Glenn Beck's "non-political rally" at the Lincoln Monument over the weekend was, in my view, simply tragic. The problem in the U.S. is not a slide in religious influence over moral sentiments and political action (contra Martin McPhillips), but the continuous and effectively unchecked growth of government and - being both cause and consequence - the progressive debasement of individual freedom and all its corollaries. It is tragic because U.S. conservatives endorse a thorough scaling back of government whilst yet undermining the very principles of individualism that alone could make that possible, by for example, electing Republican members of Congress who then sanction all manner of government interventions in society. Hitchens predictably trotters up beside Glenn Beck's leg to mark the wider territory of the Tea Party movement with his anti-theist lant, and his persistent use of "white" to modify his every description of the subject gives off a stink; the wider Tea Party movement was supposedly motivated by both excessive and punitive taxation, not any supposed decline in the demographic or political influence of a "white majority" still less yet a decline in popular acceptance of Christianity. Yet there's the charge, and in view of the "non-political" bullshit about the rally (i.e. the absence of Freedom from the foreground where it should have been), it wouldn't surprise me to see some of it stick among the irredeemable fools on the left. The other thing to bear in mind is that it isn't just the U.S. left who are going to make that dangerous charge or act on it. There is an international dimension to the implications of developments in domestic U.S. politics licensed by the pre-eminent position of the U.S. within the current international order.
I don't believe the attendees to the "Restoring Honor" rally were motivated on anything like such despicable grounds of racial difference (though that will be the inevitable attack from the left). They did fail, however, to make that event a stand for the essential American idea; the not merely "non-political", but fervently anti-political idea of Freedom.
As for the Congressional elections in November... whatever happens I know this much: the Republicans might have some electoral success, but their baggage holds them down and prevents them from standing up for freedom. The Democrats meanwhile have always fought for more democratic handles to hold (and the state encrusted privileges they bring) over and against the principles of individual freedom, which they have always regarded as secondary to their principles of violent social engineering, whenever they didn't disregard them entirely.
Wednesday 1 September 2010
14 comments:
Comment moderation is now in place, as of April 2012. Rules:
1) Be aware that your right to say what you want is circumscribed by my right of ownership here.
2) Make your comments relevant to the post to which they are attached.
3) Be careful what you presume: always be prepared to evince your point with logic and/or facts.
4) Do not transgress Blogger's rules regarding content, i.e. do not express hatred for other people on account of their ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation or nationality.
5) Remember that only the best are prepared to concede, and only the worst are prepared to smear.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hitchens:
ReplyDelete"This summer, then, has been the perfect register of the new anxiety, beginning with the fracas over Arizona's immigration law, gaining in intensity with the proposal by some Republicans to amend the 14th Amendment so as to de-naturalize "anchor babies," cresting with the continuing row over the so-called "Ground Zero" mosque, and culminating, at least symbolically, with a quasi-educated Mormon broadcaster calling for a Christian religious revival from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial."
Add to this further instances such as the public's confusion over the president's religion, and lunacy over terror babies (Rep. Gohmert, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUA7obmYvPk). Given all this, you don't believe that there is something rather xenophobic about the national mood lately? Or is it that you think this movement is separate from the tea party?
"Given all this, you don't believe that there is something rather xenophobic about the national mood lately?"
ReplyDeleteNo, not particularly; I think Hitchens' choice of "anxiety" rather than "xenophobia" is more accurate, even though the rest of his article is designed to elicit exactly that charge of racist bigotry against these people, which is unfair and while I'm with Hitchens on religion, I do hold this against him.
There are two problematic aspects to Mexican immigration into the U.S. The first is economic, not simply in some "they're taking our jobs" sense, but in the fact that food, housing, medical and other costs that these people necessarily have are being foisted indirectly upon U.S. taxpayers - many of whom are struggling to take care of themselves and their own families in a recession which many of them believe is about to get worse and under a government which already exerts considerable indirect control over the terms of production (i.e. monetary, legislative and regulatory control). That is not a xenophobic or racist reaction to immigration; it is reaction against the democratic socialism of government.
The second aspect in which immigration is seen as a problem is the obvious electoral implication that, unchastened by the demands of reality under conditions of freedom, large numbers of these immigrants will vote for whichever party extends more State benefits to them. They are in this sense an obvious electoral boon to the Democratic Party although the Republicans will eventually be forced to play that game too. The upshot of that is that the U.S. moves further and further away from its founding notions of a republic with limited government designed to protect the freedom of the individual.
