| « | Tuesday Tribulations |
»
|
|
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Strangers
Fran here. Today's subject is one that many readers will find upsetting. I make no apologies for that; I wouldn't tackle it if I didn't think it was critical. And it is critical; it's bidding to become the one and only significant determinant of war and peace in our time. That being the case, it deserves all the analytical power you and I, Gentle Reader, can focus upon it.
I had a friend long ago named Bill, who's since vanished into the luminiferous ether. Bill was -- hopefully still is -- a cantankerous sort of guy, willing to vent about anything and everything, and seldom in tones of gray. But he was very intelligent, and, even more valuable, knew the difference between facts, opinions, and fantasies.
On one subject, Bill was particularly vehement: the proper attitude of the liberal democracies toward the Communist bloc. At a time when virtually everyone in America was enraptured with detente and looked forward to a future of "peaceful coexistence," Bill was adamant that no such thing was possible. We'd better get it straight, he'd say, they are not like us. They're not motivated by the things that motivate us, and they don't respect the moral constraints that we do. You cannot, he declaimed, negotiate peace with an intrinsically hostile power that sees everything that passes between you in tactical terms.
Bill was right. Few of us were willing to admit it at the time; we were, frankly, too scared of the possibility of a global nuclear conflagration. But the collapse of the Iron Curtain in the early Nineties and the titanic revelations that followed made his position unchallengeable.
The core of those revelations was that the Soviet power elite was irrevocably dedicated to the ultimate conquest of the world.
Reflect for a moment on the implications. Socialism is a terrifying thing. Wherever it's tried, and no matter who's in charge, it produces poverty and oppression. It always has and it always will, for reasons that are too simple, and too clear, for the masters of the Soviet empire to have missed them. If there are any settled arguments in political economy, this is one.
An old joke from the Soviet years runs thus: Leonid Brezhnev, General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and head of the Soviet State, wakes screaming from a terrible nightmare. His wife hurries to comfort him:
Mrs. Brezhnev: Leonid, what's the matter?
Brezhnev: I dreamed that we Communized the whole world!
Mrs. Brezhnev (confused): But that would be the final triumph of our Revolution! What could be wrong with that?
Brezhnev: Where would we buy wheat then?
The Soviets knew that socialism is economically unworkable, but they pressed for its limitless expansion even so. Why?
For the ruling elite, the thrill of limitless power might well have been the reason. Power is exactly what some people want. For them, it resembles an addictive drug: they cannot resist its lure, nor can they be satisfied with the power they've amassed. Since power in a socialist economy translates to opulence despite the prevailing poverty, a power addict would see little downside to Mrs. Brezhnev's "final triumph."
But not all devout socialists are rulers or aspiring rulers. Some are simply believers. Whether for moral reasons, from guilt, or out of envy of the better-off, they seek the destruction of capitalist economies despite the hardship that would bring on them and everyone around them. There is no way to change their minds, for their allegiance to socialism is not susceptible to disproof. It cannot be shaken by argument or evidence.
A proposition that cannot be disproved is an article of faith: a religious dogma.
Bill had grasped the religious nature of socialism long before the rest of us were ready to confront the evidence for it. It made him a voice crying in the wilderness, ahead of his time and unwelcome at the tables of the willfully less perceptive.
Eternity Road readers know me for a religious man, a Catholic Christian who regards the teachings of Christ as the greatest boon ever given to Mankind. Clearly, I can't be opposed to religion as such. But there are religions and religions. The former are tolerable; the latter are not.
A tolerable religion is one whose dogmas conduce to tolerable behavior from its adherents. That is, its articles of faith must not promote hostility or strife among men. Now, any dogma is capable of being perverted; a claim of truth can always be elevated into a reason for enmity toward those who reject it. But it takes active malice and an evil imagination to pervert "Love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you" into an argument that Christians should fall upon non-Christians with fists, clubs, swords, or guns.
If a religion teaches guidelines for living that are outside the realm of faith, it will thereby compete with other religions on the basis of the worldly performance of its adherents. They who appear to live best will lure converts to their church from those who are moved to emulate them. But the religion's dogmas, which aren't necessarily connected to the worldly performance of its congregants, still might prove too toxic to be tolerated.
For example, a religion that teaches that its members may rightfully subjugate, expropriate, and enslave "unbelievers" could well enrich its communicants in the near term, by the simple accumulation of booty. But if the "unbelievers" rise to their own defense with sufficient force and resolve, that religion will eventually be marginalized. Its members, who had been promised both worldly riches and ultimate salvation, will be killed off or confined to where they can do no further harm. Depending on their rational powers, some will come to infer that the religion's dogmas are unacceptable, while others will retreat into resentment at having been thwarted, plus fantasies of ultimate triumph.
