I overheard a conversation in a restaurant the other day in which one fellow told another that the war on terror was the first time the United States was engaged in military conflict with a "tactic" rather than a state. This is an indictment that I've heard often from pundits from both the left and right over the last several years; one of them a man whom I greatly respect for writing one of the most inspirational books I've ever read--Dinesh D'Souza. (The book was What's So Great About America?)
First of all, it should be obvious to anyone that the use of the phrase, "war on terror" is nothing more than a deference to political correctness (and therefore political expediency due to the overwhelming power of identity politics these days) on the part of president Bush; and that in reality the "war on terror" is a global struggle with the followers of an ideology: radical extremist Islam.
When put in this context, the accusations of pundits that the present conflict is unique in American history is shown to be wrong. The first example should be fresh in the memory of anyone over 35 years old. Commonly called the "Cold War," the struggle that engaged the military, intelligence, and economic resources of, not just the United States but all the democratic nations of the West for some 45 years, was against the global expansionist forces of Communism.
There is another example from early in American history that bears an uncanny similarity to the struggle we now face: namely the wars conducted by the fledgling American navy from 1801 to 1805 against the Barbary pirates. Christopher Hitchens has written an excellent overview article that you can read here in its entirety, but let me quote one excerpt to give you some insight into what I mean by "similarities."
...one cannot get around what Jefferson heard when he went with John Adams to wait upon Tripoli’s ambassador to London in March 1785. When they inquired by what right the Barbary states preyed upon American shipping, enslaving both crews and passengers, America’s two foremost envoys were informed that “it was written in the Koran, that all Nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon whoever they could find and to make Slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.” (It is worth noting that the United States played no part in the Crusades, or in the Catholic reconquista of Andalusia.)
Understand that this was not the work of any single nation, but rather pirates operating from the Maghrebian provinces of the Ottoman Empire that conform to today’s Algeria, Libya, Morocco, and Tunisia. And if the struggle that we now face with elements of radical extremist Islam who employ terror as a tactic can be rightly (though pejoratively) characterized as "war against a tactic", then so must our historic battle against Barbary piracy.
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Sunday, April 08, 2007
Wordsmithing, part 6
I recently read Words That Work by corporate consultant, political pollster and adviser to Republicans, Dr. Frank Luntz. In it he details his rules for crafting language that will resonate best with those to whom you are trying to sell a product or advance a policy. One example he gives in the book is his participation in characterizing what had once been called the inheritance tax as the "death tax."
In this series of blog posts I've dubbed "Wordsmithing," I've admittedly focused on the most blatant and dishonest examples of language distortion for political and ideological expediency by the left. But for the record, anyone making an argument or advocating a position will always make his case in the most favorable terms--and conversely the most unfavorable terms for his proponent's case. I'm not against the clever use of language; but I deplore the dishonest twisting and redefinition of words for political gain and ideological advantage.
To illustrate the difference, consider one of the most divisive issues of our age, and one that has engendered it own "happyspeak" lexicon: abortion. The defining terms, as we all know, are "pro life" and "pro choice." The advantages of characterizing one's position as "pro" *whatever* is self-evident, so the real question is the definition of the *whatever* the "pro" is modifying.
In the case of "pro life," the life part seems perfectly accurate and reasonable; a conclusion I easily reach since the "pro choice" side never seems to attack the term other than to assert the other side as "anti-choice," "denying women the right to choose," etc., or that "pro lifers" are hypocrites for claiming to be "pro life" for fetuses yet advocate capital punishment (an argument I've already dealt with in my blog post Moral Inversion).
The term "pro choice," however, is fundamentally dishonest; not in redefining the word "choice", but rather in its attempt to redefine that which the choice is ostensibly about: life.
In the run-up to the 2006 election I was called by what I presume was a Democratic pollster. One of the questions I was asked was, "do you believe in the fundamental right of a woman to choose what happens to her body?" I told the pollster that if his question was in reality regarding abortion, then the terms of the question were dishonest. "How so?" he asked. I explained it to him like this: to the question of, "should a woman have the right to choose what happens to her body?" the answer is, of course! But with the question of abortion, she's no longer choosing for her body--she's choosing life or death over someone else's body. For though that child--or fetus, or embryo, or zygote, or whatever other euphemistic obfuscating synonym you use--resides in the body of the woman--that child is a separate person.
And here's where we finally come to the real redefinition. A decade or so ago the pro-abortion lobby argued that the first trimester fetus didn't yet qualify as human life. Advances in biological science invalidated that argument, so we now hear a new terminology centered around a quasi-legal definition of "person," which goes something like this: yes, the first trimester fetus is human, but it's not yet a "person," and therefore it's okay to destroy it.
What we're talking about here is the redefinition of human life. The precepts of Judeo-Christian values and Christian moral truth that informed the founding documents and legal system of this country defined human life as invested with an intrinsic dignity and worth by virtue of the fact that we were created beings of God in his image, "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life..." (emphasis mine). But with the abandonment of these precepts, and the adoption of a purely materialistic worldview, many are attempting to redefine the worth of human life with respect to its utility. A fetus has no utility (except perhaps as raw material for therapeutic process or experimentation) therefore it warrants no protection.
Please understand that if this redefinition is allowed to fully take root, it will transform American society in ways we can't yet imagine. The implications for issues such as genetic engineering, cloning, euthanasia, and a host of others, are the fuel of dystopian fiction writers. Just consider: when human worth is measured by its utility, what other conditions and stages of humanity, or degrees of impeded or damaged function will be devalued to the status of "non person?" The severely brain damaged? The terminally ill? The birth defective? The retarded? The old?
In this series of blog posts I've dubbed "Wordsmithing," I've admittedly focused on the most blatant and dishonest examples of language distortion for political and ideological expediency by the left. But for the record, anyone making an argument or advocating a position will always make his case in the most favorable terms--and conversely the most unfavorable terms for his proponent's case. I'm not against the clever use of language; but I deplore the dishonest twisting and redefinition of words for political gain and ideological advantage.
To illustrate the difference, consider one of the most divisive issues of our age, and one that has engendered it own "happyspeak" lexicon: abortion. The defining terms, as we all know, are "pro life" and "pro choice." The advantages of characterizing one's position as "pro" *whatever* is self-evident, so the real question is the definition of the *whatever* the "pro" is modifying.
In the case of "pro life," the life part seems perfectly accurate and reasonable; a conclusion I easily reach since the "pro choice" side never seems to attack the term other than to assert the other side as "anti-choice," "denying women the right to choose," etc., or that "pro lifers" are hypocrites for claiming to be "pro life" for fetuses yet advocate capital punishment (an argument I've already dealt with in my blog post Moral Inversion).
The term "pro choice," however, is fundamentally dishonest; not in redefining the word "choice", but rather in its attempt to redefine that which the choice is ostensibly about: life.
In the run-up to the 2006 election I was called by what I presume was a Democratic pollster. One of the questions I was asked was, "do you believe in the fundamental right of a woman to choose what happens to her body?" I told the pollster that if his question was in reality regarding abortion, then the terms of the question were dishonest. "How so?" he asked. I explained it to him like this: to the question of, "should a woman have the right to choose what happens to her body?" the answer is, of course! But with the question of abortion, she's no longer choosing for her body--she's choosing life or death over someone else's body. For though that child--or fetus, or embryo, or zygote, or whatever other euphemistic obfuscating synonym you use--resides in the body of the woman--that child is a separate person.
And here's where we finally come to the real redefinition. A decade or so ago the pro-abortion lobby argued that the first trimester fetus didn't yet qualify as human life. Advances in biological science invalidated that argument, so we now hear a new terminology centered around a quasi-legal definition of "person," which goes something like this: yes, the first trimester fetus is human, but it's not yet a "person," and therefore it's okay to destroy it.
What we're talking about here is the redefinition of human life. The precepts of Judeo-Christian values and Christian moral truth that informed the founding documents and legal system of this country defined human life as invested with an intrinsic dignity and worth by virtue of the fact that we were created beings of God in his image, "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life..." (emphasis mine). But with the abandonment of these precepts, and the adoption of a purely materialistic worldview, many are attempting to redefine the worth of human life with respect to its utility. A fetus has no utility (except perhaps as raw material for therapeutic process or experimentation) therefore it warrants no protection.
Please understand that if this redefinition is allowed to fully take root, it will transform American society in ways we can't yet imagine. The implications for issues such as genetic engineering, cloning, euthanasia, and a host of others, are the fuel of dystopian fiction writers. Just consider: when human worth is measured by its utility, what other conditions and stages of humanity, or degrees of impeded or damaged function will be devalued to the status of "non person?" The severely brain damaged? The terminally ill? The birth defective? The retarded? The old?
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Wordsmithing, part 5
tol-er-ance noun
the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.
Tolerance used to denote sufferance of the improper or eccentric as in a failure to prohibit, (owing to its origin from late Middle English, the action of bearing hardship, or the ability to bear pain); it has now taken on a connotation of acceptance or even agreement. Popular messages instruct us to "celebrate" our differences.
Once tolerance was seen as a necessary ingredient to the melting-pot society that was America; it has now been elevated to one of the highest virtues in our culture. Examine the words used as antonyms of tolerance: no longer is the intolerant person considered rigid, narrow-minded and nationalistic; he is now regarded as bigoted, hateful and...evil. On the other hand, to be tolerant is to be inclusive, compassionate, and pure of heart.
Tolerance, as defined in the dictionary quotation in the header, was indispensable to American democracy. It allowed voices of dissent--even though they were outre and extremist--while at the same time validating the idea of the normal; it allowed society to hold--and declare--convictions of moral truth without the condemnation of those statements as "hate speech."
With the redefinition of tolerance, those who would have been considered tolerant under the former definition--allowing the voice of dissent while sternly disagreeing with it--are now seen, by reason of the very act of disagreement, or statement of moral certainty, to be intolerant and therefore bigoted, hateful, and...evil.
A curious derivative of this state of affairs is the reverence given to sensitivity nowadays. To be insensitive is no longer a mild faux pas -- it is the gravest offense to the soul of virtue and a social crime so egregious that it often warrants court-mandated re-education in the form of "sensitivity training." Many, these days, seem to measure their own goodness by the yardstick of their sensitivity alone. President Clinton said, "I feel your pain," and people wept at his nobility. Action is optional, but feeling is essential.
The lesson here is not that our culture is transforming to one without morality, but rather to one with a drastically different morality. Thousands of years of Western thought, informed by Judeo-Christian ethics, are being discarded and replaced--in the span of less than one generation--for an ad hoc system based on I'm okay, you're okay sentimentality. And anyone who doesn't hold with this sentiment is deemed NOT okay.
the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.
Tolerance used to denote sufferance of the improper or eccentric as in a failure to prohibit, (owing to its origin from late Middle English, the action of bearing hardship, or the ability to bear pain); it has now taken on a connotation of acceptance or even agreement. Popular messages instruct us to "celebrate" our differences.
Once tolerance was seen as a necessary ingredient to the melting-pot society that was America; it has now been elevated to one of the highest virtues in our culture. Examine the words used as antonyms of tolerance: no longer is the intolerant person considered rigid, narrow-minded and nationalistic; he is now regarded as bigoted, hateful and...evil. On the other hand, to be tolerant is to be inclusive, compassionate, and pure of heart.
Tolerance, as defined in the dictionary quotation in the header, was indispensable to American democracy. It allowed voices of dissent--even though they were outre and extremist--while at the same time validating the idea of the normal; it allowed society to hold--and declare--convictions of moral truth without the condemnation of those statements as "hate speech."
With the redefinition of tolerance, those who would have been considered tolerant under the former definition--allowing the voice of dissent while sternly disagreeing with it--are now seen, by reason of the very act of disagreement, or statement of moral certainty, to be intolerant and therefore bigoted, hateful, and...evil.
A curious derivative of this state of affairs is the reverence given to sensitivity nowadays. To be insensitive is no longer a mild faux pas -- it is the gravest offense to the soul of virtue and a social crime so egregious that it often warrants court-mandated re-education in the form of "sensitivity training." Many, these days, seem to measure their own goodness by the yardstick of their sensitivity alone. President Clinton said, "I feel your pain," and people wept at his nobility. Action is optional, but feeling is essential.
The lesson here is not that our culture is transforming to one without morality, but rather to one with a drastically different morality. Thousands of years of Western thought, informed by Judeo-Christian ethics, are being discarded and replaced--in the span of less than one generation--for an ad hoc system based on I'm okay, you're okay sentimentality. And anyone who doesn't hold with this sentiment is deemed NOT okay.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Wordsmithing, part 4
Pa-tri-ot noun,
A person who loves, supports, and defends his country.
Vice President Cheney, in a recent interview in Japan, criticized the plans of Speaker of the House Pelosi and Rep. Murtha to place restrictions on the President's request for additional funds that would make it difficult or impossible to send 21,500 extra troops to Iraq--the now famous "surge." In response, Speaker Pelosi called the office of the President to complain. When she was only able to talk to White House chief of staff Josh Bolton, which apparently left her unsatisfied, she issued the following statement:
Vice President Cheney continues to question the patriotism of those of us in Congress who challenge the Bush Administration's misguided policies in Iraq, but his latest attack is beneath the office of the Vice President, especially at a time of war.
This is equivalent to a basketball player who, when charged, falls down and pretends injury. It's also an example of wordsmithing which the Democrats have used over the duration of the Iraqi war. I have long since lost count of the number of times and the number of people who have made the accusation against the President, the Vice President, and many others in the Republican leadership, of "questioning their patriotism" any time their calls for a pull-out from Iraq are in turn criticized. But despite this tedious litany of accusation, I have yet to see one solid example of the words "unpatriotic" or "un-American" attributed to a Democrat by anyone in the Bush administration, or even the Republican leadership.
Nothing is easier than defining someone else's motives for the sake of your argument. This is a wordsmithing tactic that has almost limitless possibilities for exploitation.
A person who loves, supports, and defends his country.
