Phony Virtue is Ruining Western Society
From Hollywood to our foreign policy, Rousseau's joke is on us
William S. Smith
The Federalist
What counts as virtue among Western elites? As Aristotle teaches, if you can identify what a society considers to be virtuous or good, you can understand the moral outlook of that society’s institutions, from its schools to its foreign policy. One needs only to study any gathering of American elite culture to see that virtue, traditionally centered in personal character, has become redefined as public sympathy for humanitarian causes. When watching any cultural awards program, for example, one is treated to a parade of “beautiful” souls voicing support for myriad progressive causes. This moral preening has become so commonplace that a term has developed to characterize it: “virtue signaling.”
The West’s moral outlook is now animated by the widespread belief that virtue is measured by one’s professed sympathy for causes such as combatting homelessness, extending civil rights for various protected groups, and decrying poverty in far-off places. The more publicly ostentatious one is in attaching oneself to these causes, the more virtue one is assigned by our elite culture.
Yet the continuing sex scandals of our elites are (pardon the phrase) laying bare the inadequacy of this definition of virtue. In Hollywood and other elite institutions, puffed-up paragons of “virtue” reign, but backstage are characters such as Harvey Weinstein and Matt Lauer, people wholly lacking self-control, decency, moderation, temperance, and civility. In short, many of “the beautiful souls” who have been telling us how to live are reprobates–or protecting them, either tacitly or directly.
Showing posts with label "Exceptionalism". Show all posts
Showing posts with label "Exceptionalism". Show all posts
Tuesday, 19 December 2017
Saturday, 14 May 2016
The Theologically Vacuous Imperial Cult
The Idolatry of the Donald
The American Conservative
“I even brought my Bible—the evangelicals, OK?” Donald Trump whinged at a campaign stop in the run-up to the Iowa caucuses. “We love the evangelicals and we’re polling so well.” For good measure, he waved his prop a little more and doubled down, “I really want to win Iowa—and again, the evangelicals, the Tea Party—we’re doing unbelievably, and I think I’m going to win Iowa.”
This sycophantic word vomit was about average as Trump’s public forays into religion go. His transparent attempts to cast himself as a churchgoer have been awkward at best, and more often approach the bizarre if not the heretical. Nevertheless, as the man himself would say, the professing evangelicals—and the “professing” is key here—love him. They really, really do.
But for all the headlines the Trumpvangelicals have snagged, their vehement support is ably matched by the strident opposition to Trump found among millions of American Christians of all stripes, many of them (like me) appalled that such blatant pandering and brash prurience is, well, working on our fellow travelers in the faith. Nearly a year into this misadventure, it is still tempting to ask: How is this happening? How is the heir of the Moral Majority endorsing a twice-divorced former strip club owner? How is Trump so appealing to what is supposed to be a Christian nation?
And it is in precisely that last phrase—“Christian nation”—the answer may be found: America’s entrenched, pseudo-Christian civil religion is the primary culprit here. President Trump is the due result of our theologically vacant imperial cult, which in the guise of orthodoxy worships only the power of the state.
Trump is the natural product of American civil religion.
By Bonnie KristianThe American Conservative
“I even brought my Bible—the evangelicals, OK?” Donald Trump whinged at a campaign stop in the run-up to the Iowa caucuses. “We love the evangelicals and we’re polling so well.” For good measure, he waved his prop a little more and doubled down, “I really want to win Iowa—and again, the evangelicals, the Tea Party—we’re doing unbelievably, and I think I’m going to win Iowa.”
This sycophantic word vomit was about average as Trump’s public forays into religion go. His transparent attempts to cast himself as a churchgoer have been awkward at best, and more often approach the bizarre if not the heretical. Nevertheless, as the man himself would say, the professing evangelicals—and the “professing” is key here—love him. They really, really do.
But for all the headlines the Trumpvangelicals have snagged, their vehement support is ably matched by the strident opposition to Trump found among millions of American Christians of all stripes, many of them (like me) appalled that such blatant pandering and brash prurience is, well, working on our fellow travelers in the faith. Nearly a year into this misadventure, it is still tempting to ask: How is this happening? How is the heir of the Moral Majority endorsing a twice-divorced former strip club owner? How is Trump so appealing to what is supposed to be a Christian nation?
And it is in precisely that last phrase—“Christian nation”—the answer may be found: America’s entrenched, pseudo-Christian civil religion is the primary culprit here. President Trump is the due result of our theologically vacant imperial cult, which in the guise of orthodoxy worships only the power of the state.
Tuesday, 20 March 2012
Letter From America
Fleeting Glimpses of Harsh Truth
When governments arrogate to themselves powers and responsibilities not bestowed upon them by Almighty God, disaster is around the corner. Since in our generation states in the West have arrogated to themselves powers upon powers, and dominions upon dominions calamity draws near. Those who sow to the wind reap the whirlwind.
Every so often in frustration over the perpetual failures and contingent evils produces discouraged individuals who run up the white flag and call for capitulation. In such brief moments, truth in its awful clarity shines through. But then the clouds quickly shut it out. Here is Victor Davis Hanson's Letter From America which represents for a brief moment just such an awful clarity.
When governments arrogate to themselves powers and responsibilities not bestowed upon them by Almighty God, disaster is around the corner. Since in our generation states in the West have arrogated to themselves powers upon powers, and dominions upon dominions calamity draws near. Those who sow to the wind reap the whirlwind.
Every so often in frustration over the perpetual failures and contingent evils produces discouraged individuals who run up the white flag and call for capitulation. In such brief moments, truth in its awful clarity shines through. But then the clouds quickly shut it out. Here is Victor Davis Hanson's Letter From America which represents for a brief moment just such an awful clarity.
Tuesday, 6 March 2012
Douglas Wilson's Letter From America
Clouds of Nuance and Ineptitude
Culture and Politics - Politics
Written by Douglas Wilson
Wednesday, 29 February 2012
I have been asked about my passing comment the other day that I thought military action in Afghanistan was justified, and probably in Iraq. This was coupled with my observations on the constitutional procedures for going to war -- Congress should declare war. Those who believe all the DC-lawyer-talk need to be asked what circumstances would have to pertain in order for Congress to declare war. Surely that provision of the Constitution means something. What does it mean nowadays? What does it mean in the 21st century? What countries would we have to declare war on before commencing hostilities? And why them, and not Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya?
Thus it is that I said we have had military actions that could have been justly pursued, but they weren't because the rule of constitutional law was by-passed.
But then was asked about the justification for the fighting itself, not the constitutional procedures. My questioner said that he was assuming that I agreed that military action on our part was only justified in cases of self-defense. Close, and almost.
Culture and Politics - Politics
Written by Douglas Wilson
Wednesday, 29 February 2012
I have been asked about my passing comment the other day that I thought military action in Afghanistan was justified, and probably in Iraq. This was coupled with my observations on the constitutional procedures for going to war -- Congress should declare war. Those who believe all the DC-lawyer-talk need to be asked what circumstances would have to pertain in order for Congress to declare war. Surely that provision of the Constitution means something. What does it mean nowadays? What does it mean in the 21st century? What countries would we have to declare war on before commencing hostilities? And why them, and not Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya?
Thus it is that I said we have had military actions that could have been justly pursued, but they weren't because the rule of constitutional law was by-passed.
But then was asked about the justification for the fighting itself, not the constitutional procedures. My questioner said that he was assuming that I agreed that military action on our part was only justified in cases of self-defense. Close, and almost.
Wednesday, 29 February 2012
Douglas Wilson's Letter From America
The United Methodist Camp Counselor Approach to Foreign Policy
Culture and Politics - Politics
Written by Douglas Wilson
Tuesday, 28 February 2012
Here are just a few collected observations about U.S. foreign policy and war, particularly war in the Middle East.
We have no business toppling any foreign regime and replacing it with another without a formal declaration of war from Congress. It may be replied (for it usually is) that a regiment of constitutional lawyers in D.C. has determined that this is not necessary anymore in these modern times, and all that is necessary is for Congress to "authorize" the action. This dodge, for that is what it is, is simply a means of perpetuating congressional irresponsibility, an evil we really ought not to be perpetuating. Under cover of this evasive little move, our feckless representatives can vote for military action while reserving for themselves the right to wheel on the president the moment anything goes wrong with the war.