You're forgiven for thinking I have Islam in mind. I do, but not Islam alone. Read on.
Remember always that the defining characteristic of a religious dogma is that it cannot be disproved. The reason it can't be disproved isn't always that it's non-falsifiable -- that is, that no evidence against it could possibly exist. Sometimes it's that those who believe it refuse to let it go no matter what might be said against it.
By that measure, the world is lousy with religious dogmas. Some of them don't appear to be such at first glance. For example, the cause celebre popularly called "global warming," which should really be called anthropogenic global warming, has proved utterly resistant to all the evidence amassed against it. Most persons who've once adopted the global-warming dogma are unwilling to reconsider their attachment under any circumstances. They become Cause People.
Now, anthropogenic global warming is itself a testable hypothesis, even if the tests required to confirm or disprove it are beyond Man's abilities to conduct. But a believer who rejects even the possibility that it might be incorrect isn't interested in the science; he's attached to it as a dogma. Thus, we may apply to it the Curmudgeonly Test for Tolerable Religions: does it conduce to hostility or strife among men?
Unfortunately, the answer appears to be yes. At least, those who hold to the thesis have behaved very badly toward those who view it with skepticism. They appear to regard the promotion of their dogma as legitimately done with threats and / or violence. This might be because they're indisposed to wait until conclusive evidence becomes available, but given their conduct and the overheated rhetoric of their principal spokesmen, it's difficult to believe.
It is impossible to reason a man out of a position that has no basis in reason. The attempt might well move him to violence. Thus, "rational discussion" of a religious dogma is unlikely to lead to anything good.
When a religious dogma is made the rationale for political action, matters immediately become grave. It hardly matters what the dogma is; only a dogma that commands peace and good will among men could possibly be exonerated, and not all the time at that. Politics is the sphere of coercion -- the violent imposition of the will of some upon the bodies and minds of others -- and thus cannot be put to the service of any proposition without first undergoing a moral test.
Some political systems are largely indifferent to moral considerations. A non-constitutional democracy such as Britain, for example, contains no barriers to any notion that commands the support of a majority. Were enough Britons to demand the summary execution of all left-handed redheads, nothing could halt the atrocity except forcible intervention by a superior power. But a system such as the American one, which recognizes the concept of defensive individual rights, can thwart majority action up to a very high degree.
The existence of defensive rights is a dogma. Rights of any sort are too abstract ever to be proved or disproved. More, because they're "oughts" -- statements about what men ought not to do -- they can be violated, sometimes with impunity. Nor are the long-term consequences of a violation always obviously bad.
Rights dogma is at the heart of the American public religion. When rights are understood defensively -- that is, as a shield against State oppression and predation -- the dogma passes the Curmudgeonly Test. No dictum that directly contradicts the doctrine of defensive rights would do so, for any such would license the stronger to prey upon the weaker, whether as individuals or through the agency of the State.
In contests with competing public religions -- socialism, fascism, Nazism, monarchy, oligarchy, utilitarianism, and so forth -- the dogma of defensive rights has always carried the day. But just as there was a time when the concept of rights was as yet unformulated, there may yet come a time when it has vanished from human ken. A religion without communicants can have no influence on human affairs.
Take special note of the phrase "defensive rights." Many persons espouse "aggressive rights:" claims to something another person has acquired honorably and which, from our natural understanding of moral behavior, he has a right to keep for his own sustenance and enjoyment. For example, a claim of "welfare rights," a phrase that's blotted our political language for too long, is a claim that some have a right to coerce others into supporting them materially. A claim of "health care rights" is a claim that some have a right to coerce others into paying for their medical treatment and supplies. Any claim of a right implies the morality of enforcing it with violence, as necessary.
Since rights, as we have seen, are dogmatic in nature, he who advances a claim of rights is arguing that it would be legitimate to kill those who oppose his claim. This is as true in a representative republic as anywhere else, for the logical conclusion of resistance to a claim of rights, once ratified by the State, is that its armed agents will come to your door with their guns drawn. If you persist in resisting them, they will kill you, pour encourager les autres. According to the State and its laws, it will be their duty to do so.
In essence, all political conflicts are struggles over competing conceptions of rights. Nothing else can legitimize the use of force against one's fellow man. The interposition of State agents has no effect on the moral positions of the principals, any more than for Smith to hire Davis to murder Jones would lessen the moral onus on Smith for the crime.
