I shall be going across the pond for a month. In that time, I do not plan to maintain this blog. But fear not! I shall be back, like that half-human progressive android, Mr. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
In the meantime, two or three parting observations:
1. Sarah Palin's resignation effectively takes her out of the running for the 2012 Republican nomination. Dare we proclaim the end of the Wild Witch of Wasila? Another casualty of the Republican undoing...
2. Someone recently accused me of elitism for despising Wal-Mart and fast-foods. There is a distinction between myself and elite snobs. The distinction is this: snobs despise Wal-Mart because of what its customers have done to it, while I despise Wal-Mart becaues of what it has done to its customers.
3. Does anyone else find the veneration of St. Michael the Dancer slightly appalling, especially that it involves the same people singing his praises who only weeks ago relished in his mental downfall?
Yours, &c,
Friday, July 3, 2009
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Walking Out on the Liberal Bargain
In light of the recent debate over at Front Porch Republic and First Things over localism and traditionalism, I feel it would do me well to formulate a logical argument against the "liberal bargain" of Mr. Damon Linker and its implications (I find that my knee-jerk revulsion at many species of modern politics is usually quelled once I've formulated my disgust into an argument against the politics). As Mr. Linker writes,
Like every other citizen, you must be willing to accept what I call "the liberal bargain." In my book, I describe this bargain as the act of believers giving up their "ambition to political rule in the name of their faith" in exchange for the freedom to worship God however they wish, without state interference. What does this mean, in practical terms? It means that your belief in what the Roman Catholic Church believes and teaches is irrelevant, politically speaking. It simply shouldn't matter whether or not you think that justice has a divine underpinning, anymore than it should matter whether you prefer Jane Austen to Dostoevsky. In a word, liberal politics presumes that it's possible and desirable for political life to be decoupled from theological questions and disputes.
Let us first begin with the end of that statement. Liberal politics does indeed presume that it is "possible" and desirable for political life to be decoupled from Theology -but before discussing desirability (which is more subjective) let us discuss possibility. First, Mr. Linker's use of "Theology" is to a degree disingenuous. Catholics do not demand that the Assumption of Mary be a creed of faith for every political official -and if by theology, we mean the nuances of internal theology, it should be pointed out that these questions almost never come out. The questions that -do- come out are horses of a different stripe -they are foundational, philosophical questions. Does God exist? Is the government obliged to follow natural law? Divine law? What is life? And so on. It would be more clear if we called these "metaphysical" questions.
By seeking to decouple Theology from political life, Mr. Linker is not proposing that we avoid the metaphysical questions or take a neutral stance on them. There is no avoiding metaphysics. He is merely disqualifying religious metaphysics in favor of a proposed secular metaphysical order -one that is neither patently true, nor widely accepted; one, furthermore, that does not allow for political arguments grounded in a religious metaphysics. The problem with such an order is best formulated by Dostoyevsky; it has no bottom. Fundamentally, the order relies not on its logical consistency (for the logical end of such an order is, as Ivan Karamazov said, that without God, everything is permissible), but rather on the "illative" sense of most people -that sort of natural, "common sense," teaching embedded in all of us that is not merely rational or merely moral but makes all believe that murder is wrong. The problem, however, is that while the order relies on the illative sense, it neither recognizes nor accepts that it does so and thus has no logical authority.
So the problem is that while Mr. Linker would wish to decouple Politics from Theology, his politics presupposes a nihilistic "theology" and ends up relying on a set of prejudices and emotions that imply a "theology" which it itself rejects. The problem with the liberal bargain, therefore, is that its metaphysics are mush. Mr. Linker writes that it shouldn't matter whether justice has a divine underpinning -but surely it matters because, if justice has no divine underpinning, then it seems to have no underpinning at all. Are we all supposed to go on pretending that the Emperor has clothes, all supposed to go on accepting the -effects- of justice while ignoring and reviling the causes that produce those effects?
The separation of human life into discrete categories is an acute problem of modern thinkers, it strikes me. They would have it that our life is a department store, with "Religion" in one aisle, "Politics" in the other, "Sex" in the other, "Family" in one, "Work" in the other, and so on, and that not mixing politics and religion, for example, is so easy a matter as making sure none of Religion's products stray over to the Political aisle. But life is not a department store -it is a journey and, therefore, a drama. It is a story. And in the story of our lives, as in any story, everything is connected, nothing happens alone, in the abstract, and everything has a purpose; what you think on Religion will affect all other sections of your life and, if it does not, then you have merely not thought.
The liberal bargain is not some compromise struck in an Istanbul spice market, as Mr. Linker would make it sound; rather it clothes within itself first a radical compartmentalization of our life, one that is grounded neither in reality nor good sense, and second, a radical secularization, one that grants the religious believer the ability to believe, but not the ability to take his belief seriously.
