J.S. Mill once said, in one of his relatively few statements as a member of Parliament for a short time, that "[c]onservatives are not necessarily stupid people, but most stupid people are Conservatives." His statement related to the Conservatives of his time, but I wonder if it is true regarding those of our time, or to those who call themselves "conservative" in our times, here in this Great Republic.
One doesn't expect profound thinking or perhaps even thought from the likes of Hank Williams, Jr., and I've always been inclined to disregard political pronouncements from our professional entertainers of any stripe, whether they foolishly volunteer their opinions or are egged on by eager members of the media. But there are those from whom we may expect something approaching the ability to think, and among those are such as judges and those running for national office. The recent statements of a county judge in Texas who will remain unnamed here (primarily because I find it difficult to resist the urge to make play with that name) and those of candidate Akin cause me to believe that expectation is unfounded.
There is an honorable intellectual tradition in Conservative thought. But in this country it seems to have been eclipsed by a tradition which is virulently anti-intellectual, anti-reason, anti-science and anti-that-which-is-not-white-American and conventionally religious and anti-intellectual, anti-reason and anti-science. This must be disturbing to any intelligent Conservative, as in our most unfortunate two-party system it means for the most part that those intelligent Conservatives who exist must necessarily associate themselves with members of the Republican Party, who seem intent on demonstrating that they are, mostly, stupid people.
In this farcical presidential election, we have an incumbent president who I think would in normal circumstances be quite vulnerable. However, the association of most stupid people with the Republican Party may very well manage to make a president who has, I think it's fair to say, been incompetent look like the only reasonable alternative to government by ignorant buffoons. It is a horrible situation to be in at a critical time.
Conservatism is generally typified by a caution regarding change, particularly change implemented by government. However, it can be a viable political philosophy only if it can recognize change which has already taken place. The Republican Party seems to have considerable trouble accepting such change; in the status of women, gays, religion and the so-called minorities which will soon enough be a majority. It seems convinced that the majority of the American people are ersatz versions of Bocephus, Pat Robertson and the enormously wealthy. This simply is untrue now, and will be staggeringly untrue in the future.
If a thoughtful Conservatism is to survive, it must disassociate itself from the Know-Nothings, fundamentalists and tycoons who have become the representatives of the Right in these dark times. It must champion reason and freedom and the rule of law. The rule of law includes in this nation a neutral stance regarding religion. It should neither encourage nor discourage it. It should not sanction the imposition of religious views nor should it sanction the prohibition of religious views. Simply put, religion is not the law.
A thoughtful Conservatism as a political force may turn out to be impossible in our two-party system, but I think it would be desirable if a party was formed which could support the idea of limited government and individual liberty and yet manage not to be a tool of the wealthy and a haven for most stupid people.
Saturday, August 25, 2012
Sunday, August 19, 2012
The Increasingly Curious Case of Julian Assange
I wouldn't have chosen a balcony from which to declaim; too many associations with the histrionics of Il Duce and Der Fuhrer. But it may be that his choices as to the place from which to make a public statement were limited under the circumstances, so we must forgive Mr. Assange for this oddity. But I think it did make him look rather preposterous, and may play to the claims made by some, including former comrades at WikiLeaks, that he is suffering from megalomania.
But he has been granted asylum by a sovereign nation, and although that nation apparently is not known for its tolerance and keeps a very tight leash on its own media and so seems a rather inappropriate place for someone with Assange's pretensions to petition, it presumably has certain rights under international law, including that of granting asylum. It also, I think, has certain rights with respect to the inviolability of its embassy. If Great Britain threatened that status, that is also curious, as would be a law which allows a host country to decide an embassy may be invaded under certain circumstances. If we are to have law in such matters, it would seem to be fundamentally contrary to that law to allow host countries to unilaterally determine whether it will apply in any given case.
I think it would also be curious if what Assange says is true, i.e. that the United States is engaged in some kind of conspiracy with Sweden and Great Britain to whisk him away and punish him for revealing information it deems secret. I don't think that because I believe these countries would not engage in a conspiracy if they thought it necessary; I am cynical regarding the intent and conduct of countries, including my own.
