I remember the first time I read Mark Twain's famous opus, "The War Prayer." Well, it was famous to some people; actually, I had never heard of it. (If you haven't read it recently, or ever, you can find it here.) It was shown to me by one of my college friends, a fun-loving, informed, committed member of the 60s campus left, and I am indebted to him for many things. But friend or not, I can remember to this day my own reaction when I read it for the first time: What business did Mark Twain have writing that? I had known he was a cynic (someone had told me), but I thought he was an all-American. It was practically traitorous. It was true that Vietnam, the necessary war against communism, was dragging badly, but the righteousness of the cause was not in doubt . . . What was my friend suggesting, saying, insinuating, by getting me to read this?
I was one of those people Mark Twain mentioned at the end of the piece, and I think that even at the time I sensed it: "It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic; because there was no sense in what he said."
Mark Twain makes a lot more sense to me now.
I remember the first time I heard about Gore Vidal. I knew he was a liberal (someone told me), and I further knew that one of my heroes, the conservative columnist Bill Buckley, famously didn't like him; and that was enough for me. Well, I got to hear Gore Vidal for myself a while back (on the Internet, of course), where he talks about "the United States of Amnesia." He is referring to a nation of people who forget everything that happened before last Monday morning. Well, he may or may not be a liberal, but he sure nailed that one. You can find lots of his interviews on YouTube, and judge for yourself. Let me just say that I find him very interesting. Uncomfortable, too, like Mark Twain.
History shows us that Americans especially like to be amnesiac about the atrocities committed by Americans in whatever war is under discussion. It is an old weakness. Back in the early 1800s, folks didn't like to hear about General Jackson cutting off the noses of 557 Creek Indians; they just wanted to know that Old Hickory had won the war. They didn't want to hear about Phil Sheridan and the Washita massacre, they just wanted to settle the West. And to this day they don't want to hear how the US Army under presidents William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt wiped out thousands upon thousands of Filipino soldiers and many tens of thousands of civilians. But there was a noble cause: it was in order to bring the "gospel" to our "little brown brothers." Do you think that the Lord of All Worlds is proud of this? (By the way, it is one of the wars where the US military perfected waterboarding. So if somebody wants to defend this particular custom as an old American military tradition, I must bow to the undisputed facts and admit that they are right.)
In my own youth, it was the war in Vietnam, conceived in CIA stupidity (collusion with both communists and old colonialists) and born in a military lie (the faked incident in the Gulf of Tonkin); the burdens to be borne by young, poor men -- many of them idealistic, but most of them simply drafted against their will; cheered on by their silly, or gullible, or helpless parents; abandoned, at the last, by the higher echelons of America's political class (the same elite "internationalist" intelligentsia that masterminded the Korean war from unnecessary start to ugly midgame to inconclusive finish); but not before The Powers That Be had shattered the Vietnamese peasantry, and toppled the dominoes into mass murders in Cambodia and Laos as well.
Atrocities are in the nature of war. Maybe not in all wars -- maybe there are "just wars" -- but we can indisputably document that a series of atrocities have been the norm in most American wars.
But I will agree that there is a difference this time: the Vietnam war was started by an administration of liberal Democrats, and perpetuated by the support of conservative Republicans. The current wars in the Near East were started by an administration of conservative Republicans and perpetuated by the support of liberal Democrats.
The more things change . . .
I think about Mark Twain's "The War Prayer," written over a hundred years ago. Thank you for beginning the wake-up process for me, Jay.
. . . the more they remain the same.
It is much easier to forget than to think about changing. But if we can't quite forget, it is comforting to know that war is always, really, for God. Isn't it?
* * *
One of the commenters on an earlier post suggested the following links for our consideration. I highly recommend them. They can be found here and here and here.
I believe that the Gore Vidal interview was carried on the Real News Network. I also highly recommend them.
Comments, pro and con, most welcome. Let's talk; it's way better than fighting.
Monday, November 22, 2010
William Blake, Charles Williams, and Anglican Spirituality
This post is intended simply to be a congregating point for comments on spirituality as it has been revealed in the Anglican church.
Anglican church history begins somewhere in the semi-legendary, semi-historical accounts of the mission of Joseph of Arimathea and the establishment, or re-establishment, of the original House, built by Jesus, the young Carpenter, for His Mother. You can find the stories elsewhere -- google on Glastonbury, for example. The story has survived the centuries when the Church of Britain lived in uneasy relation with the occupying Roman imperial -- and later papal -- authorities, and the successive invasions of the Anglo-Saxons and the Norman French. It (the ancient story) has even survived the Puritan era, and informs some -- perhaps much -- of William Blake's insights and his sense of freedom to redefine, or I should say, recast, certain orthodoxies.
And the amazing Mother Julian of Norwich, and the old prophetess, Mother Shipton, remain beloved in at least some Anglican circles.
While much of Anglicanism descended into mere sycophancy with British imperialism, a healthy mysticism and spirituality has been preserved always. Persons who might be considered heretics by thoroughgoing Calvinists or other Reformers have found a place in the Anglican communion for centuries.
In the fringes of the Anglican tradition can be found men as diversely orthodox as the Wesley brothers and John Henry Newman -- not that all remained there; Newman eventually became a Roman Catholic (and a cardinal at that) -- but they certainly remained in the Body of Christ. More recently, of course, we have the life-long Anglican Charles Williams, and a slightly later convert, C. S. Lewis.
I'd like to launch the discussion with a tribute to the poet, William Blake, who I think first opened my eyes to the explicitly spiritual value of poetry. I do not claim to fully understand him; I do claim to treasure him; and I am delighted that great thinkers and mystics of the stature of Thomas Merton and Charles Williams draw much from him.
If he had never written anything more than the magnificent "Jerusalem," he should be forever considered among the first rank of poets and seers. If you have not read this poem recently, you can look it up on the net and enjoy it again. As long as William Blake is remembered, there remains the possibility -- perhaps only a possibility -- of bright hope for England.
To Charles Williams I owe my first real understanding of church history as spiritual rather than historical/political/religious reality (Descent of the Dove). His development of the reality of "co-inherence" transformed my understanding of the Atonement.
But let the comments begin. In this discussion, I hope, I have very much to learn. Welcome.
* * *
Note: I intend to set up posts for discussion of Celtic and Scandinavian spirituality soon.
Anglican church history begins somewhere in the semi-legendary, semi-historical accounts of the mission of Joseph of Arimathea and the establishment, or re-establishment, of the original House, built by Jesus, the young Carpenter, for His Mother. You can find the stories elsewhere -- google on Glastonbury, for example. The story has survived the centuries when the Church of Britain lived in uneasy relation with the occupying Roman imperial -- and later papal -- authorities, and the successive invasions of the Anglo-Saxons and the Norman French. It (the ancient story) has even survived the Puritan era, and informs some -- perhaps much -- of William Blake's insights and his sense of freedom to redefine, or I should say, recast, certain orthodoxies.
And the amazing Mother Julian of Norwich, and the old prophetess, Mother Shipton, remain beloved in at least some Anglican circles.
While much of Anglicanism descended into mere sycophancy with British imperialism, a healthy mysticism and spirituality has been preserved always. Persons who might be considered heretics by thoroughgoing Calvinists or other Reformers have found a place in the Anglican communion for centuries.
In the fringes of the Anglican tradition can be found men as diversely orthodox as the Wesley brothers and John Henry Newman -- not that all remained there; Newman eventually became a Roman Catholic (and a cardinal at that) -- but they certainly remained in the Body of Christ. More recently, of course, we have the life-long Anglican Charles Williams, and a slightly later convert, C. S. Lewis.
I'd like to launch the discussion with a tribute to the poet, William Blake, who I think first opened my eyes to the explicitly spiritual value of poetry. I do not claim to fully understand him; I do claim to treasure him; and I am delighted that great thinkers and mystics of the stature of Thomas Merton and Charles Williams draw much from him.