What makes politics and government in our time so dire is that agreement on rights and their extent has become elusive, even in the United States. Far too many persons believe, incontrovertibly, that a right is whatever the State says it is. They constitute a practical majority for so many purposes that we can no longer constrain our governments to their Constitutionally authorized powers and functions.
A sufficiently dramatic difference of opinion about rights makes men strangers to one another. Strangers are sometimes willing to kill one another to get their way...especially if they don't have to do it themselves.
An issue closely related to clashes between conceptions of rights is that of the interpenetration of cultures.
America, "the nation of immigrants," is reflexively kindly disposed toward the foreign-born who express a desire to dwell here. However, a society that permits liberal immigration without regard for the origin, creed, or customs of the immigrant is playing with fire. There aren't many places where the American conception of individual rights holds sway; indeed, one could throw a dart at a world map with reasonable assurance of not hitting one. Many of the nations from which migrants stream most copiously are in thrall to a deadly creed. Islam's core documents and most visible spokesmen teach the Muslim that it's his right to abuse the "infidel," and his duty to work for the subjugation of all the world to Islam, both religiously and politically.
Clearly, a migrant from such a land, if he adheres to the Islamic faith, is a poor bet for assimilation to American norms and understanding of rights. Europe has discovered this to its extreme chagrin. Canada is beginning to writhe from it even now. Even faraway Australia, due to the proximity of the heavily Islamic nations of Indonesia and Malaysia, has been invaded by a large and quarrelsome Islamic contingent. In all these places, restive, perpetually seething Muslims, far from striving to integrate, are stridently demanding the Islamification of their new homes. In many cases, owing to the known propensity of Muslims for violence in the name of their creed, they're receiving the deference of the host governments.
But Islam isn't the only source of hazard. Historically, our sources of immigration have been from lands where there prevailed customs, creeds, and an understanding of rights quite similar to ours. More, until the most recent decades, the immigrant was expected to learn English, assume the responsibilities of an American, and raise his children to be Americans. Most important of all, he was expected to shed all prior allegiances and conform to America's laws and public customs. Today, our public institutions are expected to accommodate to the immigrant, so that he might keep his native language and all the customs of his origin without modification. We're held responsible for his support, his education, and his medical care. Worst, we're expected to tolerate the immigrant's retention of allegiance to the "mother country," and the perpetuation of that allegiance in his American-born children, even unto irredentism.
This is a recipe, not for a melting pot, but for Balkanization.
Political dogmas are more various today than they've ever been. Some are narrowly issue-oriented: same-sex marriage, affirmative action, abortion rights, national health insurance, bilingual education, "shall issue" concealed-carry, and so forth. There are some big ones roaming about as well: global warming, the War on Terror, nuclear proliferation, border control, multiculturalism, the transfer of national sovereignty to supranational bodies, and Islam. I maintain that they're effectively dogmas because even when the consequences of a position on one of these things can be objectively demonstrated to be bad, it seldom affects the convictions of those who hold that view. The underlying conceptions of rights involved are too different to allow for the existence of an amicably reachable final position, whether it's at an extreme or some "middle ground." Far too many of the participants would happily kill those who disagree with them.
Don't think so? You haven't been reading the blogs, or the newspapers. Yes, the propensity toward violence and intimidation is unevenly distributed. But the prevalence of hard-driven clashes between conflicting moral dogmas has made it effectively impossible to conduct a constructive conversation with someone on "the other side." One of you is bound to want to silence the other, by the most expedient available means.
Perhaps this is how a polity such as ours dissolves. We began from a shared conception of rights, which deteriorated over the decades until there was little agreement on anything. Rather than exert patience and show respect for consequences, we scream obscenities at one another. Sometimes we do much worse.
Men willing to kill or die for their convictions are unlikely to share a nation in peace with those of opposed beliefs. Under such circumstances, he who gives way must also give ground: he must retreat far enough in space that his clash with his opponent no longer seems close enough to impel either of them to action.
It's not a pleasant prospect for the future of the world.
Comments
Once upon a time I counseled friends not to worry much about the future, at least not until the unemployable figured out a way to raid the public purse. Ain’t that quaint?
Thereafter, every time I redrew the line in the sand—a line the world surely could not cross without bringing down fire and ice—shucks if the world didn’t step over it before bedtime. So I did what any red-blooded American man would do: I quit drawing lines in the sand, at least publicly.
There is, however, a secret line I seldom mention for fear of jinxing our luck. But I’m going to tell you what is, Fran, because as a professed Christian, I think you’ll understand (even if you may not agree). We Christians are odd in that we carry all the Hope in the world, while also carrying the absolute conviction that we and our fellow creatures will make an utter hash of that world (left to our own devices).