However, I like to credit those who make decisions for governments with a certain degree of intelligence--enough to know that extraditing Assange to Sweden merely for the purpose of turning him over to the United States would so discredit them that it simply would not be worthwhile, and would turn him into a martyr to more people than he is currently, if indeed there are any but himself who hold the opinion that he is one. Also, I doubt that if he is a threat, he is much of a threat, any longer. I would assume that wherever he should go and wherever he should be, he'll be very closely watched, and would think that if he goes to Ecuador his effectiveness as a conduit for secret information is seriously compromised. And because of this and because he is not a sympathetic or heroic figure (regardless of whether he ever was one), I doubt he will be sought out as the repository for such information.
I've reviewed the legal proceedings and opinions issued by the courts of the United Kingdom regarding the validity and enforcement of the warrant by which it is demanded he be sent to Sweden, and admit to some unease as the interpretation made of the applicable treaty is that such warrants may be issued without judicial review. That would seem to me to be dangerous, and I hope the U.S. has not signed on to anything similar. So I think a concern regarding the proceedings is legitimate, in this respect. I'm uncertain, though, that there is any point to any authority pushing this much further.
I think the U.K. cannot reasonably be expected to do more than it has done as far as its obligations to enforce the warrant are concerned. I don't think it can be said to be required to storm the embassy, for example, or otherwise physically prevent the grant of asylum from taking its course. The blame would fall on Ecuador if blame is assigned.
As can be inferred easily enough, I don't like Assange. I don't find self-appointed guardians of the human race admirable; I suspect them of megalomania, in fact. Even his old friends are condemning him for a variety of reasons, and think he's destroyed WikiLeaks. Because I question the viability of his claims of a great international conspiracy I think that if he asserts there is no basis for the allegations made against him in Sweden, he should contest them, formally. Once one goes to a country, one should expect to be subject to its laws while there, and not simply to be able to run away when they are applied.
But I think prolonging this situation at this point ascribes to him more importance than he has, and is a waste of resources.
But he has been granted asylum by a sovereign nation, and although that nation apparently is not known for its tolerance and keeps a very tight leash on its own media and so seems a rather inappropriate place for someone with Assange's pretensions to petition, it presumably has certain rights under international law, including that of granting asylum. It also, I think, has certain rights with respect to the inviolability of its embassy. If Great Britain threatened that status, that is also curious, as would be a law which allows a host country to decide an embassy may be invaded under certain circumstances. If we are to have law in such matters, it would seem to be fundamentally contrary to that law to allow host countries to unilaterally determine whether it will apply in any given case.
I think it would also be curious if what Assange says is true, i.e. that the United States is engaged in some kind of conspiracy with Sweden and Great Britain to whisk him away and punish him for revealing information it deems secret. I don't think that because I believe these countries would not engage in a conspiracy if they thought it necessary; I am cynical regarding the intent and conduct of countries, including my own.
However, I like to credit those who make decisions for governments with a certain degree of intelligence--enough to know that extraditing Assange to Sweden merely for the purpose of turning him over to the United States would so discredit them that it simply would not be worthwhile, and would turn him into a martyr to more people than he is currently, if indeed there are any but himself who hold the opinion that he is one. Also, I doubt that if he is a threat, he is much of a threat, any longer. I would assume that wherever he should go and wherever he should be, he'll be very closely watched, and would think that if he goes to Ecuador his effectiveness as a conduit for secret information is seriously compromised. And because of this and because he is not a sympathetic or heroic figure (regardless of whether he ever was one), I doubt he will be sought out as the repository for such information.
I've reviewed the legal proceedings and opinions issued by the courts of the United Kingdom regarding the validity and enforcement of the warrant by which it is demanded he be sent to Sweden, and admit to some unease as the interpretation made of the applicable treaty is that such warrants may be issued without judicial review. That would seem to me to be dangerous, and I hope the U.S. has not signed on to anything similar. So I think a concern regarding the proceedings is legitimate, in this respect. I'm uncertain, though, that there is any point to any authority pushing this much further.