Culture and Politics - Politics
Written by Douglas Wilson
Tuesday, 28 February 2012
Here are just a few collected observations about U.S. foreign policy and war, particularly war in the Middle East.
We have no business toppling any foreign regime and replacing it with another without a formal declaration of war from Congress. It may be replied (for it usually is) that a regiment of constitutional lawyers in D.C. has determined that this is not necessary anymore in these modern times, and all that is necessary is for Congress to "authorize" the action. This dodge, for that is what it is, is simply a means of perpetuating congressional irresponsibility, an evil we really ought not to be perpetuating. Under cover of this evasive little move, our feckless representatives can vote for military action while reserving for themselves the right to wheel on the president the moment anything goes wrong with the war.
Saturday, 18 February 2012
Another Western Utopia Unfolds
The Demons Are Coming Back
Libya is no longer in the headlines. It's all over, bar the torture, the killing, the destruction of human life. C'est la vie. Where is the clamour for helping Libyans that once stridently and passionately circled the globe? Where are Hillary Clinton or John McCain or President Obama when you need them? Actually we don't need them--and we never have.
What lies before us is another testimony to the folly and stupidity and hubris and idolatry of the West. Libya is yet another piece of damning evidence indicting the craven humanism of the West and its perverted notion of secular human rights.
When the West takes upon itself the arrogation of rights to intervene and go to war to oust dictators, what arises from the rubble and detritus of war is often ten times worse.
We are seeing reports start to trickle through on what is presently "going down" in Libya.
Libya is no longer in the headlines. It's all over, bar the torture, the killing, the destruction of human life. C'est la vie. Where is the clamour for helping Libyans that once stridently and passionately circled the globe? Where are Hillary Clinton or John McCain or President Obama when you need them? Actually we don't need them--and we never have.
What lies before us is another testimony to the folly and stupidity and hubris and idolatry of the West. Libya is yet another piece of damning evidence indicting the craven humanism of the West and its perverted notion of secular human rights.
When the West takes upon itself the arrogation of rights to intervene and go to war to oust dictators, what arises from the rubble and detritus of war is often ten times worse.
We are seeing reports start to trickle through on what is presently "going down" in Libya.
Thursday, 9 February 2012
Afghanistan Stocktake
So, How's It Working Out, Then?
Readers of this blog will know that we oppose the war in Afghanistan as an ill-considered utopian debacle, without ethical foundation.
To say this is not to deny the courage or skill or tenacity or application of the combatants on both sides. But it is to say that whilst the US fight in Afghanistan began as a defensive invasion to defend the US against Al Qaeda--a perfectly legitimate moral and just action--it soon morphed into "nation building", which is unethical and imperialistic. It is a classic example of the adage that little wars grow into big wars and big wars suck out all your blood.
But, we really could not expect anything else, given the US's maniacal utopian vision of bestowing the West's peculiar, secular "human rights" doctrine on the rest of humanity.
Readers of this blog will know that we oppose the war in Afghanistan as an ill-considered utopian debacle, without ethical foundation.
To say this is not to deny the courage or skill or tenacity or application of the combatants on both sides. But it is to say that whilst the US fight in Afghanistan began as a defensive invasion to defend the US against Al Qaeda--a perfectly legitimate moral and just action--it soon morphed into "nation building", which is unethical and imperialistic. It is a classic example of the adage that little wars grow into big wars and big wars suck out all your blood.
But, we really could not expect anything else, given the US's maniacal utopian vision of bestowing the West's peculiar, secular "human rights" doctrine on the rest of humanity.
Tuesday, 27 September 2011
A Speck of Dust
Will 2012 Represent a Sea Change?
Further to our piece entitled "Foolish Predictions" in which we had the temerity to suggest that President Obama and the Democrats will be toast in 2012 we came across this article which purports that the Democratic Party has now lost the centre.
What many folks outside the US don't realise is that unlike most other Western democracies there are three dominant "parties" in the US electorate: Republicans, Democrats and Independents. So, Republicans we know, Democrats we know, but who are the Independents?
Further to our piece entitled "Foolish Predictions" in which we had the temerity to suggest that President Obama and the Democrats will be toast in 2012 we came across this article which purports that the Democratic Party has now lost the centre.
What many folks outside the US don't realise is that unlike most other Western democracies there are three dominant "parties" in the US electorate: Republicans, Democrats and Independents. So, Republicans we know, Democrats we know, but who are the Independents?
Thursday, 11 August 2011
Showing God a Thing or Two
We Can Get Out of This--No Drama, Mr Obama
The S&P credit rating downgrade of the United States of America demands our attention. It is the first time in the history of credit ratings that the US has lost the Triple A standard. Some are calling it momentous. Others are arguing that it has been a long time coming and that it was inevitable.
Let's try to get some perspective on the downgrade.
The S&P credit rating downgrade of the United States of America demands our attention. It is the first time in the history of credit ratings that the US has lost the Triple A standard. Some are calling it momentous. Others are arguing that it has been a long time coming and that it was inevitable.
Let's try to get some perspective on the downgrade.
Wednesday, 6 July 2011
Douglas Wilson's Letter From America
Pick-Up Trucks With American Flags on Them
Mere Christendom
Written by Douglas Wilson
Monday, July 04, 2011 8:01 am
Most people only know half of Stephen Decatur's famous toast -- "my country, right or wrong." But the whole thing was much more admirable. "My country, may she always be right. But my country, right or wrong." The abbreviated version makes it sound like national interest is the only standard that a full-tilt patriot would ever recognize. The full version recognizes that there is a standard of right and wrong that far transcends national interest. One of those transcendent standards, incidently, is what undergirds the necessity of a connected loyalty to other sinners -- the second part of the toast.
In a fallen world, such loyalties are obviously not absolute.
Mere Christendom
Written by Douglas Wilson
Monday, July 04, 2011 8:01 am
Most people only know half of Stephen Decatur's famous toast -- "my country, right or wrong." But the whole thing was much more admirable. "My country, may she always be right. But my country, right or wrong." The abbreviated version makes it sound like national interest is the only standard that a full-tilt patriot would ever recognize. The full version recognizes that there is a standard of right and wrong that far transcends national interest. One of those transcendent standards, incidently, is what undergirds the necessity of a connected loyalty to other sinners -- the second part of the toast.
In a fallen world, such loyalties are obviously not absolute.
Saturday, 2 July 2011
The Lt Dan Band
Hold The Troops in Due Honour
Now, this is rather neat.
Regular readers of this website will know that we have been staunch critics of US global military involvement to "make the world safe for democracy" or, whatever. The idea that the US would arrogate to itself the role of being the world's saviour, protector, redeemer and messiah is not just misplaced, it is offensive and blasphemous. There is only One to Whom the Living God had given that honour, power, and authority, and He does not tolerate idol-pretenders in His presence.
But we are not anti-war. Far from it.
Now, this is rather neat.
Regular readers of this website will know that we have been staunch critics of US global military involvement to "make the world safe for democracy" or, whatever. The idea that the US would arrogate to itself the role of being the world's saviour, protector, redeemer and messiah is not just misplaced, it is offensive and blasphemous. There is only One to Whom the Living God had given that honour, power, and authority, and He does not tolerate idol-pretenders in His presence.
But we are not anti-war. Far from it.
Saturday, 28 May 2011
One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church
Jingoism and the Gospel
Regular readers of ContraCelsum will know that we have been a frequent critic of the idolatry of American nationalism--the notion that the United States is especially called by the Living God to bring His Kingdom to pass in the world. This doctrine--albeit now deeply secularized--is that the root of what is called American "Exceptionalism".
Now there are many things about the United States that we are particularly thankful for to God, just as there are in our own nation (New Zealand). We have travelled reasonably extensively in the world, and wherever we go, we find things which lead us to wonder and marvel at God's goodness as manifested in particular nations and cultures. But when any of those good gifts of our Lord become objects of veneration and nationalistic pride, the anger of the Almighty is kindled. He is a jealous God. He will not share His glory with another.