There is nothing to do on such a bargain than to walk out.
Yours, &c,
Like every other citizen, you must be willing to accept what I call "the liberal bargain." In my book, I describe this bargain as the act of believers giving up their "ambition to political rule in the name of their faith" in exchange for the freedom to worship God however they wish, without state interference. What does this mean, in practical terms? It means that your belief in what the Roman Catholic Church believes and teaches is irrelevant, politically speaking. It simply shouldn't matter whether or not you think that justice has a divine underpinning, anymore than it should matter whether you prefer Jane Austen to Dostoevsky. In a word, liberal politics presumes that it's possible and desirable for political life to be decoupled from theological questions and disputes.
Let us first begin with the end of that statement. Liberal politics does indeed presume that it is "possible" and desirable for political life to be decoupled from Theology -but before discussing desirability (which is more subjective) let us discuss possibility. First, Mr. Linker's use of "Theology" is to a degree disingenuous. Catholics do not demand that the Assumption of Mary be a creed of faith for every political official -and if by theology, we mean the nuances of internal theology, it should be pointed out that these questions almost never come out. The questions that -do- come out are horses of a different stripe -they are foundational, philosophical questions. Does God exist? Is the government obliged to follow natural law? Divine law? What is life? And so on. It would be more clear if we called these "metaphysical" questions.
By seeking to decouple Theology from political life, Mr. Linker is not proposing that we avoid the metaphysical questions or take a neutral stance on them. There is no avoiding metaphysics. He is merely disqualifying religious metaphysics in favor of a proposed secular metaphysical order -one that is neither patently true, nor widely accepted; one, furthermore, that does not allow for political arguments grounded in a religious metaphysics. The problem with such an order is best formulated by Dostoyevsky; it has no bottom. Fundamentally, the order relies not on its logical consistency (for the logical end of such an order is, as Ivan Karamazov said, that without God, everything is permissible), but rather on the "illative" sense of most people -that sort of natural, "common sense," teaching embedded in all of us that is not merely rational or merely moral but makes all believe that murder is wrong. The problem, however, is that while the order relies on the illative sense, it neither recognizes nor accepts that it does so and thus has no logical authority.
So the problem is that while Mr. Linker would wish to decouple Politics from Theology, his politics presupposes a nihilistic "theology" and ends up relying on a set of prejudices and emotions that imply a "theology" which it itself rejects. The problem with the liberal bargain, therefore, is that its metaphysics are mush. Mr. Linker writes that it shouldn't matter whether justice has a divine underpinning -but surely it matters because, if justice has no divine underpinning, then it seems to have no underpinning at all. Are we all supposed to go on pretending that the Emperor has clothes, all supposed to go on accepting the -effects- of justice while ignoring and reviling the causes that produce those effects?
The separation of human life into discrete categories is an acute problem of modern thinkers, it strikes me. They would have it that our life is a department store, with "Religion" in one aisle, "Politics" in the other, "Sex" in the other, "Family" in one, "Work" in the other, and so on, and that not mixing politics and religion, for example, is so easy a matter as making sure none of Religion's products stray over to the Political aisle. But life is not a department store -it is a journey and, therefore, a drama. It is a story. And in the story of our lives, as in any story, everything is connected, nothing happens alone, in the abstract, and everything has a purpose; what you think on Religion will affect all other sections of your life and, if it does not, then you have merely not thought.
The liberal bargain is not some compromise struck in an Istanbul spice market, as Mr. Linker would make it sound; rather it clothes within itself first a radical compartmentalization of our life, one that is grounded neither in reality nor good sense, and second, a radical secularization, one that grants the religious believer the ability to believe, but not the ability to take his belief seriously.
There is nothing to do on such a bargain than to walk out.
Yours, &c,
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Does Front Porch mean "Get Off My Porch"?
The following concerns a debate on Front Porch Republic and First Things over racism and localism. Take a look at the links here and here for context.
Firstly, Mr. Bottum is being disingenuous in the extreme in the way in which he tosses around racism without defining what it means. The word has become so charged (possibly because it is the only sin that the modern world has sufficient moral force to condemn) that it has become the supreme allegation, against which there is no defense. If a person, group, society, or idea can be stained with "racism" or if it excepts anything less than strict racial orthodoxy, the whole thing becomes dismissed. There is nothing else that has a similar effect -if an idea can be shown to be illogical, murderous, rotten, evil, intemperate, foolish, or barbarous, it still has a good chance of being accepted by modernity. But if it can be shown to be racist -my God, that's a whole 'nother matter.
But, there is a larger point.