I think the U.K. cannot reasonably be expected to do more than it has done as far as its obligations to enforce the warrant are concerned. I don't think it can be said to be required to storm the embassy, for example, or otherwise physically prevent the grant of asylum from taking its course. The blame would fall on Ecuador if blame is assigned.
As can be inferred easily enough, I don't like Assange. I don't find self-appointed guardians of the human race admirable; I suspect them of megalomania, in fact. Even his old friends are condemning him for a variety of reasons, and think he's destroyed WikiLeaks. Because I question the viability of his claims of a great international conspiracy I think that if he asserts there is no basis for the allegations made against him in Sweden, he should contest them, formally. Once one goes to a country, one should expect to be subject to its laws while there, and not simply to be able to run away when they are applied.
But I think prolonging this situation at this point ascribes to him more importance than he has, and is a waste of resources.
Saturday, August 11, 2012
Incident at Oak Creek
This tendency of certain rather pathetic white males to indulge their anger and psychosis by wrecking havoc on the unsuspecting with guns is most disturbing. It is disturbing in part because guns are so readily available, which means that such creatures can count on being well-armed when they decide to kill people (perhaps in a strange effort to impart some sort of significance to their lives, which seem so lacking in achievement and so full of failure). But it may be something we must live with, at least here in what Warren Zevon once called "the home of the brave and the land of the free, where the less you know the better off you'll be." We have too much vested in guns in this nation, including perhaps for some of us our self-regard, such as it is.
It's also disturbing that this man was once a member of what the media insists on calling the Army's "elite psychological operations" unit. One would hope that those who become members of this unit are tested for psychological stability, or would at least have the ability to recognize psychological deficiencies as well as take advantage of them for military purposes. It's true the Army got rid of him, eventually. Perhaps a general discharge should raise red flags when it comes to purchasing weapons.
Can it be that this shooter caused such harm merely because he had (not surprisingly) trouble in his relationships with women? It would seem that in that case he would have murdered the women in question, alone or in addition to others. Given his connections with white supremacist groups, though, it's more likely he killed because he thought those he was killing in some sense threatened that supremacy. As such groups are not known for the scope and sophistication of their knowledge, it wouldn't be surprising if he thought the Sikhs, who very effectively rebelled against Muslim dominance, were Muslims themselves. It seems others have come to the same very irrational conclusion and harassed Sikhs since what we call 9/11 (the incorrect report that this shooter had a 9/11 tattoo is somewhat disturbing as well). Than again, those killed and injured also must have enraged this man by virtue of the fact that they were not white and, what would normally have been fortunate for them, unlike him in many ways.
In the United States, it seems these events don't result in gun control. Instead, they apparently prompt more people to acquire guns. It may be they believe that they will be better able to avoid being killed through random attacks by angry, disturbed, pitiful white males by doing so. Most regrettably, they may have grounds for that belief, given our evident inability as a nation or society to prevent such attacks from taking place. But when we buy things we're inclined to use them, and fearful people with deadly weapons pose dangers as well.
Perhaps the inculcation of self-control and respect for others is needed at an early age, now, in these so less than happy times. It seems it is not taught, typically, in schools and perhaps it should be. We can't expect parents to do so, as it's likely they lack such virtues themselves. Once we are able to convince ourselves that such things may be taught without teaching religion (which may be a difficult thing in this country) the Constitution should be no barrier. Will the American oddly fetishistic conception of religion allow us to teach virtue to our young?
This is an interesting question. It's probable parents will think (1) that the government has no business instructing their children in the essentials of morality; or (2) that teaching morality requires the teaching of religion, which means in this country teaching the Christian religion. As to the latter, there will be those who feel this is good and those who feel it is bad, and those who feel it cannot legally be done regardless of whether they think it is good or bad. The result will be that nothing will be done, in public schools at least, and perhaps this is why nothing along these lines has been attempted in the past.
Perhaps what we'll end up doing is requiring that our children be taught the use of guns. We may as well supply them with guns while we're at it.
