The Suburbs of Hell
I have not turned on the television in over a week and have refused to listen to NPR's reverent coverage of the Democratic National Convention. Still, I cannot help picking up stray bits from here and there. What self-absorbed little people, doing star turns in the little plays they have scripted for themselves. Even James Carville could not help observing that the Democrats wasted their first night on the soft soap operatics of Ted Kennedy and Michelle Obama.
I get the inside dope on the Obama campaign because in trying to check out their website for information—it is as empty as Obama’s résumé—I had to register, which means a steady stream of “Dear Thomas” messages, first from Obama and then from Joe Biden, who is thrilled to be playing second fiddle to the great man. I am assured that Obama’s plan for the economy is better than Bush’s plan, but since neither man has a clue, much less a plan, it is hard to evaluate the claim.
It is not just the Democrats who are getting personal. A few days ago I got a call from a nice lady who assured me that Newt Gingrich was interested in hearing the views of important business and professional leaders like me. Ordinarily, I might have believed her, but having been the recipient of this pitch every few months or so either from the RNC or some other conspiracy against the common good, I knew they wanted money for nothing. I told the nice lady that she had made a mistake: There was nothing I would give to Mr. Gingrich including the time of day.
What a country in which a two-bit college teacher, smarmy hypocrite, and serial wife-dumper gets to be a “conservative” “leader,” where the presidential candidate of the Republican party has ditched his wife for a younger woman, who claims to be an only child even though she has a half-sister. Cindy’s mother, it seems, set the pattern by stealing a rich man from his wife and child. Then there is the millionaire without a past, Barack Obama, who lets his brother George Hussein Obama live on $100 a month in a hut. Then there is the John Edwards—“vote for me, my wife is dying”— comedic tear-jerker. All the time he was chasing around with another woman. It is not the immorality that is so striking but the stupidity. Edwards is so ill-read he probably had never heard the Gary Hart episode.
Why go on. Celebrity politicians in America are so much human slime, and, since bits of slime tend to stick together, Obama and Biden—the “pro-choice Catholic”—are a perfect fit. Perhaps Nancy Pelosi, who says she has read Augustine and concluded that the Church is ambiguous on the morality of abortion—can be chosen as the Secretary of Catholic Theology.
Cynics would say that politicians have always been like this but that is because they are not making cynics as they used to. To acknowledge the moral inferiority of American politicians would require a hard look at American reality that few people can bear to take because the politicians are only a supersized version of the average American. Politicians have always had large egos and too much testosterone, but, apart from a few notorious Roman emperors and French kings, they have had to comply—or at least pretend to—with the moral and social rules of their societies. American pols are no exception. Obama’s compassion for the world and neglect of his brother is only a caricature of people who neglect their neighbors and write checks only a caricature of people who neglect their neighbors and write big checks to the Red Cross; the vixen moral code of Cindy McCain and her mom is no different from the morals of the millions of the women who watch Desperate Housewives, and the Catholic theology of Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi is shared by tens of millions of Catholics who think they are entitled to make up their own moral theology as they go along. How are they different from people who put their libertarian philosophy above the Church’s teachings on charity and usury?
We are a feeble, stupid, and childish nation, incapable of leading the gaudy life that would put us somewhere in Dante’s Hell. We’d have to take a number and wait in line and then get seated somewhere near the kitchen. That is why this election means nothing, because we have—as every nation almost always has—the leaders we deserve.
142 Responses »
Trackbacks
- Conservative Heritage Times » What This Country Needs is a Better Class of Cynic :-)
- Conservative Heritage Times » Auto mechanic for President - The phony populism of Stephan Kinsella
Entries(RSS)
#49 C
Well, my father always said, "Throw the rascals out! Elect the new rascals."
I'd add, "Count the silverware before and after the old rascals leave."
To return to several questions raised, which can be summed up as "Where do we go from here?," I would begin by suggesting that we need to be careful in using words like "politics" and "culture." The word politics can be used in many ways, though its original sense of acting within the polis or commonwealth in common with other citizens is still the most useful. In this sense, politics is not really possible or practical in a tyranny. It has been said here, quite reasonably, that elections provide an opportunity or necessity of passing a veto on bad leaders, thus one can vote for Obama to throw the rascals out. This would be true under certain circumstances and conditions, for example, where elections are not rigged and where the two sets of rascals are actually opposed to each other. If we live, as is often claimed (by me among others) under a bipartisan party-state in which both parties are agreed upon most fundamental principles and strategies, then it would hardly matter which set of rascals lands in the White House. I do not say that this is entirely true, only that if we thought it was true, we would be less likely to think we could cast a meaningful veto.