I also reject your two word premise of the "national mood" as a perversion; it has the effect, which is perhaps why it is often used by partisans, of lumping together all sorts of people with different values and stamping them with whichever ideological brand (e.g. racist bigots) that makes them an easy target for attack (i.e. it shifts the discourse away from arguments about government). Instead of "divide and conquer", its more like "mix together and batter".
A quick addendum to that: your link for the "terror babies" story didn't work (copyright) but I looked it up anyway.
ReplyDeleteGohmert's claim about children being born in the U.S. then brought back twenty odd years later as terrorists is clearly absurd. Aside from the obvious question of what choices the child may make during that time, it is far from clear to me that the U.S. will still have its pre-eminent position in the international order in twenty-thirty years time. History gives many examples of how quickly things can and do change.
But is it correct that foreign tourists can enter the U.S. and deliver babies without being responsible for the medical costs? I suspect that it may be more complicated than that, but that does fall under my first objection above - that some people should not be forced to pay for other people's costs regardless of where they may or may not come from.
Mike, in the post:
ReplyDelete“[T]he wider Tea Party movement was supposedly motivated by both excessive and punitive taxation, not any supposed decline in the demographic or political influence of a "white majority" still less yet a decline in popular acceptance of Christianity. Yet there's the charge, and in view of the ‘non-political’ bullshit about the rally (i.e. the absence of Freedom from the foreground where it should have been), it wouldn't surprise me to see some of it stick among the irredeemable fools on the left.”
Notions that tea partiers and are motivated by racial and religious fears, overt racism and bigotry are unfortunately not just now about to “stick among the irredeemable fools on the left.” Such charges are the well-worn stock-in-trade of tea party critics, typically supplanting any good-faith attempt to comprehend or credit the movement's alarm at flagrant government overreach.
Sadly, I have to disagree that increased emphasis on Freedom as their goal – much less no-nonsense pursuit of the same - would spare tea partiers further accusations along such lines. Unambiguous calls for meaningful individual freedom threaten government (and those who consider they profit by it) even more directly than do exhortations to restore honor, pledge one’s allegiance to higher-than-government powers and what-have-you. Of a certainty they would draw the most fearsome aspersions that the lovers and fomenters of big government could cast.
You can safely bet that any mostly white group of American protesters who declared in the spotlight that they would use their property as they pleased and submit no longer to unfair taxation and regulation would see racism enumerated prominently among the slurs of their “true” motives. They’d be painted as scions of white privilege and supremacy who were angered and terrified that their undeserved inheritance of status and wealth was finally being properly shared with their own and their forebears’ victims – victims whose rescue from the ravages of subjugation and exploitation was the hard-won triumph of the very government that such protesters had the temerity to revile and imperil.
That sort of thing appears in spades at every hint of threat to burgeoning government power because it has been working so well for such a long time now. And nobody works it like government and their lamestream pals.
And speaking of those pals, if the New York Times piece you linked about the anti-foreigner Japanese groups can be trusted (and I know that‘s a huge “if”), I have to say that Mr. Sakurai should try studying the American tea party movement while sober, as he has made some staggering errors in emulating its modus operandi. The antics attributed to his Zaitokukai group share nothing with tea party style, but sound for all the world like the sort of thing the lefty SEIU likes to get up to. (Search for “SEIU front yard.”)
As to last weekend’s rally - along with the general direction of conservative protest in the US - being tragic, I will just say that tragedy is in the eye of the beholder. It’s true that the wavering focus on individual freedom and primacy is far from laser-like, and that tyranny-helpful Republicans wearing their tiresome small-government disguises are likely to constitute the tea party’s initial electoral volley. The whole gambit seems futile as hell. But still, I’m heartened to see huge numbers of what we call “people who work for a living” stand up and peacefully defy their government’s insistence on underestimating their power, self-awareness and determination to sort out and assert the rights they know are theirs. Call it a start.
Linda Morgan said...
ReplyDeleteMike, in the post:
“[T]he wider Tea Party movement was supposedly motivated by both excessive and punitive taxation, not any supposed decline in the demographic or political influence of a "white majority" still less yet a decline in popular acceptance of Christianity. Yet there's the charge, and in view of the ‘non-political’ bullshit about the rally (i.e. the absence of Freedom from the foreground where it should have been), it wouldn't surprise me to see some of it stick among the irredeemable fools on the left.”
Notions that tea partiers and are motivated by racial and religious fears, overt racism and bigotry are unfortunately not just now about to “stick among the irredeemable fools on the left.” Such charges are the well-worn stock-in-trade of tea party critics, typically supplanting any good-faith attempt to comprehend or credit the movement's alarm at flagrant government overreach.
