Ernest Partridge's Blogs
The Archives
April-May, 2004
May 31, 2004
Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the
play?
From
The Baltimore Sun, May 27:
Colin Powell:
If it weren't for the current security problems, "People would have thrown
awards at us" for toppling Hussein.
Message passing around the Internet
How many members of the Bush Administration are needed to replace a light
bulb?
The Answer is SEVEN:
One to deny that a light bulb needs to be replaced
One to attack and question the patriotism of anyone who has questions about
the light bulb,
One to blame the previous administration for the need of a new light bulb,
One to arrange the invasion of a country rumored to have a secret stockpile
of light bulbs,
One to get together with Vice President Cheney and figure out how to pay
Halliburton Industries one million dollars for a light bulb,
One to arrange a photo-op session showing Bush changing the light bulb while
dressed in a flight suit and wrapped in an American flag,
And, finally, one to explain to Bush the difference between screwing a light
bulb and screwing the country.
Who Can You Believe?
For most of last week our "Best of the Week" page was headed by an article
from the Daytona Beach News Journal:
"Hard lessons from poetry class: Speech is free unless it's critical,"
by Bill Hill. The story has been circulating around the progressive
internet.
Here was our excerpt-blurb:
Bill Nevins, a New Mexico high school teacher and personal friend, was
fired last year and classes in poetry and the poetry club at Rio Rancho
High School were permanently terminated. It had nothing to do with
obscenity, but it had everything to do with extremist politics... In March
2003, a teenage girl named Courtney presented one of her poems before an
audience at Barnes & Noble bookstore in Albuquerque, then read the poem
live on the school's closed-circuit television channel. A school military
liaison and the high school principal accused the girl of being
"un-American" because she criticized the war in Iraq and the Bush
administration's failure to give substance to its "No child left behind"
education policy. The girl's mother, also a teacher, was ordered by the
principal to destroy the child's poetry. The mother refused and may lose
her job. Bill Nevins was suspended for not censoring the poetry of his
students. Remember, there is no obscenity to be found in any of the
poetry. He was later fired by the principal... But more was to come.
Posters done by art students were ordered torn down, even though none was
termed obscene. Some were satirical, implicating a national policy that
had led us into war. Art teachers who refused to rip down the posters on
display in their classrooms were not given contracts to return to the
school in this current school year. The message is plain. Critical
thinking, questioning of public policies and freedom of speech are not to
be allowed to anyone who does not share the thinking of the school
principal.
Wow! Powerful stuff, this!
Turns out there might be another side to this story.
"The Agonist" website
reports that one of its readers e-mailed the school system, and got this
reply (in part):
Recently, the Daytona Beach News-Journal published an editorial highly
critical of Rio Rancho High School and some of its staff members. It was
written by Bill Hill, a columnist for the paper and, he states, a friend
of Bill Nevins, an untenured teacher whose contract was not renewed at the
end of the 2002-03 school year. Mr. Nevins is currently engaged in a legal
action against the Rio Rancho Public Schools.
While we recognize the right of newspapers to engage in fair criticism,
such criticism should be grounded in the facts. We are disturbed that
neither the writer nor the Daytona Beach News-Journal contacted the school
district for information or comment. This editorial, simply put, is rife
with inaccuracies, misinformation, and outright untruths. Its publication
constitutes a reckless disregard for the truth to such a degree that Rio
Rancho Public Schools has asked its lawyers to review and evaluate what
legal recourse may be available.
The school officials then denied many of the allegations in the Bill Hill
article. As for the rest, they were constrained, they said, by the fact that
the case was in litigation.
The student in question, "Courtney," added her bit with a letter to the
editor of the local paper, which read, in part:
When I asked the administration why Mr. Nevins was put on
administrative leave, I was told that the reasons would not be discussed
with me, but that they had absolutely nothing to do with me or my poem. I
accept that. The administration at RRHS has been nothing but supportive of
my poetry endeavors and continue to encourage my writing, even in light of
all this nonsense.
She closed with a complaint against the media that had "bombarded" her
and her family, and begged to be left alone at last. Fair enough.
What are we to make of this? Not too much I hope, at least not yet. These
were spectacular accusations by Mr. Nevins and his friend (?) Mr. Hill, and
for that reason the story may have got out of hand. While Mr. Nevins'
version may be totally accurate, this story has the appearance of a seed of
truth that grew uncontrolled into a weed of exaggerated rumor. All too
often, when we read something that is "too good (or in this case, too bad)
to be true," we discover at length that it is just that.
Fortunately, the accusation has elements that can readily be confirmed or
refuted -- the firings, the involvement of the ACLU. Apparently it is now up
to the courts to sort this out.
Suspension of belief is an uncommon virtue, and often difficult to bear. But
it is surely called for here. And skepticism is more difficult when directed
toward allegations that support one's deepest convictions and commitments.
But the capacity for suspended belief and skepticism are traits that starkly
set progressives apart from right-wing regressives. We should practice and
display these traits proudly.
In this regard, it is worth noting that in his Air America Radio show, Al
Franken has a "corrections" feature (complete with theme music). How often
do Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage and the rest admit their
mistakes on the air? And we all know about George Bush's total inabillity to
admit error.
I'll bet we'll be hearing more about the Nevins case. Stay tuned.
We've Heard this Song Before!
CNN's "Capital Gang" last Saturday turned their attention to
Al Gore's
MoveOn.org speech. The progressive press and internet that
we read was greatly impressed, as were we.
But not so, "The Capital Gang." After denouncing MoveOn (that
"left-wing radical group"), they focused almost their entire attention on
theatrics and imagery, with disparaging remarks about Gore's
animated presentation and the volume of his voice. Except for Gore's calling
for the resignation of Bush's top advisors, scarcely a word was said about
the content of Gore's speech. No words in defense of Gore -- not by the
token "liberals" Margaret Carlson, AL Hunt and Mark Shields. Shameful!
But there was worse to come.
David Brock's Media
Matters, collected these tid-bits of armchair psychiatry :
Dennis Miller: "I think he's lost his mind."
Mark Levin: [Al Gore is] a mental patient."
Michael Savage: "He has definitely pulled his raft across the river of
sanity."
John Podhoretz: "It is now clear that Al Gore is insane."
Oliver North: "They should check Gore's medications."
Sean Hannity: "He's really nuts."
Charles Krauthammer: "It looks as if Al Gore has gone off his lithium
again."
Krautammer, it is worth noting, is a one-time psychiatrist. Why is the
American Psychiatric Association silent in the face of this abuse of the
profession?
Never a word from this gang about the psychopathology of one George W. Bush.
(One might well wonder about such issues as unconstrained lying, dislexia,
sociopathy, religious megalomania, etc.).
The regressive pundits will keep up this despicable character assassination
until they are shamed into silence. And as things look right now, that
desirable consummation is nowhere in sight.