Vice President Cheney, in a recent interview in Japan, criticized the plans of Speaker of the House Pelosi and Rep. Murtha to place restrictions on the President's request for additional funds that would make it difficult or impossible to send 21,500 extra troops to Iraq--the now famous "surge." In response, Speaker Pelosi called the office of the President to complain. When she was only able to talk to White House chief of staff Josh Bolton, which apparently left her unsatisfied, she issued the following statement:
Vice President Cheney continues to question the patriotism of those of us in Congress who challenge the Bush Administration's misguided policies in Iraq, but his latest attack is beneath the office of the Vice President, especially at a time of war.
This is equivalent to a basketball player who, when charged, falls down and pretends injury. It's also an example of wordsmithing which the Democrats have used over the duration of the Iraqi war. I have long since lost count of the number of times and the number of people who have made the accusation against the President, the Vice President, and many others in the Republican leadership, of "questioning their patriotism" any time their calls for a pull-out from Iraq are in turn criticized. But despite this tedious litany of accusation, I have yet to see one solid example of the words "unpatriotic" or "un-American" attributed to a Democrat by anyone in the Bush administration, or even the Republican leadership.
Nothing is easier than defining someone else's motives for the sake of your argument. This is a wordsmithing tactic that has almost limitless possibilities for exploitation.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
A reprint
I was energized by an article I read today by John Andrews on TownHall.com, and especially the comments from readers posted after the article. After reading the entire thread, I decided to wade in myself. Click here for a link to the article and comments--mine included.
And below is a reprint of my comments:
I have to admit, this has been amusing. But here's a few responses; I'll try to be brief. To Mr. Hurley:
You assert that America is "being led by stupid, vindictive, short-sighted evil people who's only aim is power..." That doesn't tell me much except that you can string together a lot of adjectives. Can you--you know... give me some examples? The "evil" moniker, for instance. 'Cause I could spend the rest of my life giving you examples of why the rulers of Iraq, Iran, North Korea deserved President Bush's attribution as the "Axis of Evil." Or how about your accusation that the "Bill of Rights has been hidden in a dark, dark place." What exactly has led you and your mates to that conclussion? All this hyperbole really tells me is that you have an appalling ignorance of both American and British history, a trait you share with most of the American press, and pretty much all of the European press. I suggest you read Andrew Roberts' "A History of the English speaking peoples since 1900." Here's a link for you:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/History-English-Speaking-Peoples-since/dp/0297850768
As to your reference to America pis*ing on it's (sic) [please see Strunk and White's "The Elements of Style" Chapter 1, pg. 1] allies, you must have read your fellow Brit, Brian Reade in the "Daily Mirror" when he wrote: "Were I a Kerry voter, though, I'd feel deep anger, not only at them returning Bush to power, but for allowing the outside world to lump us all into the same category of moronic muppets. The self-righteous, gun-totin', military-lovin', sister-marryin', abortion-hatin', gay-loathin', foreigner-despisin', non-passport ownin' red-necks, who believe God gave America the biggest d*ck in the world so it could urinate on the rest of us and make their land 'free and strong.'" Since you live in the UK, and have traveled so extensively, I'm sure you can confirm that this sort of thing is daily fare, not just in every British newspaper, radio, and TV punditry, but all through the rest of Europe as well.
Here's another quote from you: "Will America wake up before AMERICAN citizens start disappearing into secret prison camps? Before the secret wiretapping of millions of AMERICAN citizens? Before there are secret military tribunals? Before defence (sic) lawyers are spied upon and vilified as traitors? Before people are held for years without trial or counsel?"
Which AMERICAN (can you please stop SCREAMING the word american at me?) citizens have disappeared into secret prison camps? Oh, of course they're *secret* so you can't know, you can only make the accusation; I understand. And millions of AMERICAN citizens wiretapped; really? Millions? Who reads all that stuff? I didn't realize the NSA had that many employees. Am I really supposed to take anything you say seriously after such fatuous remarks as these? And just between us, you make yourself look truly pathetic by sniveling "DISSENT WILL NOT BE TOLERATED," with reference to those who have angrily disagreed with you. Is it really necessary for me to point out that if your quarrel with Mr. Andrews' column were not tolerated, your post would have been deleted by Townhall.com?
Now, to The Shrew:
I don't doubt for a second that the word "patriot" isn't used much by Brits these days, seeing as how the word means, "a person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors," especially considering how the British military has been reduced to the pitiful remnant of its former self, as described by Max Boot in a recent article in LA Times:
"The total size of its armed forces has shrunk from 305,800 in 1990 to 195,900 today, leaving it No. 28 in the world, behind Eritrea and Burma. This downsizing has reduced the entire British army (107,000 soldiers) to almost half the size of the U.S. Marine Corps (175,000). Storied regiments such as the Black Watch and the Royal Scots, with histories stretching back centuries, have been eliminated.
"Even worse hit is the Royal Navy, which is at its smallest size since the 1500s. Now, British newspapers report, of the remaining 44 warships, at least 13 and possibly as many as 19 will be mothballed. If these cuts go through, Britain's fleet will be about the same size as those of Indonesia and Turkey and smaller than that of its age-old rival, France."
And since the British parliment obviously sees the funding of ever increasing welfare entitlements as more important than their own military (as they seem to be inversely proportional), it's no wonder Brits don't "fetishise" their flag as Americans do. (Hey, I've got to hand it to you, that was a nifty little contempt-ridden pejoritive you used for the reverence that we American's hold for our flag. Boy, it really endeared your argument to me!)
As for your claim that the United States acted in, "...overthrowing democratically elected governments (in Nicaragua for example)," where did you come up with that one? Are you really that ignorant of such recent history? Daniel Ortega took power over Nicaragua in 1984, then promptly consolidated that power by suspending any further elections, and collectivising property and businesses all over the country.
"Opponents charged that the Sandinistas had manipulated conditions during the election campaign in such a way that, although clean at first sight, the vote was actually rather tainted. The U.S. government of Ronald Reagan shared the opposition's criticisms and further intensified U.S. support for the so-called "Contra" rebels -- a coalition of dissatisfied peasants, former Sandinista allies and Somozistas. The result was a cruel and costly civil war that in 1989 compelled the Sandinistas to accept a peace arrangement negotiated by Costa Rican President Oscar Arias Sanchez.
In the February 1990 elections under the Arias agreement, Ortega and the Sandinistas lost to a right-centrist coalition led by Violeta Barrios de Chamorro. Ortega relinquished the presidency the following April." (from CNN Cold War profile of Daniel Ortega)
So according to you, the Sandinista revolution that ousted Somoza and ended with the election of Ortega was a legitimate "democratically elected government," but the election that Violeta Barrios de Chamorro won against Ortega was an "overthrowing" of that government? How convenient for your argument!
And lastly, I'm weary to the bone of leftist claims that the US supported Saddam Hussein. As best as I can figure this is based totally on one picture, reprinted ad nauseum, of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein during a short diplomatic stop in Iraq in the 80s. The fact is that under Hussein, Iraq was armed by Soviets and the French, and the majority of the chemicals they used for their chemical weapons programs were sold to them by the Germans. The United States had armed Iran, under the Shah. This is why the Iran/Iraq war (besides occupying both of our enemies fighting each other, and therefore not free to create mischief against us) was of such interest to both superpowers: it was a test of Soviet and French made weapons against US made weapons.
And below is a reprint of my comments:
I have to admit, this has been amusing. But here's a few responses; I'll try to be brief. To Mr. Hurley:
You assert that America is "being led by stupid, vindictive, short-sighted evil people who's only aim is power..." That doesn't tell me much except that you can string together a lot of adjectives. Can you--you know... give me some examples? The "evil" moniker, for instance. 'Cause I could spend the rest of my life giving you examples of why the rulers of Iraq, Iran, North Korea deserved President Bush's attribution as the "Axis of Evil." Or how about your accusation that the "Bill of Rights has been hidden in a dark, dark place." What exactly has led you and your mates to that conclussion? All this hyperbole really tells me is that you have an appalling ignorance of both American and British history, a trait you share with most of the American press, and pretty much all of the European press. I suggest you read Andrew Roberts' "A History of the English speaking peoples since 1900." Here's a link for you:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/History-English-Speaking-Peoples-since/dp/0297850768
As to your reference to America pis*ing on it's (sic) [please see Strunk and White's "The Elements of Style" Chapter 1, pg. 1] allies, you must have read your fellow Brit, Brian Reade in the "Daily Mirror" when he wrote: "Were I a Kerry voter, though, I'd feel deep anger, not only at them returning Bush to power, but for allowing the outside world to lump us all into the same category of moronic muppets. The self-righteous, gun-totin', military-lovin', sister-marryin', abortion-hatin', gay-loathin', foreigner-despisin', non-passport ownin' red-necks, who believe God gave America the biggest d*ck in the world so it could urinate on the rest of us and make their land 'free and strong.'" Since you live in the UK, and have traveled so extensively, I'm sure you can confirm that this sort of thing is daily fare, not just in every British newspaper, radio, and TV punditry, but all through the rest of Europe as well.
Here's another quote from you: "Will America wake up before AMERICAN citizens start disappearing into secret prison camps? Before the secret wiretapping of millions of AMERICAN citizens? Before there are secret military tribunals? Before defence (sic) lawyers are spied upon and vilified as traitors? Before people are held for years without trial or counsel?"
Which AMERICAN (can you please stop SCREAMING the word american at me?) citizens have disappeared into secret prison camps? Oh, of course they're *secret* so you can't know, you can only make the accusation; I understand. And millions of AMERICAN citizens wiretapped; really? Millions? Who reads all that stuff? I didn't realize the NSA had that many employees. Am I really supposed to take anything you say seriously after such fatuous remarks as these? And just between us, you make yourself look truly pathetic by sniveling "DISSENT WILL NOT BE TOLERATED," with reference to those who have angrily disagreed with you. Is it really necessary for me to point out that if your quarrel with Mr. Andrews' column were not tolerated, your post would have been deleted by Townhall.com?
Now, to The Shrew:
I don't doubt for a second that the word "patriot" isn't used much by Brits these days, seeing as how the word means, "a person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors," especially considering how the British military has been reduced to the pitiful remnant of its former self, as described by Max Boot in a recent article in LA Times:
"The total size of its armed forces has shrunk from 305,800 in 1990 to 195,900 today, leaving it No. 28 in the world, behind Eritrea and Burma. This downsizing has reduced the entire British army (107,000 soldiers) to almost half the size of the U.S. Marine Corps (175,000). Storied regiments such as the Black Watch and the Royal Scots, with histories stretching back centuries, have been eliminated.
"Even worse hit is the Royal Navy, which is at its smallest size since the 1500s. Now, British newspapers report, of the remaining 44 warships, at least 13 and possibly as many as 19 will be mothballed. If these cuts go through, Britain's fleet will be about the same size as those of Indonesia and Turkey and smaller than that of its age-old rival, France."
And since the British parliment obviously sees the funding of ever increasing welfare entitlements as more important than their own military (as they seem to be inversely proportional), it's no wonder Brits don't "fetishise" their flag as Americans do. (Hey, I've got to hand it to you, that was a nifty little contempt-ridden pejoritive you used for the reverence that we American's hold for our flag. Boy, it really endeared your argument to me!)
As for your claim that the United States acted in, "...overthrowing democratically elected governments (in Nicaragua for example)," where did you come up with that one? Are you really that ignorant of such recent history? Daniel Ortega took power over Nicaragua in 1984, then promptly consolidated that power by suspending any further elections, and collectivising property and businesses all over the country.
"Opponents charged that the Sandinistas had manipulated conditions during the election campaign in such a way that, although clean at first sight, the vote was actually rather tainted. The U.S. government of Ronald Reagan shared the opposition's criticisms and further intensified U.S. support for the so-called "Contra" rebels -- a coalition of dissatisfied peasants, former Sandinista allies and Somozistas. The result was a cruel and costly civil war that in 1989 compelled the Sandinistas to accept a peace arrangement negotiated by Costa Rican President Oscar Arias Sanchez.
In the February 1990 elections under the Arias agreement, Ortega and the Sandinistas lost to a right-centrist coalition led by Violeta Barrios de Chamorro. Ortega relinquished the presidency the following April." (from CNN Cold War profile of Daniel Ortega)
So according to you, the Sandinista revolution that ousted Somoza and ended with the election of Ortega was a legitimate "democratically elected government," but the election that Violeta Barrios de Chamorro won against Ortega was an "overthrowing" of that government? How convenient for your argument!
And lastly, I'm weary to the bone of leftist claims that the US supported Saddam Hussein. As best as I can figure this is based totally on one picture, reprinted ad nauseum, of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein during a short diplomatic stop in Iraq in the 80s. The fact is that under Hussein, Iraq was armed by Soviets and the French, and the majority of the chemicals they used for their chemical weapons programs were sold to them by the Germans. The United States had armed Iran, under the Shah. This is why the Iran/Iraq war (besides occupying both of our enemies fighting each other, and therefore not free to create mischief against us) was of such interest to both superpowers: it was a test of Soviet and French made weapons against US made weapons.
Saturday, March 03, 2007
Liberty or security?
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Benjamin Franklin
Comedian and soon to be radio talk show host Dennis Miller appeared on daytime TV show "The View" a few days ago and was quoted a paraphrased version of the above by Rosie O'Donnel in reference to the Patriot Act, which she attributed to "taking away our freedom."
I could spend a lot of time arguing that the Left's ranting against the Patriot Act is unfounded hysteria, but since I want to talk about something else, suffice it to say that I have yet to read of a single abuse of the act. Does anyone doubt for a second that if the popular media could find such an abuse, it would haunt the front page of the New York Times and be the lead story on every major news cast for weeks on end, just as the Abu Ghraib scandal was?
What concerns me more is the way this Franklin quote has been used ad infinitum by the Left to argue against every security measure imposed by the government since 9/11. At it's heart it's a sham argument, an all-or-nothing way of thinking; one of the slogans endlessly repeated that at first blush has the sense of being profound, but which falls apart at the slightest prodding of reason.
