Jonah Goldberg has an intriguing new article (hat tip: Catherine) on who or what is conservative… and in what sense. This subject has been oft discussed on this blog. I have been calling certain liberals the “new reactionaries” and not getting, shall we say, much positive feedback for it… from them anyway. Of course, I was being a deliberate provocateur, but I would point out that people who chose one viewpoint as much as forty years ago because it was “cutting edge” might want to take a look at their premises after all this time. History has a habit of moving on.
On the other hand, this guy might want to think about sprucing up his image too.
UPDATE: Dept. of Oops…. the article is NOT NEW. Oh, well, blame it on jetlag. [Good try. -ed. How about poor eyes? Didn't you just get a new perscription? Okay, stupdity. Now you're talking.]
Coverage of the Bush visit to Canada has been first about the “protesters” prospects to get up close to Bush and how Canadian authorities are scrambling to avoid embarrassing the president bla bla bla.
This cloaked recruitment drive is to make sure the visit live up to the billing – protest.
Meantime, we just finished protesting Bush for a second term with 60 million protesters; put that in your pipe and smoke it.
And where is the dilemma .. should the culture of indigenous peoples that requires them to live under crushing poverty, disease and ignorance be destoyed in the name of globalization ?
Why does this have the same ring as a 1950′s Southern White view of his local Negro community ?
Yes, there is a sense of bigotry .. or is it just superiority ?
Yep, those simple darkies should just be happy beating their feet on the Congo mud. They never say _exactly_ that, but that’s the undertone. Here’s another great quote from Goldberg that’s stuck with me for a few years:
I was just in Italy. Now, anybody who has spent five minutes in Italy knows that it is a very – oh gosh what’s that word? – right: Italian country. The food, the language, the traditions, the very air itself is Italian. If you can be an Italian with a cell phone , a full set of teeth and an apartment, why can’t the same hold true for Zulus? Is there something about being a Zulu that’s antithetical to being modern? (I know there are plenty of Zulus with cellphones and the like already, but the point is that I think many liberals find this disappointing).
full article here
The linked article is actually from 2000. In any case, an “ambitious” plan to terraform Mars is hardly “conservative.” Oops, I didn’t mean the plan to terraform Mars, I meant the plan to democratize a billion people or so.
Also, those who say the Bush Pledge, or who erect “George W. Bush: Our Leader” billboards, or who propagandize political leaders are confusing “conservatism” with something quite different.
Where to even begin with the nonsense that has hijacked the terms “liberal” and “conservative”?
Isn’t whether to work in an office or not a decision best left to “Indians” themselves? As for an entire world full of capitalists… That’s no more likely than an entire world full of “Indians” or “Marxists”, but I’d certainly prefer more “capitalists” and fewer “marxists”.
But back to the “Indians” at hand here. Assuming he doesn’t mean the billion or so Indians from, say, India (who, BTW, as far as I can tell seem quite willing to “work in offices”), he must mean indigenous or aboriginal peoples. Surely our young man doesn’t believe it is possible to restore the habitat from which his notions of the “authenticity” of such people springs? Given that, for better or worse, the world of human history has long since moved on, where does this young man or any other nutball, sophomoric, presumptious moonbat come off blathering about what people of any particular heritage should be allowed, or denied, in terms of workplaces? I wonder if it ever ocurred to the young dope to ask an “Indian” about “authenticity”.
It is hopeless to try and move forward with worn out terms like “liberal” and “conservative”. People who most loudly proclaim themselves “liberal” are rarely particularly liberal, are often quite conservative in their personal lives, and tend more toward political reactionism (is there such a word?) than toward anything that looks much like classical liberalism or even “progressivism”.
I never particularly cared for Buckley’s definition of “conservatism” as “standing athwart history yelling stop” but it is definitely the so-called “liberals” who hold that position these days. The left isn’t about liberalism or progress, its about…. well, being reactionary. They have become what they scream about. They are the tired, old establishment terrified of change, unwilling to face a brave new world.
Oh, well, somebody’s gotta drag their heels at every opportunity – its just one of those odd quirks of the human condition that the heel draggers provide a valuable, albeit irksome, service.
Not only are certain liberals the new reactionaries (indeed, most of the audible “liberal” agenda seems to be worded in terms of resistance to change),but some of the most vocal “liberals” around here sound like the ringleaders of a fascist movement:
“That house is too big!”
“Things are too cheap! They need to be more expensive, so people won’t have as much!”
“People are too stupid to make their own decisions! We who know what’s right for everybody should be the ones making the decisions!”
“We need to make sure someone can’t come along fifty years from now and change the decisions we’ve made!”
(These are all very slightly paraphrased from chatter I’ve heard recently from “liberals” – and I’m not even going into the vitriolic stereotyping of “those idiots who voted for Bush.”)
There may still be some actual liberal Democrats around… but the ones representing them in public are neither liberal nor democratic, but arrogant, controlling, racist elitists, every bit as bad as the loonies of the Religious Right.
This is not a new phenomenon. At some point (if not already) the “left” will have swallowed, or co-opted, much of the free-market doctrine that Freidman, Hayek, Buckley et al advocated half a century ago. No serious political party or public figure disputes that free markets create prosperity and progress, much more so than state-directed or state-run indusrty. No one seriously disputes the need to rein in state spending on entitlements as life expectacy soars and poulations in the western democracies age. Hardly anyone disputes that trade, not aid, is the most effective vehicle for lifting the third world out of crushing poverty.
But note that this triumph of pro-market forces is not dissimlar to the triumph of marxist social democracy in Bismarck’s day and after. By 1935, every one of the western democracies had adopted hte key planks of the Communist Manifesto: public pensions, an 8-hour work day, collective bargaining, restrictions on child labor etc.
This is just another example of how, at certain points in modern history, the elites co-opt challenges to their regime in order not to be overthrown by those challenges. After the French Revolution, most European governments adopted some of measure of suffrage and curtailed the privileges of the church in order to preserve the aristocracy’s grip on power.
I’d predict the next tide of challenges will have to do with technology advances and their impact on social issues concerning aging, sexuality, and health care distribution.
I think the pendulum will shift to the left, ie against conservative religious positions, on these issues and that Republicans will ignore this at their peril.
It’s a commonality about groups out of power that they tend to be the ones saying “Stop!”
The problem with the Left and the Democrats is that they have no real vision as to where they want to lead the country. Their old model, communism, died with the Soviet Union, and their interim goal of European-style socialism is crumbling as well.
thibaud:
you said: “I’d predict the next tide of challenges will have to do with technology advances and their impact on social issues concerning aging, sexuality, and health care distribution.
I think the pendulum will shift to the left, ie against conservative religious positions, on these issues and that Republicans will ignore this at their peril.”
I think like most people inclined to be [Zell Miller] type Democrats you believe that technology progress crowds out religious faith. History has demonstrated that technology divorced from faith leads to chaos. Faithless chaos will either produce a dysutopia like 1984 or Brave New World or a collapse in society as we are now seeing in Europe.
Even blue staters understand this in the privacy of the voting booth. As I have noted before, roughly half the liberal vote went against gay marriage in the states that held referenda on the issue. If you doubt this go look at the margin between Kerry and the referendum. Given that not all Republicans are opposed to gay marriage (assume an unscientific but reasonable 20%) the liberal vote [with the possible exception of Oregon] against was about 50%. Even in Oregon, which has a libertarian base among Republicans; the liberal vote may have still been 50/50.
A society needs three elements to survive: miracle, mystery and authority. Historically, the US has split the miracle and mystery between religious faith and constitutionalism while authority has been delegated by the people to republican institutions. A society stripped of religious faith devolves into some form of totalitarianism. Blue staters have become defacto totalitarians because they must provide a substitute miracle [science], mystery [primitive sexuality] and authority [enforced conformity].
The Republicans will lose power when they have grown corrupt from having unchallenged authority and when the Democrats [or some new party] shed their neo-Marxist ideology. Donít look for that to happen until the boomers disappear. The trends you site have nothing to do with it.
I was in Berlin in 1990, and a T-shirt store near the old Checkpoint Charlie was selling shirts with topical drawings from local “artists”.
Most were of this sort:
A naked virgin (the German Democratic Republic) is lying beside the Berlin wall. An evil capitalist west German with a huge phallus is walking over the wall, leering at the poor virgin.
This is the thinking of the Left.
I lived in Berlin in the 1960′s, traveled extensively through eastern Europe then; and lived in Siberia in 1995-96. I’ve talked with thousands of citizens of those formerly communist countries. Ordinary citizens definitely did NOT think that way.
Look at the Ukrainians out in the streets of Kyiv. They have lived through communism, and through the corruption that inevitably follows in the absence of determined efforts at instituting the rule of law (as was done in Poland). Poland’s willingness to take on the hard tasks of reform has resulted in tremendous economic growth, and integration with the West.
That’s the way to do it; no other way has been successful.
It’s my way or the byway.
thibaud,
While I agree in general with your analysis that ” the next tide of challenges will have to do with technology advances and their impact on social issues concerning aging, sexuality, and health care distribution”, I am not sure I agree with your conclusion that “the pendulum will shift to the left” (i.e. against conservative religious positions).
If technological advances permit, as I suspect they will, people to see farther into the mysteries of life, health and wellness, then what we discover from those advances may move public opinion to the left or to the right (for lack of a better description). Nevertheless, technological advances will continue to be guided by moral and ethical considerations.
I prefer to keep an open mind regarding what we may learn and how it may impact our political and socioeconomic views. If I had to predict, I’d say things will stay pretty much the way they are today – with groups at both extremes and the majority of people in the center. The question is will the center shift appreciably. I don’t think any shift will be dramatic.
aack!! sorry you guys—-!!!
The article is dated 2000; it’s not new.
I have to say, though, that makes it even more interesting to me.
If liberals were already “standing athwart history crying STOP” before 9-11 . . . . you can see why panic has set in since 9-11.
I stumbled across the article when I was Googling to find out the exact “history” quote.
Oh heck—-I’ve got to get going here, and I LOVE this topic—-
I’ve found two essays that have been hugely helpful to me on this subject. Unfortunately, I think both are subscription only.
I’ll try to pull out quotes shortly, but I’ve come to a couple of tentative conclusions:
a) THE RIGHT NATION, by Mickelthwait & Wooldridge, is correct in its argument that America doesn’t actually have any conservatives, not as conservatives are defined in Britain and perhaps in Europe
b) American conservatism is close to–or perhaps even the same thing as?–18th century “liberalism.” (This is a bit different from Mickelthwait’s & Wooldridge’s conclusion.)
I should stop right there, since whatever I write about political philosophy will be WRONG, WRONG, WRONG . . . but why listen to reason!
My understanding of 18th century liberalism, at this point, is that it originated with the Scots, and it meant a strong commitment to free trade, to small & nonintrusive government, and to the rights of individuals (which seems to mean individual rights protected from the state). Liberalism in its original form also seems to have gone along with religious belief, though I don’t know whether religion and/or what we call ‘social values’ were part of the philosophy, or were simply present in people at the time liberalism was created.
Well, now everyone knows just how undereducated I am in . . . history, philosophy, political science . . . the list goes on!
Mickelthwait & Wooldridge see contemporary American conservatism as a reform of previous forms of American conservatism—and as a repudiation of the Standing athwart history yelling stop school of conservatism.
Catherine,
I should know better than to venture into the realm of “political philosophy”, but…
It is entirely possible that one of the stronger strains of American Conservatism is founded in the liberalism of the Scottish Enlightenment. I know for certain that’s where I look when I ponder what “liveralism” means to me. I speculate that modern American Liberalism (perhaps modern notions of “liberalism” in general) have the French Enlightenment strain of 18th centruy “liberal” thought as their source. At least the French strain seems to lead in the direction of current leftist thought. (I can all but see the Leftists sharpening their guillotines as I type.)
