Recently in Politics Category
About a month ago I received an unsolicited email from a person who was familiar with my website and my column "The Fearless Observer." This person who shall remain anonymous in order to protect his ignorance, referred to me as a "diseased and evil man, a sicko liberal and a filthy humanist pig." The email consisted of more name calling than actual content that could open up discussion on our philosophical differences.
This emailer, who obviously had my best interest at heart, bombarded me with quotations from conservative media pundits like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, and Glenn Beck. And apparently for good measure he also quoted former Vice Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin and Christian Nationalist, Rusas Rushdoony. I am assuming the last two names he offered were supposed to inflict on me an aura of respectability and authority on his part.
This fellow didn't seem to have any original thoughts of his own other than his last sentence which he proclaimed loudly and with much zeal: "I am a Real American who loves his country and is fighting to take it back from sneaky, immoral, dangerous lefty's like yourself." I actually thought seriously (for a second) about responding to this guy on a personal level, but then decided it would be a lost cause. This man appeared to be hermetically sealed in a conservative bubble with no point of entry.
I wish to go on record to say that I am a very proud liberal, humanist American who loves his country very much and will never apologize for, nor hide this fact from anyone. Furthermore. I have never been "sneaky" about anything! My message to everyone is that it's okay to be a liberal. Sadly though some of my liberal brothers and sisters are afraid to even use the "L" word, let alone that very, very dangerous "H" word. They seem to be more comfortable wringing their hands in a dark closest like fearful little rodents, than coming out in the full light of day and denouncing the vicious smears, lies and doctored video from right-wing media pundits and politicians.
It seems to me this anti-liberalism stuff started earnestly back in 1976. That was the year Reverend Jerry Falwell and his Moral Majority claimed political power in this country by re-framing the arguments on just about everything. They ended up being quite successful and catapulted Ronald Reagan into the White House. Ever since, liberals and Liberal philosophy have been demonized to the point that to be a Liberal is on par to having a disease or being a traitor. Yes, the re-framing of liberalism by the new conservative movement was that successful and liberals everywhere have nobody to blame but themselves.
And because of this spineless, gutless non-reaction on the part of liberals years ago, we now suffer a cultural split between conservatism & liberalism that has become protracted and systemic. This situation has now grown so completely out-of-control that conservatives feel safe spouting some of the most vile, demeaning and sometimes violent rhetoric against liberals we have ever seen in this country. Conservapedia has this to say about liberals: "Someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing." Notice how unprofessional and lacking in historical scholarship this definition is? And yet Conservapedia touts itself as the online conservative alternative to Wikipedia.
Wikipedia defines conservative as: "to various political and social philosophies that support tradition and the status quo, or that call for a return to the values and society of an earlier age." Notice how professional this definition is without being demeaning or lacking in proper historical references? The definition is spot on and historically accurate and with few rare exceptions every conservative (and liberal) will agree with it. Now go back and re-read Conservapedia's definition of liberal. Notice how it sounds more like a rant on somebody's personal blog than a well thought out definition based on history and philosophy?
Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged, 2002, defines liberal as: "one that is openedminded or not strict in his observance of orthodox, traditional, established forms or ways: an adherent or advocate of liberalism especially in terms of individual rights and freedom from arbitrary authority." Webster's also goes on to define liberalism as: "a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of man, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for tolerance and freedom for the individual from arbitrary authority in all spheres of life especially by the protection of political and civil liberties and for government under law with the consent of the governed." And again, with few exceptions, every liberal (and conservative) will agree with this definition.
The trouble in today's political climate though, is that this "rare exception" within the conservative movement has become unleashed into what we know as the Tea Party Movement. I recently talked with a co-worker who labeled himself a "teabagger." His personal definition of a liberal was so off-base and disconnected from history that it actually made no sense. I won't repeat it here because it is truly embarrassing! When I offered him the above definition from Webster's he refused to accept it, saying: "How do I know that's even true. Everyone knows dictionaries are written by liberals with Harvard degrees." Our conversation came to a standstill with no where to go.
Columnist Leonard Pitts, in his column dated February 22, 2010 says: "When no authority can be regarded as unimpeachable by both right and left, when no fact can be universally accepted as such, when anything you prefer not to believe is automatically dismissed as a product of 'bias' you impoverish intellect and render informed debate impossible." I think most liberals would agree with this assesssment but sadly a good portion of them (it seems) simply don't engage to educate the other side on what really defines a liberal and liberal philosophy in general. I can sympathize with this attitude because it does become exhausting after awhile trying to educate people on the other side before you can even begin a decent conversation about the issues of the day.
But, you know, in the final analysis it is up to liberals, not only to get their message out there amidst the strident cacophony of the right-wing political machine, but to counter the outright lies, misinformation, half-truths, distortions, and historical ignorance about liberals, liberalism and humanism. I have been guilty of non-action myself. Maybe, afterall, I will go ahead and send that emailer a response and attempt to educate him about what liberalism really means. I owe it to myself and the country I love. Fox News, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, and the teabaggers don't own this country and its institutions and their opinions are just that - opinions. This is one liberal that will never hide in a dark closet ringing his hands out of fear and loathing.