Applying Rosie's logic in this instance, I might ask her if she has then abandoned her rabid advocacy for gun control. Aren't gun control laws, at least in theory (if not in fact), a case of giving up a liberty--the liberty to own a handgun--to gain security? How about speed limits on our roads; is she against those as well? Aren't they constraining my liberty to drive as I might like?
Consider another popular slogan repeated like a mantra of "progressive" thought: "I'm against all forms of censorship!" Seems reasonable enough on its surface--freedom of speech and all that. Until one asks the question, "so you think child pornography should be allowed?" And then, of course, in the clear light of logic it is instantly apparent that it's no longer of question of whether there ought to be censorship--of course there should!--but rather to what degree should society censor.
Move away from childish platitudes such as these and you realize that all such questions are a negotiation of competing desires: the desire to act freely, the desire to be safe, the desire to speak one's mind, the desire to retain our children's innocence. All our laws, our social mores, our civilization itself--all civilizations for that matter--is a negotiated, reasoned system of constraints--limits, if you will--on individual liberty, evolved over millennia of human experience, to protect us against the chaos and anarchy of absolute freedom.
Now that I think about it, that would make a pretty good horror story. A comet passes close to Earth and suddenly everyone feels no more compunction to obey any limits on their freedom. Everyone all at once begins to do exactly what he or she want, when they want... Come to think of it, that's a little too horrible to contemplate.
Comedian and soon to be radio talk show host Dennis Miller appeared on daytime TV show "The View" a few days ago and was quoted a paraphrased version of the above by Rosie O'Donnel in reference to the Patriot Act, which she attributed to "taking away our freedom."
I could spend a lot of time arguing that the Left's ranting against the Patriot Act is unfounded hysteria, but since I want to talk about something else, suffice it to say that I have yet to read of a single abuse of the act. Does anyone doubt for a second that if the popular media could find such an abuse, it would haunt the front page of the New York Times and be the lead story on every major news cast for weeks on end, just as the Abu Ghraib scandal was?
What concerns me more is the way this Franklin quote has been used ad infinitum by the Left to argue against every security measure imposed by the government since 9/11. At it's heart it's a sham argument, an all-or-nothing way of thinking; one of the slogans endlessly repeated that at first blush has the sense of being profound, but which falls apart at the slightest prodding of reason.
Applying Rosie's logic in this instance, I might ask her if she has then abandoned her rabid advocacy for gun control. Aren't gun control laws, at least in theory (if not in fact), a case of giving up a liberty--the liberty to own a handgun--to gain security? How about speed limits on our roads; is she against those as well? Aren't they constraining my liberty to drive as I might like?
Consider another popular slogan repeated like a mantra of "progressive" thought: "I'm against all forms of censorship!" Seems reasonable enough on its surface--freedom of speech and all that. Until one asks the question, "so you think child pornography should be allowed?" And then, of course, in the clear light of logic it is instantly apparent that it's no longer of question of whether there ought to be censorship--of course there should!--but rather to what degree should society censor.
Move away from childish platitudes such as these and you realize that all such questions are a negotiation of competing desires: the desire to act freely, the desire to be safe, the desire to speak one's mind, the desire to retain our children's innocence. All our laws, our social mores, our civilization itself--all civilizations for that matter--is a negotiated, reasoned system of constraints--limits, if you will--on individual liberty, evolved over millennia of human experience, to protect us against the chaos and anarchy of absolute freedom.
Now that I think about it, that would make a pretty good horror story. A comet passes close to Earth and suddenly everyone feels no more compunction to obey any limits on their freedom. Everyone all at once begins to do exactly what he or she want, when they want... Come to think of it, that's a little too horrible to contemplate.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Wordsmithing, part 3
Is-lam-o-pho-bi-a noun,
a hatred or fear of Islam or Muslims, especially when feared as a political force.
As in my last post about homophobia, the above word is another example of wordsmithing in one of its most clever and effective forms: victimology. As one of its exceptionally potent weapons, the left in this country has used victimology to great success for many decades. In his brilliant book, Radical Son, David Horowitz tells his story of being raised by committed Stalinist parents who were both teachers in the New York public school system, and as one of many "red diaper babies" (children of the Stalinists who inundated the ranks of teachers in the New York public schools), walked in protest marches against racial discrimination as he was growing up. Black racial issues were, from the beginning of the Communist Party movement in the United States, a cause celebre for the left, not as a matter of genuine concern, but as a method of discrediting the United States government and diminishing its moral legitimacy. And of course in the case of racial discrimination it was all too true that the United States failed appallingly to live up to its principles as stated in its founding documents, and the "better angels of our nature."
Spreading out from that stone of authentic victimhood that Stalinists used to their advantage are concentric ripples of ever increasing absurdities co-opted by various constituents of identity politics. Mark Steyn, in his simultaneously hilarious and terrifying book, America Alone points out a delicious example of leftists victimology, with it's attendant wordsmithing, run amok:
For example, Iqbal Sacranie is a Muslim of such exemplary "moderation" he's been knighted by the Queen. Around the time Brokeback Mountain opened, Sir Iqbal, head of the Muslim Council of Britain, was on the BBC and expressed the view that homosexuality was "immoral," "not acceptable," "spreads disease," and "damaged the very foundations of society." A gay group complained and Sir Iqbal was investigated by Scotland Yard's "community safety unit" which deals with "hate crimes" and "homophobia."
Independently but simultaneously, the magazine of GALHA (the Gay And Lesbian Humanist Association) called Islam a "barmy doctrine" growing "like a canker" and deeply "homophobic." In return, the London Race Hate Crime Forum asked Scotland Yard to investigate GALHA for "Islamophobia."
Got that? If a Muslim says that Islam is opposed to homosexuality, he can be investigated for homophobia; but if a gay says that Islam is opposed to homosexuality, he can be investigated for Islamophobia.
Oddly enough, the one group in the United States of which it is perfectly acceptable to revile in any way and by any medium is Christians. There are literally hundreds of books presently for sale on the shelves whose premise is the danger, bigotry, intolerance, conspiracies to take over government, and a host of other horrors attributed to Christianity.
As an evangelical Christian myself, and therefore targeted by this tidal wave of vitriol, I occasionally find myself wondering if we should invent a victimology word of our own to deploy in our defense: Christophobia? Christianophobia? Evangelicophobia? Well, they don't exactly roll off the tongue, do they?
So, I guess not. Better to do what Jesus himself advised: turn the other cheek.
a hatred or fear of Islam or Muslims, especially when feared as a political force.
As in my last post about homophobia, the above word is another example of wordsmithing in one of its most clever and effective forms: victimology. As one of its exceptionally potent weapons, the left in this country has used victimology to great success for many decades. In his brilliant book, Radical Son, David Horowitz tells his story of being raised by committed Stalinist parents who were both teachers in the New York public school system, and as one of many "red diaper babies" (children of the Stalinists who inundated the ranks of teachers in the New York public schools), walked in protest marches against racial discrimination as he was growing up. Black racial issues were, from the beginning of the Communist Party movement in the United States, a cause celebre for the left, not as a matter of genuine concern, but as a method of discrediting the United States government and diminishing its moral legitimacy. And of course in the case of racial discrimination it was all too true that the United States failed appallingly to live up to its principles as stated in its founding documents, and the "better angels of our nature."
Spreading out from that stone of authentic victimhood that Stalinists used to their advantage are concentric ripples of ever increasing absurdities co-opted by various constituents of identity politics. Mark Steyn, in his simultaneously hilarious and terrifying book, America Alone points out a delicious example of leftists victimology, with it's attendant wordsmithing, run amok:
For example, Iqbal Sacranie is a Muslim of such exemplary "moderation" he's been knighted by the Queen. Around the time Brokeback Mountain opened, Sir Iqbal, head of the Muslim Council of Britain, was on the BBC and expressed the view that homosexuality was "immoral," "not acceptable," "spreads disease," and "damaged the very foundations of society." A gay group complained and Sir Iqbal was investigated by Scotland Yard's "community safety unit" which deals with "hate crimes" and "homophobia."
Independently but simultaneously, the magazine of GALHA (the Gay And Lesbian Humanist Association) called Islam a "barmy doctrine" growing "like a canker" and deeply "homophobic." In return, the London Race Hate Crime Forum asked Scotland Yard to investigate GALHA for "Islamophobia."
Got that? If a Muslim says that Islam is opposed to homosexuality, he can be investigated for homophobia; but if a gay says that Islam is opposed to homosexuality, he can be investigated for Islamophobia.
Oddly enough, the one group in the United States of which it is perfectly acceptable to revile in any way and by any medium is Christians. There are literally hundreds of books presently for sale on the shelves whose premise is the danger, bigotry, intolerance, conspiracies to take over government, and a host of other horrors attributed to Christianity.
As an evangelical Christian myself, and therefore targeted by this tidal wave of vitriol, I occasionally find myself wondering if we should invent a victimology word of our own to deploy in our defense: Christophobia? Christianophobia? Evangelicophobia? Well, they don't exactly roll off the tongue, do they?
So, I guess not. Better to do what Jesus himself advised: turn the other cheek.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Wordsmithing, part 2
The word homophobe does not appear in my 1975 edition of the American Heritage Dictionary. My computer dictonary, however, defines it as: "an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people." The word as so defined was first coined by clinical psycologist George Weinberg in 1969. As such, there can be no doubt that it was an invented word with an ideological purpose. But as ideologically charged as the word was from its origins, it's interesting to see how its usage has changed over time.
My best recollection is that the word was first commonly used to describe the truly irrational practice of "gay bashing" , where, usually, young thugs would prowl the inner city streets and target soliciting homosexuals for mugging. The accepted rationale for this phenomenon was the thugs' raging hatred of homosexuals. This certainly fit with gay rights activist's agenda of promoting greater social tolerance of homosexual behavior. I'm unaware, however, if a study was ever done to ascertain whether the motive, in the majority of such cases, was really hatred of homosexuals, or the perception on the part of the muggers of soliciting gays as effeminate, making them unlikely to resist and thereby easy victims of violence or robbery.
These days the word homophobe, and its derivatives, homophobic & homophobia are used like scatter-shot from a blunderbuss, an all-purpse accusation to silence not just any argument concerning the morality or respectability of homosexual practice, but also to punish and socially condemn anyone who refuses to celebrate the beauty and virtue of another variety of expression of human love. The fact that popular culture--academia, public schools, mainstream news media, and even television situation comedies--has so thoroughly embraced this idea, all in less than a single generation, perhaps explains why those of us who are advocates of traditional and religious morality are at a loss to come up with a vocabulary with which to argue our side. But of course the genius of this wordsmithing strategy by the gay lobby is that even if we had a lexicon for our argument, we wouldn't be able to use it. No matter how reasoned, dispassionate and authoritative our case, it would not be acceptable; it would not be viewed as a legitimate debate, but rather the ravings of the mentally unstable. To gay advocacy, disagreement with them, or refusal to socially endorse and even celebrate the legitimacy of homosexual practice is not fair argument: it's neurosis.
My best recollection is that the word was first commonly used to describe the truly irrational practice of "gay bashing" , where, usually, young thugs would prowl the inner city streets and target soliciting homosexuals for mugging. The accepted rationale for this phenomenon was the thugs' raging hatred of homosexuals. This certainly fit with gay rights activist's agenda of promoting greater social tolerance of homosexual behavior. I'm unaware, however, if a study was ever done to ascertain whether the motive, in the majority of such cases, was really hatred of homosexuals, or the perception on the part of the muggers of soliciting gays as effeminate, making them unlikely to resist and thereby easy victims of violence or robbery.
These days the word homophobe, and its derivatives, homophobic & homophobia are used like scatter-shot from a blunderbuss, an all-purpse accusation to silence not just any argument concerning the morality or respectability of homosexual practice, but also to punish and socially condemn anyone who refuses to celebrate the beauty and virtue of another variety of expression of human love. The fact that popular culture--academia, public schools, mainstream news media, and even television situation comedies--has so thoroughly embraced this idea, all in less than a single generation, perhaps explains why those of us who are advocates of traditional and religious morality are at a loss to come up with a vocabulary with which to argue our side. But of course the genius of this wordsmithing strategy by the gay lobby is that even if we had a lexicon for our argument, we wouldn't be able to use it. No matter how reasoned, dispassionate and authoritative our case, it would not be acceptable; it would not be viewed as a legitimate debate, but rather the ravings of the mentally unstable. To gay advocacy, disagreement with them, or refusal to socially endorse and even celebrate the legitimacy of homosexual practice is not fair argument: it's neurosis.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Wordsmithing
Smith, the most common surname in the English language, was originally a job title. A smith was a metal worker--hence, blacksmith (for a worker of black iron). The modern meaning of the noun from which I have derived the verb of my title, wordsmith, is simply "a prolific writer", but I'm implying something a bit different here, rather the molding of words to suit the user's purpose. One of the most blatant examples of this is the way--through very careful and cynical manipulation--the word gender has supplanted the word sex in contemporary speech.
This sort of thing happens naturally in language, but it tends to take quite a long time, and it happens organically. For instance, the word gentleman at one time in England specifically spoke of a man's social ranking as defined by the amount of property he owned. Over an indeterminate amount of time, the meaning changed such that it now holds no connotation whatever to property ownership, but rather denotes a fellow of gallant and polite character. But what has happened with gender, is something quite different. We have seen this change in just a few short years, and for very political reasons.
I first encountered this misusage of the word back in the 80's at a writer's workshop conducted in the house of writer and editor Damon Knight. A young woman, an extreme feminist (as were Damon and his wife, Kate Wilhelm, who co-hosted the workshop, by the way) used gender in lieu of sex in reference to someone, and Damon immediately corrected her. "Words have gender, people have sex," he said. Whatever Damon's politics, he had too much respect for language to indulge its misuse. And of course he was right. Gender is an attribute of words, most commonly in Latin-derived languages. So, in Spanish, words ending in "o"--hermano, mucho, luego,--are of masculine gender, and words ending in "a"--hermana, puerta, hasta--are of feminine gender. Arnold Schwarzenneger's famous line in Terminator II, "No problemo," was incorrect, because the word is actually feminine. He should have said, "No problema." People, however, are of the male or female sex. Sex denotes biology. And here lies the crux of why this change in usage has been engineered.