If he had never written anything more than the magnificent "Jerusalem," he should be forever considered among the first rank of poets and seers. If you have not read this poem recently, you can look it up on the net and enjoy it again. As long as William Blake is remembered, there remains the possibility -- perhaps only a possibility -- of bright hope for England.
To Charles Williams I owe my first real understanding of church history as spiritual rather than historical/political/religious reality (Descent of the Dove). His development of the reality of "co-inherence" transformed my understanding of the Atonement.
But let the comments begin. In this discussion, I hope, I have very much to learn. Welcome.
* * *
Note: I intend to set up posts for discussion of Celtic and Scandinavian spirituality soon.
Monday, November 15, 2010
One Cheer for Veterans
I am in the process of producing several posts which examine modern American wars -- and war in general -- from a rather critical point of view. I am fairly certain of my facts and my arguments, and I hope to be persuasive. At the same time, I am aware that some of the people who will read this are veterans. (So were my father and two of my uncles -- World War II. But they are now all gone from us.) Some other readers, while not themselves veterans, count veterans among their most beloved friends and family members, and feel a special and understandable loyalty to them. Yet others are even now in active military service. I welcome their presence, their readership, their participation, and their comments pro or con, and I write this post hoping to avoid any unnecessary misunderstanding.
I am going to offer one cheer for veterans. Only one, it is true, but it will be a transcendent cheer. Transcendent, because in my view it lays hold of Heaven itself.
I begin with a memory of the day of the assassination of Egypt's president, Anwar Sadat, in October, 1981. According to the press reports and video clips of the occasion (I can do no better, I wasn't there), President Sadat was standing in review at a parade, when assassins in the parade formation opened fire. At the crucial moment, Sadat's bodyguard, who may have been in on the plot, dropped down and took cover. Undefended, Sadat was immediately cut down. That act of collective cowardice, if it was that, spoke volumes. All the talk of brotherhood and loyalty dissolved into a bloody puddle of betrayal and dishonor, the spirit of Judas moving as he ever does. The stain of that shame has not yet been removed.
I contrast that with the attempt on the life of Ronald Reagan a few months earlier in the same year. In that event, the men of the Secret Service leaped into action to shield the President with their own bodies, and wrestled the killer to the ground while he was armed and shooting. That act of willing self-sacrifice also spoke volumes. All the talk of partisanship and controversy surrounding the president resolved into a sense of heroism and national honor, at least for a time.
The words of Christ ring very clear here -- at least they do in my own head: "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." And the free willingness to do so is the crucial thing: often the actual death of the willing is not required. Those who lay down their lives may often be granted the grace to take them up again.
I take the Lord of All Worlds at His word, that He honors this great love at its offering, and if a man dies in such an act, I believe he is welcomed immediately into the Holy Presence. Furthermore, I take these words as authoritative as against anything any Church or theologian might say in the negative. Love, it is said, conquers death; and it also conquers the fear of death.
There is no doubt in my mind that often times men join the military service of their nation with just such noble thoughts in mind. In America, we much admire the ragged solidarity of the farmers and youngsters at Valley Forge. We like the story of Nathan Hale who, though a spy, had "but one life to give for his country." (Not quite the same as "his friends," of course, but let us move on.)
I like these stories, as you do. And I suppose every nation remembers its heroes who died for their friends in battle, or perished in the defense of hearth and home. I like the poem about the old Roman hero, Horatius. Even though the poet is a 19th-century Briton (Macauley), I think he fairly captures the old ideal in its pagan form:
Then out spake brave Horatius,
The Captain of the gate;
"To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers,
And the temples of his Gods,
"And for the tender mother
Who dandled him to rest,
And for the wife who nurses
His baby at her breast,
And for the holy maidens
Who feed the eternal flame,
To save them from false Sextus
That wrought the deed of shame?"
Thus far, the one cheer. The transcendent cheer that recognizes that warriors do sometimes lay hold of the holy reality of that great love that lays itself down for its friends. Some men ridicule the notion of "foxhole religion;" I do not. Foxhole religion may indeed be religion of the purest (because most transforming) kind; may a merciful and gracious Father God bless all who call upon Him, in whatever extremity.
But these acts of honor are the exception rather than the rule in war. For every Horatius who must defend the bridge, there also must be the "false Sextus" (and his numerous army) who force Horatius into doing what he does, and who either know, or know not, what they do. And even if the sacrifice is noble, and accepted as such, the fields and cities are filled with destruction and death.
And even poor noble Horatius can wonder -- are his fellow soldiers really honorable, or do they stand guilty of vicious aggressions of their own? Are their Gods, and their temples, worthy? And if not -- what then?
If I may presume a perhaps-too-general opinion, it seems to me that whole cultures, whole nations, have lost their way here. The Vikings, for example, seem to have had a notion that death in battle guaranteed a place of honor in the feasting halls of Valhalla -- despite the fact that their warriors were, more often than not, the pirates and the pillagers, the killers of defenseless monks and the kidnappers of girls. Did the Lord of All Worlds count this as "laying their lives down for their friends," and guarantee them His beatitude, or had they been deceived -- perhaps willingly, perhaps not -- by the war god whose true name is Moloch? I wonder.
But more to the point, what about the United States of America and its wars?
I beg you to read your history carefully. Carefully. What were the reasons why brave and seasoned old warriors had second thoughts -- commanders such as Scott, Eisenhower, MacArthur, Patton, Butler, and many others? Why do some veterans come home and become outright pacifists?
War is a very ugly business, mostly because very many ugly men do very many ugly things. Sometimes, because they want to; sometimes, because someone has told them that they must. And by no means is all of the ugliness on the other side, nor is all of the honorable sacrifice on our own.
I am going to offer one cheer for veterans. Only one, it is true, but it will be a transcendent cheer. Transcendent, because in my view it lays hold of Heaven itself.
I begin with a memory of the day of the assassination of Egypt's president, Anwar Sadat, in October, 1981. According to the press reports and video clips of the occasion (I can do no better, I wasn't there), President Sadat was standing in review at a parade, when assassins in the parade formation opened fire. At the crucial moment, Sadat's bodyguard, who may have been in on the plot, dropped down and took cover. Undefended, Sadat was immediately cut down. That act of collective cowardice, if it was that, spoke volumes. All the talk of brotherhood and loyalty dissolved into a bloody puddle of betrayal and dishonor, the spirit of Judas moving as he ever does. The stain of that shame has not yet been removed.
I contrast that with the attempt on the life of Ronald Reagan a few months earlier in the same year. In that event, the men of the Secret Service leaped into action to shield the President with their own bodies, and wrestled the killer to the ground while he was armed and shooting. That act of willing self-sacrifice also spoke volumes. All the talk of partisanship and controversy surrounding the president resolved into a sense of heroism and national honor, at least for a time.
The words of Christ ring very clear here -- at least they do in my own head: "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." And the free willingness to do so is the crucial thing: often the actual death of the willing is not required. Those who lay down their lives may often be granted the grace to take them up again.
I take the Lord of All Worlds at His word, that He honors this great love at its offering, and if a man dies in such an act, I believe he is welcomed immediately into the Holy Presence. Furthermore, I take these words as authoritative as against anything any Church or theologian might say in the negative. Love, it is said, conquers death; and it also conquers the fear of death.
There is no doubt in my mind that often times men join the military service of their nation with just such noble thoughts in mind. In America, we much admire the ragged solidarity of the farmers and youngsters at Valley Forge. We like the story of Nathan Hale who, though a spy, had "but one life to give for his country." (Not quite the same as "his friends," of course, but let us move on.)
