I think this is going to be one of those holidays that I grumble about in an unappealing Scroogish manner, rather than embracing with a childlike innocence. Fitzmas, for those who have been hiding from the Inter Net these past few weeks, is the day when cherubic investigator Peter Fitzgerald hands down his indictments in the Plamegate scandal, sticking a pointy dagger of righteousness into the icy heart of the Bush administration. The day itself was yesterday, as Fitzgerald fingered Scooter Libby for perjury, making false statements, and obstruction of justice; more indictments may be on the way, perhaps including the Prince of Darkness himself Karl Rove. (Although deserving of the moniker, I don’t think many people really call Rove the Prince of Darkness — the label has been appropriate for so many GOP operatives, it’s kind of lost its punch.)
The liberal blogosphere has been gleefully awaiting this day, when they finally get to see some justice brought to the pack of medacious scheming liars currently running the country. Atrios, to pick on him unfairly, has been hoarding bottles of champagne in anticipation.
Personally, I’m not in the holiday spirit. The recent troubles for the White House are not a “positive good” so much as a “minor slowing-down of a tremendous amount of positive bad.” For one thing, indicting a few administration aides, even quite influential ones, on perjury charges is just not that big a deal. For another, putting a crimp in the White House’s style just doesn’t seem like a cause for celebration; it perhaps generates some mild satisfaction, but mostly a melancholy appreciation of the depths to which the country has sunk.
A lot of people, in perfectly good faith, believe that invading Iraq was the right thing to do, for various reasons. That’s fine, we can disagree. But does any reasonable person deny that the Bush administration engaged in a systematic campaign of lies and distortions to get us there? Does anyone in their right mind think that these folks made a careful and conscientious effort to ascertain whether Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction, and then presented the case to the world honestly as they best understood it? And are there sensible people out there who aren’t deeply bothered by this?
It’s sobering to understand that we are ruled by a group of people who (1) have only a tenuous connection to reality themselves, and (2) have absolutely no hesitation in using lies and intimidation to put into action the policies they want. It’s a dangerous combination, one that should be off-putting to conservatives just as much as liberals. When the current leadership of the Republican party wants something to be true, sincere arguments for or against that thing are completely beside the point. Saddam had WMD’s. Saddam was involved in September 11th. Human-produced emissions have no affect on our climate. Tax cuts reduce the deficit. Life is intelligently designed. The world supported us in Iraq. There’s nothing else we could have done after Katrina. Evidence for or against these propositions has no weight in their calculations.
Yesterday a friend of mine told me a story that she was told by a friend of hers, well-known explorer Sylvia Earle. Apparently Earle found herself at a fancy White House dinner, seated next to Trent Lott of all people. Innocent that she is, Earle thought this would be a great opportunity to explain to him the various ways in which our activities are wreaking havoc with the environment, in the oceans as well as in the atmosphere. After listening patiently to her over the course of dinner, at the end Lott nodded his head and said, But you have to understand that the long-term fate of the Earth doesn’t really matter to us, since everything will be re-arranged when the Lord returns on Judgment Day.
These are not the opinions of some fringe kook — these are the people who are ruling the country.
So I’m not in much of a celebratory mood. (To be fair, neither is Atrios.) We’ve been beaten senseless in a back alley by a group of a dozen thugs, and Fitzgerald’s indictments are like catching one or two of them for jay-walking violations. Even if by some miracle we could see the entire adminstration thrown out tomorrow, my mood would simply be one of relief, not of joy. Since that’s not about to happen, it’s all we can do just to minimize the damage.
It’s worse than that Sean. We’ve been beaten senseless by a group of a dozen thugs in plain sight on a busy high street, and still they get away with it.
-cvj
Remember, that group of thugs was elected, (in 04 anyway:)).
However it is their connections to and similarities with the fundementalist religous zealots that I find the most frightening. We complain they act in irrational ways but what can you expect from people that hold irrational beliefs. When you hold a world view that completely fails to connect with reality we usually call it insanity unless it can claim the name religion. (or we call it string theory:))
Perhaps we need to question campaigning politicians right up front and very directly on their beliefs of this nature. Perhaps it would stop people like Trent Lott getting into power (not likely I realize),
Sadly, and frustratingly, I agree with your sentiments. There is so much to be sad about, including what this indictment says about the people “running” the country, and what they’ve been allowed to get away with.