Proponents of identity politics--most specifically BGLT activists (BGLT, in case you're wondering, stands for Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian and Transsexual)--want to remove the connection between biology and sexual identity. In universities all across the country the long-standing American custom of bathrooms designated by sex is being challenged. The underlying goal is to allow an individual's "feelings" about his or her sexual identity to determine social conventions rather than his or her biology. According to this way of thinking, if an individual endowed with male sexual organs nevertheless "feels" he is instead a woman, he should be allowed, not only to identify himself as such by wearing woman's clothing and adopting a female name, but also to relieve himself in the presence of biological women in bathrooms marked "women".
I'm not sure to what degree the bathroom controversy has been successful for the self-proclaimed "progressives" in our cultural milieu, but in the area of replacing sex with gender, they have definitely won the day. It's depressing to me to hear normally carefully spoken conservatives such as Michael Medved regularly indulge in this misusage. Let me here plead with my fellow conservatives: the next time you are tempted to use gender instead of sex with reference to human beings, please stop and consider that in doing so you will be participating in the destruction of the meaning of what it is to be a man or woman in our culture.
This sort of thing happens naturally in language, but it tends to take quite a long time, and it happens organically. For instance, the word gentleman at one time in England specifically spoke of a man's social ranking as defined by the amount of property he owned. Over an indeterminate amount of time, the meaning changed such that it now holds no connotation whatever to property ownership, but rather denotes a fellow of gallant and polite character. But what has happened with gender, is something quite different. We have seen this change in just a few short years, and for very political reasons.
I first encountered this misusage of the word back in the 80's at a writer's workshop conducted in the house of writer and editor Damon Knight. A young woman, an extreme feminist (as were Damon and his wife, Kate Wilhelm, who co-hosted the workshop, by the way) used gender in lieu of sex in reference to someone, and Damon immediately corrected her. "Words have gender, people have sex," he said. Whatever Damon's politics, he had too much respect for language to indulge its misuse. And of course he was right. Gender is an attribute of words, most commonly in Latin-derived languages. So, in Spanish, words ending in "o"--hermano, mucho, luego,--are of masculine gender, and words ending in "a"--hermana, puerta, hasta--are of feminine gender. Arnold Schwarzenneger's famous line in Terminator II, "No problemo," was incorrect, because the word is actually feminine. He should have said, "No problema." People, however, are of the male or female sex. Sex denotes biology. And here lies the crux of why this change in usage has been engineered.
Proponents of identity politics--most specifically BGLT activists (BGLT, in case you're wondering, stands for Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian and Transsexual)--want to remove the connection between biology and sexual identity. In universities all across the country the long-standing American custom of bathrooms designated by sex is being challenged. The underlying goal is to allow an individual's "feelings" about his or her sexual identity to determine social conventions rather than his or her biology. According to this way of thinking, if an individual endowed with male sexual organs nevertheless "feels" he is instead a woman, he should be allowed, not only to identify himself as such by wearing woman's clothing and adopting a female name, but also to relieve himself in the presence of biological women in bathrooms marked "women".
I'm not sure to what degree the bathroom controversy has been successful for the self-proclaimed "progressives" in our cultural milieu, but in the area of replacing sex with gender, they have definitely won the day. It's depressing to me to hear normally carefully spoken conservatives such as Michael Medved regularly indulge in this misusage. Let me here plead with my fellow conservatives: the next time you are tempted to use gender instead of sex with reference to human beings, please stop and consider that in doing so you will be participating in the destruction of the meaning of what it is to be a man or woman in our culture.
Saturday, August 26, 2006
American loyalty
Recently I received an email from my mother with a forwarded message from a family friend in California. One of our friend's coworkers had received an email which posed the question of whether a "good" Muslim could also be a "good" American and then proceeded to answer the question in the negative with Quranic references. The coworker questioned our friend if the material in the email was true. Knowing that I had read somewhat on the subject, she forwarded the email to me through my mother. Following is first a reprint of the email, and then my response.
Can a good Muslim be a good American?
I forwarded that question to a friend that
worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years.
The following is his forwarded reply:
Theologically - no. Because his allegiance is to
Allah, the moon God of Arabia.
Religiously - no. Because no other religion is
accepted by his Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)
Scripturally - no. Because his allegiance is to
the five pillars of Islam and the Quran (Koran).
Geographically - no. Because his allegiance is
to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.
Socially - no. Because his allegiance to Islam
forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.
Politically - no. Because he must submit to the
mullah (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and
Destruction of America, the great Satan.
Domestically - no. Because he is instructed to
marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him
(Quran 4:34).
Intellectually - no. Because he cannot accept
the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and
he believes the Bible to be corrupt.
Philosophically - no. Because Islam, Muhammad,
and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression.
Democracy
and Islam cannot
co-exist. Every Muslim government is either
dictatorial or autocratic.
Spiritually - no. Because when we declare "one
nation under God," the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah
is NEVER referred to as heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in
The Quran's 99 excellent names.
Therefore after much study and deliberation...
perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country.
They obviously cannot be both "good" Muslims and good Americans. Call
it what you wish....it's still the truth.
* * * *
My reply:
The easy answer to this question is, it depends on what kind of Muslim we're talking about. The latest statistic I've heard is that there are something like a billion and a half Muslims in the world these days. With over two billion Catholics, that puts Christianity as still the most populist world religion, but I think it would be safe to say that the majority of Muslims, just as the majority of those who identify themselves as Christians, see their religious identity as civic or hereditary rather than a true, personal commitment; so in the same way that there are many (perhaps a majority) who claim to be Catholics, yet rarely attend Mass, give confession or pray, I suspect the same can probably be said of most Muslims in world--in other words, they don't say their daily prayers, fast during Ramadan, attend a Mosque, or have a single verse of the Quran memorized. For that type of Muslim I would wager that being a loyal American is perfectly okay. We know there are many Muslim Americans in the armed forces. It stands to reason that a substantial number of them would fall into this category.
The question gets more complicated, however, as we look at more committed Muslims. It's not so much a question of first loyalty. Christianity and Judaism demands first loyalty to God over national identity just as Islam does. But at the heart of this question is how each religion views civic government; this is one of the areas where Christianity and Islam are most at odds.
There are two scriptures which define Christianity with respect to civic government, and they embody the unique way in which Christianity in the United States has approached its relationship with the state (unlike historic Christianity in Europe): the first is Luke 22:21, "Therefore render to Caesar the things that Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." The second is John 18:36, Jesus' answer to Pilate's question if he was the King of the Jews, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world." For the first three centuries of the church it followed these dictums from Jesus, and despite intense persecution, flourished. But with the conversion of Constantine, and the establishment of Christianity as the state religion of the Roman empire--a departure from these dictums--it entered a long dark history of corruption and horror as earthly kingdoms perverted Christianity for its own purposes, and the church tried to rely on those kingdoms to exercise authority over men. Finally, with the unique governmental experiment that was the United States, Christianity once again flourished as it had in the early centuries of the church by recognizing--and codifying in the establishment clause of the Constitution--that civil government and "the kingdom of God" inhabited different realms. Christian moral truth influenced American law, but law did not enforce church orthodoxy (i.e. punishment for breaking the Sabbath, blasphemy, heresy, apostasy, etc.).
While admittedly much of Christian history has been at odds with these principles established by Jesus, the entire concept of Islam's relationship to government is completely different. Contrary to popular myth, Christianity was not spread through religious war. Most of what might be called religious war on the part of Christendom was fought defensively against Islam, first in the Middle East (remember, Christianity started in Judea and predated Islam by 600 years), then in Spain and finally in Austria. The balance of Christian religious war was for the most part internal conflicts during the Reformation between Protestant factions and Catholics. Islam, however, was primarily spread through violent conquest, and much of that during Mohammed's own lifetime. Mohammed himself was a warrior king (or Bedouin marauder, depending on one's point of view, and the historical period in his career) and his central method of proselytizing was the threat of decapitation--convert or die. And while Jesus himself established the concept we now call the separation of church and state (although I am reluctant to use this term because of the way it is presently being abused and distorted by anti-Christian forces in our culture), there is not only no tradition or history of such a concept in Islam, such a concept is completely contrary to Islam.
The Arabic word "shar'ia" is often interpreted as religious law, but in reality it simply means law. There is no distinction in Islam between religious and secular law. Shar'ia, as codified in the Quran and the books of the Hadith (the oral traditions of Mohammed), define every aspect of legal, cultural and religious behavior for both Muslim and non-Muslim in Islamic society. Historically, Christians and Jews were tolerated in the Islamic empire as long as they met the following requirements:
*Paid a special, often exorbitant tax
*Wore clothing that instantly identified them as non-Muslim
*Never owned or rode a horse
*Never attempted to covert a Muslim
As for marriage, Muslim men to my knowledge aren't "instructed" to, but they are "allowed" to marry up to four women. This is a tradition established by Mohammed himself. Part of this tradition also has to do with the allowable age for a female to marry. Mohammed married his final "wife" when she was nine years old, which is why this is now the legal age of female "consent" in Iran. Guidelines for wife-beating are also clearly delineated by Mohammed himself in both the Quran and Hadith.
The Quran also does proscribe friendships between Muslims and non-Muslims.
"O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors; they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust. ( Quran, 5:51)"
"O ye who believe! Take not for friends and protectors those who take your religion for a mockery or sport - whether among those who received the Scripture (i.e., the Bible) before you, or among those who reject Faith; but fear ye Allah, if ye have Faith (indeed). (Quran, 5:57)"
"Yea, to those who take for friends unbelievers rather than believers: is it honour they seek among them? Nay,- all honour is with God. (Quran, 4:139)"
"O ye who believe! Turn not (for friendship) To people on whom Is the Wrath of Allah. Of the Hereafter they are Already in despair, just as The Unbelievers are In despair about those (Buried) in graves. (Quran, 60:13)
The punishment, under Shar'ia, for a Muslim who abandons the Islamic faith, whether through skepticism or conversion, is death.
I could go on, but all one has to do is look at the legal system of any Muslim country based on Quranic Shar'ia, i.e. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, or all of our favorite--Afghanistan under the Taliban. That's Shar'ia.
So perhaps the telling question to any Muslim American might be, "Do you think it would be good for America to be governed under Shar'ia law?" Ibrahim Hooper, an American convert to Islam of European heritage and spokesman for the Counsel of American Islamic Relations (CAIR), when pressed by radio talk show host Michael Medved, answered yes to this question. I can't imagine that one could find even a handful of Christians in this country who would agree that it would be a good thing for America if our legal system would adopt the death penalty for atheism, witchcraft, or heresy as some European Christian nations did in the past. But this is exactly what Islamic law would advocate.
Can a good Muslim be a good American?
I forwarded that question to a friend that
worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years.
The following is his forwarded reply:
Theologically - no. Because his allegiance is to
Allah, the moon God of Arabia.
Religiously - no. Because no other religion is
accepted by his Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)
Scripturally - no. Because his allegiance is to
the five pillars of Islam and the Quran (Koran).
Geographically - no. Because his allegiance is
to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.
Socially - no. Because his allegiance to Islam
forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.
Politically - no. Because he must submit to the
mullah (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and
Destruction of America, the great Satan.
Domestically - no. Because he is instructed to
marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him
(Quran 4:34).
Intellectually - no. Because he cannot accept
the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and
he believes the Bible to be corrupt.
Philosophically - no. Because Islam, Muhammad,
and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression.
Democracy
and Islam cannot
co-exist. Every Muslim government is either
dictatorial or autocratic.
Spiritually - no. Because when we declare "one
nation under God," the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah
is NEVER referred to as heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in
The Quran's 99 excellent names.
Therefore after much study and deliberation...
perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country.
They obviously cannot be both "good" Muslims and good Americans. Call
it what you wish....it's still the truth.
* * * *
My reply:
The easy answer to this question is, it depends on what kind of Muslim we're talking about. The latest statistic I've heard is that there are something like a billion and a half Muslims in the world these days. With over two billion Catholics, that puts Christianity as still the most populist world religion, but I think it would be safe to say that the majority of Muslims, just as the majority of those who identify themselves as Christians, see their religious identity as civic or hereditary rather than a true, personal commitment; so in the same way that there are many (perhaps a majority) who claim to be Catholics, yet rarely attend Mass, give confession or pray, I suspect the same can probably be said of most Muslims in world--in other words, they don't say their daily prayers, fast during Ramadan, attend a Mosque, or have a single verse of the Quran memorized. For that type of Muslim I would wager that being a loyal American is perfectly okay. We know there are many Muslim Americans in the armed forces. It stands to reason that a substantial number of them would fall into this category.
The question gets more complicated, however, as we look at more committed Muslims. It's not so much a question of first loyalty. Christianity and Judaism demands first loyalty to God over national identity just as Islam does. But at the heart of this question is how each religion views civic government; this is one of the areas where Christianity and Islam are most at odds.
There are two scriptures which define Christianity with respect to civic government, and they embody the unique way in which Christianity in the United States has approached its relationship with the state (unlike historic Christianity in Europe): the first is Luke 22:21, "Therefore render to Caesar the things that Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." The second is John 18:36, Jesus' answer to Pilate's question if he was the King of the Jews, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world." For the first three centuries of the church it followed these dictums from Jesus, and despite intense persecution, flourished. But with the conversion of Constantine, and the establishment of Christianity as the state religion of the Roman empire--a departure from these dictums--it entered a long dark history of corruption and horror as earthly kingdoms perverted Christianity for its own purposes, and the church tried to rely on those kingdoms to exercise authority over men. Finally, with the unique governmental experiment that was the United States, Christianity once again flourished as it had in the early centuries of the church by recognizing--and codifying in the establishment clause of the Constitution--that civil government and "the kingdom of God" inhabited different realms. Christian moral truth influenced American law, but law did not enforce church orthodoxy (i.e. punishment for breaking the Sabbath, blasphemy, heresy, apostasy, etc.).
