The Overpowering Angel
I hate to drag GFW down to the level of politics, but perhaps my fellow blogmates will indulge me if I give a few thoughts.
Possibly the strangest thing about America at the moment is the growing consciousness of a peculiar kind of drift. In the media, many complain automatically of an overabundance of ideology or "partisanship." Perhaps the pundits are right, at least on the latter: anyway it seems as though party loyalty is one of the few anchors left. Certainly the old issues remain very real: we social conservatives continue to rally around grassroots causes. Supreme Court appointments provide us with motivation to continue (for reasons of realpolitik if nothing else) supporting Bush, Rove, the GOP and apple pie.
But something else is in the air: here in particular I am speaking about the world stage. What is suprising is not how much ideology there is concerning Iraq, Afganistan, etc., but how little the existing political diction seems to fit the situation. Old words such as "hawk," or new(er) ones such as "neoconservative" make an admirable effort, but in the end are still too vague to prove convincing. America is usually genuinely able to sum up everything in a few sound bites: it can be a liability, but its also the way we get things accomplished. Language is meant to "map" onto reality, to reduce complexity while communicating dividing lines and important content: but now our political dialect seems thin, like (if I can borrow from what I consider an auspicious source [Tolkein]) "butter spread over too much bread."
What I increasingly wonder is if there is any driving ideology, whether anyone or anything at all is in the drivers seat. By now its a very old story, cited in a number of blogs--- still, when thinking about these things, I always come back to the Ron Suskin (of the nytimes) anecdote about his conversation with Bush's aide:
The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''
The story, of course, (I am sure) does not capture the full spectrum of reasons and rationales. anyway, I find many neoconservative ideas intriguing, even admirable. But I also find myself wondering where a philosophy of action will take us. What wills when the will alone triumphs? Some of us observed the fact that responsibility for a certain decision can travel up and down a hierarchy: all might be responsible, and no one (one example being Abu Ghraib). Hans Freyer, in his "Revolution from the Right" (1931) declared that (and here I quote from memory) "what unites us... [the revolutionary right] is that [we all] have a guilty conscience." Something is drumming on our blinders from the outside: for us, as well as for Freyer, reality is reforming itself. The possibilities and the dangers of this new freedom have, at the moment, overwhelmed conventional rules and rationales. Who can blame the anti-Bush lobby for their conspiracy theories, or their hatred? They are looking for something familiar to cling to. [Paul Weyrich has, for similar reasons, begun a series of posts on the substance and direction of conservative policy: they are titled "The Next Conservatism," and are available on the Free Congress website.] In the face of terrorism, war, and the new conservatism, all we can do is remain open-minded, alert and wary.
Possibly the strangest thing about America at the moment is the growing consciousness of a peculiar kind of drift. In the media, many complain automatically of an overabundance of ideology or "partisanship." Perhaps the pundits are right, at least on the latter: anyway it seems as though party loyalty is one of the few anchors left. Certainly the old issues remain very real: we social conservatives continue to rally around grassroots causes. Supreme Court appointments provide us with motivation to continue (for reasons of realpolitik if nothing else) supporting Bush, Rove, the GOP and apple pie.
But something else is in the air: here in particular I am speaking about the world stage. What is suprising is not how much ideology there is concerning Iraq, Afganistan, etc., but how little the existing political diction seems to fit the situation. Old words such as "hawk," or new(er) ones such as "neoconservative" make an admirable effort, but in the end are still too vague to prove convincing. America is usually genuinely able to sum up everything in a few sound bites: it can be a liability, but its also the way we get things accomplished. Language is meant to "map" onto reality, to reduce complexity while communicating dividing lines and important content: but now our political dialect seems thin, like (if I can borrow from what I consider an auspicious source [Tolkein]) "butter spread over too much bread."
What I increasingly wonder is if there is any driving ideology, whether anyone or anything at all is in the drivers seat. By now its a very old story, cited in a number of blogs--- still, when thinking about these things, I always come back to the Ron Suskin (of the nytimes) anecdote about his conversation with Bush's aide:
The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''
The story, of course, (I am sure) does not capture the full spectrum of reasons and rationales. anyway, I find many neoconservative ideas intriguing, even admirable. But I also find myself wondering where a philosophy of action will take us. What wills when the will alone triumphs? Some of us observed the fact that responsibility for a certain decision can travel up and down a hierarchy: all might be responsible, and no one (one example being Abu Ghraib). Hans Freyer, in his "Revolution from the Right" (1931) declared that (and here I quote from memory) "what unites us... [the revolutionary right] is that [we all] have a guilty conscience." Something is drumming on our blinders from the outside: for us, as well as for Freyer, reality is reforming itself. The possibilities and the dangers of this new freedom have, at the moment, overwhelmed conventional rules and rationales. Who can blame the anti-Bush lobby for their conspiracy theories, or their hatred? They are looking for something familiar to cling to. [Paul Weyrich has, for similar reasons, begun a series of posts on the substance and direction of conservative policy: they are titled "The Next Conservatism," and are available on the Free Congress website.] In the face of terrorism, war, and the new conservatism, all we can do is remain open-minded, alert and wary.
