Posts
 |
Bête Noire
|
Showing posts with label Reality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reality. Show all posts
Friday, September 28, 2018
Why the Left Hates Trump: He's a MAN
Read more!
He is also a Christian white man. But Donald Trump is not an ordinary man. He's not a metrosexual coastie. He's not neutered by sensitivity. He thinks for himself, and if provoked, he's ready to do battle. To fight. He is fearless. He's an individual who doesn't cave to the mob. He's a man of action. He has not been feminized. He sees the world as it is and deals with it. Most unforgivably he is successful, creating a stunning contrast to the performance of his "betters". He is a man's man; a deplorable's deplorable. He articulates the thoughts, beliefs and emotions of America's functional and productive core. He mentions God beyond what is required.
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
Dealing With ISIS and Other Enemies in the Middle-East
Read more!
[Updated on 10/16]
Now, I think, is the time for America to "lead from behind", or follow from the front(?) or essentially continue to do almost nothing. We should arm the Kurds and support them (and only them) from the air with special forces ground support. Not more, beyond playing the role of dishonest broker among the major powers: the Arabs, the Turks and the Persians. About this, more later.
 |
| Kemal Atatürk |
[Updated on 10/16]
 |
| Erdoğan and Obama |
 | |||
| Keeping in Touch with his friend Rouhani |
Friday, February 28, 2014
Ukraine. Once Again Obama Strikes Fear in the Heart of Vladimir Putin
Read more!
Tall tales and humor often have a way of putting human foibles into perspective. Beyond that they may project them upon a larger stage.
I am reminded of an old but instructive yarn. After the passing of years, I may remember it imperfectly, but the gist of the tale remains in tact.
Once upon a time when the old West was being settled there lived a rancher, his wife and two adolescent children. They had staked out and improved a sizable spread of fertile grassland, stocking it with cattle and horses. The rancher had built a sturdy pole house and dug a year-round well that furnished sweet, clean water. The family was happy and self-sufficient.
Tall tales and humor often have a way of putting human foibles into perspective. Beyond that they may project them upon a larger stage.I am reminded of an old but instructive yarn. After the passing of years, I may remember it imperfectly, but the gist of the tale remains in tact.
Once upon a time when the old West was being settled there lived a rancher, his wife and two adolescent children. They had staked out and improved a sizable spread of fertile grassland, stocking it with cattle and horses. The rancher had built a sturdy pole house and dug a year-round well that furnished sweet, clean water. The family was happy and self-sufficient.
Monday, February 17, 2014
Throw the RASCALS Out
Read more!
There is a school of thought that advocates turning over federal and state legislatures in a clean sweep. The reasoning, as I understand it, is that there comes a time in the life of a congressman that his loyalties turn from his constituents toward his own and his party's survival. The legislative body follows the model of bureaucracies in which the desire for increased power eventually trumps the mission -- the protection of turf becomes equivalent to the protection of self. There may be some superficial merit to this argument, but until the time arrives when all politicians are certifiably corrupt, there is greater merit in the exercise of prudence.
 |
| No Honest Man |
There is a school of thought that advocates turning over federal and state legislatures in a clean sweep. The reasoning, as I understand it, is that there comes a time in the life of a congressman that his loyalties turn from his constituents toward his own and his party's survival. The legislative body follows the model of bureaucracies in which the desire for increased power eventually trumps the mission -- the protection of turf becomes equivalent to the protection of self. There may be some superficial merit to this argument, but until the time arrives when all politicians are certifiably corrupt, there is greater merit in the exercise of prudence.
Friday, June 21, 2013
Comprehensive Immigration Reform and the Rule of Law (Part II)
Read more!
A law that is not enforced is no law at all.
Immigration reform has become the enormous problem that it is today for a simple, obvious reason that generally escapes mention by media and lawmakers alike. The failure of the rule of law. If immigration laws had been rigorously enforced from, say, 1986, our current difficulties would not exist. As in so many other areas (summarize the current government scandals as examples) enforcing existing law has become optional; the rule of law is largely subjected to the rule of men – the rule of power. The inability of Republicans, in general, and conservatives in particular to understand this elemental fact goes a long way towards explaining the naivete of a Marco Rubio and his compatriots. They understand the idea of conservatism, know the lyrics and the melody, and they consistently sing on key. But it is one thing to understand an idea, and quite another to perceive the world as it is and apply conservative principles. Consummate naivete presumes that progressives reciprocate in good faith. A dangerous assumption.
 |
| The Hydra Myth: a Fitting Metaphor for Comprehensive Reform |
Immigration reform has become the enormous problem that it is today for a simple, obvious reason that generally escapes mention by media and lawmakers alike. The failure of the rule of law. If immigration laws had been rigorously enforced from, say, 1986, our current difficulties would not exist. As in so many other areas (summarize the current government scandals as examples) enforcing existing law has become optional; the rule of law is largely subjected to the rule of men – the rule of power. The inability of Republicans, in general, and conservatives in particular to understand this elemental fact goes a long way towards explaining the naivete of a Marco Rubio and his compatriots. They understand the idea of conservatism, know the lyrics and the melody, and they consistently sing on key. But it is one thing to understand an idea, and quite another to perceive the world as it is and apply conservative principles. Consummate naivete presumes that progressives reciprocate in good faith. A dangerous assumption.
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Foreign Trespassers
Read more!
It is remarkable when I find myself in agreement with the AP, but in this case I do -- at least in part. The use of the phrase "illegal immigrant" should be abandoned, as should "illegal aliens" and "undocumented workers". But the use of language in this sole instance is all I will stipulate to AP. They carry the matter much farther in support of a pervasive relativist ethic -- no labels at all, anywhere! [1] We may describe an action as illegal, but never a person. Someone may belong to the CPUSA as a loyal and activist member, but he may not be called a communist; he may, with malice aforethought, take the life of his fellow human beings, but we mustn't call him a murderer. And so on... Too judgmental. [2]
 |
| US Soldier at Border Fence - 1916 |
It is remarkable when I find myself in agreement with the AP, but in this case I do -- at least in part. The use of the phrase "illegal immigrant" should be abandoned, as should "illegal aliens" and "undocumented workers". But the use of language in this sole instance is all I will stipulate to AP. They carry the matter much farther in support of a pervasive relativist ethic -- no labels at all, anywhere! [1] We may describe an action as illegal, but never a person. Someone may belong to the CPUSA as a loyal and activist member, but he may not be called a communist; he may, with malice aforethought, take the life of his fellow human beings, but we mustn't call him a murderer. And so on... Too judgmental. [2]
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Mea Culpa; Mea Maxima Culpa
Read more!