On the other hand, maybe we need a little irrational euphoria. I’ve been seeing a lot of Americans around the Internet just throwing up their hands, actively giving up the pretense that political action can solve anything, coming to the conclusion that the US is headed for autogenocide or civil war. And some of those people who seem strangely eager to bust heads in street rioting are lecturing their wimpy liberal brethren about how they were right all along, that our society can only be purified in blood.
And I don’t personally want to believe that that’s coming, for obvious reasons. Frankly, I’m not the kind of guy who survives autogenocides and civil wars. I know full well that even when the “good guys” win these things they have a tendency to go on purges against wreckers and deviationists afterwards, and if there’s one thing I am, it’s a born deviationist. Besides which, I’m not sure how a civil war could end well in this day and age. I spent my childhood with recurring nightmares of nuclear missiles blowing up American cities, and these days those nightmares are coming back, only now the missiles are American.
If there’s any evidence that a little bit of the republic is functioning, that powerful people who lie and cheat can’t get away with it forever, that there might be some corrective force at work besides mass bloodshed… that’s something precious to hang onto. It’s not an election win, but it’s something.
I agree with you Sean that there really is no reason to take much joy in Fitzmas. This administration has been engaging in criminal activity for as long as they’ve been in power, and that a couple of their minions might get their hands slapped doesn’t really delight me all that much. I do admit to taking some pleasure in viewing the mass media circling like sharks over the trickle of blood coming from a stumbling and blundering corrupt administration. Because the indictment against Libby obviously implicates Cheney and Rove, and if these guys go down, well, that’s pretty much the evil brains and balls behind the operation. What’s most important to me is that more people in America who are clueless about politics might see these signs of corruption and begin to wake up to all the lies they’ve been spoonfed by the fickle media. Because even if this administration goes down, it’s quite clear that there is not much difficulty in the next political dynasty establishing yet another false regime based on lies and propoganda.
With respect to the Sylvia Earle story, I am reminded of the lyrics of the old John Prine song:
“Your Flag decal won’t get you into heaven anymore
There already overcrowded from your dirty little war
And Jesus don’t like killing no matter what the reasons for
Your Flag decal won’t get you into heaven anymore”
(c) John Prine 1971
e.
“…the US is headed for autogenocide or civil war. And some … people … are lecturing their wimpy liberal brethren about how they were right all along, that our society can only be purified in blood.”
It’s exceedingly unlikely that the Left could triumph in such a confrontation. The Right has far more knowledge, experience, possession, and respect for firearms that does the Left.
Moreover, the Right is more rational in practical matters. At my university, a bastion of Leftist sentiment like any other, I know where to find the highest incidence of Rightist views — in those departments devoted to practical matters: Engineering and Business. I know as well where to find the greatest incidence of Leftism — in those departments with the weakest connection to reality: Philosophy and Sociology. Even within the physics department experimentalists tend to be to the right of theorists.
Rightists hold irrational religious beliefs, as do Leftists. The great virtue of such Rightists beliefs, as opposed to those of the Left, is that they are more confined to the supernatural relm. I am less harmed, for example, by the beliefs in
the impending return of a supernatural being to judge us,
the world was designed by such a being,
this being disapproves of abortion,
this being wants us to behave charitably,
this being disapproves of homosexuality,
this being wants to be worshiped by us,
evil people will suffer eternal torture in Hell,
good people will enjoy eternal bliss in Heaven,
than I am harmed by elements of Leftist faith, all of which involve the natural (as opposed to supernatural) world:
capitalism is evil,
evil (except for Christian Republicans) should never be confronted forcefully,
the United Nations is more virtuous than the United States,
privately owned guns are evil,
the mental characteristics of men and women are identical,
governments are more virtuous than people are,
diversity is a desirable end in itself,
equality is more important than liberty.
It seems to me that a complete political triumph of the Right would at worst yield American circa 1950, while a similar triumph of the Left could easily devolve into the Soviet Union of the same era.
Belizean,
Your comment is ridiculous.