I like these stories, as you do. And I suppose every nation remembers its heroes who died for their friends in battle, or perished in the defense of hearth and home. I like the poem about the old Roman hero, Horatius. Even though the poet is a 19th-century Briton (Macauley), I think he fairly captures the old ideal in its pagan form:
Then out spake brave Horatius,
The Captain of the gate;
"To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers,
And the temples of his Gods,
"And for the tender mother
Who dandled him to rest,
And for the wife who nurses
His baby at her breast,
And for the holy maidens
Who feed the eternal flame,
To save them from false Sextus
That wrought the deed of shame?"
Thus far, the one cheer. The transcendent cheer that recognizes that warriors do sometimes lay hold of the holy reality of that great love that lays itself down for its friends. Some men ridicule the notion of "foxhole religion;" I do not. Foxhole religion may indeed be religion of the purest (because most transforming) kind; may a merciful and gracious Father God bless all who call upon Him, in whatever extremity.
But these acts of honor are the exception rather than the rule in war. For every Horatius who must defend the bridge, there also must be the "false Sextus" (and his numerous army) who force Horatius into doing what he does, and who either know, or know not, what they do. And even if the sacrifice is noble, and accepted as such, the fields and cities are filled with destruction and death.
And even poor noble Horatius can wonder -- are his fellow soldiers really honorable, or do they stand guilty of vicious aggressions of their own? Are their Gods, and their temples, worthy? And if not -- what then?
If I may presume a perhaps-too-general opinion, it seems to me that whole cultures, whole nations, have lost their way here. The Vikings, for example, seem to have had a notion that death in battle guaranteed a place of honor in the feasting halls of Valhalla -- despite the fact that their warriors were, more often than not, the pirates and the pillagers, the killers of defenseless monks and the kidnappers of girls. Did the Lord of All Worlds count this as "laying their lives down for their friends," and guarantee them His beatitude, or had they been deceived -- perhaps willingly, perhaps not -- by the war god whose true name is Moloch? I wonder.
But more to the point, what about the United States of America and its wars?
I beg you to read your history carefully. Carefully. What were the reasons why brave and seasoned old warriors had second thoughts -- commanders such as Scott, Eisenhower, MacArthur, Patton, Butler, and many others? Why do some veterans come home and become outright pacifists?
War is a very ugly business, mostly because very many ugly men do very many ugly things. Sometimes, because they want to; sometimes, because someone has told them that they must. And by no means is all of the ugliness on the other side, nor is all of the honorable sacrifice on our own.
Let us not beatify all veterans. Some are honorable men; some are knaves; and some are simple fools. Just like the rest of us.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
World War I -- History, Significance, and Lasting Lessons
Of course, the title of this post is pretentious. All that I am going to do is touch a tiny bit of history, a tiny bit of significance, and one or two lessons that may or may not be lasting. But that was as short as I could make the title, and still have it say where I want to go with this post.
Surely tens of thousands of books, at the very least, have been published about the Great War of 1914-1918. Surely not one person in one hundred has read even the hundredth part of what has been written. But that is hardly sufficient to properly memorialize the more than 15 million persons who died as a direct result of that conflict, or the experiences of the 50 millions of combatants, and the hundreds of millions of their families, who survived. World history is a river that flows exceedingly broad and deep, and the vast load it carries of death, life, and experience, overwhelms my imagination. Wise men have said you can never step into the same river twice, and I partly believe it. I trust that The Lord of All Worlds, and the holy Saints and Angels, keep track of it all.
World War I, it is said, was caused by the assassination of an Archduke; which is roughly equivalent to saying that the Civil War was caused by the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter. Perhaps that is good enough, in both cases, for the official histories, or for people who must negotiate treaties to end wars and who feel the need to assign "full responsibility" to specific somebodies and their successors. This happens in most of our modern large-scale wars where indemnities are contemplated and there are occupation rules to establish, justify, and enforce; certainly, it happened in each of these two wars I have named.
The Great War which began in August, 1914, was already ghastly, and known to be so by the men in the field (on all sides, on all fronts) by that first Christmas, when trench warfare was just settling in. Four years later, when the war concluded in the inconclusive Armistice, the atrocious knowledge was vivid in all men's minds -- all the foot-soldiers' minds. All knew it had been horrible, and many thought it had been pointless. What importantly remained was to fix the enormous guilt right where it belonged: on the Germans. And that is what the Versailles Treaty proceeded to do. The noble victors told you that the Kaiser had been ambitious; if it were so, it were a grievous fault, and grievously he was made to answer for it. In much of Central Europe, where the guilt was supposed to lie, the Old Order was swept away -- its monarchies, its aristocracies, its pieties. And in Russia, a state allied with the victors (if we should call them that), the old regime was swept away with exceptional brutality. Only in the West did the same national constitutions and governments that had begun the war survive its concluding phases. Perhaps they, too, feared for their survival.
At any rate, they took firm action to preserve their power, and they succeeded. During the latter years of the war, certain police-state methods appeared, especially in the United States. People who opposed the war, and older people who opposed the drafting of the young people, and young draft resisters themselves, were forcefully dealt with (if you think long sentences in federal prisons are forceful, as I do). Christian Mennonites and Quakers were in trouble because of their pacifist traditions, and so were individualists, moralists, freethinkers, socialists, and . . . communists. The Espionage Act was passed in 1917, and prohibited not only such things as passing secrets, but also, opposing military recruitment. What was the legal punishment? "Death, or 30 years imprisonment, or both." (Both?) The US Supreme Court, with its usual constitutional insight, agreed with the government in 1919 (a year after the war ended) that imprisoning these opponents of "recruitment" (read: involuntary draft) did not violate any freedom of speech rights that they might have thought they possessed. And by 1918, the law had become even more strict with the Sedition Act, which prohibited, among other things, "any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States . . . or the flag . . . or the uniform of the Army or Navy."
The Department of Justice, and the newly formed FBI, swung into action. Among hundreds who were imprisoned under these laws can be found such persons as the socialist candidate for president, Eugene Debs; the publisher of a periodical, The Jeffersonian, who opposed the war and the draft; and the future poet e. e. cummings, who, while serving in the Ambulance Corps on the Western Front, "had spoken openly of his lack of hatred for the Germans."
Actual sentences ranged from a few months to 10 years imprisonment. While I truly regret the treatment of these notable and honorable citizens, I save more of my sympathy for the hundreds of unnamed, unknown citizens who were rounded up and locked up, and had no one, and no historian, to be their champion. Their mistake, if they had made any, was in believing that the Bill of Rights offered them any protection; or that this was any more a nation of people that seriously valued freedom of conscience, freedom of choice, and freedom of action.
Actual sentences ranged from a few months to 10 years imprisonment. While I truly regret the treatment of these notable and honorable citizens, I save more of my sympathy for the hundreds of unnamed, unknown citizens who were rounded up and locked up, and had no one, and no historian, to be their champion. Their mistake, if they had made any, was in believing that the Bill of Rights offered them any protection; or that this was any more a nation of people that seriously valued freedom of conscience, freedom of choice, and freedom of action.
It was convenient that a few communists were found. You know the logic: Some communists commit acts of violence; some communists oppose the draft; some communists have been very publicly captured; X opposes the draft; and therefore, obviously, X is a dangerous violent communist threat to our freedoms, which the government is trying so hard to protect by "making the world safe for democracy," as our courageous president has so nobly said. And don't you dare say otherwise . . . you seditious spy, or we'll get you, too. They called it "The Red Scare;" but who was doing the scaring of whom?
In future years, certain historians would step forward to rehabilitate the memories of the war. It hadn't been as bad as all that. And the influenza epidemic was also bad. And after all, the good guys had won, and that can't be bad.