Many churches in the United States have got swept up with the national idolatry. Kevin DeYoung, writing on the occasion of Memorial Day, speaks to the heart of the matter.
Regular readers of ContraCelsum will know that we have been a frequent critic of the idolatry of American nationalism--the notion that the United States is especially called by the Living God to bring His Kingdom to pass in the world. This doctrine--albeit now deeply secularized--is that the root of what is called American "Exceptionalism".
Now there are many things about the United States that we are particularly thankful for to God, just as there are in our own nation (New Zealand). We have travelled reasonably extensively in the world, and wherever we go, we find things which lead us to wonder and marvel at God's goodness as manifested in particular nations and cultures. But when any of those good gifts of our Lord become objects of veneration and nationalistic pride, the anger of the Almighty is kindled. He is a jealous God. He will not share His glory with another.
Many churches in the United States have got swept up with the national idolatry. Kevin DeYoung, writing on the occasion of Memorial Day, speaks to the heart of the matter.
Thursday, 12 May 2011
Coruscating Memories
The Rotten Fruit of Humanitarian Wars
It has become fashionable amongst the Commentariate in the West to speak of a new, enlightened apologia for war. The wars of our future, Tony Blair pretentiously pontificated, would be wars based on "our values". They would not be for grimy things like money, or territory, or national pride, or oil but would be humanitarian wars--taking up the sword to defend the human (aka Western) rights of the downtrodden around the globe. The glorious wars of the future would be those which were not in defence of any national interest. In fact, wars fought over national interests were, by Blair's definition, evil--selfish and self-seeking. Wars fought to defend the underdogs of the globe were to be noble and glorious--and not wars at all--at least not as we once knew them.
One of the reasons the UK (and Europe generally) became so disenchanted so quickly over Tony Blair's dalliance in Iraq was the rapidly growing conviction that the invasion of Iraq and the toppling of Saddam Hussein had little to do with a war over "our values" and much more to do with oil. In other words, it was an unjustifiable war, on Blair's own term. He became reviled amongst the members of the Commentariate for his hypocrisy. But the seductive attraction of Blair's "vision" lived on.
Fast forward to Libya. Here, at last, would be a noble war fought for no national interests whatsoever--only for the love of one's fellow man, defending him against a bumptious tyrant. Alas, such wars are not new. They have been fought before in the past. The outcomes have been disastrous.
Novelist James Warner illustrates by referring us to the Russian war against Turkey in the 1870, as viewed through the eyes of (Blairite) Dostoevsky and (increasingly pacifist) Tolstoy. Warning: both were professing Christians.The money quotation comes from Solzhenitsyn at the end of the piece.
It has become fashionable amongst the Commentariate in the West to speak of a new, enlightened apologia for war. The wars of our future, Tony Blair pretentiously pontificated, would be wars based on "our values". They would not be for grimy things like money, or territory, or national pride, or oil but would be humanitarian wars--taking up the sword to defend the human (aka Western) rights of the downtrodden around the globe. The glorious wars of the future would be those which were not in defence of any national interest. In fact, wars fought over national interests were, by Blair's definition, evil--selfish and self-seeking. Wars fought to defend the underdogs of the globe were to be noble and glorious--and not wars at all--at least not as we once knew them.
One of the reasons the UK (and Europe generally) became so disenchanted so quickly over Tony Blair's dalliance in Iraq was the rapidly growing conviction that the invasion of Iraq and the toppling of Saddam Hussein had little to do with a war over "our values" and much more to do with oil. In other words, it was an unjustifiable war, on Blair's own term. He became reviled amongst the members of the Commentariate for his hypocrisy. But the seductive attraction of Blair's "vision" lived on.
Fast forward to Libya. Here, at last, would be a noble war fought for no national interests whatsoever--only for the love of one's fellow man, defending him against a bumptious tyrant. Alas, such wars are not new. They have been fought before in the past. The outcomes have been disastrous.
Novelist James Warner illustrates by referring us to the Russian war against Turkey in the 1870, as viewed through the eyes of (Blairite) Dostoevsky and (increasingly pacifist) Tolstoy. Warning: both were professing Christians.The money quotation comes from Solzhenitsyn at the end of the piece.
Saturday, 30 April 2011
Rotten Fruit
It's Deja-Vu All Over Again
When President Obama was first elected we expected that the US would suffer through another Jimmy Carteresque presidency. It would be so bad that Obama would end up being a one-term president. Now, we are not in the prophecy business--but it does seem a likely outcome.
The reasons and causes are manifold and complex. Moreover, there are very clear differences between Carter and Obama as personalities. Carter wanted to run his slide rule over the minute footnotes of thousand page government reports. He was so detailed it was difficult getting a decision. Obama does not sweat the small stuff. He is clearly not a detail person. He is big-picture. However, neither approach results in firm, decisive leadership that makes sense.
Another key difference is that Carter was a much more overt and fervent Christian. After all, he taught a Bible class faithfully all the time he was in Washington--every Sunday when he was available. (We make no comment upon the content of his teaching.) Obama appears to be a secular "Christian". Contact with Christians and churches is for political ends, not a conviction born of personal faith in Christ. But both share a deeply held progressivist ideology--which has a long tradition in the United States. Both share a belief in the building of the Kingdom of God upon earth--but their view of the Kingdom is essentially secular. Both believe the US is a God-appointed avatar of this Kingdom. The Kingdom is identified with the Left's social agenda of satisfying all "demand" rights and using redistributive taxation to achieve it world wide. It is a false Gospel.
In international affairs, both share a deep desire for human peace, brotherhood, internationalism, and working to achieve global harmony. Carter believed that our Lord's Sermon on the Mount was a guide to how the US ought to conduct international relationships. Treating opponents with gentleness, turning the other cheek would gently steer the enemies of the US into adopting an ethic of the universal brotherhood of man. As one analyst put it, Carter's filter on international relations was the Sermon on the Mount. It ought to have been the Ten Commandments.
Obama is very much on the same page. He appears to believe the role of the US is to be an avatar of world peace via internationalism--all peoples working together in the name of Man for the common good. This is Obama's version of American exceptionalism--very much in the vein of Woodrow Wilson. Rather than imposing American political doctrines militarily upon other nations, making the world "safe for democracy", he would adopt a national policy of humility and lowliness (hence the apologies, the bowing), thereby winning the hearts and minds of other peoples to US humanitarianism.
Naive, simplistic idealism thus seems to be common between Carter and Obama. In international relations, the outcome and results are the same. Dithering, inconsistency, confusion, mistakes, doubt, indecision. At least that is the way it appears--and we believe that in this case the appearance is the reality.
We believe the only biblically defensible position for a Christian nation to take with respect to other nations is to mind one's own business. The cost of this view--a cost deeply offensive to the modern liberal mind--is that evils which abound in other nations such as murders, torturing, oppression, and wars evoke only one legitimate response: that is, no response, apart from (maybe) rebuke and exhortation.
As soon as a nation goes beyond that, endless inconsistencies abound. More so if you happen to be a super-power. So Obama encouraged the popular uprising in Egypt, intervened militarily in Libya, yet ignores popular uprisings in Yemen, Algeria and Syria. No-one can understand the inconsistency--neither the Left nor the Right. No-one can explain it. The upshot is that the President appears as bumbling and confused. The US electorate is appalled. To a people who pride themselves on "can do" and pragmatic effectiveness a President who seems incompetent is culturally offensive and disgusting. It is an insult to national pride.
The visceral reaction against Carter and Obama appears very similar. We believe it is due to the common appearance of incompetence and bumbling.
Older readers will recall that a weeping sore during Carter's one term presidency was Iran's holding American embassy staff as hostages. It went on for months and months (444 days in all). Unable to do anything decisive, Carter ended up appearing weak and vacillating. When finally he did approve a special forces military strike to free the hostages, it failed through mechanical breakdown. It was a symbol of his presidency--an enduring historical epitaph.
For Obama, Libya and Afghanistan and Syria and Iran all have the same smell. The American electorate does not suffer incompetence gladly. It is offensive. It is embarrassing. It is shameful.
Ironically, the electorate prefers its presidents to be decisively wrong in foreign affairs, than haltingly right. That is why independent voters will tolerate Republican jingoism and sabre rattling more readily than Democratic cerebral vacillation. Both are wrong.