While admittedly much of Christian history has been at odds with these principles established by Jesus, the entire concept of Islam's relationship to government is completely different. Contrary to popular myth, Christianity was not spread through religious war. Most of what might be called religious war on the part of Christendom was fought defensively against Islam, first in the Middle East (remember, Christianity started in Judea and predated Islam by 600 years), then in Spain and finally in Austria. The balance of Christian religious war was for the most part internal conflicts during the Reformation between Protestant factions and Catholics. Islam, however, was primarily spread through violent conquest, and much of that during Mohammed's own lifetime. Mohammed himself was a warrior king (or Bedouin marauder, depending on one's point of view, and the historical period in his career) and his central method of proselytizing was the threat of decapitation--convert or die. And while Jesus himself established the concept we now call the separation of church and state (although I am reluctant to use this term because of the way it is presently being abused and distorted by anti-Christian forces in our culture), there is not only no tradition or history of such a concept in Islam, such a concept is completely contrary to Islam.
The Arabic word "shar'ia" is often interpreted as religious law, but in reality it simply means law. There is no distinction in Islam between religious and secular law. Shar'ia, as codified in the Quran and the books of the Hadith (the oral traditions of Mohammed), define every aspect of legal, cultural and religious behavior for both Muslim and non-Muslim in Islamic society. Historically, Christians and Jews were tolerated in the Islamic empire as long as they met the following requirements:
*Paid a special, often exorbitant tax
*Wore clothing that instantly identified them as non-Muslim
*Never owned or rode a horse
*Never attempted to covert a Muslim
As for marriage, Muslim men to my knowledge aren't "instructed" to, but they are "allowed" to marry up to four women. This is a tradition established by Mohammed himself. Part of this tradition also has to do with the allowable age for a female to marry. Mohammed married his final "wife" when she was nine years old, which is why this is now the legal age of female "consent" in Iran. Guidelines for wife-beating are also clearly delineated by Mohammed himself in both the Quran and Hadith.
The Quran also does proscribe friendships between Muslims and non-Muslims.
"O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors; they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust. ( Quran, 5:51)"
"O ye who believe! Take not for friends and protectors those who take your religion for a mockery or sport - whether among those who received the Scripture (i.e., the Bible) before you, or among those who reject Faith; but fear ye Allah, if ye have Faith (indeed). (Quran, 5:57)"
"Yea, to those who take for friends unbelievers rather than believers: is it honour they seek among them? Nay,- all honour is with God. (Quran, 4:139)"
"O ye who believe! Turn not (for friendship) To people on whom Is the Wrath of Allah. Of the Hereafter they are Already in despair, just as The Unbelievers are In despair about those (Buried) in graves. (Quran, 60:13)
The punishment, under Shar'ia, for a Muslim who abandons the Islamic faith, whether through skepticism or conversion, is death.
I could go on, but all one has to do is look at the legal system of any Muslim country based on Quranic Shar'ia, i.e. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, or all of our favorite--Afghanistan under the Taliban. That's Shar'ia.
So perhaps the telling question to any Muslim American might be, "Do you think it would be good for America to be governed under Shar'ia law?" Ibrahim Hooper, an American convert to Islam of European heritage and spokesman for the Counsel of American Islamic Relations (CAIR), when pressed by radio talk show host Michael Medved, answered yes to this question. I can't imagine that one could find even a handful of Christians in this country who would agree that it would be a good thing for America if our legal system would adopt the death penalty for atheism, witchcraft, or heresy as some European Christian nations did in the past. But this is exactly what Islamic law would advocate.
Sunday, July 16, 2006
Moral Inversion
I recently read an interview on Frontpagemagazine.com with British journalist and author of "Londonistan", Melanie Phillips. Here's the interview:Melanie Phillips interview. In it I came across a phrase she used that was like an epiphany to me in that it seemed to perfectly state a condition so prevalent in modern society as to be ubiquitous. But it has also proven to be a tool with which to diagnose the ideological underpinnings of mainstream news articles, political statements and even films and teleplays from popular media. The phrase is "moral inversion". I hope you'll read the interview with Ms. Phillips, but let me here quote her use of the phrase to clarify my meaning:
"Multiculturalism has turned Britain'’s values inside out – and the root cause of the problem is the deconstruction of Britain'’s identity. For decades, the British elite has been consumed by loathing of its national identity and values which it decided were racist, authoritarian and generally disagreeable. Much of that was due to our old friend, post-colonial guilt. The elite was therefore vulnerable to the predations of the left, which had signed up to Gramsci'’s insight that a society could be suborned by replacing its normative values by the mores of those who transgressed them or were on society'’s margins.
This gave rise to multiculturalism and minority rights, which held that all cultures were equal to each other and which thus provided minorities with an enormous weapon with which to force the majority to give in to their demands. One of the consequences of this was moral inversion, which holds that since minorities are weak they must always be victims of the majority because it is strong. So even when minorities behave badly, it'’s always the majority'’s fault. Translate that onto the world stage, and you arrive at the view that even when third world people commit terrorist outrages against the west it must be the west which is to blame. That'’s why multicultural Britain said, after 9/11, that America '‘had it coming to them', and why, after the London bombings last July, it said the reason British Muslim boys had blown up the London transit system was because of Britain'’s support for the US in Iraq."
A most timely example of what Ms. Phillips is talking about can be seen in almost any mainstream news report on the fighting going on now between Israel and the proxies of Iran and Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas: no matter what the provocation of Palestinian terrorist or the degree of moral outrage (intensionally targeting civilians, abducting and torturing soldiers, the terrorists using their own families and children as human shields by staging their ordinance and planning headquarters in civilian housing), when Israel retaliates, it is invariably Israel that is painted by the press as a bloodthirsty agressor and cold-blooded murderer of innocent civilians. Moral inversion.
Consider a couple of issues that are benchmarks in defining Leftist from Conservative thought: the death penalty and abortion. Leftists accuse consevatives of hypocrisy for defending the Judeo-Christian definition of the sanctity of human life by opposing abortion yet supporting the death penalty, but fail to see the complete moral inversion of their own stance in equating the life of a convicted murderer and the very definition of innocence--the life of an unborn child. Leftists accuse conservatives of devaluing human life by supporting the death penalty; again, moral inversion. In reality the death penalty upholds the value of human life. The state, by taking the life of a murderer no more devalues human life than imprisoning a kidnapper (in effect, taking away his freedom) devalues freedom. Just the opposite: it's a testament to how much society values freedom that freedom is taken away from one who robs someone else's freedom.
So try it yourself. The next time you hear a politician say something that doesn't seem quite right, or read a news article that strikes you as biased or just plain chuckle-headed, apply the moral inversion test.
"Multiculturalism has turned Britain'’s values inside out – and the root cause of the problem is the deconstruction of Britain'’s identity. For decades, the British elite has been consumed by loathing of its national identity and values which it decided were racist, authoritarian and generally disagreeable. Much of that was due to our old friend, post-colonial guilt. The elite was therefore vulnerable to the predations of the left, which had signed up to Gramsci'’s insight that a society could be suborned by replacing its normative values by the mores of those who transgressed them or were on society'’s margins.
This gave rise to multiculturalism and minority rights, which held that all cultures were equal to each other and which thus provided minorities with an enormous weapon with which to force the majority to give in to their demands. One of the consequences of this was moral inversion, which holds that since minorities are weak they must always be victims of the majority because it is strong. So even when minorities behave badly, it'’s always the majority'’s fault. Translate that onto the world stage, and you arrive at the view that even when third world people commit terrorist outrages against the west it must be the west which is to blame. That'’s why multicultural Britain said, after 9/11, that America '‘had it coming to them', and why, after the London bombings last July, it said the reason British Muslim boys had blown up the London transit system was because of Britain'’s support for the US in Iraq."
A most timely example of what Ms. Phillips is talking about can be seen in almost any mainstream news report on the fighting going on now between Israel and the proxies of Iran and Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas: no matter what the provocation of Palestinian terrorist or the degree of moral outrage (intensionally targeting civilians, abducting and torturing soldiers, the terrorists using their own families and children as human shields by staging their ordinance and planning headquarters in civilian housing), when Israel retaliates, it is invariably Israel that is painted by the press as a bloodthirsty agressor and cold-blooded murderer of innocent civilians. Moral inversion.
Consider a couple of issues that are benchmarks in defining Leftist from Conservative thought: the death penalty and abortion. Leftists accuse consevatives of hypocrisy for defending the Judeo-Christian definition of the sanctity of human life by opposing abortion yet supporting the death penalty, but fail to see the complete moral inversion of their own stance in equating the life of a convicted murderer and the very definition of innocence--the life of an unborn child. Leftists accuse conservatives of devaluing human life by supporting the death penalty; again, moral inversion. In reality the death penalty upholds the value of human life. The state, by taking the life of a murderer no more devalues human life than imprisoning a kidnapper (in effect, taking away his freedom) devalues freedom. Just the opposite: it's a testament to how much society values freedom that freedom is taken away from one who robs someone else's freedom.
So try it yourself. The next time you hear a politician say something that doesn't seem quite right, or read a news article that strikes you as biased or just plain chuckle-headed, apply the moral inversion test.
Sunday, October 30, 2005
Vision of the Anointed
The title of this post is the same as a book that I am currently reading by one of my favorite authors. The author's name is Thomas Sowell, a brilliant economist and senior fellow at the Hoover Institute, Stanford University.
Today I read a selection that I was inspired to share, first because of how succinctly it states one of the major themes of the book, and second because of how poignantly it relates to the issue of realigning the Supreme Court with strict originalists. From page 114:
"In their haste to be wiser and nobler than others, the anointed have misconceived two basic issues. They seem to assume (1) that they have more knowledge than the average member of the benighted and (2) that this is the relevant comparison. The real comparison, however, is not between the knowledge possessed by the average member of the educated elite versus the average member of the general public, but the total direct knowledge brought to bear through social processes (the competition of the marketplace, social sorting, etc.), involving millions of people, versus the secondhand knowledge of generalities possessed by a smaller elite group. Moreover, the existing generation's traditions and values distill the experiences of other millions in times past. Yet the anointed seem to conceive the issue as one of the syllogistic reasoning of the past versus the syllogistic reasoning of the present, preferring to believe that improvements in knowledge and reason permit the former to be dismissed."
This disregard for not just the traditions of past, but the actual text and long history of interpretation and enforcement of the text of the US Constitution, in favor of an infinitely malleable application of meaning by a self-anointed intellectual aristocracy is at the heart of the cultural/philosophical/political battle in which the American conservative movement is engaged. And, as evidenced by the recent controversy over President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers as Supreme Court Justice, nowhere is this battle more intensely waged than in our judicial system. For in the face of a Republican controlled elected federal government, a non-elected handful of judges have handed a minority radical left in this country victories of their ideological agenda they could never have hoped to achieve in the electoral process for perhaps another generation.
Today I read a selection that I was inspired to share, first because of how succinctly it states one of the major themes of the book, and second because of how poignantly it relates to the issue of realigning the Supreme Court with strict originalists. From page 114:
"In their haste to be wiser and nobler than others, the anointed have misconceived two basic issues. They seem to assume (1) that they have more knowledge than the average member of the benighted and (2) that this is the relevant comparison. The real comparison, however, is not between the knowledge possessed by the average member of the educated elite versus the average member of the general public, but the total direct knowledge brought to bear through social processes (the competition of the marketplace, social sorting, etc.), involving millions of people, versus the secondhand knowledge of generalities possessed by a smaller elite group. Moreover, the existing generation's traditions and values distill the experiences of other millions in times past. Yet the anointed seem to conceive the issue as one of the syllogistic reasoning of the past versus the syllogistic reasoning of the present, preferring to believe that improvements in knowledge and reason permit the former to be dismissed."
This disregard for not just the traditions of past, but the actual text and long history of interpretation and enforcement of the text of the US Constitution, in favor of an infinitely malleable application of meaning by a self-anointed intellectual aristocracy is at the heart of the cultural/philosophical/political battle in which the American conservative movement is engaged. And, as evidenced by the recent controversy over President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers as Supreme Court Justice, nowhere is this battle more intensely waged than in our judicial system. For in the face of a Republican controlled elected federal government, a non-elected handful of judges have handed a minority radical left in this country victories of their ideological agenda they could never have hoped to achieve in the electoral process for perhaps another generation.
Thursday, June 09, 2005
Home schooling
Over the Memorial Day holiday my wife and I visited my oldest friend who pastors a church in Medford, Oregon. I met Steve when I was 13, traveling through his home town of Ashland, Oregon with my evangelist father. Steve and I spent a lot of time together as we were growing up, but lost contact for many years after we each got married and started our families. My sons are grown and live on their own now, but Steve's and Kim's 4 children still live at home with them. Along with the joy of spending time with my dear old friend, it was enlightening to meet his children, all of whom were, or still are home schooled by Steve's wife, Kim.
At 20 Jake is Steve's oldest. He's the music minister and worship leader at the church, plays keyboards and writes all the music for the church's worship services, as well for his own Christian rock band in which he is joined on guitar by his 17 year old sister, Natalie. Steve told me the story of how Jake was recruited by Southern Oregon University just as he turned 15, having just finished high school at 14. He now has his bachelor of arts degree, and is seriously contemplating soon returning to school to study for a master's. Natalie, a fine rock guitarist, is in her second year at the Bible college Steve runs at his church. Geno and John, Steve's younger sons, still study with their mother.
As I was driving back to Portland my wife told me how impressed she was with Steve's children, and how it made her regret not having home schooled our own sons. I couldn't be more proud of my sons, but thinking back on their school experiences--especially that of my oldest son who shares the moodier aspects of my personality--I couldn't help but agree.
My sons' first bad experience began all the way back in first grade and kindergarten. The music teacher at their school, Bryant Elementary in Lake Oswego, was so incompetent and made their music classes so unpleasant, I'm convinced she put off my sons from the study of music at that formative stage in their lives--a particularly bitter pill for me as music is such a meaningful part of my life. They both did exceptionally well with their grades, and never dabbled in self-destructive behavor, but I can't help wondering if we could have spared them from much of the spirit-crushing institutionalized tedium, mediocrity, and politically-correct, witless indoctrination that has become the American public school system.