I don’t recall where I saw it (almost certainly National Review) or who authored it, but I once read an article asserting that today’s American “conservatives” could point to their “literature” with reasonable degrees of accuracy but that today’s American “liberals” could not. The claim was, IIRC, that “liberals” (today’s definition, whatever that is) do not have, or recognize, a particular philosophical foundation based in some grand literature. That makes sense to me since much of what I hear from “liberals” seems to me hopelessly sophomoric and who, after all, remembers who wrote whatever it was they had to read as sophomores. They just kinda sorta vaguely remember the dorm room philosophizing and are stubbornly determined to stay “true to themselves” without ever stopping to recognize that there’s a good reason “sophomoric” has the meaning it has.
Knucklehead,
Why hesitate. The Scottish Enlightment as embodied in Hutcheson, Hume, Smith was foundational to classic liberalism. The reason that today’s liberals cannot claim any lineage is that they are for the most part bastard children of a failed group marriage of Rousseau, Comte, Marx and Gramsci well seasoned with Jeremy Bentham and claiming JS Mill as godfather.
Catherine,
America does indeed have conservatives, it does not have a major conservative party. You don’t need to go back 200 years to find the dividing point between liberal and leftist or to find the modern Republican party to be classical liberal in viewpoint. The simple question: “Based on what you believe to have been John F. Kennedy’s guiding principles (assuming etc.), what in the current Republican platform would he have found objectionable?” will deliver a reliable answer.
I think that conservative in America tends to mean traditional.
And liberalism is just contrarian. The opposite of Conservatives. if conservatives say Islamic fascism is a bad thing today’s socalled liberals assume that it must indeed be a good thing. They are lacking in originality and offer no new philosophy of their own.
Hence reactionary.
And I would not be surprised if that Scots philosophy is not tied to the Scots Irish tradition that has always been so important in American political thought.
Well, since the JG article Roger pointed to is “old”, here’s his article in today’s NRO. It touches a bit on this topic and skirts a bit of what Thibaud seems to be suggesting.
When all is said and done, the “liberal” and “conservative” labels are so worn out and misused that we are not doing ourselves or the country any good by clinging to them as some sort of badges of honor.
We aren’t going to figure out what to do about immigration, or homeland security, or the cost and availability of medical services, or figure out where we stand on the moral or ethical issues of advancing technology if the best we can do is grab hold of a “liberal” or “conservative” signposts and start screaming.
“Liberals” (or some portion thereof) seem to be trying to unload the “liberal” tag and don the “progressive” tag. As far as I can tell the “progress” they want is more of the same; i.e, the same old New Deal. “Conservatives” are trying to keep their crazies out back (who brought us that “crazies on the porch” bit? Musta been Catherine) and show that there’s more to “conservatism” than religions and business and the libertarian wing is in near revolt over government size and spending. But the labels just don’t fit. It would be nice if we could get just a bit beyond partisanship and gain some agreement about what problems need solving. Then we can scream about how to go about solving them and whether a proposal is “liberal” or “conservative”.
Just blabbing, yet again. Sorry. I’m growing increasingly weary of the moronic labels.
Dr. T
A naked virgin (the German Democratic Republic) is lying beside the Berlin wall. An evil capitalist west German with a huge phallus is walking over the wall, leering at the poor virgin.
This is the thinking of the Left.
Yuck.
Knucklehead
That’s a NATIONAL REVIEW talking point, which I think may be true.
Jonah Goldberg says he’s been reading the history of progressive thought in the U.S., and it’s not great.
I can see that just from the first pages of Diane Ravitch’s LEFT BEHIND. Progressive education was always elitist, at least from 1900. It was the progressives who thought The Few should learn real academic subjects, while The Many should study vocational ed.
Once you know this, you see it everywhere in today’s public schools. Take fuzzy math, for instance: the whole point is to teach “real world” math, not abstract math.
And special ed teachers simply assume you would not want to teach a child with learning problems anything about history or science or even math.
Rick B
Sorry—I don’t follow the JFK example.
Are you talking about Burkean conservatism?
Are you saying JFK was a conservative?
(Sorry–)
Not that I know what Burkean conservatism is, but Wooldridge and Mickelthwait’s claim is that America does not have conservatives in the Burkean mold . . . we have conservatives in the Reagan mold (which I’m assuming derives from Scottish liberalism, but I can’t at the moment remember if Mickelthwait & Wooldridge make that argument as well . . . )
They believe America is a conservative nation, period; they believe that Democrats are also quite conservative, compared to liberals and leftists in Europe.
That’s why they call the book THE RIGHT NATION.
Rick B
Seeing as how I know zip about political philosophy, where does Locke fit in? (Or am I pulling him out of a completely different time period??)
Also, what about Mill?
Are you being ironic when you say the French claim Mill as godfather?
(Yes, I KNOW NOTHING.)
And . . . this is probably far too long a question, but how did French liberalism turn into 20th century American Democratic Party liberalism? Is there some kind of broad inheritance pattern you can sketch out for us without having to sit down and write a book?
ECONOMIST on liberalism
Since I’m certain this article is subscription only, I’m posting all but the first two paragraphs, which describe the fact that the word ‘liberal’ is used as an insult in American politics.
who brought us that “crazies on the porch” bit? Musta been Catherine
NOPE!!!
DAVE SCHULER (SP?)
But great ‘source memory,’ Knucklehead—–I was the one who linked to it!
jerry,
Dostoevsky wrote great literature but I don’t care much for his political ideology, thanks. His preferred politics are a cross between Putin’s and Sadr’s. I’m not a big fan of Zell Miller, btw. I’m a hawkish liberal, equal emphasis on both hawk and liberal. I don’t much care for the heavy religious element in our politics or our schools and see utterly no contradiction between atheism and patriotism or civic duty or responsibility.
OTOH I have nothing against religious faith per se. My point is simply that Americans, like most people, have a natural and very powerful wish to live longer and healthier lives, to eradicate disease wherever possible, and generally to pursue a creed of happiness that extends to a fairly robust acceptance of individual freedom regarding adult sexuality.
When you combine the above with the most radical revolution in human understanding ever– I mean the mapping of the genome and the extraordinary advances in biotechnology and information technology– it seems fairly obvious that there will be great public pressure in favor of advancing medical research and medical advances, and that those advances will chip away at some very specific articles of evangelical and conservative Catholic faith.
What we saw in California re stem cell research is merely a taste of things to come nationally. Likewise, at some point in the next two decades (perhaps when the existence of a “gay gene” is proven), a majority will favor gay marriage or civil unions and provision of full rights to gays.
As I say, the conservative religious wing, or should I say heart and soul, of the Republican Party will have to come to grips with and somehow co-opt this popular tide or else be swept out of power by it.
Barrett,
I agree with you concerning the center not shifting much. It rarely does and when it does it is generally because of great economic uncertainty. The center is (except for times of economic turmoil) actually more conservative, in the sense that it wants to keep what it has materially, than the true conservative who will give up material security in order to preserve liberty.
Take a look at the AP(spit) exit polling and develop your own picture of a Kerry supporter. I come up with young, under or over educated, single, city dweller, poor and sectarian. Not a promising core group and not a stable group at all. The passage of time and a modicum of economic success will move a fair number of this group into that vast conservative center. Naturally, the young are being continually replenished but the iron laws of demographics tell us that for the next 18 years the size of the group will remain constant (barring severe curtailment of immigration).
A lurch to the left will require a severe economic downturn occuring at about 18 months prior to an election and would affect only that election. I wonder when some clever soul will think to title a book ‘The Submerging Democatic Minority’?
Edmund Burke was not a democrat passionately attached to equal opportunity. He was an old-fashioned conservative, ie someone deeply attached to social hierarchies (mainly church, crown and aristocracy); pessimistic about human nature; as hostile to the radical force of capitalism and markets as to political radicalism. Burke would have been horrified by American individualism.
British conservatives to this day remain fearful of individualism and capitalism. There is a lingering wistfulness about aristocracy, the notion of the leisured life of the gentleman, against which they oppose the “grubby” and “brutal” individualism of US-style capitalism. Thatcher was a Reaganite. Her views never really took hold in Britain because, fundamentally, most Brits remain suspicious of individualism and fear the marketplace, which for us are as natural and comfortable as signing our kids up for little league football or shopping at the mall.
The problem with the notion of an emerging Republican majority is IMHO twofold:
First, there’s no evidence that hispanic-americans, who are the most important and most misunderstood American swing vote group, are naturally attracted to the Republican creed of low taxes/ low wages/ low govt services. I don’t see anything in their culture or circumstances that would dispose a majority of hispanics to adopt this agenda.
Second, the other big and growing social group in the fast-growing southern and western states are, ironically, transplanted blue state yuppies. In Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and the rest of the west you have young techie and other professional refugees from California (and to a lesser degree Seattle/Redmond) fleeing job losses and absurd housing prices. In North Carolina, Georgia, Florida and the other booming Southern white collar hubs you have young banker, techie, biotech and other professional refugees from NYC and the north.
In both cases the sunbelt is growing by adding liberal emigrants from blue states, and this will push the fastest-growing red states more into the purple category, most likely into a more libertarian mindset. In Dallas, for example, heart of the Bible Belt, we just elected a lesbian mexican-american as sheriff, and the most popular Fox channel radio talk show hosts here are now pushing for legalization of marijuana.
Mark my words, anyone who can get a lock on the suburban sunbelt yuppies and the hispanics will have the inside track on dominating the next few decades’ politics in this country. I could be wrong but I simply can’t see a heavily religious party with a hard-right economic agenda winning over solid majorities of these two groups. The yuppies will balk at the religious party line and the hispanics won’t go for slashing govt services.
Catherine,
Here’s a knucklhead’s knickles worth re: the Scottish vs. French strains of the Enlightenment…
The Scottish strain is through the works of Hume, Adam Smith, et al that RB mentioned above. Its the RIghts of Man, limits of government power strain that came to us through Wythe, Mason, Jefferson, John Adams, etc.
The French strain (Rousseau, et al) is an egalitarian, “social justice” strain – long on rhetoric, short on results.
Catherine,
Sorry for the lack of clarity re JFK, no, he was no conservative. The Republicans aren’t either. The Republican party has shifted to where the Democratic party (or, at least JFK)was in 1960. W could give JFK’s inaugural speech without blushing.
The Cliff Notes version of French influence would begin with Descartes’ influence on Rousseau regarding reason. There is a presumption by Descartes and then by Rousseau of an ability within an individual or a small group to design a functional social system based upon intellectualy developed ideals using only the power of reason. Such a system would be administered by individuals selected on the basis of intellectual capability and trained to administer their area of responsibility through the application of reason undergirded by those ideals. August Comte grabbed a portion of Rousseau’s thinking and used it to design the foundations of socialism. The French retained the management concept even after Napoleon had made rather fine mincemeat of the revolutionary ideals and L’ecole polytechnique is still where they carefully cultivate the bureaucrats who have so stunningly innervated the French economy (not to mention their foreign policy).
To the extent that it can be said that such a thing as French liberalism exists, those are the roots (at least some of them). Please note that the big deal was intentional design of social systems rather than the ‘invisible hand’ natural evolution of social systems postulated by Smith, et al.
The connection with current American liberalism goes to the belief in the concept of a person’s or a small group of people having the intellectual capacity to design, implement and run a social program based upon ideals rather than practical experience. (Vide Ms. Clinton-health care, President Johnson-War on Poverty, ad infinitum.)
Such intentions and such programs are totally divorced from classical liberalism due to the degree of coercion used to force participation and absolute lack of individual liberty involved.
Locke was born in the 17th century in England. He did do some of his best work in the 18th century but you said Scots. Besides, I don’t care for Locke. Ask me about Montesquieu, who was much more influential in colonial America and had by far the greatest impact on the thinking behind the constitution. (I’ll grant Locke’s influence on Jefferson and the Declaration.)
Thibaud:
I see you are a literate man.