Sadly, I have to disagree that increased emphasis on Freedom as their goal – much less no-nonsense pursuit of the same - would spare tea partiers further accusations along such lines. Unambiguous calls for meaningful individual freedom threaten government (and those who consider they profit by it) even more directly than do exhortations to restore honor, pledge one’s allegiance to higher-than-government powers and what-have-you. Of a certainty they would draw the most fearsome aspersions that the lovers and fomenters of big government could cast.
You can safely bet that any mostly white group of American protesters who declared in the spotlight that they would use their property as they pleased and submit no longer to unfair taxation and regulation would see racism enumerated prominently among the slurs of their “true” motives. They’d be painted as scions of white privilege and supremacy who were angered and terrified that their undeserved inheritance of status and wealth was finally being properly shared with their own and their forebears’ victims – victims whose rescue from the ravages of subjugation and exploitation was the hard-won triumph of the very government that such protesters had the temerity to revile and imperil.
That sort of thing appears in spades at every hint of threat to burgeoning government power because it has been working so well for such a long time now. And nobody works it like government and their lamestream pals.
And speaking of those pals, if the New York Times piece you linked about the anti-foreigner Japanese groups can be trusted (and I know that‘s a huge “if”), I have to say that Mr. Sakurai should try studying the American tea party movement while sober, as he has made some staggering errors in emulating its modus operandi. The antics attributed to his Zaitokukai group share nothing with tea party style, but sound for all the world like the sort of thing the lefty SEIU likes to get up to. (Search for “SEIU front yard.”)
As to last weekend’s rally - along with the general direction of conservative protest in the US - being tragic, I will just say that tragedy is in the eye of the beholder. It’s true that the wavering focus on individual freedom and primacy is far from laser-like, and that tyranny-helpful Republicans wearing their tiresome small-government disguises are likely to constitute the tea party’s initial electoral volley. The whole gambit seems futile as hell. But still, I’m heartened to see huge numbers of what we call “people who work for a living” stand up and peacefully defy their government’s insistence on underestimating their power, self-awareness and determination to sort out and assert the rights they know are theirs. Call it a start.
Linda - I've emailed you back: I don't know why your comment didn't appear but I'll get onto that in due course. But let me respond to your points...
ReplyDeleteI agree entirely on your first point about the Tea Party's critics on the left; consider me stood corrected by you.
On your second point viz, I am prepared to make a qualified concession; yes the racism stuff would still be hurled anyway, but I would hope that the principles of freedom would be articulated with sufficient clarity and vividness (hence why Glenn Beck is a poor choice of leader) that there would be plenty on the left who would find themselves with a different perspective to that which they began with. It's very hypothetical I realize, but King himself set the precedent.
An addendum to that would be that yes, threatening the power of the government per se is exactly what is needed before it becomes too late. Each individual must weigh the costs for herself, but remember that there are costs to inaction and of failing to threaten the government. Every half-action the Tea Partiers take not only leaves the socialists better prepared to stomp them next time, but also weakens their own resolve.
Your third point about Mr Sakurai is well taken and I will keep an eye out for how that thing develops...
Fourthly, yes you can call it a start if you like - and I have no intention of making the perfect the enemy of the good. Though the timing of the rally was clearly set to bolster Republican support in the November elections, and although Thomas Sowell may believe that is the crucial moment, my attentions are elsewhere. There was a line I fell for a long time ago and which I think stands the test of time:
"The world revolves, not around the inventors of new noises, but around the inventors of new values; it revolves inaudibly."
"I also reject your two word premise of the "national mood" as a perversion; it has the effect, which is perhaps why it is often used by partisans, of lumping together all sorts of people with different values and stamping them with whichever ideological brand (e.g. racist bigots) that makes them an easy target for attack"
ReplyDeleteI explicitly structured my response so as not to lump any disparate groups together and thereby dispel any valid arguments. I gave some specific incidents, then asked if those were representative of a large segment of society, enough to constitute part of a "national mood" as opposed to just the opinions of some extremely small fringe group, and moreover if those incidents were separate from the tea party.
To return to my initial blog post that you commented on and where our previous conversation left off, I don't have any problems rationally discussing issues of the proper role of government and libertarianism versus egalitarianism and so on. What disturbs me is the seeming extent to which a large percentage of the population is confused about very basic facts, such as the various points I mentioned in my blog post, which president signed TARP into law, and now, this disturbing fact:
"Astonishingly, a Newsweek poll finds that 52 percent of Republicans believe that it is “definitely true” or “probably true” that “Barack Obama sympathizes with the goals of Islamic fundamentalists who want to impose Islamic law around the world.” So a majority of Republicans think that our president wants to impose Islamic law worldwide." - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/opinion/12kristof.html
I don't know if I'd call this mere "anxiety".