And the American church had to put a nice spin on it. After all, they were the ones who had famously praised the Lord and passed the ammunition. They were the ones who were deeply concerned that their Mennonite and Quaker brethren had, through want of courage and true manliness, not sufficiently condemned Prussian militarism, the real cause of the war. We had fought the gallant fight, saving civilization from the Hun. Onward, Christian Soldiers. The work of our missionaries could now go forward, converting the heathen to (Jesus and) our way. In fact, it was all probably God's Will.
Well, despite all the repression of the US government -- the President, the Bureaucracy, the Congress, and the Supreme Court, in concert assembled -- and the reassurances of the Churchmen, in congregations dissembled -- people went back and questioned the war. Returned veterans gave their views. Establishment and anti-establishment writers published. Politicians of both parties weighed in to protect their reputations. Some truth came out. But a great deal remained buried, or was ignored, or was forgotten over time.
Such as the fact that, early on, Woodrow Wilson had found himself in the pocket of certain persons far older, and far better connected, and far more powerful, than he.
Such as the fact that some wealthy bankers and industrialists on both sides of the Atlantic had made sure that the war was prosecuted in such a way as to maximize their investments and protect their war loans.
Such as the fact that several secret societies were at war with each other. Or in collusion with each other. (Oh, I know that today we don't have conspiracies, I know, I know. I know it is a different day; human nature, and especially governments, have changed so much for the better.) But as a matter of fact, in those days, those societies did exist, and they were quite extensive, and quite powerful, and quite secretive. And they controlled whole swaths of nations.
There were dark rumors, that only some believed, that the war was pre-planned. That it was part of a deeper game to bankrupt governments and bring violent revolution to Europe. There was some evidence that these rumors were true -- the governments certainly were bankrupted, and widespread violent revolution broke out. (And in truth, no violent revolution anywhere has ever been purely spontaneous; think about it.)
If I had lived, and had been writing, and had said any of this in 1918, I could have been, and probably would have been, locked up. "Disloyal, scurrilous." So I guess I'm glad I live in a country where I am free to say this -- now -- but it is under the same federal government that has said that I was not free to say anything like this then.
My grandfather, who is of German descent, was about thirty years old when the United States declared war in 1917. He had small children, and was not, I suppose, immediately liable to the draft. The pastor of his church had emigrated from Germany to America about 25 years before the war. He would later recall those times during the war years when federal agents would come to his church and silently listen to his sermons; a long time afterward, he told my father about it. Perhaps most of his congregation never really knew about all this; but perhaps they did. My grandfather's generation, I think, learned to shut up.
The men who ran the Great War, I think, learned that the sheep can be managed. Again. In fact, they can be sheared.
So each group learned a valuable lesson.
* * *
Well, there is some point to my telling this story, and I haven't quite gotten around to it. The next installment will come forward a generation closer to our time.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Recalling An Old Anti-War Post I Made
I ran across an old email broadside that I wrote about a year ago. So the references to September, and to George Will, are based on the fall of 2009. The post may seem a little dated and clunky, but it does express my sentiments then and now. By the way, the link to truthout.org still works well as of today, November 3. Here it is. Comments always welcome.
* * *
Friends,
On Sunday, September 6, the Truthout website ran an article about how George Will has begun to change his mind about the mideast wars. You can read the details about George's thinking at this site. There are also links to his two articles in the Washington Post, "Time to Get Out of Afghanistan," and "Time to Leave Iraq."
http://www.truthout.org/090609A
This prompted me to write a comment, using the nom de web "Robert of Louisville." Here is what I said.
'There may, or may not, be "just wars," but neither the Afghanistan War nor Iraq War II ever actually had a moral basis -- both were conceived as parts of a strategic chess game, with the lives of ordinary people considered as pawns -- as expendable as a cheap line in a news article, or ten minutes of cheap prestige on a talk show. And that -- the lack of moral basis -- has always been the core problem, even when the "defend our freedoms" propaganda was running high. This was blindingly obvious to many of us as early as 2001, and earlier. If mature, adult people can't see and admit this -- and apparently George Will couldn't -- then they forfeit my trust and good will, whatever that is worth. I wouldn't trust George's judgment for advising members of my family on any important subject, and I don't trust him for the welfare of the nation or the world, then or now. And that goes for anybody else who tries to explain away, or spin, or "make nice" about what is happening in these killing fields, and has been happening for eight long years.'
By the way, I got to meet and talk to Cindy Sheehan (famous for Camp Casey in Crawford, Texas) on two occasions this week. She was in Louisville, speaking her usual anti-war talk (which I, for one, appreciate) in small venues -- once in a neighborhood meeting house with about 40 of us, and once in a neighborhood bar, with about 25 of us. I gave her a copy of Wendell Berry's book, Citizenship Papers, which had been of great encouragement to me.
Interestingly, there is a news article today informing us that our new top commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, who has been charged by the President with developing a new strategy for "winning" there, has stated that
'he sees no signs of a major al-Qaida presence in the country'
nevertheless, he is apparently going to develop new plans and new requests for troops, logistics, etc., as the article goes on to say that the good general . . .
'said at the time that success in Afghanistan "is achievable and demands a revised implementation strategy, commitment and resolve, and increased unity of effort." '
Wasn't our supposed purpose in Afghanistan to find and defeat Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida?? Why are we trying to kill or subdue or control anybody else?
Robert
* * *
I didn't get much comment. Well, actually, I got hardly any. Folks are busy these days, commenting about more important political stuff. Like deficits; bailouts; Wall Street; healthcare. You know: pocketbook issues.
* * *
Friends,
On Sunday, September 6, the Truthout website ran an article about how George Will has begun to change his mind about the mideast wars. You can read the details about George's thinking at this site. There are also links to his two articles in the Washington Post, "Time to Get Out of Afghanistan," and "Time to Leave Iraq."
http://www.truthout.org/090609A
This prompted me to write a comment, using the nom de web "Robert of Louisville." Here is what I said.
'There may, or may not, be "just wars," but neither the Afghanistan War nor Iraq War II ever actually had a moral basis -- both were conceived as parts of a strategic chess game, with the lives of ordinary people considered as pawns -- as expendable as a cheap line in a news article, or ten minutes of cheap prestige on a talk show. And that -- the lack of moral basis -- has always been the core problem, even when the "defend our freedoms" propaganda was running high. This was blindingly obvious to many of us as early as 2001, and earlier. If mature, adult people can't see and admit this -- and apparently George Will couldn't -- then they forfeit my trust and good will, whatever that is worth. I wouldn't trust George's judgment for advising members of my family on any important subject, and I don't trust him for the welfare of the nation or the world, then or now. And that goes for anybody else who tries to explain away, or spin, or "make nice" about what is happening in these killing fields, and has been happening for eight long years.'
By the way, I got to meet and talk to Cindy Sheehan (famous for Camp Casey in Crawford, Texas) on two occasions this week. She was in Louisville, speaking her usual anti-war talk (which I, for one, appreciate) in small venues -- once in a neighborhood meeting house with about 40 of us, and once in a neighborhood bar, with about 25 of us. I gave her a copy of Wendell Berry's book, Citizenship Papers, which had been of great encouragement to me.
Interestingly, there is a news article today informing us that our new top commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, who has been charged by the President with developing a new strategy for "winning" there, has stated that
'he sees no signs of a major al-Qaida presence in the country'
nevertheless, he is apparently going to develop new plans and new requests for troops, logistics, etc., as the article goes on to say that the good general . . .
'said at the time that success in Afghanistan "is achievable and demands a revised implementation strategy, commitment and resolve, and increased unity of effort." '
Wasn't our supposed purpose in Afghanistan to find and defeat Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida?? Why are we trying to kill or subdue or control anybody else?
Robert
* * *
I didn't get much comment. Well, actually, I got hardly any. Folks are busy these days, commenting about more important political stuff. Like deficits; bailouts; Wall Street; healthcare. You know: pocketbook issues.