I agree with you that embryonic stem cell research is an attractive item to many people because it promises “miracles. However, so far only adult cells have produced any results. See the latest from Korea. I am going credit Tom Bethell with following observation. Remember the Human Genome project? That was the stem cell research of the 1990s. Remember all the wonderful things mapping the human genome would accomplish? The reason you don’t here about it anymore is that at the end of project the geneticists knew less then when the started. Sort of a corollary to Steven Weinberg’s “the more we know the less it all means.” There is no reason to believe that embryonic stem cell research will be any different. If after we mapped the genome we still don’t understand how it all works what makes you think that we will be able to understand an even more complex system? The religious [and many atheists by the way] objection is to embryonic stem cell research, not adult cell research. Embryonic stem cell research is nothing more the latest gig to get even more government dollars. Very little will come out it and what does is as likely to come from adult stems cells as embryonic.
You also said: “My point is simply that Americans, like most people, have a natural and very powerful wish to live longer and healthier lives, to eradicate disease wherever possible, and generally to pursue a creed of happiness that extends to a fairly robust acceptance of individual freedom regarding adult sexuality.”
I have two comments. First, what makes you think that living longer, healthier lives is incompatible with religious faith? Second, the Europeans already live by this creed of happiness. They are dying out and being replaced by a more aggressive culture that does not live by bread alone. The flaw in your argument is that man may pursue happiness but that does not guarantee that he will attain it. His failure leads to despondency, moral and cultural disintegration.
I am glad you have brought up the Hispanic vote issue. Both anti-immigrant conservatives and liberals are denial about the migration of Hispanics to the Republican Party. Michelle Malkin cites Sailor [conservative], Teixera [liberal] and Zogby [Islamicist] as proving that Bush did not receive 44% of the Hispanic vote. I think we dismiss Zogby as using flawed methodology. All three dismiss Texas, Florida and New Mexico as anomalies because Bush carried the Hispanics. First, Texas and Florida are two of the biggest states with huge Hispanic populations. Second, I suggest you look at Colorado. Zogbyís pre-election predictions put Colorado in the Kerry camp because of the ìCalifornizationî of the state. Bush crushed Kerry while the moderate Democrat Salazaar beat Pete Coors. Want to bet the difference was the result of Hispanics voting ethnically? Bush did pretty well with Hispanics in Colorado. At any rate the, the three analysts said it was closer to 40%. Big deal. I think it was equally likely to be closer to 47%. Look at Bushís appointment of upward mobile Hispanics. He is in process of making the Republican Party the party of Hispanics. He will be successful because yes all hard working people like lower taxes and less government. You, like many liberals and xenophobic conservatives believe that Hispanics are and will continue to be on the dole. Guess again about that..
Same argument for the migration from blue to red states. First of all, with few exceptions there are no red or blue states. They are all a shade of purple. In fact blue states are much closer to being red then red states are to being blue. There is a migration of red voters from blue states to red states. In addition many blue staters begin to rethink their position when they move to a red state, for one thing liberals are conformists.. Many of these voters will shift to the center as a result. On the other hand, red staters who move to blue states are probably going to remain red. And one more thing, what is going to happen to the Democratic Partyís lock on the black vote when they realize how well Hispanics are doing inside the Republican Party? A shift in the black vote from where they are now to halfway to where the Hispanic are now pretty much turns the entire map red. You obviously have bought the Teixera BS.
And by the way Dostoevsky clearly was anti-totalitarian.
Thibauld:
It is not necessary to be religious in order to have a prejudice against homosexuality. I know plenty of people who have not been inside a church in many years who do not support gay marriage. I also know people who go to church on a regular basis who could care less about someone else’s sexuality but who are upset that more and more schools are not allowing Christmas programs or any reference to religion. They feel they are the ones who are being shunned.
And as for stem cell reseacrh, this is a complicated issue and it is not just about religion. I think science has outpaced ethics and we are not as a society quite sure what if any limits we should have in regards to research.
And hispanics do not think and act as a unit. Blacks are far more likely to vote in a block and even that is changing. In the future both parties may see a shift here as people decide what issues are most important to them.
It seems to me that greatest divide may not be religious at all, but rural and urban.
Catherine:
I think in terms of American political thought we can not underestimate the impact of both the frontier and its hardships as well as the founding fathers on how we as a nation evolved. The great distances and dangers here resulted in greater self reliance. Our founding fathers were the first people to really say in so many words that man’s rights are his own and not the state’s. The state derives its authority from man, not the other way around. I think the European liberals were far more likely to view the state as the giver and keeper of power.
Thibaud,
While I agree with the latter part of your statement (no contradiction between atheism and…) I fail to see the “heavy religious element in our politics and (especially) in our schools…”
What “heavey religious element” is there in our schools? And other than politicians paying lip service to their “religious beliefs” what heavy element of religion is there in our politics?
This is something that is driving me increasingly bonkers about my fellow non-believers, especially those who label themselves as “liberals”. I’m hearing more and more expression of sentiment such as “there’s no place in public office for religious people” or “what this country needs is an atheist as president”. These are not uncommon sentiments in my experience. As an “non-believer” I find it distressing that so many people apparently feel that religious beliefs are some sort of disqualifier from public office. I honestly don’t get it. I percieve no “heavy religious element” on me in our political or educational system.
We have no end of people throwing hissey fits about nonesense like a simple Christmas carol sung in a public school. It has reached the level of preposterous lunacy. I saw some piece on TV last night about some teacher who was not allowed to hand out a copy of the Declaration of Independence because it had the word “Creator” in it. That silliness and its completely overwrought. I really believe my fellow non-believers need to get a grip. Nobody is whacking them upside their head with bibles or making them say the rosary.
Americans are living longer and healthier lives. What’s the issue here? If this is about, for example, stem cell technology then my take is that there are very real issues wrt technology that should be brought out in the open and discussed. What, exactly, are we really, as a society, prepared to accept or willing to forbid, when it comes to matters of using human embryos for research and “health care” purposes? How does late-term (partial-birth) abortion differ significantly from infanticide? Is infanticide something we, as a society, are willing or ready to condone? These are the sorts of issues I really wish people would stop pooh-poohing and start having some respect for the very real concerns that people like me have about these things. I don’t need religion to have very serious reservations about the “morality” of unrestricted abortion and, possibly, embryonic “health technologies”.
What does that mean?
Rick B
Wow! Thanks!
I do want to hear about Montesquieu.
Also, do you have a sense of why European concepts should have somehow ended up with Democrats while Scottish ideas landed with Republicans?
Everything you say of the French is true, true, true: they are statist to the max.
Terrye
I sure think the ‘real’ divide is urban/rural, and since my husband thinks exactly the same thing–and since we obviously don’t agree on a lot politically–I’m inclined to stick with this until someone seriously proves otherwise.
THE RIGHT NATION has some wonderful passages linking conservatism to wide open spaces & the hardships of frontier. They’re especially moving on the subject of the harsh land of Texas.
Having been raised on a farm myself, I have a deep perception of just how unforgiving nature is.
I remember one day my dad was having a tantrum; we were in the midst of some kind of Weather Suspense (probably waiting for rain) so we were, as per summers past, waiting to see if we would have a crop to harvest or not. My dad was having a meltdown.
My sister got the brunt of it. Five seconds later she came sobbing & hiccuping into our bedroom, saying, “I’m never going to marry–hic!–a man who depends on the weather!”
She didn’t, either.
Farming is not for the faint of heart.
Every time I buy a plant, put it in the soil, then watch it wilt & die I think: my dad supported an entire family of six growing stuff.
No wonder he half out of his mind every summer.
Just for the amusement of those interested, here’s an interesting site with brief biographical sketches (of varous quality, some quite good for the length) of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. By and large these men were quite radical for their times. Those of us who believe what they set in motion is worth preserving and should be altered only carefully with open eyes and forethought are, by today’s standards, tired old conservatives. One of the more fascinating founders was George Mason.
If today’s leftists believe they carry on the liberal tradition of these sorts of men they sadly overvalue themselves.
Catherine:
It is not so much as rural urban as high housing cost/low housing cost. There are several reasons that families move to the outer suburbs now called exurbs is the price of housing. Singles and dual income/no kids families can generally afford to live confortably in the city or the inner suburbs while families can’t. Then there are the schools. City Schools are typically bad. The only alternatives are Catholic or expensive private schools. At least the kids get a better education in suburban/exurban public schools along with their condom lessons. But the principal reason for the Democrats domination of the urban centers is not gays, DINKS, singles and aging unionists, its the large, primarly black, underclass that lives there.
The real “conservatives” today are liberal, i.e. they are the “estabishment” of today.
I think that we are seeing a big cultural shift in America – actually the world. The “establishment” is being overthrown. The irony is that those who overthrew the “establishment” in the ’60s are now the current “establishment” being overthrown. Today’s “establishment” looks upon the usurpers as barbarians at the gate, the same as the
“establishment” of the ’50s and ’60s looked upon them forty years ago.
Mainstream-media-political-correctness-liberalism is losing power and many are feeling a lot of pain about it, I am afraid. It is all towards a safer, freer, liberated and workable world, or at least so I believe.
In this context, the labels of “liberal” and “conservative” have totally changed.
In the ’60s the “conservatives” were the Republican business elitists, and the radicals who overturned their world were the “liberals” who were the “barbaric” hippies, anti-war protestors, free-sex Democratic Party baby boomers.
In the ’00s, the “conservatives” are the Democrat cultural elitists, and the radicals who are overturning their world are the “Conservative” and “neo-conservatives” who are the “barbaric” liberate the world, reject moral relativism, establish moral principles, believers in American exceptionalism, reject the entitlement/victim/blame mind-set Republican Party … mostly baby boomers again, but lots of GenXers, and watch out for the Millenials coming of age!
I’m happy to be part of both groups of radicals. I may be completely wrong in both times, but I think not.
Jerry
Great post.
I think you’re obviously right, but yours is the most succinct summary I’ve seen.
I don’t know why I hadn’t made the income connection . . . (and I knew it wasn’t ‘really’ rural, since because of my own background I know the difference between rural and ‘exurban.’)
Do you know what percentage of urban whites vote Democratic?
I think Westchester is now 5 Dems for each 1 Republican, but now that you raise these questions, I wonder how much of that is a growing immigrant Hispanic population. I’ve always assumed that the reason Westchester flipped Democratic was the migration of Upper West Side liberals to Westchester after they have their second child.
I wonder if I’m wrong.
Catherine:
My nephew just moved out from NYC to the Denver area. He got married and has since had his first child. He and his wife did not want to raise a child in Manhattan [both are investment bankers, well he's not anymore]so they started looking. Money wasn’t the issue, [their condo sold for about 1.5 mil] but schools were. I bet your observation about Westchester County is correct. That was the alternative before the Denver job came up. They are a mixed couple…she is a blue stater and he is solidly red. My guess is that in 5 years she will be voting Republican.
Jerry & Catherine,
I’ve concluded that there is an additional factor at work re: the red/rural vs. blue/urban “partisanship”. One of the several or many factors that lead urbanites (and others who live in areas of high population density) toward Demcrat/Liberal politics and vice-versa is the proximity to and visibility of government services.
In so far as people in general give any thought to such things, the higher the population density the more people identify government services as essential to their lives. Libertarian theorists could, of course, postulate about how NYC, for example, could be managed just fine without a huge government. But the average person looks around NYC and sees government services as the thin line between adequate functioning and utter chaos. If government weren’t there to put police on the streets and collect the trash and keep the subways running and regulate a million facets of everyday life there would be chaos. And Libertarian theories about how private economic activity could supply all the same services and do it more efficiently and effectively are just so much pie in the sky to regular ol’ city folk.
The further one lives from high population density the less visible and essential government services become and, at some “tipping point” it seems to people that goverment is more likely to induce “chaotic circumstances” than it is to prevent them. The old sarcastic, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help” quip almost certainly did not originate in a city.
Partisan shifts in the most urban and most rural areas, it seems to me, is less likely to shift dramatically in any timeframe that will be of interest to anyone but political historians. The suburbs/exurbs, on the other hand, are the true “battlegrounds”.