Whatever shortcomings I may have -- and they are many -- I maintain a high regard for integrity. In myself and others. It's for that reason that I long ago resolved not to be a "drive-by" blogger.* If I make a mess along the way, I'll retrace my steps and clean it up.
 |
| Manasseh's Sin and Repentance |
Whatever shortcomings I may have -- and they are many -- I maintain a high regard for integrity. In myself and others. It's for that reason that I long ago resolved not to be a "drive-by" blogger.* If I make a mess along the way, I'll retrace my steps and clean it up.
Friday, September 21, 2012
Ignorance vs. Stupidity: A Dead Heat at CNN
Read more!
More and more I am convinced that legacy media folks -- contrary to the opinion of some conservatives -- are perfectly sincere. Innocent of fact, curiosity or independent thought, to be sure, but sincere. They believe they are right in most, if not all, things, and I think they might even feel sorry for the rest of us if sympathy wouldn't interfere with the pleasure they take in condescension.
 |
| CNN Ireport Badge |
More and more I am convinced that legacy media folks -- contrary to the opinion of some conservatives -- are perfectly sincere. Innocent of fact, curiosity or independent thought, to be sure, but sincere. They believe they are right in most, if not all, things, and I think they might even feel sorry for the rest of us if sympathy wouldn't interfere with the pleasure they take in condescension.
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Illegal Immigration: Seen and Not Seen
Read more!
As with most things in Western politics, America's illegal immigration question is argued within contending narratives. The Marxist Left points to cultural enrichment, tolerance, virtuous altruism, abundant and cheap labor and "diversity". Conservatives point to enormous burdens on Federal and local governments in the areas of healthcare, public education, law enforcement and revenues. Given that both are imperfect, which narrative is more correct? Does either go beyond what is easily seen?
 |
| Frederic Bastiat |
As with most things in Western politics, America's illegal immigration question is argued within contending narratives. The Marxist Left points to cultural enrichment, tolerance, virtuous altruism, abundant and cheap labor and "diversity". Conservatives point to enormous burdens on Federal and local governments in the areas of healthcare, public education, law enforcement and revenues. Given that both are imperfect, which narrative is more correct? Does either go beyond what is easily seen?
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Making News, Making History
Read more!
The sorry state of journalism is often portrayed -- in particular by media elitists, to the extent they acknowledge it -- as a recent development; one that calls into contrast the current state of affairs with some imaginary 'golden age' of purely objective reportage. My own suspicion, however, is that good journalism [1] has always been a rare thing. Journalists, and more especially those who have employed them, have yoked the facts of human events to existing dogma -- to prevailing orthodoxy -- and to liberal political agendas.
Are things worse now than in earlier times? I cannot say with certainty, but it seems to me that institutional media have, in the last decade, abandoned all pretense to objective reporting even at considerable costs to market share -- perhaps with the expectation that the liberal establishment will save their financial bacon.
The sorry state of journalism is often portrayed -- in particular by media elitists, to the extent they acknowledge it -- as a recent development; one that calls into contrast the current state of affairs with some imaginary 'golden age' of purely objective reportage. My own suspicion, however, is that good journalism [1] has always been a rare thing. Journalists, and more especially those who have employed them, have yoked the facts of human events to existing dogma -- to prevailing orthodoxy -- and to liberal political agendas.
Friday, June 18, 2010
The Gulf Cleanup: Government Incompetence?
Read more!
Beyond the context of an objective, competence cannot be measured. For example, imagine a case in which a large tree is to be brought down in a short time and with a minimum human effort; here, we have defined an objective. Next, imagine three woodcutters, each given his choice of tools for the purpose of felling the tree. The workman who chooses a power chainsaw will be seen as more competent than one who chooses and axe. The one who chooses a scout knife will be seen as least competent.
Beyond the context of an objective, competence cannot be measured. For example, imagine a case in which a large tree is to be brought down in a short time and with a minimum human effort; here, we have defined an objective. Next, imagine three woodcutters, each given his choice of tools for the purpose of felling the tree. The workman who chooses a power chainsaw will be seen as more competent than one who chooses and axe. The one who chooses a scout knife will be seen as least competent.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Liberalism: Thinking Inside The Closed Loop
Read more!
The essential problem at the core of liberalism is faith-based epistemology. (1) It is not a problem at the personal level where a set of strongly held core beliefs may be a great source of security, comfort, confidence and -- above all -- a sense of control in evaluating and understanding the self and the world. It is an enormous problem, however, where there is no openness to the consideration of facts that conflict with pre-conceived beliefs. When verifiable realities are rejected in favor of a rigid system of ideological verities, survival and prosperity are inevitably at peril.
The essential problem at the core of liberalism is faith-based epistemology. (1) It is not a problem at the personal level where a set of strongly held core beliefs may be a great source of security, comfort, confidence and -- above all -- a sense of control in evaluating and understanding the self and the world. It is an enormous problem, however, where there is no openness to the consideration of facts that conflict with pre-conceived beliefs. When verifiable realities are rejected in favor of a rigid system of ideological verities, survival and prosperity are inevitably at peril.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
The Fundamental Significance of the Tea Party Phenomenon
Read more!
O.K., the title seems pretentious; the use of the word "fundamental" in context may suggest that I am laying claim to some special insight. Maybe, maybe not. That's for the reader to decide.
In short, I think what is most important in the Tea Party movement is unity; unity that transcends, and may ultimately overcome, the politically-driven balkanization of America. (1)
This unity, as I see it, is certainly not a lock-step agreement on most issues, but it seems clear that there is a consensus on certain principles, ideas and approaches strong enough to trump other areas of disagreement. It is the unity suggested by e pluribus unum.
O.K., the title seems pretentious; the use of the word "fundamental" in context may suggest that I am laying claim to some special insight. Maybe, maybe not. That's for the reader to decide.
In short, I think what is most important in the Tea Party movement is unity; unity that transcends, and may ultimately overcome, the politically-driven balkanization of America. (1)
This unity, as I see it, is certainly not a lock-step agreement on most issues, but it seems clear that there is a consensus on certain principles, ideas and approaches strong enough to trump other areas of disagreement. It is the unity suggested by e pluribus unum.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Al Gore: Hoist On His Own Canard
Read more!
Al Gore's fear-mongering book and video, An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It, represent an undeniable triumph for K-12, academe, Hollywood, TV, the press and liberal lemmings worldwide. And no mean achievement in the entrepreneurial spirit of, say, Bernie Madoff, Charles Ponzi and John Law. (1)
Al Gore's fear-mongering book and video, An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It, represent an undeniable triumph for K-12, academe, Hollywood, TV, the press and liberal lemmings worldwide. And no mean achievement in the entrepreneurial spirit of, say, Bernie Madoff, Charles Ponzi and John Law. (1)
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Yes, There Is a Double Standard. Stop Whining About It!
Read more!
There are many traits of traditional conservatism that I like. Independence, individualism, positive attitude, willingness to work, courage, self-sufficiency and disposition to charitable acts. It appears, however, that the general feminizing of Western Society has not found conservatives immune.