You’ve listed a bunch of supernatural beliefs for the Right and a bunch of “practical” beliefs for the Left. Nevermind that the Left also believes in the supernatural. Nevermind that your Left list is just a myopic knee-jerk cariacture of actual progressive values. And nevermind that one could easily write a similar practical list for the Right (just to get you started, “Capitalism is a panacea that justifies social indifference”).
If you’re going to condemn progressive values, at least KNOW what they are.
Furthermore – the Right controls the “practical” sector? Business and engineering? Why are these more practical? Sure, they’re bigger money makers since they suit our capitalistic economy. Philosophy is impractical because no one wants to pay people to think. But they did in the time of Socrates.
Or maybe by “practical” you mean concrete? That at the end of the day, an engineer has built a thing, while a theorist has built an idea? I’m not convinced that things are more practical than ideas. After all, a thing like a toaster doesn’t work without an idea like Ohm’s law.
Herb,
The Left is dominated by secularists, the Right by the traditionally religious. The very definition of secularism is the concern for worldly — i.e. non-supernatural and practical — affairs. While there does exist, as you point out, a religious Left, it is currently politically insignificant. This somewhat similar to the current domination of the secular Right by the religious Right.
The “practically” of a field of study pertains to the consequence of error by its practioners. If, for example, an engineer is wrong, a bridge collapses, an airplane crashes, or a global computer network fails. If a philospher is wrong, she is mostly likely just ignored. Engineers and businessmen must perform without egregious error in order to survive professionally. Philosophers and social theorist need not.
Belizean,
I don’t necessarily agree with your characterization of the left and right wings. But my point is that with your two lists, you say that the right’s ideas about e.g. god are preferable to the left’s ideas about e.g. capitalism without acknowledging that the right has some pretty wacky ideas about capitalism. You’re comparing apples to oranges, or since you watered down the left side, apples to orange juice.
I don’t know what you mean when you say philosophy has the “weakest connection to reality.”
“Engineers and businessmen must perform without egregious error in order to survive professionally. Philosophers and social theorist need not.”
I disagree. If you’re bad at what you do, you’ll be hard pressed to find a job. And if this is false anywhere, it’s false in business and politics.
“Moreover, the Right is more rational in practical matters.”
Anyway, this is really where I have a problem. Just because “practical” professions (as you define them) are dominated by the right, it doesn’t mean that they can think more rationally in any given practical matter. Could you look me in the eye and call the Bush administration practical? Talk about a weak connection to reality…
P.S. Just to be clear, that last sentence was referring to Bush’s weak connection with reality. It was not meant as a personal insult.
Belezian:
“The Right is more rational in practical mattters”?
How about “practical matters” like delivering food and water to desperate people in New Orleans?
“If you’re bad at what you do, you’ll be hard pressed to find a job.”
Herb,
My point is that it’s a lot easier to detect a bad engineer than it is to detect a bad philospher. And, as it happens, people who have jobs in which error is easily detected (what I’ve called practical jobs) tend to be on the right of whose who don’t have such jobs.
You’re certainly welcome to improve my lists. But I don’t think that will alter the main point: Much of the wackiness of the religious Right pertains to the supernatural, while 100% of the wackiness of the secular Left pertains to worldly affairs.
I disagree that the “supernatural” wacky beliefs don’t affect worldly matters. As you point out abortion and homosexuality. These are two things that are real world things that can be affected by such a belief system. For example the push by the Christian right to have GWB appoint a S. C. judge who will overturn Roe v. Wade.
As many on the left I am not pro-abortion. I would love to see many fewer abortions (which I belive the majority are due to economic considerations) but I am not about to allow the government to make the choice for women about what they can do with their own bodies.
e.
Belizean, I sort of see what you’re saying, but you’d have to qualify “easily detected.” Is a bad engineer easier to detect by other engineers than a bad philosopher is by other philosophers? There’s definitely something to be said about the correlation between carreers and political leanings, but I don’t agree with your conclusions.
Anyway, Elliot has really hit on the important point here. Sean’s story above about Trent Lott vs. the environment is another perfect example of how a supernatural belief can screw over people in the real world.
Herb,
Bad engineers are easier to detect than bad philosphers by anyone. If everything that engineer Bob designs blows up, anyone can see that he’s a bad engineer. If philosopher Jim repeatedly publishes a load of rubbish, then he’s just another philospher.