Monday, November 1, 2010
The Limits of Literacy Consciousness
I think it is a widespread assumption in most of the modern world that literacy is a good thing. And I agree with that -- of course! I read constantly; I write often. I feel greatly enriched by the experience. When I read, I come into contact with other minds, from other times, other places, and other points of view. When I write, I find that my thoughts become more tangible to me. The benefits are obvious, they are enormous, and I wouldn't trade them off. And you probably wouldn't either.
But there is another side: when I am having literary experiences, I am not having non-literary ones. While I am clearly gaining enrichment in one way, I may be impoverishing myself in another. If you subscribe to a left-brain-right-brain viewpoint, you see what I mean: when you and I are reading and writing, we are primarily operating in our left brain; the right brain is effectively on hold. If we allow this literacy function to greatly predominate, it might be that our right-brain becomes a stranger to us; or ignored; or even permanently atrophied in its capacity. Or, if you are right-brain-developed, your way of thinking might puzzle or frighten my over-exercised left brain; I might deny the validity of what you think and do. If I get carried away by fear or pride, I may even hate you and deny you the right to exist.
That sounds extreme, but let's consider.
I begin by introducing a writer named Leonard Shlain. Really, I should call him a polymath; besides being a talented writer he was a world-class surgeon. He wrote several books, and I have read only one of them: The Alphabet and the Goddess. In this book, he makes the case that the development of literacy (the Alphabet) can and does rewire the human brain in such a way that the loser is holistic-image thinking (the Goddess). (I recommend his website, alphabetvsgoddess.com, and his books, for further reading.) He sees in history a connection between the development of literacy and the outbreak of religious wars and witch-hunts. There is evidence to support his point of view.
As a Christian who has had several spiritual experiences, I would like to emphasize that I make a distinction between brain-function and mind, and between mind and spirit -- and indeed, between spirit and Holy Spirit. Unlike Shlain, I am not quite ready to assign masculinity primarily to the left brain, nor femininity to the right; but to me that point is minor. (To Shlain, it might not be; it may be essential to his case.) What matters most to me is the striking differences he proposes between these thinking modes, which I shall call modes of consciousness, in a loose sense if not a technical one. So in my vocabulary, we have two distinct modes so far: the literacy-mode, and the visual-mode.
What today we call reason is pretty heavily weighted to literacy-consciousness. Our reason deals primarily with verbal definitions and distinctions, propositions, rational comparisons, syllogistics, and cause-effect relations. This affects our way of thinking about reality and time. Reality is seen as prosaic; it proceeds linearly from causes; the past exists as history in documents and books; the present exists in verbal conversation and written and spoken analysis; and the future exists in the elaborations of a verbal ideology: whether marxist or religious or deterministic or quantum mechanical, the very-literate person tends to depend on the spoken and written word. Emphasis is on specifiable facts and principles. The river contains descending flowing water. In the beginning was the word.
Contrast this with a visual-holistic view of reality. The appearance of reality becomes important. Both simple and complex patterns take on special significance; linear time becomes less important, as the experience of time relates more to the persistence of image states, the vividness of memory or the strength of the imagination, and depends less on the clock and the calendar. Speech tends to the story, writing to the poetic and the imaginative and the narrative. Emphasis is on the visible and detectable. The river is a vital part of a landscape. In the beginning was sight.
These two modes -- which for convenience we are calling left and right -- might, in their union, be called the mind, the psyche. But could we press farther? Are there other fundamental modes available to us?
Let us first consider the natural-life consciousness. Here, the fundamental realities are neither words nor visuals; rather, they are bodies, organs, cells; internal and external systems and states; feelings, sympathies, antagonisms; inherence, adherence, extensions; direct and indirect perceptions; neuronal, hormonal and pheromonal media; touch, boundary, surface, continuities, connections; male and female, seed and soil, root and branch; the relations of life to other life, and to non-life, and to semi-life, former-life, and potential-life. Deep, important, and even precise feelings and activities may exist that are never clothed with words or visibility. Some phenomena may be as wispy as vapor; others as strong as muscle and as solid as bone. Emphasis is on contact, growth, and motion. The river is the thirst-quencher, the essential water of life. In the beginning was life.
If there is a spiritual-life consciousness, the fundamental realities seem to me more difficult to identify with words. They might be perceived in abstract sensations of timelessness, connectedness, transcendence, meaningfulness, and so forth; or, if there are personal aspects of spirit, as I believe, then we might add those things which compare and contrast the personal with the less personal and the non-personal; good and evil; the chain of being; the temporal and eternal; the essential and the phenomenal; God and the world; archetypes, species, characteristics, names, symbols, and so on. Emphasis is on unity and its relation to particularity. In the words of Blake, "Eternity is in love with the productions of time." The river is the Tao. In the beginning was the spirit.
The point is this. If we focus too much on literacy-consciousness, and ignore any or all of the others, we might be doing ourselves and each other a great disservice. Our abilities to perceive and communicate begin to shrink to fit our dominant consciousness. This could have serious negative effects on our emotional lives, our visions, our health and longevity, our religious viewpoints, and our spiritual experiences.
The Lord of All Worlds has told us that Life Is More Than Food, and Body Is More Than Clothing. May I propose that Wisdom Is More Than Information, and Knowledge More Than School?
It is possible that literacy, as a dominant mode of thinking, is being over-sold.
* * *
I realize I am breaking no new ground here; there is probably little to disagree with; and very little light shed. This is just a springboard for discussion and development. I hope to make a somewhat controversial assertion in a later post, and it depends on the general validity of the ideas expressed here.
Your thoughts and comments are very, very welcome.
But there is another side: when I am having literary experiences, I am not having non-literary ones. While I am clearly gaining enrichment in one way, I may be impoverishing myself in another. If you subscribe to a left-brain-right-brain viewpoint, you see what I mean: when you and I are reading and writing, we are primarily operating in our left brain; the right brain is effectively on hold. If we allow this literacy function to greatly predominate, it might be that our right-brain becomes a stranger to us; or ignored; or even permanently atrophied in its capacity. Or, if you are right-brain-developed, your way of thinking might puzzle or frighten my over-exercised left brain; I might deny the validity of what you think and do. If I get carried away by fear or pride, I may even hate you and deny you the right to exist.
That sounds extreme, but let's consider.
I begin by introducing a writer named Leonard Shlain. Really, I should call him a polymath; besides being a talented writer he was a world-class surgeon. He wrote several books, and I have read only one of them: The Alphabet and the Goddess. In this book, he makes the case that the development of literacy (the Alphabet) can and does rewire the human brain in such a way that the loser is holistic-image thinking (the Goddess). (I recommend his website, alphabetvsgoddess.com, and his books, for further reading.) He sees in history a connection between the development of literacy and the outbreak of religious wars and witch-hunts. There is evidence to support his point of view.
As a Christian who has had several spiritual experiences, I would like to emphasize that I make a distinction between brain-function and mind, and between mind and spirit -- and indeed, between spirit and Holy Spirit. Unlike Shlain, I am not quite ready to assign masculinity primarily to the left brain, nor femininity to the right; but to me that point is minor. (To Shlain, it might not be; it may be essential to his case.) What matters most to me is the striking differences he proposes between these thinking modes, which I shall call modes of consciousness, in a loose sense if not a technical one. So in my vocabulary, we have two distinct modes so far: the literacy-mode, and the visual-mode.
What today we call reason is pretty heavily weighted to literacy-consciousness. Our reason deals primarily with verbal definitions and distinctions, propositions, rational comparisons, syllogistics, and cause-effect relations. This affects our way of thinking about reality and time. Reality is seen as prosaic; it proceeds linearly from causes; the past exists as history in documents and books; the present exists in verbal conversation and written and spoken analysis; and the future exists in the elaborations of a verbal ideology: whether marxist or religious or deterministic or quantum mechanical, the very-literate person tends to depend on the spoken and written word. Emphasis is on specifiable facts and principles. The river contains descending flowing water. In the beginning was the word.