To create a secular religion within the early years of the former Soviet Union, self-serving political thugs like V.I. Lenin, commandeered the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx. It was this secular religion that paved the way for the human rights atrocities under Joseph Stalin. The term secular religion may appear as a self-contradiction, or an oxymoron in today's vernacular, but it is not and I hope to prove it in this essay.
A traditional definition of religion involves a belief in some transcendental dimension or state of beingness or perfection. Yet there are excellent reasons for calling the Communist Manifesto the catalyst of a new, modern secular religion in the former Soviet Union. Like every other world religion, it has a theory of everything and a program of action to manifest this theory into everyday reality. As a theory of everything it is comprehensive, having creeds and a dogma that touches every important aspect of the individual and their social existence. Like all religions it has certain fundamental requirements that generally define what a religion is. It has a method of inquiry (Dialectical Reasoning); a cosmic world view (Historical Materialism); and a social polity (Communism). It also includes a theory of economics, sociology, politics, and an ethical code to live by, not unlike the Roman Catholic Church, the Mormon Church and the Church of England. As a program of action, it has shown a capacity to inspire the fanatical loyalty and rigid discipline of the True Believer.
The Communist Manifesto is especially like a traditional, organized religion in the nature of certain basic questions that it attempts to answer by a process called dialectics. Dialectics is an intellectual exercise that attempts to find meaning behind so-called laws of Nature and History, as well as behind the spoken word. Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, Second Edition, says of dialectics: "1. The art or practice of examining opinions or ideas logically, often by the method of question and answer, so as to determine their validity. 2. The method of logic used by Hegel and adapted by Marx to his materialist philosophy: it is based on the concept of the contradiction of opposites (thesis and antithesis) and their continual resolution (synthesis)." The Communist Manifesto includes a theory of how evil came to be (Capitalism) and how to eradicate it (Communism). It includes a vision of powers that are beyond the control of the individual. These powers inflict suffering upon the masses but also, inevitably, carry the individual and the group onward to a blessed fulfillment. It includes a prophetic foretelling of a paradisiacal Utopian State where humanity will live in perfect freedom and happiness. It is impossible to truly appreciate the deep cultic appeal of the Communist Manifest unless its powerful effects upon emotions, which are essential to any religion, are first considered.
Taken as a whole, the Communist Manifesto is a prophecy founded upon the vision of two individuals: Frederick Engels and Karl Marx. Plowing through layers of exaggeration and emotional revolutionary rhetoric, a kernal of truth can indeed be found, as is found in most political and religious systems. The Marxist system is essentially useful today because it raises questions that force the reader to re-evaluate their own beliefs or doubts on the important issues of everyday life. The extreme economic determinism of the Marxist worldview can be safely rejected today as a fanciful anachronism, but we all need to think out our own position on the possible relationships between economic development and other aspects of society, such as culture, spirituality and individual behaviors.
Reducing the Communist Manifesto and its underlying creeds and dogma to a single coherent body of thinking is not an easy task. The Marxist system is like a big tree with many branches. The trunk of this tree is Marx's core doctrine known as Historical Materialism. The same dictionary cited previously defines Historical Materialism as "the philosophy originated by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, an application of Hegel's logical method (dialectic) to philosophical materialism: the official doctrine of Communism practiced by the Soviet Union." Karl Marx first promoted this term, Historical Materialism in his 1859 book, Critique of Political Economy.
There are four essential parts to the Marxist philosophy of history. First, that the economic structure of society in the pre-communist period is not and cannot be deliberately planned and controlled, but develops independently of human will, aspiration and thought, and in accordance to objective social law. Second, that this developing economic structure determines what takes place in other areas of social life, such as class structure, the state, religion, law and ethics. Third, that the course of history is inevitably punctured by violent revolutions, each marking the transition to a more advanced stage of historical development. Fourth, those individuals shall be delivered from their slavery to one another and to historical necessity when in the fullness of time the proletarian revolution ushers in the Utopian State.
Once this fourth and final part of the historical process comes into full manifestation, it is theorized that the historical process no longer has need of the state. Individual control will become unnecessary. Marx allows for a transitional period when the ideas, interests and beliefs inherited from te old economy will still have marginal influence. He calls this grace period Socialism. During this time individuals, under communal control, will recieve their livilhood according to the standard: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. A Utopian State based on pure communism would then have arrived, achieving heaven on earth for humanity. Since force would vanish under this theoretical assumption, so would selfishness. Human beings would enter into their earthly paradise by the grace of the historical process, or Historical Materialism.
