Stubbornly Persistent Intrusions

 

One hundred years ago, in July, 1925, the State of Tennessee, these United States, and the entire world within reach of the communication technology and media of the time were treated to the spectacle of what's known as the Scopes Trial.  From July 10th to July 21st a high school teacher was prosecuted for teaching the theory of evolution in violation of the law of the Volunteer State.

Clarence Darrow, William Jennings Bryan and H.L. Mencken participated in the spectacle, among others. Their appearances in that courtroom made it the peculiar landmark of our history it became; seemingly a victory for the separation of church and state assured by the Constitution although Scopes was found guilty.  The victory was due to the spectacle created.  The law was shown to be an absurd consequence of ignorance and religious repression of a well-established scientific theory intruding on public education.

But if there was a victory it was short-lived.  When it comes to public education, those legislators who believe that God is responsible for the creation of the horrible human race still insist that this be taught in public schools. Those who think God gave us Ten Commandments (including one that mandates his worship) demand they be displayed in public schools. So, the intrusion of religious beliefs in public education continues. 

Many Americans seems to want the religion they personally prefer to be taught in public schools.  They're not content to merely practice their religion freely, without hindrance by goverment or others.  They want it, or at least aspects of it, to be required parts of public schooling.  Perhaps they assume all Americans have similar religious beliefs and so wouldn't object to the schools imparting them to their children; perhaps they don't care if they do or don't.  I suspect the latter is the case.

In fact, religious education is required, more or less, in many countries.  So, the urge to impose religious instruction on students isn't unique to America. Our Great Republic, though, is somewhat unique due to the clause in the First Amendment prohibiting government from making laws regarding the establishment of a religion.

There is debate over whether the intrusion of religious beliefs or symbols in schools constitutes the establishment of a religion.  That aside, my interest is in the question: Why does the desire that religion be taught in public schools persist?

You'd think that parents themselves could arrange for their children to learn of their religious beliefs. There are churches and other places of worship everywhere to assist in that task. Is it thought that people will only become or remain adherents of an approved religion if intelligent design and the Ten Commandments are taught in schools?  That's difficult to believe.  Is it thought that students will lose their faith if taught the theory of evolution, or if the Ten Commandments are not prominently displayed somewhere on school premises?

Again, this seems very unlikely.  The religious education I received in Catholic schools didn't serve to convince me of anything where religion was concerned, and served more than anything to result in a loss of faith.

I doubt the intrusion of religion in public schools accomplishes anything.  I know of no study or evidence establing that it does. My guess is that the efforts at religious intrusion into public education persist because true believers don't really expect anything will be accomplished.  They feel the intrusion is inherently good. There need not be any result.  No opportunity to express their beliefs can be missed.  There is a kind of compulsion involved.  A form of religious exhibitionism.

Eclipsing Liberty

 

I have a recollection of Conservatism in American politics and culture.  It may be outdated; it may be inaccurate, but it seems quite clear.  While it was characterized by a respect for tradition and authority, it also respected individual freedom.  Freedom from government interference in the thoughts and lives of individuals, specifically.

While its fetishization of the past and accepted customs made it-over suspicious of change and too willing to tolerate established injustices, it was possible to acknowledge its merits because, at least in theory, it abjured autocracy and totalitarianism.  That's no longer the case with respect to what passes for Conservatism today. 

Nor do those who pass for conservatives now have any concern for the freedom of individuals from the control of government. On the contrary, they apparently favor government control, provided they find the government favorable.  As long as that's the case they seem entirely willing to ignore the restrictions of the powers of government the Founding Fathers built into the foundations of our Great Republic.

This is an extremely selfish and short-sighted position for them to take.  They sanction the unrestricted imposition of control by a regime they disfavor which might replace the current regime.  Thomas More said something to the effect that he would give the devil protection of the law to protect himself from the depredations of government. It's difficult to believe that those who call themselves conservatives now lack this wisdom.

It's unclear whether this willingness to see the power of government used to restrict individual liberty is the result of self-indulgence on their part, or fear, or some other irrational motivation.  It may be, though, that H.L. Mencken was right and they value security far more than they value liberty.

That security likely is, for them, security from the freedom of others to do and think as they believe to be appropriate.  This would explain their toleration of if not support for government intrusion in education and regulation of lifestyles, heath, art and entertainment; even of history, Soviet-style.

It's a strange sort of Conservatism that seeks to radically increase the powers of a central government to regulate and curtail life and liberty in what has, traditionally, considered itself to be "the land of the free."

Elective Despotism

There can be no doubt regarding the outcome of this election; nor can there be any excuses for it.  All knew what had been said, and promised, by the victor.  All knew what he had done.  It can't be claimed we didn't know what would happen.  It simply didn't matter to the majority of us let alone in the strange world of the electoral college.