As for culture, it is a pretty dodgy word. I have written on this so often I can only summarize here. The human cultura is, literally, the tending and care of human persons within a society, just as agricultura is the tending of fields. Cultural institutions--codes of manners and dress, artistic traditions, education and religion--form the character of the young and enrich and delight the character of the mature. It is perfectly true that governments should not be in the business of creating culture, as C says above. However, cultural traditions and institutions are not private or individual, either. As Thomas Aquinas has said, the commonwealth does not exist to impose virtue but to establish and maintain the conditions that are propitious to virtuous living. Thus, in a healthy society, there are institutions of common life, often involving government, that affirm the identity and principles of the society and censor and repress cultural expressions that undermine that identity. The Greek religious festivals, at which athletic contests were held and songs and plays performed, are an excellent example of how it works.
Our own political rulers either hate what is left of our civilization--and this includes the English language itself--or else they have so poor a grasp of it that they are indifferent. There have been, over the years, a few exceptions, such as Gene McCarthy and, on a lower level, Robert Byrd, but Byrd is a freak in the Congress today. Then what is to be done? The only serious alternatives would seem to be a coup d'etat, followed by a cultural revolution or a grass roots from the ground up program. I believe the first approach to be both dangerous and, practically speaking, impossible. That leaves the second. In this connection, let me quote again a popular bit of Confucianist lore:
The ancients who wished clearly to manifest illustrious virtue throughout the world would first govern their states well. Wishing to govern their states well, they would first regulate their families. Wishing to regulate their families, they would first cultivate their own persons. Wishing to cultivate their own persons,they would first rectify their own hearts. Wishing to rectify their hearts, they would first seek sincerity in their thoughts. Wishing for sincerity in their thoughts, they would first extend their knowledge. The extension of knowledge lay in the investigation of things.
From careful observation of the world, one proceeds to sincerity--a refusal to deceive oneself about perceptions--and then to gain control over personal behavior, which allows one to set a good example within the household, and so on. Rather than imposing order on the world, the ideal ruler sets an example within his own home.
Elsewhere, the Confucianists speak of calling things by their right names. That, I suggest, is the beginning of sincerity, but names are only a part of language. It is true that everyone makes mistakes in grammar and usage, and it is also true that it is increasingly difficult to maintain standards in a society that has taken a nose-dive into stupidity, but, in general, correct English is far from being a trivial or superficial concern. It is a basic step toward the mental clarity and honesty that is the first step toward rectification of society. The same goes for many basic rules of courtesy, violations of which often indicate a deeper disorder. In a real, as opposed to virtual, human community, people meet face to face and understand that they will be exiled or ostracized for offending against civility. It is more difficult in a virtual community.
To show that this street runs both ways, I close with the famous observation of Thomas de Quncey:
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination."
"Even James Carville could not help observing that the Democrats wasted their first night on the soft soap operatics of Ted Kennedy and Michelle Obama." Thomas Fleming
That's Carville's role (seriously, he's improved) as a kind of gargoyle. We used to sculpt same kind of foreboding images [of gargoyles] and attach them to the outsides of our Cathedrals to scare the bad spirits away. Fight fire with fire long as it's pointed outward - same principle in fighting a forest fire along with the saving element of wate. Doesn't he look like a gargoyle...it's a compliment.
His wife's a republican spokesperson - gosh they've got all the bases covered. Put your wallets on a chain and attach [it] to your belts.
I threw out my t.v. ... It's been like stone lifted mercifully off the top of the skull, after my initial withdrawl pains... well worth it. Get a dvd player - and rent foreign movies mostly if you need to fill the void.
Amen.
Our Jeffersonian forebears---Jefferson, John Taylor, Calhoun, the Confederacy---taught that the purpose of government was to protect society. Society, the creation of Providence, was a given. They lost out. after a gallant holding action, to those for whom government is an instrument to aggrandize themselves and change others.
All too true. Jefferson did think that Virginia should have a state plan for education and helped to found UVA. So long as government is merely reflecting society, there is probably some good it can do--at the lowest conceivable level--in encouraging good manners, morals, music. However, this should not be read as a justification for the NEA or NPR, state agencies that make war on local traditions. This was a point on which the late WFB was quite misled by a kind of do-gooding elitism.
The problem with the pols is that they want to use the government to agrandize themselves and change others. A broader problem with the electorate is that they think the society equals the government.
I think that, at this point, there is nothing that can be done by the American populace to "save" the system. The government is too powerful. It is in fact the most powerful institution in the world today, if not the world's history.
The only thing that people can do is tend to their own gardens and communities.
