Nine years ago I wrote this timely article about the perennial threat of Israel bombing Iran, and the threat – or the lack thereof – of nuclear weapons.
This is a great snapshot of history, and many of the same people are still involved in this game of risk.
In 2007, then-candidate John McCain blew any chance of serious foreign-policy discussion when he reverted to singing “bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.” Bombing a country is generally considered serious. We’re long past this faux-pas of McCain’s in the middle of another round of Republican primary season, in which foreign policy is completely ignored. That’s not the point though. Bombing Iran is a frequent theme, and if candidates for office aren’t discussing it, policy-makers and observers of international affairs are talking about it.
In July of this year, MJ Rosenberg wrote a fascinating article about the near future. My experience is that he’s not given to hyperbole of scaremongering, and wasn’t writing to get people excited or vitriolic. He may have been writing to put the world on guard; or even, to write what would happen in order to prevent it from happening. Rosenberg was writing, or course, about…
View original post 811 more words
The Fifth of November has been remembered as the “Gunpowder treason and plot” since Catholics Guy Fawkes, Robert Catesby, and others attempted to blow up the British Parliament with Protestant King James I and the lords of parliament inside.
Yasmeen Serhan in The Atlantic says that after the failed plot, the word guy developed to mean a grotesque person. Londoners celebrated the survival of the king by lighting bonfires. It has become an official day in Britain where people light bonfires and burn effigies (a ritual, Yasmeen says, that has expanded to effigies of Donald Trump, Harvey Weinstein, and Boris Johnson).
The reputation and portrayal of Guy Fawkes has changed over the centuries. He became the basis for V for Vendetta and is now viewed as a popular underdog fighting the government. The iconic mask worn by protesters around the world represents Guy Fawkes.
History, Yasmeen Serhan, says…
View original post 100 more words
There are hours that will last a year
“There are hours that will last a year.” So read a line in my beautiful copy of The Three Musketeers.
I chose to disengage myself from the internet on the day after the election, while we’re all waiting for more definitive results, and to engage myself in finishing The Three Musketeers (as well as some recent television drama).
As we continue to wait for election results it feels like there are hours that will last a year.
We are all waiting on the sometimes-swing-state Nevada. A lot of people are pressing refresh every few seconds and nothing is happening. Remember that if you want to continue to click refresh, an hour will feel like a year.
When I dared to check social media again I found this, which surely explains what’s taking so long.
While we are waiting for the Count to finish, remember to engage in self-care by reading a classic like The Three Musketeers (I wrote about some of what you’ll find here), or binge-watch your favorite show.
November 3rd was when the the voting happened. By law and regulation, every state has days or weeks to count every vote. The election isn’t over until the count (Count?) is done. It might feel like it’s taking so long but we’re right on time.
It’s election day! Today is “the most important election of our life,” numerous people will say. Politico points out, as numerous other people will, that “the most important election of our life” happens every four years.
From a political point of view, all elections are important. Some elections are decided by ten votes. Still, it’s likely everyone is feeling a little shpilkes about this election.
Shpilkes, a Yiddish word, means “nervous energy, anxiousness, restlessness”. I have little doubt that everyone feels a little nervous, anxious, and restless waiting for the results of “the most important election of our life”. (To read a comedic, but accurate description of shpilkes see Hey Alma).
The current administration wants you to feel shpilkes about this election. It’s therefore important that the nervous feelings that you have, which should not turn into worries and suffering (tsuris), are cast aside and put instead instead into positive thoughts and actions. To overcome the the shpilkes the administration wants us to feel we must not act as the administration wants us to.
This article about how to overcome Trumpism is inspired by today’s day trip to Seattle. During that trip, two days before the election, there was the spread out – but obvious – caravan of Trump supporters, with huge flags on their car, driving the other way. The caravan prompted the jeering comment of “what are you going to do about it [the caravan being there],” and the retort of “well, what is there to do about it?”
Trumpism is driven by fear, nihilism, and to some extent, fatalism. While there is some case that Trumpism is based on the rejection of fact, the rejection of fact stems from fear, nihilism, and fatalism.
I think that the fear Trump supporters and conservative republicans have is a result of a drastic fear of change, like I summarized in an article about Oakeshott recently. I showed that we’re all more comfortable with a lack of change, but moderate, “slow rather than rapid pace,” of change is tolerable to most of us.