posted by J.S. at 11:19 AM
5 Comments:
naverjag,
well, of course everyone naturally likes strength. including me. but I'm not sure exactly what you're saying. America stand for strength? well, yes, but hopefully for more than just that.
so, what I was not saying is that America cannot defend herself, or that the things we are doing in the world today are so terrible. I don't feel that they are terrible: perhaps they are even very wise or good. but I think the rationales for them, or even the arguments we have over them, have grown increasingly confused. "Wariness" (as well as open-mindedness, its not a dirty word) is needed among social and religious conservatives today in order to judge what the philosophy of the moment really is, and whether or not we should join forces with it or give our support.
Of course I believe that America is a great country, but it is made great not through some eternal attribute but by how it is run and who its citizens are. There has been ample glorification in the past of the natural urge to assert one's one will in world history, and I do not always think it is such a great thing. Definitely it depends on what exactly one is asserting.
"To demand of strength that it should not express itself, that it should not be a will to overcome, overthrow, dominate, a thirst for enemies and resistance and triumph, makes as little sense as to demand of weakness that it should express itself as strength." (Nietzsche)
So of course some would agree with you, and this sort of thinking is always tempting. but in christian terms, much of this strength-talk is nothing but indulging in a basic propensity for pride in our sinful nature. it is from these things, flesh carried away through its "natural" will to power, that we should pray to God to deliver our country from.
jns.
Hi there,
Well, this is only my second time to post on this site, and in all I don’t have a copious amount of ideas or thoughts. However, I did find it very interesting how “neverjag” mentions America as “embodying strength in his/her mind”, and yet has never asked the question of how it came to be such?
I will ask that question now. How did America come to be seen (by some) as the extreme manifestation of strength on earth? Was it just because we were determined to succeed in everything we did? The obvious answer is no. America is (perhaps was would be more appropriate, but for the sake of avoiding controversy we’ll leave it as it stands) great for two reasons. One is by the Grace of God; and two because of the principles that we were founded upon. We were not founded upon arbitrary principles, but more or less on principles that were set forth in Scripture. It is my belief with all my heart, that when we stray from those principles we will cease to be considered great.
I can’t remember the man’s name, but there was French man who once came to America to find out why the good America was so great. He looked everywhere, and when he left he said, “America is not good because she is great, but she is great because she is good. The moment she ceases to be good, she will cease to be great” (not an exact quotation but that is the heart of it, although it is quite ironic coming from a Frenchman).
Also, I agree quite wholeheartedly with Justin about being open minded, alert, and wary. Open minded does NOT mean weak minded. We should be cautious about being open minded as we should all our dealings in life, above all asking if it would be glorifying to God. But, absolutely pray to be delivered from our sinful “natural” will.
Well that’s all my thoughts for the day. Good-bye and God bless.
--Sam Douglas--
perhaps you should have paid more attention in your english classes, for I believe it is there where you were taught to read. Applying this ability once again to what I have written, sir, I defy you to find where it was that I denied America her greatness on the grounds of either the Grace of God or her principles (which are only her principles because of her people who hold them). . I believe in the truth and application of both these statements. Surely you were not confused at the personifciation of America. Analogies, I doubt, are something to which you are not newly exposed
I never said that open mindedness meant weakminded. This was your suggestion. I merely cautioned taking that idea to an extreme most prevalent in today's society.
And I agree that we were founded on Christian, scriptural principles.
I do believe that being determined goes a long way towards accomplishing anything. There are times when men and women rise above what is easily accomplished and do it anyway because it needs doing, or because there is some noble purpose in it. Most often these people are called heroes. Surely you've heard of that concept?
Naverjag, in previous comments, you have noted that not all of your ideas are well-formed and that you're not able to back up some of your beliefs with anything more than instinct or intuition. There is nothing wrong with speaking out in such a way and I'm sure that the readers and authors of this site understand the often incomplete nature of your thoughs and expressions. Indeed, putting you ideas and argumennts out for refutation, support and discussion is the nature of honest discourse. However, it seems that you are not yet as comfortable in your own skin enough to grant the same deference and respect to others. For example, your response to Sam is rather harsh. And, I've noticed that some of your comments to other posts are rather defensive. As far as I can tell, the commenters and authors of this site are not attacking you, so what gives?
Well no harm done. Your apology is accepted. But I would like to clear what I said up a bit. When I made reference to your post, which is all I did, I did not intend to imply any alternate meaning to what you said, but merely took what you said and ran with it, so to speak. Perhaps I was out of line, but to me (that is in my own personal opinion) it sounded like you (neverjag) were attributing all of America’s greatness to her strength. Maybe I was wrong, but that shows that I too make mistakes. The one thing that I did intend to get across was that, while it may be true that the strength of America is part of her greatness, it is not the only reason - that is all. Again thanks for your apology.
Post a Comment
<< Home