God grants civil powers authority over their own people, not over other nations. Minding one's own business is a great virtue in international relations. Being non-aligned is a Christian position. As far as possible, live at peace with all nations. But be vigorous in defence of the lives of one's citizens when necessary.
The belief that America has a divine destiny to lead the world to a higher place is not just hubris. It is offensively idolatrous. It claims a calling not given by the Almighty. For the past one hundred years in the US, this perversion has taken two extreme forms: the jingoism of Bush and McCain and the Neo-Cons requiring that America police the world, defending all citizens, making the world "safe for democracy". The second is the effete internationalism of Wilson, Carter, and Obama, dying the death of a thousand contradictions and inconsistencies.
Both branches of the tree share the same root; the fruit equally rotten and poisonous.
When President Obama was first elected we expected that the US would suffer through another Jimmy Carteresque presidency. It would be so bad that Obama would end up being a one-term president. Now, we are not in the prophecy business--but it does seem a likely outcome.
The reasons and causes are manifold and complex. Moreover, there are very clear differences between Carter and Obama as personalities. Carter wanted to run his slide rule over the minute footnotes of thousand page government reports. He was so detailed it was difficult getting a decision. Obama does not sweat the small stuff. He is clearly not a detail person. He is big-picture. However, neither approach results in firm, decisive leadership that makes sense.
Another key difference is that Carter was a much more overt and fervent Christian. After all, he taught a Bible class faithfully all the time he was in Washington--every Sunday when he was available. (We make no comment upon the content of his teaching.) Obama appears to be a secular "Christian". Contact with Christians and churches is for political ends, not a conviction born of personal faith in Christ. But both share a deeply held progressivist ideology--which has a long tradition in the United States. Both share a belief in the building of the Kingdom of God upon earth--but their view of the Kingdom is essentially secular. Both believe the US is a God-appointed avatar of this Kingdom. The Kingdom is identified with the Left's social agenda of satisfying all "demand" rights and using redistributive taxation to achieve it world wide. It is a false Gospel.
In international affairs, both share a deep desire for human peace, brotherhood, internationalism, and working to achieve global harmony. Carter believed that our Lord's Sermon on the Mount was a guide to how the US ought to conduct international relationships. Treating opponents with gentleness, turning the other cheek would gently steer the enemies of the US into adopting an ethic of the universal brotherhood of man. As one analyst put it, Carter's filter on international relations was the Sermon on the Mount. It ought to have been the Ten Commandments.
Obama is very much on the same page. He appears to believe the role of the US is to be an avatar of world peace via internationalism--all peoples working together in the name of Man for the common good. This is Obama's version of American exceptionalism--very much in the vein of Woodrow Wilson. Rather than imposing American political doctrines militarily upon other nations, making the world "safe for democracy", he would adopt a national policy of humility and lowliness (hence the apologies, the bowing), thereby winning the hearts and minds of other peoples to US humanitarianism.
Naive, simplistic idealism thus seems to be common between Carter and Obama. In international relations, the outcome and results are the same. Dithering, inconsistency, confusion, mistakes, doubt, indecision. At least that is the way it appears--and we believe that in this case the appearance is the reality.
We believe the only biblically defensible position for a Christian nation to take with respect to other nations is to mind one's own business. The cost of this view--a cost deeply offensive to the modern liberal mind--is that evils which abound in other nations such as murders, torturing, oppression, and wars evoke only one legitimate response: that is, no response, apart from (maybe) rebuke and exhortation.
As soon as a nation goes beyond that, endless inconsistencies abound. More so if you happen to be a super-power. So Obama encouraged the popular uprising in Egypt, intervened militarily in Libya, yet ignores popular uprisings in Yemen, Algeria and Syria. No-one can understand the inconsistency--neither the Left nor the Right. No-one can explain it. The upshot is that the President appears as bumbling and confused. The US electorate is appalled. To a people who pride themselves on "can do" and pragmatic effectiveness a President who seems incompetent is culturally offensive and disgusting. It is an insult to national pride.
The visceral reaction against Carter and Obama appears very similar. We believe it is due to the common appearance of incompetence and bumbling.
Older readers will recall that a weeping sore during Carter's one term presidency was Iran's holding American embassy staff as hostages. It went on for months and months (444 days in all). Unable to do anything decisive, Carter ended up appearing weak and vacillating. When finally he did approve a special forces military strike to free the hostages, it failed through mechanical breakdown. It was a symbol of his presidency--an enduring historical epitaph.
For Obama, Libya and Afghanistan and Syria and Iran all have the same smell. The American electorate does not suffer incompetence gladly. It is offensive. It is embarrassing. It is shameful.
Ironically, the electorate prefers its presidents to be decisively wrong in foreign affairs, than haltingly right. That is why independent voters will tolerate Republican jingoism and sabre rattling more readily than Democratic cerebral vacillation. Both are wrong.
God grants civil powers authority over their own people, not over other nations. Minding one's own business is a great virtue in international relations. Being non-aligned is a Christian position. As far as possible, live at peace with all nations. But be vigorous in defence of the lives of one's citizens when necessary.
The belief that America has a divine destiny to lead the world to a higher place is not just hubris. It is offensively idolatrous. It claims a calling not given by the Almighty. For the past one hundred years in the US, this perversion has taken two extreme forms: the jingoism of Bush and McCain and the Neo-Cons requiring that America police the world, defending all citizens, making the world "safe for democracy". The second is the effete internationalism of Wilson, Carter, and Obama, dying the death of a thousand contradictions and inconsistencies.
Both branches of the tree share the same root; the fruit equally rotten and poisonous.
Thursday, 24 March 2011
Installing Democracy
The Arrogance of Idealism
They say that a woman scorned and the Furies are kissing cousins. Far closer, we would argue, is a thwarted idealist. When that happens it's time to "hunt yr hole, Johnny Reb", as they used to yell at the siege of Vicksburg.
President Obama has made much about his ideals for humanity, geo-politics, and the secular millennium. He was to usher in a new way of doing business. It was to be "hope and change". Sadly, yet expectedly millions of people in the US (and the world) were gulled by the prospect. Sadly, someone who does not believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is the King of the earth is likely to clutch at rotting straw. Sadly, they have sought new messiahs here and there.
Did Obama believe in his ideals? Did he foolishly think that he was made great because he embodied the ideal? Now the ideal has proved far too weighty, and Obama's idols like broke in the Temple of Baal. It is around about this time that the thwarted idealist resorts to direct action to make the damnable ideas true. And so Obama's version of American exceptionalism emerges from the promordial slime . . .
Here is Obama is 2009. His idealism was still rising high.
Here is Obama now, two years later.
Hat Tip: Gateway Pundit
They say that a woman scorned and the Furies are kissing cousins. Far closer, we would argue, is a thwarted idealist. When that happens it's time to "hunt yr hole, Johnny Reb", as they used to yell at the siege of Vicksburg.
President Obama has made much about his ideals for humanity, geo-politics, and the secular millennium. He was to usher in a new way of doing business. It was to be "hope and change". Sadly, yet expectedly millions of people in the US (and the world) were gulled by the prospect. Sadly, someone who does not believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is the King of the earth is likely to clutch at rotting straw. Sadly, they have sought new messiahs here and there.
Did Obama believe in his ideals? Did he foolishly think that he was made great because he embodied the ideal? Now the ideal has proved far too weighty, and Obama's idols like broke in the Temple of Baal. It is around about this time that the thwarted idealist resorts to direct action to make the damnable ideas true. And so Obama's version of American exceptionalism emerges from the promordial slime . . .
Here is Obama is 2009. His idealism was still rising high.
“The message I hope to deliver is that democracy, rule of law, freedom of speech, freedom of religion — those are not simply principles of the west to be hoisted (sic) on these countries. But, rather what I believe to be universal principles that they can embrace and affirm as part of their national identity, the danger, I think, is when the United States, or any country, thinks that we can simply impose these values on another country with a different history and a different culture.”
Here is Obama now, two years later.
Today Barack Obama told Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey that the US intends to impose a democracy in Libya.