In those areas government services are close enough and important enough for people to see and, periodically, give some thought to. But they aren’t necessarily viewed as “essential” to daily life – something between an expensive necessity and a minor luxury. People know the police are there and people inherently know that without them they wouldn’t live in a comfy, lo-crime neighborhood but the police don’t represent the line between order and chaos. They want their trash picked up but if it didn’t happen for two or three weeks they could just buy some trash cans at Home Depot and muddle through; the worst that would be likely would be some unpleasant odors and maybe a critter or two making a mess over night.
The problem for the Democratic party in those areas is that the single most important and visible government service is schools. Property values are tied to “good schools” (as most any suburban real-estate agent will quickly say, “the three most important things in real-estate are location, location, and location which is code for schools, schools, and schools). There is, unfortunately for the Dems, a growing sense that our public schools are failing us. And this is spreading out from the obviously dismal urban school systems into the suburban/exurban schools. More and more people are home-schooling and more and more are home-tutoring. And this is no longer a “Christian whackos” phenomenon. And among those who would never consider home schooling there are MANY who are seriously looking for alternatives to their local public schools.
The problem for the Republican party is that population growth in these areas leads them toward the “blue” side of the divide – the denser the population the more “essential” government services seem. Additionally, trying to figure out how to fix our public schools faces the intractable politicization of the the “educational establishment” (one might have a better chance of surviving an attempt to seperate a starving wolf from a fresh kill than to seperate the Dems and the NEA). These are VERY reactionary and intensely political people and they control the system that is under stress. Add to that the fact that there is not likely to be any quick and cheap fix for the problems our schools suffer; there will be failed attempts at repair and reform before workable and sustainable fixes are found and it will be “Republicans” who get heaped with the blame and scorn for the false starts and failed experiments.
Well, anyway, that’s some of the way I see it. I believe the “rightward” shift of the generalized population is real and will continue. But it will be slow and self-limiting. It could take the remainder of the boomer generation’s lifetime to see another 3 or 4 points of shift and that will probably be pretty much the high-water mark. After than the pendulum will begin to swing back because, well, the pendulum always swings back. But then the Republican party will have had 20 or 30 years “in power” and will be subject to much of the same sclerotic machine politics and corruption that the Dems suffer from today and people like those here at Roger’s Place will be moaning and groaning about “what happened to my Party!?!?”.
knucklehead:
I don’t really disagree with your descriptions of urban voters, however I think there is a little bit of post hoc ergo propter hoc to it. American cities have been liberal bastions since FDR. James Buckhannonís 1959 article ìAn Economic Theory of Clubsî would predict that liberals would continue to migrate or stay in cities while conservatives would look elsewhere. So quite naturally cities become liberal magnates. If the initial conditions were different, that is, if the cities started out as Republican then the migration pattern would have been different.
Libertarian theory gets its right for the wrong reasons. American republican government delegates the choice of government services to the lowest level. National issues, like defense, foreign relations and commerce are the provinces of the national government. Libertarians are mistaken in their belief that the intent of the framers was to have weak governments. The constitutional convention was called to strengthen a weak government under the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution calls for a strong central government that is limited in its scope. It leaves the organization and power of state and local governments up to the inhabitants. The Economic Theory of Clubs in action.
The political make up of cities is about to undergo a discontinuous change. What makes the cites overwhelmingly Democrat is the large underclass that is the ward of government. The natives are getting restless. We are seeing a shift in the Hispanic vote to the Republican party, in part fueled by the attempt by liberal controlled government schools to force Hispanics into a linguistic ghetto with bilingual education. All polls show that Hispanics oppose bilingual education by margins approaching 3:1. It wonít be long before the black community gets fed up with liberalism and follows the Hispanics away from liberalism. The cities will then change or become ghettos for singles, dinks and gays.
I was hoping to hear more from Thibaud [aka Ivan Karamazov] on this topic. I don’t get to many self-confessed left/liberals with interesting ideas to talk with anymore.
Knuck,
What “heavey religious element” is there in our schools? And other than politicians paying lip service to their “religious beliefs” what heavy element of religion is there in our politics?
Fine, agreed that “heavy” is not quite accurate… yet. I agree that religious fundamentalism has failed to have a significant impact on our legislation or the school curriculum on a national level. What concerns me is the increasing strength of those who would very much like to alter the constitution and the school curriculum, and have already done so on a state level.
For example, many of my beliefs would place me in the Republican Party. Where I live, I’m told that the state Republican Party organization demands that every member of the party bow his head and pray to Jesus at the start of every party meeting. How can I join a party that imposes such a religious test on its members? Why is Christianity deemed essential to good governance?
Another problem: in nearby states the school biology textbooks are required to place a disclaimer stating that the standard, accepted theory of biological evolution is not standard or accepted and that something called “creationism” is a scientifically valid theory. These are our schools. Public schools. Who are these people who demand we teach our kids non-science aka nonsense as part of the science curriculum?
Why is this happening in America?
Please tell me how I should explain these bizarre developments to my Russian wife, who suffered 17 years of marxist indoctrination and now finds herself once again facing advocates of junk science and party line litmus tests.
Thibaud:
Creationists are the sole objectors to Darwinian explanations of evolution. In public, most Darwinians paint anybody who objects to evolution as some sort of fundamentalist nut case. However, molecular biologists have pointed out that Darwinian evolutionary theory is not consistent with what we know goes on at molecular level. There is not an infinite variability of species since there is only a finite set of viable combinations of DNA. Darwinian evolution at it heart is Lamarckian. Environmental factor shape genetic outcomes. That can’t happen beyond the choice of pre-existing genetic compositions. So the simple Darwinian explanation cannot explain the great shifts in evolution. Darwinians have had many opportunities to incorporate modern concepts in molecular biology into the theory. Up to now they have ignored and denigrated real science because it does not fit in their own worldview.
You also say that the Republican Party imposes a religious test because your local party opens with a Christian prayer. Maybe that is because a majority of Republicans in your area want it that way. Do you think that every local Republican Party meeting starts that way? I doubt it. If the Republicans are so theocratic then how do people like Rudy Guillani fit in? I guess Congress does too because they open with a prayer as well. The Republic was founded by overwhelmingly religious men. It is the reason why the American Revolution succeeded and French Revolution failed.
one again my proof reading fails me.
first line should read Creationists are not the only ones….
Jerry,
I don’t know if we’re disagreeing about something or not. I suspect we’re talking about two slightly different things. While it is pretty clear that the majority of voters in America’s cities vote for Democratic candidates and would probably label themselves as “liberal”, I doubt that city-dwellers, on the whole, are any more or less “political” than rural people. There’s a difference between being a registered whatever and voting the party line and being a politician in whichever party.
Democratic Party control of the political machines of America’s major cities predates FDR by many years. No major southern city was anything but Dem controlled since the Civil War. Democratic Party machine control of NYC dates back to pretty much the same time period, maybe a bit later, but the reasons are different – primarily workers rights movements and sufferage IIRC. From what little I know of Chicago and other major cities the issues were largely the same and the political realities very similar. The Democratic Party machine has controlled our cities for a century or more.
The Economic Theory of Clubs explains why liberal politicians would be drawn to cities and why city politicians would be Democrats or, if anyone prefers, “liberals”. If a politician is interested in, or intends to build a career around, “fighting for worker’s rights” one would, naturally, go where the biggest concentrations of workers are.
But it doesn’t (maybe it does, haven’t read it) explain why people, in general, are drawn to cities and why those people vote “liberal” or become “liberal” over time. People go to cities because that’s where the action is – they follow the jobs, the money, the crowds, etc. I don’t believe we can make any claim that “liberalism” among voters precedes movement into the city – people don’t go to cities because they are “liberal” (although some probably do) but, rather, become “liberal” (in a voting sense) because they live in cities.
Why do people leave cities? I would postulate the reasons you and Catherine mentioned above. Raising a family, especially with more than one child, is apparently more difficult – or at least more expensive – in a city. There is also the “conservative/traditionalist” attraction for those who “migrated” to a city in the first place. Some didn’t grow up in a city and they want to “give their children the same advantages” which means, after all, not growing up in a city. The opposite draw is true for “traditionalists” who do have family history as city-dwellers; they stay because that’s, well, what the family does.
Now, do people who leave cities become, over time, less “liberal” or more “conservative” or, for this topic, more or less likely to vote the same way as they did when they lived in the city? I postulate that those who do leave the city are inherently somewhat more “conservative” in the non-political sense of the word. Moving out of the city to the suburbs “for the sake of the kids” is, to my way of thinking, a pretty “conservative” act.
If that is the case (if people who eventually stop living in cities and choose suburbs/exurbs instead are, in fact, somewhat inclined toward conservative/traditional thinking, at least in their own frame of reference and experience) then I think the answer is, over time, “yes, they will tend to vote more “conservatively”. I believe this is aided or, perhaps, allowed to come to term, by the fact that government services are less essential to them when they live outside the city.
I doubt we will ever see the major metro (high population density) areas vote “Republican” or “conservative”. Government is too close to their lives and too necessary to them and the Democratic Party controls the urban political machines. It would probably take a century to undo that control if it is even possible.
I really don’t believe that minorities in urban areas are the key here. All access to power for urban minorities is controlled by the political machine. If they want political power they must be Democrats – there’s just no other way. Those who wish to attain, or do attain, economic viability do so within the city, in which case they either must grease and live with the political machine the same as non-minorities, or they leave the city and become subject to the same influences as anyone else. Some portion of urban minority votes will be lost to the Dems because they will want “off the plantation”, but it won’t be anything approaching a majority and not nearly enough to materially alter the “blueness” of metro areas. It may be enough to shift some STATES a bit “redder” but I really don’t think we’re going to see much more of a shift in that “red vs. blue counties” or state maps than we’ve seen already. I just don’t see it.
I believe the Republican party has legitimately become the majority party, by a small margin, and will remain the majority party for a while (this doesn’t guarantee anything as far as the presidency goes), but the margin of majority will not grow much more than it is. I think the red/blue divide will pretty much harden right where it is. Metros are and will remain blue. Now all we have to do is keep them in their box
knucklehead:
I agree that the cities will remain Democratic but if the black vote shifts toward the Republicans over the next decade then they will become less blue. There is a bit of the bandwagon effect that comes into play. If Republicans become real political players in the cities then many people who would never consider Republican policies or candidates would rethink their positions.
By the way are you from the Chicago area? You said that you are familiar with the City’s politics. Did you see that Mayor Daley’s only son Patrick enlisted in the Army at the age of 29. He, like his father, is a University of Chicago Alum (MBA for Patrick, Law for Richard M.) Patrick has broken with family tradition. He is a Republican.
Thibaud,
While we apparently share some level of “atheism” (I don’t follow philosophy closely enough to really know whether I’m an atheist, agnostic, or non-denominational non-believer) it seems to me that, perhaps, you are part of the “secularists” camp whereas I am not. In fact I find the “secularists” more “dangerously religious” than the “believers”.
In a half-century or so we’ve gone from a public school system where “creationism” and the Christian bible were ordinary parts of the curriculum to a level where we are having catfights about individual instances of the word “God” being uttered in our public schools. To my way of thinking this fight is no longer about “religion in the schools” and has long since shifted to the radical secularists going haywire.
We’ve reached the point where we are fighting legal hissey fits all the way to the SOTUS about a couple words in the Pledge and we’re facing examples of historic, foundational documents being kept from our students because they make reference to “God” or “Our Creator”.
I don’t see this as a matter of “seperation of church and state” anymore. I think its a matter of radical secularists trying to obliterate the last shreds of evidence that anyone does or did disagree with them out of existence. I really believe the secularists *you may or may not be one of them) are badly over-reaching and making Himalayan sized mountains out of molehills. And I think what you complaining about, or fearful of, is not a radical resurgence of religiosity in public life but, rather, a backlash against radical secularist absolutism.