I don't fear for our future, though, for as strong as the system seems from a distance, a close look reveals that its foundations are on quicksand, as the ever increasing mountain of debt that maintains the system will also lead to its downfall.
I've never really seen honest government, unfortunately. I'm too young for that. But I do hope that I will see it someday.
#53 is a powerful post.
Reg. Gintas, I just expect less from people I reckon - it's none of my business though. Not sure why I've a tendency to meddle whenever there's an online conflict lately haha.
Anyway, I'm here to read posts like #53, which I probably already knew but ah haven't acted on as I ought.
TFJ: "As for culture, it is a pretty dodgy word. I have written on this so often I can only summarize here. The human cultura is, literally, the tending and care of human persons within a society, just as agricultura is the tending of fields."
This is a good point, unknown to many people. The modern notion of 'culture' (as opposed to the agricultural meaning) is largely a creation of the 19th century, and necessarily involves abstraction (and deracination?). Prior to the popularization of this vague term, one would discuss the civilization of a particular people in more concrete terms, such as "the British people," "ancestral tradition" (mos maiorum), "Celtic peoples," "Germanic peoples," etc.
Dr. Fleming, do you think the modern notion of 'culture' has added any clarity to understanding or is it a symptom of decline?
TJF: "We are a feeble, stupid, and childish nation, incapable of leading the gaudy life that would put us somewhere in Dante’s Hell. We’d have to take a number and wait in line and then get seated somewhere near the kitchen. That is why this election means nothing, because we have—as every nation almost always has—the leaders we deserve."
And even worse, our children will have to grow up in a world partly shaped by rogues like Barry Hussein or Juan McAmnesty.
"Thus, in a healthy society, there are institutions of common life, often involving government, that affirm the identity and principles of the society and censor and repress cultural expressions that undermine that identity. The Greek religious festivals, at which athletic contests were held and songs and plays performed, are an excellent example of how it works."
Whether it was conscious or not, Dr. Fleming gives a good rebuke of the hatred lewrockwell.com has shown toward the Olympics. Libertarians love the 'natural state' of humanity, but cheering for those who represent one's culture at the Olympics is the natural product of a healthy society. Our culture is breaking down in many ways, but there is still enough of one to make watching the Olympics worthwhile.
"...cultura is, literally, the tending and care of human persons within a society,...."
Cultura is literally being practice in our climes today. My ninety-one-year-old mother and I, while my good spouse convalesced in the aftermath of a severe flu, were out and about getting ready for Gustav - the staff of the gods. If he keeps to the path currently projected, he should pass over and through our farm sometime Tuesday or Wednesday. We reckon with several days' loss of electricity and water. So, we prepared for that with propane for our stove, canned food, containers for water to be caught in his rains - that is called leveraging the enemy's strength to your advantage - and such. The car and truck are fully fueled and checked with lights, water and food in them. We have battened down everything that we can.
After we got ourselves squared away, my mother, new to our community having moved here from Old Pollock, insisted that we go check on several "old" folks whom she has already met in her new Church. She wanted to be sure that they at least had water and food and that if their homes were damaged, they could come to our placing, assuming it is not damaged.
We, of course, are not the only ones getting ready. Today, in one of the stores, a lady, one of many who shared concerns and conversations about the advent of Gustav, said that ten of her grand nieces and nephews from south Louisiana, along with their kids, were arriving at her house today. Their projected stay is to be three weeks. She said that she felt blessed that her grand nieces and nephews knew that they had a save haven with her and that she was looking forward to their company despite the hardships of close living.
In these parts, about the only government official people really turn to for leadership is the sċīrġerēfa - shirereeve - sheriff. My household sits astraddle two parishes - Natchitoches and Red River. We currently have the good fortune to have two very able men in those positions. While they are "lawmen," they stress their roles as peace officers and wardens of their communities. Baton Rouge is about as alien to us as is Washington.
So, those of you who frequent this website, pray for us, not only that we weather the storm but also that we demonstrate the best of who we are by carrying for our kith and kin and also for the many strangers who will be sojourning among us.
I would like to know why my comments are deleted. They always touch on the topic discussed, and are never rude. What a boorish way to behave! I hope whoever moderates this site doesn't act that way in person. You'll have few friends if you do.
That is why this election means nothing, because we have—as every nation almost always has—the leaders we deserve.
I disagree. From the little I have read about our political history it seems to me the American Voter has done his level best but Judges have defeated their desires by doing their mountainous worst.
It was not the American people who desired a National Government. It was not the American people who desired Reconstruction and having the unratified 14th and 16th ammendments stuffed down our liberty-loving throats. It was not the American people who desired a National Bank. It was not the American people who desired the Federal Reserve. It was not the American people who....(the list is nearly endless once one begins)
I do agree with Prof Kreeft that the people will suffer when their leaders are immoral but blaming American Voters for the decisions of Judicial blackguards or the actions of the poltroons of the political class seems a bit unfair.