Contrast this with a visual-holistic view of reality. The appearance of reality becomes important. Both simple and complex patterns take on special significance; linear time becomes less important, as the experience of time relates more to the persistence of image states, the vividness of memory or the strength of the imagination, and depends less on the clock and the calendar. Speech tends to the story, writing to the poetic and the imaginative and the narrative. Emphasis is on the visible and detectable. The river is a vital part of a landscape. In the beginning was sight.
These two modes -- which for convenience we are calling left and right -- might, in their union, be called the mind, the psyche. But could we press farther? Are there other fundamental modes available to us?
I would like to suggest the existence of at least two others. I will call them natural-life consciousness and spiritual-life consciousness. I believe that these modes can be assumed to actually exist, because I think that they are referred to in Holy Scripture; but I will not elaborate those references here. It is sufficient to note that if I am correct in calling them distinct modes, they should be distinguishable in their sensible sources as well as in their operations; and that each of them would be legitimate and valuable; in other words, that each contributes to the true wholeness of the human person.
If there is a spiritual-life consciousness, the fundamental realities seem to me more difficult to identify with words. They might be perceived in abstract sensations of timelessness, connectedness, transcendence, meaningfulness, and so forth; or, if there are personal aspects of spirit, as I believe, then we might add those things which compare and contrast the personal with the less personal and the non-personal; good and evil; the chain of being; the temporal and eternal; the essential and the phenomenal; God and the world; archetypes, species, characteristics, names, symbols, and so on. Emphasis is on unity and its relation to particularity. In the words of Blake, "Eternity is in love with the productions of time." The river is the Tao. In the beginning was the spirit.
The point is this. If we focus too much on literacy-consciousness, and ignore any or all of the others, we might be doing ourselves and each other a great disservice. Our abilities to perceive and communicate begin to shrink to fit our dominant consciousness. This could have serious negative effects on our emotional lives, our visions, our health and longevity, our religious viewpoints, and our spiritual experiences.
The Lord of All Worlds has told us that Life Is More Than Food, and Body Is More Than Clothing. May I propose that Wisdom Is More Than Information, and Knowledge More Than School?
It is possible that literacy, as a dominant mode of thinking, is being over-sold.
* * *
I realize I am breaking no new ground here; there is probably little to disagree with; and very little light shed. This is just a springboard for discussion and development. I hope to make a somewhat controversial assertion in a later post, and it depends on the general validity of the ideas expressed here.
Your thoughts and comments are very, very welcome.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Two Cheers for President Obama
I feel a bit pressed for time regarding this post, so I beg your indulgence. I want to say this before the election comes on Tuesday, and so I am going to plead that my thoughts are not as well expressed as they would be if I had more time. That is, I want to transfer some of my responsibility as a writer to you the reader -- I am going to ask you to help me make my case, where you find that it is weak, and where you find that I could have better expressed myself.
Before you agree to this task, I am going to warn you that I am going to be challenging -- very sharply challenging -- some of my very good friends. Quite possibly you, if you are a person who considers himself, or herself, a conservative; and this is especially likely if you hold your conservative views with a sincerity that comes either from high political idealism, or devout religious conviction.
If you are not in this category of conservative, then what I have to say may be of very little worth, and you may wish to save yourself the time it will take to wade through this business. On the other hand, you may have a little curiosity about what a family quarrel looks like. If so, welcome aboard.
The reason I feel pressed for time goes back a long way -- as do most things in my mind these days, all things considered.
Back in the 70s, I read an interesting book by the famous (and very effective) lawyer Louis Nizer, called Reflections Without Mirrors. (Before we go any further, don't you have to admire a man who can write a book that can carry such a title as that? I think he was a born teacher, at least in the sense that he was a very good explainer of things to laymen such as myself -- and juries.) The book contained the entire text of his speech before the Senate, defending the sitting president and urging them to reject the articles of impeachment: to acquit and not to convict. The speech was lengthy, eloquent, well-reasoned, and to me pretty persuasive. Especially persuasive because it came from a man more associated with liberal jurisprudence than with conservative.
Well, if you lived through the days of the Nixon presidency, you probably remember that he was not impeached: he resigned before the articles of impeachment could be approved by the full House of Representatives, as they certainly would have been. There was therefore no Senate trial, and there was therefore no speech. Nizer never gave that speech; he was never able to. He couldn't have; the circumstances never arose in which it could have been given.
So what was Nizer doing? I don't know for sure, but I think he was simply applying his distinguished mind, retrospectively, to what might very well have been. Perhaps in his mind, what ought to have been. Suppose the situation had come to that; suppose a defense of the President needed to be mounted? Of course, actual circumstances made the "speech" only an academic exercise; but its publication gave readers a chance to reflect, even if without mirrors.
Perhaps Nixon should have been impeached. But if so, should it not have been for the right reasons? Exceeding his constitutional war powers, perhaps? Ordering wiretaps against political enemies in violation of Fourth Amendment protections, maybe? In other words, should he not have been accused and convicted purely on the basis of constitutional principles and issues? and if by those lights he was justified, should he not have been exonerated?
But that is not what happened. And Nizer knew it, and apparently regretted it, as he seems to have had a real respect for the law and a devotion to its integrity. In reality, Nixon was accused and tried in the popular media, and found guilty in the minds of the people who followed the media. Not only legality, but truth and high standards of justice suffered great and permanent damage; as we were to prove twenty-five years later in the Bill Clinton Affair. Again, a president was accused over matters that did not rise above common hypocrisy. Surely, all but the most naive among us realize that in Washington, DC, the matter of a nationally-known politician receiving sexual services from a non-spouse government employee is a nightly affair. Is it not?
The reason I bring up the Nizer story is because of a question it raised in my mind when I read it that long time ago. In my mind, I put it to Nizer, perhaps unfairly: If you really thought this, if you believed this, if it was important: why did you not speak out when you saw an impending miscarriage of -- if not justice, exactly, then a miscarriage of truth? When a serious unnecessary evil could have been avoided? When something different and better might have happened?
But the time is now, not then. The question is for me, not Nizer. If you see a miscarriage of truth with regard to the president, will you say what needs to be said while there is still time for something good to happen? And this is why I suddenly feel pressed for time. I want to say something that needs to be said before next Tuesday's election. I don't think I can say it half so well as Nizer might, but I think it needs to be attempted anyway.
I hope that I shall not sound angry. I hope that I shall not sound overly accusative. I hope that I shall not sound cynical. I hope that I shall not sound hopeless. Little is accomplished in those states of mind.
I am very deeply disturbed, but I hope to retain my inward balance and my outward composure. I have been perplexed at the behavior of my American "conservative" friends for several years; as time passes, this perplexity is slowly elevating into horror.
I hope to make a good case in a hard matter, and I am not sure I am up to it. With this, I end my introductory remarks.
* * * *
I am not a member of, nor am I sympathetic to, either of our major political parties. I once was; but as Joseph Sobran once quoted St. Paul, I have put away childish things. The best I can say is that each of them contains a few, a very few, leaders who love their country as much as they love their money.
I carry no brief for the leadership of the Democratic Party. Their performance since reasserting their Congressional ascendancy four years ago has been utterly disastrous. I cannot, at the moment, think of any good that they have done. I do not wish to defend the indefensible, nor do I wish to be a devil's advocate -- I have noticed that the devil already has plenty of legal expertise on permanent retainer.
