Thursday, December 30, 2004
And another thing. The US has pledged about $30 million for emergency relief for South Asia in the wake of the devastating tsunami that struck the region a few days ago. That's about a dime for every person living in the US today. I guess that means that residents of the stricken region can finally escape their predicament by traveling in time back to 1983, where they can use that dime to make a phonecall to themselves, warning themselves of the tsunami that will strike in 2004.
Honestly, here's what I don't understand: we spent $87 billion dollars this year alone to wage war in Iraq, but we only have $30 million for disaster relief in Indonesia and India? Only $30 million for Indonesia, the most populous Muslim country in the world, and a critical locus of the war on terror? Only $30 million for India, the most populous democracy in the world, and also the only country in which hundreds of millions of Muslims live under democratic rule? When the rest of the world doesn't share our bright-eyed enthusiasm for America, is unwilling to give us the benefit of the doubt, and is distrustful of our representation that we're the good guys, it will serve us well to understand that they remember this equation. $87 billion for occupying Iraq, but not even one thounsandth of that amount for disaster relief in South Asia.
0 comments
Honestly, here's what I don't understand: we spent $87 billion dollars this year alone to wage war in Iraq, but we only have $30 million for disaster relief in Indonesia and India? Only $30 million for Indonesia, the most populous Muslim country in the world, and a critical locus of the war on terror? Only $30 million for India, the most populous democracy in the world, and also the only country in which hundreds of millions of Muslims live under democratic rule? When the rest of the world doesn't share our bright-eyed enthusiasm for America, is unwilling to give us the benefit of the doubt, and is distrustful of our representation that we're the good guys, it will serve us well to understand that they remember this equation. $87 billion for occupying Iraq, but not even one thounsandth of that amount for disaster relief in South Asia.
Tuesday, December 28, 2004
For a long time, I've been arguing that a basic distinction lies at the heart of the split between Conservatives and Liberals. Reading the New York Times today, I see I've finally got some company.
Fundamentally, a liberal looks at the world and sees a collection of problems and solutions. Government, in its various forms, is a complex set of solutions to problems encountered by society. As humanity advances, and as our best and brightest come up with new ideas and improved methods, more problems can be solved, and more happiness and prosperity will result for mankind.
Conservatives, on the other hand, come at the world from an entirely different perspective. Conservatives are committed to the idea that no matter how much progress is made, or how much suffering is alleviated, the world will always remain inherently unfair, ill-functioning, and Hobbesian, because the world is populated by humans, and humans are an evil, untrustworthy, irredeemable lot. Thus, the systems they create to moderate the brutishness of the world are doomed to be subverted, and cannot provide the protection that they promise.
It's easy to see how compatible conservative philosophy is with Evangelical Christian teachings in particular. The belief that man is Fallen, depraved, and incapable of being worthy of redemption means that all men are suspect, and that the work of their hands is doomed to failure. This sad state of affairs, in which emnity exists between God and Man as a result of Adam's Original Sin, can be remedied only through faith in Jesus. Notably, Evangelical denominations emphasize the importance of faith - of accepting Jesus into your heart - rather than the performace of good deeds (also known in ecumenical circles as 'works'). One who has faith in Jesus will be saved, and live a life eternal.
Perhaps unexpectedly, the major implication of the Conservative position is that the most important question to answer in any given situation is one phrased around the issue of trust. Before asking whether someone has a good idea, you need to know if he's a good person. After all, Conservatives don't believe in the power of good ideas, they believe in the power of good individuals. That's why President Clinton was so reviled by Conservatives - they saw him as nothing more than a facade. Though immoral by traditional and Biblical standards, Clinton presided over an 8-year era of tranquility, prosperity, and economic vigor that has had no equal in the history of humankind. The only way that this set of facts fits into the conservative rubric is if, in fact, Clinton was fiddling while Rome was about to burn. The disaster of 9/11 proved them right, at least in their own minds. Clinton had indeed spent eight years pissing about, ignroing the festering problems of the Middle East, and leaving his successor to deal with an ever more dangerous world. It was particularly galling to conservatives because Bush I was unceremoniously voted out of office even as he was dealing with Saddam Hussein. Certainly, if Bush I had won a second term, conservatives believe that there never would have been a 9/11.
This doublethink infects much conservative thinking. Those who are 'good people' must be succeeding, or at the very least, doing the best possible job. We see this rhetoric in various places. Donald Rumsfeld, for example, has not been incompetent - the only mistakes he's made have been honest mistakes, those that any other person in his position would have made. In other words, Rumsfeld can't ahve made a mistake, because he's a good man. His performance must just be the best that a person can expect - the best possible world. IT's unfortunate that the best possible world isn't better than this, but that's not Rumsfeld's fault - the world is a bad place, filled with bad people.