The pundits speculate regarding the reasons for the outcome.  It's what they and the media in general do--speculate, endlessly.  Also, now, they assess blame for the outcome.  

The simple fact is that the electorate has elevated to the presidency someone who said he will govern or attempt to govern as a despot, and those who support him are intent on using the power of government to make people behave as they deem appropriate, contrary to the principles of traditional conservatism.  This is the will of the majority.

An elective despotism, in other words.  Thomas Jefferson, quoted above, thought that this is not the form of government the Founding Fathers fought for, and I think he knew what he was saying.  Regardless, it seems to be the form of government the majority of us want.

Perhaps Mencken was right when he wrote that the people don't want liberty, but instead want security.  So, they want a president who is the kind of "Big Daddy" the Abrahamic religions worship as God--someone strong who will put down those who are different, and take care of us if we obey.  Judging from the political ads which were issued by the president elect and his supporters, it was believed that a win by the Democratic candidate would mean that gays and transexuals would multiply, and indeed be created through surgery.  Burly transgenders would dominate girls and women sports.  Fentanyl distributing immigrants would lurk in the streets, living on money diverted to them by the government, eating pets when not killing Americans.

People don't want to be told what to do.  Most of all it seems to me that they don't want to be told that ways of living they dislike are appropriate and that their dislike is a sign of ignorance and bigotry. This seems to be what I've called in this blog the Missionary Media is eager to communicate, though, and I can't help but wonder if that insistence on the part of media and entertainment writers of making traditional morals seem antiquated and immoral played a part in the outcome of the election and the intent to use government to repress non-traditional lifestyles.

Unfortunately, if I'm right and many of those who voted for the president-elect are people who don't want to be told what to do, those people now want to tell other people what they should not do.  And they want a president who will make sure they don't do what they shouldn't do.

The creation of the American Republic was a kind of experiment.  This will be an experiment of another sort.                                            

Ideology, Morality and the Law

I've been a lawyer for many years.  A practicing lawyer has little time to devote to a review of the status of the law in general, being concerned with its application to certain circumstances.  So, my focus on the law and the legal system has usually been narrow--what law applies to a given matter, what does it say, how is it to the advantage or disadvantage of the client, is the judge experienced with such cases?

In order for the status of the law or legal system in general to rouse the concern of the practicing lawyer, some significant event must take place which "shocks the conscience" of an attorney.  That's a legal phrase used for the most part to refer to something egregious which provokes someone or something, usually a court, to call for or provide a remedy.  

It may be that the technology of our times, which allows for the communication of information and opinions instantly and in a ubiquitous fashion, brings such events to our attention more frequently than in the past, but I think that there are more and more instances of conduct on the part of lawyers and judges that shock the conscience than there have been in the past.

Consider the many lawyers who pursued baseless claims of fraud related to the 2020 election.  Consider the conduct of Justices of the Supreme Court which have been mentioned in this blog, news of which seems to appear on almost a daily basis, which raise questions of ethics and impartiality.  Consider the actions of a novice Federal District Court Judge ignoring the recommendations of senior judges that she should recuse herself from a matter in which the defendant appointed her to the federal bench, and the eagerness with which she delays the trial of the matter to the benefit of the defendant.  

Unfortunately, it's likely that corruption based on financial inducement has always been a feature of the legal system.  The extent of that corruption varies with time and place, but it would be foolish to think it has never been a factor.  It's also likely that the legal system benefits the rich and powerful more than it does others, and has always done so.

But I don't recall ideology (including religious ideology) playing so large and obvious a part in the law while I've been a lawyer, until lately.  There were complaints aplenty by conservatives regarding liberal judges, particularly during the 1960s, but ideology then wasn't broadcast, and indeed flaunted, like it is now. I suspect this is the case because the law is being treated by some of us more and more as enforcing and imposing a religious code of conduct, or at least one which purports to impose moral standards by law.  When that isn't expressly stated to be the motivation behind laws and legal decisions, those political agents perceived to favor particular moral standards are favored by them.

More and more we see reference made by legislators and judges to religion, and most especially the Christian religion.  Most recently, the State of Louisiana, admittedly never known for its tolerance or respect of minorities or their opinions in most instances, required by law that the Ten Commandments be displayed (if not brandished) in every public school room.  As noted elsewhere in this blog, a Supreme Court Justice has said he considers the function of the law to return the nation to godliness.  The Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court justified a 19th century law banning abortion on the fact that the people of that State justly feared the wrath of God.  

H.L. Mencken, the legendary Sage of Baltimore, noted in the quote appearing atop this post that whoever attempts to impose moral conduct on others through the law is most likely a scoundrel.  I think this is true.  Those who claim that the law should be used to impose morality, I would maintain, don't do so because they wish to promote morality, but because they seek to impose rules which favor them, their beliefs, their property, their power, and control the conduct of others who may threaten them--including that of their children.  