More than one definition applies to what appears to be nihilism in the ultra-conservative Trumpites. It appears that both “extreme skepticism maintaining that nothing in the world has a real existence,” and the rejection of all moral – but not religious! – principles on the grounds that life is meaningless.
This leads to an attitude of fatalism; at the same time the attitude of fatalism lead to the circular outlook of the attitude of the rejection of moral principles. Fatalism itself, as Hannah Arendt brilliantly summarized and demonstrated, arises from a loss, or fear of loss, of social norms. With the loss, of potential loss of everything familiar in the world, such as a job or a community, people conclude that they have nothing to live for, but will not die until they inflict their rejection of morals upon everything around them. In this way fear, nihilism, and fatalism are connected.
What can we do about the caravans? What do we do about a rather large swath of society that is propelled by fear and looks to push its nihilism on the rest of us, while acting with a fatalistic attitude?
The answer is that we need to address the social, or socio-economic, and political issues that impels people to feel hopeless. My response, to the utterances of “well, what can you do about the caravan” is that we need “systemic change”. I don’t remember my other exact words, but we need to address what people are fearful of, and fix why people feel like hope and reality should be rejected.
When I say system change I mean exactly the opposite of what the Trump administration dreams of where the wealthy get wealthy and the poor get poorer. Systemic change means a system where everyone is able to reach their full potential; a system where people don’t fear the loss of income or community.
In yet another unheard of and ridiculously destructive natural disaster, the Philippines have been hit by the strongest typhoon (hurricane) in years – maybe ever.
File this under 2020 weird but predictable events because climate change, made worse by human activity, is creating strong and more violent storms every year.
This year might be the coolest and least destructive – as far as natural disasters are concerned – in the next hundred years and beyond.If we act to mitigate climate change and end burning of fossil fuels, end fracking, and stop cutting down trees, we can survive. If we continue on our current course, this is just a precursor of what’s to come for all our kids.
When I say we need to act, I’m not merely referring to growing our own gardens or using solar energy to to power our household needs. While these are important and useful acts, it is corporations – run by people – that do most of the damage to our environment.
The actions we need to take are to demand that our governmental representatives hold corporations – and agencies run by the government, like the military – responsible for the damage they’ve done to the environment, and to transition in the next few years entirely to renewable energies and non-destructive behavior. If we do this, there will be a future for our species. If we don’t act we will quickly see disasters that could have been prevented happen at an increasingly rapid pace.
Referred to by Terrence Ball and Richard Dagger as one of the leading representatives of classical conservatism in the twentieth century, Michael Oakeshott (1901-1990) suggested that politics must be rooted in tradition and experience, not abstract reason or principles. Oakeshott’s article, “On Being Conservative” was published in Ball and Dagger’s “Ideas And Ideologies: A Reader” (2004), where I first read Oakeshott. “On Being Conservative” can also be found here.
In many ways conservatism, or being conservative, sounds natural. Many of us – probably all of us – have some inclination “to prefer the familiar to the unknown, the prefer to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible,” the “convenient the perfect,” and other marks of conservationism Oakeshott expressed. Conservatism is the aversion to change, he tells us. More remarkable, that means that “change … appears always, in the first place, as deprivation.” We’re being deprived of the familiar.
Change is inevitable, Oakeshott concedes. The last several centuries have been marked by change. Change naturally happens. It’s just that conservatives “will find small and slow changes more tolerable than large and sudden” changes. Change, after all “is a threat to identity, and every change is an emblem of extinction” of the familiar. A conservative is “strongly disposed to preserve his identity” as he knows it.
This is not to say that innovation is bad. Conservatives – at least conservatives in Oakeshott’s world – know that innovation can be improvement. He says that the conservative temperament will see innovation in a few ways: “innovation entails certain loss and possible gain” and thus the “onus of proof, to show that the proposed change is beneficial may be expected to rest with the would-be innovator”. A conservative would be more likely to go for an innovation that responds to a defect, and this is much more preferred than “one generated by an idea of perfection”; conservatives “prefer small and limited innovations to large and indefinite”; and thus “favours a slow rather than rapid pace” to innovation”; and lastly, “he considers the most favourable occasion for innovation to be when when the projected change is most likely to be limited to what is intended and least likely to be corrupted by undesired and unmanageable consequences.”