You say you want a revolution?
If not, then maybe the alternative is to take a chance on McCain and Palin because when McCain wins (and he will win big) the victory will move Palin into the Presidential On Deck Circle and she can pick Bobby Jindal as her running mate and the baby-killing liberals will have to gnash their teeth for a score of years.
It may not be much, but it does represent a ray of hope.
To refine a bit on cultura. It comes from the Latin verb colere, which means to tend or take care of. In farming, it is the tending of fields (but also by extension to settle in a place or inhabit a house); in religion, it is doing what is necessary--e.g., worshipping, respecting--towards the gods. It can also be applied to virtues or studies. Thus culture is not simply high art as bought and consumed by rich people, but culture consists of our most serious and worthy pursuits. The English word was given a particularized meaning by Tylor and became more or less synonymous with "what anthropologists study." It is very useful, if we stick to a literal understanding, but the fuzzier it gets--and the more abstract--the more dangerous. On this point, Frank is quite correct. If we say that every political and legal problem has a cultural root, then, we are saying that the American mores have been corrupted and not just on the surface.
I don't think anyone here would underestimate the evils done by activist judges and corrupt politicians, but such men do not get elected by accident. It has been a long decline, since, say the 1850's, to say nothing of the 1790's. In the first 60 years of the republic America was not governed by angels or demigods, and corrupt fixers like Van Buren could even get elected president, but the damage they did was limited not by our intelligence--which has never been the strong suit in our country but by the American character that could often distinguish between the false and true or at least between a talented and public-spirited humbug like Daniel Webster and the sort of shabby liars that filled the Grant administration. This is a long story, but the closing of the frontier, combined with mass immigration, have produced an American character that has some virtues but is quite distinct from the old American. We still produce an occasional trouble-maker like Edward Abbey, but Abbey in his lifetime was already an anachronism. The Americans of 1835 would not have stomached a ruling class (including judges) that mistreated them in the way we are mistreated today, nor would the opposition consist of loud-mouthed yahoos. It would have been led by the sort of people who led the revolution.
Finally, I hope no one is going to be sucked into the McCain camp on the strength of his choice of an inexperienced and dizzy hockey mom as VP candidate. It is true that Palin has more executive experience than Barack Obama--but, then, so do I. I have nothing to say against Mrs. Palin, who is probably a fine person and a good mother, even if she does name her children things like Bristol, Track, and Trig. She says she is pro-life, though what she has done to protect life I don't law, and opposed to gay marriage and civil unions. When Alaska passed a law limiting spousal benefits, she vetoed it, apparently on the advice of the attorney-general, but friends also say that because of her homosexual and lesbian friends, she is sensitive to their rights. I wonder if she knows any one who has had an abortion. I am not saying she his a hypocrite, only a ditzy journalism major who does not seem to have thought through the issues.
The idea that Mrs. Palin might become president does inspire a bit of glee, but only in the malicious sense that Mencken once said he could never leave America, because in a country full of clowns, he could pose as a wise man. She is a satirist's dream, but in that she is only slightly more qualified than Biden and McCain.
Legalizing abortion was a terrible thing to do, not because we should run around wringing our hands over the fact that millions of babies we don't know are being judicially murdered, but because a million plus mothers a year are killing their own children. Changing the laws will deter some of them, but only some. The problem is not so much the law: What if they passed a law legalizing cannibalism? If millions of Americans took to eating each other, wouldn't there be a deeper problem? Similarly, I don't know if there are laws against coprophagy, but with or without a law, we don't eat excrement, and if it were legalized, even our contemporaries might think twice about taking up the habit. Judges are chosen by presidents and approved by senators, who with the presidents are elected by the people. I do not say all Americans are guilty or even most, but it is an exercise in futility to think that McCain-Palin can change our world for us, even if they wanted to.
To Chesterbelloc: Because of the crazies and rudies who infest our site, new commenters are put into moderation until the writer or webmaster can review them. Since I have been away, I have been unable to monitor my column, for which I apologize.
I apologize if I jumped the gun. I thought I was being lumped in with the stream-of-consciousness ramblers and neo-nazi's!
To back to the question I raised earlier--what is to be done?--we might shift gears and, instead of scrutinizing the deficits of our national character, we might draw up a list of assets, strengths on which something might be built.