History is full of moral hypocrisy; the self-proclaimed holy and self-righteous who are found to violate the code of conduct they claim should apply to humanity in general are common.  But the corrupt won't hesitate to question the morality of those who stand in their way or disagree with them.  

So the statements made by legislators and judges are more and more essentially a shrill condemnation of conduct they oppose on moral grounds, rather than a reasoned consideration of the rules of law and the circumstances, and the civil rights of others.  

 

Homage to Steely Dan

 I'm not yet retired, and so can't yet attribute my inclination to avoid, for a time at least, the great events of our time to a sense of ennui.  Nonetheless I am so inclined, and so will indulge in another homage, this time to the work of Steely Dan.

I know of no work of Steely Dan I haven't liked.  The duo of Don Fagen and Walter Becker, backed over the years by a legion of highly competent studio musicians, have been consistently good, and have managed to work at a high level despite what I think are the inherent limitations of popular music.  Those limitations derive from the need that popular music be, well, popular.  The songs must sell, and sell well.  That may require pandering to the less artistic among the buying public, and the buying public in our Glorious Union doesn't have a high reputation.  H.L. Mencken reportedly said "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public."

Be that as it may, the music of Steely Dan has been consistently sophisticated, and has made use of styles and themes prevalent not just in rock music but in jazz, blues and Latin music while managing to sell very well.  Many of the band's songs are classics.

I've always thought of Fagen and Becker as having more in common with the Beat Generation than with those who came of music-buying age in the 1970s.  There is, of course, the fact that the name "Steely Dan" was taken from William S. Burroughs' novel The Naked Lunch, where it appeared as the name of a very special dildo.  Burroughs was one of the great figures of the Beat Generation.  Also, they strike me as having in common with the Beats an aptitude for poetry and a disdain for conventions, with none of the histrionic showiness seen in subsequent efforts of rebellious youth. 

But in addition to that, there seems to be nothing at all of the hippie in the band's music.  There's nothing psychedelic there; there's nothing about peace and love.  Peace and love are more subjects of mockery or disillusionment than anything else.  I think of Third World Man or Don't Take Me Alive when it comes to peace, and songs like Everyone's Gone to the Movies, Babylon Sisters and Janie Runaway when it comes to love.

The various conceits of the Me Generation are certainly present, however.  But again when they're made the subject matter they're treated ironically.  The album Gaucho is full of this sort of thing, particularly the song Glamour Profession.

It's unsurprising that the lyrics of many Steely Dan songs are seemingly unclear, and have been subject to interpretation.  But what is surprising about this is that the lack of clarity is the result of clever artifice and metaphor.  Through the use of artifice significant issues may be addressed in a manner which isn't self-important or banal, as are most efforts along those lines in popular music.  The meaning of the lyrics of The Royal Scam (the song, not the album), for example, is far from clear on their face, but some thought and attention to them suggests that immigrants and the American Dream are their focus.

Ultimately I think one's preference for artists of the written word, or the written word when put to music, is based mostly on the extent to which one associates with the author, composer and musician.  That is to say, the fan in that case sees the fan in the artist, has something in common with the artist, or think they do though they may flatter themselves.  The fan may even dream they are the artist, or at least wish they could be like them.

Steely Dan's songs often are seemingly delivered by or made from the perspective of jaded, cynical, sophisticated observers of life.  They're gentleman losers, disconnected and shrewd ("The Gentleman Loser" is the name of a bar in one of William Gibson's cyberpunk novels, if I recall correctly).  They're aware of the faults of people and in society, aware of our many weaknesses and vices, and may even share in them but do so with a kind of blithe, knowing detachment.  

Which may say something about this particular fan, in the end, and not all of it to his credit.

The President as Shill

Shown above is coinage of the Roman Emperor Marcus Didius Severus Julianus, who reigned for all of nine weeks in 193 C.E.  That was long enough, apparently, for coins to be minted.

That may be all that transpired during his rule.  He's famous, or rather infamous, because he was the winner in an "auction" the Praetorian Guard held to determine who would be the successor to Commodus, an emperor also well described as infamous.  Later, he was assassinated by the Praetorians.

The auction is shown in a scene in the movie The Fall of the Roman Empire, starring Sophia Loren, Alec Guinness, Christopher Plummer, Omar Sharif, James Mason and Mel Ferrer.  Guinness played Marcus Aurelius, and Plummer played Commodus, making him appear a lunatic, which he may have been.  It was quite a cast, worthy of a picture nominally depicting the fall of Rome.  But the Empire didn't fall in the West for about another three hundred years, and in the East survived for a thousand years or so after the West.  So, the movie wasn't historically accurate in that respect, at least.  I think historical accuracy wasn't all that important to the creators of the film; they probably meant that the auction, being so absurd and contemptible, was a sign of the decay of the Empire and perhaps even hastened its fall.