One of the most striking impressions that both my wife and myself received from Steve's children was that they were completely devoid of the attitude of sullen hostility that seems the default attitude of so many youth. I've read of the impressive statistics about the academic achievements of home schooled children, and Dennis Prager often extolls their virtues on his radio talk show, but the superlative example of Jake, Natalie, Geno, and John are the finest endorsement I've ever encountered.
At 20 Jake is Steve's oldest. He's the music minister and worship leader at the church, plays keyboards and writes all the music for the church's worship services, as well for his own Christian rock band in which he is joined on guitar by his 17 year old sister, Natalie. Steve told me the story of how Jake was recruited by Southern Oregon University just as he turned 15, having just finished high school at 14. He now has his bachelor of arts degree, and is seriously contemplating soon returning to school to study for a master's. Natalie, a fine rock guitarist, is in her second year at the Bible college Steve runs at his church. Geno and John, Steve's younger sons, still study with their mother.
As I was driving back to Portland my wife told me how impressed she was with Steve's children, and how it made her regret not having home schooled our own sons. I couldn't be more proud of my sons, but thinking back on their school experiences--especially that of my oldest son who shares the moodier aspects of my personality--I couldn't help but agree.
My sons' first bad experience began all the way back in first grade and kindergarten. The music teacher at their school, Bryant Elementary in Lake Oswego, was so incompetent and made their music classes so unpleasant, I'm convinced she put off my sons from the study of music at that formative stage in their lives--a particularly bitter pill for me as music is such a meaningful part of my life. They both did exceptionally well with their grades, and never dabbled in self-destructive behavor, but I can't help wondering if we could have spared them from much of the spirit-crushing institutionalized tedium, mediocrity, and politically-correct, witless indoctrination that has become the American public school system.
One of the most striking impressions that both my wife and myself received from Steve's children was that they were completely devoid of the attitude of sullen hostility that seems the default attitude of so many youth. I've read of the impressive statistics about the academic achievements of home schooled children, and Dennis Prager often extolls their virtues on his radio talk show, but the superlative example of Jake, Natalie, Geno, and John are the finest endorsement I've ever encountered.
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Ownership society
I just finished reading "The Enduring Revolution: How the Contract with America Continues to Shape the Nation" by Fox News reporter, Major Garrett. In it he makes a powerful case for how the Republican Congressional members' Contract With America--despite its apparent failure when 4 years later Newt Gingrich resigned as Speaker of the House--drastically altered the US political landscape, and in ways that have persisted to the present day. By way of illustrating this, he starts the book by describing John Kerry's appearance in Davenport, Iowa in January of 2004 to kick off his campaign for the Democratic nomination for President by outlining his plan to protect tax cuts for the middle class, one of the touchstones of the Contract With America.
The book offers a fascinating backstage look at Congressional politics and maneuvering, and a compelling catalogue of the transformation in government and society wrought by the "Contract", perhaps the most notable being Welfare reform.
Toward the end of the book he deals with an event that some have seen as the final corruption of the "Republican Revolution": the 2003 passage of the Medicare prescription drug bill. This bill was seen by many conservatives, then and now, as a betrayal of the principles of conservatism, an unnecessary entitlement that swelled an already grossly bloated Medicare budget. The machinations that went into getting this bill passed make for interesting reading, but my point in bringing it up here has to do with a discussion I had about it at the recent meeting of our Townhall.com group.
In the meeting I repeated something told to me by Jeff Grossman, former chairman of the Washington county Republican party of Oregon; namely that the prescription drug bill needed to be explained to the rank and file of the Republican party, many of whom were angry about it. He explained to me that within this entitlement were planted the seeds of the destruction of Medicare. The secret to this is the inclusion of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Garrett, in "The Enduring Revolution", explains that the HSAs were not part of the original Senate bill, and that when they were included, Democrats fought it, and finally pulled support for the bill when they couldn't get them removed. As Jeff Grossman explained to me, when people find over time that their best option, the one that gets them the most return for their money, is to start their own Health Savings Account, rather than the myriad of entitlement card plans that are the alternative, they will go with the HSAs in ever greater numbers, and eventually the entitlements will wither from lack of participation.
This theory was challenged in the discussion at the meetup with the assertion that there was "no evidence" that it would work, but in "The Enduring Revolution", Grover Norquist, interviewed concerning the Medicare bill, makes a convincing argument that the HSAs will have the same effect as 401Ks and mutual fund IRAs have had on American society. Those tax shielded investment devices, over the space of a couple of decades since their inception in the late 1970s, have welcomed tens of millions of middle and lower-middle class Americans into inclusion of what had once been disparagingly called the "investment class".
Perhaps the most persuasive argument for the potential success of this strategy, however, is the way Ted Kennedy fought the Medicare bill over the single issue of the HSAs. And this is also most likely why the Democratic party is so intractably opposed to President Bush's plan to partially privatize Social Security: they recognize that within this design is the likelihood of the eventual death of Social Security. This is a specter of unspeakable horor to the Dems; it threatens not only their political control over the American populace, but repudiates their vision of a human utopia achieved through government and impugns the high point of their historical influence--the "New Deal".
The dream of the "Ownership Society" proposed by the Republican Party, embodied in mechanisms such as HSAs, 401Ks, mutual fund IRAs, and privatization of Social Security is removing citizens from the patronage of government oblige and restoring to their own hands the determination of their health care and retirement. It's why these issues are so hard fought, for it goes to the philosophical heart of the two parties, the core beliefs that define each group. Can human reality be redefined through the largesse of government, and the rigid control of the economy; or should government be limited and act only as a facilitator for us to determine our own destiny? I vote for the latter.
The book offers a fascinating backstage look at Congressional politics and maneuvering, and a compelling catalogue of the transformation in government and society wrought by the "Contract", perhaps the most notable being Welfare reform.
Toward the end of the book he deals with an event that some have seen as the final corruption of the "Republican Revolution": the 2003 passage of the Medicare prescription drug bill. This bill was seen by many conservatives, then and now, as a betrayal of the principles of conservatism, an unnecessary entitlement that swelled an already grossly bloated Medicare budget. The machinations that went into getting this bill passed make for interesting reading, but my point in bringing it up here has to do with a discussion I had about it at the recent meeting of our Townhall.com group.
In the meeting I repeated something told to me by Jeff Grossman, former chairman of the Washington county Republican party of Oregon; namely that the prescription drug bill needed to be explained to the rank and file of the Republican party, many of whom were angry about it. He explained to me that within this entitlement were planted the seeds of the destruction of Medicare. The secret to this is the inclusion of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Garrett, in "The Enduring Revolution", explains that the HSAs were not part of the original Senate bill, and that when they were included, Democrats fought it, and finally pulled support for the bill when they couldn't get them removed. As Jeff Grossman explained to me, when people find over time that their best option, the one that gets them the most return for their money, is to start their own Health Savings Account, rather than the myriad of entitlement card plans that are the alternative, they will go with the HSAs in ever greater numbers, and eventually the entitlements will wither from lack of participation.
This theory was challenged in the discussion at the meetup with the assertion that there was "no evidence" that it would work, but in "The Enduring Revolution", Grover Norquist, interviewed concerning the Medicare bill, makes a convincing argument that the HSAs will have the same effect as 401Ks and mutual fund IRAs have had on American society. Those tax shielded investment devices, over the space of a couple of decades since their inception in the late 1970s, have welcomed tens of millions of middle and lower-middle class Americans into inclusion of what had once been disparagingly called the "investment class".
Perhaps the most persuasive argument for the potential success of this strategy, however, is the way Ted Kennedy fought the Medicare bill over the single issue of the HSAs. And this is also most likely why the Democratic party is so intractably opposed to President Bush's plan to partially privatize Social Security: they recognize that within this design is the likelihood of the eventual death of Social Security. This is a specter of unspeakable horor to the Dems; it threatens not only their political control over the American populace, but repudiates their vision of a human utopia achieved through government and impugns the high point of their historical influence--the "New Deal".
The dream of the "Ownership Society" proposed by the Republican Party, embodied in mechanisms such as HSAs, 401Ks, mutual fund IRAs, and privatization of Social Security is removing citizens from the patronage of government oblige and restoring to their own hands the determination of their health care and retirement. It's why these issues are so hard fought, for it goes to the philosophical heart of the two parties, the core beliefs that define each group. Can human reality be redefined through the largesse of government, and the rigid control of the economy; or should government be limited and act only as a facilitator for us to determine our own destiny? I vote for the latter.
Sunday, May 08, 2005
Townhall.com meetup
I am the organizer for a Meetup.com group of readers of Townhall.com, a website that reprints conservative commentary online. We had our meetup for the month of May last evening, and had a guest speaker, Kevin Starrett, the director of Oregon Firearms Federation, a political action committee that lobies for gun owner's rights. Tom Cox, Libertarian cadidate for the Oregon Legislature last election also attended. Both Kevin and Tom spoke to us about political activist techniques, the workings of the legislature, and certain realities of state and national politics. They gave us some invaluable information, for which I am very grateful.
One item that Kevin spoke about I found particularly enlightening. Ever wonder why you never see two lawyers running against each other for a judge's position; why every time you vote for a judge it's just a rubber stamp for an incumbent's re-election? Kevin explained it. First, judges almost always retire 6 months from the end of their term. This requires the state governor to appoint his replacement. When that replacement runs at the end of the former judge's term, it's as an incumbent. No lawyer will run against that incumbent for fear that if he were to lose, he would some day have to face that judge in court. Get the picture? We never really get to vote for a judge. We're only endorsing one someone else has chosen; and we're almost always making that endorsement without the slightest knowledge of the kind of legal or political philosophy or temperment that judge brings to his or her court.
One item that Kevin spoke about I found particularly enlightening. Ever wonder why you never see two lawyers running against each other for a judge's position; why every time you vote for a judge it's just a rubber stamp for an incumbent's re-election? Kevin explained it. First, judges almost always retire 6 months from the end of their term. This requires the state governor to appoint his replacement. When that replacement runs at the end of the former judge's term, it's as an incumbent. No lawyer will run against that incumbent for fear that if he were to lose, he would some day have to face that judge in court. Get the picture? We never really get to vote for a judge. We're only endorsing one someone else has chosen; and we're almost always making that endorsement without the slightest knowledge of the kind of legal or political philosophy or temperment that judge brings to his or her court.
Thursday, May 05, 2005
Cultural Competence
I attended the May meeting of the Executive Club last night and heard Oregon State Representative Linda Flores speak on Oregon Senate bill 50, dubbed the "Cultural Competency" bill because of its 3rd clause in section 1 that states: "...the commission shall establish standards for cultural competency and require an applicant for a teaching license to meet those standards." The $64,000 question, of course, is what in the world is cultural competency?
To answer that question let's first go back to see what spurred the creation of this bill. One year ago the Oregon Department of Education, Teacher Standards and Practices commission, Oregon University System, the Eugene School district LEAD Project, and the Oregon State Action for Education Leadership, with a $600,000 grant from the Wallace Foundation of New York, convened the Invitational Summit on Cultural Competency. The summit produced its definition of cultural competency in a 50+ page report, and its 5-year work plan for its infusion in Oregon's education system. According to this report "cultural competency" requires that individuals and organizations: A) Have a defined set of values and principles, demonstrated behaviors, attitudes, policies and structures that enable them to work effectively in a cross-cultural manner. B) Demonstrate the capacity to 1) value diversity, 2) engage in self-reflection, 3) facilitate effectively (manage) the dynamics of difference, 4) acquire and institutionalize cultural knowledge, 5) adapt to the diversity and cultural contexts of the students, families, and communities they serve, 6) support actions which foster equity of opportunity and services. C) Institutionalize, incorporate, evaluate, and advocate the above in all aspects of leadership, policy-making, administration, practice, and service delivery while systematically inolving staff, students, families, key stakeholders, and communities.
Upon reading this, it's obvious that the ideological impetus at work here is multiculturalism, a noxious theory that has already been thorougly inculcated in the public school curriculum and popular orthodox liberal thought. Embedded in the report, however, are political ideas far more toxic. On page 3 of the report it says, "...cultural competence entails actively challenging the status quo and advocating for equity and social justice." The term *social jusice* has become a shibboleth of the left, and I recommend to all that they read Thomas Sowell's "The Quest for Cosmic Justice" for a full explaination of how fatuous and empty the term really is. Despite its poverty of meaning, the term's affinity with leftist and socialist ideas is well known, and this is no exception. On page 8 more of the true intent of the writers is revealed in a list of what cultural competency means for teachers:
A culturally competent teacher advocates for social justice.
A culturally competent teacher understands the ways schools reproduce inequallity.
The Teacher Standards and Practices Commission will revise rules, after review, to achieve high cultural competency standards including possible REVOCATION OF LICENSURE for culturally incompetent behavior.
The Teacher Standards and Practices Commission will require cultural competence for license renewal.
A culturally competent teacher must apply cultural competencies and BELIEVE IT.
(emphasis added)
Multiculturalism is a poisonous doctrine that his been carefully infused in almost every aspect of not only American public education, but popular media as well. With this legislation, however, the true believers within the Oregon educational system have an opportunity to establish an ideological "purity" test with which they can purge their ranks from all of questionable faith. Not only will their definition of competence become the criteria for hiring new teachers, but they will be able to revisit the employment of teachers of long standing. All who do not share their vision of a radically egalitarian society of "social justice" and "equity" (read redistribution of wealth here), will be labeled "culturally incompetent" and shown the door.
