The Fools on the Hill

 

Benjamin Disraeli, the brilliant Prime Minister of England, once said:  "There is no act of treachery or meanness of which a political party is not capable; for in politics there is no honour."  This observation seems particularly applicable at this time, especially regarding the Republican Party.  But we must add to it the observation that while there is no honour in politics, nor is there courage or even intelligence as to that party in particular as the best evidence is it is for the most part made up of individuals so craven, so corrupt, so entirely spineless as to seem incredible.

How do we explain, otherwise, the fact that the Republicans making up the Senate and the House have become mere slaves to the grotesque creature who leads their party?  They cringe and obey him whatever he does and says.  If they had any intelligence or sense of history, they would understand that it's against their interests as members of the Legislative Branch to allow him and his lackeys to emasculate them and the government.  They've become political castrati singing his tune in high, piping voices.  They mince about the stage on which his bizarre opera is being played out, as if flaunting their servility.

Some of them gave lip service to the sanctity of our Constitution and the insurrection attempt in the past.  But they've changed their tune.  Now they parrot the claims he makes that January 6th was a lovefest.  They sanction pardons of those who threatened and injured members of law enforcement who strove to save their sorry asses on that day, which marked the end of American exceptionalism.  They fall over themselves in competition to praise his most fantastic claims and proposals.  They nod approvingly as he wrecks havoc.  The struggle to defend his caprices.

They shamelessly prostitute themselves in his service, as if he is their pimp.  We hear that some of his acolytes have joyfully said that "Daddy's home" as he took office.  There's something odd, indeed disturbing, when grown men bleat such a claim in their excitement.  How long have they eagerly awaited their Daddy's return, poor fellows?  They cherish their Daddy's approval.  They pander to those he panders to, simpering in their passion to please him.

What they do makes so little sense, and is such an extreme abandonment and surrender of their dignity and authority, that an argument can be made that they're victims of the psychological condition of infantilism--the retention of childish physical, mental and emotional characteristics in adult life.  How is it possible for them to have any self-respect?

We can only hope that they recover themselves somehow, and remember that they're supposed to be representatives of the people with obligations under the Constitution they've sworn to preserve, protect and defend.  Before it's too late.

Augustine vs. The Stoics

Let's try to ignore for a time the ugly and lunatic caperings of our politicians, including those of the elderly bully at the head of our government's Executive Branch.  [Is there anything more pathetic than an elderly bully?]  Instead let's consider some of the attacks made by the querulous Bishop of Hippo against the ancient Stoic philosophers.

Augustine, considered by some a saint, is a very significant figure, but I maintain was a very peculiar person.  I've noted several times in this blog that I think he was a kind of exhibitionist, flaunting his sins supposedly for our benefit, to demonstrate that even so great a sinner may be saved by Jesus.  Thus his life serves to demonstrate how desirable it is to be a Christian.  On the other hand, it's possible his conceit was that he was so great a man, so worthy of God's blessing, that he was saved even though he sinned so extensively.  In any case, this belief that Christianity provides salvation is the basis for for his claim it's superior to Stoicism, or at least that one of his arguments against Stoicism on which I'd like to focus.

Of course, the long-standing argument that the Stoic Sage held out by the Stoics as their ideal cannot exist is employed by Augustine.  He and others maintain that no human being could be as serene, detached, and so in control of human emotions as the Sage.  But it isn't clear that the Stoics thought the Sage to be anything but an unapproachable ideal we should seek to imitate.  If so, the fact that the Stoics used the Sage as a standard of thought and conduct should no more condemn Stoicism than Christianity should be condemned because  Christians are urged to imitate Christ, as suggested by Thomas a Kempis.  No Christian could be as good as Jesus, obviously, but it doesn't follow Christians shouldn't try to be like him to the extent possible.

Augustine also, however, thought the Stoics were prideful; guilty of Pride, one of the seven deadly sins.  That's because the Stoics dared to believe it was possible for humans to achieve happiness without the assistance and intervention of a personal god.  Without grace, in other words.