H. L. Mencken, the Sage of Baltimore, is credited with saying regarding American elections that "[e]very election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods."  He would have revelled in the election now taking place in our Great Republic.  

It's a truism that our elections involve the selling of a candidate in remarkably the same manner in which product is sold, and it may be said that the eventual winner of an election has been bought as a result, the accumulation and expenditure of money being essential to our politics.  But as far as I'm aware a candidate for high office here hasn't been personally involved in selling products as part of an election campaign.

Until now, of course.  Absurdly priced golden sneakers, cologne, wine, silly cards depicting him as a superhero and God knows what else, all emblazoned with his name, are being promoted by a candidate for the nation's highest office.  It's difficult to conceive of conduct which would do more to cheapen not just the office of President but the nation itself.  Not even the Praetorian auction can rival the debasing effect of these activities.

The spectacle of a candidate (a former president) selling self-promoting products of this kind makes him appear shabby.  Not that he has ever seemed more than shabby, but this makes him look peculiarly shabby. One understands he has large legal and other bills, and now has sizable judgments and fines to pay, and his unusually gullible supporters are willing to do what they can to pay them for him.  But being a shill for the purpose of making money from the sale of gaudy and tasteless momentos is a step too far, or too low, for a President of the United States.  He may as well work as a carnival barker or traveling salesman of testosterone pills.  It's typical of the man himself, who it seems is devoted to scamming people and lacks any honorable and worthy virtues; this is true.  And it seems to have become typical to many citizens as well in that they welcome and applaud his crassness.  I suspect beer or some other beverage will soon be sold as well.

Used cars are a possibility as well, of course.

Does this example (his and his followers) represent what Americans seem to be to others around the world?  Loud, ignorant, bombastic, self-pitying, resentful, crass, out to make a quick buck by any means, pushy, loutish cretins?  Or is this how we've always been viewed, and portrayed?  If the latter, are we now proud of living up to the caricature?

The Day of the Demagogue

 If you look up the definition of the word "demagogue" or check the Wikipedia entry for it, you'll see it all there, in black and white.  The characteristics of most of our politicians, and of one of them especially, as well as their "playbook" are set forth in some detail.  Lying, fearmongering, scapegoating, personal insults and attacks--it's like a roll call of conduct engaged in by the most indicted candidate in the history of our Great Union, and likely of any other nation. 

It's easy enough to learn what demagogues are and what they do.  They're of a type and have done the same things throughout our history, beginning with the first known demagogue, Cleon of Athens, born in the 5th century B.C.E.  No doubt there were others before him, whose names we just don't know.

The most simple and succinct definition of "demagogue" of which I'm aware is that provided by H.L. Mencken:  "The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots."  The demagogue is a prolific liar who has learned that in certain circumstances, particularly in matters of politics, lies are important because they'll be believed by those who either cannot think or refuse to do so.  Mencken viewed democracy as so stupid a form of government that it encourages, and perhaps even requires, demagogues because so much is left to the decisions of the ordinary voter and the intelligence of the ordinary voter is minimal.  The success of demagogues throughout history makes one wonder if he's right.

A demagogue, however, isn't necessarily as stupid as those who believes the lies he makes.  A demagogue need only appear to be, or pretend to be, as much of an idiot as those who support him.  So it is a mistake to take a demagogue lightly.  A demagogue may be just intelligent enough to take advantage of others by inciting fear, or anger, or envy and promising the world to them, or posing as the only person who can save them from the evils he has conjured.  It's more likely that a demagogue is ignorant, or is a sociopath, than a fool.

One thing seems apparent.  It isn't necessary that a demagogue be physically attractive or impressive to be successful.  The most successful one of this time in our Great Republic seems to me to be an oddity.  Perhaps it's the hair.  His "mug shot" which his followers think is so beguiling makes him look as if he's about to burst into tears of frustration such as a child might do when deprived of a favorite toy or treat.  Hitler certainly wasn't an impressive looking man, though his propagandists did their best to make him so, portraying him in a knight's armor and other manly guises.  Mussolini took on the appearance of a marionette.  He would have made a fine bobble head.  Joe McCarthy looked like a small-time mafioso.

Demagogues are said to have charisma, but if that's the case it seems charisma is unrelated to physical appearance.

What accounts for the success of demagogues?  Why is it that the techniques employed by them down through the centuries are so well known, and ultimately lead to disaster, but succeed again and again?  

Clearly, there's something wrong with us.  