Barking Up the Wrong Tree:
About a year ago, we happened upon a CSPAN coverage of a meeting of the
Democratic Leadership Conference. At that meeting, DLC Chair AL Fromm
favored us with a PowerPoint dissection of public opinion -- group
dissection on the Y-Axis (whites, blacks, hispanics, men, women, young, old,
etc.) and issue dissection on the X Axis (taxes, education, environment,
defense, etc.).
That sort of thing. You've all seen it.
All in all, things were looking upbeat for the Democrats -- "the people," by
and large, were with the Democrats on the issues!
Ho hum! Big Deal!
Fromm may have earned himself an A in statistics, but he flunked history.
Have we forgotten? Candidates Carter, Dukakis, Mondale and Gore each
clobbered their GOP opponents "on the issues." And they all lost their
elections -- correction, all but Gore, but that's another story.
And on matters of substance Gore sliced and diced Bush in the debates. But
then the media spin doctors got to work, asked their phony "focus groups"
who was more "likable." Advantage Bush.
And its happening again. Almost half of our fellow citizens are smiling at
Bush as he lies to them, picks their pockets, sends their sons off to die in
Iraq, and robs them of their Social Security and Medicare. And yet they will
vote for Bush in November.
And so we ask again: "When will the Democrats learn from their mistakes?"
Those of you old enough to remember, consider this: In 1980, the prominent
"image issues" included (a) the honor of military service, (b) religion (as
always), and (c) family life.
Now let's profile the candidates.
Ronald Reagan: Dodged combat in World War II by narrating propaganda
films in Hollywood, never attended church while at the White House,
divorced his first wife, and conceived the first child of his second wife
out of wedlock. And Reagan notoriously failed to recognize his own
grandchildren.
Jimmy Carter: Graduated with honors from Annapolis and served as an
officer in the submarine corps (longer military service than any 20th
Century President except Eisenhower), taught Sunday School while in the
White House!, and stood by his often eccentric family members in spite
of the political costs. (Remember brother Billy and mother Lillian?)
So which candidate benefited more from these issues? Shucks, you all know
the answer. (When asked that same question, Carter wryly commented, "the
question has crossed my mind").
Yes, the issues count for something, but probably not much. What counts is
"image," "likeability, and sound-bite slogans. Also, an ineffable quality
that show-biz people call "presence" -- which is akin to "authenticity." And
finally, an air of control and competent authority which engenders charisma.
Look over that list, and you might sense that Kerry is in pretty good shape.
Bush is ahead in "likeability," but that's just about all he has. His
attempts at imagery have backfired, "big time." (Think "Mission
Accomplished"). His record of mendacity is bound to catch up with him and
undercut any claim to "authenticity." Next, how can a candidate who dares
not speak without a teleprompter that serves up the words of others acquire
"presence" and personal contact? As for authority, Bush's campaign is
reaching desperately with the unconvincing slogan, "Steady leadership in a
time of change." But who really believes it?
And charisma? Kerry has plenty, as his Massachusetts constituents
well know, still more the string of GOP opponents he has defeated.
Most of the public believes that Kerry suffers from a severe charisma
deficit, but that's only because the media have told them so.
(Remember how authentically honest Al Gore was believed by most to be a
chronic liar? Totally a media-generated myth).
The GOP knows all this, and so, rather than build up their candidate, they
are devoting their major effort and funds to the task of diminishing Kerry.
I think he can survive it. And the more the public gets to know Kerry, the
more apparent will be the contrast between Kerry and Bush in moral and
intellectual quality, and in leadership capacity.
The overarching question is whether the media will allow the public to get
to know Kerry.
May 25, 2004
SLOGANS FOR A NEW AMERICAN REVOLUTION.
Give the Republicans this much: They sure know how to come up with killer
slogans for their candidates.
Who can forget: "Compassionate Conservative," "A Uniter not a divider,"
"A Reformer with Results"? Once heard, no one can forget. And that's
just the point. Now it's "Steady leadership in times of change."
Democrats are above such cheap stunts. Instead, they explain their policy
positions at length, complete with evidence and structured arguments. Which
is why they lose.
Time for the Democrats to give us some slogans. God knows, they have the
issues on their side.
The Kerry campaign has offered us "Let America be America Again." Well, yes.
But somehow it strikes us as decidedly zing-less. Don't think it would get
past Karl Rove, were he working for the Dems.
So we have some suggestions of our own:
--- Only Americans can restore the honor of America. Vote for Kerry.
--- Is this the kind of country that you want -- for yourself and for your
children?
--- How long can this orgy go on?
--- Let's give our government back to the grownups!
--- (To the Republicans): Where is your ultimate loyalty? To your party or
to your country?
--- John Kerry: He can think and eat pretzels at the same time.
And then, we seem to recall this one:
--- How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?
Any slogan ideas out there? Send them to us at
crisispapers@comcast.net
. We'll post the winners.
MICHAEL MOORE v. MIKKI MAUS HAUS: NO CONTEST
So Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 911" has won the Cannes Film Festival's "Palme
d'Or" award. And if the
New York Times' Frank Rich is to be believed, "he's detonating
dynamite here."
But not in the USA, if the Disney Corporation has its way. For as you surely
must know by now, Disney has ordered its subsidiary, Mirimax FIlms, not to
release the film
Too little, too late. "Farhenheit 911" is totally out of the control of the
Busheviks and their corporate whore, the Disney Corporation.
Like The Voice of America during the Soviet era.
Anyone remember when "banned in Boston" was top-grade promotion material for
a book? Similarly, the more right-wing regressives try to squelch this film,
the more attractive it will be and the more determined the public will be to
see it.
Frantic attempts at censorship only prove that the establishment has
something to hide. And traditionally, censorship does not sit well with the
American public.
Suppose they manage to keep it out of theaters. So what? It will be out in
DVD, copied, and pirated versions put on the internet, possibly on offshore
websites.
If so, it may cost Michael Moore a lot of bucks, but I suspect that he won't
mind all that much.
Just like the Shah, when cassette recordings of the Ayatollah were passed
around before the Iranian revolution. Like Brezhnev and the Commissars, when
Samizdat manuscripts were written and distributed by the Soviet dissidents.
Now its Bush and Rumseld, who just might be overthrown by "the information
age."
Just recall Rummie's unguarded outburst about the distribution of the
digital images of the Abu Ghraib tortures. "Digital cameras! Who could have
guessed?" Answer: anyone even remotely aware of the political implications
of the new info-technologies.
If the election were next week or even next month, the Bushistas might
squeak through. But they can't keep the lid on for five months.
Not even the mighty GOP Media Wurlitzer can drown out the uproar that is
beginning to erupt.
"Truth, crushed to earth, will rise again." (William Cullen Bryant).