The Bishop of Hippo essentially created the cruel concept of Original Sin.  He proclaimed if he did not originate the pernicious belief that humans were tainted by the sin committed by Adam and Eve when they were persuaded to eat of the Tree of Knowledge despite the fact that God had told them not to do so.  For that sin, they were cast out of the Garden of Eden and condemned to die, to labor, to bear children, but to not merely do what human beings do to survive and thrive.  All human beings thereafter were sinful by nature.  They sinned merely be existing.  They need not do anything wrong.

Because we're naughty by nature, as it were, only God could absolve us of Original Sin and any subsequent sins, and did so through the sacrifice of Jesus as to the First Sin and by bestowing grace as to all others.

As Augustine rather proudly stated in his Confessions, because he was a great sinner he could not be happy, could not be wise, until Jesus saved him.  Not even the great Augustine could achieve what the Stoics said was achievable without divine assistance.  If Augustine required divine assistance, all others must require it as well.   So, the Stoics must be sinfully prideful for even making that claim.

Just as the doctrine of absolution serves to encourage sin or assuage our concerns when we act wrongfully, as I suggested in a prior post, so the doctrines of Original Sin and Grace serves to discourage our efforts to control our own conduct and achieve happiness or equanimity through the use of our reason and development of our character.  Each doctrine in essence renders us helpless to help ourselves, and yet promises that we will flourish and be saved if only we don't try to help ourselves but rely on God to do so on our request for forgiveness or assistance.  

Perhaps belief in a personal god necessarily requires that we take a dim view of the world and our place in it.

The Ugly Americans

The Ugly American is a film made in 1963 based on a book published in 1959. The film starred Marlon Brando, seen in the poster above sporting a tiny mustache. (I've never known why such mustaches were allowed and, it seems, popular).

It was set in a fictional country in Southeast Asia, rather obviously intended to represent South Vietnam.  There God's Favorite Country was engaged in a struggle with the Commies for the territory and the hearts and minds of its people, assuming they were judged to have them.

The Americans were portrayed in both book and film as isolated, privileged, ignorant and unconcerned with the people.  This was, as far as they were concerned, purely a matter of money and power. The Commies made a point of helping the people with food, infrastructure and weapons and would fight with them when needed. Not surprisingly the people eventually turned away from our Great Republic. 

The "ugly" American in the book/film was a plain, unassuming, common sort of fellow. He was a civil engineer who actually tried to know and  help the people of the nation. As may be expected the ugly American wasn't in fact the engineer, but the glittering, ignorant, arrogant movers and shakers who looked down on him and those he tried to help. 

Which brings me at last to the subject matter of this post.

The word "ugly" has more than one definition. The one I have in mind is "Repulsive or offensive; objectionable." Some of those making up the freak show which is our nation's cabinet and higher levels of government are undoubtedly ugly in the more common sense.  But to note that is merely unkind. Of more concern are their repulsive, cruel and what is more self-righteous actions.

We start with the extraordinary claim that making weak nations kowtow to ours is somehow a sign of our nation's greatness.  This is how a weak person thinks.  U.S. Grant considered the U.S. war against Mexico a contemptable crime. Who knows what the current occupant will do in his quest to triumph over the small and helpless. He will expect homage for these "triumphs."

Then there is the malicious, petty action ending protection needed by public sevants with whom he did n't agree.  And the conditioning of federal aid to those desperately in need of it because of natural disasters on state and local government doing what he says.

These are only a few of the caperings of the ugly who rule us now. I was inclined to note the frivolous attempt to overturn the 14th Amendment regarding citizenship, but after all the Supreme Court has it shares of uglies too; their brown noses are becoming darker than their judicial robes.

The Problem with Absolution

It's useful to consider what absolution means and its implications, whenever it's referred to in a self-serving manner by those seeking some goal or position.  I refer, like those people do, to absolution in a religious sense.  That may well be its only proper sense; however, it's a distinction worth noting as absolution in a religious sense is something different from forgiveness.  It may include forgiveness, but it includes something more.  Those absolved of sins or wrongdoing are forgiven by God.  In some cases they're forgiven by God acting through an intermediary, like a priest.  But when absolved the sinner is released from punishment for that sin,  It's no longer a stain against the sinner, it cannot be held against those absolved.