Let me contribute one thought. American foreign policy is often superficially moralistic, though at root it is more often a ruthless expression of libido dominandi. Then why do are leaders insist on selling us all these crusades for liberty, campaigns to eradicate evil, etc.? One reason is that most Americans would reject all our recent wars, if anyone ever told them the truth. I have found this to be the case both in the Balkan conflicts and in Iraq. In Kosovo, for example, it apparently takes a few months for many American soldiers and even their officers to wise up to who is who. That is why, I have been told, they have to be rotated out on a regular basis, because they realize how violent the Albanians have been and still are. Surely, in this American sense of decency--which persists to this day among many of our people--there is something to appeal to? What else?
PS: Re Mrs. Palin, I just looked at a polite but critical comment by Ilana Mercer, a courageous and intelligent commentator with whom I occasionally disagree but respect: http://barelyablog.com/?p=1205
Aside from decency, I would add a strong work ethic. It's why welfare programs are no longer sold on remedying "injustice" but rather on giving a helping hand to struggling working "families" (i.e., single mothers) who just need a little boost. Degenerates, of course, never benefit. No one should buy it but I don't think you can deny the pitch is designed to appeal to the American work ethic.
...but it is an exercise in futility to think that McCain-Palin can change our world for us, even if they wanted to.
I have family that was from County Cork so exercises in futility are both natural and fun.
With Obama - Biden you have two world class pro-aborts and the absolute worst pair of collectivists ever assembled by the Evil Party.
The Stupid Party (SP) at least has to pretend it is pro-life and it may have unintentionally blundered by plucking Palin out of obscurity. I do think the SP uses abortion as an electoral issue but if my,admittedly magical-thinking, ticket of Palin-Jindal eventuates, then, maybe, the SP will actually become pro-life and, if that happens, who knows what else may happen?
I think we all know a Phillips, Buchanan, or a Paul can not be elected so malcontents like me are left hoping against reality and
casting our eyes about for some sign of hope on the distant political horizon. And while Palin ain't the sun of man, she does appear to be a ray of hope.
And, in the mean time, those of us who do hold out some hope are not total fools. I am realistic in the sense I do not think McCain- Palin will change our world, but, maybe, just maybe, their election will lead to positive, incremental changes.
The alternative, it seems to me, is to throw up our hands and not vote and tend to kith and kin, blood and soil, Faith, friends and farming etc.
But I do not see why one can not do all of those things while still voting for this cycle's candidates of the SP, while voting on the State and local levels for pro life, pro peace, sound-money, small-govt candidates.
I think the easiest thing to do is just to say to Hell with everything and let the collectivist baby-killing bastards win.
At the risk of sounding totally cynical, I have to wonder if the American "national character" actually has very much in the way of "assets on which something might be built".
Dr. Fleming (and the rest of you), what "assets" would you include on that list ? For the life of me, I don't see many. A work ethic maybe, and some of us still seem to care about our children, but not much more.
Your servant,
Lord Karth
Unfortunatley Dr. Fleming there are those who are being suckered into voting for McCain, thinking that Palin is one of us and that in selecting Palin and putting her close to throne, she'll eventually take power, either through McCain's premature demise or through the wishful thinking he'll only serve one term in office. Then she'll name Pat Buchanan as Secretary of State
This is exactly what Karl Rove wants. This is why he encouraged McCain's staff, which used to be his staff, to play up her bonifides while discouraging Joe Lieberman's, whom McCain probably wanted in the first place.
It may very well be that Palin was a Buchanan Brigader in 1996 or maybe 2000, we don't really know (and right now she's busy denying it in order to keep the necons happy). She said some nice things about Ron Paul in 2008 but apparently wouldn't take the step to support the only reform Republican running for President. Maybe she was just keeping her options open, who knows? But one thing is for certain, this is not a person with any kind of deep intellectual development and one without a philisophic core because one doesn't not need such a core serving on the Wasilla City Council. She's a local Republican office holder, no different than a GOP Secretary of State, a mayor or a county Register of Deeds. Would you go to the Register of Deeds or the county coroner for an opinion on Iraq or the crisis in the Caucuses? Of course not, which is why she'll defer to McCain and his neocon advisors if they're elected. She'll be the pretty face in an administration of some very ugly people and her presence will not change this.
Ms. Palin has many admirable qualities and seems to be a very multi-dimensional politician, one who was willing to attend Libertarian Party meetings in Alaska. It's sad she has to be paired up the War Pig John McCain because in spite of her presence on the ticket, there can be no voting for her. It's McCain who gets that vote and if he does, the bombs start to fall on the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow.
43,
I think you were responding to my comment.
I should clarify my point.
I am concerned about my grandchildren because I don't
think the United States will be a very good place to live in about 60 more years.
All of the West will probably have lost its cultural heritage by then. Here are the reasons I think so.