Conservatism makes sense in the personal world that Oakeshott discusses, such as maintaining a friendship is inherently progressive. If we extend it to our own habits like food choices , and other habits of being in our ‘comfort zone’ it makes sense.
While all of the above relates to conservatism as a political philosophy, the quotes and habits I’ve commented on are merely one of a conservative person; a person that Oakeshott says is often seen as “rooted in ‘human nature’,” who simply has a “propensity to use and to enjoy what is available rather than to look for something else”. In his concluding section Oakeshott moves on to what these means for “a conservative disposition in politics”. As a non-conservative person I am trying to fathom how conservatives see the world.
This conservative disposition “is nothing to do with a natural law or a providential order, nothing to do with morals or religion”. We can only assume what Oakeshott would think of today’s conservatives in the United States. Our current politicians, including nominees to the Supreme Court, extend conservatism to morals that they themselves don’t follow, and religion that they bastardize for their own use.
Conservative disposition in politics “has nothing to do with morals and religion.” What the disposition is, Oakeshott says, “it is the observation of our current manner of living combined with the belief … that governing is a specific and limited activity, namely the provision and custody of general rules of conduct, which are understood not as imposing substantial activities … “. The government does not exist to “impose other beliefs and activities upon its subjects,” for which we should be thankful for under past, present – and likely – future governments. Nonetheless, “the office of the government is merely to rule”.
There are currently a few representatives in government – and oddly, Oakeshott might find, they tend to be progressive representatives – that would agree with Oakeshott that
it is beyond human experience to suppose that those who rule are endowed with a superior wisdom which discloses to them a better range of beliefs and activities and which gives them the authority to to impose upon their subjects quite a different manner of life.
In addition, they’d probably agree with Oakeshott that the government and its representatives should not be zeroed-in on one issue on which they “spend their energy and wealth,” and spend no energy or wealth on any other issue.
Oakeshott’s conservative government exists to “preserve the peace … not by substantial unanimity, but by enforcing general rules of procedure upon all subjects alike”. As a system, contrary to our current administration and its followers, conservatism is “found in ritual, not in religion or philosophy; in the enjoyment of orderly and peaceable behavior, not in the search for truth or perfection”.
In theory – yes, this is all theory – conservatives approve of innovations, but the modifications should “never on any occasion be so great” as to destroy the equanimity. Conservatives, he makes clear ” will have nothing to do with innovations designed merely hypothetical situations”. It would be best to “delay a modification of the rules until it is clear that the chance of circumstance it is designed to reflect has come to stay a while”. The conservative would be “suspicious of proposals for change”. All this, apparently, while appreciating innovations.
Oakeshott’s conservative, perhaps unlike the contemporary conservatives in the U.S., would be suspicious “of rulers who demand extra-ordinary powers in order to make great changes”; especially, perhaps if those changes are “tied to generalities like ‘the public good’ or ‘social justice’. Despite the reality of a ruler who demands extraordinary powers, the conservative of Oakshott’s world might view policies as thing to be lightly renovated and trimmed from time to time, not severely changed.
Oakeshott recognizes that some politicians want to use the “government as an instrument of passion” and that to inflame the masses is the best course of change. The conservative is certainly against this; the business of a government is “not to inflame passion and give it new objects to feed upon, but to inject into the activity of already too passionate men an ingredient of moderation; to restrain, to pacify, and to reconcile” is the goal of the conservative.
Now I will try to understand conservatism as Oakeshott believes it to be in relation to modern and current U.S. politics. The conservatives – who in theory want to “maintain the peace” through an equilibrium – are in charge of the executive branch, and the Senate. Certainly it’s the Democrats who are more inclined to promote transformative programs of the suspicious notion of ‘social justice’. Programs like the Green New Deal, universal healthcare, and the call to defund the police – which, although it must have a threatening sound to the conservative ear that wants to maintain the status quo, is merely a call to reallocate funding that goes to the police. None of these will happen at the federal level as long as conservatives – anyone interested in not rocking the boat – is in charge of what bills get passed and approved. There is no promise that these changes would happen under a Democratic administration.
Some programs to “maintain the peace” are, or were, programs not limited in scope. For instance, the eighteen-year long war in the Middle East was a blow to the equilibrium of the status quo. So was the response to the immigration crisis, especially at our southern border. The war, and the immigration crisis that has resulted from U.S. policies were drastic changes in behavior and action that has become a norm of the conservative to accept and promote.