The Washington Examiner reported:
The White House is shifting toward the more aggressive goal in Libya of ousting President Muammar Gadhafi and “installing a democratic system,” actions that fall outside the United Nations Security Council resolution under which an international coalition is now acting, according to a conversation between President Obama and Turkey’s prime minister.
Obama and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan spoke late Monday and “underscored their shared commitment to the goal of helping provide the Libyan people an opportunity to transform their country, by installing a democratic system that respects the people’s will,” according to a White House report on the phone call.
The rhetoric matches Obama’s reiteration on Monday that it is still U.S. policy that “Gadhafi needs to go.”
Ve hav ways of making yu demokratic.But it is a marked contrast to the U.S.-led military mission as defined by the U.N. resolution.
Hat Tip: Gateway Pundit
Monday, 7 March 2011
Napoleon's Modern Descendant
Human Rights Now!
The Obama administration is being hammered by the right wing for the wrong reasons. The right wing remains wedded to the idolatrous notion of American exceptionalism, which elevates a nation-state to the status of a demi-god.
Senator McCain, long an advocate of US military adventures abroad, has been excoriating President Obama for not instituting a "no-fly" zone in Libya. The reason why the US must do this? Gaddafi is acting like a tyrant, killing his own citizens. The US as the world's saviour and avatar of a free, just, secular humanity must do something. Anyone who thinks otherwise is, well, non-patriotic. They do not idolise the US enough.
But this folly is not just the preserve of the right. The left wing also has been calling for US military intervention. Senator John Kerry, one of the most liberal, even radical Progressives, has been urging the President to reconsider and remember the duty and obligation of the United States to establish, protect, and preserve human rights around the globe. This is what we mean by the US being elevated to the position of a demi-god. Meanwhile, He Who sits in the heavens laughs. His glory will not be served by American idolatry.
Full marks to President Obama for circumspection. Not that he has much choice. His Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates has publicly acknowledged that the US military is overcommitted now. It cannot afford to get involved in another conflict. At last the bloody beast has appeared to reach its limitations. For this we are very thankful.
Fortunately there are other voices, on both right and left which have a far less jingoistic cast. They are far more studied, measured, and realistic. One such voice is Bernard Lewis, recently interviewed by David Horowitz. Lewis is arguably the doyen of Western scholars with a profound knowledge of political Islam. His message: don't try to engineer Western style democracies in the Middle East. All that will do is facilitate Islamic fundamentalist power and control. This by
We note in a final thought that the French dictator, believing that his destiny was to free mankind to enjoy "liberty, equality, and fraternity", sought to "liberate" the Middle East. He failed, retreating with desperate measures that involved murdering 800 of his own wounded soldiers that would slow his retreat. Such things happen when you make an idol of human rights. Napoleon's modern heir would do well to be warned.
The Obama administration is being hammered by the right wing for the wrong reasons. The right wing remains wedded to the idolatrous notion of American exceptionalism, which elevates a nation-state to the status of a demi-god.
Senator McCain, long an advocate of US military adventures abroad, has been excoriating President Obama for not instituting a "no-fly" zone in Libya. The reason why the US must do this? Gaddafi is acting like a tyrant, killing his own citizens. The US as the world's saviour and avatar of a free, just, secular humanity must do something. Anyone who thinks otherwise is, well, non-patriotic. They do not idolise the US enough.
But this folly is not just the preserve of the right. The left wing also has been calling for US military intervention. Senator John Kerry, one of the most liberal, even radical Progressives, has been urging the President to reconsider and remember the duty and obligation of the United States to establish, protect, and preserve human rights around the globe. This is what we mean by the US being elevated to the position of a demi-god. Meanwhile, He Who sits in the heavens laughs. His glory will not be served by American idolatry.
Full marks to President Obama for circumspection. Not that he has much choice. His Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates has publicly acknowledged that the US military is overcommitted now. It cannot afford to get involved in another conflict. At last the bloody beast has appeared to reach its limitations. For this we are very thankful.
Fortunately there are other voices, on both right and left which have a far less jingoistic cast. They are far more studied, measured, and realistic. One such voice is Bernard Lewis, recently interviewed by David Horowitz. Lewis is arguably the doyen of Western scholars with a profound knowledge of political Islam. His message: don't try to engineer Western style democracies in the Middle East. All that will do is facilitate Islamic fundamentalist power and control. This by
In an extensive conversation with ex-leftist, now prolific conservative writer and consummate activist David Horowitz, the renowned Islamic scholar Lewis, 94, recently expounded on the root cause of the region-wide eruption of protests, and urged the West not to press for a fast and fitful rush by Arab countries toward Western-style elections.
Bernard Lewis “The Arab masses,” he says, “are not ready for free and fair elections.”
At the heart of the upheaval, according to Lewis – perhaps best known for his history of the Ottoman Empire – is the Arab peoples’ pervasive sense of injustice suffered at the hands of “the sort of authoritarian, even dictatorial regimes, that rule most of the countries in the modern Islamic Middle East.” These regimes “are a modern creation,” whereas “the pre-modern regimes were much more open, much more tolerant.”
He predicts that hastily held, Western-style elections would bring about “a dangerous aggravation” of the abysmally poor peoples’ anger and resentment, which radical Islamic organizations would be well positioned to exploit. In particular, the Muslim Brotherhood “is a very dangerous, radical Islamic movement. If they obtain power, the consequences would be disastrous for [in the case he cites] Egypt.”
As an alternative to such elections, Lewis advocates that the West back the gradual development of local, self-governing institutions, in accord with the Islamic tradition of “consultation,” for which there is a strong tradition in the region. Citing historical events and political literature in the Islamic period, he observes that this pre-modern system was entirely opposed to authoritarian or absolutist rule. Indeed, the sultans had to consult with many groups whose authority sprang from within and not from the state.
Pre-modern or contemporary, women are one group that has not figured in the self-governing formula. Lewis, forceful on this point, quotes a late 19th century Turkish observer:
We fell behind the West because of the way we treat our women … [Thus] we deprive ourselves of the talents and services of half the population … we submit the early education of the other half to ignorant and downtrodden mothers …[further,] a child who grows up in a traditional Muslim household is accustomed to authoritarian, autocratic rule from the start. I think the position of women is of crucial importance.In sum, mindlessly pushing for an immediate, Western-style general election is “a dangerous fallacy which can only lead to disaster.” Better to “let them do it their way by consultative groups.”
In the case of Eqypt, the airing of Lewis’s views is especially timely. The country’s military rulers, paving the way for elections to be held in just four-to-six months, have proposed a slew of constitutional changes that are being disputed by various factions.
Is “instant democracy” a viable policy in the Mideast? Odds are, no.
We note in a final thought that the French dictator, believing that his destiny was to free mankind to enjoy "liberty, equality, and fraternity", sought to "liberate" the Middle East. He failed, retreating with desperate measures that involved murdering 800 of his own wounded soldiers that would slow his retreat. Such things happen when you make an idol of human rights. Napoleon's modern heir would do well to be warned.
Monday, 27 December 2010
Sad, But Inevitable
Afghani Rope-a-Dope
It is looking likely that the US will depart Afghanistan in abject failure. American Exceptionalism has overreached itself again.
Below is a sober account on the progress of the war from Paul McGeough, the Chief Correspondent for The Sydney Morning Herald.
Obama bought this approach because it roughly fitted in with his progressive ideology. It was politically palatable and the least worst of a bunch of bad options. Ironically it manifested the very worst of an ideology he professed to disavow--American Exceptionalism. (Obama has long yearned to replace American Exceptionalism with Woodrow Wilson style American Internationalism). In Afghanistan under Obama, the US has continued full-tilt in pursuit of an idea that it can save the world for democracy and make other nations "safe" and "freedom loving"--that is, it can make other nations espouse secular humanist Western values. But equally inept was Obama's determination that the mission in Afghanistan had to change quickly from a military one to a civil Marshall-Plan cause. Hence, his announcement that he would start withdrawing troops from Afghanistan in 2011, and an all out withdrawal by 2014. This assuaged his pacifist inclinations and mollified the left wing of the Democratic party. It also ensured, as the final nail in the coffin, that the whole Afghani experiment would prove out to be a reckless boondoggle, as McGeough argues.