There remains the problem of the GOP paperless voting machines. Kerry must
win big. The public outcry against the brutal and criminal regime that has
captured our government must be so loud, persistent and overwhelming that a
fraudulent and unverifiable election "win" becomes instantly, universally
and totally unsustainable.
With the constant stream of anti-Bush books, the crumbling solidarity of the
corporate media (e.g. 60 Minutes), and now Fahrenheit 911, it's just
beginning to appear that this may be possible after all.
¡Si se puede!
WHEN IGNORANCE IS BLISS, YOU ARE PROBABLY A REPUBLICAN.
On Sunday (May 23) The Smirking Chimp posted Tom Brazaitis' article,
'History profs rate Bush a disaster'. The article reported:
Responding to a national survey by George Mason University's History News
Network, 81 percent of the 415 historians who expressed a view of the Bush
presidency so far classified it as a failure and 12 percent see it as the
worst presidency in American history.
At least eight of the 77 historians who expressed a belief that Bush's
presidency has been a success so far seemed to be pulling our leg. Seven
said Bush's presidency is only the best since that of Bill Clinton, his
immediate predecessor, and one said the country hasn't seen a president of
Bush's caliber since Millard Fillmore (1850-53) who filled the remaining
term of Gen. Zachary Taylor after Taylor's death.
This launched an enthusiastic string of responses (32 at last count) on the
sorry state of American public education and the resulting ignorance of the
American public. The prize, in the opinion of your humble blogster, goes to
an anonymous "Chimpster" who uses the handle "SnoopDopeyDogg."
The problem [of public ignorance and gullibility] depends on your
perspective. If you approach the problem from the perspective of a
right-wing corporate shill propagandist, such as from one the propaganda
branches of Corporate Amerika known as PR firms, THEN education IS the
problem, for troublemakers ... keep throwing out facts to the lambs that the
PR firms have worked so hard to prepare for the slaughter.
On the other hand, if you approach the problem from the perspective of the
truth, regardless of what it is or where it leads you, then the public
education system, made creaking and near defunct by Republican efforts to
starve it to death by lack of funding (picture money as oxygen and Repubs as
shutting the garage door and revving the engine), is one of the last
holdouts against the onslaught of corporate propaganda. Don't think so?
Conservative backing of various schemes to keep poor and minority kids
undereducated and grist for the blue-collar wage-slave/prison/military
mills, from various "voucher" conspiracies to home-brainwashing (I mean
"schooling") schemes, provide the proof. If public education were doing its
proper job of brainwashing kids in the tenets of conservative corporatism,
then you would see GOPers funding the school system like it were a
subsidiary of Halliburton.
We (Americans) are brainwashed 24/7 by the media and the corporate culture.
Brainwashing consists as much of what is excluded and implied as it does
what it teaches. I know a old veteran who was subjected to brainwashing by
the North Koreans. He said it consisted almost entirely of negative FACTS
about American history, not torture or some "Manchurian Candidate" hypno-pharmacology
CIA stuff, facts which they knew the POWs would check out, much to their
ultimate dissatisfaction, when and if they returned stateside.
Teachers ... are the Weapons of Mass Deprogramming feared more than any
other, right up there with librarians, by fascists. Hence things such as
mass book-burnings and similar acts of totalitarian control and censorship,
always carrying doublespeak terms such as the "Patriot Act" and "The Charter
of Labor". One was Nazi's Germany law that banned unions and enslaved
employees to their corporate masters, the other an act aimed at destroying
American patriots by destroying the root of their power: facts, ideas, and
the sometimes painful truth. One nice thing about Nazis is that their words
can be used as an accurate reverse-barometer. They always mean and do
exactly the opposite of what they say, unless they know that you are on to
them, at which point they simply up the deception ante a notch or two, or
three.
ONE public school history teacher undid years of Bonanza and Gunsmoke
episodes, hundreds of hours of John Wayne movies, and thousands of dollars
of propaganda invested in me when he covered the "Robber Barons." It seems
that the Old West wasn't the way Big Business said it was. He didn't require
blind adherence to his statements, and would have been ignored had he done
so, but rather used verifiable facts, the scourge of all Nazis, to drive
home his points and positions.
History professors are far more damaging to the Bush Reich than all the Al-Zarqawis,
Saddam Husseins, and Howard Deans combined, and the Reich knows it. Bush may
be dumb but the neo Nazi cabal isn't stupid.
Like rats and cockroaches in your garbage, corporate propagandists function
best under the cloak of darkness, but never mistake their silence as
weakness, for as any doctor will tell you, the silent killers are always the
deadliest.
You don't have to believe a confused liberal such as myself. Take it from
the uber-public relationist, the grandaddy of them all whose firms are still
alive and lying today:
“The conscious & intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and
opinions of the masses constitute an invisible government which is the true
ruling power of our country.” -Edward Bernays (Sigmund Freud’s nephew and
corporate public relations founder)
Mulder was (is) right. The truth is out there. Just not out here in
Corporate Amerika.
Clearly "Snoop" is not "Dopey."
Here is my contribution to The Smirking Chimp's post-fest:
Fourteen years ago, while on the faculty of one of the California State
Universities, I perceived that some of our scientific-historical-cultural
allusions were being met with perplexed expressions or blank stares among my
students. So I prepared and distributed a "General Information and Opinion
Questionnaire" to gain a sense of the students' general cultural knowledge.
The results were startling, to say the least. Of the forty-eight students
responding:
Seven identified the Secretary of State
Six Identified the Secretary of Defense
None Identified the Attorney General
None Identified the UN Secretary General
Thirteen identified both California Senators
Eight identified the nine US Presidents since Franklin D. Roosevelt
Less than half identified the "Big Three" allied powers, and the Axis powers
in World War II.
Twelve correctly placed the date of the Civil War within the "window" of
1855-1870.
Less than three (in a Philosophy class) were able to identify: Bertrand
Russell, Alfred N. Whitehead, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Stephen Hawking, or
Michael Faraday.
I neglected to ask the students to identify the rock stars heading the
charts at the time.
Of course, I would have flunked that test.
And yet, in view of what our colleges and universities receive from the
public schools, what they accomplish in four years is nothing short of
miraculous.
Several years ago, 60 Minutes aired a disgraceful "profile" of American
Universities, with a focus on the University of Arizona and featuring,
favorably, Prof. Keith Lehrer of the UA Philosophy Department. The primary
complaint was that students were being short-changed because the professors
were spending too much time on research, too little on teaching, and were
turning their teaching duties over to ill-prepared teaching assistants. (But
don't get me started on that. I wrote an unanswered letter of complaint to
the reporter, Leslie Stahl.
You can find it here).
Later, in a personal conversation, Keith Lehrer pointed out that those
university faculties -- including the awkward teaching assistants --
routinely accomplish a small miracle. As we know too well, the reading,
writing and computational skills of our high school graduates are a national
disgrace. Yet in four years these research-distracted institutions somehow
manage to raise the knowledge and skills of these students to a level
sufficient for them to qualify for graduate schools, where they successfully
compete with the same foreign students that so thoroughly outclassed them
just four years earlier. And why are so many foreign students at our
graduate schools? Because they recognize these institutions to be the finest
in the world.