Among the spokesmen for the right -- from best to least -- I cannot name one who has not succumbed to whining complaint about that leftist hypocrisy known as the double standard. "How", they ask rhetorically "would the media and liberal politicians have responded if a conservative had said (or done) that?"
If the question were not rhetorical, and if it had been asked of me, I would reply to Rush Limbaugh or Laura Ingraham, or to Glenn Beck or Ann Coulter, "Man-up for God's sake! Either do something about it or accept it for what it is. But stop your whining!"
In fact, there are measures that can be taken. Unfortunately for conservatives they mostly require collective action, which, outside the Tea Party movement, are traditionally anathema to the right. Fortunately for conservatives, on the other hand, the aggregate of individual sentiment may favor the right.
The collective actions I had in mind were demonstrations and boycotts; Hollywood, the printed and visual media and academe. If well-orchestrated, these initiatives might work to good effect, but what organized conservatives seem incapable of, middle-America seems already to be doing without leadership. When a CNN broadcast attracts fewer than 1M viewers in prime-time, when the NYT, the LAT and the SF Chronicle (not to mention many other liberal outlets nationwide) are hemorrhaging readership, advertising and (naturally) profits the message being sent is palpable.
Hollywood and academe are other matters. In the former case two things: the decline of liberal TV and press cannot be helpful to filmmakers, and more money can be directed towards the production of good conservative movies (here, Breitbart and PJM come to mind). In the latter case more funding might be provided for conservative universities such as Hillsdale, Brigham Young, University of Dallas, Wheaton and others. And there are indications that conservative student groups in liberal universities are gaining ground along with a certain panache.
Or, maybe nothing significant for conservatives can be hoped for. Worst case prevails. Accept what cannot be changed. But, please... don't whine. It is unbecoming.
There are many traits of traditional conservatism that I like. Independence, individualism, positive attitude, willingness to work, courage, self-sufficiency and disposition to charitable acts. It appears, however, that the general feminizing of Western Society has not found conservatives immune.
Among the spokesmen for the right -- from best to least -- I cannot name one who has not succumbed to whining complaint about that leftist hypocrisy known as the double standard. "How", they ask rhetorically "would the media and liberal politicians have responded if a conservative had said (or done) that?"
If the question were not rhetorical, and if it had been asked of me, I would reply to Rush Limbaugh or Laura Ingraham, or to Glenn Beck or Ann Coulter, "Man-up for God's sake! Either do something about it or accept it for what it is. But stop your whining!"
In fact, there are measures that can be taken. Unfortunately for conservatives they mostly require collective action, which, outside the Tea Party movement, are traditionally anathema to the right. Fortunately for conservatives, on the other hand, the aggregate of individual sentiment may favor the right.
The collective actions I had in mind were demonstrations and boycotts; Hollywood, the printed and visual media and academe. If well-orchestrated, these initiatives might work to good effect, but what organized conservatives seem incapable of, middle-America seems already to be doing without leadership. When a CNN broadcast attracts fewer than 1M viewers in prime-time, when the NYT, the LAT and the SF Chronicle (not to mention many other liberal outlets nationwide) are hemorrhaging readership, advertising and (naturally) profits the message being sent is palpable.
Hollywood and academe are other matters. In the former case two things: the decline of liberal TV and press cannot be helpful to filmmakers, and more money can be directed towards the production of good conservative movies (here, Breitbart and PJM come to mind). In the latter case more funding might be provided for conservative universities such as Hillsdale, Brigham Young, University of Dallas, Wheaton and others. And there are indications that conservative student groups in liberal universities are gaining ground along with a certain panache.
Or, maybe nothing significant for conservatives can be hoped for. Worst case prevails. Accept what cannot be changed. But, please... don't whine. It is unbecoming.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Good Government? A Challenge to Readers (Redux)
Read more!
This is a challenge I post periodically* in hopes that someone will show me to be in error. I maintain that most of the work of government is destructive to liberty and civil society, and that it leads to unnecessary complication in the lives of citizens. To be clear, I do not assert that government does nothing useful or reasonably well, so long as it is within the scope of its enumerated powers.
Government is a necessary evil, but it is still an evil, and -- as such -- it should be (but is not) minimized. In forming a government we enter a bargain to exchange some part of our liberty for a collective entity that provides for our essential security and the essential conditions for our prosperity. When that entity exceeds in size and power its limited mandate, it correspondingly usurps individual liberty. Simply stated, liberty is inversely proportional to the size of government.
In the best interests of a polity a balance must be struck. Precisely how that is done leaves room for debate, but when the scale tips in favor of government, as, unchecked, it inevitably will, it threatens to destroy the foundations of the very civil society that enabled the creation of government.
We are now well beyond the point where government has tipped the scales in its favor, and what civil society created to serve its interests has become its master.
So here is the challenge: Cite one example of a serious problem in contemporary society -- social, political or economic -- that is not caused by or exacerbated by government.
Say it isn't so....
____*
The last time in July. If I can't provoke a response this time (don't expect to), I'll just let it go. Still, it might lead to some interesting discussion...
This is a challenge I post periodically* in hopes that someone will show me to be in error. I maintain that most of the work of government is destructive to liberty and civil society, and that it leads to unnecessary complication in the lives of citizens. To be clear, I do not assert that government does nothing useful or reasonably well, so long as it is within the scope of its enumerated powers.
Government is a necessary evil, but it is still an evil, and -- as such -- it should be (but is not) minimized. In forming a government we enter a bargain to exchange some part of our liberty for a collective entity that provides for our essential security and the essential conditions for our prosperity. When that entity exceeds in size and power its limited mandate, it correspondingly usurps individual liberty. Simply stated, liberty is inversely proportional to the size of government.
In the best interests of a polity a balance must be struck. Precisely how that is done leaves room for debate, but when the scale tips in favor of government, as, unchecked, it inevitably will, it threatens to destroy the foundations of the very civil society that enabled the creation of government.
We are now well beyond the point where government has tipped the scales in its favor, and what civil society created to serve its interests has become its master.
So here is the challenge: Cite one example of a serious problem in contemporary society -- social, political or economic -- that is not caused by or exacerbated by government.
Say it isn't so....
____*
The last time in July. If I can't provoke a response this time (don't expect to), I'll just let it go. Still, it might lead to some interesting discussion...
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Islamic Terrorism: Connecting the Nots
Read more!
2. The threat and use of military force will not discourage terrorists and will not keep us safe.
3. Aggressive military interrogation of captured terrorists will not yield more information than conventional methods.
4. Profiling (as with El Al Airlines) is not an acceptable way of screening passengers. One must not risk giving offense.