To answer that question let's first go back to see what spurred the creation of this bill. One year ago the Oregon Department of Education, Teacher Standards and Practices commission, Oregon University System, the Eugene School district LEAD Project, and the Oregon State Action for Education Leadership, with a $600,000 grant from the Wallace Foundation of New York, convened the Invitational Summit on Cultural Competency. The summit produced its definition of cultural competency in a 50+ page report, and its 5-year work plan for its infusion in Oregon's education system. According to this report "cultural competency" requires that individuals and organizations: A) Have a defined set of values and principles, demonstrated behaviors, attitudes, policies and structures that enable them to work effectively in a cross-cultural manner. B) Demonstrate the capacity to 1) value diversity, 2) engage in self-reflection, 3) facilitate effectively (manage) the dynamics of difference, 4) acquire and institutionalize cultural knowledge, 5) adapt to the diversity and cultural contexts of the students, families, and communities they serve, 6) support actions which foster equity of opportunity and services. C) Institutionalize, incorporate, evaluate, and advocate the above in all aspects of leadership, policy-making, administration, practice, and service delivery while systematically inolving staff, students, families, key stakeholders, and communities.
Upon reading this, it's obvious that the ideological impetus at work here is multiculturalism, a noxious theory that has already been thorougly inculcated in the public school curriculum and popular orthodox liberal thought. Embedded in the report, however, are political ideas far more toxic. On page 3 of the report it says, "...cultural competence entails actively challenging the status quo and advocating for equity and social justice." The term *social jusice* has become a shibboleth of the left, and I recommend to all that they read Thomas Sowell's "The Quest for Cosmic Justice" for a full explaination of how fatuous and empty the term really is. Despite its poverty of meaning, the term's affinity with leftist and socialist ideas is well known, and this is no exception. On page 8 more of the true intent of the writers is revealed in a list of what cultural competency means for teachers:
A culturally competent teacher advocates for social justice.
A culturally competent teacher understands the ways schools reproduce inequallity.
The Teacher Standards and Practices Commission will revise rules, after review, to achieve high cultural competency standards including possible REVOCATION OF LICENSURE for culturally incompetent behavior.
The Teacher Standards and Practices Commission will require cultural competence for license renewal.
A culturally competent teacher must apply cultural competencies and BELIEVE IT.
(emphasis added)
Multiculturalism is a poisonous doctrine that his been carefully infused in almost every aspect of not only American public education, but popular media as well. With this legislation, however, the true believers within the Oregon educational system have an opportunity to establish an ideological "purity" test with which they can purge their ranks from all of questionable faith. Not only will their definition of competence become the criteria for hiring new teachers, but they will be able to revisit the employment of teachers of long standing. All who do not share their vision of a radically egalitarian society of "social justice" and "equity" (read redistribution of wealth here), will be labeled "culturally incompetent" and shown the door.
Friday, April 29, 2005
Give me a break!
I've just finished reading John Stossel's book, "Give Me a Break". Stossel is the correspondent on ABC's 20/20 who does the "Give me a break" segments in which he often ridicules political correctness, government excess and American cultural stupidities. In this book he first describes how he moved from being a consumer advocate reporter, criticizing business and bad or dangerous products, to a critic of government incompetence and excess, and a defender of free market capitalism. This shift has knocked him from his once-held perch as a celebrated media elite, the winner of 18 Emmys, to being a pariah of television news culture, loathed and vilified by his colleagues and the orthodox liberal rank and file.
Stossel's easy conversational style makes this book a joy to read and yet he manages to pack it full of astonishing statistics that illustrate the benefits of free markets and limited government, and the damaging unintended consequences of government intervention. One of the most amusing of these statistics is the "death list" he and his assistant made up from research data about the causes of death in the United States. The event that spurred this was when one of his producers burst into his office and urged him to do a story about how BIC lighters were exploding in people's pockets and killing them. His research concluded that at the top of the "death list" was heart disease, responsible for 710,760 deaths that year. Then cancer--553,091. 320 people drowned in their bathtubs, and 4 in their toilets. At the bottom of the list with (maybe) 1 person a year was BIC lighters exploding.
He also illustrates how these distortions of risk affect government spending. President Reagan, for instance, was excoriated for not spending enough on AIDS research. Clinton certainly didn't make that mistake. In 1997 he bragged at a campaign dinner that his administration was spending 10 times as much per fatality on people with AIDS as those with breast cancer or prostate cancer (and 25 times as much, it turns out, as those with Parkinson's disease). The question of course is since heart disease, cancer, and even Parkinson's disease kill many more people than AIDS, why are we spending more on AIDS?
There are many more examples such as this. His comparison of the good done to mankind by Mother Theresa and the junk bond king Michael Milkin, and his examination of the incredible damage to the economy by lawyers sueing over asbestos are 2 standouts to me.
I'll just finish by saying that this book is a fun and amusing way of gaining ammunition in the conservative war of ideas with the left.
Stossel's easy conversational style makes this book a joy to read and yet he manages to pack it full of astonishing statistics that illustrate the benefits of free markets and limited government, and the damaging unintended consequences of government intervention. One of the most amusing of these statistics is the "death list" he and his assistant made up from research data about the causes of death in the United States. The event that spurred this was when one of his producers burst into his office and urged him to do a story about how BIC lighters were exploding in people's pockets and killing them. His research concluded that at the top of the "death list" was heart disease, responsible for 710,760 deaths that year. Then cancer--553,091. 320 people drowned in their bathtubs, and 4 in their toilets. At the bottom of the list with (maybe) 1 person a year was BIC lighters exploding.
He also illustrates how these distortions of risk affect government spending. President Reagan, for instance, was excoriated for not spending enough on AIDS research. Clinton certainly didn't make that mistake. In 1997 he bragged at a campaign dinner that his administration was spending 10 times as much per fatality on people with AIDS as those with breast cancer or prostate cancer (and 25 times as much, it turns out, as those with Parkinson's disease). The question of course is since heart disease, cancer, and even Parkinson's disease kill many more people than AIDS, why are we spending more on AIDS?
There are many more examples such as this. His comparison of the good done to mankind by Mother Theresa and the junk bond king Michael Milkin, and his examination of the incredible damage to the economy by lawyers sueing over asbestos are 2 standouts to me.
I'll just finish by saying that this book is a fun and amusing way of gaining ammunition in the conservative war of ideas with the left.
Saturday, April 23, 2005
liberal contempt
I'm currently reading "Last Car to Elysian Fields" a Dave Robicheaux novel by James Lee Burke, whom I consider to be one of the finest and most lyrical crime fiction writers in the United States. Burke combines great story telling ability with the finest traditions of Southern American literary fiction, such as the wealth of sensory detail found in the work of such authors as William Faulkner, Harper Lee, and Flannery O'Conner. I have enjoyed almost everything I have ever read by Burke, and am enjoying this book as well...until I came to this passage on page 165 describing a man of old money in Louisiana by the name of Castille LeJeune who is sitting in the dressing room of a health club, sipping icewater after his game of racquetball, when black and white bluecollar workers suddenly flood the room as they prepare to exercise after their shift:
"There were great differences in the room, but not between the races. The black and white working men spoke the same regional dialect and shared the same political atitudes, all of which had been taught them by others. They denigrated liberals, unions, and the media, considered the local Wal-Mart store a blessing, and regularly gave their money to the Powerball lottery and casinos that had the architectural charm of a sewer works. They were frightened by the larger world and found comfort in the rhetoric of politicians who assured them the problem was the world's, not theirs. And most heartening of all was the affirmation lent them by a genteel person like Castille LeJeune, a Distinguished Flying Cross recipient who, unlike many memebers of his class, showed no fear or lack of confidence in their midst, which told them of his respect for their humanity."
It is subtle and skillfully done, but this paragraph demonstrates an astonishing measure of condescension and contempt for the people he is describing. Notice the message here; it is one you will find repeated ad infinitum by the popular media, including the press, pundits, artists, and of course leftist politicians: conservative views held by the business class is attributable to their vile motivations--greed, pitilessness, and selfishness--conservative views held by the working class is attributable to their stupidity.
"There were great differences in the room, but not between the races. The black and white working men spoke the same regional dialect and shared the same political atitudes, all of which had been taught them by others. They denigrated liberals, unions, and the media, considered the local Wal-Mart store a blessing, and regularly gave their money to the Powerball lottery and casinos that had the architectural charm of a sewer works. They were frightened by the larger world and found comfort in the rhetoric of politicians who assured them the problem was the world's, not theirs. And most heartening of all was the affirmation lent them by a genteel person like Castille LeJeune, a Distinguished Flying Cross recipient who, unlike many memebers of his class, showed no fear or lack of confidence in their midst, which told them of his respect for their humanity."
It is subtle and skillfully done, but this paragraph demonstrates an astonishing measure of condescension and contempt for the people he is describing. Notice the message here; it is one you will find repeated ad infinitum by the popular media, including the press, pundits, artists, and of course leftist politicians: conservative views held by the business class is attributable to their vile motivations--greed, pitilessness, and selfishness--conservative views held by the working class is attributable to their stupidity.
Friday, April 22, 2005
Inauguration
I have wanted to start a blog for some time; a place where I could publish my political thoughts and opinions. So this, finally, is the result.
First, a word about the title of the blog. Webfoot is slang for an Oregonian. Though I was born in Yuma, Arizona, and by that fact am probably more deserving of the moniker "Arizona desert rat" (as my father used to call me), I have lived most of my life here in Oregon, both of my grown sons are native Oregonians, and, most importantly, I consider myself an Oregonian. The conservative part is my political ideology, a characteristic of which I am unappologetic, and proudly affirm. The fact that I am a conservative Oregonian, especially here in the Portland area (one of the most politically leftist areas in the United States), is what gives the title of this blog its antithetical contrast.
Next, a few words about me. My father was a stanch Republican, so when I came of voting age, and having much love and respect for my father, I registered as a Republican too. And I pretty much voted Republican as well. But not out of real endorsement of Republican policy or ideals. It was more that I found Republican candidates somewhat less reprehensible than Democratic and Independent candidates. I was a faithful watcher of Saturday Night Live, and standup comedians, and I dutifully bought into their characterizations of Ronald Regan at the time, as well as the press and scientific community who advocated Nuclear freeze and ridiculed the Strategic Defense Initiative (Reagan's missile defense shield). And so, even though I voted for Ronald Reagan--both terms--I despised him. The fall of the Soviet Union almost brought me to my senses, but then the press started hammering away at the Iran/Contra scandal, and I forgot all about the greatest achievment by a president in the 20th century. By the 2000 election I also acceded to the popular media's characterization of George W. Bush, believing that he was a dimwitted puppet controlled and managed by Dick Cheney, and voted for him only because I saw Al Gore as a thoroughly spineless and unprincipled political whore. Prior to the 9-11 tragedy, I had become so cynical and disgusted with all things politcal I was on the verge of giving up voting entirely.
But 9-11 changed everything for me. I had considered myself to be a skeptic, a "complex" person, and one to roll my eyes at my father's generation's reverence for the flag. Yet days after 9-11, as I drove through town on errands, upon noticing that all the flags were flying at half-mast I suddenly found myself in tears and at that moment finally understood my father's deep feeling for our flag, he who had fought and had been severely wounded in World War II. I have always been a reader, but before the attack it had all been fiction; after the attack I began to read almost exclusively nonfiction: history, philosophy, Christian apologetics, political theory, biographies and current events. The last three and a half years have been transforming for me, kindling a political and patriotic awakening in me, and rekindling my religeous faith.
To start this blog off I'd like to post a letter I wrote in response to an acquaintance's question about Ronald Reagan soon after the former President's death. He had been a child at the time of Reagan's presidency and wanted to know what I remembered of that time, having lived through that administration as an adult. The following is my response.
I voted for Reagan both times, and yet it's easy to forget as I had done until I read Dinesh D'Souza's book, Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader. Both times I voted for Reagan it was much the same as when I voted for George W Bush in 2000: I couldn't stomach voting for the other guy. Concerning both men I bought into the unrelenting propaganda from the popular media about their mental inferiority and the idea that they were being "run" by others around them. 9-11 and President Bush's response to it changed my mind completely about him and turned me into an ardent supporter; the fall of the Berlin wall was what finally changed my mind about President Reagan--but only to a limited degree. It wasn't until I read D'Souza's book and his recitation of those events that I had lived through, that I realized that Ronald Reagan was the greatest president of the 20th century (or the 21st, for that matter) and how thoroughly I had been deceived by the popular media about him.
Consider first the country that Pres. Reagan took over--the Carter years: 18-21% interest rates, high unemployment, double-digit inflation (the misery index, a concept which Carter himself developed that was the sum of inflation and unemployment to illustrate economic hardship, had risen from 13% under Ford to over 20% under Carter). Carter believed the US was immoral in supporting a dictator such as the Shaw of Iran, pulled all US military and economic aid from his regime, and thus insured the ascendancy of a regime a million times worse: the mullacrocy that has reigned since; and to thank him for his help, the Ayatollah had our entire embassy taken hostage and held for over a year while every night we were treated to the sights of American flags being burned and throngs of Iranians screaming "death to America!" From '74 to '80, while America seemed to trust John Kerry's assertion that "...we have nothing to fear from Communism," 9 counties fell to communist regimes and Soviet influence: South Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Mozambique, Ethiopia, South Yemen, Angola, Grenada, and Nicaragua. And in '79, at the hight of Carter's tearful eloquence about detent, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. And Carter's response to all this? On 15 July 79 he addressed the nation and said that Americans were suffering a national malaise and had taken it for granted that we would live better than our parents and that America would always be a world leader, but we should modify those expectations, we would have to learn to live with less. The new era would be an era of limits.
Under Pres. Reagan's administration the "misery index" fell to less than 10%. Immediately upon taking office he set about to put his economic policies into action. His plan consisted of: drastically cutting taxes, abolishing much of federal regulation of certain businesses and government enforced monopolies, cutting congressional spending. He was much more successful at the first two, than the third, but that was enough; we are still reaping the benefits of the economic revolution his policies caused.