But I also carry no antagonism whatsoever for fellow citizens who are Democrats, vote Democratic, or are a part of local Democratic leadership. I find them to be civic-minded, community-minded people who are often interested in the aspirations of the working class and the needs of the poor -- issues that should engage us all, but for which they demonstrate a special affinity.
And I also carry no brief for the Republican Party: and I fear that many of my lifelong conservative friends see the current election as an opportunity to vindicate their past Republican activism. And anything that diminishes the opposition, as they see it, will redound to the benefit of their cause, which is to them unquestionably noble. Enter the current bashing of President Obama and the justification of it. He is a useful whipping-boy. Get out the vote.
But personally, I think that President Obama is being treated in a dangerously untruthful manner, and I think there is plenty of evidence that this is going on. So I wish to defend him by offering two strong cheers, and a strong criticism of my friends who I think should know better.
Here comes the first strong cheer for President Obama:
As a junior Senator from Illinois, he had the courage to oppose the Congressional resolution that authorized the utterly misbegotten and misguided invasion and destruction of Iraq. Hurrah!
The War In Afghanistan was utterly wrong-headed, too. (I'll save the explanation -- if you really need it -- for later, when I've got more time; I'm racing the calendar here.) But at least the Afghan War could sport one or two flimsy fig-leaves to cover its naked ugliness -- Osama bin Laden Once Lived There, and really, what more reason could you need?
But the Iraq War had no such excuse. Any justification for war in that country required an intentional ignorance of British and American relations with that country for the past century. An intentional, arrogant, stupid ignorance. You can quote me.
Admit it; Obama got this absolutely right. And he got this right as early as 2002, when the country was still in the grip of establishment-induced fear-and-war fever over the events of September 11. And this single, crucial decision places him forever above the following persons and groups in both moral clarity and political courage:
1. The Democratic leadership. This includes their think tanks, their Wall Street, and most of their congressional leadership, specifically including Harry Reid, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, and Hillary Clinton. They got it wrong, and still do.
2. The Republican leadership. This includes their think tanks, their Wall Street, the Pentagon, and most of their congressional leadership, specifically including John McCain. And Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin. They got it wrong, and still do.
3. The Bush administration. This includes George W. Bush and his entire foreign policy team including Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, and that pack of neo-conservatives that infested the Pentagon, the State Department, and the airwaves. They got it wrong, and still do. For too long, that included the braver and wiser Colin Powell.
4. The Israel lobby. They got it wrong. As it is written, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." Enough said.
5. The Religious Right. This includes evangelical and "pro-life" leadership, pastors, and many Christian broadcasting and publishing outfits. It also includes an astonishingly large percentage of regular church-goers. They got it wrong, and still do. They should know better. They do know better.
6. Me. I knew what was wrong in 2002 also. I said a few meek things. I expressed a few serious doubts. But it was go-along-and-get-along; mealy-mouthed, I now think. I am ashamed. I didn't put anything on the line.
It's high time for some clarity:
War is almost always wrong. Everyone knows this, because the statement is very easy to demonstrate. It is because war is almost always about either power, or money, or both. Rarely freedom; very rarely justice. History makes this very clear; the Holy Scriptures also make this very clear. The Iraq war was no exception. It was about money and power from long before its beginning. The evidence is available, abundant, and unequivocal. If you doubt this, you have been listening to the wrong voices. Wise up; don't be the last person on your block to figure out something so blindingly obvious. If you have been justifying the war, please stop. Please.
Now here comes the second cheer for President Obama.
As President, he reached out to establish more peaceable relations with the Muslim world, and urged efforts at understanding and amelioration of grievances between Jews and Arabs in Palestine/Israel. Hurrah!
Of course it has gone nowhere. Very few people in America want it to: not the Democratic leadership; not the Republican leadership; not the Israel lobby; not the Religious Right. Quite likely, not you. Conservatives in America have joined forces with their counterparts in Israel to create the most formidable war-party in the world today.
And the continuing justification of war, and hatred of peace, that characterize most of voting America today, are two very good reasons why I do not even begin to trust the tea parties or the conservatives or the big landslide that is supposedly going to happen.
Hey, I'm for voting the bums out. Pick your favorite bum and give him or her the old heave-ho. I plan to, too.
But don't blame President Obama for someone else's sins. That's just plain wrong. Especially don't blame him for yours. That would truly be wicked.
Because in at least two crucially important areas, President Obama has hewed to humane and constitutional principles -- in the same two crucial areas where his conservative (and all other) critics have absolutely abandoned them. If these principles mean anything, he stands exonerated, and his critics stand condemned.
Speaking for myself, I've been praying for that man in the White House who is increasingly alone and marginalized. And I mean praying for him, not praying or working against him. I urge you to join me.
Going back to the first part of my post, I'm thinking of the lesson Louis Nizer's ungiven speech taught me. Think about things carefully. Stand up. Say something for truth and rightness before something sad and irrevocable happens. Don't wait till afterward and say, I thought so, I was afraid so. Though if you do wait till afterward, go ahead and record your thoughts: they may give courage to someone else.
Two cheers for President Obama.
Speaking like a teacher, I'll just say this:
Better do your homework. A major test is coming soon. You've already flunked the last several. If you think this shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it. But I didn't write the curriculum any more than you did. And I'm not the one giving the final, and I'm not the one grading it. Best wishes for your success.
* * * *
Well, I've been re-reading this post, and I think I could have said it better. Especially about the second cheer. But I'm going to post now.
Comments welcome. Disagreement welcome. Agreement, of course, even more welcome. In any and all cases, please keep it civil.
Before you agree to this task, I am going to warn you that I am going to be challenging -- very sharply challenging -- some of my very good friends. Quite possibly you, if you are a person who considers himself, or herself, a conservative; and this is especially likely if you hold your conservative views with a sincerity that comes either from high political idealism, or devout religious conviction.
If you are not in this category of conservative, then what I have to say may be of very little worth, and you may wish to save yourself the time it will take to wade through this business. On the other hand, you may have a little curiosity about what a family quarrel looks like. If so, welcome aboard.
The reason I feel pressed for time goes back a long way -- as do most things in my mind these days, all things considered.
Back in the 70s, I read an interesting book by the famous (and very effective) lawyer Louis Nizer, called Reflections Without Mirrors. (Before we go any further, don't you have to admire a man who can write a book that can carry such a title as that? I think he was a born teacher, at least in the sense that he was a very good explainer of things to laymen such as myself -- and juries.) The book contained the entire text of his speech before the Senate, defending the sitting president and urging them to reject the articles of impeachment: to acquit and not to convict. The speech was lengthy, eloquent, well-reasoned, and to me pretty persuasive. Especially persuasive because it came from a man more associated with liberal jurisprudence than with conservative.
Well, if you lived through the days of the Nixon presidency, you probably remember that he was not impeached: he resigned before the articles of impeachment could be approved by the full House of Representatives, as they certainly would have been. There was therefore no Senate trial, and there was therefore no speech. Nizer never gave that speech; he was never able to. He couldn't have; the circumstances never arose in which it could have been given.
So what was Nizer doing? I don't know for sure, but I think he was simply applying his distinguished mind, retrospectively, to what might very well have been. Perhaps in his mind, what ought to have been. Suppose the situation had come to that; suppose a defense of the President needed to be mounted? Of course, actual circumstances made the "speech" only an academic exercise; but its publication gave readers a chance to reflect, even if without mirrors.
Perhaps Nixon should have been impeached. But if so, should it not have been for the right reasons? Exceeding his constitutional war powers, perhaps? Ordering wiretaps against political enemies in violation of Fourth Amendment protections, maybe? In other words, should he not have been accused and convicted purely on the basis of constitutional principles and issues? and if by those lights he was justified, should he not have been exonerated?