OK. Time now to reveal my super secret line, the Rubicon from which there can be no return crossing: I believe everything will be fine with the USA so long as we remain a friend to Israel. If we turn our back on that people or through inaction allow grave harm to come to them, I think we’re doomed. It sounds crazy I know, but I believe our friendship with Israel is the strongest possible white magic.
As you say, the odds are excellent that one can throw a dart at the map and hit a lousy place. Same thing with throwing a dart at history. We’re never far spatially or temporally from the Shadowlands, eh? Lord, what am I saying? The Shadow is in our very marrow.
One final hopeful thought. America has enjoyed three to five spiritual “awakenings” since the 18th Century, depending on who’s counting. Perhaps we’re due for another. And perhaps this medium we’re communicating through right now will be a catalyst. If we are to be fishers of men, what better tool could we be given than a Net that spans the globe?
Posted by on 04/04/2007 at 09:31 PMFran,
I believe that the crux of the issue is one of tolerance versus acceptance. We, here in the United States have had a long and checkered history of tolerance. One may be tolerant of those whose ideas and faith may be different than one’s own without having to accept those ideas or beliefs as valid. The line between tolerance and acceptance has become blurred however. No longer is is acceptable to tolerate someone and their differences, we must now accept those differences. The same extends to the now flexible definition of “rights”. If enough people claim that something is a right, even though a rational person may realize that it is merely a privilege or an entitlement, the majority must accept the assertion of a previously unheld right as a right. This leads to tyranny of the minority and Balkanization as you correctly pointed out.
Cheers!
Doug
Posted by Doug on 04/05/2007 at 02:51 PMFran, you’re right on the money. Ours, I fear, is an intensely religious age; it’s just that faith in God has been replaced with faith in the cause du jour. Wasnt it Chesterton who said that when people stop believing in God they’ll start believing anything? It seems those days are upon us.
Posted by Akaky on 04/05/2007 at 04:45 PMI have to disagree with you about Great Britain. The United States is a child of Great Britain. Our concepts of political morality flow from theirs.
Posted by miriam on 04/06/2007 at 12:14 PMWrong, Miriam. Our conceptions of political morality flow from the formulations of two philosophers that we took far more seriously than the British ever did: John Locke and Adam Smith. Britain itself is mired in a Magna Carta mindset: to wit, that rights are created and granted by a superior temporal power. The American conception is Lockean: that rights originate in human nature, as defined by God Almighty. The difference is decidedly non-trivial.
Posted by Francis W. Porretto on 04/06/2007 at 05:49 PM#
I have to disagree with you about Great Britain. The United States is a child of Great Britain. Our concepts of political morality flow from theirs.
Posted by miriam on 04/06/2007 at 11:14 AMIt goes back even farther than GB, since Briton itself was a child of Rome, and Rome had a boatloads of material sourced from the Greeks.
The US, being the only country apparently with a Senate, was setup with the advantage of learning from the mistakes of Briton, Rome, Athens, Sparta, and so forth. Didn’t get the slavery thing, but the FF’s foundation got slavery in the end. Which Sparta did not.
But the prevalence of hard-driven clashes between conflicting moral dogmas has made it effectively impossible to conduct a constructive conversation with someone on “the other side.” One of you is bound to want to silence the other, by the most expedient available means.
You’re going off track here. If a person is really fighting against entropy and for human progress (or rights), why would he try to silence what he is fighting for?
Only people who serve the forces of chaos and entropy, two are not the same thing, increase human suffering with their actions. On the side of such things, the good is the side that resists entropy. Which furthers Law and Order more or less, but not the order of Shariah, but an order that promotes human progress and prosperity, if not happiness.
Men willing to kill or die for their convictions are unlikely to share a nation in peace with those of opposed beliefs.
How is it “unlikely” when this has been the status quo for the United States since its inception?
It’s not like the Founding Fathers when they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to the cause, weren’t willing to kill or be killed for their beliefs. Yet their disagreements did not cause a situation akin to the Jacobins in France in a similar time-frame of revolutionary zeal.
That’s why it is off track, it goes off from talking about America to talking about something else that never existed.
The problem for the US doesn’t seem that people are too willing to kill and die for their beliefs. It is more like too many people don’t believe in anything enough to die or kill for it, that is the problem. Disbelief is one thing that will destroy an institution, where violence may not have succeded.
I thought your post was a great illustration of human incidents, up until your past part anyways.
Posted by on 04/15/2007 at 01:19 AM
Comment Form
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