5. Bloated, multiple bureaucracies charged with American security do not impede the flow of security information.
6. An image of national weakness does not encourage aggression from our enemies.
7. Released and repatriated terrorists will not become recidivists.
8. Trying terrorists in criminal courts will not be harmful to our security interests.
9. The Fort Hood massacre was not an act of Islamic terrorism.
In the aftermath of terrorist attacks -- failed or successful -- post-mortem analyses typically reveal that necessary intelligence was in hand but not integrated in ways to prevent disaster. One thinks of 911, of course, but also of Mumbai and more recently Fort Hood and the Christmas flight to Detroit. But the broader anti-terrorist methodology and especially the seriousness of governments must also be called into question.
In the US airport screening, for example, seems focused on preventing what has already happened, relying on what passengers may be carrying rather than who they are and how they answer probing questions. Widely reported is the successful approach used by the El Al Airlines, and it is worthwhile to contrast the assumptions of the American and Israeli political classes that drive security systems.
How to protect ourselves from the violence of Jihadi savages? Let me begin by asserting that in matters of security, the trope-imagery of "connecting the dots" is a poor one in context. Assembling a jigsaw puzzle might be better, but it too is misleading. If there is anything to be connected to good effect, it may be the negative assumptions of decision-makers -- reality negated in aid of a political ideology and underpinned by political correctness. So we begin by connecting the nots of denial.
2. The threat and use of military force will not discourage terrorists and will not keep us safe.
3. Aggressive military interrogation of captured terrorists will not yield more information than conventional methods.
4. Profiling (as with El Al Airlines) is not an acceptable way of screening passengers. One must not risk giving offense.
5. Bloated, multiple bureaucracies charged with American security do not impede the flow of security information.
6. An image of national weakness does not encourage aggression from our enemies.
7. Released and repatriated terrorists will not become recidivists.
8. Trying terrorists in criminal courts will not be harmful to our security interests.
9. The Fort Hood massacre was not an act of Islamic terrorism.
Connecting the nots shows us why we are not secure from terrorist attacks. Unlike our own political class, Israelis clearly understand that seeing the world-as-it-is is a necessary condition of survival.
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Thoughts on Good and Evil
Read more!
The very mention of the words "good" and "evil" (especially the latter) can invariably be counted upon to set off a spasm of righteous indignation among the relativist left. They will be particularly incensed by what they misperceive as usages that have meaning only in a wholly religious (biblical) context. Because the left is at heart antinomian (1), they eschew and despise any kind of standards to include the norms of traditional civil society (2).
Abstracting from its historical and popular current usage, I take the word "good" to mean anything in the service of human life, liberty, prosperity and general well-being. Similarly, "evil" has the opposite meaning - things that are harmful or destructive to all or any. At a deep, non-verbal level, the concept of good would seem to be essentially linked to survival and avoidance of pain.
In simple societies one can imagine that there is fundamental clarity about what is good and what is not. Existential threats posed by nature, enemies, hunger, sickness and pain are seen as evils; safety, abundance that satisfies basic needs and physical well-being are seen as goods.
But in secure and prosperous societies that have developed technologies capable of control or avoidance of existential threats, the linkage of good and evil to survival tends to become obscure, rationalized and abstract. (3)
I think it is important to see good and evil not only in moral, ethical or religious terms but also in the light of practical efficacy. When, with good intentions stipulated, we embark upon a project to improve our condition, we must first decide if the objective is good, i.e., does it promote life, liberty, prosperity and well-being, and second, whether our methodology for achieving the objective is good by the same standards. If, on the other hand, our methodology causes the project to fall short of its goals, if it wastes resources and if it generates unintended evils, then, our original motivations are irrelevant to the outcomes. Efficacy rather than intent must be the standard.
The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number (4)
Who could argue? But the phrase in inherently problematic. In advanced, pluralistic polities there is great variation in the conception of what is good. How are we to decide? If we decide, how, precisely is it distributed and what is the cost? Do we accept evil to promote the good, and, if so, what calculus enables us to establish a balance? Simpler, though plagued with many of the same difficulties, I lean toward prescribing the least evil for the greatest number.
The least evil may be the "necessary evil" of minimalist government. In return for ceding some liberties to the collective we authorize a popularly supported government to defend us from external threats, enforce our laws and undertake only those tasks that are too large or too expensive to be accomplished by local communities. The least evil for the greatest number.
But what are the consequences if government expands beyond its modest mandate? The bargain to establish the necessary evil of government remains in place, and the growth of government invariably diminishes liberty and undermines the linkage between the popular will and government's priorities.
More precisely to the point, the Western left has, with near-religious zeal, rejected judgment to embrace tolerance, no matter the cost. The willful failure to discriminate -- especially in, but not limited to, matters of moral conduct -- has led to nihilism. To assert that everything is relative is to vitiate one's own argument in its very formulation. Yet those who hold relativist views often cite Jesus' injunction to "judge not...", failing to recognize that the remark was directed only to hypocrites. The most casual sampling of biblical writings reveals that, in fact, honest judgment is a cornerstone of the Judeo-Christian tradition as it was to the Classical one.
The ideas behind good and evil are pretty simple, really, and without much freight -- that is, until they are yoked to the special, controlling purposes of social, political, moral or religious ideologies.
------
1. This word emerges from the exegetical history of the Christian faith, but it is remarkably useful in the analysis of contemporary Western society.
2. The left is tied intellectually to the tradition of Rousseauvian thought, which, like antinomianism, champions wholesale rebellion against traditional standards. Cf. The Awful Specter of Standards.
3. I expand on this idea here.
4. Sometimes called "the greatest happiness principle", it derives from the philosophy of Utilitarianism, most closely associated with Jeremy Bentham and John Stewart Mill. The idea expressed has great intuitive appeal and manages to endure despite its vulnerability to reductio argumentation.
The very mention of the words "good" and "evil" (especially the latter) can invariably be counted upon to set off a spasm of righteous indignation among the relativist left. They will be particularly incensed by what they misperceive as usages that have meaning only in a wholly religious (biblical) context. Because the left is at heart antinomian (1), they eschew and despise any kind of standards to include the norms of traditional civil society (2).
Abstracting from its historical and popular current usage, I take the word "good" to mean anything in the service of human life, liberty, prosperity and general well-being. Similarly, "evil" has the opposite meaning - things that are harmful or destructive to all or any. At a deep, non-verbal level, the concept of good would seem to be essentially linked to survival and avoidance of pain.
In simple societies one can imagine that there is fundamental clarity about what is good and what is not. Existential threats posed by nature, enemies, hunger, sickness and pain are seen as evils; safety, abundance that satisfies basic needs and physical well-being are seen as goods.
But in secure and prosperous societies that have developed technologies capable of control or avoidance of existential threats, the linkage of good and evil to survival tends to become obscure, rationalized and abstract. (3)
I think it is important to see good and evil not only in moral, ethical or religious terms but also in the light of practical efficacy. When, with good intentions stipulated, we embark upon a project to improve our condition, we must first decide if the objective is good, i.e., does it promote life, liberty, prosperity and well-being, and second, whether our methodology for achieving the objective is good by the same standards. If, on the other hand, our methodology causes the project to fall short of its goals, if it wastes resources and if it generates unintended evils, then, our original motivations are irrelevant to the outcomes. Efficacy rather than intent must be the standard.