Nations which arrogantly rebel against the Living God end up stewing in a noisome witchs' cauldron of their own making. The United States is no exception!
It is looking likely that the US will depart Afghanistan in abject failure. American Exceptionalism has overreached itself again.
Below is a sober account on the progress of the war from Paul McGeough, the Chief Correspondent for The Sydney Morning Herald.
Obama faces insurmountable battle in Afghanistan
PAUL McGEOUGH
December 20, 2010
After almost a decade, the fix is in and the news is bad. Just as Afghanistan's Hamid Karzai has Barack Obama precisely where he wants him, so too Pakistan has the US leader where it would like to keep him - up against a wall, writing big fat cheques.
There have always been three essential elements to this conflict in Afghanistan. The first two essentials are whatever might be achieved militarily and what could be achieved in governance to sustain any military gains. But just as important is the extent to which neighbouring Pakistan will come to the party, to facilitate these two. And in the absence of gains either in governance or with Pakistan, any counter-insurgency effort almost certainly will fail.
Accounts of the mechanics of the Obama White House's review of progress in the war - announced last week - suggest that the military swayed the debate with evidence of some tactical success in the south of the country. Perhaps. But the President would do well to pay more attention to the reports of the intelligence services, which go a good way to explaining the impossible task ahead.
Some senior US officials are concluding that the message in President Karzai's repeated lashing-out at the West, is that even he does not believe in the US-led counter-insurgency. And last week a senior US military official told The Washington Post: "Pakistani sanctuaries [to which Taliban fighters retreat to rest up and/or resupply] are crucial - if you can't solve that problem, you can't win."
In much of the US debate, there is an implicit belief that the Afghans are a stupid people.
Far from it. They see the nonsense in being asked to have faith in an American-led campaign that is in retreat. They have no great desire to be connected to a Kabul government that is obscenely corrupt.
And when Washington talks up its retraining of the Afghan military and police services, Afghans see partisan militants who will snap to attention at the first order from their local warlords - who forever will be grateful for all the US funding that went into training, arming and supplying this generation of Afghan fighters.
Lamenting the institution-building failure of the first decade in Afghanistan, an International Crisis Group briefing-paper last month offered this judgment: "Successive US administrations deserve much of the blame … From the start the policy was untenable, selecting some of the most violent and corrupt people in the country, stoking them up with suitcases of cash and promises of more to come and then putting them in charge was never a recipe for stability, never mind institution-building."
Afghans have seen this thuggish element of their society at work before. It was in the 1990s when the people demonstrated a collective capacity to make what, on their terms, was a sensible decision on how to get on with their lives in relative security - they welcomed the Taliban.
This is not to say that Afghans like the Taliban.
But there are two counts on which they worry about the Americans. One, what they hear from Washington is a constant refrain about getting the hell out of Afghanistan; and two, with its failure to develop a believable political process and a proper system of justice, locals are inclined to a jaundiced view that Washington endorses the corruption that takes its place.
Ironically, while Obama still tries to talk about getting out of Afghanistan, even by a sleight of hand which has diminished his proposed July start of the draw-down to a more distant all-foreign-troops-out by 2014, Afghan pessimism has soared.
A year ago 70 per cent believed their country was going in the right direction; today just 50 per cent hold to that belief. And fewer Americans care - 60 per cent now believe that the war has been worth fighting.
Such is the questionable value of the huge foreign-aid spending in Afghanistan, that the former commander of NATO forces there, David Richards, co-authored a piece in the current issue of Foreign Affairs which suggests ''it might have been better and considerably more efficient if the international community had simply airdropped bundles of money throughout the country".
Similarly, the argument that Washington needs to be patient and not make matters worse by quarrelling with Islamabad, misses the point - if Pakistani stubbornness can deliver little more than it does now, then all the military and civilian surging in Afghanistan is a wasted effort.
Two points on the timeline are far more pertinent than Obama's insistence that he start bringing troops home next year - even if, as his Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, puts it, it is by just a ''handful'' of troops. One, this is now America's longest war; and two, the US has been in Afghanistan for longer than the USSR's failed 1980s bid to impose its will on central Asia.Let's recap. Candidate Obama had to have a war he could advocate and support on the campaign trail to prove his "exceptionalist" credentials. Iraq was out; Afghanistan was in. "Afghanistan is where we should be fighting," he said. Once elected, he had to back up his rhetoric. Over many months US military strategy was morphed to fit Obama's world view of progressive enlightenment (talk in good faith as equals to other nations; acknowledge the limitations of the US; conflicts diminish; fear and suspicion recedes; peace and harmony break out). The US was no longer to fight terrorism, but ignorance, illiteracy, poverty, corruption in Afghanistan alongside its chosen Afghani partners (the corrupt Karzai government). The campaign became one of "nation building"--long touted by anti-insurgency experts as the key to defeating popular resistance movements.
Sisyphus might have gone home long ago. But Obama can't - he has become a hostage to his own script. Listing a litany of problems, the International Crisis Group briefing paper concludes: "All these … have led many to believe it is time for the foreign forces to leave. Unfortunately, a rush to the exit will not help Afghans nor will it address the very real regional and global security concerns posed by the breakdown of the Afghan state."
Obama bought this approach because it roughly fitted in with his progressive ideology. It was politically palatable and the least worst of a bunch of bad options. Ironically it manifested the very worst of an ideology he professed to disavow--American Exceptionalism. (Obama has long yearned to replace American Exceptionalism with Woodrow Wilson style American Internationalism). In Afghanistan under Obama, the US has continued full-tilt in pursuit of an idea that it can save the world for democracy and make other nations "safe" and "freedom loving"--that is, it can make other nations espouse secular humanist Western values. But equally inept was Obama's determination that the mission in Afghanistan had to change quickly from a military one to a civil Marshall-Plan cause. Hence, his announcement that he would start withdrawing troops from Afghanistan in 2011, and an all out withdrawal by 2014. This assuaged his pacifist inclinations and mollified the left wing of the Democratic party. It also ensured, as the final nail in the coffin, that the whole Afghani experiment would prove out to be a reckless boondoggle, as McGeough argues.
Nations which arrogantly rebel against the Living God end up stewing in a noisome witchs' cauldron of their own making. The United States is no exception!
Friday, 3 December 2010
Douglas Wilson's Letter From America
| When God Settles Our Hash |
| Political Dualism - Mere Christendom |
| Written by Douglas Wilson |
| Tuesday, November 30, 2010 |
| There are many reasons for my behavior on this theme of mere Christedom, but one of them is that the concept provides the only real antidote to American exceptionalism on the one hand and radical Islam on the other. When it comes to American exceptionalism, a couple recent examples are here and here. We are constantly and regularly subjected to a false alternative. Either we must believe that America is the last best hope for mankind, or we must be muttering ingrates who don't recognize or appreciate any of the advantages of living here. As Digory would say, "Bless me, what do they teach them in these schools?" America is emphatically not the last best hope of mankind. What perfect nonsense. Jesus is the savior. He is the last savior, He is the best savior; He is the blessed hope. But America is emphatically not a dingy little tawdry place to live in either. It is a great nation, and has accomplished many great things -- as other great nations have done before us, and as yet others will after us. Israel is set before all of them as an example. We are not loved because we were mighty. We are mighty because we were loved (Dt. 7:7). Muddling that order up is a very dangerous thing to do (Dt. 8:10-19), and our conservatives are doing it. At the same time, this is a wonderful place to live, still, but the rot has in fact set in, and there are already other places in the world where it would be better to live than in certain parts of our nation. Some our states are completely addled and deranged, and have labored energetically to become banana republics. The results of the most recent election show that New York and California richly deserve, good and hard, everything that's coming to them. What happened to Californian exceptionalism? Where did it go? Now I am most grateful to God for the kindness He showed in placing me in this nation. But gratitude is not pride, and this is a nation of sinners, prone to do what sinners in this position have always done -- which is to interpret blessings as rewards, to see the milk and honey as "best in show" indicators. The reason this is a big deal is that the very quickest way to shut off God's favor, like you were turning the spigot hard to the right, is to start to take credit for gifts. Christians have long spoken of the temptation to focus on the gifts, forgetting the Giver. As a nation, we are a stage beyond that. We have forgotten the Giver, and are bragging about the gifts. The fact that the leftists sneer at the gifts is their problem. They should confess their sins, as we should confess ours. But this is the cul de sac that secularism has created for us. If we cannot publicly honor the God of all nations, and Jesus the Prince over all nations, then everything has to be measured "under the sun." In the first place, under the sun everything is vanity and shepherding wind, as someone tried to teach us once. In the second place, the nation who holds first place in the present moment, for there is no other moment, has to act as though that is the ultimate vindication. Which it is, until the next ultimate vindication of somebody else. And the next, and by the time we are three down the line, we have become one with Nineveh and Tyre. If we don't repent of this foolishness, then God will settle our hash. |
Wednesday, 25 August 2010
Douglas Wilson's Letter From America
This Approach, Wise I Don't Think
Political Dualism - Mere Christendom
Written by Douglas Wilson
Wednesday, August 04, 2010
I like Hugh Hewitt. I have enjoyed one of his books, and his web site is a good go-to place for a discussion of some of the nuts and bolts of the political battles we are in. He does good work.