Or at least they were in California, until first Ronald Reagan, and now The
Governator, got hold of them.
May 21, 2004
MR. NOVAK'S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS
It is a fundamental rule of law, and of practical morality, that no precept
is absolute -- one can, in principle, imagine exceptions to every rule.
Thus Justice Holmes' famous observed that freedom of speech does not include
the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Moreover, "thou shalt not
kill" allows for killing in self-defense, and one is permitted -- indeed,
morally required -- to lie to a hired killer in order to prevent the murder
of an innocent victim.
The reason that every moral and legal rule has exceptions is quite simple:
as soon as one adopts two or more rules of conduct, it becomes possible for
practical situations to arise whereby obedience to one rule necessitates the
violation of another. True believers tell us that The Lord gave not two but
Ten Commandments to Moses. And to those familiar with the Bible, those ten
are scarcely the end of it.
The law recognizes that particular laws may, under extraordinary
circumstances, be justifiably violated. This is called "the defense of
necessity." Violation of traffic laws in order to get a critically injured
person to a hospital is a case in point.
The only escape from moral conflicts, then, is to live by only one precept.
And one who does so is not a moralist, s/he is a fanatic.
Accordingly, a moral life, of necessity, must involve the violation of some
moral rules in order to obey other rules.
The right-wing moralists call this "situation ethics" and "moral
relativism," and it causes them fits. These are the excuses of "wicked
liberals," they say. Yet surely these moralists would readily lie to save an
innocent life, and kill a threatening guilty culprit to spare the lives of
several innocents. In fact, today it seems that a great many religious-right
moralists, solidly supporting their "born again" President and his Iraq War,
are quite willing to sacrifice innocent Iraq lives to bring about the
greater good of --- well, forgive me, but I haven't quite figured that part
out.
Which brings us to Robert Novak.
There is a well-established and morally compelling principle that "freedom
of the press" does not extend to the right to report the departure of
troopships into submarine infested seas, nor to disclose the time and place
of invasions. The reporter who does so is justly convicted of treason.
Nor should one be permitted to disclose information that will put the lives
of covert operatives at risk, and that will shut down an operation vital to
the national interest -- which precisely describes Valerie Plame's CIA work
in discovering and thwarting the distribution of weapons of mass
destruction.
Of such disclosure, one former President said: "I have nothing but contempt
and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our
sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors." (George H.
W. Bush, April 16, 1999).
They have not yet found and indicted the scoundrel who "outed" Valerie Plame.
When they do, if our laws still have any meaning, s/he will serve time in a
Federal Prison.
But that mischief would never have "gone afoot," had no one agreed to
publicize Ms.Plame's covert activities. Five of six reporters, we are told,
declined. Mr. Novak did not.
Which leads one to wonder: Why is Robert Novak a free man today?
ESCAPING A SEMANTIC TRAP. A PROPOSAL.
Few of our fellow progressives seem to be aware that whenever they apply the
label of "conservative" to the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, DeLay, Falwell,
and especially George Bush, they are needlessly conceding ground to these
opponents.
These right-wingers are very pleased to be called "conservatives," and
indeed they never tire of applying that label to themselves. But is it an
appropriate name for these individuals?
Webster's Unabridged Dictionary (Second Edition) defines "conservatism" as
"The practice of preserving what is established; disposition to oppose
change in established institutions and methods."
Does this correctly describe those individuals who are determined to tear
down the wall of separation between Church and State? Who violate laws and
treaties at will, most especially our Constitution and Bill of Rights? Who
stifle the free expression of diverse opinions? Who rule under a veil of
secrecy and who sequester historical documents from public and scholarly
scrutiny? Who over-rule and disregard at convenience, the accumulated
knowledge of the sciences? Who distort language and use it as a political
tool, rather than respect language as a common endowment and the fundamental
institution of social cohesion?
Clearly, these are not "conservatives." So why do we persist in calling them
"conservatives"? Just because they insist upon this false appellation, does
not oblige us to go along.
It is past time to take the initiative and to adopt a term of our own
choosing to apply to our political adversaries.
I've considered several, but at last have settled on "regressive." It
immediately and correctly places our adversaries in direct opposition to our
"progressivism." "Regressive" vs. "Progressive" is a splendid delineation of
our present contest.
Why "regressive"? Because far from "preserving what is established," these
right-wingers are clearly disposed "to oppose change in established
institutions and methods." (Webster's) As Paul Weyrich states, quite
directly: "We are no longer working to preserve the status quo. We are
radicals, working to overturn the present power structure of the country."
Nor are the right wingers looking forward. On the contrary, they are casting
nostalgic eyes back beyond the New Deal to The Gilded Age of the Nineteenth
Century. As
William
Grieder aptly puts it:
The movement's grand ambition... is to roll back the twentieth century,
quite literally. That is, defenestrate the federal government and reduce its
scale and powers to a level well below what it was before the New Deal's
centralization. With that accomplished, movement conservatives envision a
restored society in which the prevailing values and power relationships
resemble the America that existed around 1900, when William McKinley was
President.
So "regressive" it is. Still more, for the immediate future, make that
"right-wing regressive." Because we are attempting to introduce a new term
into the political mix, our term requires a semantic boost. To be sure,
"right-wing regressive" is a redundancy (after all the "right wing" is
regressive). But that redundancy serves to alert the public to the intended
meaning of "regressive." If the term catches on, then we can drop the
"training wheels" of "right wing."
So c'mon, troops. Let's get with it. Introducing a new term into the
language is far more than a single obscure writer can accomplish. But if the
neologism serves a compelling public need -- be it social, political,
economic, or scientific -- and if a deliberate effort is made by a few, and
then by more and more, it just might catch on. Surely the right-wing
regressives have proven as much.
And it is surely long past time that we deprived the right wing of their
thoroughly inappropriate self-description of "conservative."
(For much more about this proposal, see my my
"Conscience of a Conservative" and
"Newspeak
Lives!").
May 10, 2004
Holy War, Anyone?
Islamic Radicals ... have been around for well over 1000
years - Islam itself is a dogmatic, gutter religion for people still
stuck in the 10th century. There have been thousands of "radical"
leaders for ages and millions willing to follow. Never fool yourself
into thinking Islam is a peaceful religion. Any president who thinks
Islam is a peaceful religion is thinking foolishly and dangerously.
Debates over public issues generally excite my interest
and invite my enthusiastic participation. Rarely do they provoke my anger
and disgust. This comment, and similar comments by the likes of Pat
Robertson and Jerry Falwell, falls into that latter category.