Elliot,
The point is not that there is no intersection between reality and the supernatural wackiness of the religious Right. The point is that there is less of an intersection than for he secular Left, because all of the secular Left’s wackiness is about the real world, where only some of the religious Right’s is.
Many of the wacky beliefs of the religious Right (transubstantiation, the Holy Trinity, orginal sin, parting of the Red Sea, the resurrection of Christ) have little bearing on legislation. Precisely zero of the wacky beliefs of the secular Left cannot be turned into legislation.
So because the right is more psychotic they are less dangerous?
Once again you’re comparing apples to oranges. Both sides have ideas which can affect the real world and be legislated, and you refuse to compare THOSE ideas. You’re trying to buffer the right with “harmless” ideas like the resurrection of JC – you’re including them as “filler” to bring down the right’s harmful to harmless ratio (a number which is also irrelevant). If they really are harmless ideas, then they have no place in this conversation.
The only fair comparison is between ideas on both sides that can affect the real world… the left’s ideas about fiscal policy vs. the right’s… the left’s ideas about homosexuality vs. the right’s… and so on… Comparing one side’s ideas about god to the other side’s ideas about the economy makes no sense. Trying to count the number of irrelevant beliefs of either side is pointless and, well… irrelevant.
And even belief in the resurrection of JC is not completely harmless. For instance, it has allowed people to justify many heinous things.
Herb,
What we’re discussing is the relative danger between the beliefs of an otherwordly religion ( R ) and those of a secular religion ( L ). My point was that only some of R’s beliefs have legislative impact, while all of L’s do. Your, point as I understand it, is that we only care about R’s beliefs that do have legislative impact, when comparing R to L.
The problem is that R’s list of legislative significant beliefs is shorter than L’s. So when you match the two lists, item by item, you get a huge surplus of items on L’s list that have no counterpart on R’s list.
R doesn’t much care about economic policy (unlike the secular Right, their allies of convenience). R doesn’t much care about environmental policy, nor with industrial regulation, nor about smoking, nor tax policy. To see what R care’s about, go into any, say, Baptist church in Indiana. They care about a relatively short list of sins that include homosexual behavior and abortion. Their list is short, because their religion is otherworldly.
R wants to legislate against a few things, L wants to legislate against a lot of things. Our lives are far more regulated by L than by R. If R gets its way homosexual behavior, abortion, pornography, public immodesty, commerce on the Sabbath, drunkeness all get legislated against. Basically a returen to early 20th-century America. If L get’s its way, even more of my income is confiscated, along with all of my guns, my freedom to start businesses as I like, my freedom to hire and fire who I choose, to use my property as I like, to enter into contracts as I like, and to speak freely. Basically any Eastern Block socialist country.
I apologize for my remarks taking a personal tone. But they are infomed by personal experience:
Specifically, I am afraid to blog under my real name because of the social rankor that my views will incite at my university.
By contrast, have always been at ease with freely discussing my atheism with members of my parent’s church, while I was growing up and when I return for visits.
Try this experiment: Argue anti-Christian positions with a Christian. Argue anti-Leftist positions with a Leftist. Who’s scarier: the polite and civil Christian or the screaming, profanity-spewing Leftist. Repeat may times to obtain a statistically significant sampling.
The Left, it seems to me, wants to rule me more than does the Right. This is why I fear them more.
Belizian. So it appears that you would rather have the government in you bedroom than your bank account. Sorry but I disagree. I don’t own a gun so it really doesn’t bother me to not have one. I think the government should be paying for my healthcare instead of my employer for which I would gladly pay higher taxes. I think that keeping the earth pollution free is a worthy goal and one my great grandchildren may thank me for.
What is frightening is the (so called) Christians who think what we do here on earth doesn’t matter because the rapture is coming etc. etc.
There’s an old country song which sums it up pretty well for me: “I’d rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.”
🙂
Elliot,
“So it appears that you would rather have the government in you bedroom than your bank account.”
No. I’d rather have it outlaw homosexual behavior and abortion. I not homosexual. Abortions don’t happen in my bedroom.
“I don’t own a gun so it really doesn’t bother me to not have one.”
You’ll probably change your mind the second you need one.
“I think the government should be paying for my healthcare instead of my employer for which I would gladly pay higher taxes.”
Forcing someone else to pay for my health care is just theft. I should pay for it. Should you be taxed to pay for my car repairs?