Those of us raised in the Catholic faith know absolution well.  We know it through Confession as it was called in the past.  Now, I believe it's called Reconciliation.  In my youth, we would enter into a dark confessional and confess our sins to a priest.  We were supposed to do so "heartily."  I remember the words we sinners were told to begin our confession with:  "O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee..."  Having uttered those words, we would list our sins.  The priest would assign us some penance, usually consisting of more recitation, but of prayers.  He would then absolve us, in God's name.  "Ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis"  he'd have said in the good old days of Latin, and you were absolved of sin in God's name.

Absolution is something available in the Abrahamic religions generally, but is especially prevalent in Christianity.  I can't help but wonder if the idea played a part in their spread and popularity.  What could be better, than to be granted absolution for our wrongdoings and avoid punishment for them?  Especially when it's so easy to obtain?  Better yet, you may sin yet again after being absolved, and be absolved for those sins.  Jesus just keeps on redeeming us for our sins, when asked reverently.  We can wait until we're on our deathbed and be absolved, in fact.  Absolution is a Get Out of Hell (free, relatively) Card.

It may be claimed that absolution isn't really available unless we're really, really sorry for our wrongdoing.  If that's the case, though, we can sin all we like, over and over again, and then be really, really sorry when we ask for absolution, later.  

Absolution therefore seems to actually encourage sin.  It certainly doesn't deter it.  Can one even feel guilty for having done wrong knowing that redemption is just a prayer or ceremony away?  Perhaps that knowledge serves to at least partially explain why so many of us, especially those who openly proclaim that they've found Jesus, or have been born again, after having been caught in sin, sinned so openly before being caught.

The First Felon

 

For the first time in its history, our Great Republic will shortly have a convicted felon as its President.  Somewhat surprisingly given that some of its members have shown themselves to be susceptible to influence and contemptuous of generally recognized maxims of judicial conduct, the Supreme Court rejected his effort to postpone his sentencing.  There was no legal basis for doing so, but it has become uncertain that the Supreme Court finds a legal basis for its decisions necessary in these dark times.

But he's a duly elected convicted felon, and if we're to allow, if not encourage, felons to hold even the highest of public offices, then that is the way of our nation, now.  It may be the case that we'll balk at electing certain felons, I suppose.  Perhaps electing a convicted murderer is something the public will decline to do, for example.  But the field is open, now; the race is on.  Who will be the next convicted felon to grace the office of the Presidency?

It's difficult to be the first, in this case.  Perhaps that's why there was a struggle to avoid having that distinction when he became President.  Now, though, he may be a portent of things to come; a pioneer.  The first felon of many.

Ultimately, of course, electing anyone to any office in our Glorious Union is more than anything a matter of money.  Influencing those elected is a matter of money as well.  Witness the wealthy of our nation rushing to "donate" millions to finance the inauguration.  What is planned?  One wonders.  As there seems to be no limit to the vulgarity of our politics, it's hard not to imagine a kind of combination Vegas show, circus, and displays of military might given the rhetoric which flourishes at this time.  When, though, has a "negotiation" to acquire lands included the threat or use of armed force unless the  lands are transferred?

Interested though I am in the history of ancient Rome, I'm not fond of comparisons between it and the United States.  But I can't help but think of what Plutarch is said to have written regarding the influence of money on the Roman state.  It began to determine what votes were made, who was elected, what they did; then it took over the law courts; then the legions; and then came the rule of Emperors.

I'm not certain about the military, but it seems our elections and elected leaders have succumbed to the wealthy and certain plutocrats in particular, and the law courts, including the highest court in the land, are more and more beholden.  Emperors we may not have, yet.  But we don't seem to have many qualms about those who rule us.  So, who knows?