It's enough to cause one to despair of democracy as a viable form of government.  But the curious thing is that the aims of demagogues and their followers are not democratic at all.  They're autocratic or totalitarian, in fact.  So, democracy may itself be viable, but be subject to perversion by its nature given a propensity to accept demagogues.  This is a weakness not in the democratic form of government but in those governed.  Democracy may be a form of government that's intended only for the intelligent.

The painting shown above, by the way, is called The Demagogue and is by Jose Clemente Orozco.

Razzle-Dazzle

Sometimes, when feeling despair at the fact that such a large percentage of my countrymen are seemingly incapable of making reasonable judgments based on available evidence, and subject to delusion, I try to comfort myself with the idea that they are not truly saps, but rather are so entertained by the spectacle our politics have become that they simply don't want the show to stop.  What is taking place now would make a good dark comedy, after all.  Perhaps not even a subtle one, subtlety being something lacking in American politics and perhaps even culture, but more of a Marx Brothers' movie along the lines of a farce like Duck Soup or A Night at the Circus, though Groucho was far more clever and intelligent than the main character of this ongoing farce can ever be. Can it be that they are so amused by the freak show that they fear it may end, and so clamour for more and more despite the consequences for our nation?

This is wishful thinking, unfortunately.  It's odd enough that anyone would find this thought a satisfying alternative to what's actually taking place (better a perverse but knowing cynicism than what Mencken would probably have called "boobery"), but no.  We may not be sophisticated enough to be decadent.  Only ignorance and gullibility can explain what's now the case.  Gullibility in particular, I think.  Which brings us to the notion of razzle-dazzle.

This is a word which it seems has its origin in late 19th century American slang.  So, at least, is thought by the editors of the Online Etymology Dictionary which describes it as "a word, app. of U.S. coinage, used to express the ideas of bewilderment or confusion, rapid stir and bustle, riotous jollity or intoxication, etc.  Also, deception, fraud; extravagant publicity."  The rallies we see seem to be a sort of tent show of the kind that evangelical preachers and faith healers used to put on (or do they still?), inspiring the believers to unthinking credulity.  Or, maybe, a magician's act of a sort, in which the misdirection is obvious enough but nonetheless persuasive.  The snake oil salesman has a place in our history.  Perhaps its become an honored one.  Is there a nostalgia for the days of the bumpkin being taken advantage of by the city slicker, which also is a part of our history?

How do we explain the appeal of something or someone so obviously a con?  There must be an explanation.  Razzle-Dazzle seems as good as any.  If it's a peculiarly American word it may also be a peculiarly American tendency, to be dazzled and confused by showy deception.  Do we long, spiritually, for the arrival of the circus or the Wells-Fargo wagon, to bring color to our drab lives?

I find it hard to think of any historical precedent for this situation.  Hitler wreathed himself in Romantic, mystical appeals to a German Volk, a Master Race, and was aided in such claims by philosophical and intellectual loonies like Heidegger, but there is no philosophical appeal being made in this case.  Resentment is being fostered, but not yet to the extent it was in Germany after WWI. Intolerance and the desire for sameness has always been characteristic of Western civilization, but the blithe disregard of honor and virtue we seethe with as a nation is extraordinary.  

I don't think charisma has a place in the mix.  Those involved in this remarkable song and dance have none.  They resemble Willie Loman more than any successful leader in history, good or bad.  They seem gnomish, if not in actual size then in stature and character.  

We can look to the example of Rome in this and other cases, and there may even be some justification in doing so.  Spectacles were wildly popular with the people.  Celebrations of triumphs, the games of the arena, the races of the hippodrome, attracted the attention of the populace and even the most depraved of the Emperors, such as Caligula and Nero, had the admiration of many merely because they kept the people entertained.  Perhaps our future leaders will be entertainers.  They will take residence in Washington as they now do in Las Vegas.  

Maybe this is the new form of American Exceptionalism.  We can hardly be seen as exemplary anymore, but we're certainly distinctive and unique.  Mencken called us boobs, and his assessment was thoughtful.  We're seeking, and may yet attain, a government for the boobs, by the boobs and of the boobs.

Inside the Box(es)

Later today, a former president of our Glorious Union will, once more, appear in court in response to an indictment.  It may not be the last time he does.

This particular indictment appears, on a review, to be as some have already noted very damning.  The photographs accompanying it are themselves baffling.  Consider the one shown above, in which archive boxes filed with documents and other things carried away from the White House are shown to have been deposited in a bathroom.  What they portray is reminiscent of what one would see in the home of a hoarder; those unfortunates who cannot part with items regardless of any need for them, and so decide to live in squalor.  This impulse carried to extremes may be a sign of a disease or disorder of some kind.  