Many Americans, this non-believer among them, have reached the point of “ENOUGH!” The Pledge has “under God” in it, get over it. Say it or don’t, but STFU about it already. Our foundational documents have references to God in them, get over it! Christmas carols have religious references in them but they sound really beautiful. Little 5th grade Sauls aren’t gonna fall off their horses and turn into Pauls just because the public school chorus sings freakin’ Silent Night. Its a beautiful sounding Christmas song and this is Christmas time, nobody but a overbearing loon suffers from hearing it, get over it!
That attitude that many of us hold is not fueled by religious fundamentalism and a desire to wage jihad against the infidels. Its nothing more than a recognition that some people do believe, belief has historical place in our culture, and our notions of “freedom of religion” were never intended to be used by radical secularists as a billyclub to beat every last vestige of religion out of the existence. Freedom of religion is not a concept intended to guarantee that secularists never have to be exposed to religion. As an non-believer watching the secularists in action I’ve come to the conclusion that the secularists are behaving like a bunch of unhinged bigots running around hunting witches to burn.
Rather than be satisfied with “being told” thus and such, have you contacted your local Republican organization and asked them about this? And why do you think this is a particularly “Republican” thing if it is accurate? Do you really think there are no “Democratic Party organizations” who do not start there party meetings with “prayers to Jesus”? There are still vast swaths of the Bible Belt where all local political organization is Democrat.
As for the Republican Party deeming “Christianity essential to good governance…”, the most active Republican I know is a non-practicing Jew. I see no evidence that the Republican Party, as a national organization, views Christianity essential to anything. And I see no evidence that localized pockets of either party are any more or less prone to such views.
Last, and probably least, the closest thing to a Christian fundamentalist church I’ve been into in the past decade or so might has well have been a local DNC office. They were evangelical by any definition of the term I hold and they were rabidly Democrat.
I’ll modify that last statement, Thibaud. The last two times I’ve been into non-Roman-Catholic but Christian houses of worship they were both evangelical (by my understanding of the term) and they were both clearly politically oriented and both were clearly Democrat leaning. In both cases support for “liberal” causes (both were big supporters of the Council of Churches) and Democratic candidates was openly present. Not much seperation of church and state in those places. Last time I was in a synagogue it was (without the council of churches part) pretty much the same. It was perfectly clear that it was a “liberal” house of worship.
I don’t make a habit of tracking down or visiting houses of worship but my experience with religious congregations suggests they pretty much match the general population as far as politics go. There is as large a Religious Left as there is a Religious Right and there is certainly a Religious Center that seems to keep politics seperate from religion.
Since I have no inherent fear and loathing of religion and don’t disdain contact with religious people I do sometimes find myself invited to ceremonies (weddings, confirmations, bar/bat mitzwhatevers). When I’m in Rome I tend to do as the Romans so every 5 or 10 years I wind up in a church on a Sunday morning. I can only recall one instance of obvious “religious right”. At least three instances of obvious “religious left”. Clearly that’s anecdotal rather than evidence of anything, but if I allowed my eyes and ears and limited experience to color my judgement I’d be convinced that it was the left that was more religious and more political about it.
In case it isn’t obvious I’ve grown grumpy about secularists. I’ve reached the point of sometimes snapping at them. I find that once I indicate non-belief to a secularist they immediately assume I share their apparent deep-seated loathing of all things religious. I wind up snapping out stuff like, “Hey, look, if you don’t want them thumping their bibles at you then maybe you should have enough respect for their beliefs to stop wishing for a big, bible bonfire.”
No, I’m not from the Chicago area. NYC metro born and bred. If I implied I was familiar with Chicago politics I did so in error. What I meant was that I have the distinct impression that the dynamics and timing of Chicago’s “Democratic Party Machine” ascendency were very similar to that of NYC. Tammany, after all, while associated directly with NYC was a much wider organization. I did some monor research into “big city politics” once upon a time and what I vaguely recall is that our cities, with the exception of a mayor here and there from time to time, have been Democratic party controlled political machines for the past century or more give or take a decade.
I did see the piece about the Daly kid. Interesting and admirable. IIRC correctly he’s got an MBA or masters or somesuch so I was suprised that he’s going in as an enlisted man rather than joining the officer corps. But only mildly surprised. Those of us who’ve spent some time in the barracks with our fellow enlisted canon fodder are aware there are some pretty well educated and remarkably intelligent people there. Once of my buds was a legit chess master (apparently there’s some formalized ranking thing and he had it). I knew more than one Mensa Moron there also
Knucklehead:
I am also impressed that he enlisted at the age of 29 and wants to go airborne. My father was 31 when he enlisted in early 1940 before the draft and before France fell. He also went airborne and may have been the oldest guy in the original 82nd bunch.
Thibaud,
At the risk of seeming like I’m hammering on you (I’m not, we’ve disagreed before and your a good e-conversationalist, so I enjoy engaging with you), there are perfectly legit modern scientists, biologists among them, who postulate that “creationism” is a legitimate possibility and, at the very least, worthy of scientific investigation and discussion.
Darwin postulated his theories in the 19th century. His scientific work has as many holes and shortcomings as any other work brought forward so long ago. Newton was wrong about some stuff. Absolutist Theories of evolution are, apparently, not completely statisfactory to some pretty capable biologists just as Newton’s original calculus is not completely satisfactory to modern mathematicians.
Notfuhnuttin’, but I believe it was Albert Einstein who said something like, “God does not play games of chance.”
Pointing to holes in theories such as Darwinian Evolution or Newtonian Calculus are not automagic indications of intellectual inferiorty. Nor is a belief in God or there mere suggestion that perhaps there’s possibly more to the Creation thing than its detractors claim. Rejection of a belief in an almighty being is no guarantee of intellect or intelligence and should never be confused with anything resembling intellectual rigor. “I’m an atheist therefore I have science on my side” is pretty weak.
Knuck, I have no problem with Santa visiting schools, or creches on public property or any of the other holiday stuff. It’s for the kids, and completely harmless. Prayer is another matter, but I’m not a zealot and can compromise on this.
However, junk science must not be tolerated under any circumstances. Evolutionary biology is not junk science. Creationism is. There is absolutely no excuse for wasting our children’s time with it.
Jerry’s riposte re evolutionary biology and creationism is not demolish demolish evolutionary theory, or to propose a superior theory, but to argue that because several aspects of the theory are controversial, we should also give weight to non-scientific arguments. This is like arguing that because our understanding of disease is limited, we should give equal weight in the biology curriculum to faith healing.
Lastly, as to the Texas Republican Party’s litmus test, this is of course annoying and outrageous. By this standard, Paul Wolfowitz could not be considered a Republican. I find that offensive.
Also, arguing that “So? Democrats also have their bible-thumpers” doesn’t address the point. I agree totally that there are litmus tests and a rather nasty fundamentalist tendency on the left as well. What I would like to see is a party that is not gripped by fundamentalism and attachment to dogma or catechisms of either the Christian or the left-wing variety. For me, 12 years of catholic school, and for my wife, 17 years of schooling at the hands of that other catholic church, communism, are more than enough catechism and dogma. A pox on the dogmatists’ houses.
Knuckehead:
I was waiting for Thibaud to respond but since you are keeping the conversation alive I would like to add a few thoughts. I like the way you separate secularism from atheism.
There is an interesting phenomenon among scientists. Physicists tend to be less dismissive of religious beliefs then life scientists. Even atheists like Stephen Weinberg find the religious, even fundamentalists, to more interesting to talk to then secularists. He doesn’t think secularists have much to say. I wish I remembered who said it [in the NRO] but I read a quote that when ìhe wants an atheist he goes to the philosophy department for a panelist but if he wants someone who is religious he goes to the physics department.”
I think the major difference between the two disciplines lies in their perception of initial conditions. The biologist is interested in the origins of life in a pre-existing world. On the other hand physicists start at the inception of the universe. Creation ex nihilo is a hard concept to explain or accept. You face a choice of either meaninglessness [Weinberg] or at a minimum Theism [Davies]. The reason molecular biologists are now rejecting the simple minded Darwinism of secularism is that they bridge the gap between the two world views. They, unlike evolutionary biologists like Richard Dawkins, have a fundamental understanding of elementary forces. Their starting frame of reference is the same as the physicists. Now Dawkins is a brilliant scientist but he has too much intellectual capital invested in neo-Darwinism to reconsider his views on the nature of the evolutionary process. Once he accepts that evolution can only happen in predetermined ways he must drop his objection to religious ideas and actually face his opponents. Militant secularism rides on the backbone of random chance and evolution and if that backbone is broken then the secularist would face a crisis of [non] belief .
Thibaud:
You said “Jerry’s riposte re evolutionary biology and creationism is not demolish demolish evolutionary theory, or to propose a superior theory, but to argue that because several aspects of the theory are controversial, we should also give weight to non-scientific arguments. This is like arguing that because our understanding of disease is limited, we should give equal weight in the biology curriculum to faith healing.”
I am disappointed by your response because it was a typical neo-Darwinist putdown. I wasn’t aware that molecular biologists weren’t scientists. Maybe by your definition they aren’t, but they even give Ph.Ds in Molecular Biology at places like Harvard and Berkley. [Craig Krentzel, late of the Chicago Bears and Ohio State has a degree in molecular genetics. They are rather skeptical as well.]. They don’t buy simple Darwinism either. Simple Darwinian evolution just doesn’t work at the molecular level. Your definition of “fundamentalist” is tautological. Fundamentalists don’t believe in simple Darwinian evolution, therefore if molecular biologists and many physicists don’t believe in simple Darwinian evolution they must be fundamentalists. Secularists act more like fundamentalist then actual fundamentalists.
Is it? That seems a big leap of faith. Personally I would prefer that our children be exposed to areas where current theories seem to fall short and other theories and explanations have been proposed. Evolution itself was once considered “junk science” by those who had the greatest influence in declaring one thing or another “junk” or “truth”. Copernican planetary theories were once dismissed as junk science and later became indisputable truth and finally wound up “right about this, wrong about that.”
On a personal level, in the grand scheme of things, I could not possibly care less whether one is completely true and the other junk or both turn out “right about this, wrong about that”. For all I know all life as we know it exists in a tupperware bowl perched on a folding table at a middle-school science-fair and “the creator” is a 6th grade kid presenting a biological evolution experiment.
I would prefer that our schools present what we believe we know, what we don’t know, where what we are pretty certain about is open to question and disagreement, what some of the counter-arguments are and how they are arrived at, and let the kids sort out and learn why one argument is better than another, why “truth” so often eventually becomes “tired old ideas long since disproven” and, in short, to THINK.
I don’t believe von Danniken’s nonsense for a moment but I used to love the heck out of reading it and hearing about it and finding out I could reason my way into rejecting this or that and finding debunkings and still being left with little tiny bits of, “yeah, but there’s still that little shred that nobody can explain”.
Some people seem to insist on using “education” to tell our children what to thing rather than using it to help them learn how to think. If, as you and I believe, evolutionary biology, despite whatever holes and flaws current theories have and leave unexplained, is “correct” and “creationism” is “residual superstition once used to explain stuff nobody could fathom the least of” then, in fact, mentioning ideas about creationism represents no danger to the advancement of evolutionary biology.
Furthermore I see no problem with our public schools discussing the fact that religion has been a very strong influence on human behavior, here are some of the things people believe, here are some of the key differences, here are the limitations and holes, etc. Rather than hammering on our kids to be “non-judgemental” I would much rather we spend our resources showing them how to gather what they need to make the best judgements they can make and to recognize that other people, without malintent, arrive at different judgements (and sometimes, sweetheart, you just gotta nuke those people!).
knucklehead:
Ideas of creationism are not a threat but the ideas of real scientists are. That is why the secularist always conflate the views of religious fundamentalists with those of physical scientists.
People like Professor Paul Davies and Professor William Dembski are heavyweights that secularists would rather not deal with.