But to me his greatest legacy is his courage and brilliance as a cold warrior. Contrary to the left-sported myth that Reagan was being "handled" by his inner circle of staff, many of them were horrified by his posture on world communism and the Soviets in particular. Remember that detent was the accepted best hope for American/Soviet relations by both political parties at the time. Budget Director, David Stockman, senior White House aide, and chief of staff Donald Regan have all been highly critical of the President in their memiors. Talking with Secretary of State George Shultz, his national security adviser, Robert McFarlane expressed his mystification at how Reagan knew so little and yet accomplished so much. Former President Nixon wrote books in the 1980s warning that "the Soviet system will not collapse" and "the most we can do is learn to live with our differences" through a policy of "hard headed detent." Richard Perle, then assistant secretary of defense once told President Reagan at a dinner party that the majority of the people in the defense department disagreed with his policies for dealing with the Soviet Union and were actively working to undermine them. At Reagan's first press conference in the Old Executive Office Building, he said that the signed agreements with the Soviets meant nothing because they had "openly and publicly declared that the only morality they recognize is what will further their cause, meaning they reserve unto themselves the right to commit any crime, to lie, to cheat." There was an audible gasp from those in attendance and Secretary of State Alexander Haig, standing in the corner of the room, conspicuously rolled his eyes. As for the other side of the political isle, the vituperation of his policies was rabid and unrelenting. The nuclear freeze movement--a kind of collective hysteria mixed with willful stupidity--swept through not just the United States, supported even by Republican Senator Mark Hatfield, but through the entire free world. A 1982 poll stated that more than 70% of Americans supported the nuclear freeze concept. In October of 1983 more than 2 million people demonstrated in London, Rome, Stockholm, Vienna, Paris and other European cities against proposed Pershing and cruise missile deployments in Europe in response to recently deployed Soviet SS-20s targeting Western Europe. And while comedians mocked him, the intelligensia fulminated him, political rivals fought him, and many of the middle class masses (like me) were mystified or alarmed at dangers the media decried, he continued to raise the military budget, strengthen our defenses, pressure the Soviets, not only with equivalent strategic arms to their build-ups, but the portent of new American scientific miracles such as the Strategic Defense Initiative (which the press mockingly dubbed "Star Wars").
On 23 March 1983 Pres. Reagan gave his speech to the American people announcing his plan for SDI. Ultimately this proved to be the coup de grace to the arms race. George Shultz has said that SDI was entirely Reagan's idea. Shultz was skeptical, Eagleburger was aghast at the idea, senior officials at the Defense Department were opposed, and anticipating those reactions, Reagan had kept its development from them and utilized only the internal White House staff in its preparation. Upon his announcement, Robert McNamara called it "pie in the sky", the New York Times called it a "pipe dream, a projection of fantasy into policy," General Secretary Andropov said it was "insane" and "a bid to disarm the Soviet Union." But while Western pundits and scientists scoffed, and the Soviets publicly denounced, they were secretly terrified. They had seen American scientists perform herculean, seemingly impossible feats before: the Manhattan Project, the moon landings. It all had just the effect that Reagan predicted: it forced them back to the negotiating table (they had broken off arms limitation talks after the Pershing missile deployments). In October of 1986, Reykjavik it all came to a head. Gorbachev offered to cut the Soviet nuclear arsenal by 50% under one condition that only revealed at the end of the summit: a US promise not to deploy missile defense. Reagan, going against all advice, refused and terminated the summit. The next day Gorbachev, still reeling, said to Reagan, "I don't know what else I could have done." "You could have said yes," replied Reagan icily. On the flight back to the US, all the President's aides were in a panic; how could they explain to the American people that the President had turned down a 50% reduction in nuclear arms? As they fretted Reagan sat writing on a yellow legal pad; the surviving original testifies that the speech he gave the day after returning from Iceland was almost word for word what he wrote on the plane back: "There was no way I could tell our people their government would not protect them against nuclear destruction...I went to Reykjavik determined that everything was negotiable except two things: our freedom and our future." Despite being savaged in the press, his resolve won out and in December of 87 Gorbachev relented on SDI and signed the INF Treaty in which both the US and the USSR abolished their intermediate-ranged nuclear missiles. Between May 88 and early 89 Gorbachev agreed to substantial unilateral cuts in Soviet armed forces stationed on the Western European border, and pulled troops out of Afghanistan. Soviet advisers left Ethiopia. With Gorbachev's approval, Cuban troops left Angola. And shortly after Reagan left office, the Berlin wall came down.
The first 34 years of my life were spent under the specter of nuclear annihilation. But my sons can now live their lives free of that threat. Certainly they have their own threats to contend with: a terrorist could someday smuggle a nuclear bomb onto American soil, or even build one here in secret. That's a horrible thought, but nothing compared to the destruction of human civilization we faced before the Soviet Union was dismantled. To what greater accomplishment can any American president of our age lay claim? To whom do we, the American people, owe a greater debt of gratitude and respect?
First, a word about the title of the blog. Webfoot is slang for an Oregonian. Though I was born in Yuma, Arizona, and by that fact am probably more deserving of the moniker "Arizona desert rat" (as my father used to call me), I have lived most of my life here in Oregon, both of my grown sons are native Oregonians, and, most importantly, I consider myself an Oregonian. The conservative part is my political ideology, a characteristic of which I am unappologetic, and proudly affirm. The fact that I am a conservative Oregonian, especially here in the Portland area (one of the most politically leftist areas in the United States), is what gives the title of this blog its antithetical contrast.
Next, a few words about me. My father was a stanch Republican, so when I came of voting age, and having much love and respect for my father, I registered as a Republican too. And I pretty much voted Republican as well. But not out of real endorsement of Republican policy or ideals. It was more that I found Republican candidates somewhat less reprehensible than Democratic and Independent candidates. I was a faithful watcher of Saturday Night Live, and standup comedians, and I dutifully bought into their characterizations of Ronald Regan at the time, as well as the press and scientific community who advocated Nuclear freeze and ridiculed the Strategic Defense Initiative (Reagan's missile defense shield). And so, even though I voted for Ronald Reagan--both terms--I despised him. The fall of the Soviet Union almost brought me to my senses, but then the press started hammering away at the Iran/Contra scandal, and I forgot all about the greatest achievment by a president in the 20th century. By the 2000 election I also acceded to the popular media's characterization of George W. Bush, believing that he was a dimwitted puppet controlled and managed by Dick Cheney, and voted for him only because I saw Al Gore as a thoroughly spineless and unprincipled political whore. Prior to the 9-11 tragedy, I had become so cynical and disgusted with all things politcal I was on the verge of giving up voting entirely.
But 9-11 changed everything for me. I had considered myself to be a skeptic, a "complex" person, and one to roll my eyes at my father's generation's reverence for the flag. Yet days after 9-11, as I drove through town on errands, upon noticing that all the flags were flying at half-mast I suddenly found myself in tears and at that moment finally understood my father's deep feeling for our flag, he who had fought and had been severely wounded in World War II. I have always been a reader, but before the attack it had all been fiction; after the attack I began to read almost exclusively nonfiction: history, philosophy, Christian apologetics, political theory, biographies and current events. The last three and a half years have been transforming for me, kindling a political and patriotic awakening in me, and rekindling my religeous faith.
To start this blog off I'd like to post a letter I wrote in response to an acquaintance's question about Ronald Reagan soon after the former President's death. He had been a child at the time of Reagan's presidency and wanted to know what I remembered of that time, having lived through that administration as an adult. The following is my response.
I voted for Reagan both times, and yet it's easy to forget as I had done until I read Dinesh D'Souza's book, Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader. Both times I voted for Reagan it was much the same as when I voted for George W Bush in 2000: I couldn't stomach voting for the other guy. Concerning both men I bought into the unrelenting propaganda from the popular media about their mental inferiority and the idea that they were being "run" by others around them. 9-11 and President Bush's response to it changed my mind completely about him and turned me into an ardent supporter; the fall of the Berlin wall was what finally changed my mind about President Reagan--but only to a limited degree. It wasn't until I read D'Souza's book and his recitation of those events that I had lived through, that I realized that Ronald Reagan was the greatest president of the 20th century (or the 21st, for that matter) and how thoroughly I had been deceived by the popular media about him.
Consider first the country that Pres. Reagan took over--the Carter years: 18-21% interest rates, high unemployment, double-digit inflation (the misery index, a concept which Carter himself developed that was the sum of inflation and unemployment to illustrate economic hardship, had risen from 13% under Ford to over 20% under Carter). Carter believed the US was immoral in supporting a dictator such as the Shaw of Iran, pulled all US military and economic aid from his regime, and thus insured the ascendancy of a regime a million times worse: the mullacrocy that has reigned since; and to thank him for his help, the Ayatollah had our entire embassy taken hostage and held for over a year while every night we were treated to the sights of American flags being burned and throngs of Iranians screaming "death to America!" From '74 to '80, while America seemed to trust John Kerry's assertion that "...we have nothing to fear from Communism," 9 counties fell to communist regimes and Soviet influence: South Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Mozambique, Ethiopia, South Yemen, Angola, Grenada, and Nicaragua. And in '79, at the hight of Carter's tearful eloquence about detent, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. And Carter's response to all this? On 15 July 79 he addressed the nation and said that Americans were suffering a national malaise and had taken it for granted that we would live better than our parents and that America would always be a world leader, but we should modify those expectations, we would have to learn to live with less. The new era would be an era of limits.
Under Pres. Reagan's administration the "misery index" fell to less than 10%. Immediately upon taking office he set about to put his economic policies into action. His plan consisted of: drastically cutting taxes, abolishing much of federal regulation of certain businesses and government enforced monopolies, cutting congressional spending. He was much more successful at the first two, than the third, but that was enough; we are still reaping the benefits of the economic revolution his policies caused.
But to me his greatest legacy is his courage and brilliance as a cold warrior. Contrary to the left-sported myth that Reagan was being "handled" by his inner circle of staff, many of them were horrified by his posture on world communism and the Soviets in particular. Remember that detent was the accepted best hope for American/Soviet relations by both political parties at the time. Budget Director, David Stockman, senior White House aide, and chief of staff Donald Regan have all been highly critical of the President in their memiors. Talking with Secretary of State George Shultz, his national security adviser, Robert McFarlane expressed his mystification at how Reagan knew so little and yet accomplished so much. Former President Nixon wrote books in the 1980s warning that "the Soviet system will not collapse" and "the most we can do is learn to live with our differences" through a policy of "hard headed detent." Richard Perle, then assistant secretary of defense once told President Reagan at a dinner party that the majority of the people in the defense department disagreed with his policies for dealing with the Soviet Union and were actively working to undermine them. At Reagan's first press conference in the Old Executive Office Building, he said that the signed agreements with the Soviets meant nothing because they had "openly and publicly declared that the only morality they recognize is what will further their cause, meaning they reserve unto themselves the right to commit any crime, to lie, to cheat." There was an audible gasp from those in attendance and Secretary of State Alexander Haig, standing in the corner of the room, conspicuously rolled his eyes. As for the other side of the political isle, the vituperation of his policies was rabid and unrelenting. The nuclear freeze movement--a kind of collective hysteria mixed with willful stupidity--swept through not just the United States, supported even by Republican Senator Mark Hatfield, but through the entire free world. A 1982 poll stated that more than 70% of Americans supported the nuclear freeze concept. In October of 1983 more than 2 million people demonstrated in London, Rome, Stockholm, Vienna, Paris and other European cities against proposed Pershing and cruise missile deployments in Europe in response to recently deployed Soviet SS-20s targeting Western Europe. And while comedians mocked him, the intelligensia fulminated him, political rivals fought him, and many of the middle class masses (like me) were mystified or alarmed at dangers the media decried, he continued to raise the military budget, strengthen our defenses, pressure the Soviets, not only with equivalent strategic arms to their build-ups, but the portent of new American scientific miracles such as the Strategic Defense Initiative (which the press mockingly dubbed "Star Wars").
On 23 March 1983 Pres. Reagan gave his speech to the American people announcing his plan for SDI. Ultimately this proved to be the coup de grace to the arms race. George Shultz has said that SDI was entirely Reagan's idea. Shultz was skeptical, Eagleburger was aghast at the idea, senior officials at the Defense Department were opposed, and anticipating those reactions, Reagan had kept its development from them and utilized only the internal White House staff in its preparation. Upon his announcement, Robert McNamara called it "pie in the sky", the New York Times called it a "pipe dream, a projection of fantasy into policy," General Secretary Andropov said it was "insane" and "a bid to disarm the Soviet Union." But while Western pundits and scientists scoffed, and the Soviets publicly denounced, they were secretly terrified. They had seen American scientists perform herculean, seemingly impossible feats before: the Manhattan Project, the moon landings. It all had just the effect that Reagan predicted: it forced them back to the negotiating table (they had broken off arms limitation talks after the Pershing missile deployments). In October of 1986, Reykjavik it all came to a head. Gorbachev offered to cut the Soviet nuclear arsenal by 50% under one condition that only revealed at the end of the summit: a US promise not to deploy missile defense. Reagan, going against all advice, refused and terminated the summit. The next day Gorbachev, still reeling, said to Reagan, "I don't know what else I could have done." "You could have said yes," replied Reagan icily. On the flight back to the US, all the President's aides were in a panic; how could they explain to the American people that the President had turned down a 50% reduction in nuclear arms? As they fretted Reagan sat writing on a yellow legal pad; the surviving original testifies that the speech he gave the day after returning from Iceland was almost word for word what he wrote on the plane back: "There was no way I could tell our people their government would not protect them against nuclear destruction...I went to Reykjavik determined that everything was negotiable except two things: our freedom and our future." Despite being savaged in the press, his resolve won out and in December of 87 Gorbachev relented on SDI and signed the INF Treaty in which both the US and the USSR abolished their intermediate-ranged nuclear missiles. Between May 88 and early 89 Gorbachev agreed to substantial unilateral cuts in Soviet armed forces stationed on the Western European border, and pulled troops out of Afghanistan. Soviet advisers left Ethiopia. With Gorbachev's approval, Cuban troops left Angola. And shortly after Reagan left office, the Berlin wall came down.
The first 34 years of my life were spent under the specter of nuclear annihilation. But my sons can now live their lives free of that threat. Certainly they have their own threats to contend with: a terrorist could someday smuggle a nuclear bomb onto American soil, or even build one here in secret. That's a horrible thought, but nothing compared to the destruction of human civilization we faced before the Soviet Union was dismantled. To what greater accomplishment can any American president of our age lay claim? To whom do we, the American people, owe a greater debt of gratitude and respect?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