Perhaps what has brought us to this sorry day is evidence of a personal problem.  Perhaps the hoarder derives a sad kind of satisfaction having such documents in his possession.  It's difficult to say what would motivate someone to act as he has in these circumstances.  It's clear from a reading of the indictment that that any wounds resulting from it can fairly be described as self-inflicted. Had all the documents in questioned been returned to the Archivist, the Department of Defense or whatever or whoever the proper custodian may be, there would have been no indictment--certainly no indictment as "damning" as this one.  

Instead, it seems a sometimes rather laughable effort was made to withhold them.  Boxes were moved from place to place to avoid discovery; even his own attorneys were, apparently, misled and misinformed.  Most remarkably, statements were made by the named defendant and others in his circle which are incriminating, were witnessed, and even recorded with his knowledge and approval.  Certain documents regarding a possible military operation were actually displayed by him to others, and he acknowledged he was acting improperly when he did so.  He seems to have been bragging when he made this impressive misstep.  

We'll see how this plays out in the courts.  Judging only from the indictment and the scatter-brained and vituperative nature of its subject, there is certainly a possibility a prosecution will be successful.  What I find particularly surprising, though, and what I think would be a worthy object of study, is the fact that he has ardent supporters and their reaction to the indictment.

I find it difficult to understand why this flawed, sometimes incoherent, often stupid, ignorant, self-involved, malicious, arguably sociopathic individual is thought to be a kind of hero by some, and is being defended by people who I must assume think themselves to be reasonable.  I think those Republican politicians who leap to his defense may be dismissed as craven, venal and habitually (even necessarily) dishonest, being politicians.  There's no reason, normally, to think they believe what they say for public consumption.  

What of others, though?  What is it about him that excites their support?  H.L. Mencken believed that American style democracy would someday achieve the election of a moron to the presidency.  I think it's clear he thought most politicians were crooks already; it only remained for the people to find and place in office a particularly stupid crook.

Is it possible that people see in him something they think is familiar and satisfying, that they think him to be "just like us"?  Do they want to be like him?  Do they find his bluster and posturing admirable?  Do they delight in the fact that he is, according to certain accounts, considered a boorish dullard by people and leaders in other countries?  One hopes not.

My guess is that he, and others like the regrettable governor of Florida, are expressive of the resentment some feel about people who aren't like them having a respected part in our society and government.  We can be a very provincial people.  We don't take kindly to outsiders.  We see in others the sources of our problems, and will defend those who are like us, right or wrong.

Matters of Honor

Is there such a thing as "Honor", or "Honour" as our British cousins would have it, in these disturbing times?  There are honors, of course, and people are honored in one way or another with some frequency.  They receive awards or their merits are recognized by others.  People are held in esteem, they're respected.  But here I refer to Honor as a characteristic or virtue which is expressed in a code of conduct.

Honor in that sense isn't easily defined.  It's not the same as the law, it's not the same as morality or ethics.  It may manifest itself in conduct, it may be said to require certain conduct in certain circumstances as morality or ethics may indicate certain conduct is moral or ethical.  But it isn't itself moral or ethical.  So, I think H.L. Mencken was incorrect when he wrote (taking his phraseology from Nietzsche, with whom he was infatuated) that honor is simply the morality of superior men

I'd maintain it is a sense of oneself.  That doesn't say much, though, does it?  Perhaps it's better to define it as a self-judgment of one's worth or quality.  Because someone is a person of honor, conduct of a particular kind cannot be countenanced.  There are things an honorable person wouldn't think of doing, not because (or at least not merely because) it would be wrong to do them, but because doing them would be contrary to the nature of a person of honor.  Honor may, therefore, be related to the Stoic injunction that we should act according to (our) nature.

Acting dishonorably would diminish a person of honor.  It would render the person less worthy in that person's eyes, and should in that of others as well, if they're also persons of honor.  It would do so regardless of the consequences of the act or whether the act conforms to law or rules of a particular ethics.

Honor in this sense usually is thought to encompass the possession of certain virtues, most notably honesty, courage, chivalry, justice and nobility.  This may be due to the fact that it appears honor in this sense seems to  have its basis in cultures of aristocracy and rank.   It has been associated with status.  Gentlemen have honor, or nobles do, not merchants or tradesman or peasants.  Honor has been associated with violence as a result, I think.  When one's status is questioned or put in jeopardy, than extreme action may be taken.  If one's honor is impugned, revenge may be called for, or the person being dishonored may have grounds to challenge those questioning their honor, to a duel or seeking some other kind of recompense.  Honor has also been referred to in the military, or at least was in the past, and appears to arise in warrior cultures.