Not many Americans have recognized the threat that jihad poses to our way of life. Its battle is here and today in a thousand places around the world. Europe has already been seriously infiltrated and its politicians and church leaders, etc., have tried to placate Muslims by giving in step by step to demands that they assimilate into the Muslim world. The Muslims recognize weakness and a lack of will when they see it. Look at what has happened in Europe since the cartoons issue.
In nearby Canada the same sort of thing is playing out. Muslims are using the timidity and irresolution to push each little point of opportunity in multicultural and political-correctness. Freedom of the press is virtually dead in Europe and Canada when it comes to criticizing acts of jihad.
In the United States the President has not identified the enemy yet. And several of the people writing on this site seem oblivious to the dangers of the real world and are isolationists although they may not know it. They are content to say spiteful things about the so-called "neo-cons" as though that will solve some problem.
It is naive to think that the United States could or should stand on the sidelines when ---as the most powerful nation on the planet --- it has had the power to do something about the wrongs of the world thrust upon it. But it either doesn't know how to behave like a world power or doesn't have the will to do it.
The Democrat left has no clue as to how a world power should behave. It started talking about exiting strategies just after the US overthrew the Iraq military. Of course, the Muslims knew at that point that all they had to do was to keep the blood flowing until the US tucked its tail and ran. And the wimpish people may have given us a Muslim President by next year this time.
I wasn't in favor of the Iraq invasion to begin with and said so to anybody who would listen, but I also believe it is a mistake to give aid and comfort to the enemy once the President has committed troops to battle in a foreign war.
Hundreds of American soldiers died on some days during WWII, but no citizens tried to get the President to withdraw the troops. Instead they pitched in every way they could to help win the war. Presidents FDR and Truman were able to hold out for unconditional surrender because the nation was with them.
Take another case. The British empire went into India without a strategy for withdrawal and stayed for generations and taught the citizens of that occupied country Shakespeare and English----and the value of education. Now India is the world's largest democracy. And her citizens are benefactors of that occupying force; they are the ones you reach by phone when you have a problem with your computer at night.
The United States can't help anybody today because it has lost faith in itself. It can't even help itself. Its border are not secure, and it is trying to buy friendship from countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia and is getting despised in return. And it gets no respect from its European "allies."
The word should have been "beneficiaries."
Mr. Scallon,
there's no way I'd vote McCain, but you really think America could go to war with Russia?
Mr. Roberts,
Another important facet of culture is that we need to honor it and live it ourselves. We live in a time when the West could just as easily be snuffed out as be resurrected, and we who remain loyal to the West will have to ensure we remain true to its core values.
One result of the theories of how religion and tradition are beneficial is they serve to undermine the faith in religions in general, and tempt man to play god by creating his own religion. I'd argue the understood positives of Christianity should increase one's faith despite that religion has been used in the past to control and that Christianity is similarly meant to guide our behavior and thought.
It troubles me though how globalist Christianity, some have taken to calling the American evangelical wing Judeoxianity (with Marx as the Messiah) as a play on the term JudeoChristian, when I don't find it be so - though I've admittedly more to learn...
What other strengths in the American character could we appeal to?
That's a hard question to answer. I might say religion, at least in some areas of the country, but that religion is so degenerated now.
They all seem to recognise that the schools are failing to educate and are corrupting their children, but there seems such a malaise in this regard. How could we appeal to their desire for their children to have a good education and character? Most wouldn't go for the concept of privatisation, at least not yet, and they dont have time for homeschooling.
It seems that every time I think of something, there is something else that counteracts it. Skepticism of politicians, perhaps a healthy trait in times past, becomes cynicism and a sense of alienation and hopelessness.
The realisation that we are not really better off now with air conditioning and freeways, etc., as opposed to close nit extended families and agrarian living is offset by the desire to keep the air conditioner and freeways, etc. They never seem to realise that it's not necessarily the air conditioner or freeways, etc., that are the problem, and that it doesn't necessarily have to be an either/or choice.
I'll keep trying.
One reason it is so difficult to list the assets of the American character is that most people in America, despite what the pundits and polls say, are generally complacent with the life that they have been given. Maybe my personal experience is unlike all others, but the people that I know, friends and neighbors, are materially content. People spew general platitudes about gas prices and the economy, but that is all they really are, platitudes. This is the reason why candidates for president can be pathetic in every sense of the word and still voted into office. The millions of ways in which the federal government intrudes into the lives of its own people continue practically unnoticed because, in many instances, they fail to strike at the heart of daily life. As long as there is peace at home and food on the table, people seem generally reluctant to do anything considered 'extreme' by the liberal popular culture. It seems as if the 'conservatism' of the people is what prevents them from being conservative.