In a sense that the reader would likely reject, I fully agree that "there
have been thousands of 'radical' leaders for ages and millions willing to
follow." Truly there have been such leaders and followers of all
religions, and of no religion. Islam is no exception. For Islam is no more
an exclusively peaceful nor an exclusively war-like religion than
Christianity. The history and scriptures of both religions portray both
pacifism and warfare, both mercy and cruelty. (I argue this point at some
length in my my
"Warriors of
the Lord").
In fact, there is solid historical evidence that Islam has been the most
tolerant of the Abrahamic religions. Moslems regard both Moses and Jesus
as holy prophets. Christians and Jews do not accord the same honor to
Mohammed. As "religions of the book," Christianity and Judaism have
traditionally been tolerated by the Moslems -- unless, as with the
Crusades and the establishment of the state of Israel, Christians and Jews
have attempted to uproot Moslems from their homes and their land.
When the Moslems arrived in Egypt, they encountered the Coptic Christians,
a sect of Christianity as ancient as Roman Catholicism. The Copts have
flourished in Egypt ever since, to this day. When Saladin recaptured
Jerusalem and Damascus from the Crusaders, Christian churches and Jewish
Synagogues remained intact, alongside the Mosques. When the Spanish
Inquisition expelled the Jews, they found refuge in the Islamic Middle
East.
On the other hand, there are Islamic extremists such as Osama bin Laden,
and they are dangerous. So too are the orthodox Jewish settlers on
Palestinian land, the "end-of-times" evangelical Christians, and bigots
who refer to the faith of over one billion of our fellow humans as a
"gutter religion."
Consider the legacy of this "gutter religion."
When my European ancestors were groveling in the ignorance and
superstition of the Dark Ages, the Arabic scholars of Baghdad, Damascus
and Cordoba were translating and preserving the philosophy and literature
of the ancient Greeks and Romans. They developed the number system and
invented algebra, which were to become the foundation of our mathematics
and physical sciences. Their universities advanced the sciences of
medicine and biology, and they built architectural masterpieces that stand
today: the Alhambra palace in Granada, the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem,
the shrine of the Kaaba at Mecca.
As a philosophical secularist, I am equally outside of Judaism,
traditional Christianity and Islam, yet I find much to admire in each of
these great world religions. There are resources in each for accommodation
and mutual respect -- as the Moslems have shown us in the past. There is
also a potential for a "clash of civilizations." The choice is ours
Struggles such as "the war on terror" proclaimed by George Bush, polarize
whole populations and turn common moral ground into a depopulated
no-mans-land. "You are either for us or against us." Thus the post-9/11
pogrom by the INS and the Justice Department against Moslems within our
borders, followed by Guantánamo, and now Abu Ghraib prison.
In that direction lies misery, poverty, and carnage.
The urgent question before is now, is whether, instead, we can emulate the
tolerance and accommodation of Saladin toward "the religions of the book,"
following his triumph over the Crusaders.
In his book, The New Pearl Harbor, David Ray
Griffin of the faculty of the Claremont School of Theology, makes numerous
serious accusations against the Bush administration, some plausible and
others "far out." Consider just one of the latter: "The physical evidence
contradicts ... the official account, that the Pentagon was hit by a
Boeing 757 -- Flight 77, that is." He then goes on to argue that the
Pentagon was hit by a missile. (Santa
Barbara Independent, April 1, 2004).
Trouble is, there were dozens, perhaps hundreds, of eye-witnesses to the
event, as the plane flew over a crowded freeway adjacent to the Pentagon.
Moreover, the impact was recorded on Pentagon surveillance cameras --
images that I have seen myself on TV. (See John Judge:
"Not all Conspiracies are Created equal" and Carol Lovett:
"Eyewitnesses Describe Pentagon Attack, the latter published
September 11, 2001).
Then there is the obvious question: If Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon,
where is that plane and all the crew and passengers (including, by the
way, Barbara Olson, the wife of the Solicitor General, Ted Olson)? Griffin
seems uninterested: "I have no idea what happened to Flight 77."
Now imagine that a commercial flight took off last week and then
disappeared along with a couple hundred passengers on board -- one of them
the wife of (say) a Justice of the Supreme Court. Would the press, the FAA
and law enforcement just shrug it off? "Get over it -- now how about them
Yankees!"
In sum, Griffin's charges (in this case at least) are absurd on their
face.
In an essay that Prof. Griffin surely has read, philosopher David Hume
wrote: "No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless the
testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous
than the fact which it endeavors to establish." (An Inquiry Concerning
Human Understanding, Section X, "On Miracles").
The "missile theory" of the Pentagon attack must presume some kind of mass
hallucination afflicting hundreds of eye-witnesses in Northern Virginia on
the morning of September 11, 2001. It must further assume that a
commercial airliner, with all its crew and passengers, disappeared without
a trace -- conveniently at the same time that the alleged missile hit the
Pentagon.
My vote goes to David Hume. It would be far more "miraculous" for
Griffin's "missile theory" to be true, than for it to be a concoction of
his imagination.
The case against the Bush administration is overwhelming: election fraud
in Florida, demonstrably false grounds for initiating a war, the
"purchase" of federal offices and public legislation by campaign
contributors, and on and on. All this cries for removal of the Busheviks
from office at least, and more appropriately for criminal prosecution.
This case must be proclaimed persistently and vehemently. But the case is
not served by wild and demonstrably false fantasies. The Bushistas, and
their media camp-followers, are desperately looking for means to divert
public attention from the crimes of this administration. Wild accusations
such as those put forward by Griffin, by inviting a smear of the
opposition with the tar of "kookery," can only give aid and comfort to
"the enemy."
Where are they Now?
Sometime between Bush's May 1 "Mission Accomplished" celebration and the
outbreak of the Iraq insurrection, the satellite station "Link TV" (Dish
Network 9410) broadcasted a global link conversation between a group of
college-age students in New York and another group in Baghdad.
Link TV is vanishingly obscure, and I happened on this program quite by
accident. Yet it haunts me today more than anything I have seen on TV this
past year.
Through this chance encounter, I got to meet some "real" Iraqis, "up close
and personal." And these half-dozen or so young people were
extraordinarily intelligent, articulate, attractive, and courageous.
"Articulate" in English, of course, which most of them spoke almost
flawlessly. (No doubt, this was a primary reason that they were selected
for the program).
During the program, the camera crew was invited into some of the Baghdad
homes, where we were introduced to the family members of the participants.
Some of their friends and relatives had been injured by the war, but none,
to my recollection, had been killed. The homes were also damaged and the
utilities were sporadic at best. A visit to the University displayed the
total ruin of one of the student's former classroom buildings.
The middle-class parents of one of the young women were out of work, and
she was providing the family income as a translator -- a task for which
she was obviously supremely well suited.
Clearly, the war, and the Saddam regime and the economic embargo before
it, had caused these people great hardship. Yet they were hopeful that the
"liberation" would soon improve their condition. There were scenes of
pleasant conversation with the US "coalition" troops.
