurred Iran to pursue its own nuclear capability to afford itself a measure of deterrence against U.S. military intervention. I think it is at least within the realm of possibility that North Korea acted similarly, although it is possible they may have already been in possession of one or two nuclear weapons before the Iraq war.
The images of the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib will be used as effective terrorist recruiting materials for decades to come. Fighting an insurgency is damn hard, and few countries, if any, have been successful at it. The insurgents don’t have to win, they just have to “not lose.” People have recently been pointing to El Salvador and its experience with democracy as a hopeful precedent. I hope they are right, but I think there are far too many differences between Iraq and El Salvador to lead one to feel very sanguine about the potential for a positive outcome in any sort of near-term time frame. I could be wrong, and I hope I am.
I don’t believe 100K Iraqi civilians have been killed as a result of the invasion, just as I was skeptical of the accounts of hundreds of thousands killed as a result of the sanctions regime. But I believe it is very likely on the order of 10K killed with some two to three times that number grievously injured. While it has been argued that Saddam had killed far more in his tenure, that blood was on his hands. This blood is on ours. Spilling innocent Iraqi blood for the sake of some illusory increase in my “security” is unacceptable to me. Having more than 1000 of our men and women killed in this effort, and two or three times that number grievously injured, for some illusory increase in my security is unacceptable to me. I’m far more likely to die an accidental death or a “natural” one related to lifestyle choices than I am from a terrorist act. I was prepared and willing to accept whatever unquantifiable risk Saddan Hussen represented than to ask so many people to suffer and die so I could enjoy the dignity of dying in an automobile accident, or of old age. But that’s just me. Like you, I don’t feel guilty driving an SUV. I do feel a little guilt, amidst a great deal of sadness, for all the blood being shed in something that is little more than an experiment; a characterization that I’m sure you will recall has been used to criticize the Kyoto accord.
I don’t know how history will judge this effort. I fully expect those who supported it will find in the outcome as it unfolds sufficient justification for their support. Again, I believe that is little more than reasoning backward from their conclusions. But I don’t expect any of them to admit the possibility they might have been wrong. They all seem quite convinced they were 100% right that this was the Right War at the Right Time against the Right Enemy.
I don’t know what our Iraq experience means for the future of “preemptive wars.” Where will we pursue regime change next? Iran? Pakistan? Syria? Sudan? If not, why not? I rather expect the people who envisioned this effort as a “cake walk” have significantly re-calibrated their expectations, and will be much more reticent about employing the use of force to effect political change in the future.
I’d like to think that if your knowledge of the region, its history, the practical realities of armed conflict, the limitations of the use of force, the competing theories of geo-political academics, and the agendas of public officials in this administration was equal to your knowledge of science, you too might have urged skepticism and caution before we embarked on this adventure.
I’m not sure if we’ll ever know if it was “worth it” in our lifetime. I hope it will be worth it. I really do. I’m not sure how we’ll measure that, but I hope it will be unequivocally worth it.
But I wish we had not chosen this path, and I believe we were badly led to do so. My teeth clench whenever the president says it’s “hard work,” as he did again today. That so understates the difficulty of what he has set out to achieve as to trivialize it.
That’s about all I have to say on this, and I have no desire to argue with anyone about it. So I won’t.
My feeling, and I could be wrong, is that you support Bush because he agrees with you on key issues, that are more important in your world view than others. Despite the fact that Bush or his supporters embarras you sometime, you are willing to overlook a great deal because he agrees with your core beliefs. So on eliminating taxation, reducing regulatory contraints, giving business a free reign to do almost whatever it wants you agree with Bush and are willing to turn a blind eye to things like the push for prayer in school, criminalizing abortion, introducing intelligent design in to the school curriculum, etx.
So my question for you is if this freemarket ideology that you so strongly believe in is so great, (if I’m correct in my assumptions) why are we so far behind Europe in so many categories? At the very least, considering the tremendous success of the welfare state, you have to admitt it is a competeing, viable model. They can and do compete. For example, why has Airbus, as much a government consortium as anything else over taken Boeing?
As far as the general issue of the environment that you bring up, you do believe in global warming, no? I do. I don’t have a clue whether this means that the deserts will soon bloom, or whether it means we’re headed for another ice age or something else. The point is it’s happening, and because we as Americans adhere to this individualist ethos, we are no more prepared to deal with it than we are with all the other ills that plague our society: growing disparity between rich and poor, dwidling healthcare coverage, growing prison population, high infant mortality (even among white women!), high rate of poverty and homelessness. We are each an island. Very tragic if you ask me.
1. I am generally agnostic, but I memorized the 23d Psalm and we said the Lord’s prayer every day in school, and no one was much harmed.
2. People believe things, sometimes very stupid things like Global Warming, with no serious understanding of the science (or lack thereof).
3. John F. Kerry lost bedause he is just a very bad man and politician. He cares for nothing but his own ambition.
Mike,
Do you think you would have been very much harmed if instead of the reciting the 23rd psalm you were asked everyday to make offerings to your deceased relatives, or were compelled to assume the lotus position and offer a chant to Buddha? I wonder how that would have made you feel if these things were against YOUR religion. See, once we allow religion to be introduced in to government, it will be difficult to restrict it to just one person’s religion. This will create distraction and conflict in an already beleaguered environment where the primary emphasis, many people would argue, should be on learning.
You write: “John F. Kerry lost because he is just a very bad man and politician. He cares for nothing but his own ambition.”
Right. And Bush is a paragon of virtue who cares nothing about his own welfare, but only the welfare of the American people who he is so bravely defending. The privileged Kerry went to Vietnam and risked his own life when he didn’t have to because at heart he is only a self-serving selfish phony. The swift boat bullshit may have helped turd blossom (Karl Rove) get Bush elected, but the incalculable damage it did to the Republican party in the lasting collective memory of the electorate will be lasting. It will never be forgotten or forgiven. Don’t tell me up is down, or that black is white. Just because you have one frame or another stuck in your head doesn’t mean the rest of us do.