The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number (4)
Who could argue? But the phrase in inherently problematic. In advanced, pluralistic polities there is great variation in the conception of what is good. How are we to decide? If we decide, how, precisely is it distributed and what is the cost? Do we accept evil to promote the good, and, if so, what calculus enables us to establish a balance? Simpler, though plagued with many of the same difficulties, I lean toward prescribing the least evil for the greatest number.
The least evil may be the "necessary evil" of minimalist government. In return for ceding some liberties to the collective we authorize a popularly supported government to defend us from external threats, enforce our laws and undertake only those tasks that are too large or too expensive to be accomplished by local communities. The least evil for the greatest number.
But what are the consequences if government expands beyond its modest mandate? The bargain to establish the necessary evil of government remains in place, and the growth of government invariably diminishes liberty and undermines the linkage between the popular will and government's priorities.
More precisely to the point, the Western left has, with near-religious zeal, rejected judgment to embrace tolerance, no matter the cost. The willful failure to discriminate -- especially in, but not limited to, matters of moral conduct -- has led to nihilism. To assert that everything is relative is to vitiate one's own argument in its very formulation. Yet those who hold relativist views often cite Jesus' injunction to "judge not...", failing to recognize that the remark was directed only to hypocrites. The most casual sampling of biblical writings reveals that, in fact, honest judgment is a cornerstone of the Judeo-Christian tradition as it was to the Classical one.
The ideas behind good and evil are pretty simple, really, and without much freight -- that is, until they are yoked to the special, controlling purposes of social, political, moral or religious ideologies.
------
1. This word emerges from the exegetical history of the Christian faith, but it is remarkably useful in the analysis of contemporary Western society.
2. The left is tied intellectually to the tradition of Rousseauvian thought, which, like antinomianism, champions wholesale rebellion against traditional standards. Cf. The Awful Specter of Standards.
3. I expand on this idea here.
4. Sometimes called "the greatest happiness principle", it derives from the philosophy of Utilitarianism, most closely associated with Jeremy Bentham and John Stewart Mill. The idea expressed has great intuitive appeal and manages to endure despite its vulnerability to reductio argumentation.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Broken Linkages, Broken Society (Part I)
Read more!
Human Nature, Behavior and Consequences
Despite the naive, ideological assertions of cultural Darwinists and utopian dreamers, human nature is a constant; it has not, does not and will not change. And it is important to recognize that men are not inherently good or evil -- they are both. To paraphrase Shakespeare, man is neither good nor bad but thinking (characterization) makes him so. I might add the poet's biblical borrowing that "there is nothing new under the sun". Men have weaknesses and strengths, and we are prudent when we organize ourselves in ways that discourage the former and promote the latter. It was the American Founders' unparalleled understanding of human nature that led them in the design of the most successful political and social system that has ever existed. But that system -- like the Founders themselves -- is imperfect and decays when our weaknesses overcome our better natures.
In societies that operate at Hobbsean subsistence levels the correspondence between behavior and consequences is bright-line clear. Strategies for obtaining food and shelter and for protection against predators, animal and human, demand close adherence in the cause of survival. In prosperous, secure societies the linkage between behavior and consequences tends to become obscured. Though it is no less real, its forms change. In primitive life one is well-advised to be ever-alert for things that bite and sting, for extramural warriors, for natural disasters. In our current environment we must be on guard against politicians, zealot ideologues and schemes of organized fraud, theft and deceit. We must know what is true in relation to our survival and prosperity and rely upon it. The venom of vipers may bring us a quick death, but the venom of tyranny is not less lethal. The latter is slower but enjoys better concealment.
Knowledge and survival
For persons living in primitive societies (or tyrannical ones) accurate, empirical knowledge of the environs of one's world -- dangers and opportunities -- wisely exercised, is essential to survival, security and prosperity. One must recognize and defend against the dangers of the natural world and aggressive fellow men; know how to obtain essential needs and protect himself and his family. We may imagine that persons in poor circumstances can ill-afford the luxury of denial, (1) but we are mistaken to think it a luxury we can afford.
In advanced, abundant societies that are largely free of existential threats, the linkages between imprudent behavior and serious consequences are attenuated. In a wealthy politea social safety nets expand, and the penalties for violations of civil and criminal laws tend to become relaxed, since, excepting some crimes of violence, transgressions are no longer seen to threaten survival. In many large business and governmental organizations linkages between knowledge, productivity and reward often become obscure. Similarly inadequate knowledge and false beliefs may be rewarded so that the very foundations of civil society become corrupt.
Labor and reward
"We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us". That phrase was a common, ironic expression in the states of the former Soviet Union, where slackers and producers were equally rewarded. Where the true rewards were more closely associated with party loyalty that performance. In America we are not so far removed from the destruction of of the labor-reward linkage. It is most clearly seen in large, bureaucratic institutions -- businesses grown overlarge (2), public education, big eleemosynary institutions and particularly in governmental and quasi-governmental bureaucracies such as many NGO's and most notably the U.N., where any sign of accountability in the accomplishment of its stated missions has seemingly vanished. In terms of sheer fecklessness, employee perks and high salaries the European Union is rapidly gaining, if not overtaking the U.N. In these examples personal and political loyalties rather than performance to standards of efficacy are the engines of advancement.
It is important to consider the role of bureaucracies. They are, in their beginnings, useful in providing infrastructure support for executive productivity. But they tend to grow and when they reach a certain size and command of power, their focus shifts from executive support to self-interest. As organizations expand the power and remuneration of their leadership grows commensurately.
The most serious erosion of the linkage between labor and reward can be seen in highly progressive tax schemes. When the most productive citizens are heavily taxed to support the less productive, incentives (rewards) are reduced and the creation of wealth suffers at the expense of broader society. The "pursuit of happiness" envisioned by the Founders is possible only when the sanctity of property rights is guaranteed; taxation for purposes of redistribution clearly violates those rights.
Entire classes have evolved in the US from small institutions that once formed a useful symbiosis with the productive class but have drifted away from their original purposes and grown to be parasitic. Examples include much of academia, public education, most government bureaucracies, the arts establishment, unproductive corporate divisions and staffs, politicized churches and synagogues, media and much of the intellectual class, public health institutions and many research organizations. These classes tend to expand while consuming more public and private wealth and delivering increasingly less useful product. As parasitic entities they divert wealth from entities that might have produced more of it.
Virtue and civil society
Figuring importantly in the Founders hope for a successful and enduring republic was the idea that virtue -- personal and civic, private and public -- was the necessary condition of its maintenance.