Frank, if Randy Scheuneman has his way, and he'll be the NSC advisor in a McCain administration, America will certainly cross swords with Russia, in either a new Cold War or a hot one.
Unfortunatley Dr. Fleming there are those who are being suckered into voting for McCain, thinking that Palin is one of us ....
Well, if she was one of you she would not have accepted McCain's offer.
Maybe the lady is not a scamp. It may be small potatoes, but at least the Stupid Party has dished out a modicum of hope. Who'd have thunk it?
It seems to me there is a blogosphere race to be the first to declaim there is no hope and that all is lost (that is my normal default ideological position).
But, maybe this was a move that'll blow up in the establishment's face. You know, they may seem all powerful but they lost the senate and house due to their stupidity. Maybe this time their stupidity benefits those who have not extinguished hope.
#82 - "they lost the senate and house due to their stupidity."????
Last I looked the US Senate and House were firmly in the control of the establishment and were busy writing blank checks for the boy emperor's war on terror, his domestic spying, and were urging a blockade of Iran. Do you seriously imagine that Pelosi and Reid are NOT part of the establishment. The gushing over the selection of Palin pretty much convinces me that at least half of the paleos belong to the stupid party.
Spartacus, (oh wait a minute you're not Spartacus) no matter how much I approve of the Palin choice and I do, I'm not going to give another four years to the neocons with my vote, because that's exactly what voting for Palin will do. And besides, you don't vote for Palin alone, you for McCain-Palin, emphasis on the McCain, and he's the one with control of the button, not her.
I think the Palin choice does show there's hope because it shows the powers that be recognize there's a constituency of disgruntled conservatives and libertarians that could sink the GOP. That's why she was picked. But I'm not going to let hope cloud my better judgment.
Mr. Higdon. When it is called for, I can gush, but, I think calling what I have written "gushing" is on the order of describing blushing as a Super Nova.
I live in Wellington, Florida and, on Feb. 24, 1998, I registered as an "NPA" (No Party Affiliation) in Precinct 6143. The status of my registration remains unchanged.
I do not think I could have made it any clearer that I was writing about The Stupid Party and that they are the ones who lost The Senate and The House.
While it is, of course, true that both the Evil Party and The Stupid Party are run by the establishment, that establishment is not impeccable and The Stupid Party has, I think, erred in their selection of the pretty Palin and that, maybe, there is cause for hope because of that error.
The Palin pick didn't give McCain any real bump in the polls. Her pro life stance will negate the fact she is a woman with regards in trying to pander to the Hilary woman supporters. The fact is McCain is the main man you are voting for, the VP is just someone that attends funerals of the rich and powerful. Palin is just being used to unite the GOP one last time so we can have our next world war and they start the new economic order afterwards. The next administration is going to be a one termer as the chickens come home to roost in 2009-2010. Lew Rockwell thought the election was virtually over once he heard Palin was picked, and another one on Lew's site thought the pick locked the GOP into the presidentcy til 2020. Can't see that happening at all. McCain/Palin might win in '08, but lose in '12 as they will be seen as just as impotent as Bush in dealing with runaway inflation, more huge job losses, foreclosures, etc. Not to mention a possible world war. We are really trying to provoke Russia in the Black Sea right now.
I agree Sean,
McCain is the man with the real power if the GOP ticket is going to win in '08. Palin will just be in the VP mansion taking care of her little ones or going off to important photo op functions ala funerals, etc.
#85 - When I originally wrote that part about gushing, I had in mind people like Richard Spencer over at Taki's. Now that I've read some of the stuff you've posted there, Not Spartacus, I think gushing applies specifically to you as well.
With respect to your clarity on The Stupid Party, here is what you wrote -
"But, maybe this was a move that’ll blow up in the establishment’s face. You know, they may seem all powerful but they lost the senate and house due to their stupidity."
The antecedent of the pronoun they is the establishment, not The Stupid Party, so yes I think you could have made yourself a bit more clear. First step in the direction of clarity might be the realization that both parties are part of the establishment. Second step, a realization that Sarah Palin is now very much in the inner circle of that establishment. Third step a realization that her selection was specifically for the purpose of fooling people like you.
Dr. Fleming, in response to your comments regarding foreign policy at #66: I see the term "national interest" used in much of the commentary on U.S. foreign policy, but there is almost no attempt to define what our national interests are. The commentator just states that the policy or action that is recommended is in our national interest. We need a national discussion on what our interests are in the world today and what policies and actions will protect, promote, or support them. Can you recommend any resources that provide guidance in this area? (Perhaps an issue of Chronicles on this topic would be useful.)
oops! I meant your comments at #69.