“I think that keeping the earth pollution free is a worthy goal…”
Yes it is, but not at all costs. If we had zero tolerance for pollution, industrial civilization and all of its benefits would be impossible. And the world would only be able to support 5% of its current population.
“What is frightening is the (so called) Christians who think what we do here on earth doesn’t matter because the rapture is coming etc. etc.”
Yeah, they’re pretty kooky. But at least they tend to keep to themselves, unlike rabid Leftists for who political activism is a religious duty.
“I’d rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.”
Are you perhaps implying that I’m stupid?:) I grant that I’m a poor speller, but lobotomized? Isn’t it at least conceivable that someone can have non-Leftist views and not be a moron?
Belizian,
Lighten up the last part was a joke. It just seemed to fit. I do not consider you to be stupid. I don’t engage in exchanges with people who I consider stupid. It is not worth my time. I have a number of friends who I consider highly intelligent who hold more right wing positions than I do. It is not about intelligence per se. After all I think Karl Rove is highly intelligent. I also think he is morally corrupt.
On other points. The fact that you are not a homosexual does not affect the fact that there are people who are. Don’t they have a right to be who they are without the government outlawing their behavior.
Most abortions are economic. What about the government agreeing to fully support children of mothers who choose not to have abortions? Does that work for you?
Health care should be a fundamental right of living in a society with the means to provide it. If we spent 1/2 the DOD budget on health care, it would be covered.
Your point that the right tends to keep to themselves is not supported by the evidence. They have infected the highest levels of our government. (yes the word infected was intentional.
Cheers
Elliot,
“…the last part was a joke”.
I know. I was joking, too.
“Don’t [homosexuals] have a right to be who they are without the government outlawing their behavior.”
I agree with this (properly construed). But we were discussing a choice between a ban on homosexual behavior and being taxed by, say, and additional 20%. Given this choice, I’d gladly accept an additional $20K per year not to have sex with men. A ban on homosexual behavior affects a few, a ban on keeping one’s income affects everyone.
“What about the government agreeing to fully support children of mothers who choose not to have abortions?”
Personally, I’m pro-abortion. As for the religious Right, I think they’d encourage the unaborted children to be put up for adoption. No government funds need be involved. [There really is a huge demand for adoptable babies.]
“Health care should be a fundamental right of living in a society with the means to provide it.”
I know that’s a fundamental tenet of Leftist thought, but it’s never made any sense to me. Saying that Bob has a right to the labor of Jane (an M.D.) is saying that Bob has the right to enslave Dr. Jane. I would agree with you, if health care services were provided by nature, like air or sunlight. But human beings have to labor to provide it. How can human A have a right to the labor of human B?
“[The religious right does not keep to themselves, because] …They have infected the highest levels of our government…”
By “keeping to themselves”, I meant not making a nuisance of themselves when you walk across campus, for example. One is in much greater danger of encountering a screaming Leftist political activist, than a screamer from the Right. I don’t object to groups that simply run for office and get elected, even though I might disagree with them.
Happy All Souls Day!
Belizean,
I guess at this point we should just agree to disagree. Clearly you have a different view of the world than I do. So I will catch up with you on another thread at another time.
Elliot
Jeez, Belize, it’s so easy to set up a straw man just to knock it down.
You say that the left wants to take “all of [your] guns.” That’s simply untrue. You say that if the left gets its way, your right “to speak freely” will be jeopardized. What gives you that idea?
While it’s true that your political views might cause some “social rankor” [sic] at the university where you work, they will NOT cost you your job, and if some leftist admistrator tried to fire you because of them, you can be sure that among the first to defend your rights would be the AAUP and the ACLU–which are certainly not right-wing organizations.
Your characterization of leftists as “profanity-spewing” screamers as opposed to “polite and civil” Christians certainly doesn’t fit what I’ve seen going on outside Planned Parenthood clinics, and it was no lefty who said that AIDS was God’s punishment for being gay.
And while I understand and sympathize (although not completely) with your concern for your pocketbook, you might consider the fact that your decent salary, your fringe benefits, and your retirement come not from the good faith and Christian generosity of the Board of Trustees at the university where you work, but from years of organizing and hard work at the negotiating table on the part of the union that represents you.