To the ears of tribal intellectuals (and to those educated by them) "virtue" may ring as a notion that is puritanical, Victorian or simply quaint; its practice largely abandoned, its meaning is largely lost. (3)
Respect, it seems to me, is at the heart of the concept of virtue. Respect for one's self, one's work, one's moral precepts and for others. It is essential to the success of civil society, since voluntary association is at its core, so that persons who are not seen as virtuous -- who are, say, dishonest, venal or generally contemptuous of others -- will tend to be excluded.
Summary
The ideas and beliefs behind this essay are these: (1) that human nature is an historical constant, and the best organized societies are those that practically account for its virtues and vices by linking behaviors to appropriate consequences, and (2) that these linkages can be broken with individual impunity only in societies of abundance, where there is sufficient wealth and freedom from existential threats to support those who do not produce or sustain them. Individual impunity, however, does not account for the cumulative, pernicious effects that inevitably corrupt societies. The constant companions of success are hubris and the waiting Nemesis.
-----------------
1. One of the best examples of the workings of denial (especially among elitists) is cited in an earlier post linked to a French TV discussion. One cannot deal with the world as it is without knowing the world as it is.
2. The citation applies primarily to business, but the mechanisms critiqued are common to all large institutions. A broader picture can be found by following the links at the bottom of the article.
3. Honor and shame have likewise become epistemological curiosities.
Note: in this essay I try to establish a framework for specific, concrete examples to follow in Part II.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Assault on Western Civilization
Read more!
What do ACLU-led attacks on public religious observance and the increasingly scant attention now given to Greek and Roman history by the K12 curriculum have in common? Together they symbolize the consequences of a powerful, ubiquitous, longstanding, relentless and largely successful assault on the values and traditions of the West. It is not confined to the Western Hemisphere or to Europe; it is virtually worldwide. We have come to expect it from the UN, controlled by Third World despots, but it is the West, itself, that leads this suicidal charge.
The pillars of Western civilization are the classical tradition and the Judeo-Christian heritage. Perhaps the true value of the Western canon lies in the fact that it best accommodates the strengths and weaknesses of human nature.
I argue that the best of the Western tradition was codified in the Anglo strain of the Enlightenment, and arguably achieved its zenith in the ideals, beliefs and actions of the American Founders.
The Enlightenment
I often make a distinction of convenience between the Anglo (Scottish, English and American) and French threads of the Enlightenment. It is over-simple, to be sure, but it is useful and generally avoids the margins of argument.
The French, following the ideas of Rousseau and the leadership of Robespierre and others, chose totally to embrace reason and to turn violently against religion and tradition. They set out with remarkable energy to change not only the present, but the past as well. The Anglos also embraced reason, but they opted to integrate it with traditions of the Western heritage. The Muslims, curiously, decided to abjure reason altogether and strengthen their faith as an alternative frankly hostile to reason. One might say that the French welcomed reason and rejected God and the Western tradition; the Anglos welcomed reason in the context of tradition and thanked God for it; and the Muslims rejected reason and turned to God as an antidote.
The French (and German) philosophes laid the foundations of post-modernist thought, which elevated pure reason beyond the realm of praxis (experience, observation) to the point of logical absurdity -- cultural, moral and intellectual relativism -- leading ultimately to nihilism. This school of thought is very much with us today, and its heritors -- people of the left (1) -- are determined to do all possible mischief to Western Civilization. Interestingly, they are in many ways allied with those who rejected reason -- Muslims.
The People of the Left - Part I
It is commonly observed that liberals are largely concentrated in media (entertainment and news), education, organized labor, minorities and "victim" identity groups, NGO's and government bureaucracies. This is largely true of the world-at-large, but it is certainly the case in Western Europe, North, Central and South America and Canada. It is noteworthy that these entities have much in common. With few exceptions, they are insulated from free-market competition; they are not existentially accountable for their performance -- the consequences of financial failure. Many have lost the traditional linkage between productive work and earnings. Apparently unaware of their debt to it, liberals tend to despise capitalism. One suspects the sentiment is a holdover from European aristocracy.
Insulation is perhaps a key concept. After generations of prosperity and security, unknown in most of the world, notions of existential threat have taken on an abstract (unreal) quality. In places where economies are weak and governance bad concern with survival is likely to be a constant among the people; they are daily threatened by the possibility of death by starvation, disease, violence and natural catastrophe. Life cannot be sustained without an intimate knowledge of quotidian reality.
Liberal separation from the consequences of thinking and behavior is the foundational point I want to make here: I'll have more to say about secondary characteristics -- assumptions and beliefs of the left and about the non-ideological, "accidental" spread of liberalism.
Affordable Self-Deception
In societies that are relatively free of real poverty, infectious disease (medically amenable where it exists), and death by violence, and that have infrastructure to minimize the consequences of natural disaster, things are different. People can afford to maintain a (delusional) distance from reality. If one observes a rattlesnake, safely caged, or a human predator contained in a prison cell, he can indulge in attributing to them qualities altogether superior to their nature. Similarly, a person living in comfort and security may be dismissive of such "abstractions" as tyranny, jihadi terrorism or economic collapse.
Liberals ignore the lessons of history at their (and our) peril, but they are constitutionally unable to recognize or acknowledge peril. They tend, for example, to favor various kinds of collectivism -- from democratic socialism to Marxism -- over individualism while ignoring the devastation wrought under socialism in the last century -- crippled economies and death and imprisonment suffered by tens of millions and, generally, the tyranny that socialism always engenders. Collectivist social structures inevitably suppress the best qualities of human nature and encourage the worst.
The Founders, to their great credit, understood the reality of human nature and how best to account for it in the organization of government.
The People of the Left - Part II
Is the assault on Western Civilization deliberate, planned and maliciously intended? Yes and no.
Since the beginning of the 20th Century, there have been individuals and groups actively and frankly hostile the Western Tradition and dedicated to its destruction. Many were the intellectual descendants of the French philosophes, but others were motivated by ambitions to power, tribal mentality, anti-individualism, antagonistic cultural differences or politically organized religious beliefs.
What unites liberal ideologues is a vision of social perfectibility -- whether utopian or eschatological. These are people who measure reality against their imagined standards of Utopia or heaven.
At the other extreme are non-ideological persons influenced by liberal memes in popular culture and the orthodoxies of the educational establishment adopted since the 1950's. They are not consciously anti-Western primarily because the don't understand the concept. In a word they are ignorant -- of history, economics, politics and government. They act upon beliefs uninformed by knowledge or analysis. Excluding functional illiterates this group is theoretically salvageable.
Of all the intellectual bigotries and prejudices the abhorrence of liberty seems to top the list. Flowing from that position are the following corollary fears of and enmity towards: anything that is unorganized or regulated, and thus unpredictable; individualism; capitalism; free markets. In short they seek control over the lives, organization and behavior of others; control from which they, themselves, are exempt (2).