I'm glad I'm only shadow posting at the moment again. But at this late hour not to be talking about the politics as it is and still dancing around it, i.e. list our strengths etc., and not who's running the show is like graffiti. You need to talk about both etc. Reminds me of an Anton Chekhov plot except, he wasn't pretending to be commenting about the political and shunned it in his works. From what I can glean of it, not even addressed discretely; for him at least in what he wanted to deal with, it's only about the 'emotional.'
Don't you understand the 'other' culture once it got the media taught the plutocrats to be even worse than they would have been. Or even are NOW, that most of them have been moved out of the picture in behalf of the 'other' culture's hegemony.
Here's my recipe for you - read Israel Shamir - realize the only thing he's off kilter about is he's an old leftist probablfy yet at heart - but everything else he points out is the 'god's honest'. Then measure the distance in terms of what you are either 'allowed' to say in that regard or if it's another story-the distance between that and what you yet 'believe' is the case. Forget me - you're right about that - I yet remain 'virtual' by comparison to yourself and others etc. who have reputations and families and careers to consider. If that's it only - good, I DON'T think you should sacrifice that. But realize you've lost then, and already ARE slaves. That shouldn't upset you - there's nothing prohibiting it in the Bible.
We can stop discussing McCain-Palin. The revelation of her daughter's pregnancy will be exploited to the maximum by the MSM. The ploy would have worked short of a scandal. Prepare thyself for President Obama.
We can stop discussing McCain-Palin. The revelation of Palin's pregnant daughter will be exploited to the uttermost by the MSM. The GOP ploy might have worked short of a scandal. As it is, prepare thyself for President Obama.
In response to #89's query in search of a definition of national interest, allow me to throw in this version.
"The sum of the special interests is not necessarily the national interest." - James Earl Carter
Sadly, Carter's hope has not played out in practice.
Mr. Higdon. Obviously, Maybe the lady is not a scamp. It may be small potatoes, but at least the Stupid Party has dished out a modicum of hope. was not clear enough, for you.
After your comments, I must roll over and expose my belly and respond like Ron White did to the cops, "Ya got me. I am Tater Salad."
You got me, Mr. Higdon. "I'm a fool"
I can't wait for TJF's commentary on the Palin mess. Reinforces what he wrote above, and then some.
“To live without faith, without a patrimony to defend, without a steady struggle for Truth, that is not living, but existing.”
Blessed Giorgio Prassati, Turin, Italy 1922 and Blessed Tom Fleming, "Suburbs of Hell," Rockford, 2008
To ASV: Yes, "national interest" is a slippery term. My old friend at the Washington Times, Ralph Hallow, once took me up on this, when I said that we should not engage in wars unless they were in the national interest. He pointed out rather abruptly that imperialists could always one pretext or another. A special issue is an excellent idea.
In response to #69 - assets to build on in the American people:
I think a good many Americans genuinely want to "build up treasures in heaven" by doing good and I agree that many are willing to work hard. I think the problem is that American thought and practice is almost completely monistic when it comes to the relationship between treasures in heaven and treasures on earth.
Thus, liberal elites are under the impression that achieving socio-statistical targets are what Jesus meant by healing the poor and too much (not all) of the country's working classes are under the impression that 'taking care of your family' means providing extra helpings of video games and orange soda for the kids so they won't feel left out in comparison to their friends.
Regarding culture, I agree with Babbitt that we ought to start by a redefinition of the word 'work' to mean something closer to the achievement of an intellectual and spiritual standard. In modern times that means discrediting the idea that 'work' is equal to material productivity in society and physical fitness in the individual. If we do the real 'work', all these things will be given to us, but, by our false definition, we see that we are not only not obtaining the real standard, but we are slowly losing even the subservient material standard in the form of diminishing competitiveness in the economy and obesity in the population.
I apologize to Mr. Fleming for my hot-headed and intemperate accusation of willful and conscious and catastrophic surrender to the Mexican hordes. Mr. Auster even said I went too far.
We ought to be doing something more constructive than agonizing over the pointless question of who to vote for
Mr Wilson, I agree, but what can we do? Another party would be easily infiltrated and effectively neutered. Just ask folks at both the Libertarian and Constitution Parties about that. A general strike maybe? Another Revolution? Those won't work as it will just be used as an excuse to further the police state that is coming down on us. The best course of action is to just live a good Christian life and be a good witness, but that unfortunately is irrelevant anymore in terms of fixing the culture, unless you are considering the extremely long term, especially with the broad based Evangelical movement being nothing more than a shill for the State. In short, both the political system and Christianity in America are both very bad jokes.