This final vision of the Utopian State is an ideal carried over from pre-Socratic times. But, unfortunately, Marx's interpretation of this pre-Socratic ideal is truly a dangerous vision. Why? To indoctrinate people with the idea that evil arises only from economic institutions is a falsehood. Individuals may be corrupted by power as well as by property; by pride as well as by genetic determination; by mental illness as well as by sociopathic personality traits. History is rife with examples of this kind of human failing that continue in the present time. To found a movement or establish a vision based upon a doctrine that chooses not to recognize these very human possibilities is an open invitation to tyranny and the totalitarian state, which Hannah Arendt spoke so eloquently about in her 1958 book, The Human Condition. She says: "Totalitarian lawfulness, defying of justice on earth, executes the law of History or of Nature without translating it into standards of right and wrong for individual behavior. It applies the law directly to mankind without bothering with the behavior of men."
A good example of how the former Soviet Union used the writings of Marx and his pseudo-scientific philosophy of Historical Materialism to brutalize its own people in the name of Communism and the Law of History, is outlined in Arthur Koestler's novel, Darkness at Noon. The novel portrays how the Communist Party turned back upon itself during the 1930's and 1940's to weed out "weak and disloyal members" who stood in the way of History and the Party. The novel is a classic study on the paranoid excesses of the former Soviet Union under the leadership of Joseph Stalin. Arthur Koestler paints a picture of the Soviet State as the inevitable by-product of Marx's psuedo-scientific theories on Nature and History. Koestler makes an excellent argument in the form of a fictional story of why Marx's central doctrine--Historical Materialism--is wrongheaded and cannot work in the everyday world of real people.
So it is easy to see why the atrocities of the former Soviet Union happened as they did. Hannah Arendt goes on to tell us in the previously cited book that totalitarianism owes its existence only to the fact that the traditional ruling interests of a country fail because of lack of nerve, by accident or through pure ineptitude. In the case of Russia the serfs were complaining loudly about their lot in life to which the Romanov family turned a deaf ear. The last two Romanov Tsars sided with family traditional and supposedly Divine Law in their inaction to address the plight of the serfs. It was just this problem of the serfs that launched Engels, Marx and Lenin onto history's stage as alleged saviors of the underclass.
Hannah Arendt continues to tell us that whenever totalitarianism rose to power, it destroyed the vestiges of the past, whether social institutions or the Church itself. When the Soviets rose to power they emptied the churches and turned them into museums; they destroyed the remaining influence of the Aristocracy; they gutted the Duma (Russia's parliament at the time) of enemies of the state; they forced revolutionary moderates, like Alexander Kerensky, into exile; they systematically destroyed all remnants of Monarchy, even to the tragic and extreme point of murdering the Tsar and his family; they shifted power from the traditional armed services to the dreaded secret police; they turned the political party system into a mass movement controlled by revolutionary guards; they established a foreign policy openly directed toward world domination. They did this all in the name of the Communist Philosophy, Historical Materialism and Dialectical Reasoning.
There was one time in my life that I seriously considered running for elective office. It was 1976 and I was living in Napa, California. I decided to run for a spot on the local water district board. Why I chose that particular position to launch a possible political career I don't know, maybe it seemed less intimidating than a city council seat or the office of the Mayor.
At the time it really didn't seem to bother me that I was only 21 years old, completely unknown in my home town, had no life experience to speak of, no public service experience, completely broke and unemployed, and wasn't even registered to vote. Despite these small negatives I spent two months mapping out strategy and creating lists of people and businesses that I could depend on as donors. I went to city hall, filled out the proper paperwork, paid the fee, and even borrowed $500 from a friend to sit on my butt for two months thinking up a game plan.
To make a long story short my campaign for public office never even made it out the front door of my apartment. Four candidates, including myself, were listed on the ballot for that particular water district. One month after the election I went to city hall and found out that I had received a wopping nine votes. The winner and two runner ups received thousands of votes more than I could ever hope for. Of the nine votes cast in my favor, six of them I already knew but the other three were mysterious unknowns. It made me feel rather proud that I had a constituency of nine people in Napa and I never even had to take a bribe, kiss a baby, shake a hand, or tell a lie to win their support. What politician today can claim such a feat?
Looking at the current 2008 Democratic Presidential primary, it never ceases to amaze me just how much of a big ego, psychological cunning, personal deviousness, and physical stamina one needs to run for elective office, especially for the Office of the Presidency of the United States. I came across a cute but sad cartoon on the Internet during the 2004 Democratic primary that showed all the candidates marching single file into a meat grinder and coming out the other end completely unrecognizable for better or for worse. This is probably why most of those who do run for the Unted States Presidency say that it is a "life changing experience." And it is probably why that thousands of the most gifted and qualified never run for office.
I must say that I have nothing but respect (and a little bit of sadness) for anybody who runs for the Presidency of the United States of America. I could never do it in my wildest dreams, even if Microsoft mogel Bill Gates offered me a check for one billion dollars.