It's also disturbing that this man was once a member of what the media insists on calling the Army's "elite psychological operations" unit. One would hope that those who become members of this unit are tested for psychological stability, or would at least have the ability to recognize psychological deficiencies as well as take advantage of them for military purposes. It's true the Army got rid of him, eventually. Perhaps a general discharge should raise red flags when it comes to purchasing weapons.
Can it be that this shooter caused such harm merely because he had (not surprisingly) trouble in his relationships with women? It would seem that in that case he would have murdered the women in question, alone or in addition to others. Given his connections with white supremacist groups, though, it's more likely he killed because he thought those he was killing in some sense threatened that supremacy. As such groups are not known for the scope and sophistication of their knowledge, it wouldn't be surprising if he thought the Sikhs, who very effectively rebelled against Muslim dominance, were Muslims themselves. It seems others have come to the same very irrational conclusion and harassed Sikhs since what we call 9/11 (the incorrect report that this shooter had a 9/11 tattoo is somewhat disturbing as well). Than again, those killed and injured also must have enraged this man by virtue of the fact that they were not white and, what would normally have been fortunate for them, unlike him in many ways.
In the United States, it seems these events don't result in gun control. Instead, they apparently prompt more people to acquire guns. It may be they believe that they will be better able to avoid being killed through random attacks by angry, disturbed, pitiful white males by doing so. Most regrettably, they may have grounds for that belief, given our evident inability as a nation or society to prevent such attacks from taking place. But when we buy things we're inclined to use them, and fearful people with deadly weapons pose dangers as well.
Perhaps the inculcation of self-control and respect for others is needed at an early age, now, in these so less than happy times. It seems it is not taught, typically, in schools and perhaps it should be. We can't expect parents to do so, as it's likely they lack such virtues themselves. Once we are able to convince ourselves that such things may be taught without teaching religion (which may be a difficult thing in this country) the Constitution should be no barrier. Will the American oddly fetishistic conception of religion allow us to teach virtue to our young?
This is an interesting question. It's probable parents will think (1) that the government has no business instructing their children in the essentials of morality; or (2) that teaching morality requires the teaching of religion, which means in this country teaching the Christian religion. As to the latter, there will be those who feel this is good and those who feel it is bad, and those who feel it cannot legally be done regardless of whether they think it is good or bad. The result will be that nothing will be done, in public schools at least, and perhaps this is why nothing along these lines has been attempted in the past.
Perhaps what we'll end up doing is requiring that our children be taught the use of guns. We may as well supply them with guns while we're at it.
Sunday, August 5, 2012
Plaintive Love
We are commanded to love one another, in the Bible. It's been claimed that this injunction distinguishes Christian ethics from others. That may be true. I wonder, though, whether that is to its credit. That is to say, I wonder whether this command can be followed. If it can't be in most cases, that would seem to make loving one another an unrealizable, and therefore useless, ideal.
I would maintain that it is an ideal that certainly has not been followed, by Christians or others, except in individual cases which themselves are distinguished from others as being romantic or familial in nature. A parent (normally) loves his/her child. One person may be in love with another. But nobody loves a neighbor, or acquaintance, or enemy, or anyone but one's child as one loves one's child, nor does anyone love anyone but one's lover as one loves one's lover. It would be dishonest to claim otherwise.
It may be asserted that the command that we "love one another" is not a command that we love all others as we love our children, or as we love our lovers. And it's true that another Christian injunction is that we love our neighbor as we love ourselves. It's not clear to me, though, that we can love ourselves as we may love others. We have no relation to ourselves, unless we subscribe to a dualism odder than most. However, we necessarily have relations to and with others, for the excellent reason that they are other. And just how do we love ourselves that can be said to apply to our love for others?
If what is intended by "love" one another is that we feel benevolent towards each other, or seek each other's good, then it seems to me we're not referring to "love." We're referring to being nice, or fair, or helpful to one another. We will be nice to those we love, of course, but we'll be much more than that as well.
An ethics based on love would be wonderful, but it is fantastic; so remote from what is the case that it cannot be achieved and is not applied. If we seek to be moral, we should set standards which can be achieved. Any realistic ethic must be based on such standards.