Knucklehead:
Here is a link worth reading…
http://speakout.com/activism/opinions/3116-1.html
I have no problem whatsoever with religious viewpoints, or teaching about such viewpoints in the schools. What I object to is the substitution of religious perspectives for the scientific method in the teaching of science.
Of all the scientific theories presented to schoolchildren– photosynthesis, thermodynamics, cell physiology etc– why is it that evolutionary biology alone is deemed worthy of a full-bore attack requiring not just the highlighting of a few isolated critics but also special disclaimers slapped onto the front of textbooks, disclaimers that apply only to this particular theory? Obviously, the motivation here is not a concern for advancing scientific truth but for protecting one particular religious belief held by one particular sect within Christianity.
To you this is a defense of Christianity. To me, it’s an attempt by certain Protestant biblical literalists to hijack not just science but also the Christian faith. When I was taught science in Catholic schools there was never the slightest hesitation about presenting scientific conclusions, regardless of their impact on catholic doctrine. To do otherwise, we were taught, was anti-intellectual and a disservice to both science and faith. I find it ironic, and very disturbing, that Protestant literalists are trying to impose on public schools a degree of contempt for science that I never found anywhere in all my years of Catholic schooling. Bizarre.
thibaud:
Paul Davies [physicist/cosmologist] is not a Protestant literalist, nor is William Dembski[philosopher/mathematician] or Micheal Behe [molecular biologist] they are the ones who are challenging Darwinism. I know that Davies is a theist, Dembski is a Methodist, and I don’t know what Behe’s religious affiliation [if any] is. These are serious scientists who are challenging Darwin, not some “bible thumping” Protestant literalist. Why can’t students be introduced to their objections to Darwinism? What are you afraid of? That they might reject your world view that science is miricle and all we have is primtive sexuality to satisfy our desire for mystery?
I must say that while you may not like Dostevsky, you are pretty much in harmony with the views of the Grand Inquisitor. After all, his objective eas to satisfy the need for people to be happy.
Thibaud,
Would you please point me to the public school system, or entire state, where this “full bore attack” on science is happening? I honestly haven’t heard hide nor hair about it. On the other hand I’ve personally witnessed the “full bore attack” on anything that can be even vaguely construed as “Christian” in my local public school system and am aware of numerous similar “full bore attacks” in nearby school systems. Until your mention of it I have never heard of disclaimers required in science books.
And notfuhnuttin, but a disclaimer is hardly a “full bore attack”. I don’t think its possible to watch a movie or TV show that doesn’t carry a disclaimer. Gosh, even a significant portion of emails carry one anymore. Disclaimers are pretty darned common. Let’s see… if disclaimers represent “full bore attacks” then here’s just a quick list of stuff that is under full bore attack:
- all sexually explicit films (not that I watch such things, mind you, but I heard about the disclaimers from a friend who was involved in a research project)
- all films that recreate war scenes or realistic crimes (slasher films and unrealistically violent war or crime films seem exempt from this, not sure why)
- anything on the History Channel that has anything to do with guns
- emails originating from large corporate sites but containing personal opinions
- automobile MPG claims (in fact, those lovelies give us the universal disclaimer, YMMV, with which we may, each and all, launch full bore attacks on most anything we wish!)
I’ll stop. Its not possible that you’re making a bit much of this full-bore Protestant creation literalist attack on science swamping America’s schools, is it?
Why can’t students be introduced to their objections to Darwinism? What are you afraid of?
Why is it necessary to highlight these particular scientists’ objections to this particular theory? Again, there are dozens of scientific concepts and theories presented to students and many of these theories include contentions that some scientists take issue with.
So why are you singling out evolutionary biology for attack? Why not string theory, or complexity theory, or geological theories about the pre-cambrian period, or theories about the genome or mitosis or… ?
My suggestion is, either highlight all the scientific objections to all major theories– and eliminate your ridiculous warnings applied in the form of stickers on textbook covers– or else push this in your own religious schools.
Knuck, you’re embarrassing yourself. If you think evolutionary biology is equivalent to violent or sexually explicit entertainment content and therefore deserves this ludicrous, idiotic “warning sticker,” then you need to get out a bit more.
The state of Georgia is pushing this very aggressively:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/11/12/evolution.embarrassment.ap/index.html
From the article:
ATLANTA (AP) — First, Georgia’s education chief tried to take the word “evolution” out of the state’s science curriculum. Now a suburban Atlanta county is in federal court over textbook stickers that call evolution “a theory, not a fact.”
Some here worry that Georgia is making itself look like a bunch of rubes or, worse, discrediting its own students.
“People want to project the image that Georgia is a modern state, that we’re in the 21st century. Then something like this happens,” said Emory University molecular biologist Carlos Moreno.
The federal lawsuit being heard this week in Atlanta concerns whether the constitutional separation of church and state was violated when suburban Cobb County school officials placed the disclaimer stickers in high school biology texts in 2002. The stickers say evolution should be “critically considered.”
Earlier this year, science teachers howled when state Schools Superintendent Kathy Cox proposed a new science curriculum that dropped the word “evolution” in favor of “changes over time.”…
“I think the (evolution) theory is atheistic. And it’s all that’s presented. It’s an insult to their intelligence that they’re only taught evolution,” said Marjorie Rogers, the parent who first complained about the biology texts.
Some scientists say they are frustrated the issue is still around nearly 80 years since the Scopes Monkey Trial — the historic case heard in neighboring Tennessee over the teaching of evolution instead of the biblical story of creation.
“We’re really busy. We have a lot to do. And here we are, having to go through this 19th century argument over and over again,” said Sarah Pallas, who teaches biology and neuroscience at Georgia State University in Atlanta.
Moreno and dozens of other science instructors, along with the county superintendent, argued that the stickers only make the state look backward….
One of the reasons I left California was so that my children would not be subjected to the idiotic leftist “people’s history of the United States.” Now that I live in the south, I find another group of anti-intellectuals trying to impose yet another version of fairy tales upon our children. A pox on both your catechisms.
Thibaud:
You need to reverse the question. Why can we present objections to other areas of science when they are presented by dissenting scientists and not Evolutionary Theory? Steven Hawkings provide the model for opened minded scientific enquiry. This past summer, he junked one his theories that would have supported your conception of the cosmos.
I have a sense that you don’t really know who these people are. I know that you don’t have a scientific/engineering background so you might not have heard of Davies, Dembski and Behe. They don’t represent an oddball lot in their fields they represent the consensus. Davies is quite accessible to somebody who has basic scientific knowledge. I recommend Davies first book “God and the New Physics” and Physics and the Mind of God.” The former was written when he was fresh out grad school and is quite anti-religious. He wrote the latter some years later after he discovered the religious interests of his colleagues, many quite conventional at that. It shows his evolution from atheist to theist. I am afraid that Behe and Dembske may be inaccessible if you don’t have a suitable background in mathematics and/or molecular biology. My math skills have deteriorated to the point that I have difficulty with Dembski. There are layman’s articles on the subject of intelligent design theory that are worth reading but if you don’t come to them with a technical background and an open mind they are easy to dismiss.
More hijinks from the biblicalists: in Alabama, State Representative Gerald Allen wants to ban novels with gay characters from public libraries, including university libraries.
From today’s Birmingham News we learn that Rep. Allen proposes legislation barring state funds from being used to pay for “materials that foster homosexuality. [Rep. Allen] said that would include nonfiction books that suggest homosexuality is acceptable and fiction novels with gay characters.”
I see, so it’s not just about imposing the Genesis view of science. We also need to expel Shakespeare, Michelangelo, Proust, Tchaikovsky, Thomas Mann, and hundreds more of western civilization’s greatest writers and artists because of this joker’s religious beliefs.
Again: kindly stay the f*** away from my child’s school. I want him and his little brother or sister, whichever it turns out to be, to compete with the best students from around the world. I will not let my child be taught by ignorant zealots with an axe to grind, be it of the protestant literalist or left-wing idiotarian varieties.
Now, now, Thibaud, don’t get silly on me. I never equated explicit sexual entertainment with evolutionary biology (hmmm…. isn’t it possible that one is the result of the other? Never mind!).
I asserted, tongue firmly in cheek, that disclaimers hardly qualify as “full bore attacks” on anything. If the disclaimer on the visor of my automobile warning me to avoid parking my catalytic converter atop dry leaves qualifies as a full bore attack on either the dry leaves or catalytic converter mentioned in the disclaimer I sure wish it would bear fruit and kill off either the rattling coverter or the dry leaves piled high and deep in my yard.
Now, let’s have a look at what has you so hot under the collar…
What have we got there… we’ve got an “education chief” in one state who “tried” (which implies lack of success) to remove the word “evolution” from state’s science curriculum. Apparently when that effort failed the Great State of Georgia affixed some horrid, terrible, dangerous, relentless (and totally ignored, no doubt) disclaimers to their science textbooks (the horror, the horror!). But, lo and behold, even that horror is not unchallenged and is apparently being taken to federal court.
Well, I’m real sorry that the good science instructors of Georgia were embarrassed, but they are precisely correct that “the stickers only make the state look backward”. That is the sum total of their impact. They haven’t destroyed the teaching of evolutionary biology or any other science nor have they resurrected Creationism.
It appears to this disinterested observer that yon Education Chief’s full-bore attack got stuffed so he wiped the blood from his nose and planted a little “Killroy was here” flag and now even that’s about to get torn out and tossed. None of this strikes me as a massive rollback of the teaching of evolutionary biology in the nation’s classrooms or as the Creationists March Through Georgia.
I gotta tellya, I’m bleeding for those poor, frustrated scientists. At least now they know how some of us parents feel when we realize “fuzzy math” is still being pushed on our children years after its been demostrated as a dismal failure (Catherine, jump in here anytime!).
There are just some things the Left will never leave behind. The Scopes-freakin-Monkey-Trial ferkrisesakes. The Georgia Text Book Sticker Trial ain’t the Scopes Monkey Trial! Watergate was a thousand freakin’ years ago and doesn’t represent the highwater mark of political scumbaggery and the Dems don’t get to be jerks forever just because Watergate once happened. Vietnam Vietnam Vietnam!!!! Ancient history, let it go. Sorry, just venting, that wasn’t aimed at you.
It’s wonderful to watch the undogmatic development of a credo of disbelief. I suppose the final document will begin with “We hold these falsities to be self-evident…”
“the stickers only make the state look backward”. That is the sum total of their impact. They haven’t destroyed the teaching of evolutionary biology or any other science nor have they resurrected Creationism.
Knuck, pu-lease.
Of course this smelly little Big Brother pawprint is pernicious, and of course it represents merely one aspect of an assault on what the biblicalist woman calls “atheism.” It serves as a very nasty warning shot across the bow of every teacher and parent that the biblicalists are watching you, and that they’re prepared to challenge godlessness in whatever form it rears its ugly head: scientific theories that offend their delicate sensibilities, homosexuality, god only knows what else.
Imagine that every blogger, including Roger, were required by the state to place on his website a warning banner of this ilk. Stupid, offensive, self-defeating.
Warning stickers placed on textbooks. Pathetic.
If you want your children to have contempt for their teachers, this is a good way to do it.
Too late, I already have plenty of contempt for the professional public educational establishment. My contempt is based on the idiocies of the “new” math curriculum and nonsense like “whole language reading”. I suggest you be far more worried about the pernicious effects of that sort of humanist drivel passed off as progressive teaching methods. That nonsense has infested the entire country. At least the Great Georgia Biblicist Sticker Affair is limited to Georgia and apparently suffering defeat.
Thibaud,
I take it your child is young and you’be got another on the way. I’ve got mine through public school and into college. I assure you that the least of your worries is whether or not some “bible thumper” stopped state funds from being used to purchase books with homosexual characters for public libraries (I don’t support that and think it’s plain stupid).