A conservative is naturally concerned with blame. Systems should reward those who do good, and punish those who do evil. Additional complexity is not helpful, it jsut serves to obscure this essential truth. Moreover, explaining things on more levels than just personal responsibility can only be viewed as an attempt at justifiying bad behavior. For instance, the insight that most sex offenders were abused as children is decried by conservatives as merely an excuse for their behavior. To liberals, this fact is as an indication that the justice system is not the best-equipped ssytem for dealing with the problem of sex offenders in society. But conservatives, with their focus on trustworthiness and personal responsibility, are unwilling to consider solutions that do not rest on bolstering personal discipline and responsibility.
As liberals, we can confront the Conservative establishment on its own terms, by showing that it is in fact corrupt, and staffed by men who are not good men. But more importantly, we must ask the American public a key question: Is this really as good as it gets? As liberals, we often don't think about that question, because we assume that we can improve the world. But to a conservative, the goal of government is getting to a point in which, basically, things are about as good as they are going to get, and then maintaining the status quo. So go out there, and ask "is this really as good as it gets?" And when the answer is no, ask who we should blame.
1 comments
Fundamentally, a liberal looks at the world and sees a collection of problems and solutions. Government, in its various forms, is a complex set of solutions to problems encountered by society. As humanity advances, and as our best and brightest come up with new ideas and improved methods, more problems can be solved, and more happiness and prosperity will result for mankind.
Conservatives, on the other hand, come at the world from an entirely different perspective. Conservatives are committed to the idea that no matter how much progress is made, or how much suffering is alleviated, the world will always remain inherently unfair, ill-functioning, and Hobbesian, because the world is populated by humans, and humans are an evil, untrustworthy, irredeemable lot. Thus, the systems they create to moderate the brutishness of the world are doomed to be subverted, and cannot provide the protection that they promise.
It's easy to see how compatible conservative philosophy is with Evangelical Christian teachings in particular. The belief that man is Fallen, depraved, and incapable of being worthy of redemption means that all men are suspect, and that the work of their hands is doomed to failure. This sad state of affairs, in which emnity exists between God and Man as a result of Adam's Original Sin, can be remedied only through faith in Jesus. Notably, Evangelical denominations emphasize the importance of faith - of accepting Jesus into your heart - rather than the performace of good deeds (also known in ecumenical circles as 'works'). One who has faith in Jesus will be saved, and live a life eternal.
Perhaps unexpectedly, the major implication of the Conservative position is that the most important question to answer in any given situation is one phrased around the issue of trust. Before asking whether someone has a good idea, you need to know if he's a good person. After all, Conservatives don't believe in the power of good ideas, they believe in the power of good individuals. That's why President Clinton was so reviled by Conservatives - they saw him as nothing more than a facade. Though immoral by traditional and Biblical standards, Clinton presided over an 8-year era of tranquility, prosperity, and economic vigor that has had no equal in the history of humankind. The only way that this set of facts fits into the conservative rubric is if, in fact, Clinton was fiddling while Rome was about to burn. The disaster of 9/11 proved them right, at least in their own minds. Clinton had indeed spent eight years pissing about, ignroing the festering problems of the Middle East, and leaving his successor to deal with an ever more dangerous world. It was particularly galling to conservatives because Bush I was unceremoniously voted out of office even as he was dealing with Saddam Hussein. Certainly, if Bush I had won a second term, conservatives believe that there never would have been a 9/11.
This doublethink infects much conservative thinking. Those who are 'good people' must be succeeding, or at the very least, doing the best possible job. We see this rhetoric in various places. Donald Rumsfeld, for example, has not been incompetent - the only mistakes he's made have been honest mistakes, those that any other person in his position would have made. In other words, Rumsfeld can't ahve made a mistake, because he's a good man. His performance must just be the best that a person can expect - the best possible world. IT's unfortunate that the best possible world isn't better than this, but that's not Rumsfeld's fault - the world is a bad place, filled with bad people.
A conservative is naturally concerned with blame. Systems should reward those who do good, and punish those who do evil. Additional complexity is not helpful, it jsut serves to obscure this essential truth. Moreover, explaining things on more levels than just personal responsibility can only be viewed as an attempt at justifiying bad behavior. For instance, the insight that most sex offenders were abused as children is decried by conservatives as merely an excuse for their behavior. To liberals, this fact is as an indication that the justice system is not the best-equipped ssytem for dealing with the problem of sex offenders in society. But conservatives, with their focus on trustworthiness and personal responsibility, are unwilling to consider solutions that do not rest on bolstering personal discipline and responsibility.
As liberals, we can confront the Conservative establishment on its own terms, by showing that it is in fact corrupt, and staffed by men who are not good men. But more importantly, we must ask the American public a key question: Is this really as good as it gets? As liberals, we often don't think about that question, because we assume that we can improve the world. But to a conservative, the goal of government is getting to a point in which, basically, things are about as good as they are going to get, and then maintaining the status quo. So go out there, and ask "is this really as good as it gets?" And when the answer is no, ask who we should blame.