We can, for example, respect one another without having to be dishonest regarding our actual status and feelings. We need not love someone to have respect for their person, thoughts and desires.
Those who enjoin us to love one another do us, and themselves, a disservice. They urge us to do something we will not and cannot do. Especially when such an injunction is portrayed as a divine command, this can lead us to disregard what is within our capacities which can guide us in our conduct.
To paraphrase Mencken (and refer to him once again) love is the triumph of imagination over intelligence. We can imagine all we want, but we will address our problems only through the application of our intelligence, because intelligence is part of our interaction with each other and the rest of the world. Imagination may inform intelligence, may encourage us to be creative in our intelligence, but that is all it can do.
I would maintain that it is an ideal that certainly has not been followed, by Christians or others, except in individual cases which themselves are distinguished from others as being romantic or familial in nature. A parent (normally) loves his/her child. One person may be in love with another. But nobody loves a neighbor, or acquaintance, or enemy, or anyone but one's child as one loves one's child, nor does anyone love anyone but one's lover as one loves one's lover. It would be dishonest to claim otherwise.
It may be asserted that the command that we "love one another" is not a command that we love all others as we love our children, or as we love our lovers. And it's true that another Christian injunction is that we love our neighbor as we love ourselves. It's not clear to me, though, that we can love ourselves as we may love others. We have no relation to ourselves, unless we subscribe to a dualism odder than most. However, we necessarily have relations to and with others, for the excellent reason that they are other. And just how do we love ourselves that can be said to apply to our love for others?
If what is intended by "love" one another is that we feel benevolent towards each other, or seek each other's good, then it seems to me we're not referring to "love." We're referring to being nice, or fair, or helpful to one another. We will be nice to those we love, of course, but we'll be much more than that as well.
An ethics based on love would be wonderful, but it is fantastic; so remote from what is the case that it cannot be achieved and is not applied. If we seek to be moral, we should set standards which can be achieved. Any realistic ethic must be based on such standards.
We can, for example, respect one another without having to be dishonest regarding our actual status and feelings. We need not love someone to have respect for their person, thoughts and desires.
Those who enjoin us to love one another do us, and themselves, a disservice. They urge us to do something we will not and cannot do. Especially when such an injunction is portrayed as a divine command, this can lead us to disregard what is within our capacities which can guide us in our conduct.
To paraphrase Mencken (and refer to him once again) love is the triumph of imagination over intelligence. We can imagine all we want, but we will address our problems only through the application of our intelligence, because intelligence is part of our interaction with each other and the rest of the world. Imagination may inform intelligence, may encourage us to be creative in our intelligence, but that is all it can do.
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
R.I.P. Gore Vidal
No sooner do I mention him in my little comment on Mencken and Gore Vidal dies. He succumbed to age and that which it seems is often the end of the aged, pneumonia.
He was a celebrity, of course, and in that sense was not remarkable except for his acidity. He didn't seem to care whether he pleased or not when he acted in that capacity, appearing on television talk shows, primarily, and for that indifference he must be honored--generally, celebrities are tiresome in their zeal to evoke pleasure in their audience. He is of course remembered for his "debates" with William F. Buckley, Jr. during the 1968 Democratic convention in my beloved Chicago. I vaguely remember watching those, and feeling pity for Howard K. Smith, the amiable but overwhelmed moderator. Neither Vidal nor Buckley benefited from that encounter; both were probably at their worst. Vidal of course later mocked Buckley through the device of William de la Touche Clancy, a character who now and then would appear in Vidal's wonderful series of novels of American history commencing with Burr. Clancy was the editor of a right-wing publication and a notorious pederast. Vidal had very well known encounters with Norman Mailer as well.
Regardless of his celebrity status, however, he was in fact quite remarkable as a writer and stylist, in my opinion at least. His writing was generally elegant and insightful and distinguished by a magnificently dry wit. He wrote enchanting novels--historical novels in particular (my favorite being Julian). He is, with Patrick O'Brian and Mary Renault, one of the best writers of historical novels I've ever read.