A set of sacred beliefs characterizes the left, and these are zealously guarded: social Darwinism, the idea that men are perfectible if properly governed; multiculturalism, which follows from the fear of making value judgments, in part leading to anti-patriotism and contempt for national sovereignty; the conviction that economies (not governments) are zero-sum; a natural affinity for national governments (particularly fascist and socialist) that use oppressive power to control their polities; wars are caused only by failures of negotiation; all men are inherently good, and when behavior indicates otherwise it is because of environmental factors; nature, in all its manifestations, is superior to mankind; all men and societies are literally equal and many more. All contrary beliefs are intolerable.
Finally, there is a set of behaviors most commonly associated with left. These include: intolerance of dissenting opinion (above) expressed in vicious attacks on opponents; intensity of feeling antithetical to a sense of humor; avoidance of honest debate (on the issue of Global Warming, for example); denial of reality not congenial to their prejudices and contempt for factual verification where it would challenge ideology (they simply rely on repetition of fallacious ideas to counter evidence); the use of intimidation, institutional coercion and violence in service of ideology; willingness to lie in furtherance of the "greater truth"; the use of third person plural in reference to grievance groups (they can't afford health insurance). Again, a sampling.
As I have said elsewhere, there is a remarkable similarity between the left and Islam. Opponents are allowed three options: conversion, submission or death. If this statement strikes the reader as excessive, consider the death tolls at the hands of socialist governments in the last century. I believe that in contemporary Europe and North America the left is restrained only by an incomplete consolidation of power.
Future Of the West
Or, in the language of game theory, does the future of the West cast a shadow? The answer to this question is impossible to forecast with confidence, but weight of evidence bodes ill for the survival of Western Civilization.
As Plato has his revenge on Aristotle, so Rousseau has his on Burke. Cultural, moral and intellectual relativism infects and cripples the governments and peoples of Europe, much of Latin America and Canada and is hard at work in the U.S. The model of infection -- pandemic -- seems appropriate, for spread of collectivist memes appears to have a viral quality and is abetted by intellectual elites and allied institutions such as the UN and the EU -- precursors to world government.
Some assert that the populations of Western countries (taken as groups of individuals) are far more conservative than their governments. This may be the case, but they lack the necessary institutional wealth, power and organization of ruling parties that exert their will through the instrument of government. And managed economies (which most increasingly are) effectively destroy the incentives and motivation for the expression of individual will.
The problems arising out the growth of the left, are greatly exacerbated in Europe by growing Islamic populations hostile to the values of their host countries, routinely living on the dole, and not held accountable by feckless governments that seek cover under the suicidal mantle of multiculturalism. These countries willing or fearfully yield sovereignty to malign immigrants who contribute negatively to their economies and, under direct threat of violence, ridicule existing law and insist on Sharia jurisprudence -- not only for themselves, but their countries of residence entire. The US, so far, has not been similarly affected, but it is only a matter of time.
So the outlook for the survival in strength of Western values seems generally poor. If Western Europe is to overcome the decline, Denmark is most likely to lead the way; on the global scale the US must lead. In neither case are the odds favorable.
Some readers of this essay will inevitably question the importance of Western survival. What's the big deal, they may ask. Political change and the realignment of cultures and values, after all, is the natural course of history.
So it is, I would reply. But consider that in all the past, no better organization of human society, governance, and economy ever existed than that informed by the classical tradition melded with the Judeo-Christian heritage that culminated, by way of the Anglo Enlightenment, in the thoughts, actions, systems and structures passed on to us by the American Founders.
Today's Western Civilization has created and deployed, via free-market capitalism and sound, moral, republican political systems grounded in the rule of law, more wealth and security
worldwide than would ever have been thought possible a century ago. The practical work of that civilization has never been surpassed outside the realm of hypothesis.
--------------
(1) The terms, "left" and "liberal" -- as I use them -- refer to persons who have adopted (consciously or otherwise) the ideology and thought of the continental philosophes.
(2) Think of neighborhood and condo associations. While many persons who offer service to these organizations act out of a sense of civic duty, others seem attracted by a fundamental need to organize and manage the behavior of others.
What do ACLU-led attacks on public religious observance and the increasingly scant attention now given to Greek and Roman history by the K12 curriculum have in common? Together they symbolize the consequences of a powerful, ubiquitous, longstanding, relentless and largely successful assault on the values and traditions of the West. It is not confined to the Western Hemisphere or to Europe; it is virtually worldwide. We have come to expect it from the UN, controlled by Third World despots, but it is the West, itself, that leads this suicidal charge.
The pillars of Western civilization are the classical tradition and the Judeo-Christian heritage. Perhaps the true value of the Western canon lies in the fact that it best accommodates the strengths and weaknesses of human nature.
I argue that the best of the Western tradition was codified in the Anglo strain of the Enlightenment, and arguably achieved its zenith in the ideals, beliefs and actions of the American Founders.
The Enlightenment
I often make a distinction of convenience between the Anglo (Scottish, English and American) and French threads of the Enlightenment. It is over-simple, to be sure, but it is useful and generally avoids the margins of argument.
The French, following the ideas of Rousseau and the leadership of Robespierre and others, chose totally to embrace reason and to turn violently against religion and tradition. They set out with remarkable energy to change not only the present, but the past as well. The Anglos also embraced reason, but they opted to integrate it with traditions of the Western heritage. The Muslims, curiously, decided to abjure reason altogether and strengthen their faith as an alternative frankly hostile to reason. One might say that the French welcomed reason and rejected God and the Western tradition; the Anglos welcomed reason in the context of tradition and thanked God for it; and the Muslims rejected reason and turned to God as an antidote.
The French (and German) philosophes laid the foundations of post-modernist thought, which elevated pure reason beyond the realm of praxis (experience, observation) to the point of logical absurdity -- cultural, moral and intellectual relativism -- leading ultimately to nihilism. This school of thought is very much with us today, and its heritors -- people of the left (1) -- are determined to do all possible mischief to Western Civilization. Interestingly, they are in many ways allied with those who rejected reason -- Muslims.
The People of the Left - Part I
It is commonly observed that liberals are largely concentrated in media (entertainment and news), education, organized labor, minorities and "victim" identity groups, NGO's and government bureaucracies. This is largely true of the world-at-large, but it is certainly the case in Western Europe, North, Central and South America and Canada. It is noteworthy that these entities have much in common. With few exceptions, they are insulated from free-market competition; they are not existentially accountable for their performance -- the consequences of financial failure. Many have lost the traditional linkage between productive work and earnings. Apparently unaware of their debt to it, liberals tend to despise capitalism. One suspects the sentiment is a holdover from European aristocracy.