Nothing is without a price; localism is not perfect, nor does it pretend to be. The question raised by the Front Porchers, as I see it, is this: is the present, comfortable, bland, sterile, therapeutic, multicultural, industrial, consumerist existence worth the price it takes to accept it? And, let's not be mistaken, there is a price -the price of what someone (I can't remember his name at the moment) called the grand "liberal bargain." The price of the liberal bargain is this; the sacrifice of roots and hearths, of local patriotisms and local quarrels, the sacrifice of "thumos," of chivalry and honor and yes, violence; the sacrifice of self-sufficiency, of place, the sacrifice of the drama of limits and orthodoxy, of consequences, and the sacrifice of tradition and prejudice (in the Burkean sense). The question raised by the Front Porchers is: do all these sacrifices entail a sacrifice of our humanity?
Let me be frank. Does localism engender racism? To a degree, yes. Does localism engender conflict? To a degree, yes. Does localism engender prejudice? To a degree, yes. But that is because localism is, at essence, humanism; it is Man in his proper state, a life lived on a human scale. And Man is not perfect; even in in his proper state, in a well-ordered community, he will have problems.
But let us not forget that it takes modernism to make local racism scientific racism and justify mass genocide; to make local conflicts bloody global wars; to take prejudices and make them national policies, enforced by a pervasive state.
The impulses behind racism and violence are not inherent to any system, but to man. They will be present in a localist society because all of Man's nature will be present in its proper proportion, and a mistrust of the unknown and willingness to use force to avenge wrongs is part of our nature. We can try to "engineer" or legislate these things out of ourselves, through the grand liberal project that views Man as infinitely malleable. But we will not be able to legislate or engineer them out without legislating or engineering out something far more important -our humanity.
To paraphrase Chesterton, the liberal bargain wishes us to stop being human so that we may start being humane.
The "localist" or "traditionalists" or "Front Porchers" or whatever-you-have-its have a different vision; they propose that we be human, but do not and cannot guarantee that we will be humane.
Feel free to comment.
Yours, &c,
Firstly, Mr. Bottum is being disingenuous in the extreme in the way in which he tosses around racism without defining what it means. The word has become so charged (possibly because it is the only sin that the modern world has sufficient moral force to condemn) that it has become the supreme allegation, against which there is no defense. If a person, group, society, or idea can be stained with "racism" or if it excepts anything less than strict racial orthodoxy, the whole thing becomes dismissed. There is nothing else that has a similar effect -if an idea can be shown to be illogical, murderous, rotten, evil, intemperate, foolish, or barbarous, it still has a good chance of being accepted by modernity. But if it can be shown to be racist -my God, that's a whole 'nother matter.
But, there is a larger point.
Nothing is without a price; localism is not perfect, nor does it pretend to be. The question raised by the Front Porchers, as I see it, is this: is the present, comfortable, bland, sterile, therapeutic, multicultural, industrial, consumerist existence worth the price it takes to accept it? And, let's not be mistaken, there is a price -the price of what someone (I can't remember his name at the moment) called the grand "liberal bargain." The price of the liberal bargain is this; the sacrifice of roots and hearths, of local patriotisms and local quarrels, the sacrifice of "thumos," of chivalry and honor and yes, violence; the sacrifice of self-sufficiency, of place, the sacrifice of the drama of limits and orthodoxy, of consequences, and the sacrifice of tradition and prejudice (in the Burkean sense). The question raised by the Front Porchers is: do all these sacrifices entail a sacrifice of our humanity?
Let me be frank. Does localism engender racism? To a degree, yes. Does localism engender conflict? To a degree, yes. Does localism engender prejudice? To a degree, yes. But that is because localism is, at essence, humanism; it is Man in his proper state, a life lived on a human scale. And Man is not perfect; even in in his proper state, in a well-ordered community, he will have problems.
But let us not forget that it takes modernism to make local racism scientific racism and justify mass genocide; to make local conflicts bloody global wars; to take prejudices and make them national policies, enforced by a pervasive state.
The impulses behind racism and violence are not inherent to any system, but to man. They will be present in a localist society because all of Man's nature will be present in its proper proportion, and a mistrust of the unknown and willingness to use force to avenge wrongs is part of our nature. We can try to "engineer" or legislate these things out of ourselves, through the grand liberal project that views Man as infinitely malleable. But we will not be able to legislate or engineer them out without legislating or engineering out something far more important -our humanity.
To paraphrase Chesterton, the liberal bargain wishes us to stop being human so that we may start being humane.
The "localist" or "traditionalists" or "Front Porchers" or whatever-you-have-its have a different vision; they propose that we be human, but do not and cannot guarantee that we will be humane.
Feel free to comment.
Yours, &c,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