But that is not what happened. And Nizer knew it, and apparently regretted it, as he seems to have had a real respect for the law and a devotion to its integrity. In reality, Nixon was accused and tried in the popular media, and found guilty in the minds of the people who followed the media. Not only legality, but truth and high standards of justice suffered great and permanent damage; as we were to prove twenty-five years later in the Bill Clinton Affair. Again, a president was accused over matters that did not rise above common hypocrisy. Surely, all but the most naive among us realize that in Washington, DC, the matter of a nationally-known politician receiving sexual services from a non-spouse government employee is a nightly affair. Is it not?
The reason I bring up the Nizer story is because of a question it raised in my mind when I read it that long time ago. In my mind, I put it to Nizer, perhaps unfairly: If you really thought this, if you believed this, if it was important: why did you not speak out when you saw an impending miscarriage of -- if not justice, exactly, then a miscarriage of truth? When a serious unnecessary evil could have been avoided? When something different and better might have happened?
But the time is now, not then. The question is for me, not Nizer. If you see a miscarriage of truth with regard to the president, will you say what needs to be said while there is still time for something good to happen? And this is why I suddenly feel pressed for time. I want to say something that needs to be said before next Tuesday's election. I don't think I can say it half so well as Nizer might, but I think it needs to be attempted anyway.
I hope that I shall not sound angry. I hope that I shall not sound overly accusative. I hope that I shall not sound cynical. I hope that I shall not sound hopeless. Little is accomplished in those states of mind.
I am very deeply disturbed, but I hope to retain my inward balance and my outward composure. I have been perplexed at the behavior of my American "conservative" friends for several years; as time passes, this perplexity is slowly elevating into horror.
I hope to make a good case in a hard matter, and I am not sure I am up to it. With this, I end my introductory remarks.
* * * *
I am not a member of, nor am I sympathetic to, either of our major political parties. I once was; but as Joseph Sobran once quoted St. Paul, I have put away childish things. The best I can say is that each of them contains a few, a very few, leaders who love their country as much as they love their money.
I carry no brief for the leadership of the Democratic Party. Their performance since reasserting their Congressional ascendancy four years ago has been utterly disastrous. I cannot, at the moment, think of any good that they have done. I do not wish to defend the indefensible, nor do I wish to be a devil's advocate -- I have noticed that the devil already has plenty of legal expertise on permanent retainer.
But I also carry no antagonism whatsoever for fellow citizens who are Democrats, vote Democratic, or are a part of local Democratic leadership. I find them to be civic-minded, community-minded people who are often interested in the aspirations of the working class and the needs of the poor -- issues that should engage us all, but for which they demonstrate a special affinity.
And I also carry no brief for the Republican Party: and I fear that many of my lifelong conservative friends see the current election as an opportunity to vindicate their past Republican activism. And anything that diminishes the opposition, as they see it, will redound to the benefit of their cause, which is to them unquestionably noble. Enter the current bashing of President Obama and the justification of it. He is a useful whipping-boy. Get out the vote.
But personally, I think that President Obama is being treated in a dangerously untruthful manner, and I think there is plenty of evidence that this is going on. So I wish to defend him by offering two strong cheers, and a strong criticism of my friends who I think should know better.
Here comes the first strong cheer for President Obama:
As a junior Senator from Illinois, he had the courage to oppose the Congressional resolution that authorized the utterly misbegotten and misguided invasion and destruction of Iraq. Hurrah!
The War In Afghanistan was utterly wrong-headed, too. (I'll save the explanation -- if you really need it -- for later, when I've got more time; I'm racing the calendar here.) But at least the Afghan War could sport one or two flimsy fig-leaves to cover its naked ugliness -- Osama bin Laden Once Lived There, and really, what more reason could you need?
But the Iraq War had no such excuse. Any justification for war in that country required an intentional ignorance of British and American relations with that country for the past century. An intentional, arrogant, stupid ignorance. You can quote me.
Admit it; Obama got this absolutely right. And he got this right as early as 2002, when the country was still in the grip of establishment-induced fear-and-war fever over the events of September 11. And this single, crucial decision places him forever above the following persons and groups in both moral clarity and political courage:
1. The Democratic leadership. This includes their think tanks, their Wall Street, and most of their congressional leadership, specifically including Harry Reid, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, and Hillary Clinton. They got it wrong, and still do.
2. The Republican leadership. This includes their think tanks, their Wall Street, the Pentagon, and most of their congressional leadership, specifically including John McCain. And Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin. They got it wrong, and still do.
3. The Bush administration. This includes George W. Bush and his entire foreign policy team including Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, and that pack of neo-conservatives that infested the Pentagon, the State Department, and the airwaves. They got it wrong, and still do. For too long, that included the braver and wiser Colin Powell.
4. The Israel lobby. They got it wrong. As it is written, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." Enough said.
5. The Religious Right. This includes evangelical and "pro-life" leadership, pastors, and many Christian broadcasting and publishing outfits. It also includes an astonishingly large percentage of regular church-goers. They got it wrong, and still do. They should know better. They do know better.
6. Me. I knew what was wrong in 2002 also. I said a few meek things. I expressed a few serious doubts. But it was go-along-and-get-along; mealy-mouthed, I now think. I am ashamed. I didn't put anything on the line.
It's high time for some clarity:
War is almost always wrong. Everyone knows this, because the statement is very easy to demonstrate. It is because war is almost always about either power, or money, or both. Rarely freedom; very rarely justice. History makes this very clear; the Holy Scriptures also make this very clear. The Iraq war was no exception. It was about money and power from long before its beginning. The evidence is available, abundant, and unequivocal. If you doubt this, you have been listening to the wrong voices. Wise up; don't be the last person on your block to figure out something so blindingly obvious. If you have been justifying the war, please stop. Please.
Now here comes the second cheer for President Obama.
As President, he reached out to establish more peaceable relations with the Muslim world, and urged efforts at understanding and amelioration of grievances between Jews and Arabs in Palestine/Israel. Hurrah!
Of course it has gone nowhere. Very few people in America want it to: not the Democratic leadership; not the Republican leadership; not the Israel lobby; not the Religious Right. Quite likely, not you. Conservatives in America have joined forces with their counterparts in Israel to create the most formidable war-party in the world today.
And the continuing justification of war, and hatred of peace, that characterize most of voting America today, are two very good reasons why I do not even begin to trust the tea parties or the conservatives or the big landslide that is supposedly going to happen.
Hey, I'm for voting the bums out. Pick your favorite bum and give him or her the old heave-ho. I plan to, too.
But don't blame President Obama for someone else's sins. That's just plain wrong. Especially don't blame him for yours. That would truly be wicked.
Because in at least two crucially important areas, President Obama has hewed to humane and constitutional principles -- in the same two crucial areas where his conservative (and all other) critics have absolutely abandoned them. If these principles mean anything, he stands exonerated, and his critics stand condemned.
Speaking for myself, I've been praying for that man in the White House who is increasingly alone and marginalized. And I mean praying for him, not praying or working against him. I urge you to join me.
Going back to the first part of my post, I'm thinking of the lesson Louis Nizer's ungiven speech taught me. Think about things carefully. Stand up. Say something for truth and rightness before something sad and irrevocable happens. Don't wait till afterward and say, I thought so, I was afraid so. Though if you do wait till afterward, go ahead and record your thoughts: they may give courage to someone else.
Two cheers for President Obama.
Speaking like a teacher, I'll just say this:
Better do your homework. A major test is coming soon. You've already flunked the last several. If you think this shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it. But I didn't write the curriculum any more than you did. And I'm not the one giving the final, and I'm not the one grading it. Best wishes for your success.
* * * *
Well, I've been re-reading this post, and I think I could have said it better. Especially about the second cheer. But I'm going to post now.
Comments welcome. Disagreement welcome. Agreement, of course, even more welcome. In any and all cases, please keep it civil.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)