Your real worries are with the curriculum and teaching methods the “ignorant zealots with an axe to grind” are pushing around our schools. You’ll be the one who winds up teaching your child to read and do math because the schools have lost all ability to do so. I’m telling you, you don’t know the half of it. Sight unseen I guarantee your local school is producing yet another generation of kids who are convinced they are “bad at math” and “hate to read” and, when they get frustrated and disruptive because they can’t understand what the heck they are expected to learn, want them diagnosed and medicated for ADD or some other “learning disorder”. What we’ve got, instead, is a “teaching disorders” pandemic. Mark my words, young man.
Write to me a dozen or so years from now and let me know what you think is wrong with America’s public schools. I’m willing to wager a mortgage payment it won’t be whether or not there are books with homosexual characters in them in your school library. You’ll be glad if you’ve figured out how to make sure your kids aren’t among the legions who can’t read, write, and do simple ‘rithmetic.
Well, I see things have heated up nicely around here since I last checked in.
Haven’t read through carefully–I’m supposed to be Homeschooling Saxon Math–but the School Versus Religion issue is a thorny one.
In my own case, I am a secular type by personality, but not by philosophy: I believe in religion.
I believe in believing.
So I’m married to a throughgoing secularist, and I live amonsgt thoroughgoing secularists; I live with the Blues of Bluevilles, as Knucklehead would have it.
I could go on at length about why I believe in believing, but one of the most important reasons is that I think my childhood religion probably ‘saved’ me after my first child was diagnosed with autism. I hadn’t gone to church since I was a child myself, but I reacted by becoming furiously angry at God. (That was funny, because I used to say to myself: if you’re furiously angry at God, you must have some belief He exists.)
I was furiously angry, but I also perceived myself as being sustained by God—not (necessarily) by God Himself, but by the fact that I was raised with God. As a child I internalized my Sunday School teaching that there is a Good Father in the sky who loves me and looks out for me. I felt his presence, and I could usually “find” Him when I tried.
Whether that Good Father exists or not, I know that when you’re having your only child diagnosed with autism it helps to think He does. There’s a reason why there are no atheists in the trenches.
I want the same protection and strength for my children, especially for Christopher, who has older parents and two brothers with autism. He’s going to need God in his life, and I’m trying to make sure he has God.
Christopher will probably fall away from active belief when he reaches adolescence the same way I did. That’s fine. He’ll have what he needs, the same way I did.
Anyway, that’s what I’m working on, and, as with my vote for Bush, I’m pretty much a Party of One around here.
Our school doesn’t help. It’s more than that; our school doesn’t even consider helping.
Instead, the teachers teach little lessonettes in comparative religion. Which is ridiculous, given the fact that the social studies curriculum sucks eggs. The only reason for any of our school’s teachers to say anything at all about comparative religion is to get across yet another Core Lesson in relativism.
So the other day Christopher came home and told me “other cultures believe the world was created . . . ” I’ve forgotten what he said other cultures believe how the world was created. Something obvious.
This rankled me a bit, because I want to be the person who decides when it’s time to break it to Christopher that Genesis might not be the whole story.
Why does his teacher blithely assume it’s her job to let my child know that his religion is just One Among Many?
She wouldn’t blithely assume it’s her job to let my child know Santa Claus isn’t real.
Which brings me to another of my beefs about Blueville. We have a whole generation of children who don’t believe in God, but do believe in Santa Claus.
while I’m on the subject—-
This semester the parents’ fundraising group bankrolled a “No Put Downs” program, which consumes 20 minutes of each school day, during which time the children discuss “safe, cautious, and dangerous” responses to put-downs, and roll-play put-down vignettes.
They also “think about why people do put-downs,” and each morning begins with an announcement over the PA system that opens with “This is our No Put Downs Message of the Day.”
I would like to know exactly why it’s acceptable to hijack twenty minutes out of my child’s day, each and every day, so that he can talk, write, and roll-play put-downs instead of, say, learning math.
Meanwhile he’s one of 4 “Bush voters” in his class (he was thrilled to discover the other three) and the teeming horde of Kerry voter kids routinely chant taunts and insults about George Bush while the teacher stands by, saying nothing. This is all the teachers, not just some of them. Bush is hairy, vote for Kerry! Bush is scary, vote for Kerry! I’ve had 5th graders scream this in my face.
The other day Christopher was giving a presentation and one of the biggest mouths in the class shouted out, “I think education is more important than the environment because all the people who voted for Bush need one.”
Christopher defended my honor. “My mom voted for Bush, and a couple of other kids’ moms and dads voted for Bush, so that’s not a very nice thing to say.”
This prompted one of the other Bush kids to pipe up and say Kerry was a flip-flopper and that was what was really stupid——at which point the teacher at last issued a correction!
“Remember what Chris said about being nice to other people’s political views.”
Not all put downs seem to count in the No put down program.
Jerry,
Apologies but I missed your very interesting invitiation to chat on a theme.
One of the things that bothers me about secularists is that they’re so darned relentlessly dogmatic and, therefore, uninteresting to talk to. “Trog no like religion. Religion stupid. Religion bad! Trog good. Trog no like bad. Trog hate religion.”
At least I have something in common with Weinberg; I often find religious people more interesting to have discussions with. The religious people I have access to have pondered stuff, looked at things, turned them around in their minds, rejected, accepted, and can generally explain why. You have to go really far with them to get to, “That’s what I believe and that’s all there is to it.” It seems like one gets there in a nanosecond with secularists – they have far more “faith” than the faithful and seem way faster to grab hold of it as an explanation.
I suppose (OK, there’s no supposition to it) its a function of my limited intellectual capacity to deal with these sorts of concepts in any rigorous way, but the idea of “nothing” is harder for me than accepting the notion that, given “nothing”, something can pop into existence. I can’t intellectually get to an acceptance that there was ever “nothing” (a perfect vacuum which, to me, has to not only mean no time, space, matter, etc., but also no physical principles that would allow the formation of any of those “somethings”). So I get stuck in this infinite loop where there can never have been nothing but there can’t always have been something. I can’t fathom a “universe” that didn’t have a “starting point” but I can’t fathom the “nothing” required to have the starting point. And I can’t fathom how “God” would fit into the necessary nothing, so I can’t fathom “God”. Before I can even get to “God” I’ve wedged on either of two other gotchas.
Sorry, but you picked a chat with a dolt, your fault.
Well, therein always lies the dilemma. To get as close to understanding as possible one needs to put faith aside as long as possible in order to gaterh as much “truth” (knowledge?) as possible. But one can never reach complete understanding without resort to faith in some notion or other. Complete understanding is impossible but a curious mind wants to get as close as possible and minimize the gap that needs to be leaped by faith. (Bear with me here.)
Ultimately, it seems to me, the existence of the gap is more important than the size of the gap unless the gap is very large. No matter how great the intellect, there is a gap between knowledge and complete understanding of “everything” (or the universe – I don’t even have a vocabulary to work with here). I suspect that the folks who have the “elemental forces” concepts at hand recognize that no matter how close they get to “solving the problem” they’ll never fully “solve the problem” – they understant the concept of “approximation” or, conversely, the gap. And, therefore, they understand at the edge of knowledge there is an abyss that cannot be spanned or, at best, can only be chipped away at and they won’t live long enough to span it. One either accepts the abyss and has faith that God isn’t on the other side or one uses faith to leap the abyss to get to God or whatever else.
An evolutionary biologist, on the other hand, works with “life”, a very binary thing. Something is either alive or dead. It either exists or doesn’t and they try to understand how “life” started and progressed, but the only “something” they investigate is “life”. They don’t keep following everything back to the abyss, they just follow life back to where it seems to have originated and they’re done. See, there, everything necessary to pop forth a life form exists and no sign of any God creating it. Yeahbutt, where’d the everything necessary come from? And there’s the gap. In this case the gap is leaped by faith that the same investigative principles would show that all the essential everythings have some circumstance that brings them to into existence and it just all follows back until its all been accounted for.
And this is where the size of the gap overcomes the importance of the mere existence of the gap. If the gap is too large it isn’t recognized as a “gap” but, rather, seen as terrain that isn’t crossed but could be. Its not an abyss. Instead its assumed to be “more of the same”.
The folks who do the “elemental” stuff recognize the gap because its small enough. Therefore they recognize that some leap of faith is required if one wishes to speculate about what’s on the other side. So, even when they don’t believe in God the elemental guys understand the concept of faith. The life guys never get to the point of needing faith because they never recognize the gap that needs to be leaped.
How’s that for obtuse?
I don’t know if this holds for secularists. It’s almost certainly true of militant atheists (not all atheists are secularists and I’m not certain that all secularists are atheists although I can’t think of an example of that). Atheism would probably have its back broken if it were ever proved the universed is not a matter of random chance. There is, however, the possibility that whatever sparked the initial existence of “the universe” had some sort of associative or adaptive physical principles that weren’t really “intelligent design”.
There isn’t anything inherent in atheism that demands secularism to maintain consistency (at least nothing I’m aware of). And there’s nothing about atheism that requires the rejection of the concept of “faith” – atheists just choose to have faith in things other than “God”, but we still make our leaps of faith.
Secularism is just a form of prejudice that, in its extreme forms, is bigotry. Secularists believe religious people and religion itself have no valid place in life. They hate them and they want them gone. A militant secularist is, IMO, nothing more than a bigot who choses religious people as the target of his hatred. No different, really, than a racist is a bigot who chose people of other races as the target of his hatred.
but… but… but… Catherine! The Bush voters are dumb and the Kerry voters are smart. You can’t put down the dummies – you can only try your best to educate them. But when a dummie disagrees with a smartie, it can’t be an attempt to educate since the dummie has nothing of educational value to share with the smartie, so it must be a put down.
knucklehead
After one teensy-weensy little glass of red wine, plus 4 tablets of Aleve (tooth cleaning at 6:30) plus Lesson 87 in Saxon Math 6/5, I seem to have no ability whatsoever to follow the logic of your No put downs comment.
I will try again later.
This makes me pretty sure I’m also not going to make much headway assimilating the larger discussion of religion, which I really, really do want to follow, so I’m coming back to that later, too!
In the meantime, I may have sent you a terrific article by a Harvard law professor who is an evangelical Christian. I think instapundit linked to it (probably The Corner, too)—so everyone may already have seen it.
Here’s the section that perfectly expresses something I’ve been thinking in more inchoate form for quite some time:
One of the basic questions of religion versus secularism, apparently, is, “Can we be good without God?”
The simple answer is obvious: individual citizens living inside societies founded on religious principles can certainly be good without God.
My question is: Can we be humble without God?
I’m not so sure we can.
Once God is gone, man is pretty much center stage.
this is a test post…I have tried three times to get a real one through…
knucklehead:
I hand something more things to add but it won’t let me post them…I guess that is sign that the discussion is over…
thibaud,
I would point out that California and Texas are not your only domicilic possibilities. Most states in the Midwest are free of both types of religious tendencies in their public schools.
I agree with your point about evolution: funny how that seems to be a lightning rod for the religious types. I would also point out that there are many varieties of Protestants and it is wrong to lump them all together. Most of them support the teaching of evolution just as much as you do.
knucklehead,
I agree with you completely about the “secularists”. I see this blanket quasi-religious dogmatic attempt to eliminate every vestige of traditional religion from the fabric of society as exceedingly dangerous.
I don’t quite agree that the Democratic-Republican split is between Urban-Rural. For example, the Democratic party in Minnesota has been known for a long time as the Democratic Farmer-Labor party (DFL). The core Republican states at this point are the Midwestern states which have been Republican since the Civil War. What’s new is the conversion of most of the Southern states to the Republican banner. The combination makes Republicanism seem to be attached to rural areas but that is merely a passing coincidence.
In any case, neither Republicans nor Democrats really stand for any particular thing long-term. Each will gradually shift to wherever it perceives votes to be had. It makes much more sense to me to merely think of the parties are organic entities which meander, in the course of time, in both geographic locations and political positions. It seems to me a far better predictor of whether an area is going to be Republican or Democratic is whether it was in the last election cycle, not whether it’s rural or not.
Catherine,
Keep up your mathematical studies. I have personally found mathematics to be quite humbling, with no reference to God required.