If Honor as commonly defined isn't appropriate except in aristocracies or the military or is an antiquated concept, I think it may survive provided it is seen as a sense of personal worth or merit or status which requires a code of conduct.  A person of honor would act in a particular way without regard to others or circumstances, simply because that is the nature of the person.  The nature of a person of honor would be such that the person's worth, merit or status would be lessened by acting dishonorably, which is to say dishonestly, unjustly, without virtue.  Again, I think the concept of honor so defined would have similarities to what it is that would make a person a Stoic Sage.  I don't know whether Honor as a code of conduct would be a basis for an ethics or morality, but conceiving of it as a part of one's nature seems consistent with the idea that our nature and that of the universe is essentially infused with and devoted to reason, and the belief in an immanent divinity of which we're a part.

Is Honor of any significance, now?  I would say it is not.  Clearly, those who purport to be our leaders have none.  What is significant to them, and to others, is entirely determined by factors unrelated to personal qualities and worthiness.  Generally, those factors are wealth, power, and advantage.  A glance at the headlines is all that's required to establish this is the case.  Politicians are notoriously dishonest, but no person of honor would be able to abide the spectacular, unrepentant dishonesty of the new member of the House from New York without being sickened and ashamed.  Such a person would be shunned by the honorable.  Nonetheless, nothing is being done to  discourage him by the leaders of his party simply because his vote is needed and the potential that there will be one less Republican in Congress outweighs any thoughts of honesty or decency.  A person of honor cannot accept the claim that the end justifies the means, because neither the means nor the end are of importance.  They are, as it were, indifferents.

There is something compelling in the thought that some conduct is unworthy of human beings, something which is more compelling even than the belief that some conduct is wrong, or immoral, or contrary to imagined commands of paternal and paternalistic gods.  Contempt and shame are powerful emotions, particularly when we direct them at ourselves.  Perhaps a sense of honor is something which we should cultivate.

 

The Only Thing That Will Make You See Sense

The bigoted, elitist, but nonetheless incisive Sage of Baltimore comes to mind more and more as the horror of the mid-term elections looms larger and larger before us.  If I wanted merely to comment on the preposterous hypocrisy and venality of the election process, I'd be content to quote his assertion that elections are an advance auction sale of stolen goods.  But these are dark times, and dark times engender dark thoughts.  And so the quote which graces this post, above.

Was Mott the Hoople right when it sang all too long ago that Violence is the only thing that will make us see sense?  Yes, I mean Violence with a capital "V."  If it is, it's likely that it will only make us see sense in the short term, but that may suffice to resuscitate our dwindling civilization until the next time it's required to jolt us into remediative action.  Our history repeats itself in certain respects.  Think of the statement heard in movies featuring the Mafia, that a war is good for business now and then. Human society may not be significantly different from that of organized crime.  Fascists were destroyed in the Second World War but arise once more, in Europe and even here.  Read Sinclair Lewis; read George Orwell.

We've had many wars, but the war being spoken of by some now is war of a particular kind.  Political war within a political unit; that is to say, a civil war.  We've flirted with the idea of one lately, it seems. It may be that the thought of a civil war pleases some of us.  Those it pleases most are probably lovers of fantasies in which they figure heroically, brandishing weapons in defense of whatever they find important.

We had a real civil war during the 1860s, of course, but our capacity to forget is such that it's more or less a romantic memory now, even another fantasy, perhaps.  Some of us dress up and pretend to  be soldiers in that war (and other wars as well, unfortunately).  One of the memories of that war we should hold is that it was remarkably bloody; another is that we fight our best (that is to say, do the most harm) when we fight among ourselves.  And it seems clear to me, at least, that we're eager to fight among ourselves once more.

The internal war we may face is different from that civil war, though.  No great casus belli is available.  What causes there are seem mean, petty things taken in themselves--whether we think of sex the same way, or certain people the same way, or agree that certain books shouldn't be read, certain things shouldn't be said, or certain people shouldn't be here or whose love for our Great Republic is seemingly inadequate, or certain religions shouldn't be allowed or followed.  Most important, though, is the fear that others may have what we have or take what we have, especially if those others are different than we are.  

I suspect that if there is such a war it will be more similar to the internal wars of the French Revolution.  There's a kind of regime running this country, a regime born of and sustained by money.  Those who have the money despise or are at best indifferent to those who don't, and take great pains to appear as though they have the interests of those they despise or are indifferent to in mind when those of the regime act to foster their own interests.  Why it's thought that the regime seeks to benefit anyone but its own members is beyond me.  It should be obvious it does not, but suckers must indeed be born every minute.

Still, I can't help but feel that this enchantment will wear off, eventually.  And when it does, mere anarchy will be loosed upon the world in a way far more real than the aristocratic Yeats thought it had been all those years ago.  Every normal person will not only want to hoist the black flag and start cutting throats (some already do, I think) but will begin the work of slashing. If the kind of hate we see displayed in our society is any indication, many long for a new guillontine already, and there are wannabe Marats and Robespierres standing ready.