Insulation is perhaps a key concept. After generations of prosperity and security, unknown in most of the world, notions of existential threat have taken on an abstract (unreal) quality. In places where economies are weak and governance bad concern with survival is likely to be a constant among the people; they are daily threatened by the possibility of death by starvation, disease, violence and natural catastrophe. Life cannot be sustained without an intimate knowledge of quotidian reality.
Liberal separation from the consequences of thinking and behavior is the foundational point I want to make here: I'll have more to say about secondary characteristics -- assumptions and beliefs of the left and about the non-ideological, "accidental" spread of liberalism.
Affordable Self-Deception
In societies that are relatively free of real poverty, infectious disease (medically amenable where it exists), and death by violence, and that have infrastructure to minimize the consequences of natural disaster, things are different. People can afford to maintain a (delusional) distance from reality. If one observes a rattlesnake, safely caged, or a human predator contained in a prison cell, he can indulge in attributing to them qualities altogether superior to their nature. Similarly, a person living in comfort and security may be dismissive of such "abstractions" as tyranny, jihadi terrorism or economic collapse.
Liberals ignore the lessons of history at their (and our) peril, but they are constitutionally unable to recognize or acknowledge peril. They tend, for example, to favor various kinds of collectivism -- from democratic socialism to Marxism -- over individualism while ignoring the devastation wrought under socialism in the last century -- crippled economies and death and imprisonment suffered by tens of millions and, generally, the tyranny that socialism always engenders. Collectivist social structures inevitably suppress the best qualities of human nature and encourage the worst.
The Founders, to their great credit, understood the reality of human nature and how best to account for it in the organization of government.
The People of the Left - Part II
Is the assault on Western Civilization deliberate, planned and maliciously intended? Yes and no.
Since the beginning of the 20th Century, there have been individuals and groups actively and frankly hostile the Western Tradition and dedicated to its destruction. Many were the intellectual descendants of the French philosophes, but others were motivated by ambitions to power, tribal mentality, anti-individualism, antagonistic cultural differences or politically organized religious beliefs.
What unites liberal ideologues is a vision of social perfectibility -- whether utopian or eschatological. These are people who measure reality against their imagined standards of Utopia or heaven.
At the other extreme are non-ideological persons influenced by liberal memes in popular culture and the orthodoxies of the educational establishment adopted since the 1950's. They are not consciously anti-Western primarily because the don't understand the concept. In a word they are ignorant -- of history, economics, politics and government. They act upon beliefs uninformed by knowledge or analysis. Excluding functional illiterates this group is theoretically salvageable.
Of all the intellectual bigotries and prejudices the abhorrence of liberty seems to top the list. Flowing from that position are the following corollary fears of and enmity towards: anything that is unorganized or regulated, and thus unpredictable; individualism; capitalism; free markets. In short they seek control over the lives, organization and behavior of others; control from which they, themselves, are exempt (2).
A set of sacred beliefs characterizes the left, and these are zealously guarded: social Darwinism, the idea that men are perfectible if properly governed; multiculturalism, which follows from the fear of making value judgments, in part leading to anti-patriotism and contempt for national sovereignty; the conviction that economies (not governments) are zero-sum; a natural affinity for national governments (particularly fascist and socialist) that use oppressive power to control their polities; wars are caused only by failures of negotiation; all men are inherently good, and when behavior indicates otherwise it is because of environmental factors; nature, in all its manifestations, is superior to mankind; all men and societies are literally equal and many more. All contrary beliefs are intolerable.
Finally, there is a set of behaviors most commonly associated with left. These include: intolerance of dissenting opinion (above) expressed in vicious attacks on opponents; intensity of feeling antithetical to a sense of humor; avoidance of honest debate (on the issue of Global Warming, for example); denial of reality not congenial to their prejudices and contempt for factual verification where it would challenge ideology (they simply rely on repetition of fallacious ideas to counter evidence); the use of intimidation, institutional coercion and violence in service of ideology; willingness to lie in furtherance of the "greater truth"; the use of third person plural in reference to grievance groups (they can't afford health insurance). Again, a sampling.
As I have said elsewhere, there is a remarkable similarity between the left and Islam. Opponents are allowed three options: conversion, submission or death. If this statement strikes the reader as excessive, consider the death tolls at the hands of socialist governments in the last century. I believe that in contemporary Europe and North America the left is restrained only by an incomplete consolidation of power.
Future Of the West
Or, in the language of game theory, does the future of the West cast a shadow? The answer to this question is impossible to forecast with confidence, but weight of evidence bodes ill for the survival of Western Civilization.
As Plato has his revenge on Aristotle, so Rousseau has his on Burke. Cultural, moral and intellectual relativism infects and cripples the governments and peoples of Europe, much of Latin America and Canada and is hard at work in the U.S. The model of infection -- pandemic -- seems appropriate, for spread of collectivist memes appears to have a viral quality and is abetted by intellectual elites and allied institutions such as the UN and the EU -- precursors to world government.
Some assert that the populations of Western countries (taken as groups of individuals) are far more conservative than their governments. This may be the case, but they lack the necessary institutional wealth, power and organization of ruling parties that exert their will through the instrument of government. And managed economies (which most increasingly are) effectively destroy the incentives and motivation for the expression of individual will.
The problems arising out the growth of the left, are greatly exacerbated in Europe by growing Islamic populations hostile to the values of their host countries, routinely living on the dole, and not held accountable by feckless governments that seek cover under the suicidal mantle of multiculturalism. These countries willing or fearfully yield sovereignty to malign immigrants who contribute negatively to their economies and, under direct threat of violence, ridicule existing law and insist on Sharia jurisprudence -- not only for themselves, but their countries of residence entire. The US, so far, has not been similarly affected, but it is only a matter of time.
So the outlook for the survival in strength of Western values seems generally poor. If Western Europe is to overcome the decline, Denmark is most likely to lead the way; on the global scale the US must lead. In neither case are the odds favorable.
Some readers of this essay will inevitably question the importance of Western survival. What's the big deal, they may ask. Political change and the realignment of cultures and values, after all, is the natural course of history.
So it is, I would reply. But consider that in all the past, no better organization of human society, governance, and economy ever existed than that informed by the classical tradition melded with the Judeo-Christian heritage that culminated, by way of the Anglo Enlightenment, in the thoughts, actions, systems and structures passed on to us by the American Founders.
Today's Western Civilization has created and deployed, via free-market capitalism and sound, moral, republican political systems grounded in the rule of law, more wealth and security
worldwide than would ever have been thought possible a century ago. The practical work of that civilization has never been surpassed outside the realm of hypothesis.
--------------
(1) The terms, "left" and "liberal" -- as I use them -- refer to persons who have adopted (consciously or otherwise) the ideology and thought of the continental philosophes.
(2) Think of neighborhood and condo associations. While many persons who offer service to these organizations act out of a sense of civic duty, others seem attracted by a fundamental need to organize and manage the behavior of others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)