Knuclehead:
I have been having some connectivity issues at home so I am going to post an executive summary of what I wrote last night.
I think you did a good job of explaining our gap in knowledge of the origins of the Cosmos. Much better them me in fact.
I have three points to make and then I am done with this topic for a while.
(1) Biblical literalists and secularists are two sides of the same coin.
(2) The division of the world between creationists and evolutionists is a false dichotomy. All scientists are now creationists in the sense that all scientists accept the view the Cosmos was created by persons/deities/forces unknown and unknowable. All systems, including biological systems follow the laws laid down at the origin point. A corollary to this is that Darwinian evolution is not one of these fundamental laws. Like turbulent flow [I know something about that by the way] it is simply a manifestation of “Self Organization of a Non-Equilibrium System.” [Prigogene]
3. The primary difference between a Protestant Literalist and a secularist is that the literalist assigns the non-believer to a metaphysical hell while the secularist consigns the non-believer to a hell on earth like Kolyma or Treblinka.
Thibaud,
Upon reflection it ocurred to me that I owe you an apology. There is much happening in the public schools that angers me and if The Great Georgia Evolutionist Disclaimer Caper were happening in my locale it would probably push me to apoplexy.
That said, there remain two points I still feel it necessary to make.
The first is that this obvously idiotic nonsense in Georgia and, apparently, elsewhere in not likely to take root. It won’t last, it is a temporary aggravation. If resisted, and it seems that is happening, it will wither and disappear.
The second is that given all there is to worry about and fight against when it comes to the state of our public education system, this seems to me like worrying about the Red-dye #6 in the cherry atop a toxic waste sundae. It reminds me of a fellow I once saw on some blog or other whose wife was pregnant with their first child, a female, who was overwrought with concern that she not grow up in a world where women’s reproductive rights were under restricted. That’s a whole lotta cart before the horse. You will have things, large and small, to sweat before this particular one has even a remote chance of impacting your children’s education. Since it won’t gain traction, don’t sweat it, look into the various issues that will begin subverting your son’s education the moment he sets foot into his first public school classroom.
Jerry,
Excellent! Thank you. You took what I struggled and failed to say in a bajillion words and said it in two sentences.
There was no logic to follow Catherine. It was a disposable attempt to make a sarcastic comment re: the type of attitude shown by the Putdown Police you told us about. That won’t stop me, however, from attempting to retroactively logify the thing
Each side of the “voter divide” does not view their commentary about the other side as insults. The see it as sharp, biting humor that illustrates undeniable truth. Each side views the sharp, biting, humorous barbs aimed at them as preposterous and insulting. The teacher, by allowing the “Kerry Voter Kids” to toss out their barbs while quickly putting an end to the barbs tossed by the “Bush Voter Kids” tells us which side s/he is on and how he percieves the what the kids had to say – the “Kerry Voter Kids” weren’t issuing putdowns but the “Bush Voter Kids” were.
Catherine,
I agree the answer is “yes” and that it is obvious.
But allow me to rephrase the question to “Can we be good without faith?” The answer to that question, IMO, is “no”. In order to be “good” one must have faith in something but it need not be God. I chose to place my “faith” in the what I nebulously think of as “The Experiment” and “The Contract”. I believe that “of the people, for the people, by the people” is The Great Experiment and I have faith that it will yield the hypothesized result provided I am “good”. Being “good” requires that I fulfill the terms and conditions of The Contract. It is, to me, an article of faith that most other people will honor the terms and conditions of The Contract and that the conditions established for conducting The Great Experiment will yield acceptably reliable enforcement when T&Cs are violated.
Finally coming to the conclusion that I live my life in a faith based fashion is almost certainly what diverted me from a trail that may have led me to secularism. It occurred to me that I don’t give a fig what “faith” people chose to have to manage how they be “good”. As long as they behave, that’s all I care about.
This is where being a knucklehead has some of its rare advantages. We knuckleheads are humbled as a matter of course. No Acts of God are required.
WichitaBoy,
I would point out that California and Texas are not your only domicilic possibilities. Most states in the Midwest are free of both types of religious tendencies in their public schools.
Moved too many times in recent years. No wish to move again for at least several years more. In any case my wife’s a sun freak so it really is either Calif or the south for us. Maybe Colorado at some point, but that too seems divided sharply between northern Colorado People’s Republic of Boulder idiotarians and southern Colorado biblical literalists.
I agree with your point about evolution: funny how that seems to be a lightning rod for the religious types.
I never got a direct answer to my question as to why it’s necessary to marshall every piece of anti-evolution scholarship into secondary-school science but not every piece of anti-quark theory scholarship, for ex. Why does evolution deserve such obsessive focus and special treatment? Perhaps because the emphasis is not on a level scientific playing field, or the pursuit of truth generally, but the wish to prop up a literal reading of Genesis particular to a few protestant sects?
I would also point out that there are many varieties of Protestants and it is wrong to lump them all together. Most of them support the teaching of evolution just as much as you do.
I consistently apply the phrase “biblical literalists” to distinguish these anti-evolution protestants, who are probably less than half of all protestants and acc to Gregg Easterbrook’s estimate no more than 19% of the US population.
I find it bizarre that these literalists cannot follow the example of American Catholics, who constitute a larger share of the population (about 25% of the population overall and an even larger share in large northern cities), who refuse to impose their doctrines on the public at large, instead preferring to run their own schools.
It’s bizarre beyond belief that, to avoid anti-intellectual religious biases and ignorance being imposed on my kids, I may one day have to remove them from a public school and place them in a private school affiliated with a mainline Protestant denomination. Sickening. I selected my neighborhood precisely because of the nationally-ranked schools. i can only hope the literalist nuts don’t take over this school system before my children are school age.
If their hatred of “atheism” is so deep, and if their religious beliefs color all aspects of their understanding of natural and social phenomena, then why can’t they do the honest thing and put their kids in a religious school that shares their views? Why do they have to push their views through the public schools?
Thibaud:
You said: “If their hatred of “atheism” is so deep, and if their religious beliefs color all aspects of their understanding of natural and social phenomena, then why can’t they do the honest thing and put their kids in a religious school that shares their views? Why do they have to push their views through the public schools?”
Perhaps they could if they could afford it. Maybe vouchers to give all people a choice would solve this problem. I guess the only kind of choice we permit is abortion.
Jerry,
The Catholic schools are very well represented in this nation’s poorest areas. One can also find hasidic and other religious schools in lower-income areas. If these religious groups can offer religious alternatives to people of limited means, then so can the biblical literalists.
Again, why does this particular religious movement feel the need to dominate the public schools? What is it in their view that confers such an exclusive privilege?
Funny, I called around and learned that in my town, which is solidly Republican and extremely conservative (probably 3:1 for Bush, and the home of many of his top campaign donors as well as Cheney’s former home), and yet there’s no move to put creationism in these schools that are ranked among the very best in the nation. Very conservative, very religious, and also very successful and powerful executives and professionals. Could it be that these worldly, successful protestants are unwilling to handicap their own children’s efforts to get into top universities by teaching them junk science?
thibaud:
Nice dodge but I will explain why. The Parrish and Diocese heavily subsidize the Catholic System. That is why they can offer $3000.00 per year tuition for a quality grade school education. My son attends the one of the Top 3 high schools in Northern Virginia. He pays $8000 while the other two charge Harvard like tuition.
Protestant literalists as you call them would no more send their children to Catholic School then approve of the teaching of evolution. They don’t have the Catholic Church’s wealth to provide low cost private education.
The real issue is school choice not low cost versus high cost. All voucher programs allow the parents to put their children in out-of-district Public Schools as private institutions. I am actually opposed to vouchers for private schools because with the Public monies will come eventual public control and corruption of the curriculum. I only support school choice in the public school domain. I believe that would provide sufficient competition to improve failing public schools.
If you were truly interested in keeping pseudoscience out of the schools you would be equally concerned about the eco-BS being passed off as science. I will give you will some incentive to do that. The so-called science of ecology was a late 19th century German invention and it was actually proposed as a non-religious alternative to Darwinian evolution. It led to the so-called wandervogel movement, which was one of the streams that fed into the Nazi movement. As any real Darwinian would tell you there is no such thing as static eco-system. So unless you are already opposed to the teach of the “science” of ecology then I can only conclude that your inability to understand that there are real scientific problems with the Theory of Evolution is a product of your mirror-imaged hatred of the religious.
Knucklehead
I actually managed to figure that out today, in my somewhat-less-foggy state. (If I don’t get a good 10-hours sleep sometime soon, I’m going to pass out. I swear.)
I’m with Jerry on vouchers. Absolutely.
It’s certainly not the case that anyone can afford religious school tuition. We had a terrific guy working with one of our kids in CA whose big Catholic family could only afford to put two of their 5 kids through Catholic School. They picked the two kids they felt needed it the most, and struggled to pay for them.
I’m also with Knucklehead on the pick-your-battles front.
Given the number of Public School Horrors you’re going to confront in a lifetime, creationism warning stickers are the least of it.
here’s a public school horror for you
Last year one of the freshman English teachers at the high school assigned a novel to her class and told them there was a “bad word” in the first 100 pages. She wanted them to find the word and tell her what it was; that way she would know they’d read it.
My friend’s daughter was in the class, and she couldn’t find the word.
Well, it turned out the word was ‘p*s*y,” which my friend’s daughter had never heard before. So my friend had to explain to her daughter what ‘p*s*y’ meant.
That was bad enough, but this was not long after my friend’s marriage had broken up, which meant that ‘psychosexual’ issues were already agonizingly stirred up in the whole family. It was the exact wrong moment for her 14-year old daughter to be finding out that the English language contains a whole lot of bad words for the female genitalia.
More red herrings and dodges. As with the lefty sites, the standard response is 1) deny the issue’s significance and then 2) change the subject (ecology! New math!). (btw, new math was extraordinarily helpful to me twenty years later when I begin teaching fellow students how to succeed on the LSAT exam. A very clear and powerful shorthand system for communicating deductive logic principles to people without thorough training in philosophy. Glad I was taught it as a child.)
Absurd to argue that, for ex., the Archdiocese of Detroit is significantly wealthier than the Dallas Southern Baptist Convention (or whatever the equivalent administrative unit is called). Many Baptist and other protestant literalist ministries are extraordinarily wealthy, in fact are run as for-profit corporations and generate enormous revenues. They of course do support their own religious schools in a few areas but for some strange reason have decided that they will also seek to impose their biblical understanding of biology upon the public school curriculum as well. Why?
Still have not received an answer as to why only one out of many scientific theories requires the presentation of competing minority views. Why not also contest quark theory, neuroscience and personality development, etc? How about stickers on textbooks pointing out that ecology is pseudo-science?
Thibaud:
If you return. I gave you an answer already. I cited a respected Physicist, Mathematician/Philosopher and Molecular biologist who would disagree with your simple-minded interpretation of the evolutionary process. I also in another post pointed out that evolution is not a basic law but a manifestation of widely held physics concept of self-organization of non-equilibrium systems. I have also point out that all scientists are now creationists in broad sense of the word.[you know, the big bang.] If you can show me that their objections to neo-Darwinism are being addressed in high school science classes I will concede you your point. However, I know few high schools who raise these issues. Most science students are not aware of concepts of modern physics and molecular Biology/Genetics unless they take advanced physics and biology in college. So I ask you again why should we exempt Darwinian evolution from the rigorous criticism that all science gets?
Thibaud, we are talking past each other. The problem is that you clearly haven’t read scholar criticism from physicists and molecular biologists. I doubt that you ever heard of these scientific critiques until now. You are relying on what others have told to be true without checking on the facts yourself. I gave you three scientific perspectives on evolution. Why don’t you come back when you have the read them. I don’t really have much desire continue to carry on a discussion of science with someone who won’t take the time to get informed about the issues.
One more thing. The Democratic Party is as much dependent on the “Protestant Literalist” vote as the Republicans.