I came to admire these people immensely, as did the New York group -- a
multi-racial collection, including a Hispanic, an Asian and a black. The
trans-oceanic rapport was immediate and profound.
That was then. What about now?
We are told that translators are now the targets of resistance fighters.
Has that young woman quit in fear of her life? In fact, how many of those
splendid young people are still alive? If they have survived this
"liberation," what are they doing now? Have they joined the resistance?
Has all communication with the US forces ceased? What are their prospects?
What can they hope and work for?
How did these apparently hopeful beginnings collapse into the chaos that
is Baghdad and Iraq today?
What kind of arrogance, greed and stupidity in Washington has betrayed
these magnificent people and has led us to this horrible state of affairs?
I grieve, I am angry, and I feel so helpless!
And Finally, This from Baghdad:
Each week, at The Crisis Papers, we pick out about a dozen of the best
selections of the week, and put them in our "Editors' Choice" page. There
is no "Choice of the Choices," but if there were, "Dear Occupiers -- Take
your Torturers and Just Go," by the pseudononymous Iraqi writer, "River,"
would surely qualify. This masterful outpouring of pure, justifiable rage
strips bare the nakedness of our national culpability. The article closes:
I sometimes get emails asking me to propose solutions or make suggestions.
Fine. Today's lesson: don't rape, don't torture, don't kill and get out
while you can- while it still looks like you have a choice... Chaos? Civil
war? Bloodshed? We’ll take our chances- just take your Puppets, your
tanks, your smart weapons, your dumb politicians, your lies, your empty
promises, your rapists, your sadistic torturers and go.
Stop whatever you are doing, follow
this link, and read this now! Then
weep for your country and theirs.
And redouble your resolve and your effort to cleanse our nation of the
scoundrels in Washington who have brought this shame upon us all.
May 3, 2004
The Mailbag
To Ted Koppel, ABC News:
Thank you, Ted Koppel, for your principled determination to read the names
of the fallen in Iraq. You are (almost) forgiven for your performance the
December Candidates' debate.
Where, or where, is an Ed Morrow or a Walter Cronkite with the courage to
stand up and protest this outrage in Iraq, and resist the Ministry of
Truth that is corporate media "news."
Are you prepared to fill those shoes?
America has rewarded you lavishly for your work and your talents. Now it's
payback time.
No need to answer propaganda with counter-propaganda. When more than half
the population persists in believing Administration-serving falsehoods
(cf. the PIPA studies), just the simple truth will suffice.
A few weeks ago, we saw a debate on Amy Goodman's "Democracy Now,"
regarding the integrity of touch-screen voting. To our astonishment and
chagrin, these infernal machines were vigorously defended by the Executive
Director of Common Cause of Georgia (the location of likely
computer-voting fraud in 2002).
So when the annual Common Cause renewal notice arrived at our mailbox, we
fired back an angry letter, in effect: "not another dime from me until
Common Cause joins the fight against e-voting."
Mr. Alex Camarta, Executive Assistant to the President of Common Cause,
was kind enough to reply. In part:
Common Cause is indeed in agreement with the concerns you express about
the need for an auditable voting process... It is the position of Common
Cause to support voting which can be audited; however, we do not believe
that time allows for total institution of this process by the time of the
presidential election.
We replied:
I’m sorry, but I cannot accept the assumption that there is insufficient
time to decertify all non-auditable voting machines before the November
election. Rep. Rush Holt and 150 House co-sponsors of his bill apparently
disagree. So too our California Secretary of State, Kevin Shelly who has
just decertified all such machines in California.
In a just country, non-auditable voting would be illegal – especially so
when the software codes are proprietary, and the machines built by a
company whose senior officers publicly endorse and financially support one
of the candidates. On its face, this setup stinks. Any election that
results from such an arrangement must be suspect.
It is not too late to build a few thousand ballot boxes and print paper
ballots. It’s the oldest system, and to date the most secure. Canada
manages this, so why can’t we?
If the non-auditable machines are widely used in November, I fear that the
outcome is pre-determined, and American democracy is lost.
We recently sent the following to some friends in Russia and a similar
message to other friends abroad:
The political situation in the US is terrible. Whether or not it gets much
worse hangs on the election -- which, for all we know, may be "fixed" to
ensure a Bush victory. This election may be our last chance to save, or
perhaps I should say "restore," American democracy.
One of the primary problems we face is a corporate media which both
effectively "owns," and is owned by, the Bush regime and the Republicans.
Our media is scarcely less supportive and apologetic of the government
than yours during the Soviet era. In this regard, you Russians have an
advantage over us. You knew and appreciated that the media lied to you;
Americans are not accustomed to this, and so are inclined to believe what
they see and hear in the media.
For example, a recent poll reports that 57% of our public believes that
Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis were involved in the attacks of 9/11 (it was
previously as high as 70%), despite the fact that there is no evidence
whatever of this, and very good reason not to believe it. But the lie
about the Saddam-9/11 connection is told so often by the Bush regime, and
repeated by the captive press, that most of the public still believes it.
Those who refuse to believe this official lie are solidly opposed to Bush.
The last refuge of a free press in the US is the internet, our "Samizdat."
At The Crisis Papers, we are doing our small part to get essential news to
the public.
Little by little, as new books are published and news of the lies, greed,
hypocrisy and incompetence of the Bush administration leaks out, the
opposition grows and we keep hope alive.
And so we struggle on.
I am sadly aware that the world opinion of Americans has declined
dramatically. So please remind your friends and anyone who will listen,
that a majority of us Americans voted against Bush in 2000, and that he
holds his office through fraud and judicial malfeasance. Moreover, many of
us oppose Bush's terrible war in Iraq and are determined to end it, and to
end his reign of error and incompetence.
A friend in St. Petersburg, an officer in a citizen environmental
organization, asked permission to distribute the letter to his associates.
We agreed, of course.
This exchange reminds us to urge all of you with friends and associates
abroad, to remind them, repeatedly, that Bush, Inc., does not represent
the United States, that a majority of Americans voted against Bush, and
that there is an active and determined opposition to Bush and all that he
represents.
Historical Analogies
How could the neo-cons have got it so wrong? Where did they ever get the
idea that the troop of the "coalition" would be greeted with flowers and
sweets?
Think of Paris in 1944, the neo-cons said.
Well, not quite the same. In the first place, the first Allied troops to
enter Paris were the Free French, led by Charles de Gaulle. (That name, by
the way, is roughly equivalent to "Johnny America"). In addition, the
French were fully confident that their cheese industry would not be taken
over by Kraft Foods, nor their wine industry by Ernest and Julio Gallo.
And finally, there was not doubt that the enemy of both Americans and
French were the Nazis.