But . . .
But here is an example of why my concerns (expressed repeatedly) about American exceptionalism and Christian refusals to acknowledge Christ in the public square are not concerns about a bunch of nothing. In a recent post explaining why he is opposed to the building of the Cordoba Mosque near Ground Zero, Hewitt said some things that make it obvious why the apostle John had to warn Christians to keep themselves from idols (1 Jn. 5:21). John had to warn us because it is a thing that Christians might not want to avoid.
As an aside, before proceeding to the argument, for those who don't know, Cordoba is a Middle Eastern word meaning "here's a burnt stick in your eye."
Hewitt said that he does "not believe the Ground Zero mosque should be built." The emphasis following is mine.
"I oppose it because the land and buildings damaged by the assault are now part of the sacred space of America's great civic religion. I would oppose the construction of any sectarian project there that wasn't a rebuild of an existing sectarian use for the same reason.
There is no formal designation for the sacred spaces of America's civic religion though they extend from the Mall to the Arizona Memorial. The land around Ground Zero is very much part of that space, and any project that politicizes it or brings a religious purpose to those sites should be refused."
There are three basic problems here, and they are really basic problems.
The first is that a conservative Christian is using words and phrases like sacred space and religion, without scare quotes, in order to describe spaces and a religion that are not Christian. And he is not describing them as sacred to the use and understanding of others, but sacred to us, as Americans. This means that he is saying that American Christians can lawfully belong to two religions, one civil and one up in the sky somehow. American Christians can worship in two different kinds of sacred spaces, one in which God is triune, and in the other where he isn't anything of the kind. It also means that patriotic Americans who are not Christian have an area of "worship overlap" with those who are Christian. We share sacred space, as sacred space, with people who don't love Jesus. The question really ought to arise -- how did we get here?
This is the sort of thing that gives theologians like Yoda plausibility. This is the kind of that makes you want to cite Yoda about the dangers of Constantinianism. "Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will." Yoda, Yoder, whatever. This is the kind of political analysis that a freshman in the Eusebian School of Panegyrics might have written for his first homework assignment, late in the evening and after a couple of beers.
The second problem is that to recenter America's public space like this means that manifestations of the Christian faith become "sectarian" with reference to it. And this is precisely how Hewitt argues. This mosque and Tim Keller's church in Manhattan are both "sectarian" in reference to this new sacred space. The fact that one does not worship the true God and the other does is irrelevant to this relativization. This space is now sacred because it is the place where some terrorists blew themselves to Hell, and so ministers of the gospel of Jesus Christ must consider themselves to be outside that Established Church. All Christians, who worship the God who made Heaven and earth, and who worship God through His true and only Son, are placed by a Christian political thinker on the same footing as Melanesian frog worshippers. We, and they, are Dissenters when it comes to this American sacred space. Well, we are Dissenters only if we dissent -- which consistent Christians must do.
The third problem is that no idolatry can be internally self-consistent, and so a weird contradiction appears immediately. Hewitt objects to any project that "politicizes" this sacred space, but all we have are politics down here now. The sacred space was formed by a political, terrorist act, and it was defended by those who were defending a particular political order. How can we object to the politicization of politics? This is all happening in the earthly city, in the polis. If this polis is being lifted up above the roil and rack of earthly commotions, then it has to be done arbitrarily, like the apotheosis of some dying Caesar, coughing up blood. Even Vespasian knew better than this with his famous last words -- Vae, puto deus fio. "Dear me, I must be turning into a god..."
Nature is not the only thing that abhors a vacuum. Religion abhors a vacuum. If you banish all religious trappings from the public square, all you have done is swept and garnished the room in preparation for the new, seven-fold religion that is now on your doorstep, with the creepy music playing in the background. And this is why exorcists who have no gospel are just an advance team for more demons. This is why R2K theologians are not doing what they think they are doing.
God has placed eternity in our hearts, and we behave like religious beings (because we must) wherever we go, and whatever we do. This is why Christian ministers must proclaim the crown rights of King Jesus everywhere, and over everything. All authority in Heaven and on earth has been given to Him, and this means that Jesus Christ owns Lower Manhattan, having purchased it with His precious blood. No other blood can be allowed to trump this, or compete with it, not even the blood of courageous firemen. We cannot give "this part" to Jesus and the remainder to nobody in particular, or to Mr. Neutrality. All attempts to "divvy up" are simply negotiations with idols. But we are Christians and are not allowed to parlay with idols.
Given what has gone before, Hugh Hewitt is simply being consistent in his use of words like sacred and religious. But it is a consistency we must turn back from. In order to do this, we have to reject Americanism, an ism every bit as ugly as all the other isms out there. I give way to no one in my love for my country, my nation, and my people. But it is a nation, for pity's sake, not a god. It is a country, a fine place to shoot off firecrackers on the Fourth, and to eat hot dogs. But if you want me to trot out divine honors along with the flag, then my response will be a thoroughly American one. "What, are you nuts?"
Political Dualism - Mere Christendom
Written by Douglas Wilson
Wednesday, August 04, 2010
I like Hugh Hewitt. I have enjoyed one of his books, and his web site is a good go-to place for a discussion of some of the nuts and bolts of the political battles we are in. He does good work.
But . . .
But here is an example of why my concerns (expressed repeatedly) about American exceptionalism and Christian refusals to acknowledge Christ in the public square are not concerns about a bunch of nothing. In a recent post explaining why he is opposed to the building of the Cordoba Mosque near Ground Zero, Hewitt said some things that make it obvious why the apostle John had to warn Christians to keep themselves from idols (1 Jn. 5:21). John had to warn us because it is a thing that Christians might not want to avoid.
As an aside, before proceeding to the argument, for those who don't know, Cordoba is a Middle Eastern word meaning "here's a burnt stick in your eye."
Hewitt said that he does "not believe the Ground Zero mosque should be built." The emphasis following is mine.
"I oppose it because the land and buildings damaged by the assault are now part of the sacred space of America's great civic religion. I would oppose the construction of any sectarian project there that wasn't a rebuild of an existing sectarian use for the same reason.
There is no formal designation for the sacred spaces of America's civic religion though they extend from the Mall to the Arizona Memorial. The land around Ground Zero is very much part of that space, and any project that politicizes it or brings a religious purpose to those sites should be refused."
There are three basic problems here, and they are really basic problems.
The first is that a conservative Christian is using words and phrases like sacred space and religion, without scare quotes, in order to describe spaces and a religion that are not Christian. And he is not describing them as sacred to the use and understanding of others, but sacred to us, as Americans. This means that he is saying that American Christians can lawfully belong to two religions, one civil and one up in the sky somehow. American Christians can worship in two different kinds of sacred spaces, one in which God is triune, and in the other where he isn't anything of the kind. It also means that patriotic Americans who are not Christian have an area of "worship overlap" with those who are Christian. We share sacred space, as sacred space, with people who don't love Jesus. The question really ought to arise -- how did we get here?
This is the sort of thing that gives theologians like Yoda plausibility. This is the kind of that makes you want to cite Yoda about the dangers of Constantinianism. "Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will." Yoda, Yoder, whatever. This is the kind of political analysis that a freshman in the Eusebian School of Panegyrics might have written for his first homework assignment, late in the evening and after a couple of beers.