Oakeshott certainly believed in the separation of church and state, and thought that no religious outlook would interfere with, or mingle with, the conservative disposition. Remember that he said that conservatism “has nothing to do with morals and religion” and is merely a tempered response to the the reality around us. While the reality is debatable, the classic conservative of Oakeshott’s world responded with a realism not connected to religion or morals to the contemporary world. Extend this thought to a current Supreme Court nominee and you’ll see that Oakeshott’s classic conservative is different from the current conservative.
While conservatives are not inclined toward radical change in policy, this doesn’t imply that liberal Democrats are naturally in favor of drastic change. Also conservative in nature, the contemporary liberal in government is very much a proponent of delaying “a modification of the rules until it is clear that the chance of circumstance it is designed to reflect has come to stay a while”. It appears that the liberal leadership is”suspicious of proposals for change,” even when studies present evidence that the change would be good financially, morally, ethically, and with broad approval. Like the classic conservative, it seems that liberals “will find small and slow changes more tolerable than large and sudden” changes. While small and slow changes occur, there will be no transformative, radical, necessary, changes made by the government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Seeing that conservatism in both its current form and the form that Oakeshott propounds and that liberalism in its current form is not working to bring about changes necessary changes in policy the logical suggestion would be to think beyond conservatism and liberalism. Even Oakeshott’s conservative knows that change happens and can appreciate it; it’s time for the government to abandon conservatism and bring passionate change of necessary, positive, changes for the people.
Voting for Joe Biden to replace Donald Trump is a bit like voting for Sauron, the fallen wizard, to replace Saruman.
I know that we don’t live in a world with elves and wizards, with both a longevity far greater than Methuselah, and that the dwarfs in our world are not ax-wielding warriors under the mountain, but we do live in a world with good and bad, and bad that turns evil.
No reasonable person would vote for Sauron during the Third Age of Middle Earth. Assuming that all the races of elves, dwarfs, hobbits, and everyone else were casting votes for a leader, and Sarumon the White Wizard was up for election, many people, even the elvish leaders and his fellow wizards would vote for Saruman. But they would be deceived.
We know that Saruman was a respected leader and that his fellow wizards turned to him for answers and insight. Yet he deceived them.
We know that Biden has been a respected personage in government for a long time and that might be turned to for answers and insight. We would be deceived to think that Biden has any more inclination than Saruman did, or to lead us in a more encouraging direction to the future.
Recall that Saruman, while fallen, became a beggar along the road, looking to turn hobbit against hobbit, and interfere with things like the planting of crops, while working to turn the green countryside brown.
I don’t know what the means to the fact that we are deceived to think that Biden (Saruman) is a great choice to be elected, just because he is running against Trump (Sauron). I do know that electing a fallen wizard to replace the sleepless eye of Mordor is not an encouraging option. We could do better, of course, and elect Radagast or Tom Bombadil.
An article from ten years ago remains quite accurate. Once again people are pushing from what they – wrongly – perceive to be centrism.
I write a lot about politics. In my world-view, that’s frequently the topic to write about on this blog over social commentary. Most topics begin with or return to politics, and so it’s not a surprise. I’m not sorry, exactly, that politics is frequently the topic; it is my life, and, as I say, most things begin with or return to politics. I don’t mean to write about politics exclusively, but once again, here I go writing about politics.
I get to talk to a lot of you, my friends. Some of you see me as the political Buddha; I often advocate patience and calmness and reason. And once again, I’m talking about patience and political moderation, although my desire is that things improve much more quickly than what I advocate as reasonable and likely.
In September, 2010, 34.6% of adults were Democrats, and 33.1% were Republicans, according to Rasmussen…
View original post 398 more words
Brothers and Sisters, “Green peace is beautiful! And you are beautiful, because you are here tonight! You came here because you are not on a death trip! You believe in life, you believe in peace, and you want them now!”
The Vancouver Sun ,of Canada, reports that those were the words of Irving Stowe, an American expat who helped found Greenpeace, at the concert held fifty years ago that launched Greenpeace.
The concert, attended by 10,000 people, had Phil Ochs, Chilliwack, James Taylor and Joni Mitchell performing to the outrageous price of $3 a ticket.
The Dole Blog 