On the other hand, when we were attacked by al Qaeda, we proceeded to
invade al Qaeda's sworn enemy, Iraq. As several astute individuals have
put it, it was as if, following the attack on Pearl Harbor, we promptly
invaded Mexico.
No, the Paris-Baghdad analogy just won't do.
On the other hand, here's another historical analogy:
When I was an undergraduate, my Sociology professor told of the time he
was visiting in Germany in the mid-thirties. One day he decided to watch a
Hitler motorcade, which he did with academic attachment as the crowd
around him cheered enthusiastically at Der Fuhrer. In an instant he found
himself on the ground, bleeding. A Gestapo officer, noticing that he was
not cheering, delivered the blow. "Don't you realize that this is the
greatest man in the world passing by?" he said. "You must show your
respect." Quite probably, his American citizenship saved him from a far
worse fate.
I've thought of that incident, as I have watched the cable TV run-up to
the Iraq war, and have heard the network anchors, and even many leaders of
the Democratic Party, promise to "follow the Commander in Chief" when the
war starts. Because we are "at war," Ari Fleischer sternly reminded us, we
must "watch what we say."
In short: "we must destroy our democracy in order to save it."
Fortunately, more and more Americans, and even a few key members of the
media, have grown some spine of late. In particular, note the sharp
questioning at Bush's notorious news conference, Ted Koppel's
aforementioned "roster of the fallen," and CBS's 60 Minutes interviews
with Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke, and Bob Woodward, in addition to its
disclosure last week of the Iraq torturing scandal.
They deserve our encouragement and support. Have you sent a letter of
appreciation to any of the above?
Earning Their Parachutes
A few brave souls are putting their careers, and possibly their very
lives, on the line, in the struggle to restore peace in the world and
democracy at home. Joseph Wilson, Valerie Plame, Sibel Edmonds and
Katherine Gun come immediately to mind. In addition, there are several
war-resisting soldiers, some seeking asylum in Canada, and others
remaining the United States to face desertion charges. No doubt, there are
many more in the wings, ready to step forward.
And after they have taken their stand, what then? The thought came to my
mind as I watched and heard Sibel Edmonds interviewed on "Democracy Now."
This eloquent and courageous woman sacrificed her job as an FBI translator
when she reported to the public that prior to 9/11, there were abundant
warnings of the pending attacks.
So what follows for Mrs. Edmonds, Katherine Gun in Great Britain, and
others like her?
These individuals have earned the support of wealthy private businessmen
and progressive foundations, who should promptly hire them to work at
positions of responsibility and at salaries comparable to those they have
lost. In addition, they should be offered free legal support, should that
become necessary.
In short, if the costs to actual and potential whistleblowers due to loss
of income and legal expenses are mitigated, then still more information
damaging to the Bush regime will come out.
George Soros, Ted Turner, Warren Buffett, et al, are you listening? You
too, Center for American Progress.
And speaking of parachutes, we close with a story.
George Bush, a priest and a boy scout are aboard a private corporate jet.
The aircraft suddenly loses power over a mountain range -- no hope of a
safe landing. The pilot, a libertarian devotee of Ayn Rand, looks after
No. 1. and promptly bails out.
There are only two parachutes for the remaining three passengers. Bush
grabs a pack, snaps it onto his back, and announces, "I am God's chosen
leader of the free world, and God tells me that I must survive to vanquish
the evil-doers." And then he bails out.
The priest then tells the boy scout, "son, I've lived a full and blessed
life, and you have your life before you. So you must take this parachute."
"Cool it pops," said the lad, "God's chosen leader of the free world just
stole my backpack."
April 28, 2004
Anatomy of a Spin.
In my essay of this week,
"Bush v.
Kerry: More than a Dime's Worth of Difference," I offered the following evidence of Kerry's liberal
credentials from his senate voting record:
The liberal Americans for Democratic Action posts for Kerry a lifetime
"Liberal Quotient" of 92 out of 100. By way of comparison: Edward Kennedy
- 90, Bill Frist - 3, Al Gore - 65, Paul Wellstone - 99. The League of
Conservation voters gave Kerry a score of 92 for the 107th Congress
(2001-2) and 94 for the 106th Congress (1999-2000). Edward Kennedy's
scores were, respectively, 84 and 81. GOP Majority leader Bill Frist
registered a cold zero. (Unlike the ADA, the LCV does not list lifetime
scores, or the scores of former members).
In an article titled
"When Kerry was
Liberal," The Progressive's Ruth Conniff, joining the throng of "progressives" apparently determined to
cripple the candidacy of Bush's opponent, had a radically different take
on Kerry's record:
The liberal group Americans for Democratic Action put Kerry at number
twenty-five among Senate liberals in 2003. (Ted Kennedy ranked number
five). Nor does Kerry Make the ADA's lifetime top-ten list of Senate
liberals, headed by the late Paul Wellstone at number one.
I was aware of Conniff's article when I wrote mine, and thus was inclined
to give it a citation or even an end note. I declined, feeling it would be
a distraction and, more significantly, because I discovered on close
examination of the source, that it was profoundly misleading. Here is why:
1. Both Conniff and I are correct on the numbers. Kerry's ADA score for
the 106th and 107th Congresses are exactly as I reported: 94 and 92.
However for 2003, the first half of the 108th Congress, Kerry's ADA score
is 85. (Actually twenty-fourth among Democrats).
But take a closer look. The ADA score is based upon votes on twenty key
bills. In addition, the ADA scores an absence as a minus -- the same as an
ADA "wrong" vote. As we all know, Kerry spent much of 2003 away from the
Senate and on the campaign trail. Now here is Kerry's tally on those
twenty votes: seventeen "ADA correct", and three absent . If the ADA had
instead based its tally on votes cast, Kerry would have scored 100.
2. The ADA lifetime scores are for both present and former senators. How
many, I don't know, though I find listings for long-departed senators such
as Humphrey (MN) and Javitts (NY). So there must be hundreds of names
listed in the ADA lifetime scores. Of these hundreds, Kerry somehow fails
to rank in the top ten.
BIG FRIGGIN' DEAL!
You can find these ADA voting records at the
ADA site --
lifetime,
and for 2003.
So that's the spin. A masterpiece! Karl Rove couldn't have done it any
better.
Those Fershlugginer Polls!
"Polls show that Bush has retaken the lead" our "librul media" tell us.
Oh Yeah?
Well, some polls do -- that's for sure. But how many?
To find out, we looked at
PollingReport.com -- and suggest you do the
same.
Of the eighteen most recent (mid-April) polls, Kerry led in eleven and
Bush in seven.
Round and round the spinning goes, where it stops, nobody knows
-- only
that it won't likely stop before November 2.
April 26, 2004
A tribute to, and mild disagreement with, Walter Cronkite.
Reflections on
the abuse of language by the right-wing "regressives."
A hopeful trend on CSPAN's "Washington Journal."
A Straw in the Wind from CSPAN?