"I don't have any problems rationally discussing issues of the proper role of government and libertarianism versus egalitarianism and so on."
ReplyDeleteBut you would apparently like to ignore these issues, which leads me to believe that perhaps you do have a problem discussing them...
Anyway I looked up your Newsweek poll... http://nw-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/pdf/1004-ftop.pdf
First, can't you keep your own errors in check? The question asked respondents whether they believed Obama sympathizes with Islamic nutjobs who want to impose Islamic law, not whether they believed Obama himself wants to impose Islamic law - that conclusion does not follow.
Second, Obama's behaviour has itself hardly discouraged the inference that he may sympathize with Islamic nutters; witness his contemptible Cairo apologetics.
Third, the poll states a sample size of registered republicans of 284 (not exactly large (i.e. over 1000) with a margin of error for this sample of 6.8. So the figure of 52% could actually be as low as 46%; less than half of the registered republicans. But look at the overall responses for registered republicans: while 14% believe the statement that Obama sympathizes with Islamic nutters is "definitely true", 33% believe it is "probably NOT true".
Come on Squirrels behave yourself - the Newsweek guys were cherrypicking just to trash the Republicans and so are you.
Give me a break. Nowhere did I say, "man, those stupid Republicans, a majority of them think Obama is a fundamentalist Muslim, therefore nothing Republicans say can be right." My beef is *not* with Republicans, it is with anyone, Republican, Democrat, or Independent, who is so out of touch with reality that he/she thinks the president of the United States secretly agrees with the goals of Islamic fundamentalists in imposing Islamic law around the world. Who cares if that percentage is 46, 52, or 58? Isn't it alarming enough that it is more than, say, 5? And yes, I am more than willing to lay down the same indictment of Democrats as well; I think it's pretty pathetic that 17% of them would fall into the above category.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, if you read the Kristof article, he only mentions Republicans once, when referring to this poll result. The point of his article as well, is not to "trash" any specific political group, but as a condemnation of a particular type of thinking, regardless of who it is that is holding those views.
Squirrels, is not my charge against Obama, in fact, much more serious than that? I am far more *long-term* worried about the furthering of U.S. socialism than I am about Islam. Islam is the easily identifiable outside enemy of freedom, but socialism is the far more formidable enemy of freedom within.
ReplyDelete"Squirrels, is not my charge against Obama, in fact, much more serious than that? I am far more *long-term* worried about the furthering of U.S. socialism than I am about Islam. Islam is the easily identifiable outside enemy of freedom, but socialism is the far more formidable enemy of freedom within."
ReplyDeleteWe've been here already, it's what I was talking about above and the main point I've been trying to get across. Again,
"To return to an earlier question of yours, “Never mind, “illogical, wrong, crazy, hypocritical”, what could be more disgusting and horrible than that the principle of private property in America could be largely forgotten just twenty years after the so-called fall of communism?”
I would say that, the seeming inability of a large and growing segment of society to grasp even basic facts and arguments (e.g. is Obama a Muslim?), as highlighted by these four articles, is just as disgusting and horrible."
Knowing the basic facts, and being able to make coherent and logical arguments, are a prerequisite to having a meaningful conversation. If people reject Obama because they actually make a thoughtful decision on the basis of his policies, then that's fine, that's how democracy should work. But if people reject Obama because they think he's a Muslim secretly wishing Islamic law upon us, or any other reason not rooted in reality or logic, then that's just a sad and depressing reflection on the American public.
"...then that's just a sad and depressing reflection on the American public."
ReplyDeleteGiven the sample size for that Newsweek survey, that "reflection" on the U.S. public is very likely a distortion.
"Knowing the basic facts, and being able to make coherent and logical arguments, are a prerequisite to having a meaningful conversation."
Apply that precept to yourself. You are confusing a minority view with that of a majority.
Do you actually read anything I write and attempt to process it, or are you satisfied with giving the same knee-jerk reactions over and over? As I said before:
ReplyDelete"Who cares if that percentage is 46, 52, or 58? Isn't it alarming enough that it is more than, say, 5?"
What is your obsession with whether the percentage is over 50 and is a "majority" or not? If the actual percentage is 49.9999 does that make it acceptable?
"Isn't it alarming enough that it is more than, say, 5?"
ReplyDeleteNot at all, no.