The second problem is that to recenter America's public space like this means that manifestations of the Christian faith become "sectarian" with reference to it. And this is precisely how Hewitt argues. This mosque and Tim Keller's church in Manhattan are both "sectarian" in reference to this new sacred space. The fact that one does not worship the true God and the other does is irrelevant to this relativization. This space is now sacred because it is the place where some terrorists blew themselves to Hell, and so ministers of the gospel of Jesus Christ must consider themselves to be outside that Established Church. All Christians, who worship the God who made Heaven and earth, and who worship God through His true and only Son, are placed by a Christian political thinker on the same footing as Melanesian frog worshippers. We, and they, are Dissenters when it comes to this American sacred space. Well, we are Dissenters only if we dissent -- which consistent Christians must do.
The third problem is that no idolatry can be internally self-consistent, and so a weird contradiction appears immediately. Hewitt objects to any project that "politicizes" this sacred space, but all we have are politics down here now. The sacred space was formed by a political, terrorist act, and it was defended by those who were defending a particular political order. How can we object to the politicization of politics? This is all happening in the earthly city, in the polis. If this polis is being lifted up above the roil and rack of earthly commotions, then it has to be done arbitrarily, like the apotheosis of some dying Caesar, coughing up blood. Even Vespasian knew better than this with his famous last words -- Vae, puto deus fio. "Dear me, I must be turning into a god..."
Nature is not the only thing that abhors a vacuum. Religion abhors a vacuum. If you banish all religious trappings from the public square, all you have done is swept and garnished the room in preparation for the new, seven-fold religion that is now on your doorstep, with the creepy music playing in the background. And this is why exorcists who have no gospel are just an advance team for more demons. This is why R2K theologians are not doing what they think they are doing.
God has placed eternity in our hearts, and we behave like religious beings (because we must) wherever we go, and whatever we do. This is why Christian ministers must proclaim the crown rights of King Jesus everywhere, and over everything. All authority in Heaven and on earth has been given to Him, and this means that Jesus Christ owns Lower Manhattan, having purchased it with His precious blood. No other blood can be allowed to trump this, or compete with it, not even the blood of courageous firemen. We cannot give "this part" to Jesus and the remainder to nobody in particular, or to Mr. Neutrality. All attempts to "divvy up" are simply negotiations with idols. But we are Christians and are not allowed to parlay with idols.
Given what has gone before, Hugh Hewitt is simply being consistent in his use of words like sacred and religious. But it is a consistency we must turn back from. In order to do this, we have to reject Americanism, an ism every bit as ugly as all the other isms out there. I give way to no one in my love for my country, my nation, and my people. But it is a nation, for pity's sake, not a god. It is a country, a fine place to shoot off firecrackers on the Fourth, and to eat hot dogs. But if you want me to trot out divine honors along with the flag, then my response will be a thoroughly American one. "What, are you nuts?"
Thursday, 29 July 2010
Ironies on the Right
Blind to Contradictions
It is well known that about the only policy area in which conservatives in the US support President Obama is his warmaking. Tea party Republicans have stood pretty much four square behind the US Commander in Chief, with their only criticisms being for his alleged timidity, tentativeness, and an untimely withdrawal plan.
Yet, on the other hand, Tea Party conservatives loathe and despise "big government" and are right on the money when they complain of the genetic and systemic incompetence of government to solve problems. Generally speaking "small government" conservatives see a sharply reduced role for government as legitimate--beyond which government becomes incompetent and more oppressive.
Yet it appears that it is starting to dawn on some clearer thinking heads that there is an inescapable, inherent contradiction between these two conservative positions. If Big Government is both illegitimate and incompetent in the US, why would it suddenly morph into legitimacy and competence in Afghanistan? This question calls into question the sense and reasonableness of counter-insurgency military strategies. Flatly, government-run "nation building" is an oxymoron.
US conservatives are starting to confront the contradictions--yet still are skirting around the issues. One, the Hudson Institute’s Ann Marlowe, who recently completed her sixth “embed” with American troops in Afghanistan, argues for a belated “reckoning” on controversial if prevailing counterinsurgency policy. She writes:
She concludes as follows:
But they have not yet unblocked their ears to the question that is screaming out from the rooftops: if conservatives know that government is utterly incapable and incompetent to change the human heart, build solid marriages, create a civil society, and run a public health system in the US why would they believe that it could possibly accomplish such things in Afghanistan?
As it is, the spend of taxpayers' money and the waste is hard to believe.
It's time US conservatives took their own political ideology more seriously. If not, the doctrine of American Exceptionalism, long a favourite of "small government" conservatives, might come to indicate a condition of exceptional national folly.
It is well known that about the only policy area in which conservatives in the US support President Obama is his warmaking. Tea party Republicans have stood pretty much four square behind the US Commander in Chief, with their only criticisms being for his alleged timidity, tentativeness, and an untimely withdrawal plan.
Yet, on the other hand, Tea Party conservatives loathe and despise "big government" and are right on the money when they complain of the genetic and systemic incompetence of government to solve problems. Generally speaking "small government" conservatives see a sharply reduced role for government as legitimate--beyond which government becomes incompetent and more oppressive.
Yet it appears that it is starting to dawn on some clearer thinking heads that there is an inescapable, inherent contradiction between these two conservative positions. If Big Government is both illegitimate and incompetent in the US, why would it suddenly morph into legitimacy and competence in Afghanistan? This question calls into question the sense and reasonableness of counter-insurgency military strategies. Flatly, government-run "nation building" is an oxymoron.
US conservatives are starting to confront the contradictions--yet still are skirting around the issues. One, the Hudson Institute’s Ann Marlowe, who recently completed her sixth “embed” with American troops in Afghanistan, argues for a belated “reckoning” on controversial if prevailing counterinsurgency policy. She writes:
Many of the American soldiers I know in Afghanistan are themselves deeply skeptical of the American non-strategy. And many of these soldiers are Republicans. They often find themselves “enacting governance on the local level,” in the words of Captain Mike Tumlin of the 82nd Airborne, trying to sideline or remove Afghan officials who steal from, or murder and rape the very people they’re supposed to serve, only to see their hard and sometimes bloody work brought to naught by corrupt higher-ups in Kabul. They’re not fighting for a good government against the evil Taliban, but for one evil against another.
She concludes as follows:
Why should Republicans tolerate waste of our tax money, merely because it happens in Afghanistan? Exactly which Republican values do the Karzai brothers—merchants in drugs and explosives, skimmers of contracts and runners of protection rackets—exemplify? Why is it honorable for Republicans to sacrifice the best of our young people for a miserable kleptocracy?Now she does not quite get to the point. A typical response to her question amongst conservatives would be to call for counter-insurgency to be done better, more efficiently, more ethically. On a good day, conservatives might go further and argue that Afghanistan itself is too poor, too primitive, and too fractured to enable any strategy to work, including counter-insurgency.
But they have not yet unblocked their ears to the question that is screaming out from the rooftops: if conservatives know that government is utterly incapable and incompetent to change the human heart, build solid marriages, create a civil society, and run a public health system in the US why would they believe that it could possibly accomplish such things in Afghanistan?
As it is, the spend of taxpayers' money and the waste is hard to believe.
We’ve spent $51.5 billion to date on the Afghan war, about four years’ worth of that country’s GDP—enough to give every Afghan $2,000 to $2,500. About half of our expenditure has gone to standing up the Afghan National Security Forces. That $25 billion also equals the entire Israeli defense budget for two years.
For what we’ve spent, we could have re-created the Israeli Army, Air Force and Navy in Afghanistan. Only we didn’t. Instead, at enormous cost, we have fielded a marginally competent army and a barely capable police force, both of which lose between 25 percent and 70 percent of their men annually.
Meanwhile, The Wall Street Journal recently reported that more than $3 billion has been openly flown out of Kabul Airport since 2007.
It's time US conservatives took their own political ideology more seriously. If not, the doctrine of American Exceptionalism, long a favourite of "small government" conservatives, might come to indicate a condition of exceptional national folly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)