There's only so much hypocrisy, venality, sanctimony, arrogance, fraud and contempt one can take.  Some day, someone or many someones will notice that things don't change, no matter what is said or done by those with power.  They don't change because those in power won't gain, but will rather lose, if change takes place.  What will the reaction be when we realize, collectively, that we've been bamboozled?

The Law as Public School Teacher

You'd think our Glorious Union has had enough of laws seeking to dictate what is or is not taught in public schools.  The infamous Butler Act, adopted by the State of Tennessee nearly 100 years ago, led to the Scopes Trial, which led to the humiliation of William Jennings Bryan (and possibly his death mere days after the trial concluded) by Clarence Darrow, to some blistering articles by H.L. Mencken, and made the United States the laughing-stock of a good portion of the Western World, is perhaps the most notable law which sought to do so in modern times.  Or at least it was, until recently. 

The Butler Act at least had the virtue of clarity.  That law stated in pertinent part "[t]hat it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the universities, normals and all other public schools of the State which are supported, in whole or in part, by the public school funds of the state, to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals."  I know, the use of the word "story" in the law is amusing.  The legislators of Tennessee were apparently unaware of the implications of that word.

But now the State of Florida has adopted a law which similarly seeks to regulate what takes place in classrooms, which not only lacks clarity but seems to flaunt its vagueness.  This is the so-called "Don't Say Gay" law, officially Florida SB 1834."  It states, also in pertinent part:

 "A school district may not encourage classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students.  A parent of a student may bring an action against a school district to obtain a declaratory judgment that a school district procedure or practice violates this paragraph and seek injunctive relief. A court may award damages and shall award reasonable attorney fees and court costs to a parent who receives declaratory or injunctive relief."

Defenders of the law like to point out that it provides that discussion of sexual orientation or gender identity is only contrary to the law in kindergarden to third grade, according to its terms ("primary grade levels").  Who would object to that, really?  I doubt anyone does.  But that's not all the law says.  It also says discussion of such topics may not be encouraged "in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students."  So, the law clearly applies to students of other grade levels.

A reading of the law raises several serious questions:

How does one encourage classroom discussion?  Must the discussion take place in a classroom for the law to be violated, and a cause of action arise?  What is "sexual orientation or gender identity"?  Does the fact that the law refers to a "school district procedure or practice" indicate that encouragement (whatever that may be) by a single, "rogue" teacher or other school district employee (a janitor?) wouldn't be actionable? Is it necessary that a policy or procedure, sanctioned by the school district expressly or by implication, as an entity, exist? What do "age appropriate or developmentally appropriate" mean? Is that left to the courts and the lawyers who litigate claims to decide?  Just what kind of damages are available to a parent in the action created by this law? 

What is "age appropriate or developmentally appropriate" is clearly subjective, and would vary from student to student.  Florida's legislature probably gave parents the right to sue under the law in an effort to avoid enforcement of the law being considered "state action" for constitutional purposes.  But that would leave interpretation of the law undetermined until precedent could be established through the courts, and that won't happen anytime soon.  In the interim, school districts and teachers will be justly terrified of being sued by some parent or another who thinks wrong words are being spoken in classrooms.  They may therefore be inclined to take fairly drastic steps to avoid litigation, e.g. refusing to require the reading of any books the subject matter of which involve sexual relations, prohibiting the use of certain words in classrooms, disciplining teachers, etc.

In short, it's a shoddy law, and will be difficult and expensive to implement.  The cynic in me wonders if the law was adopted purely to discourage talk of sex in the classroom, especially talk of particular kinds of sex.  Sex is something which has always frightened Americans, especially when it comes to the task of making children aware of it.  I think most of them would like if others had that task.  It may even be, ultimately, a form of posturing by politicians, always interested in obtaining popular support (at least when it doesn't interfere with monetary gain).

The law is alleged to be one protecting parental rights.  But do parents have a legitimate interest in making certain their children under the age of majority don't hear certain words of learn what other people are in terms of gender or sexual orientation?  Is it possible, indeed, that they think students won't otherwise learn of such things or speak about them unless they're "encouraged" to do so by teachers?  Only a fool would think that.

For my part, I think most parents are detriments to education, generally speaking.  They recognize that basic skills such as reading, writing and 'rithmatic (as the old song goes) must be acquired, though they probably would prefer that the use of the legendary "hickory stick" be reserved to themselves.  But otherwise, I think the preference of most is that their children think like them, be like them, talk like them and act like them until they become adults, at which time parents can claim that they're beyond their control and influence.  The sad fact is that most parents would prefer that their children not learn more than their parents have, at least in cultural or social matters in my opinion, and it may be that this law is an expression of that fact.

Justice itself isn't blind, but the law is, in the sense that the law may be good or bad, wise or stupid.  This particular law is stupid.  But it is a law nonetheless, just as the Butler Act was law, and may wreck all the havoc it did, and more.