But he was especially able, I think, as an essayist and critic. He may well be the last of the great essayists. In this age of Twitter, and, yes, blogs, none of us seems capable of extended thought; our technology doesn't encourage it, and in fact discourages it. He had lapses, it's true. At least as he grew older, he seemed to either indulge in or propound conspiracy theories regarding Pearl Harbor, the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and what we have chosen to call 9/11. I've always wondered, though, whether he was pulling our collective leg when he wrote such things.
He seemed to know lawyers (good ones, I mean) quite well. I'm not sure why he knew them well, but I judge this to be the case by his characterization of them in his novels, and specifically his portrayal of the proceedings in the case of the United States v. Aaron Burr. He also seemed to know politicians quite well, and this is unsurprising as he was part of a political family, and actually ran for office himself.
He was also a critic of American interventions, military and otherwise, in the affairs of other nations, which I think sensible in most cases. He seemed to long for the time when the United States was not an imperial world power, which would I think take us back to before the Spanish-American war (although the Mexican-American war was a most egregious land-grab and a shameful enterprise as noted by one U.S. Grant).
Unless there is some change in the way our culture seems to be heading, I doubt we will see his like as a writer again. Christopher Hitchens is the only one I can think of who (recently) could write as well, and they fell out, perhaps inevitably. But I'm a pessimist, and my feeling that we have become a society too concerned to speak, think, write and emote as quickly and briefly as possible may be unwarranted. I hope that's the case.
He was a celebrity, of course, and in that sense was not remarkable except for his acidity. He didn't seem to care whether he pleased or not when he acted in that capacity, appearing on television talk shows, primarily, and for that indifference he must be honored--generally, celebrities are tiresome in their zeal to evoke pleasure in their audience. He is of course remembered for his "debates" with William F. Buckley, Jr. during the 1968 Democratic convention in my beloved Chicago. I vaguely remember watching those, and feeling pity for Howard K. Smith, the amiable but overwhelmed moderator. Neither Vidal nor Buckley benefited from that encounter; both were probably at their worst. Vidal of course later mocked Buckley through the device of William de la Touche Clancy, a character who now and then would appear in Vidal's wonderful series of novels of American history commencing with Burr. Clancy was the editor of a right-wing publication and a notorious pederast. Vidal had very well known encounters with Norman Mailer as well.
Regardless of his celebrity status, however, he was in fact quite remarkable as a writer and stylist, in my opinion at least. His writing was generally elegant and insightful and distinguished by a magnificently dry wit. He wrote enchanting novels--historical novels in particular (my favorite being Julian). He is, with Patrick O'Brian and Mary Renault, one of the best writers of historical novels I've ever read.
But he was especially able, I think, as an essayist and critic. He may well be the last of the great essayists. In this age of Twitter, and, yes, blogs, none of us seems capable of extended thought; our technology doesn't encourage it, and in fact discourages it. He had lapses, it's true. At least as he grew older, he seemed to either indulge in or propound conspiracy theories regarding Pearl Harbor, the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and what we have chosen to call 9/11. I've always wondered, though, whether he was pulling our collective leg when he wrote such things.
He seemed to know lawyers (good ones, I mean) quite well. I'm not sure why he knew them well, but I judge this to be the case by his characterization of them in his novels, and specifically his portrayal of the proceedings in the case of the United States v. Aaron Burr. He also seemed to know politicians quite well, and this is unsurprising as he was part of a political family, and actually ran for office himself.
He was also a critic of American interventions, military and otherwise, in the affairs of other nations, which I think sensible in most cases. He seemed to long for the time when the United States was not an imperial world power, which would I think take us back to before the Spanish-American war (although the Mexican-American war was a most egregious land-grab and a shameful enterprise as noted by one U.S. Grant).
Unless there is some change in the way our culture seems to be heading, I doubt we will see his like as a writer again. Christopher Hitchens is the only one I can think of who (recently) could write as well, and they fell out, perhaps inevitably. But I'm a pessimist, and my feeling that we have become a society too concerned to speak, think, write and emote as quickly and briefly as possible may be unwarranted. I hope that's the case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)