As an occasional viewer of CSPAN's "Washington Journal," I may have
detected a trend that is worthy of note.
Until several months ago, "Washington Journal" would post two and
sometimes three separate numbers during an interview: one for the
"Republican Line," another for "The Democratic Line," and occasionally a
third "Independents" or "Other" line.
But then, calls started coming in on the "Republican Line" from
individuals who would announce, "I'm a Republican, but I'm not voting for
Bush." While I heard several such calls, I can't recall hearing,
conversely, "I'm a Democrat, but I'm for Bush" though surely there must
have been some.
Now take another look. Today you will find numbers listed for, "Supporting
the President" and "Opposing the President."
Anyone out there who's also noticed this? Could be indicative of something
hopeful.
We Love you, Uncle Walter, but....
Walter Cronkite is mad as Hell and not going to take it anymore. And so,
the man once described as "the most trusted voice in America," is writing
a series of columns, bluntly criticizing the Bush Administration. Well,
good for him -- and for us!
We applaud Cronkite's enlistment into the fight, and agree with almost
everything he writes. However, one recent and widely cited column, "Dear
Senator Kerry," provokes our respectful disagreement.
In that column, Cronkite writes:
"[Your] denial that you are a liberal is almost impossible to reconcile.
"When the National Journal said your Senate record makes you one of the
most liberal members of the Senate, you called that 'a laughable
characterization" and "the most ridiculous think I've ever seen in my
life." Wow! Liberals, who make up a substantial portion of the Democratic
Party and a significant portion of the independent vote, are entitled to
ask, "What gives?"
Well this, in our humble opinion, is "What Gives." The radical right and
the corporate media have managed, over the past few decades, to turn the
word "liberal" into a political hate-word. Thus, for example, Ann Coulter
virtually equates liberalism with treason, and Sean Hannity, with a neat
trick of guilt by association, titles his best-selling book: "Deliver Us
from Evil : Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism." And need only
hear the likes of Bob Novak utter the word "liberal" to feel the chill of
pure hatred behind the utterance.
So, if John Kerry's political enemies have concocted a semantic poison
pill out of the word "liberal," then the Senator should not be obliged to
swallow it. This is why many "liberals" have chosen to adopt the word
"progressive" instead. If your foes have soiled your suit, better change
to a clean suit than to stubbornly wear the old one.
After all, "liberalism" is just a word. And as Thomas Hobbes wisely noted,
"words are wise men's counters -- they are the money of fools."
Interestingly, as numerous public opinion surveys have confirmed, a
sizeable majority of the public endorses the established "liberal" program
even as they shun the word "liberal." Ask the ordinary citizen if s/he
endorses Social Security, Medicare, racial and gender equality,
environmental protection, regulation of markets, progressive taxation, and
non-aggressive foreign relations, and you will find that most will support
these liberal programs. Then ask the same person if s/he would accept the
label of "liberal," and they would emphatically deny it.
And that, when you think of it, is a hopeful trend. Decades of costly and
persistent propaganda have damaged a mere word, while leaving public
support of the program essentially intact.
If Kerry chooses to avoid the besmirched word, that's just political
astuteness. How does he stand with the liberal program? Quite well, it
seems, as we explain in our essay of the week, week,
"More than a
Dime's Worth of Difference."
Confucius Say -- Rectify the Names:
And speaking semantic muddles, long ago Confucius recognized the
importance of language to both social order and disorder. In The Analects,
we read:
Tsu-lu said: "the prince of Wei is awaiting you, Sir, to take control of
his administration. What will you undertake first, sir" The Master
replied: "The one thing needed is the rectification of names.
The Chinese scholar, Hu Shih elaborates:
The Rectification of Names consists in making real relationships and
duties and institutions conform as far as possible to their ideal
meanings... .When this intellectual reorganization is at last effected,
the ideal social order will come as night follows day - a social order
where, just as a circle is a circle and a square a square, so every prince
is princely [and] every official is faithful...
We begin, of course, by refusing to go along with the right-wing's
appropriation of the honorable word, "conservatism." The Right is anything
but "conservative," since it has set out to destroy our most cherished and
valuable endowments from the past: our Constitutionally protected rights,
science and scholarship, and even the Christian ethics of pacifism,
compassion, tolerance, and forgiveness.
So, instead, we should choose another name for the radical right. Someone
suggested "Regressivism" which strikes us as just right. It immediately
indicates, correctly, the opposite of "progressive."
And what shall we name ourselves? Our choice is "progressive." "Liberal"
has been severely injured by decades of "regressive" abuse, and is due for
a leave of absence and a prolonged convalescence. Again, it's just a word.
It's the idea and the program that matter.
"The rectification of names" in our political discourse must be an arduous
and prolonged exercise, involving the rehabilitation of such words as
"clear" (as in "clear skies"), "health" (as in "healthy forests") and, of
course, "compassion" (as in "compassionate conservatism").
This is because progressives have an entirely different approach to
language than the "regressives." Progressives are the true conservatives,
since they treat language as a priceless endowment of our forbearers,
while regressives treat it as a malignant tool to further their agenda. As
we wrote in our chapter in the forthcoming "Big Bush Lies" (edited by
Jerry Barrret, RiverWood Books):
A well-ordered and well-integrated society rests upon a foundation of
shared meanings a language with a rich vocabulary, capable of expressing
novelties, relatively constant, but at the same time evolving through
ordinary use, rather than political manipulation. Put simply, language
functions best as a conservative institution.
However, as Orwell so clearly pointed out, political propaganda is
destructive of this "conservative" function of language. Heedless of the
cost in social disorder, right wing propaganda deliberately and willfully
distorts language to serve the purposes of the party, of the faction, of
the sponsor. This is no secret. In his GOPAC memo of 1994, Newt Gingrich
candidly identified language as "a key mechanism of control."
Propagandistic manipulation and distortion of political discourse is
subversive of democratic government whether or not it is successful. If
the "Newspeak" of the controlling party is uncritically accepted by the
public, it becomes an instrument of control by that government. If it is
rejected, because the public thus becomes suspicious of language, the
institutions of government and the rule of law are likewise rejected, and
anarchy ensues.
Furthermore, a degraded political language can cause havoc in the society
as it undermines clarity of ordinary discourse and with it the capacity of
ordinary citizens to communicate, to trust each other, and thus
participate in and sustain a democratic government. Civil society then
dissolves as individuals retreat into themselves and are reduced from
citizens to self-seeking consumers, and society is reduced to a mere
marketplace -- if that.
It is thus the urgent duty of the opposing party, civic organizations an
educational institutions to restore to political discourse the clarity and
order of a natural language what Confucius called a "rectification of
names" which is pre-requisite for open, intelligent and productive
political debate.
For still more about "rectification" versus "corruption" of names,
see my
Newspeak lives!
More Ernest Partridge Blogs
|